 Hey everybody, today we are debating whether or not the Earth is flat and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as we have two experienced debaters here to debate the shape of the Earth. Very exciting stuff and also want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up, including tonight, right after this debate at 9pm Eastern Standard, we are going to have Skyler Fiction and John Maddox debating whether or not POT should be legal. Very exciting, also want to let you know folks, if you happen to have a question during this debate today, feel free to fire that question into the old live chat, I will look for it if you can tag me with an odd modern day debate that will make it a little bit easier for me to for sure not miss it and then we'll try to read through as many as we can at the end of the debate. So it's going to be a quick and basic kind of format so basically quick opening statements of roughly 10 minutes from each speaker followed by open conversation and Q&A. So with that, want to let you know, we are very excited that both of these gentlemen are here as we had said experienced debaters, I think you're going to enjoy it and as you are enjoying it, I would say hey, consider looking in that description box for their links so that way as you're enjoying what you're hearing you can hear plenty more where it came from at these guys' channels. So with that, given that we have had the Flat Earther typically go first, plain truth, if you would like to get the ball rolling, the ball I should say the floor is all yours for your opening statement but thanks so much both of you gentlemen for being here today. Thanks for having us James, yeah you have my opening statement there if you want to open it and play it that's that'll be it and then you can continue on after that there should be about 10 minutes. Gotcha, alright so let me make sure the volume is working on here. I will switch it over and audience if you can do me a favor let me know if you can't hear this video that I play. Actually does it have sound on this video? Yes. Okay. It is insane. It is insanity to believe that we live in the world with which we've been presented. That world has no clothes and if you are enamored with the impossibility of the garb of pseudoscience, you are sitting mad as a hatter. I can't hear anything. That world is stargaming here in Aegis and the smallest child knows this. He's the one with the accusing finger and shrill voice. I can just watch it on the stream as well. While they stupidly ejaculate adulation for mind-screwing pseudoscience, la la land, shout out to Essie Montreal, pretender clothes, praise our hell gee, long live the vacuum. This tiny taut of a voice of reason, sanity, common sense, and bravado decries, the heliononsensical model has no clothes. The pseudoscientist is naked. My friends, the world in which we live is the world we've never known. In our world, science proves things. In our world, level means horizontal from shore to shore. In our world, down is down and up is up. In our world, straight lines, narrow curve make. In our world, angular momentum has only one effect. Outward. In our world, rivers do not run uphill. In our world, Coriolis is merely an apparent effect and the result of roundabouts. In our world, empirical observations, testable suppositions are provable. In our world, perspective, Trump's math. In our world, refraction distorts what lies before. In our world, it is a fallacy to assert that shifts disappear from the bottom up due to curvature. What is it that causes objects viewed over distance either aquatic or terrestrial to look as though said objects are obscured from the bottom up as a result of going over the curve? Is that the only explanation offered for a variety of subjects viewed or are there additional facts or are there alternative explanations? It is commonplace anymore to hear or even say I've watched ships go over this curvature of the earth. In fact, it is said, legend has it, Aristotle himself claimed to see ships go over the horizon or the curve of the earth. Is this verifiable? Is this second hand information? How large was this ship? What was the great rhetoricians viewer height? Was he aided by an artificial oculus? Hear this now and never forget it. No human with the unaided eye is able to view with any semblance of acuity a maritime vessel going over the curve. No eye has that kind of resolution. At a certain point in the distance the perception of the hull and the water becomes blurred and irresolvable with the naked eye. Not only this, but any aid to see farther into the distance will run into the same irresolvable fact. We cannot see as far or as clearly as we might think, but what we do see is right there in front of our eyes. This opening statement will present an alternative explanation to the ubiquitous claim summed up by the alleged astronomer Michelle Fowler. There are so many proofs that the earth is round. It's difficult to know where to start and it's not okay to think that the earth is flat. This is not a viable argument. One of the things you can see yourself with a pair of binoculars is if you actually go out to a lake and there are boats on that lake, the farther away a boat is, the more the bottom of the boat will disappear and you'll basically just see the mast of the boat and as a boat goes farther and farther away the last thing you will see is the very top of the mast of that boat and that's because the boat is actually going over the horizon that's curved and that means that as it goes farther and farther away you see less and less of the bottom of it and more of the top of that. You can see that with binoculars, by an ocean, by a lake, it's really easy. That wouldn't happen if the earth were flat. But is there an alternative explanation? I will present an argument with evidence that there is, but first a preliminary question. If we are engaged in scientific discovery I have a question for all of the boats over the curved proponents. What alternative explanations were eliminated? That is tested in order to arrive at the singular conclusion that boats sailing into the distance disappearing from the bottom up do so because they are indeed crossing a physical threshold. I call this the bottom up fallacy. In my over 18 months of collecting observations of birds, houses, light houses, boats, islands and oil platforms I can honestly report that I have never observed an object disappearing from the bottom up let alone going over a curve. What I have observed and presented in my channel's numerous videos is whole objects being distorted and that with a gradient variation. A gradient variation is the distortion of the observation occurring either in stasis or motion concurrent with its entrance into what I have called the aether band. Everybody drinking. The aether band simply refers to the medium through which the observation is being made. Band refers to that micro or macro field of view in which the observation is. For instance with the Channel Islands, an observation either of the entire archipelago can be made or one can narrow it down to the natural 40 foot arch or the lighthouse. Aether simply refers to the air and all that constitutes its nature for example but not limited to evaporation condensation wind temperature air pressure humidity since the aether band is ubiquitous its gradient is three dimensional and the only two variables controlled by the observer are height and distance. It is these two variables which determine how much and when the object will begin to be distorted. It is the aether band alone which determines why the object is distorted. The bottom up fallacy basically begs the question that the object is disappearing from the bottom up due to physical obstruction so it is alleged we see boats go over the curve and disappear from the bottom up therefore if boats disappear from the bottom up they are going over the curve of the earth's horizon or therefore part two since the earth is curved boats will eventually sail not off the edge but across the threshold of the horizon and disappear from the bottom up. My alternative explanation for the bottom up fallacy is this objects moving into the distance are distorted or obscured by the manifold and diverse effects of the aether band. These effects are all related to refraction and find their expressions at times in the broad category of mirage for example inferior superior about a Morgana about a vermosa heat haze whatever the hell happens out there it is very simple you are simply looking into the distance and what prevents you're being able to see farther into the distance is and only and ever will be due to the aether band as a flat aether i see an oil platform but if you're a globehead religious zealot it's non-oil platform it's a slightly looming non-standard refraction hyena holographic projection of an oil platform from behind the reified edge of an earth curve based on r value and are begging the question proof of nothing prospective hijacking curve calculator to turn an oil platform that you and i see into an oil platform that's not really there. thank you very much for that opening presentation from the plain truth oops one second all right next up thanks so much for that opening statement from the plain truth we will now switch it over to fight the flatter for his opening presentation and the floor is all yours fight sorry i was just catching up with that four okay um right the stance i'm taking here is that i don't have birding of proof i have scientific consensus behind me and that's not argument add popular or anything it's just a fact all of science confirms that the earth is a globe there isn't any science around flat earth because flat earthers don't know how to do science all flat earthers have is a misunderstanding of basic physics or a inability to accept the fact that maths is the only place where proof actually exists that is just the facts of the universe that we live in and you can't change them and it's all explained by the helio centric model which has no issues it has no problems it explains it predicts perfectly as it always should and there is so many things that can confirm that we live on a rotating globe of circumference approximately 25,000 miles so if we are the size that we say we are and we are rotating at 15 degrees as we say we are there should be certain effects that you can see certain effects like the swing of a pendulum drifting based on the latitude that you are this is a little video from a guy called gentleman physicist who built a homemade plastic pendulum in a local high-rise building let it swing for a while and using just the angle of the drift that he actually got he managed to calculate his latitude on the earth this is something i'm trying to repeat myself so i can show my kids how to do it i just need access to a building that i don't own but anyway this is something that anyone could do if they have a high enough thing to make a decent pendulum and it it's evidence that the earth is rotating because it correlates exactly to your latitude on the earth if you're in the northern hemisphere you get a drift in one direction even in some southern hemisphere you'll get a drift in another direction and you can measure the drift and based on some basic maths you can figure out your latitude on the globe and it it matches it works every time so there is no explanation for this effect on the flat earth it's something that is explained by the fact we're on a rotating globe other things that we should expect is something called the yacht-foss effect it's tied in quite deeply with the Coriolis force and what the yacht-foss effect says is that if you're traveling west to east then you'll actually reduce your weight because what you're doing is you're increasing the central fugal acceleration that the earth already has and if you're traveling east to west you will increase your weight because you're actually reducing the central fugal force which in turn increases the perceived gravitational acceleration. Wolfie 60-20 tested this it was tested many times in the 1700s i think by lord the yacht-foss on ships in the Mediterranean in the Pacific and the gravity measurements always concluded that the yacht-foss effect exists and what Wolfie did was he got a 500 gram test weight and he tested it before and after he got on the plane to see what it was and whilst he was on the plane he then also weighed it to see what it was and what he found was what matches with the predictions that the the weight was slightly more when you were traveling east to west and the weight was slightly less when you were traveling west to east which matches with the math for the rotating globe with the central fugal acceleration at least specific latitude that he was at you know it's an effect that is only explained by the fact we are on a rotating globe there is no explanation for effects like this on a flat earth none at all it you know you can't get these effects without some kind of interaction with central fugal acceleration and gravitational acceleration it's perfectly explained by our model there is no explanation for it on the globe observations near water are tricky because refraction is a thing refraction exists we can calculate what the refraction is quite easily all you need to do is is know the lapse rate and you can calculate a refraction coefficient using simple equations that are based on real-world things like the air pressure of the observer the temperature of the observer and the temperature gradient using these calculations you can calculate what kind of refraction that you should see and you can get a k value which can tell you what the curve the radius of the curve of the light is and as long as we have these these details you can actually calculate quite well exactly what you should see when you're close to the water but there is refraction and the math can be quite complicated so instead of using observations that are close to the water where we know they're going to be distorted use observations that are further away from the water like this semi-famous observation from miles davis who took an observation placed in five at the top of the hill terrible law i think it's called that's 210 meters this is a still from a video that anyone can go and watch on his channel that actually has him pan over a pack to say that he is at the height that's 210 meters and the top of the fourth rail the fourth road bridge sorry the pillar in the middle is 210 meters and this gives you an eye level a base that is the the plane that you're looking over the 210 meters right so those hills in the background present a problem for the flat earth because those hills are 500 meters plus in elevation above sea level now you can claim perspective and vanishing point as much as you want because that doesn't really apply here because it's fallen below the eye level if it was all due to perspective it would sink into that red line you would never get something falling below the eye level due to perspective the only reason that this could happen is if there is a physical curve and those hills that are 500 meters plus an elevation in the distance are starting to show effect of the fact that there is curvature you can get a topographical map and actually model this out yourself and it actually matches the globe prediction exactly of what you should expect to see so there is no evidence that the earth is flat there is only misunderstandings of physics all the actual evidence when you scrutinize the evidence when you pay attention to it and when you you actually maybe try and understand the physics behind the evidence it all points towards the fact we are on a globe that's rotating you can't deny that a fibre optic gyro picks up a 15 degree per hour drift thank you very much bob 15 degrees per hour and this is something again which isn't explained by a flatter if it's only explained by a rotating globe and the interesting thing that bob never mentioned on this because he probably didn't test it for long enough but a fibre optic gyroscope won't only pick up that 15 degree per hour drift of the earth on its own axis it would also pick up a drift of about one degree per day on a two-dimensional plane which represents the earth's orbit around our star the sun there is no reason on the flat earth why a gyroscope would pick up a 15 degree per hour rotation in three axes and a one degree per hour per day drift in a 2d plane it's explained by our model there is no explanation for the flat earth i have scientific consensus on my side i don't have the burden of proof i have all the evidence i have millions and millions of pictures and videos from space that flatter ifers will just claim are fake and is nasa brainwashing the youth or whatever nonsense they want to bring up there is no evidence for the flat earth it's all misunderstandings of science do a college level physics course and you won't think the earth is flat and i'm done thank you very much we will now go into the open discussion section so thanks very much gentlemen and the floor is all yours over to you mister um go ahead plane truth oh that's right so sorry plane truth i could hear you during during the his during fights speech i muted plane truth because we had a little bit of background but okay bro stash what you got all right thanks i forgot about the um i had muted my keyboard and forgot that that didn't mute mute zoom so i apologize for having that noise uh craig simply dismissing the burden of proof doesn't mean that you are in king's axe you know just simply saying i don't have burden of proof because i have scientific consensus see i i don't have the burden of proof either because the earth presents itself as stationary and flat so i have the whole body of the earth on my side i have no burden of proof either except you don't understand what burden of proof means because burden of proof means that you don't have the scientific you know if you don't have the scientific consensus then you do have the burden of proof the burden of proof does not lie with the globe because all science presents the earth as being round you know a globe and rotating so the the science behind it is settled we all know that the earth is a globe and it's rotating you know it's an objective truth it's a fact so no i don't have the burden of proof it's irrelevant whether i have the burden of proof or not i don't and that's the stance i'm gonna have i do this for a laugh now because there this isn't a you know this isn't something that is serious to debate because the objective truth is that the earth is not flat so i just do this for laughs but i can present evidence till the cows come home i have all the evidence because the evidence is so easy to find whereas there is no evidence for the flat earth only misunderstandings of physics so is there any chance that you could produce a citation that states that the burden of proof is eliminated if you have the scientific consensus on your side that's literally what the burden of proof is we don't have the burden yeah i don't mean you have to i don't need you to monologue again it's irrelevant like i said i don't need to argue about the verdict again like i said it's irrelevant because we don't need to argue about the burden of proof because it's an objective fact i'm not arguing about hold on i'm not arguing let's talk about evidence because there isn't any flatter of evidence there is only misunderstandings of physics well right now you have a claim on the table that uh the burden of proof is i don't care about it it doesn't matter pretty sure i was talking pretty sure let's move on to actual evidence and not argue about no because the evidence that i'm requiring right now craig i'm going to requiring evidence of you right now to back up your claim that you do not have the burden of proof if science on your side can you produce yet again again that's completely irrelevant to the conversation it doesn't matter because the objective truth is that the earth is a globe and it rotates so i'm just going with that right so i don't need to bother presenting anything citations because that's not what i'm arguing about i'm not arguing with you about the the burden of proof i was very first thing you said very first thing once i'm saying that i don't have the burden of proof but it doesn't matter because that's not what i'm arguing with you about i don't have it but it really doesn't matter what i am arguing with you about is the shape of the earth so let's argue about that instead of semantic it's about whether you think i have the burden of proof or not you're wrong because i don't you have the burden i'm asking you are the one making a claim that the earth is flat no but it's irrelevant it's irrelevant let's talk about the shape of the earth you like the sound of your own voice no i'm just trying to actually get on to the conversation no you're trying to wait with you to get some evidence you're trying to get any evidence that the earth is flat i mean there isn't any but you can try and present some sure sure now again you've made a claim that i'm trying to get you to provide evidence for you've stated that you do not have the burden of proof no i don't let's move on okay but it's simply because you say that you don't have it doesn't mean you don't have it right no but i don't that's an objective fact wherever you want to argue it or not okay well i don't have to provide i don't have to provide any evidence of the earth well i didn't i didn't say that i'm not going to provide evidence i said i can provide evidence till the cows come home because all the evidence presents the earth is being so i can make claims i can make claims and not have to uh substantiate them with no like what i want is evidence of the earth being flat because i've never seen any because there isn't any okay so have you got any evidence that the earth is flat because there isn't any oh there isn't any okay no there is only misunderstandings of physics by your side that's all there is okay so if um let's see let me try to see if i can do this if you want to go on to something oh here it is okay i'm gonna share my screen and go back to the video to see if i can do this uh the way i was thinking it would be done i put my video together this way because um i wanted to be able to slide it up and down and show uh different different points of discussion so give me okay all right so craig we have here an image of a trolling fishing boat on um now again i'm not going to try to simply provide a gotcha evidence what i'm going to try to do is is talk through observations and understand your understanding as well because i think that this can be a healthy dialogue so i i am honestly interested in how you would interpret this this data so right now we have a boat what data oh so you don't accept pictures as data what's a picture um do you have data alongside it like refractive index temperature pressure any about i do i do so the refractive index of uh this day is 25 the uh the whatever the refractive index number is and then the temperature was 72 degrees of the air was 72 degrees and the water was 65 degrees humidity was uh 27.7 percent okay and the wind from the south was uh 7.3 miles an hour so how did you calculate the refractive index listen that's all bullshit i just gave you all bullshit okay all right so you don't have any data right no no no no right this this is data craig because no pics aren't data if you say you've got data i'd like to see data yeah this is an image that is not going to change whether or not i have the data that you are requiring if i gave you the accurate numbers we would still have this same image craig i'm just asking you to interact with the image yeah and if you gave me the um the numbers based around what that image is i could actually do the calculations and show you that's what's expected but okay all you're all you're doing is showing me an image and saying this is an image that's great i can show you an image that quite clearly shows the nearest globe so many times but i could also provide data alongside it yeah i'm simply asking you to interact with what you're seeing that's all i haven't even got to ask my question yet i asked the question then i mean you said you had data i was just asking for the data that was okay well i don't accept the fact that you can dismiss an image as part of the data it is part of the data because you're going to if again if i gave you the number that's a set yes i'm yeah okay it will be part of the data set which means it's data it is okay it is now my only question is is if you were to see this image and you understand what you do about votes what would you understand is happening in this image how would you in in this discussion how would you describe what we're seeing here what's happening i would describe it as a boat appearing to go over an apparent horizon um okay i'm gonna push that okay put the pause i'm gonna play this a little bit because we're going to be able to see that there are inferior mirages that come up right right here we have an inferior mirage okay that's cutting this bow in half and if you go along the vanishing line which is just right above the water and then you see that the rest the the stern of the boat will disappear as we play this long it's going to go in and out of what i call the the aether band which is you know basically the the refractive zone okay so again uh what is it that you think is happening here your what would you say about the water um i didn't say anything about the water okay so i said it appears that the boat is going bottom first disappearing bottom first over an apparent horizon that's how it appears okay and how does that appear to you i just described that you can't see the bottom of the boat okay so is there uh what if there's an alternative explanation for why you can't see the bottom of the boat i would need that to determine that you have the same okay see the same data that we would have if i gave you the same numbers that you would require to crunch your numbers for what you think will prove the globe it's going to be the same numbers and so again craig those two things then would cancel each other out we still have simply the sorry what what can't nothing cancels anything out if i have the data i could actually do the calculations based on our knowledge of light to produce even a simulation to show what we should see because there is many different types of refraction and many different types of refractive indexes that can cause lots of different things luckily i've been speaking with one of the world leading experts on refraction doctor i forget his name for a second um i've got him in the emails yeah i yeah dr young so yeah so i've been speaking with one of the world's leading experts on on refraction doc dr andruti young um who actually has done years and years and years of study on refraction and even created simulations of what we should see if right his flat and stuff so you know well i'd be interested in the point is if he if he has the data of a particular day if he has the lapse rate of the air if he has the the data that is needed he can put it into the simulator that he's programmed based on real-world observations and tell you what you should be able to see and there's many times we again see things like that sure but again on on uh on a flat earth i can explain and describe this image in the same way okay even if we have the same numbers right even if we consider the same lapse rate everything is going to be the same temperature humidity all of those details are going to be the same yeah but that's an issue okay i'm not done talking please it's not going to change the image that we see so not only do we have a uh refractive zone here where the boat is mirrored on itself but also farther in the distance we have the anacapa island which is mirrored on itself as well now my interpretation of this is that we have a horizontal extension of the water all the way in the distance until it meets the island and if we wiped away this mirage which we can't do but if we could wipe it away we would be able to see the bottom of the boat we would also be able to see the rest of the water extending into the distance so as i've said before in my other discussions and my episodes that i put on my channel this line is not curvature it's not obstructing the boat and then i can um i mean i can see it obstructing the boat there but no you you can see obstruction from the boat but you you're not seeing uh the water is not the obstruction okay no no what i'm seeing there is the apparent horizon of the water obstructing the boat and the no amount of twisting how that looks is going to change that fact and your your rhetoric about if you do it on a flatter if i'm not isn't actually true because um it is true correct it really is true no no no no it's really not no no really it's really it's really not true it's really not true because on a flat earth there would be air pressures at certain levels that you'd be able to calculate that on and actually the doctor young that i was talking about made an entire web page about what you would it could see if the earth was flat based on refraction and no if the earth was flat you would get very different results for refraction than if you look at it on a curved earth so no you do not get the same effect simply say no wait wait i haven't finished i haven't finished you do not get the same effect with the same numbers whether it's flat or a globe you do not if you have a flat earth then you will get different results and this is undeniable facts okay so the way that i would use this by by way of analogy is if you and i were to have a competition in building a skyscraper and uh you would incorporate g into your equations i'm gonna tell you i'm not gonna do that and i can build just as job you don't build buildings then really okay okay please don't interrupt me i'm not going to do that because i can still build a skyscraper that's going to be sound now that's my point and i would just like you to consider it okay i would just simply like you to consider the fact that i'm saying that even if i gave andrew young all of the data the only thing that would change in his equations is his incorporation of refraction over a curved surface that doesn't change the image that we see here okay so it doesn't change the image that you see there but it means that that image isn't explainable on a flat earth no it is explainable craig it is not if you know it is it's not if you actually have the data but you don't have the data so you don't have anything at all all you have is a picture and then you can't claim anything about the picture unless you have the data to go alongside it that's why there is one simple thing that we can do about all this we can just remove that refraction that you have when you're close to the water and do observations that are away from that refraction that obviously is going to change the dynamic of course but that is um a result of the physics of elevation and distance so yeah also the refractive index will change and of course it will and the more important thing is the lapse rate will change and be a lot less um let me let me bring up an image that let me just demonstrate what i'm let me just finish the point that i was going to try to make if i can't do it pretty sure i wasn't finished because okay so what i'd like you just to consider right now is you can see now the uh the Anacapa island here behind the boat okay so we not only have what appears to be the horizon we also have a boat that appears to be obstructed we also have the Anacapa island in the distance and you can see the lighthouse with the keeper's house there next to it okay now i'd like you just to think about the scale of what we're looking at right now because the next clip shows a another boat that i would feel comfortable saying is roughly the same size as this one if not bigger it's uh this one is a commercial vessel the one that we're going to look at is more than likely a personal craft i would think that it's a yacht but i would just simply like you to look at the image that you have right here before you and then as you see the next one come up look at the difference between what you see the water doing what you see the size of the boat is and then when we get to the island uh how we see the island so if you just bear with me i'll just play this and then i'll let you go on on yours okay i just want to make this point okay so clearly this boat is smaller and i have to zoom into it because it's farther away okay now if this had uh i'm not sure how good the picture is for you but uh you can see the uh the spray here on the bottom left okay there is no miraging going on here like we had with the other boat the other boat did in fact even if you might want to claim that the uh water the uh horizon was obstructing the boat it doesn't change the fact that there was um an inferior mirage there here we have high refraction this boat is distorted it's not a clear image but we can clearly see the surface of the water that it's on because the prop and the bow are uh producing spray now i had quite a bit of mirroring there but the same question applies i need to know the distance to it i need to know yeah the density right yeah i need to know the temperature i agree with that and right no matter how many times you show these observations it doesn't change the fact that i can explain it all with the eccentric model and so you can't explain it because yes i can have any of the data to explain i don't need the data even though you say that no i absolutely no i don't i absolutely don't need the data absolutely don't need it you can't you have mathematically model it otherwise we are not operating on the same standards craig okay you're not operating on high enough standards then you're not actually asking the question why no when when you i am asking the question why because if you have the data you can actually do the calculations you cannot tell me at that distance uh and everything what type of refraction we're supposed to see because you don't have the data to go alongside it all right so hold on all you're doing is showing evidence of refraction refraction's a thing i agree okay listen this is what happened the last time i was on your show excuse me i am not making the claim that refraction is a thing i am not trying to wait you say refraction isn't a thing we did this last week okay you're not a stupid person but you act stupid sometimes okay no i don't i understand physics okay okay listen listen my argument is not that refraction is a thing what's your argument then my argument is that the obstruction that we observe when we see buildings or lighthouses or oil platforms the obstruction that we see is never due to the horizon as a physical obstruction of water what's it isn't it's due to refraction so your argument refraction is a thing well done no okay you literally just said that your argument is it's refraction okay listen listen there's a difference between saying that refraction is a phenomenon right okay yeah i'm saying the phenomenon of refraction whether or not it's an inferior mirage a superior mirage a fadam organa a fadavrimosa or heat index or whatever else it might be that we want to call a distortion due to refraction it is the refraction that is blocking the image there that's the that's plainly false because it's not plainly false no it is plainly false because when you actually have the data you can prove that it's false with maps okay great great so the only way that this is going to get solved craig i have asked okay you can do the data i'll provide you with the well i'll provide you with the image right because this is your requirement the image means nothing without the data to go alongside it okay you pick a day and tell me when you want me to go out and i'll take pictures you crunch all the numbers okay but you're the one that's there so you would be the one that needs to take the the measurements to determine the lapse rate i can't do that if i'm not there right so how many people am i going to need to take the lapse rate craig you can do that yourself what you need to do is okay so hold on let me ask you yeah yeah let me ask you a quick question so if i'm on if i'm on the concord point uh side of the chesapeake bay and my observation is nine miles away how am i going to take the measurement nine miles away craig okay maybe you can coordinate with someone maybe i can go away so you can have two people right i i mean hold on depending on the distance you you need to have different people to do it i can't do it myself if i'm not there you're the one taking the images therefore you're the one needs to provide the data alongside those images so that they can be actually you know falsified and and we can actually scrutinize what they mean because all you're doing is showing me images right and then all you're doing is hand wave dismissing them no i'm not i'm not hand wave dismissing it because what you're saying is clearly false if you have the data it's clearly not false it's clearly not false if you have the data then it does show that you're false because that this is not what you would expect to see on the flat earth yes it is exactly what i would expect to see so let me just do you have the data to back that up okay craig it's an observation i simply the observation with that alongside it so let's move that's your world that's your world no it's the world it's physics okay hold on just real quick let me finish this how about we move away i wasn't able to finish my point again you have finished your point i haven't my point right here was trainer you don't need to go on and on and on right hold on okay hold on i just want you to catch the contrast if you remember the image previously the boat that we saw previously was closer to us larger in our field of view this boat is farther away the island far it the island is absolutely ginormous whereas before the boat was to scale pretty much even with the um the island okay now right here um i don't know you i'm pretend can you see my mouse if i'm sharing my screen yeah you can okay right here is the lighthouse now if you go back to the previous image that we saw the lighthouse was lower down and much larger okay so there's a whole dynamic here of what is going on with refraction and i know that you understand that to a certain extent that refraction is dynamic but i want you just to be pretty much impressed with the fact that this horizon that we're seeing is not the same distance that we were looking at before this is a completely different location and yet it is presenting itself to us as if it is the horizon and this boat okay this boat when we were when we could see it in contrast with the sky behind it was not presented to us in the same way as the as the previous boat it was not blocked yeah from the bottom we'll have different refraction that's correct again none of this matters without any data to verify what you're seeing uh like at all it you know it really means nothing okay again i'm not impressed because i understand the maps behind what we're actually seeing yeah yeah i know the i know okay look i know that you understand the maps that it takes to build a skyscraper incorporating g but that's a fictitious build your skyscraper without g and it's going to work perfectly well trust me how would you calculate the load that certain things can take them about i'm not a mechanical i'm not an engineer no no no you've just made a claim that i could i could build a skyscraper without having to use g in the calculation then i i would need to know how i would calculate certain loads on certain load bearing structures yeah how would i do that without using g no clue well you can is the answer so your claim that you could build a skyscraper without using g is completely wrong because that's actually a very important thing to know i know according to your story no no according to my story according to everything that's ever built you can't deny that there is a downward acceleration that exists it's that that is the most empirical thing that anyone can ever do there is a downward acceleration on earth with 9.8 meters per second squared roughly depending on where you are interestingly enough that acceleration changes based on your latitude because of centrifugal acceleration yeah so just we can move on but again yeah my point my point is going to be to simply reiterate that even if i get you the numbers that you want it is not going to change the image and i have other images where i can show you i agree that okay i'm still talking okay i have other images that i can show you my reason for saying that the obstruction is always due to refraction whether or not it's a mirage or any other classification of refraction we simply are not able to see as far when the refractive index is high we can see farther when the refractive index is low that's as simple as it gets i can see farther because of this i can't see as far because of this and i am looking over a horizontal plane well you're not looking over a horizontal plane because the none of the data actually shows that and when you if you do the observations and i don't need to have data if you do the observations and you have data to actually support it then you can actually show exactly what you should have to see data i mean you can deny that you need that all you want but you're just wrong and it makes you sound really really stupid no no no again i don't need data the plain truth 2020 yeah no worries yeah because i'm not i'm not trying to hold on anyway right let's move away you said you can move on so let's i know but you just made a point that i want to uh i want to add answer back please okay when you say that i need data it's because you think i'm making a prediction along okay i'm just saying that the picture means nothing about data to support it i i can analyze that picture that you given me why do you need to analyze it it's just a boat in front of you craig it's just an island because you are using it to claim that the earth is flat so i need no i'm able to actually analyze that all right so let's move let's move away from refraction shall we and explain my argument your your arguments refraction exists okay are you stupid no i'm not okay then stop asking that question because if i know i'm not i didn't ask a question i made a statement your statement is refraction it was it it was yeah it was a tacit implicit question yes yeah i mean refraction is a thing and explains craig what we see craig i'm never gonna deny that fact yeah but let's move away from the refraction you are saying that you've been admitted that but let's move away from refraction everybody just talk about observations the fact that craig is ignoring that clarified no you even said that your argument is it's not the curve of the earth it's refraction i mean that's plainly false because none of the data supports that assertion but your entire claim is that it's refraction is the reason why we see things refraction is a thing right refraction hand away dismissing my argument doesn't know i'm not hand away dismissing your argument you haven't presented an argument because you have no data everything that i back up everything that you say yeah right and i don't know we move how about we move to observations that have i have no obligation i have no obligation to meet your requirements or your standards of what you think is data well i you do if you're trying to use it to claim something then you absolutely do and okay so again regardless regardless of the fact because of science that that's nothing to do with the argument no nothing to do with the argument about the you've made a claim and i want evidence for it you're asking me for evidence of my claim i want evidence of your claim right yeah but i'm not making a claim i'm making a statement you made a burden of proof isn't with me end of story i mean that's just a fact well i don't need to have data craig i don't need to have data because without data you cannot actually without evidence of the science tip without evidence of the scientific community to switch over into a new topic yeah so that's what i've been trying to do but he keeps going back to the observations at sea level where refraction is a thing so i just want to be reaction is a thing at every level yeah but then you can actually calculate what the refraction is based on your your height and the thing about refraction is it's specific it's based on specific things and one of the things that is very specific on is the coefficient of refraction which you you you need to use the lapse rate to calculate and the lapse rate is the change in atmospheric pressure over a certain distance so or sorry the change in temperature over a certain distance to say one degree over five meters right but the thing about the lapse rate is the higher that you go up the the smaller the lapse rate is because the temperature changes less quickly over a certain distance which means the higher up you go the less refraction that you have which is why i go to observations that are away from the highest coefficient of refraction that don't get so distorted by things like that like the observation from Miles Davis that there is no explanation for on a flat earth there is what refraction no refraction can't make something based on the lapse rate here okay there's no way that fraction could cause that okay you just made a claim so how did Miles Davis eliminate refraction as a cause for the effect that he captured by moving away from the point where the lapse rate would actually cause a distance like that okay so again when you okay you said moving away can you please elaborate on what that means i'm asking you seriously right okay so right moving away look at look at this image right so this is actually to scale based on the atmosphere okay the the lines represent like layers all of atmosphere if you want so like 90% atmosphere 80% atmosphere 70% goes up as you can see the higher up you go the further apart those lines are which means that the temperature change will be less over a larger distance meaning that the lapse rate will be less meaning that the coefficient of refraction will be less meaning that you will have less refractive properties it's just a natural thing that would that happens as you move away from the point where the lapse rate changes quicker okay so what the difficulty with what we're looking at right now Craig is with a two-dimensional image that has no depth or three-dimensional space so can you that's irrelevant to to no it's not it's not irrelevant it's not irrelevant it is because it's absolutely not irrelevant if you want to stop talking Mario that's cool so when what this represents we're name calling right now and so that was a that was Mario wasn't the name called and that that was just who's Mario he's an Italian plumber that you look a lot like okay so you're you're calling me a name yeah you're casting yeah you are having fun all right let's move on and have some fun right you can't have fun humor is never a thing you lack yeah well i'm not going to have fun by calling your names Craig okay oh well i will never mind so what this represents is the actual pressure bands of the atmosphere on a 2d plane and if you could extend this on the 3d and it would be the same this is actually an arc of a circle each each each of those lines is an arc of a circle and this entire drawing is to scale based on the atmospheric pressure that we have can you prove that to me please well based on the the known pressure of the atmosphere at certain heights don't tell me a story Craig i want you to show me that this is reality right now can you show this in reality please yes the fact that at a certain height above us the yeah you're telling me a story again yeah telling me a story okay so planes fly in certain bands telling me a nice story bro nice story yeah so if you want to shut the fuck up you more on a listen that'd be great i'm asking you simply to show yeah and i'm trying to of reality no i don't want you to explain anything pray in a plane they have barometric pressure indicators that tell them how high up they are and what the pressure action your honor hold on well you can object as much as you want right but we know this will come right back to you plane we know that there is a gradient of pressure in the atmosphere that actually extends out a certain distance and we know what the karmine roughly what the atmosphere pressure is and based on that of those empirical observations that are can be made by people that actually have the ability to do them we can see what the change in temperature sorry the change in atmospheric pressure is over a distance and this is actually modeled out i i've given the the website many times in the chat and everyone can go and look at the entire website this is based on themselves okay but this is an accurate representation of what we see in our atmosphere and what it demonstrates is that the higher up you go the the change in the the temperature and the pressure takes longer the higher up you go and that's the change in lapse rate great and you know you know you can't deny that we have an atmospheric pressure gradient right that's what this is demonstrating great can you can you validate this with the demo with the demonstration in real life you want me to validate that there's atmospheric gradient no i want you to validate your claim that you just showed us in a two-dimensional image that's not reality okay it's a representation of what we see in our atmosphere right and in order for me to believe yeah in order for me to believe what you said i'd like you to show that to me is there an atmospheric pressure gradient yes or no uh this is a red herring no it's not because it is is there an atmospheric pressure gradient yes or no okay did i ask you to simply is there an atmospheric pressure gradient yes or no it's a simple question simply no no i'm going to ask you a question until you answer the burden you're reversing the burden on me right pressure gradient yes or no i'm not falling for your banana in the tailpipe trick so you you don't know okay i know okay is is there an absolute objection your honor he's answering the question with a question hey james i'm asking him to answer a question for me and he won't i've asked a question yeah i knew you are not answering what well we'll just take turns not a problem we there is an atmospheric pressure gradient that that is undeniable i'm not asking you to state your position again no i'm stating a fact there is i'm not asking you to state the fact that you consider to be valid again well that's not what i'm asking you what's that you're moving away from the entire argument the entire argument that the i am bringing up is the further away from the surface that you are the lapse rate will change right yeah that is the point that's the story that's not a story that the atmospheric pressure gradient proves that fact okay can we go back to i'm willing to have a discussion on this point so you're not answering my question can you go back to your two-dimensional image please well i have a question about it really i have a question on then so at what level uh is the observer looking at this is is this ground level the the thick black line would be ground level yes okay so how far and how far away from this mi uh well i would have to do the calculations based on the arc of the circle to know that for sure but it's all explained actually in this website that i've uh that that you can go to and look at the details yourself so again this is just a representation of the atmospheric pressure honestly that is my point here okay yeah honestly i i'm going to actually state my claim again because you seem to be missing the point no no no i'm asking i want to ask you a question about your image the further away this is the image that i'm using as evidence right this is the image that i'm using as evidence with data to back up that you can find in the video that this is from okay what i showed you just now is just a representation of the atmospheric pressure gradient that we have on earth that is an undeniable fact okay and what that means is that the further away from the surface you are you will have a lower lapse rate meaning that the coefficient of refraction will be less meaning that the actual refractive conditions will not be as severe as if you are close to the water right that is i understand yeah i understand your claim and you can go back to your image so based on that how does this image happen on a flat earth sure i understand your claim i want to kind of can we go back to your two-dimensional so i can just ask a question or or at least yes it's an abstract concept right so when when we look at things orthographically we don't see them accurately right so i mean it's not my problem if you can visualize 3d space okay so if i were to elevate my height in looking in this direction even though i don't see black lines in front of me you're suggesting that the atmosphere is its gradations are according to stale just as you've drawn them okay yes so now as i elevate my my height i also extend my distance or my my ability to see farther into the distance and if there is an object that is let's say um 10 miles away in proximity and i elevate and i can't see it very well because the gradient is so bad but if i elevate my height uh that will alter the refractive index at that distance with that object but if there's something farther away then i'm going to create the exact same phenomenon even though i've elevated myself because i'm looking farther away so you have the same effect even though you think that you are changing your perspective simply because you're elevating your viewer height but you're not you're simply changing the uh dynamic of how the refraction is going to affect what you see in the distance it's not going to eliminate refraction altogether it's going to change the dynamic but the dynamic when you get farther away is going to be just like as if you were still low on the ground because you're increasing distance and you're looking through the same amount of layers but the point of the observation that i present is that you are looking through the same layer you are looking through a 210 meter um uh eye level okay so okay hold on i'm sorry when you say the same way wait wait let me let me clarify okay so the eye level is 210 meters the top of the the bridge pole the five road bridge is 210 meters meaning that you are looking through the atmospheric pressure band over these distances the the curve i mean i think that's about 1.3 kilometers so you're looking at 0.002 uh degrees of the arc of the earth so you're not going to it's practically flat but it's an arc of a circle right so you're looking through the particular pressure band it's all the same and if the earth was flat that pressure band at that eye level would be the same all the way that you're looking meaning that you will be able to calculate the lapse rate and stuff yeah okay but that would mean on a flat earth there is no way that the hills in the background that are more than twice the height of this could drop below that eyelid that's incorrect no it's not incorrect the math the math says that you're wrong with that statement it's incorrect correct okay so you give me the maths to back up that i don't have to give you the math no i can show you images okay so here no no no you do because i can give you the math to show that it is correct that's great that's great craig so what i would like to do this is what i've also said to miles davis i'll say it to you i've said it to rumpus when they produce one image okay i have hundreds of images where i can show you that i am taking an observation from the same location and i get different results so here's my prediction craig here's my prediction if we could get uh uh miles davis to go back to this same location he's done okay show us that picture as well it's not going to match okay it's not going to match i mean just go to his channel but i'm just saying it's uh i have enough um of my own photography where i can show you examples of all your photography is like sea level and stuff right but you have the same um the same effects that uh no you don't because you have a much much lower lapse rate okay but when you look into the distance even though you've elevated yourself you that that distance is as if you're lowering your viewer height no it's not yes it is yes it is not only if the earth is uh is a curve would that be the case on a flat earth the the plane of the atmospheric band would be the same all the way through that's incorrect no no it's not that's incorrect it's not because i can show you okay can i share my screen if the earth is right if the earth is flat there is an atmospheric pressure gradient that is 14.7 psi up to practically zero psi that exists everywhere on earth okay only right near the water is the cases where you can actually have things like ducts and stuff which can give you a temperature inversion and make light appear to bend back on itself and things when you move away from the the refractive conditions that are caused by being close to the water you don't get that and if the earth was flat the band of pressure that you're looking for will be the same as you look through especially when you raise yourself away from the water meaning that there will not be a change in the temperature over what you're looking at because you're looking through the same pressure band okay i understand the explanation but the the reality is that there is go back and take those images you're not going to have the same image every single time you just i'd like everyone just to go to his channel i'm pretty sure he's gone back there maybe not this one the this position but he's gone to other places that he's done similar observations more than once so i have a question real quick on this image then too is because i have certain people who come and visit my channel one of the questions that they ask me is uh how i can prove that my camera was level is there any proof um that uh myles davis's camera is level i'm just asking well the is that one of the data points is that one of the data points so you mean um whether it's looking up or looking down sure yeah i'm just asking because you know it is a pretty touchy dynamic really not going to affect the fact that there is a an i level that you have by the middle of the camera looking to the um the i level in the distance yeah can you prove that it's not going to affect it that much alpha equals two times the arc tan of g over two r in the lower perspective yeah i can show you uh are you finished do you have anything else to say regarding this image oh myles davis says he has numerous shots of that on various days myles could you um send me some of those please again i think when i had my conversation with myles i asked him if it was from the same location and i'm pretty sure it wasn't so again he's literally just said in in the chat that he has them so myles okay from the same location yes that's what he's saying i'm just if you can email me those to now i'll bring those up um to demonstrate that you get the same thing so um so the the are you finished is there anything else you'd like to say about this image at all or oh the fact that it is impossible on a flat earth no it's not impossible no it absolutely is based on how it isn't based on how physics works it is actually it's not well how does how does the physics work then i can show you no no no when you talk about physics you have to give me the math okay can you provide a citation that shows me that shows that i have to provide you the math yeah my entire degree in physics okay do you have a citation that says that if i'm going to make a claim about physics that i have to have an expression in math that was yeah because that's what physics is don't tell me the story craig i'm asking you i'm not telling you a story i'm telling you that physics is based on mathematically modeling the world that's what physics is great can you show me a citation that says that the exclusive way to demonstrate anything in physics is to have a mathematical equation yet my entire degree in in in physics the definition of physics that is evidence please because right now it's just rhetoric you're just saying again physics is literally physically destroyed the world the way that you do that the way that you do that is with maths because as we as we all know unless you're a flatter video maths is the only place that proof exists and that's absolutely incorrect no that is an absolute fact it's absolutely incorrect so you have no evidence that states that i am obligated in any way to uh because without the data without the data to back it up your observations mean nothing great great do you have a citation yes that shows okay all of physics is my citation that's another that's another claim that i'm going to ask you to prove and you just simply reading okay all of my observations okay can you see my screen please craig yeah um so what what was the atmosphere the you know the temperature what was the you know have you got all those details for me okay so the reality that we have here before us is that my camera was set up at the same location and at the same height you're close to water aren't you um so the reality that we're looking at right now is that i have a camera set up at the same location we have a 12 mile it's a relevant we've discussed this talking pretty yeah and we've moved away from water the observations near water haven't we with the conversation evolved past that okay so so let's not look for observation let no i'm really not interested in your observations that don't show anything with no data uh the data here is that it's 12 miles away and then there's six miles away is the other uh yeah what was the temperature at the water and as you went up and uh is there any about there no i'm okay let's move on to things that are away from there shall we yeah so again your hand away dismissing that's fine that's no i want i want actual data to go with show me i'm obligated show me i'm obligated to give you any data that it doesn't mean anything without it it does i mean i haven't okay look craig we have an observation you have an observation yeah that's it that's all you have we have data here cool story bro presenting to yeah there's no data you've got it you've got a cool story too yeah yeah come on awesome where's the data to show me that i'm obligated to meet your standards of data which where's your evidence there isn't any data there there isn't anything that i can use to calculate the refractive index how do you calculate the refractive index based on what you've got there where how do you count no no how do you calculate the refractive index based on what you've got there where is your evidence if you don't have it that's cool i'm gonna ignore it then because it doesn't mean anything about it evidence to back up your claims that's cool okay where should we go now you can present some evidence you haven't yet we well can according to me hold on james hold on james actually i have no no you clearly haven't well clearly i can just explain that i have evidence you've shown me some images that don't have any data to back them up so we can't actually ascertain anything uh yeah the data that backs them up is the distance of the viewer observation the height of the viewer the focal length of the camera that's data uh where's the actual data that allows me to calculate the refractive index uh huh and if you have any uh evidence that i'm obligated to meet your standard your claim is that it's your claim is that it's not the curve of the earth it's refraction to verify that claim i need to know the refractive index i can show you the refractive index see the difference between the refractive index unless you show me the math because that's how you calculate refractive index all right all right so what i would like you to simply consider i'd like you to consider something just for the moment okay what we what we have right now is a mexican standoff to a certain extent okay you showed me a few minutes ago some lines across the uh screen i asked you right i asked you to validate that with a real live photo you couldn't do it so all i'm doing right now is i mean i can all right you want me to validate the earth is that let me finish my point please all i mean you go on so much really honestly yeah really okay so it's all i'm gonna move away there i'm nearly there from the i'm nearly there nearly that suit strainer nearly there all right okay let's let's one sec uh nearly there just let me finish craig hey james come on let me finish i'm captured let's do what we said and move away is that what we're at we're at name calling again can you be as short and pithy as possible and then we gotta move into a new topic come on bream orang let's do it whiskers so all i did was simply provide you with a real life photo where i could demonstrate the same thing in description that would be parallel to your lines going across the screen with no data to back out mr tickles yeah you had no data that i was requiring come on t strainer we agreed we were going to move away from the water close to water images because you don't have i didn't agree to that well okay we've talked about your i want to say evidence but that's not really the right word for what you've shown how about we talk about some of the things that i talked about the fact that there are certain things that can only it be explained by the fact we're on a rotating globe like the yacht loss effect how how does that happen if the earth is flat and stationary so um where's your evidence that the the effects that you're observing is um due to uh the curve of the earth i didn't say to the curve of the earth okay rotations i'm sorry it's hard for me to keep up with the the bs of the heliocentric model so what the the what's the effect what's the effect that we're looking at the effect is right let me get the thing back up um where's where the right give me one set to get the video back up so what i'm talking about with the octopus effect right this isn't um to to try and make it look stupid or anything but do you know what the yacht loss effect is nope right okay cool that's a baseline that we can start with i can explain to you what the yacht loss effect is awesome right so if the earth is rotating at 15 degrees per hour like you know like we say it is okay and it is the size that we say it is that means that there will be a certain centrifugal acceleration at a certain latitude on the globe right so if you are at the equator um which has a um a tangent angular velocity of about a thousand miles an hour it means you're going to have about 0.3 percent centrifugal acceleration based on the gravitational acceleration if you're at the poles then there isn't any centrifugal acceleration so the observation can be done there but what you can do is based on your latitude and your known angular velocity at that you can calculate what your centrifugal acceleration should be right and because we know centrifugal acceleration acts in the opposite direction to gravity um sorry i didn't actually get the video hold on can you say that that that last statement one more time can you say that please the centrifugal acceleration acts in the opposite direction to gravity okay may i ask a question yeah how do you know that it acts in the exact opposite way of gravity because that's it acts in a perpendicular direction to the orientation of rotation that's what the centrifugal acceleration is so when you say opposite okay i'm just trying to get it so you're saying that you it's exerting uh an outward uh direction yes okay it's it's an apparent force that um manifests itself actually centrifugal force is a is a real force actually well it's it's not it's an apparent no actually it's a real effect it actually happens it's real yeah but it's called an apparent force right because you wizards have to no no no because that's the description because right because you wizards have to enjoy reality no right let me let me describe it in another way it's an emergent force okay what the hell does that mean it means emergent means emergent means consequence right one second plain truth i've like stuck with this topic to be sympathetic to you so let fight finish really so you're coming down on me but when he calls me names you've got nothing to say listen okay i don't care about people calling each other names and frankly if you're stoic enough you shouldn't care either but no that's not that's not argumentation if we're gonna let people use not argumentation we're gonna let people use just get their arguments i've given you the benefit of the doubt by letting us by keeping us from moving on so if you just let it finish simply because i want to discuss points of of uh claims you're you're coming down on me because you consider that not wanting to move on when he hasn't validated anything that he's claimed and i want to hold him to accountability to provide evidence you consider that the fact that i'm holding up i'm trying to present evidence but you don't shut your moustache with mouth up plain i'm not coming down on you i haven't muted you i've there are other people who i've muted before like all i'm doing is if you just let them finish okay so centrifuge the centrifugal acceleration is an emergent force right emergent means a consequence of something so that's redundant no it doesn't that's literally what it means now again if you could shut your moustache your mouth up and listen for two minutes you might learn right so that's centrifugal force is an emergent force and a parent force that happens because of a consequence of something else right and we can measure that in an outward acceleration okay so we know there's a you know regardless of what a centrifugal force is it's something that we can measure that exists okay and based on the angular velocity of the earth rotating at the speed that we say it does then we can calculate what the angular that what the centrifugal acceleration is okay now what centrifugal acceleration does has an opposite effect to gravity so if you're at the poles it means that you don't have a centrifugal force acting so gravity is a little stronger at the equator you have that centrifugal acceleration of about 0.3 percent of gravity which reduces gravity by that little bit okay now what that means is that if we were traveling with the rotation of the earth so from west to east we would actually increase that centrifugal acceleration this this is something that would happen and if we're traveling from east to west we would decrease on every latitude yes well it would change it would get less and less the closer towards the poles that you've got okay so hold on real quick wait i haven't finished my explanation let me have a question just had a quick question carry on all right go on then so okay so if we're at the equator is it is it an equal effect both south of the equator and north of the equator so that if you go to each latitude that corresponds to the other latitude is it the exact same um roughly yes roughly is that is that a scientific estimation or i mean the gravitational acceleration is is slightly different based on land masses and mountains and stuff but yeah the centrifugal acceleration if we take the earth as a near perfect sphere the centrifugal acceleration will decrease proportionately north and south of the equator okay so um what and what we what what you can do is based on your latitude you can calculate what your centrifugal acceleration should be right but it it's it's a fact that if you move with the rotation of the earth you will increase that centrifugal acceleration and if you move against the rotation of the earth you will decrease the centrifugal acceleration and this will manifest itself in a reductional increase in weight so um in i think it was the 1700s lord yacht force did gravity measurements on ships traveling east to west and west to east in the pacific in the indian ocean um and they always managed to calculate a a perceived increase or decrease in the gravitational acceleration however things are a lot more accurate nowadays um and wolfie 6020 tested this hypothesis by getting a 500 gram test weight and measuring it before he got a question i mean i'm just i'm just not sure how much you're going to keep droning on i'm trying to explain to you what the ockfoss effect is and how my observation actually applies to it yeah but go on you've made a statement earlier so you said that the earth is a near perfect sphere near perfect yes yeah when was this determined that it was nearly perfect the distance um the difference between the equatorial radius and the polar radius is 0.03 percent it's the 46 miles over the the difference in equatorial radius over 6 000 miles okay i didn't i didn't say that classes as a nearly perfect sphere okay so i didn't i didn't i didn't say it's a perfect sphere i said it's a nearly perfect sphere right now i know i quoted you craig i said nearly perfect sphere that's what i said yeah and great so yeah let's let's let's let's say you didn't clarify that in 1972 when we took a photo with the um uh with a hassle black camera on the way to the moon but sure hold on hold on the okay point of clarification uh i i didn't ask you how i said when ever since cartographers were a thing and we managed to measure the planet okay so let's let's stop if you're trying to derail me no i'm trying to understand i'm not trying to derail you're making your claim my point is that i i am validate your claim you have the earth isn't the earth is a nearly perfect sphere that is the scientific consensus and that's what i'm going with stop trying to derail me and listen okay so warfew 60 20 got a test weight of 500 grams and he measured it before and after he got on flights traveling east to west and west to east then whilst on those flights he got an average weight because obviously there's going to be perturbations based on turbulence etc so he had the weights on the entire flight and got on average and what the average showed was that as he was traveling west to east there was a perceived reduction in the gravitational acceleration as he was traveling east to west there was a perceived increase in the gravitational acceleration manifested in the fact that the weight showed more and less of the 500 grams okay this video is the whole experiment of him of him doing it and shows actually matches the predictions of what we would expect based on the gravitational acceleration changing based on the centrifugal acceleration okay so this is based on our model and our model says it is a nearly perfect sphere so this was a an attempt by wolfie to clarify or to verify that that model is correct because if the model is correct then these are things that we should experience and he experienced it and this is something that anybody can anybody can do okay so we have an observation that seems to match wolfie's prediction correct he makes a prediction and then he takes some measurements and writes the data down for that is that correct he he gets an effect right yeah so how does he prove the cause of that effect that wasn't what he was trying to do he was trying to verify a prediction and his prediction was what again i'm sorry his prediction would be that traveling west to east you would have a perceived production in gravitational acceleration and traveling east to west you would have a perceived increase in gravitational acceleration okay sure so you would have the exact same effect on a flat earth we just wouldn't call it by the same terms that why would you have that on the flat earth though what would be the hell out of me but that's not his point his point wasn't to prove the cause right his point was simply to make a prediction that uh his point was to try and verify the model okay so and the model the model says that these effects should happen if if you have if you if you do this why why should they happen based on gravitation i literally explained that to you based on i'm just asking for clarification i don't want to misrepresent if i if i address a statement i don't want to miss it happen because that is what would happen if you increased your centrifugal acceleration or okay so how to all right right so simply because he has an effect how does he know it's caused by the centrifugal acceleration because he is increasing his centrifugal acceleration by traveling west to east um no he's not proving that no no he's showing that there is he's just changing location and getting an effect which is what you would expect on a flat earth yeah no you wouldn't expect that on a flat earth there's no you there's no you would no no no you just said you expect that on a flat earth you need to tell me why no the question would be for you as well because you're making the claim initially i'm just trying to repeat the claim that you're making hold on hold on just real quick hold on please so the burden still falls on you that is why are you making the claim that you think that there's that expectation because that's what our model says our model says the globe is rotating like that so we can test that prediction we can test that prediction that our model says this is something that you should get if the earth is rotating and then you add to or take away from that centrifugal acceleration so just a point of clarification then so your prediction okay when i say your the prediction is made not because there's an observation made but because your model already assumes that the earth is in motion and so you are simply extrapolating out that if you have a centrifugal acceleration then you're going to have certain effects is that correct i'm saying that based on what our model says yes but i'm asking you why your model says that so here because all science backs up that assertion no no no that's that's simply circular argumentation no it's not i mean we it is like we can go the bible is the word of god because the bible says it's the word of god it's a circular argument that's right all the things that science does is based on things that we have figured out from the past okay we have so when but wait wait i am i am trying to respond to you stop interrupt me okay right so all science leading up to this point has determined that the earth is rotating and that is the size that we say is and that is how we've created our model based on empirical observations that can be verified so based on those observations and the model that has been created around all of science the model says that this is an effect that should happen because of centrifugal acceleration he knows he's increasing his centrifugal acceleration because he's traveling from west to east again if he's traveling west to east the model says that that would increase the centrifugal acceleration and that is the effect that we see right but again the the effect that you are observing my question is it's the chicken in the egg right so was there an observation made that there is an increase in weight or was there a prediction made that that would be the uh the result and it just happened to match that's kind of what empirical evidence is you can make a prediction and then test that prediction with real-world observations how can you make a prediction about something that you've never observed because simply they have they have observed the earth rotating that's something that has been observed well that that is another point of debate which is where i was actually going originally with with asking you to prove the fact that you are describing you're attributing to a cause i'm sorry you're attributing to an effect the cause of the earth's rotation okay so wolfie is setting out to prove earth rotation because his effect depends on it oh yeah no you are the literal um the title of this video is verifying earth's rotation with the opfos effect right so that's the point how do you know that the earth was rotating before this because all observations point towards that no all observations that i've made don't point toward the earth rotating so that's not true well you haven't done the observations right then because i have all of science agrees that the earth rotates um the mix and molly experiment demonstrated quite nicely that at different points in um the earth's rotation around the sun that uh there are certain effects that we should get i mean there's so many things like they're back through years and years and years of science that shows that the other rotates we can even look at um mechanical gyroscopes that are actually loop and stuff enough that have a drift as expected gyro compasses which use the earth rotation to find true north um the counter rotating stars that we see at the north and south pole the there is so many things that back up the assertion that the earth is rotating the best one being a five the interferometric fiber optic gyroscope registering that drift right but see all of those instruments are actually pointless because we have uh people in the past that knew that the earth was rotating without those instruments so my question uh is was the earth first thought to be rotating because it was measured to be rotating or was it simply a postulation to try to understand an observation that was being made probably back at the time but that's why we build on postulation probably back at the time what uh if you let me finish but no you you you you said probably back at the time and then you didn't finish your sentence so i'm trying to call you back you stopped me before i could actually i didn't actually so well now stop talking you you need to learn to engage your lips together really wow this is coming from you that's awesome plainly let's give them a chance to finish i promise i'll come right back it's so funny that you're calling me out man that's so yeah no honestly you didn't know when to shut up all i'm saying is let him finish i promise we'll come back to you so all of science has pointed towards the fact that the earth is rotating all observations that have ever been done kepler's observations you know all the observations that are made in the past the retrograde motions of mars for example all the observations point towards it however the ability to test that is something that has come along later so science builds on postulations and theories and stuff that have gone in the past and then when we test these theories and everything if it doesn't turn out we discard that theory and try and find something that fits what we've what we've observed and then we have to take all of the different observations not just one single thing we have to take all of the observations together and try and make a model out of that and the model that we have come up with says that these are effects that we should have so they test to see if that is true by testing to see if we do have those effects and if we do have those effects it's more evidence to give credence to the fact that the model is accurate so it doesn't answer why you would have these effects on the flat earth that is my point and where's the evidence that we have to have an explanation for why things happen rather than just simply seeing the observation and you don't want to provide evidence for explanations for things that's cool that's a red herring because that's not what I said Hitchens razor says you know things presented without evidence can be dismissed about evidence okay the observation is evidence I said if you would if you would listen to what I actually said I asked you what evidence you have that we are obligated to explain why an event is happening that's what I said and you completely of course you have to explain why something happens where is the evidence why it happens where is the evidence that you can produce that shows that we are obligated to explain why an event happens if you don't want to ask the question why that's your problem and I'm not asking for evidence to say that you have to give me an explanation I'm asking if there is an explanation right I don't I don't care right and simply because wait wait wait I don't care if you think you have to give an explanation or not I'm asking you if there is an explanation and the answer is no there is no explanation for these things on a flat station re-earth but there is an explanation on a rotating globe right and we are simply in disagreement with the fact that you think that I have to have a certain amount of data that you consider valid to prove a point when I can demonstrate with the observations that I make over numerous days and hundreds of hours where I can show you patterns in the observations and of refraction of refraction as obstruction as obstruction Craig don't miss that with yeah but you don't have any maps to back up your any of your research I don't have to have any maps to do that but then you can't explain it because my model things I don't have I have words I can explain it with my words Craig words don't explain things that words don't explain things so everybody hear that there you go you cut me off before I finish my sentence words don't explain things that can be mathematically modeled why do I do I know that I can mathematically model something that I can say so that we can make predictions based on your observations I okay right so now this is no no hold on you just made a point that I wanted to bring up let's go back to my evidence and see if you can actually address my evidence so what alternative explanations did Wolfie consider as possible causes for his effect there wasn't any possible alternatives there isn't anything else how do you know that that's the point how do you know that because there is nothing else that can explain why you would get that can you do something I'm telling you that you haven't proven the cause and simply because you have an effect and you would verify the prediction right so the question becomes is the predict is the prediction based on the model or is the prediction based on an observation made the prediction is based on the model which is great so can you please I didn't finish uh yeah a fiber optic gyroscope registers a 15 degree drift right yeah so can you please prove that that's the result of the earth spin simply because you measure an effect the sagniac effect yeah the simply because you measure wait wait no you asked me a question let me respond that's easy no I didn't because you didn't shut your mouth again right the you asked me for evidence that the earth rotates and I said yes a fiber optic gyroscope because the sagniac effect and the known constant of the speed of light in a vacuum can show that that is rotating and we know how rotation affects the gyroscope I can show you a video directly to show that you like but um and if we know how rotation affects the gyroscope then we can see what the gyroscope's on i.e. the earth and if it detects rotation in that case then we know the earth is rotating again again it seems to me that you're begging the question that you have an effect and you're attributing it to earth curve and no there's no there's no begging a question with an interferometric fiber optic gyroscope they yes there is you have proven the cause you've simply measured an effect we work based on they work based on the sagniac effect do you know how the sagniac effect works nope okay well there there's an issue let me try not really an issue your issue is the fact that you have to prove no it really it really is an issue because we're not making any claims we are you're not working with known scientific principles so known scientific principles aren't claims all right let me do you need me to explain to you how the sagniac effect works no i'd like to actually go back to what you just said that known scientific principles are not claims is that what you are stating yeah no scientific principle isn't a claim it's a known scientific principle so what's the difference between a claim and a known scientific principle well the sagniac effect isn't making a claim i'm not asking you to describe something craig i'm asking you you use these terms okay yeah and it's not my fault that you don't understand them okay craig if i okay here's how no no here's how the sagniac effect no no no no no no honestly i don't start i should start charging for physics lessons no no no here's how i have a question before we get to here i have no i'm gonna i'm gonna finish my point and then you can you may you use the term that i don't understand i'm trying to understand i'm not i'm not surprised i'm surprised you can tie your shoelaces but yeah well no no listen if we were if it was just hold on james well hold on i'm on your side in this case if it's a term i think it's fair to like if for if you're able to which term was it that you wanted to find just so that everybody's on the same page uh i believe he said something like the scientific principles uh are not claimed so i'm just asking him to give me the difference what's the difference between a claim and a scientific principle well a scientific principle is something based on known laws based on known scientific you know known effects that that have been measured and observed like the the speed of light is a constant okay so we can use the constant of the speed of light to determine effects of certain things like the sagnac effect is a known scientific principle due to the known constant of the speed of light and then you can use that principle to then make claims like we can use the principle of the sagnac effect to make a claim that a fiber optic gyroscope shows that there's a rotation okay so just point of clarification again because you didn't define anything regarding a claim except to say that uh known scientific principles that are based on laws allow you to make a claim so a claim is dependent upon known scientific laws is that what i hear you saying yeah i mean a law is something that comes along because of empirical observations like newton's law of gravitational acceleration was created because there is a known downward acceleration that was apparently proportional to mass and distance okay so and again again though because you said scientific uh i can't remember now what your word was is not a claim no a scientific principle is a claim okay but a claim is dependent upon the reality of a scientific principle uh i suppose you could say that well that's what you've said and i'm just trying to clarify so that i can understand so that even though when when i say because i've said it before and i'm just trying to understand your objection early on i said okay you've made a claim and you said no i haven't made a claim and so it seems that you're simply saying i'm based i'm stating known scientific laws yeah but right but like i mean i mean if i if i say that one at one is two that's not really a claim it's just something that's known great so what's what's the claim then what is a claim that's what i'm trying to understand your use of this term a claim is something um but okay so i'll make a claim in this case my claim is that using the known scientific principles of sagnaq effect i can make a claim that the earth is rotating based on the operation of interferometric fiber up to gyroscope and how they function so so you've simply shown me that you can use the term claim in a sentence what is a claim my a claim is an assertion of something okay so okay now can we move past getting bogged down on it's not bogged down if i'm it's not semantics i'm trying to understand your argument my argument is the physics now if you will let me if i don't understand what you don't understand anything but you need to try and let me explain the scientific principle that is at work here okay so i just just just a point of clarification real quick craig so what later on when i want to say so you're making a claim you would rather i say you're making an assertion that's what you'd rather i say that's the way that i would work so even though you defined an assertion as a a claim as an assertion you have a problem using those terms synonymously no not really carry on right so right so my claim is that the earth is rotating all right and i can make that claim based on known scientific principles um the principle that i'm based on this on is the the sagnac effect can determine rotation now the sagnac effect works because we know the speed of light in a vacuum c right approximately 180 000 miles per second or 300 000 kilometers a second okay now that scientific principle says that if you fire a beam of light into a two-sided mirror a silver-sided mirror that splits the beam into two portions and it travels around a circuit those beams of light because the speed of light is constant if there is no movement those beams of light will come back at the same point and you will not see an interference pattern however if there is rotation what it will do is physically change the distance that one of the paths of light has to travel meaning that when the two paths of light recombine you can pick up an interference pattern in the wavelengths and detect that as a physical drift in motion um that is the the basics of how the sagnac effect work and is how fiber optic gyroscopes and ring ledger gyroscopes function okay based on this scientific principle so that means that if the earth is rotating within a fiber optic gyroscope we should pick up a certain drift because we know the speed of light is a constant and based on that if the fiber optic gyroscope shows there's a 15 degree drift we can determine that the earth is in fact rotating because there's no other reason why the fiber optic gyroscope would pick up that rotation um and let me get actually one of my videos to quickly demonstrate that that actually isn't just an assertion it can be demonstrated quite easily um so do you have any questions on what the sagnac effect is i guess my my principle question and principle would still be the same so there the description that you gave in terms of the interference on that uh on that device was that measured first did they did they create this device and find out that the measurement was what it was or did they predict that if they built this device and they rotated it around that that would be the effect how did they know they were going to get that result well they built it to be able to detect rotation uh i mean great so how did they know the rotating before that they uh because a pendulum drifts in several ways and because of all the observations i've talked about previously right but i'm not i'm not asking about i'm not asking about the we're still at the same point of i'm not talking about beforehand this is one of the things that is evident towards what i'm saying okay um now if you give me one second to bring up this video to demonstrate that what i'm saying about a gyroscope is true um wolfie again doing i need to actually copy that link put that in there so what wolfie did was took one of his gyroscopes out of one of his drones okay um and placed it on on a globe earth uh in in simulation of what you would expect to see uh on sorry it's playing an ad on the video and trying to get up go away oh crap i've just dressed the wrong thing my bad right so um he took a gyroscope out of one of his drones okay uh and he placed it on on a globe right um are you working no there we go sorry technology issues i mean non skippable ads on my videos who did that right so um yeah so he took a gyroscope out of one of his drones and he placed it on a globe um pointing north to south like like his position do you mean like a model globe yeah a model globe right um in an effort to simulate rotation okay um i better it's better to show you rather than just where is it right here we go at this point so that's the gyroscope from his drone right and he sticks it on the globe in an approximation of his location and he moves the the globe forwards and backwards right and that drone that that gyroscope registers that rotation on on this computer this this is the the software that the drone would be getting that information from and it shows that as he moves the earth the the globe model backwards and you forward rotates it backwards and forwards it shows that it picks up that rotation in three axes that that is the same as what he's doing and that's just a demonstration of that is what a gyroscope is measuring it is measuring a physical rotation what what you're seeing there is a drift obviously a lot more than 15 degrees per hour because he's doing it faster that demonstrates that that is what a a gyroscope actually picks up if it's on a physical moving object all right so rather than a gyroscope maintaining rigidity in space it's being used to measure torque no a five-watched gyroscope measures a a change in momentum a change in acceleration be that because it would change the distance the path that the light has to travel around the path okay so yeah it literally measures a physical rotation because it maintains its rigidity in 3d space you could say it maintains its reference point to the distant stars because it maintains its position in in the universe right and based on that if it shows rotation if it shows movement you can determine what is showing and what these five-watched gyroscopes do is i'll go back to this video just for a second because this is bob nadell playing with his gyroscope and in this video he's talking about what happens and what he does he he plugs it in and then he zeros it out and then he shows that as soon as he zeros it out it straight away starts detecting that rotation and all it's doing is sitting there on his desk it's not moving anywhere the desk is connected to his floor connected to the earth so it's all rotating with the earth that gyroscope isn't moving in any way but as soon as he zeros it out he starts to detect a 15 degree rotation in three axes which comports to what you would expect on the sphere as as wolfie showed so you can determine from that that the gyroscope is picking up a physical movement sure there's no doubt that it's picking up a physical movement but again there's no proof that the cause is the spin of the earth because there is a possibility that there is something else going on what that it's measuring i i don't know but that's my point is that i mean it can't it can't pick up anything else because they they what is it okay but what's it register in order to determine that it's moving what is it that it's registering the um it registers the interference pattern in the light based on movement okay so again it's measuring light so if the light itself is moving right if the atmosphere is moving if the light is moving through the atmosphere no they're in a sealed container the fiber optic gyroscopes are usually in vacuum tubes and oh no sorry ring laser gyroscopes in vacuum tubes and fiber optic gyroscopes use fiber optic cables so little tubes of glass that light travels through right so it's it's outside of the influence of the atmosphere it's not affected by the atmosphere it can't see the atmosphere it's in a contained unit all it knows is that there is an interference pattern it can't see anything else sure okay so the question still remains is that what it's measuring then is is what you would say is is light the movement of light yeah well it's measuring the the time that the light takes to travel around the path which can change based on its position okay again because this is not my feel i'm just trying to think through what you're saying and ask questions so if i had a question in my head now and now that's okay but basically my question was um if the atmosphere of the earth and the earth according to your model is locked together that is that they are they move in tandem the atmosphere moves along with the same rate as the earth yeah that would mean then that the light in the atmosphere isn't bound by the same laws because otherwise it would be it wouldn't you wouldn't be able to detect its motion because just like you can't detect the motion of the earth with your own senses according to you because everything is moving together then that would also mean then that the light would either have to be in lockstep with the atmosphere in which case you wouldn't be able to detect it or it's able to move independently so is that the case well you have to think about reference frames the entire apparatus including the light in it is moving with the earth and that's that's what it's the fact that you don't seem to understand the fact that cancels itself out craig that's the whole problem with the foocall pendulum if it's on the surface that is moving it's not going to be able to detect the motion because i don't think you understand what um do you know how okay the focall pendulum is a separate conversation you just brought it up though no the you the other one that brought up the focall pendulum no you just mentioned it because you did you said that's the problem and with the focall you were the one just brought that up not me okay okay right okay so um the light that the light is traveling in it okay and the the fact sorry he's traveling in what what are we talking about within the gyroscope okay so it's measuring the time that the light takes to travel around that path okay so it's it's nothing to do with the atmosphere it's as that um light is um it has its own you know the speed of light is the same for all observers no matter what your reference frame is okay so the speed of light is a constant within that reference frame so based on that we can tell that if the the time the light takes to travel a path is distant is different then that means that the the physical movement of that light has happened and okay so but again the the entire point of of me using this as an evidence is there is no reason on a flat earth you should detect that 15 degree per hour drift and not just a 15 degree per hour drift in three axes but a one degree drift per day on a 2d plane except for the fact that when we observe the fact that the heavens are in motion above us regardless of whether or not we want to attribute it to earth rotation or not we simply have an observation that the sky is in motion the sun moves the moon moves the constellations move the other wandering stars all move so light moves all again it's very simple this device simply measures and detects the motion of light light is moving no no no no it doesn't detect the motion of light it detects the time that the light takes to travel a known path okay okay but isn't that isn't that just simply splitting hairs because how is it measuring the time it the light takes if it's not measuring light which is what I said because it doesn't it's not important that it's what the light is doing what no sorry that's the wrong phrase to use it's not measuring the actual light like the amount of light or anything it's measuring the time that light takes to travel a path and regardless of whether the sky is moving that means it has to measure light it has to register light coming into a sensor right so that's what I'm saying that yeah so and that's what I'm saying and but what it's actually measuring what gives you that interference pattern is measuring the time the light takes to travel over a known distance right that's again that's only an observation great you're just simply now attributing it to this the rotation of the earth which you haven't proven okay again this goes back everything but this is giving you evidence that the earth is rotating it's not saying that this proves something else but this is its own evidence that it's on something that is that is physically moving because if you map out the movements that a gyroscope like this gives you you will get a globe of our size rotating at the speed it says it does that is also going around a central point in our solar system all that uh your side has done is taken observations and written mathematical expressions to fit a model that they are presupposing or rather no there's no presuppositions it's pretty sure the models are based on in here of evidence pretty sure I know I need I need to correct you to say something you need to interrupt me wrong though right interrupt me okay let's let's uh have you finished that point plain truth and then I promise uh fight we'll come right back to you okay yeah I'm gonna have to collect my thoughts I was thinking and he interrupted me so um okay so I think what I was saying was that in in this discussion we have certain things that uh or flat earth is said these things can't exist on a flat earth and so we have those kinds of classifications can happen on a a globe model can happen on a flat earth can happen on both or it's exclusive to one or the other right now everything that craig has in his arsenal is the same observations that we will have we will make the same observations so they do happen in our world the thing that we have to understand is is that the the impossibility of the physics of the spherical model because there are impossible um on a micro level those things don't happen we don't see them on our level they can only happen in a place where we cannot reproduce but we can mathematically express these things so again simply because you can create a language of math that that adequately is consistent and logical within the system because it's a created system of language simply because you can do that that doesn't mean just like your little 2d image of those lines just because you can diagram what you think is happening doesn't mean that it is we're still left with the same observation yeah okay the big problem there is you said the impossibility of the physics but none of the physics is impossible yes actual actual physics you know worked perfectly in our model there is no but the physics there is nothing that can't be explained when you actually do the physics properly i agree on a small scale on a small scale but when you go to a scale that's larger than what we have on the ground in our proximity you have to extend yourself into the realm of mathematics where you can express what you think is happening on a larger scale but you can't demonstrate it you can you can language it of course we can demonstrate to it okay well first of all we haven't really specified what we're talking about it's it's generic okay but when uh when i'm talking about my observations across large bodies of water like today i had an interview with a french journalist team from from dc they came up and we were just discussing these things and i was explaining that here on this shore my feet are on this shore and five miles away you're on the other shore and your feet are at the water it was well we are horizontal to each other straight across line of sight the only reason i can't see you at times is because of refraction but tomorrow when you go there because the refraction index is lower i can see you so it wasn't an earth curve that was blocking you before it's never earth curve the same thing is if you go out to nine miles the same thing if you go out to 12 miles now in your model craig you can model and mathematically express to me how much curvature is going to be there but that doesn't mean that that is representing reality my feet on the shoreline are going to be horizontal to yours 12 miles away the same tangent they are not going to be a difference well they would be over 12 miles you'd have point roughly about you can math you can math it all you can math it all out but i'm telling you that it is straight up in front of me straight ahead of me i mean that's that's an assertion that is plainly false though i mean it's not because we have observation no no no all you have to do is look at look at certain things like the the venice narrows bridge in new york right which is over a certain distance yeah it's under a mile it's under a mile yeah and what what it shows is the the difference in the the the pillars which are perfectly plumb at the bottom to the top there's like one in three eighths of more at the top than there is at the bottom which matches the model of the earth so can you provide a citation for that citation for what the claim that you just made of the venice now bridges being further away at the top than there at the bottom yeah am i am i just supposed to take your word for it no i mean that's an unknown thing i'll i'll get are you going to show me an article that i've looked up myself and seen that the person is just i wouldn't know what articles you told me i mean you can look at what what do you want like i want i want a citation where you can give me the schematics where the architects actually logged in that they built it according to i don't want a story i don't want you to to show me an article where they say what you just said because that's just hearsay i mean yeah it's it's what it's what let me just get the where i'm going to do to do yeah i would be interested if you want to do some research on the tidings bridge which is the connection over the Susquehanna river in harford county maryland where that bridge is longer than the varizzano bridge and it's both concrete and steel and that would be interesting if you could validate whether or not that took into account curvature i would have to get i mean i've seen the the citations before i would have to get them for you okay i can't sure no no that's okay i can't i can't provide this this second but you know there is lots of things to verify that um that if you wouldn't mind i'd like you to follow follow through in it because i i have looked it up and what i've seen to me is just hearsay they're just simply telling the same story no cool i'll get i'll get more evidence that that is the thing but it's if that is true it's evidence of the earth curves so well no that's no more evidence than you showing me building schematics that say that we take into account gravity well how how else do you like figure out you know load bearing and stuff without knowing the gravitation acceleration are you are you um i'm not i'm not trying to catch you out but we had this discussion earlier and you asked me about uh engineering which i don't have any experience in so i guess my question to you craig is is what at what um size does a building begin to have to start to take into account um gravity it depends on the materials in question and the weight above it i mean you what size craig at what size that's a very broad question that doesn't have one specific answer it depends on a myriad of factors okay can you be generic at all i mean does a how does a three-story house have to take into account gravity do you have to calculate load bearing then yes okay so then does a two-story house if you have to calculate load bearing weights okay so okay so then when i asked you the question what size it has to be the answer i don't know a specific i don't know a specific size it depends on a myriad of things it depends on the size of the building no it doesn't wait wait wait wait let me finish my you you're contradicting yourself no i'm not i'm not contradicting myself show you how let me finish my point before i contradict myself why would i want you to continue contradicting because you haven't let me finish my point so you don't know if i contradicted yourself like well i haven't if he like maybe something like part way through craig's uh part way through his comment will like clarify the perceived contradiction so or the alleged contradiction so i don't know i can't give you a number to say a building has to be this tool before it takes into account gravity but anything that has to calculate a load bearing weight would have to have gravity as part of the calculations and that would depend on the building height the building materials the amount above the amount below the um you the the temperature that it that it's in that could change the you know how much materials can bend and everything there's lots of things you have to take into account to actually know what a load bearing amount is so it's not a question that i can just give you an answer to but anything that needs a load bearing weight calculated has to take into account gravity okay so great let's can we focus on that term load bearing weight yeah okay so in my in my opinion when you say that anything that has to take into account a load bearing weight uh and i asked you it does a three-story house have to take any set and you said basically does it have to it doesn't have a load bearing weight i i would say yes i would guess because weight is there so if you take it down to a two-story house your question was does it have a load bearing weight so in my mind that is the exclusive qualification for taking into account the the effective gravity or whatever i don't even know what to say because i don't believe in that shit but so let's take it down to how small do we have to go does a does a shanty shed back in the back woods have to take into account gravity when someone puts together because it's it actually has a roof and it has to bear that load so does uh little uh johnny boy when he puts together his shanty does he calculate for for g just a quick nobody knows letting people know that we'll go to q and a really quick yeah okay sorry great probably not but um they probably wouldn't have an agency that would check their architectural work and everything um i mean there's plenty of like stories about shanty towns collapsing and stuff um yeah there's also stories of uh buildings collapsing as well we will go into q and a in about two minutes folks so just want to let the speakers know if you are an architect and you are designing a building right which if you're making a shanty town you probably haven't got an architect designing that right but if you're an architect designing a building you would need to know the gravitational acceleration so that you can calculate the the load-bearing structure that you're trying to create it's it's simple it's really not hard okay the weight the main point is that weight that one of the um things you need to calculate weight is gravity because weight is mass times the gravitational acceleration right that's your math right i don't have to calculate gravity for weight that's incorrect well that that's literally what weight it means weight literally what it means in your world no in the world no my word in the world your world is the world of scientific wizardry where you have to read i'm a wizard harry you have to uh redefine terms to match no no no i don't redefine terms these are the terms it's flatter if that needs to redefine terms no we're trying to bring everything back to simplicity and empirical data and by by changing what terms mean like you guys don't even know what level means which is is amazing wow no when you hold us to the standard of what you consider level mean meaning yes that's correct no i'll go with the dictionary definition of level that dictionary is incorrect it's incorrect all right so um anything's incorrect unless you say so cool no that's not what i said that's so do we do we just not listen to anything the dictionary says then uh do we not go do we not go those are red herrings because i am not making those claims you are asking questions that i am i'm saying that you guys don't know what the word level means we know what the word level means because you disagree with the dictionary right we don't assume that the earth is a sphere the earth does not have a core it doesn't have a radius so level has nothing level uh i'm sorry no it's not it is because the earth definitely has a core um seismology demonstrates that okay we've uh all right so if one of you whenever you're ready because it's so hard to do this if one of you is willing to give the other the last word we can jump go ahead plain truth um i mean i'm probably due another shot by now right um let me see if i could just i guess you're going to get allowing me one opportunity to am i still sharing i can get your share back this is all good stuff for episode 40 of flourishing idiots okay so can you see this we don't see it yet i still yeah no you're not sharing it okay come on here comes gotcha okay it's it's very simple to understand this is not complicated i don't need to construct a mathematical expression of what i see i can simply use my own words to describe these things the reason why i cannot see farther on the right side of the panel is because the refractive index is creating a an inferior mirage we can clearly see that we have similar um topographical markers that show us that we are looking in the same direction uh what we do see as a difference is that this treeline is lower than this treeline now i set up in the same place when i take these observations it's right next to the same um post so i don't move i set my my it's all it's all the same so i'm not uh any higher so you would you would think possibly that i'm higher on this observation to the left i'm not the other thing that happens with the refractive index is the way that the water is presented to us it actually looks like it's farther away from us and um and i'm higher over here the water is larger right it to me it looks like it's closer to me it looks like i'm lower down to it and i've had um opposition challenge me on this saying that i am not in the same location because of these very uh facts so what i want to again close with is that the reason why we have a horizon right here is because of the refractive index this is not curvature this happens at every single stage in the distance i can show you numerous images where this horizon is not here tomorrow it's up uh farther away okay or it's closer to me it's actually larger over here on the left we don't have any um inferior miraging at all so we can see as far as our eyes are able to and that's pretty darn near uh the shoreline over there okay so is on the left you see that top blue line is that curvature there is that curvature is that horizon there where the water ends is that where the curve is or over here where this line is visually is this where the curve is because this is 12 miles away so they're in your model there is curvature here somewhere but see this is the way the world presents itself to us this is not curving away we are looking straight ahead into the distance the only thing that ever obstructs our ability to see farther is the effects of the aether band which is the cause of the refractive index okay everything that goes into that all the numbers you want for temperature all of that stuff is just simply the medium through which we are looking curvature is never due i'm sorry uh yeah curvature is never no obstruction is never due to the curvature of the earth is always only and ever will be the result of the effects of refraction oh thanks so much gentlemen it has been a truly fun one it's been a wild one an energetic one i'm gonna pull you out of screen chair and then we will jump into all the audience's questions or i should say technically folks because we do have that one we can probably only do about an hour of audience q&a and then we have to do the should pot be legal debate which is right after that's going to be a lot of fun yes it should it's going to be a wild one and that will have skylar fiction and john maddox they're going to be debating tonight you see that on your bottom right of your screen so with that jumping right into it want to say thanks so much everybody for all of your questions and comments as well if you forgive me there are some that i might just to try to get through as many questions as possible i may skip over a few especially if they're from steven steen it's just something that i have to do oh i love his his are the best it's a nasty guy he'll hit on anybody all right so we appreciate it folks thanks so much and by the way want to remind you that both of our guests have their links in the description so if you're listening and you're like man i'm loving this well you can hear plenty more where that came from at their links that i put there in the description for you all right i i do just want to say thank you to plain truth for taking time out from saving the mushroom kingdom to debate me it's very nice of you you bet now schrodinger's cat thanks for your super chat they said is travis just going to travis some of these people are coming at you but i know that you've got thick skin you've been on the internet a while they say is travis just going to go down the list until every glober destroys him that seems like the goal um yeah i mean i think that it's it's very simple to go through the observations um that i have again i made my point that simply because craig says i have to measure him to his standards of providing the data that he wants to explain what's very simply explainable with normal language doesn't necessarily mean that that's true gotcha thanks very much next i appreciate your super chat from foe hammer 335 what's up hope hammer they say flurfs make my brain bleed they made my brain sad next up scott lot thanks for your super chat they say plain truth how high is the polaris star from the planet or i'm sorry the plane of the earth who knows gotcha thanks so much fourth dimensional jake appreciate your question they said no james no flat earth equals bad it's dumb then let's see okay well next thanks so much not exactly a flat earth there c4 thanks for your super chat they said fried black swan anyone i'm buying let's see i can't tell the emoticons confuse me so sorry about that c4 i'm trying to figure out what the there's a missing emoticon for me but movie theory thanks so much for your super chat they say if you think earth's a globe hit like very nice uh let's see a poser of religions thanks for your super chat they say my favorite channel thanks loving this while all credit to the speakers we i have loved it as well and so i want to say thanks so much to these guys it's the speakers that make it fun so sigir pharaohs rabia thanks for your super chat they say fight the flat earth seriously oh someone's coming at you and it's sigir pharaohs they bring it on do you agree boats disappear bottom up bottom up from the shore or do you disagree with neil de grass tyson that you can't see curb unless you're 30 000 miles i think they mean hi and then he says or do you believe both uh well neil de grass tyson isn't a god and gets things gets things wrong i straight up say he is wrong about his assertion that you can't see curve at like 100 000 feet because there is many instances where you can most of the time you can but depending on the field of you and the conditions then you can so i straight up say that neil de grass tyson is wrong about that um as for boats disappearing what i say is boats will appear to disappear bottom up over the apparent horizon gotcha thanks so much and sigir pharaohs rabia with a follow-up they say what about car tires on a hot day are they past curve oh does he mean like the wavy bands you see off of like roads well refraction over hot roads is very different to refraction over cold water so when you have the same result how do you know which is different well that's why you need data to determine no you have the same effect you have the same but that's why you need data to determine what's going on because then you can mathematically model and say this is what you should be seeing based on the conditions i understand you don't like data and evidence that's cool next up thanks so much far goth 92 for your super chat they say hey can't answer if the atmosphere has a gradient oh no they're saying he can't answer if the atmosphere has a gradient next up they also say what are your refractive indexes plain wrong i think that's like a little play on your name they're playing wrong what what are my refractive indexes again i'm making observations i'm not making predictions i don't have to make a prediction with an observation because i'm looking and seeing what i see and simply describing it and offering the contrast of other observations i don't need to know the details of why i'm seeing what i'm seeing gotcha thanks so much appreciate that next up steven steen thanks for your super chat he says is this the weed debate i honestly can't tell nice mf thanks for your super chat as well they say without the data your observation is incomplete f i ding right and where's the evidence for that let's just simply a claim thanks so much nobody here thanks for your super chat they say does plain truth have geotag data on his images that proves he was in the same place each time that would be an interesting question in terms of whether or not the metadata for the cool picks p900 has that so i've not looked into that data i do know that it does log in my location but i think that's just a generic you know you're in this vicinity uh and um and whatnot so gotcha next up thanks for your super chat from gerard selig it's probably gerard selig they say travis why are you not driving in all caps and then they say i'm disappointed yeah yeah well everybody needs to take a break i've got the weekend so today's my uh weekend off or this weekend nice duke david one needs time off thanks for your super chat they say plain truth in chemistry observations come first we then use math to build the model which carries predictive power same with physics when you invoke physics math is definitely or definitionally required again i'm not making predictions gentleman or gentle lady whoever you are i'm not making a prediction gotcha thanks for your uh answer there and then andrew henzel henelsman thanks for your super chat says this is like you're embarrassing me you're the best mod james that's you're making me blush it's not it's not true but i appreciate you saying that always makes me feel good just words thanks for your super chat they say is this nathan thompson and d marbles his love child i don't know who d marbles is this somebody haven't met yet d marble the one of the guys that ran away from team skeptic oh okay gotcha g marbles not your dad is he plain truth okay never a brother from another mother they'd need some explaining if he was mf thanks for your super chat they say flirt is nice as qe hey plain truth what you tell everyone what you think about qe because that's one thing i agree with you on uh i don't really i mean i i said what i said the other night i don't regret it but i'm not going to slander anybody right now i i don't feel the need to do that gotcha next up oh that reminds me you know the only reason it made me think of this is because well a long time with this a long time ago i don't even remember who the debaters were but um i'm gonna stick my neck out a little bit for godless engineer because a long time ago i didn't do a great job and this actually happened to hoven too so i can believe that sometimes i make this mistake of we accidentally let one of the speakers badmouth uh goddess engineer while he was here and or no no he was not here to defend himself and i felt bad for it and so we had a little bit of like tension for a while but you know g you know i see sometimes he'll retweet our debates and stuff and so which is so kind because i i just so long story short i know that sometimes it's hopefully you have resolution with g e if there's anybody out there that still has a little bad blood with g e um hopefully that's resolved most people probably is but i've never had any issues with g yeah i saw um i think he's gotta there's a warmth and a kindness to him that i just hope that i i think that sometimes he also feels i don't know this for sure he hasn't said it but i hope he feels welcome here i just and and i think 99.9 people make him feel welcome maybe not stephan steen i you never know what that kind of uh next up fourth dimensional jake thanks for your super chat he said what would have on flat earth two really why oh i'm totally confused by this one fourth dimensional jake you might have to help me with that one next up andrew hands handelsman they asked how does a sunset work on a flat earth model oh interesting question yeah so the flat earth model is actually the earth right so we don't have to model anything we just go outside and observe it and the sun doesn't know egresses it goes away from us gotcha thanks so much next up appreciate your question from tjsnap they asked by what method can you measure the effects of the aether band and in what unit oh come on guys uh can you repeat that again please james oh don't they asked by what method can you measure the effects of the aether band and in what sense um yeah i'm gonna give you a drop now travis aren't you uh so the the measurements that i can display are the pictures that i've taken so i can show you the different uh levels of the effects of the refractive index when the water seems to be a shorter distance away or a longer distance away now the interesting thing that i've said from the beginning in order for me to make those kinds of measurements but in terms of the measurements that i'm making again i'm not making predictions i'm trying to understand the dynamic of the uh the mirage or the refractive index i would have to have someone out on the water in a boat and have them go as close to where i can see to be the limit of the mirage and then work the numbers there but again that's just a description so i don't need to quantify anything i don't need to model anything out i don't need to mathematically represent anything i can just simply say what i see on paper gotcha thank you very much okay next up steven steen thanks for your super chat you sicko he says over 700 people just watched craig get flattened very nice fourth dimensional jake thanks for your super chat they said evidence for rotation is evidence for rotation science does not prove anything only math math yes theorems flat earth is either stupid or dishonest you pick it's one of the the main things that um flat earthers don't seem to understand about the word proof is that the only place that proof exists is in mathematics that's that's the purpose of mathematics so you know it just astounds me every time they say there's proof of flat earth and then say they don't need to provide math to back it up because that's a contradiction in terms gotcha and we'll give you a chance to respond of course uh plain truth and we'll jump to the next question yeah i i guess i i've drawn this analogy i did it last week as well that simply because um my interpretation again i'm gonna uh segue over to the bible because it's an apropos analogy i can get into arguments with uh christians who interpret the bible differently than i do and they want to hold me to their standards of what the local interpretation means well if you hold me to your standard then by all means i'm going to fail according to your standard so that's what the nature of debate is we want to display our reasons for what we say and why we say it and then the evaluation is which one best comports with the observations or reality as it is so yes i am going to disagree with mainstream science i am going to say that their terminology has been crafted in such a way so that it it eliminates any opposition this has to be exclusively what this means and if you don't say it this way you're wrong obviously you're wrong gotcha thanks so much i just saw nathan thompson impersonator in the live chat saying that the earth is a sphere i thought did they the day it changes line is but it's a fake account very funny um hard core darkness hard x core darkness thanks for your super chat they said this isn't a debate bring matt dilla hunty back well just to let you know first of all this was a terrific show this is obviously really fun and also matt dilla hunty will be back if you haven't heard folks it's in our events list on our youtube channel now matt dilla hunty and david wood from ax 17 apologetics the biggest single individual ran apologetics channel on youtube so bigger than ravi zacharias's youtube channel or frank turrick and not as big as apologia studios because that's a team though doesn't count okay so they they're going to debate christian versus secular humanist ethics and it's going to knock your socks off i'm seriously pumped so anyway thanks for that super chat then we have one from oh ellen h just lay in a smackdown the verbal smackdown on plain truth they say talking to plain truth is like arguing the five-year-old five-year-old says i am right you are wrong with no proof plain truth you do you agree are you are you sure he wasn't describing the way that craig responded to the evidence that i was bringing no uh that's not evidence no evidence you guys are so no uh that's not data no i just love what data you guys are fun king zero two four thanks for your super chat they said plain oh my goodness poor plain truth i'm sorry plain truth these some of these are they're coming at you so whatever i you know what is like wohton gets it worse if that makes you feel better they say plain truth is a diluted simpleton simpleton i'm sorry he's childish or his childish ramblings on refraction and other atmospheric effects are laughable travis your amateurish attempt at describing the world we see around us is embarrassing well if you consider simplicity embarrassing then i guess that's your prerogative but um the world is simple the world is logical the world is empirical and if i'm ever allowed to actually make it through presenting the data that i have i think that uh people will be able to simply see that the reason why we see things in front of us is because they're actually there gosh yeah thanks so much we're gonna move quickly we've got about like 29 minutes so thanks so much c4 who says team skeptic keeps ignoring me and i want to know why also great job on our day to date thanks for your kind words and this must be an inside joke is c4 a buddy of team skeptics i don't know huh okay steven steen thanks yes he is okay gotcha steven steen responds by saying c4 has a restraining order to stay away from team skeptic very nice gerard selig thanks for your super chat they said you ignored my super chat i i totally read it so they say never mind all they want is a wrench i promise not to misuse it thank you thanks so much for helping us moderate appreciate that all of you out there uh you guys do a great job we're pretty like maybe sometimes not even for our own good because i know youtube has stricter rules we we usually only ban or delete hate speech like sometimes we'll ban spam as well but uh it's got to be pretty like pretty bad spam but thanks for all of you moderators k 024 thanks for your super chat they say travis before debating someone within education would you not think it prudent to learn some stuff so you don't embarrass yourself i guess that's part of being an arrogant deluded and educated pr ic k yeah um having an education does not uh qualify or disqualify you from being able to assess and evaluate reality so um while i might not know terms while i might not know um standards according to particular fields you know if i was having a conversation with someone who wasn't familiar with biblical studies but had an opinion about the bible there's no way i would ever castigate the fact that they aren't educated like me you don't have a degree in my field no they can have a conversation they can use their common sense now they might be wrong but that's where the discussion happens so just because uh it's not my field doesn't mean i can't evaluate and assess uh reality gotcha thanks so much perjure one hopefully i'm saying that right who asked fight the flat earth is the concave chick coming after no um unfortunately she doesn't want to come back on the internet due to some disparaging comments against her which is a shame because she was one of the best guests i've had on the channel um i'm gonna try and get her back on but only if you guys promise to be nice gotcha thanks so much next up p barrens thanks for your super chat they said thank you plain truth but our princess is in another castle isn't that a meme i can't remember i had seen that before it's a mario joke okay gotcha g1 sound oh i get it okay gotcha g1 soundwave the plain truth please go back to school oh my gosh some of these i'm like oh no pay true them you can respond if you want i mean it's not worth responding to me these are stupid little hand grenades that they're lobbying and they're faceless keyboard warriors whatever next up appreciate your super chat from g1 soundwave who says oh wait we just read that one that's embarrassing okay jack alone occurred master thanks for your super chat they said good show congrats on the win fight the flat earth you got a fan out there fight boom stupid whore energy strikes again glad to see you again she says why doesn't the angular size of the sun change throughout the day why shouldn't is it moves towards and away from you the that's uh simply uh drawing a conclusion about something that you might not have enough information on no no it's an empirical fact that if things get further away they look smaller yeah on earth yeah but that the the sun is in the sky so there's different characteristics and conditions up there that we don't know about i mean it changes the laws of physics does it you don't have it do you have a law of physics on what goes on up in the atmosphere and how yes we do lots of thermodynamic sorry fluid dynamics is an extremely good one that tells you what goes on in the atmosphere but anyway right so those fluid dynamics can affect the appearance of the sun and if you're not able to test or evaluate those then that could be a cause for which you don't have an explanation because you can't get up there and test those things so yeah i agree there's something up there that uh because it's not on the ground it's not going to behave the same way things do on the ground next you just you can't simply extrapolate you can't simply extrapolate that you think the sun should behave the same way a a mac truck or a mountain does because you get closer or farther away to it what you just said is one of the most insanely dumbest things i've ever heard everyone watching this stream is now dumber for listening to that wow did you just make that up that's very very clever no i paraphrased um yeah right yeah gosh next up thanks so much for your super chat next uh one is from chris gilroy appreciate it they say to plain truth how can you invent a term like aether band but not have a unit or a formula or a way for others to back up your assertions magic and where is your evidence that i have to meet that standard gotcha thanks very much and g was and it's not magic gotcha and thanks so much g1 sound wave strikes again i haven't even like read this but i have a feeling based on their last one the last one was that one of them like pretty abusive one they say also fight the flat earth oh this is okay so nope okay they say fight the flat earth way to take plain truth to the wood shed so you got a fan out there fight and thank you sir it's true that i read these in a way that i put a little like mustard on them when i say them out loud i'm just trying to like communicate how i think that they were saying that in the super chat i would do it fairly though you know if there's one that was as barbed toward uh fight i would still do that so i'm not trying to be hard on plain truth he's been a good sport it's not easy i you got to give him you know appreciate it so mitch garter thanks for your super chat they say the plain truth you was wrong about the horizon in the pick on the right you can see mirroring further up well obviously if you want to maybe come on on my channel after this show we can pull up the picture and you can point it out to me i'd be interested in looking at it gotcha next up thanks for your super chat from mitch gardener who says the plain truth oh no we just read that that's okay john good says confirmation bias here by atheists and others uh if you want to respond to that you may fight what did he say sorry they said confirmation bias here by atheists and others confirmation bias is nothing to do with empirical data gotcha thanks so much folks let's see i think we do have a time to read a couple of the standard questions as well we've gotten through the super chat so spart 344 thanks for your question they asked a question for plain truth at what level have you studied the physics of optics and wavelengths uh what's the uh what's the reason why i need to do that to make the observations i'm making go understand them again no no again i'm not making predictions gotcha appreciate it and let's see here next up appreciate your super chat this is a question question oh we did have a super chat just come in one second let me pull this up thanks for your super chat from chris gilroy who said plain truth so you say a thing thus so i think they're saying so because you say a thing we have to believe you well no you don't have to believe me but it would be interesting to have an actual healthy discussion where we uh walk through the observations and talk through the processes and that was in their their reference to their aether band question namely like what units do you use james gotcha next up thanks for your question lots are based out mass films appreciate it they say ask plain truth how seasons work on a flat earth taking into consideration the sun never changes angular size nor does it speed up or slow down as it traverses the sky right so two observations i guess one we have seasons and two we make an observation about the sun during those seasons okay there you go you just what why why can't you guys just see the world and just appreciate because there's more complicated than that it doesn't have to be what you guys make it complicated let me ask you a question what happens when i turn on the light switch this is a complete red herring it's not it's not yeah it's irrelevant it's not irrelevant because what happens when you turn on the light switch is the light comes on it's not as simple as that there is more to it seasons a light switch that's not the point you're you're claiming it has no relevance it has relevance to your statement about look at the world in the simplest way because that's a silly thing to do because if i look at the world in the simplest way you're talking about something wait let me finish my point let me finish my point if i look at the world in the simplest way that means that if i turn on the light switch the light comes on and that's all there is to it but no there is more to it you are now talking about something that has been manufactured by a human being it's not the same it's irrelevant it's irrelevant because what i mean no no my point is that things are more complicated than just looking at and making deductions irrelevant we are going to read one last super chat this has just come in from stupid horror energy as she likes to call herself we have another one from john good as well she says predictions are important in that it shows that you are on the right track in understanding reality okay again where is your evidence that i need to make a prediction about something that i simply see okay here's my prediction if there is a high level of refraction we will not see as far as we would like but if there is a low level of refraction we will see farther there you go gotcha next up appreciate it from john good who says confirmation bias by atheists and something lovers so they again are asserting that i think you already it's similar to their last one and then g1 soundwave thanks for your super chat they said fight the flat earth brings evidence flurfs bring an arsenal of nah nah thank you very much folks it's been a true pleasure i am putting the link we've got to get ready for the next debate otherwise i honestly would love to party here all night because this is always fun i am putting the link for the next debate which is coming on in 18 minutes with skylar fiction in john maddox john maddox says that marijuana should be illegal that you shouldn't be able to smoke it in your own private household even so if you want to you can check out on that debate i feel like oh it's like a news anchor provocateur uh so just laughing thanks for your super chat just came in they said the plain truth having randy flat earth coaching you via chat on your channel during the debate did not help you just saying so they're coming yeah i interacted with randy just i i didn't do anything that he said not i don't even know what he said so whatever gotcha so thanks so much folks hopefully if you are insulted by john maddox who says you should not be able to smoke marijuana in your own private residence well then we'll see you at the next debate that should be a lively one so thanks everybody for being here and we hope you keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable one last thanks to our guests thanks so much fight and plain truth pleasure until next time their links are in the description take