 Hey, welcome everybody to another modern day debate. I'm your moderator tonight Justin Tonight's topic flat versus globe a classic a favorite We have Mark Driesdale Delcos on the globe side Mercedes and Whitsitt gets it on the flat side The globe side is opted to go first gentlemen. You have 12 minutes total the floor is all yours Well, thank you for having us again. This should be an interesting debate So our side is going to be arguing for a globe What basically 99% of science is built around is the earth being a globe Not pizza-shaped not hollow underneath You know, it's what we see. It's what everything that we do in in our reality all based on So when we send satellites up all the mathematics that we use is based on a globe When we send a space probe out to Mars We've already been to the Sun now with a space probe All the mathematics that we use are all based on a earth that is rotating as a globe That is going around the Sun while going around the berry point of between the Sun and the and the earth Everything that we do Points to a globe even on the globe. We have tides. We have tidal poles from the moon I've heard wits that say that, you know, we can't be sure That the moon has this gravitational pull that gravity doesn't exist and yet we see tides We do see the effect of the moon on our our water system on the oceans Also, we have a a slight problem that when we're at the poles We know that things weigh differently at the poles than they do at the the equator. You got about a 1% difference So when we measure gold, that's why we don't measure them on measure it on electronic scales. We compare it to a known Mass, and that's how we weigh gold and that's obviously centrifugal force at the equator So so we also have that to to tell us that it's spinning I've heard wits. Let's say that, you know, we can't look to the to these stars and assume that everything's a sphere We can't say that the the Sun's a sphere We can't tell how far away the Sun is like I actually listened to some of his debate debates over the last couple days very interested very well read Educated person I do respect what he's saying But I would say that everything that we see on earth I can't think of one thing that that he was saying that I would stop myself and say, okay Make sense that in in that one sense. I understand how it's flat even when he talks about gases not being affected by gravity and that you know all is Electrical levitation and all this type of stuff We I just find that we have to make up a lot of science to to cover this stuff that doesn't exist I also find that there would have to be just Millions literally millions of people lying about what their day job is all the way from the people that put the satellites up The International Space Station would have to be a lie sending probes out to the Sun to You know, we've been all the way it's Pluto and past now Would all have to be a lie the moon landing would have to be a lie Just everything would have to be a lie and I'm not sure Where the advantage of this stuff being a lie because it really would have to be a lie because everything that we do as far as orbital Mechanics goes would be all thrown out the window. So everything that we're doing in the world as far as anything escaping Earth would have to be a lie There is no secondary Mathematics that could come in and say okay. Well these mathematics would work alongside of what we know right now So so we'll just use this model and it could go either way. It's not an either way Proposition here it would have to be one or the other our mathematics work And again, we pay millions of people Yearly to do this job and I guarantee you they're not just sitting at home on their couches Coming up with with all these lies and all this staging. It's just it makes for really interesting Talking point. I just don't see where there's any reality in it, but I'm really looking forward to tonight I I hope it's fun. I hope it's respectful. I've heard many Flat Earth debates go very very sideways quickly. So I look forward to hearing what Mercedes and Yeah, I look forward to hearing what they have to say and I'll let my partner take over now and see what he has to Say I am sitting in a car. I will be heading home I should be home in about 15 20 minutes here and then my picture will be a lot more stable and hopefully better lighting All right, so I'm gonna approach this from a more I'm more interested in to see why I think Flat Earth is an interesting concept How much time do I have? Justin Okay, so I think Flat Earth is an interesting concept and like a conspiracy overall because It doesn't really deal with death or losing anything a lot of conspiracies including like a vaccine anything any conspiracy can think of really is Built around losing someone death around avoiding something or you know generally putting yourself somewhere that you want to avoid I think Flat Earth is interesting because it's one of the only ones that I found as writing a paper on it to where The reason to be a Flat Earth or isn't to avoid loss in the sense of losing somebody or to avoid death It comes off more as a need for either I don't say validation but something to where you Feel inferior and want to be the expert that you know, you actually couldn't be And so throughout this debate, I specialize in emergent properties and complex networks specifically consciousness and theory of mind understanding things like that I've been focusing on LLMs a lot recently But I'm going to approach this. I just think it's gonna be an interesting look into Flurfs and I have some fun questions and for the record. I do have this. Can I screen share really quick? Okay, how do I do that? Share screen? Please don't share something that's not good. Is this the right one? Yes, yes, okay Go All right. Does this look like it's good Okay, so yeah, so I remember what's in the previous debate saying that nobody has taken more flights than he has I Have to correct you because I fly a lot flew a lot a few years ago Because I was doing a lot of work in Tennessee with industrial equipment. So I have quite a few flights I just go on price line and find the cheapest one, but we can you know, we've done quite a bit more than seven We keep scrolling. I'll stop scrolling. But you know, there's the end we can understand But I can assure you that from the plane the earth does not look flat And we have this fun thing I mentioned last time I was in a debate. Hopefully it's muted This is an SS TV that you can do we can't do anymore, but you could find on YouTube. You can go on there like 10 15 years ago No, no, it's not playing yet. It's black. It's purposely black. So this is received through sound only through a ham radio Transmitted from the ISS and you can get there. You sometimes they transmit pictures of earth Some things they transmit like their ID badge just for fun, you know stuff But you can find videos all around YouTube of them transmitting these pictures live because you just be some guy with a hand radio You could do it on a I think a bow thing I was gonna use and you just have an extended antenna It's not like it's you know, it's not restrict. There's no special equipment, but I thought this was interesting just because this is One that I found I Have them on a an old camcorder, but I have to grab that but that's all how do I stop? Sharing stop sharing. Okay, cool. So that's that's really all I have I'm gonna try and because I know everybody's seen the flatter debates of oh, it's you know level or whatever But I think it'd be interesting to look more into why and how they think and that's the end of my presentation All right. Thank you so much Delco So for anyone who's just joining us tonight's debate flat versus globe. It's everyone's favorite good time It's flats turn to give us their opening statements, but just before I give the floor over to them I want to remind everyone to go ahead hit that like hit that subscribe and you can start getting those super chats in whenever you're ready We will be getting to those super chats in about an hour and 15 minutes from now so Flat side the floor is all yours Alrighty so I will go ahead and take it There were a lot of questions I wanted to address a few things that Mark said He mentioned that millions of people would basically have to be lying in Order for such a huge scheme to be pulled off and I would argue that that's actually not true. Our government has obviously Committed a lot of conspiracies as we were talking about with Devin There's obviously a lot of conspiracies out there And there's a lot of conspiracies that our own government has released to be true that they were hiding from us for years And it was just people at the top that knew it wasn't all the the soldiers and all the Marksmen like everything on this earth works a lot like how a pyramid scheme does and a lot of the bottom people are not Going to be told what the people at the top are doing So it does not have to be millions of people in NASA and I can tell you from experience that a lot of the people in NASA are actually independent contractors and they're given specific jobs and tasks and specific levels of Confidentiality of where you get to know this much information that much information or this much information So it's just the people at the top that really have to know what exactly is going on as far as who's lying about the shape Of the earth that does not have to be the person sitting there trying to design You know like a helium balloon for NASA because they admit that they still do those and attach it to satellites, which are satellites So yeah, there's a lot of there's a lot there That we can get into in more detail But also on the mathematics side too that you mentioned The mathematics that we've been using the mathematics we've been using are based on things like a compass or or a Horizontal plane for thousands of years everybody knew that the earth was flat So the mathematics there were for a flat earth not for curvature that is a newer math and it's a theoretical math and They also use gravity within their math their theoretical math and gravity itself as a theory too It's never been stated that it's a lot So it's been a theory because it's made of 90% of that dark Energy. Oh Mercedes we lost your mic there somewhere Mercedes can you hear us? Oh dear Mercedes she can't hear us and we can't hear her Mercedes your audio cut out. You can't hear us. I don't know Her headset probably disconnected and she has no he actually could mean just zero and in a lot of NASA Documents if you go look, can you hear me? He does equal zero which is quite interesting When I looked into gyroscopes for the first time I went to NASA documents That was the first place I looked and one of the interesting things to me was that they had gravity Equaling zero in almost every single equation that they had So it meant that it didn't even equate to anything. It wasn't actually being used as a real thing It was just a placeholder So when Devin was asking or our do flat earthers just like feel inferior This where this place where this where this comes from now a lot of us were huge into Science fiction. I myself was really big. I actually talked about it on this channel last time. I was really big into sci-fi I was huge into Stargate SG-1 Stargate Atlantis Babylon 5. I actually grew up being a sci-fi kid So when my dad Decided to change to be into a flat earther I took that as a challenge and I tried to prove them wrong But in order to prove them wrong I had to know what the actual argument for the flat earth was and so I went to those sources and at the time A lot of them had you know documentaries out there like Eric DeBay had stuff ODD TV had stuff Some of them were on YouTube. Some of them got taken down and you had to go other places to look I went to the NASA gov I went to the military which a lot of them took their own FOIAs down for some reason CIA had their FOIAs and so did FBI on their website and all of them had documents on flat earth Probably totaling over 50 documents So it's it's got a lot more to it than I think people would first assume and That the fact that we have so much information on it and it's been around for so long Should make people question it because I was actually I almost feel like I was more inferior back then because I thought I knew I thought I knew that the Sun was 93 million miles away and why Like I knew I knew a lot of that stuff and I thought that you know I was smart because I knew that so to have to question my own world view and my own belief system and thinking flat earth was stupid, which is where most of us start out at Yeah, I never would have assumed I would have become a flat earther So you have to realize that all these people that do they have to literally be convinced against their own belief system and their own World view to get to the point that they're at now and with that I'll turn it over to witsit too Because I know he's got a good presentation to kind of hopefully show some of what I just talked about All right, just so you are aware Mercedes you cut out for maybe what? 1520 seconds and you couldn't hear us either So I don't know if you've got a short in your headset Maybe or something in your switch position, but just so you're aware, but I have full confidence that witsit will Fill in those blanks. So sorry about that guys. It's okay. Go ahead. What's it? All right. Yeah, I'm sharing screen Oh, I'll put that right up. Cool. You're good to go All right, cool. So There's a basic few questions like No, the debate's not about why would people think the air is flat? That's just a complete Red herring. We're deciding if we're trying to discuss if it is in fact flat or a spinning globe You know psychoanalysis it basically equates to poisoning the well and that is a fallacy But so this is as to the motion claim we can break it up into two fundamental claims the the spherical geometry claim and the motion claim and They require evidence since they are positive claims I here's Einstein himself saying that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment after he came across Mickelson Morley which led him to special relativity the prerequisite to general relativity He went claiming that they can detect the motion of the earth around the Sun is going against their own belief system People will say that this is cherry-picked I invite one person to actually articulate why and I would happily discuss it Same thing here no terrestrial experiment can actually detect the motion of the earth Which means it equates to a belief system and it literally cannot be detected Here he is saying that you know Mickelson Basically, he actually uses the word proved for all the people that hate that word that everything on the earth takes Places if the earth is in a state of rest another piece of it here was I hear also talk about something electric and You got it We have to make up all these things with no science to try so hard to make the earth flat It's actually the exact opposite because this right here is just a fact that we have ionization right We have equipotential charge increasing from the ground and it comes down to the surface. It's measurable We have a downward electric current Here's how you can replicate that with two physical Gaussian surfaces or plates that act as the surfaces And this is what we observe on the earth Of course, you can't have this on a sphere if you put a conductive sphere in an electric field Then you have radial distribution therefore no uniformity quite literally the field that we have on the earth Which is a vertical electric field is impossible on a globe It's also impossible without a physical Gaussian surface or certainly can't be replicated and it's a baseless claim to claim that it is so here is actually excerpts from Richard Feynman's lectures and he says right here that there's a current density about 10 micro micro amps per cubic meter in addition to what We just discussed which is the potential gradient and the air is not a perfect Insulator and so because of this conductivity a small current caused by the electric field of the earth passes from the sky down to the earth And although this current density in the air is only a few micro micro amps per square meter There are very many square meters on the earth So the total electric current reaching the earth surface at any time is very nearly 1800 amps the current of course is quote-unquote positive and it goes down to the earth But the voltage supply of 400,000 volts at the current of 1800 amps now These numbers are actually built upon the assumption of the total size of the globe earth So that's obviously not even true. The point is that there is measurably a downward electric current on the earth So we're not making up science. We're not adding to science We're talking about hey in the real physical world This is what we can physically measure and we can manipulate this improve it changes something vector Spacetime is the made-up thing required in that scenario. This is a Kanagu Of course, this is an observation that can take place two different times every year We know that the Sun changes where it's path throughout the year and it sets just behind Kanagu on a Couple days throughout the year people go from all around the world They know they can come and see that they'll see Kanagu Mountain behind in front of the Sun on these particular days Based on the observer observer point. You should not see the mountains. They should be blocked by Earth curvature By a few thousand feet so the globe earth model requires you claim that this is refracted How convenient that refraction conspires with the earth to make it look like it's flat that every single day That the Sun just happens to set right behind it to give us the silhouette We can actually see the Kanagu Mountains as if they're really just there I don't know how it would look any different if they were actually there That's what you would see but no we have to actually deny our sense to say that's not there So if you believe the globe you must believe that those mountains are not actually there and refraction just so happens to Consistently on that day make us think the earth is flat. You brought up tides. These are called tidal nodes These do not work in your model I have a harbor paper that says over a century of fell tidal theories your model cannot explain the tides Admittedly and also doesn't move exactly with the moon. It's delayed and not consistent You cannot explain tidal nodes. I don't need to replace it. Although I probably could so Gravity doesn't even work for that I'm just gonna cover some of the basic fallacies because then we can get into the details But I would like to prevent fallacies, right? So of course one of them is attacking the person instead of the argument Which is called a strawman fallacy or an ad hominid fallacy, right? So flat earthers just don't understand basic science is an example, right? Or poisoning the well similar it doesn't even have these fallacies on here It's kind of crazy, but I remember them so it's this one is dismissing the argument by asserting the person who made the argument Doesn't have the proper credentials. That's called a credentials fallacy, right? So you don't have a degree in the subject I'm mentioning these because you will see that they will come up repeatedly in the debate and fallacious arguments are invalid arguments Attacking a misrepresentation of the other person's arguments similar to how Mark called it a pizza Why don't we fall off the edge of your space pizza is literally the example I use that's a strawman fallacy It should make you think that if during the debate that once I can only use fallacious reasoning and that should make you wonder Why that is argument from unproved conclusion based on the beliefs of a large group of people Example 7 billion people believe the earth is a ball, but you think you're right That's an appeal to consensus or majority or adpopulant fallacy And that is of course exactly what we heard with 99.9 percent of science and people believe that the earth's a ball That is a relevant argument that because of perceived authority believes something to be true It must be true is an appeal to authority all scientists agree that the earth is a globe That is an appeal to an authority and it is fallacious Using ad hominotax to preemptively discredit the opponent win on that one all flat earthers are science denying a religious conspiracy theorist Or I don't know all flat earthers just fill the need to find something that they can pretend that they're smarter important enough to act If they have expertise in something they could never actually have expertise in and so that they picked this to pretend that it's a It's a very effective method, right, but it is a fallacy it's one of the most disingenuous fallacies because you're preemptively discrediting the opponent and then trying to Discredit them as a whole or their motivation or psychoanalyze them and group them in so that you can dismiss their points So hopefully we can avoid all of the ad homs in different fallacies I mean I have many more here, but it doesn't matter and have Einstein employee with this He said I never made one of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking and you don't have to convince me Einstein I know you didn't so long story short to wrap it up. We have physical evidence We can talk about electric field debunks the globe we talked about the longest since observations behind Kanagud debunks the globe The spinning tilted wobbling globe is a positive claim. It doesn't matter how many people believe it You have to verify that that's the case. So hopefully we can actually Get to the bottom of it without any type of fallacies or interruptions and I would appreciate it I think the people here will probably do a good job on that So the one question I want answered in this debate and we'll see if it ever happens Can you substantiate and verify the globe earth model is in fact true void of logically fallacious? Reasoning That's my question simple question simple request. Just just one will suffice void of logically fallacious reason All right. Thank you. That is it All right. Thank you. What's it? Yeah, so that's our opening statements done and just did we're finished with those if you haven't hit like or subscribe yet Then what are you waiting for and the the super chats are coming in nice and fast If you guys haven't noticed modern a debate has started to pick up some sponsors So we are very very happy to be able to Take money from these people. That's for sure Yeah, I know there's visible mobile which is more of a Texas based company. So Check them out. I believe you can right now get like a $20 a month plan with this company which as a Canadian I mean, that's not even talk about how much we pay for mobile and then Planet Fitness Which if you guys have seen James and you want to know where he bought his muscles, there you go All right, so open platform I've got 60 minutes available for you guys to discuss Flat versus globe as long as you guys don't try to over talk each other too much and you don't start to insult each other I will just sit here quietly. All right, the floor is yours. Have fun All right I can answer your question if we have a what is it universe sandbox anything anything that simulates the universe the galaxy? Whatever and if it works offline and it can predict where the shit will be Sorry, I'm gonna swear. I guess sorry if it predicts where the shit will be in the sky and it's offline It's not getting any data to do that 10 20 years and the model works because it's using the model like that That's all there is to it, right? If it's not pulling data from somewhere It's using something to accurately predict it and that would make sense. So but Okay, let me let me try to Let me try to paraphrase that for the room so they know what you're saying. He's saying that basically satellites They send certain signals and we're able to wrong. That's not at all what I'm talking. Well, then you need our I said if you have a piece of software like universe sandbox Which is on any person's desktop you can buy on steam for 10 bucks If you pull out your ethernet cable or your internet you kill your internet and then you have it predict Okay, whatever where you know the planets or whatever you want gonna be at a certain time 20 years 30 years You know a day a week whatever if it works offline and you can figure out accurately where it is Then that model is working. There is something in that program That's saying this is where these will be at this time and it's working and it's a pattern and if it's open source Then you know what pattern it's using because it's open source The problem I see with that Devon is so we have things called star maps They've been used for like thousands of years that sailors have used to navigate where they're at on the earth And they could just pinpoint where they were just because of that which is similar to what you're saying So it's not really disproving It's not that you're it's not that you're using it as a map It's the fact that it's able if I have something that can make predictions about something like often another room, right? If I've modeled the dogs behavior in the Exactly, that's what I'm saying if I can accurately model it enough Then I know that that model of reality that I've created is accurate because I can use it to predict things in the future That's saying it's incorrect. So it's incorrect. How is it incorrect? Show me in the future without any input given. How is that not a working one? We could do that we could do that before technology and we could do that before people believed in the globe and people believe the earth All of them they predicted when certain things would be at a sky in the sky And that doesn't matter at all because It absolutely was accurate still accurate to this day. It's called a anti-katera mechanism. You can just say we all know That's not a thing. No, that doesn't work. We're gonna interrupt Hold on. We're a few minutes We're two minutes on you, okay Yeah, it's gonna wake over if there's gonna be love the energy. I don't like why we hold on When I'm talking nobody's gonna talk, okay? We love the energy, but if you're gonna come hard, they're gonna come hard back. Let them have the chance to okay? Yeah, all right. What's it the floor is yours Okay, so I asked for evidence that verifies and validates the globe Earth model void of logically fallacious reasoning and he said I can answer your question and then he invoked a Mathematical model assuming that the earth is a sphere built upon the cyclical nature of things like the sky and the planets and then said the fact that it Continues to acknowledge the cycle that hasn't changed for thousands of years proves that his presupposed globe model is true It's affirming the question reification affirming the consequent reification fallacy and begging the question Which is informal those are multiple fallacies and one certainly not one void of logically fallacious reasoning So I guess the question is still on the table Do we have an actual piece of substantial evidence to validate the globe void of logically fallacious reasoning? Yes If I have a single model that works and can make accurate predictions about any outside anything then it works It doesn't matter if we could do in the past less accurately or more accurately whatever it doesn't matter It's all irrelevant if I have this Model on my phone and the phone works and it can track the shit then it works and that's all there is to it There's no question bro. What go what if you have two different models that both can accurately predict something? Are they both simultaneously true? Well, they would be used for different things They would be true within the use case that you're using them in right Right if I'm trying to mark like accurately model Mars better right and see more detail where it's going some kind of land there I'd have a specialized fine-tuned model for that use, right? Let's say let's say you have two models wrong Let's see you have two models that make fundamentally opposite claims like their contradictory They don't make the same claim, but they both can make a prediction Are they both true? Well, is the prediction right in both scenarios? Yes Well, you'd have to show an example where both models could be completely different because I've never seen that if you could show that Example in reality then sure, but you can make up a thought question about anything you want That's okay. Yeah, I'll have pink unicorn and the purple unicorn with the pink unicorn stab me first I don't know. I've never seen a pink you can't make that assumption You can't say we have two different models that are completely different But they have the same result unless you're talking about something specific, but you could have overlap, right? You could have meshing or you could have some sort of weird little gap where they kind of mesh like with your mirror Sorry, I need water when you're merging an LLM you have things with your models You have things that split and they they build together and you can have meshing So if you have two models that are different, right? They can have overlaps and they can work on the same things It's not like your question is just it's not even stupid. It's just wrong It's okay, you can't enter the that is the answer The answer is I have a model if I put it on a hard drive I have now a physical model That is ones and zeros that is alignment of little magnetic particles on my disc It is a physical model that exists that I can use to predict the world It's not an unsecured is a physical thing because you like physical physical thing This was a hard drive that stores a model of the earth that we can use to actually make predictions offline on its own That's all you need real fast real fast. Try to let me respond I don't want it to be like just me and him dominating the base. I want to make sure we let Oh, well, you're losing so you're trying to dip. Wow. No, dude. Sad with you've interrupted everything I did and you are you are chirping it All right, try not to interrupt me How about that? So and I want to make a point to the audience Globe erthers always have to interrupt the conclusion of the opponent's position because that's the only way that they can Stop the truth from getting out there But well, I'm going to address your point and then we're going to let other people also speak that was my point I don't want to just dominate the debate. That's the vibe so far. So okay I already pointed out That that is logically fallacious if you have a model based on a presupposition So let's say the earth's a sphere. I'm going to model it What am I going to use to model it the data that we've observed in the sky for thousands of years It keeps repeating in a cycle. I can use whatever model I want to I'm going to assume It's a sphere if I then make it a sphere reverse engineered off of the sky And then I say hey look the model matches the sky, of course It does that's affirming the consequent begging the question and a reification fallacy Treating it like it is in fact true your argument is if a model works, it must be true Now, this is the funny part You're not going to keep that same energy when I start pointing out how you don't you're not allowed to Which is of course, I can show you the electromagnetic nature of gravity from constant team mice He gives you the value for big g and little g and equivalents with electrostatics It completely makes all predictions that quote-unquote gravity does but claims that it's electromagnetic You have Newtonian gravity can also make similar planetary predictions and you have Einstein gravity Fundamentally contradictory and opposite theories cannot both simultaneously be true That would violate the law of non-contradiction the literal first principle of logic the literal first one So no, of course the answer is even if two models both get the same prediction if they make contradictory claims They cannot both be true that is the answer. So the table that's still on the table Do you have you're being deliberately dishonest now because I'm not talking about that? I'm talking about I don't care what other thing you have in this isolated incident It doesn't matter what other thing we're predicting if I can predict the motion of a planet a nice diversion By the way, you're not going to change topics. We were talking about this model If I have a model that I can use offline right now. It's offline. It's sitting right here How is it not an accurate model of the universe? Okay, then I can answer that I can get that how it's not is because how long have we had Uh computer technology in the modern world How long have we had it for maybe maybe good computers worth using maybe 50 years? Yeah, and in that 50 years not only have they predicted a few times that certain comments and certain things would like come and hit us Which didn't actually happen. So they've gotten things wrong But also, um, if it's only been 50 years How is that an equivalent proof? when you had thousands of years of people using things that what Like what's it and I were talking about like not just star maps, but also Then them creating things that when the sun would actually go through the holes and you see it through the shadows They would uh know when the eclipses would happen and that sort of thing and maybe it wasn't always 100 accurate I've never seen or hasn't been accurate on that model But if this has only been around for 50 years How does that prove anything because these cycles usually last Like a long time According to your science too, especially. So how does that prove anything? so I mean so first off I guess I I use the example of like a pinhole camera because I thought that's the first thing that came to mind Is like you can have that for we've had them for a long long long time But they're not very good, right? So if I wanted to take a picture of my dog I could use a camera from a million years ago. It doesn't matter, right? It's not going to be good But if I want to take a really decent picture I can go grab a DSLR and yeah, it's only existed five or ten years But it's a really damn good picture because it's new because we were able to modify things into progress and the faster that we progress It's like in a game, right? The faster you begin to progress You will exponentially increase your skill and your ability to to explore the world, right? That's how it is and uh I guess the best part is accuracy like that's that's the other answer to your question If we could predict that's kind of like the photo, right resolution if we're predicting things Oh, there's going to be a full moon eventually sometime within a day Great, but if you can actually nail down it's going to be at this position on this time right here on this plant We can look at like 523. I can go on my phone and I can see the exact like second It will be in my telescope, right? That is that is modern accuracy through technology. It's the same thing with like this arm This is an older arm and it's not very accurate But I still use it for like pick and play stuff because that's fine Who cares if you want something that's really precise and has less less issues you go with something modern Like I don't understand that argument. If you want to have something that's for Detailed, why would you not use something that's more? We know you don't understand the argument? No, no, no, no, no, that's very dishonest with it. Don't be like that. I'm talking to Mercedes I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to Mercedes. I'm talking to her. Don't butt in you're interrupting me with it Shut up Mercedes Why is it different because you you can laugh while you want with it. I'm interested in her answer I'm actually talking to her. I don't want you to butt in I'm interested in her question Why do you have a thing like a bias in your mind that says It's newer and has existed for less time. So it automatically means it's an accurate wrong Why are you taking the word of people that like had you like I wouldn't go to a mason And try and carve with like a chisel. I would use a saw right? Why would you divert to old technology? Yeah, it's existed, but who cares? Why would you do that? Why wasn't her point, bro? That was the point She said this has existed for thousands. I'm not talking to you. What's it get out of here? Is this just the doggo's model set? Well, I'm trying to get this one question answered from Mercedes I'm fine with the fact that you two are having a dialogue at the moment, but it's a 2v2 debate What's one question? It's a single I'm trying to get her to answer one question. What's it keeps jumping in to answer I'm trying to ask her a single question. I'm trying to answer her question Mercedes It's where you model again. Oh my god. What's it? Stop jumping in Mercedes Why are you of a bias towards older technology or older techniques when newer but less available or less? You know, they've been around less. Why are those inferior to you? So it's not necessarily a bias. It's more that when something has been tested improved for a long amount of time We find that to be generally more logical and more reliable than something that's only been used For a short amount of time and then telling us that that has to be accurate and that has to be true Just because it's new technology I can to clarify she made the point that if these cycles are way longer than she wanted to clarify She would make the point with it. She was You wanted a rough we in Miramar state is a I've tried we're trying to have a single question with it You don't need to clarify for her if she needs to clarify She will speak up as an adult and say clarify No, he wanted to add on to the back of her answer. I think he was justified to do so It's a 2v2 debate. I honestly don't mind him doing that. Like all right. I just wanted to get your answer That's totally that's that's fine Yeah, because what he's gonna he's talking so long you're gonna lose the good points you made and she made the point that the cycles are Really long some of these cycles take a long time much longer than these computer programs have even existed So if you're gonna claim like outright supremacy of the model, you couldn't have even tested it yet because for example Hailey's comments every 72 years or whatever you can even see half of the predictions that it's making Some of these may predictions for literally thousands of years They have way more reliability over a longer duration of time Now you can then of course affirm the consequence beg the question and reify again and then assume it would be perfect forever But that's irrelevant. So and it's not even perfect So now we get back to the point though, which is that a model is just that it's just a concept It isn't reality if you take a concept and then you add concreteness to it as if it's real It's called a reification fallacy. It is inadmissible an intellectual forum. It is irrelevant. Okay It isn't proof of anything I just explain this to you that you're affirming the consequence begging the question and reifying a model Which is a concept and you keep skating past it and talking about the model again So can we can we move on to something that actually is evidence? Do you have any evidence? What would you accept? What's it? What would you accept as evidence right now? What would I do? I would accept something as a valid argument if it wasn't if it wasn't built upon logically fallacious reasoning Just like I what do you mean? So like are you asking for literally like logical chain of thought? The argument is logically valid. Okay, so Let's see a few years ago H ham radios SSTV signal from space station where think space station is got transmission from space station Filmed with crappy quarter aka station exists, correct? I made a prediction Logically if I got a transmission from a thing that thing is probably I would hope that it's there I don't think ghosts are sending any messages, right? Oh, I get out you can see you can see the eye You can just tell me that spirits are why don't you're seeing it with it? I care about well, we know it's there We can move away from my point again. I'm not talking about see it I'm talking about how did I get it and how do people across the world get it at an Expected time when they should get it, right? Why would they not sitting here? Why would they not well? What is it? Is it a ghost? Oh, so now I don't know. Yes If it's at a known height at a known distance at a known speed at a known location at a known size Then how is it well? You can't argue this question with it because you can't let me know we can see it I know we can see it. Don't divert. I'm talking about sstd. We'll try to follow my point You were you were implying as I was I was I was You were implying a straw man that we were actually denying that the ISS exists I'm making a point that no one denied that it exists. You can literally see it. You can track it We've done it. I've done it. You can see it with transits. You can video it We've done it We know that you can do that and we know that it's accurately where it's supposed to be You're claiming exclusivity Assumptively because that's how you debate you assume exclusivity and then you imply to straw man that we're denying it now I didn't ask you you realize you were actually behind that whole thing So now that I've explained it to you do you understand that I'm now asking you to actually support your presupposition of exclusivity Why wouldn't that work on a flatter? Why wouldn't a space station that we've modeled based on a sphere work on a flatter? I mean if I have to explain that to you I can't help you with it That's like the kindergarten concept. I'm sorry. This is gonna be good. It will be good. It's very funny. I'm having a great time Yeah, so you can what we do when we with the ISS or any satellites We actually map them out as actually you're gonna interrupt with actual ellipses an actual circular pass now according to your model now The satellites are actually not going an actual circular pass. They're not turning They're free falling in a geodesic linear path of the curved trip spacetime Yet when we actually engineer them in our calculations after assume for an actual curved path specifically in ellipse Where would you get an ellipse over a plane earth? So of course we use an ecf an earth centered earth fixed system, right? Which half the half of them have to also use a eci earth centered inertial system Which has the seasons happen twice a day Which is hilarious And it accounts for a change in velocity relative to the center of eci Which your model claims that there is no change in velocity because it's a Free falling linear path So the point is that you actually have to account for there being a like geocentric physics Now when it comes to the plane aspect that is simply a globe earth transform You just take the plane and transform somebody who works with meshes and modeling Pretty much as if you're done in a kind of mesh repair if you're done the kind of watertight meshing at all nothing Why are you diverting? You cannot you cannot take a flat thing and say okay So if you look at a texture in a video game of like a sphere like 343 guilty spark or something when you unstretch the texture It doesn't look like a texture It looks very weird because to stretch a shape over a sphere correctly You will have gaps. I could show you I guess I can screen share You will have gaps and you will have weird little artifact because it doesn't work because it's a different shape I don't understand how you can't if I have a circular shape And I have a flat shape and I'm trying to use the shapes for whatever purpose There is a physical difference between those two shapes. What's it? There's I don't understand Seven there is there is a sphere in our model too in a way because we believe that there's a firmament a solid firmament That is in a dome a dome shape a spherical half sphere. So a hemisphere Shakes satellite even if they're not the problem is even if you were on a half sphere if the people on you know In japan and person in california are tracking the the isl. Let's help let's help mark out mark mark trying to jump in breaking up Mark's trying to jump in but his connection is we're losing his connection. Oh Mark are you oh, he's all right. Let's let him Are we good? How about now you're better now you're good. Okay. So so we're Dome earth here is this biblical top because that's what it's starting to sound like that the that these flat earthers are just Denying everything they're they're denying gravity. They're defying Denying a spherical earth. They're denying that So much You're denying that the the sun is where the sun is Is is that what we're talking about here? It wasn't it wasn't just biblical all people throughout all civilizations depicted a solid actual dome above the earth It was not it didn't originate from christianity. You didn't say anything about a bible But you realize ironically that you did try to kind of poison the well again But what you also did was start saying they're denying so you actually came from a place as if it's a religion Are they denying what the earth is are they denying you're like do they not believe in gravity? They're denying it. That's what a religion is. Yes. We are denying your belief Let's talk about gravity for for a little bit. What are holding the gases? Um to the earth. Why do we see a gradient of gas? Um density Right up. Well, why do we have a gradient if there's no um gravity? Why like I said when you um take into account Exactly what we would expect from a global earth if we work out exactly what we're told that it's uh diameter is That the um centrifugal force has exactly the effect that we would expect it to have against gravity Where you're approximately 1 uh lighter at the equator just explain that Why are you just gonna which which one of the which one of the questions you want me to answer the gas? You've done it. You've done a lot of talking. You've done a lot of talking So I'll give you time to answer both what holds your gas in place with a a flat earth with no edges What's holding the gas in place? Why do we have a gradient of gas where we can see that as we go up it becomes less and less dense? And I'm asking my third question. I'm asking my third question. Then you can answer Why do we make a prediction that if the earth is an exact diameter that we would expect? Due to the spin of flow We would expect something at the equator to be an amount lighter and 1% is not a small amount Take 100 pounds of coal weigh it at the poles weigh it at the equator. It's 1% lighter Obviously, this is something that we take into account when we're measuring out stuff. It's very expensive Why would we make that prediction and there it is? The exact amount that we would expect if the globe is spinning based on everything that we do There's a model explain why we we can measure this and you can look it up anywhere When when we're selling things by weights and measures we take into account the centrifugal force of the globe spinning So you got three questions you can answer We don't need to go off and talk about all these fallacies and oh you claim this So you're calling me a liar and you're this and you're that I'm asking you simple questions What's holding the gas in place and why gravity makes so many predictions that come true Yeah, so you keep calling things predictions, but they're not predictions. They're post-dictions We see things and you guys engineered a model to explain it for example You said why does the gradient happen as if to imply? that if There is a gradient therefore gravity is true So what you're saying is if my theory of gravity is true then the thing that I observed that helped me create the theory Is observed therefore what I say is true. It's called affirming the consequent, bro If p then q p therefore q right it's literally affirming the consequent It is fundamentally fallacious And I wanted to point out to the audience that you guys can't make an argument void of that Now, yes, I can happily explain that you can't even have gas pressure without containment I can replicate what we see on the earth unlike your model because I can take a container of gas I can constantly introduce gas at the surface level and you will have a gradient of gas What happens on the earth? There's a gas cycle and gas comes from underneath the earth and the prominent Sources of gas are animal and plant life that are on the surface. It constantly cycles It expected to have a more dense gas at the bottom And we have a vertical electric gradient that you guys walked past in my opener that you'll never be able to rebut So that that along with temperature is why we have a gradient But you cannot replicate a gas pressure gradient without a container which we have in our position So delta x is change in gas pressure. You need to explain how you have the x in the first place So ironically, this is backfired And we're the only ones that can actually even demonstrate or replicate the physical possibility or viability of having a gas pressure gradient So you're saying there's no gas pressure gradient So if you go to the top of Mount Everest We can breathe exactly the same as we do on at sea level. Is that what you're saying? What a straw man fallacy, bro So you're saying that we can't contain something unless there's a container to to have a gas in it So are you saying that propane wait mark? You know what? It's a low area mark. Do you know what a terrarium is? Yeah, absolutely. Do you know how many experiments with terrariums have succeeded? Well, what does this have to do with any of my questions? Please go back and answer the gravity Answer answer why we make a prediction that if we spin something at a certain speed It's going to have an exact prediction on what it's going to weigh at the equator just explain that one, okay Mark really quick I just wanted I because I didn't get to answer that part of the whole thing you brought up I just wanted to say that with the terrarium, which we've used in science You might have even have done it in science class We were able to grow plants and have gases within a container within a containment field And see things grow in a terrarium, which is a dome shaped Structure with a flat earth, right? What's this have to do with anything? Well, what is it? What is it? Can we can we put a gas into a container? Absolutely Tell all our gases we we sell them at high pressure in containers. Well, again, let's not run off on what you call your fallacies Please explain to me why we make a prediction that the earth based on exactly what we know It's massive. We know it's rotational speed why it lines up exactly that at the equator We weigh a certain amount and we're one percent heavier at the falls explain that Okay, sure You're once we once we point out once we point out that what happened was I explained that you can only No, don't explain what you've explained explain one thing and let's move on to the next So people aren't sitting at all frustrated explain to me why we can make that prediction and and it's not gravity It's your magnetic electric field Yeah, I can easily explain that but we're gonna actually we're gonna actually conclude the first point You're trying to get away from which is you asked how there's a gas pressure gradient I explained you can't even have a change in pressure dealt to x without x the antecedent to gas pressures containment That we can replicate a gas pressure gradient inside of a container Especially whenever you're introducing gas to the surface level constantly Which is what we observe on the earth and that we have a vertical electric gradient that results in a downward electric current That is provable testable measurable We can run generators off of it you guys just deny it So that is a fact and then I said well you can't even have the antecedents for the pressure to have the gradient in the first place So that it backfired and you can't support it you responded with a strawman fallacy saying oh now we don't have a gradient So I can't go to the top of Mount Everest with different air No, I literally explained how you could have the gradient and how you could only have the gradient on a plain earth That's contained. So then you tried to change the subject So would you like to conclude that you can't actually demonstrate it? We can't demonstrate it and flatter takes the dub again and then we can move to the next point Is that what you want to do? No, because they're none of my questions So let's go back to the one where I was talking about gravity and explain how we don't have gravity But we can make a perfect prediction on exactly what something would weigh why we don't just use electronic scales Or strain gauges to work with something ways just listen We always have to compare it to a known mass so that we don't have to take into account This is critical force of the earth spinning explain why we do this Okay, so if you're using the word gravity to mean gravitas like how heavy something is weight I don't think flatter. There's denied that things have weight. We deny gravitation We deny bendy spacetime Reification fallacies, but you're asking why is the globe able to predict this in typical difference? That's what you're trying to say that isn't gravity It's actually the spin of the earth causing this a typical force and supposedly offsetting gravity Now in reality if you've actually done research what you claimed you could easily look into that is very unreliable The gravitational anomalies and even the fluctuations near the equator show that that is not an accurate number But if we were to suggest that it is an accurate number because there is something to being able to detect an alleged spin We can show that we've actually used interferometry measurements to detect a sidereal rotation that it actually increases the higher you go Changes with the seasons and that it's relative to the the equator and further out It's relative to latitude We've proven this with michael simorley replications with date miller even as recent as 2020 with radio wave precision Millimeter wave precision so we've proven that yes, there is a spin Of course it would affect things because we've proven it just like the alliance effect the pendulum actually documented for 17 consecutive years by harvard changes during eclipses The pendulum changes during eclipses If you follow what i was saying I'm talking that there's an actual connection between the spin in the sky the sidereal rotation It's been measured with interferometry the most precise form of measurement that exists And we've proven that you can detect a spin of the sky So I don't know why that would be a problem even if it really does change weights which in reality It is actually a very inconsistent anomalous and fluctuating measurement of weight So so you are admitting then that there isn't an equator on the earth That's what you just said that we can work this out based on the equator of the earth So what is the equator? Okay. Yeah, the way that we came up with latitude lines is we took elevation angles to polaris So that's literally how we created latitude So of course we're going to assume that we're on a flat earth because all the glow can ever do is go to reality Assume it's flat step back out of reality and pretend it's a globe and transform it over So we take elevation angles assuming the earth is flat, right? And then we had this horizontal baseline to the ground position underneath polaris We take our angle measurement and then we keep going back and that's how we got latitude Concentric circles coming out from the ground position under polaris Then we took it wrapped it around a ball. Then we wrapped it into a cylinder Then we flattened it out to the mercator map So literally lat latitude which is where you get the notion of an equator at some point is a flat earth measurement It was created from flat earth elevation angle measurements to polaris using a ground position 90 degrees under the assumed or underneath polaris the assumed ground position can't go there So that isn't that's just a concept Just a concept. It's a model that we've come up with using elevation angles to polaris That's again a positive evidence for flat earth still no evidence for globe earth Certainly non void of fallacious reason. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You can't say no evidence for for globe earth when I gave you two in the beginning I have I have authority in this matter. You specifically said you had seven flights. Was it nobody else? I have more flights than you. I'm telling you. I saw the earth. It's not flat. Don't worry. I got you I have more I also have nine shower heads. They're in a bucket. So in flat earth world. I am the god here. Don't worry I don't know. We're talking about I said that I've had seven flights. I'm the authority like I told me was that not what you said Oh marks back You may have may marry me say something like I've been on like seven flights in the last couple weeks And the earth clearly is a plane when you fly up there and look at it It's clearly not That's 30,000 feet. It's a plane No, I think he's delusional Yes, yes like this is what's so weird about this conversation Is that the main the mainstream physicist the mainstream math all of that will say of course You don't see the curvature of the earth from a plane. That's ridiculous. But when we get into these debates Oh, they saw it. Well, no, I saw it from the I've taken more flights than you have seen the further your How many flights of you who can't I just showed you I should at least 40 at least for maybe 20 But I take a lot of flights. So I don't know I've taken over 20 flights. Oh Well, you brought up with it Do you agree that I just want to let you know in your little head you have less flights that I'm telling you It's not that's irrelevant. You actually said Hey, here's my question for you does the plane have to fly like the earth is flat Yes, or no, does that mean do pilots fly planes as if the earth is flat and they're not retarded So, okay I just want to I just want to call out delcos We're cool with language, but there's some lines They're not they're not they're not blind people that drive planes people who drive planes fly planes have eyeballs I'll say it like that. Oh, it's just a fact. They're not visually impaired Every pilot that's ever flown knows you have to fly the earth like it's flying or fly the plane like it's flying stationary The globe earth position the actual still man I'm gonna have to pull out my glasses so we can actually hear the globe position The globe man position right of the globe still man This is it is that the earth is so big that you can treat it like it's flat for intensive purposes You assume that it's parallel to the earth gravity pulls you around automatically because you're maintaining pressure zones Right with your altimeter and those pressure zones for intensive purposes can be treated as horizontal and parallel to the ground But actually they're bending around the globe So you have to fly the plane like the earth is flat you have to assume the earth is not moving But actually it's spinning and curving you just can't tell on that small of a scale So yes, you do fly a plane like it's flat and stationary. This is But they told you in there. They're assuming it's not when I say I assume That the table that I mount these two is not going to move it could there could be an earthquake It's an assumption. But guess what I write in the goddamn paper. I'm sorry I write in the paper you can show the picture. I don't care. It's fine It's just clouds. You're not showing the actual thing is the problem with it I just think it's weird that you just denied that they have to Okay, but like we're just looking at clouds, bro And we're just looking at anything that I got you. What do you mean? Are you not screen sharing? Oh, I think you're screen sharing. I think that's what you're doing. Oh, is it so Am I understanding you guys right here? You think when you're flying an airplane You'd be just constantly pushing that yoke forward to try to get around the earth Yeah, it all barreled in it sounds like you're it also sounds like you're denying the size of the earth Come on that. This is very simple mathematics. We do not believe in speed Do you not believe that? Hey, we think that florida From where I am in toronto is about 1200 miles away And if we set out walking at three miles an hour, it's going to take x amount of time to get there Are you guys in the same debate? I think we have to move on topics because he's not getting it mark. Where do you know what you're talking about? I'm not getting it. You're you're saying that we're sitting there talking about oh, how big the earth is Yes, the earth is big No, no, what I did was have to correct your teammate who said that we don't fly the earth like it's flat And fly planes like the earth is flat and stationary because pilots aren't stupid. No, I didn't say that with it I said no, no, no, no, I didn't say they don't fly like I said do pilots Here's my question. Do pilots have to fly the plane like the earth is flat and stationary You said no because and I have to mount these arms like the earth won't move, but it sure could I have to mount these arms Yes, censor me. That will make you right. It's not sensory. What's it? You're lying about what I said No, it's crazy. What I said. It's recorded with it. It is recorded. Yes, and I said Just so you know too the assumption Like by definition I even I even asked like half the people on this flight because I ask a lot now when we travel And everyone said how flat it looked you cannot look out that window And tell me that you see any curvature And it's not even evidence anything you're assuming it is I'm glad that you admit that this is evidence of nothing You You appealed to I want to hear from them. They're triggered bro. They're so triggered So so I heard in another Mark one second, please. Just so there's a lot of voices And we're halfway through a little bit more than halfway through Our open discussion time is electric and a lot of fun to watch I'll just All right If you guys are liking this you better hit that like button or do some subscribing or whatever and We'll be getting into the super chats in about 25 minutes And I believe there's a little channel called matters now that will also be hosting an after show after this as well Okay, um I'm gonna go ahead and give the floor back to Mark since he has spoken less and I think he was the last one I interrupted so go ahead mark So I watched um one of his debates today and he was saying that we can't trust any Anything that we see through a lens. Is that correct? Yes. Simple or no? Yes, or no answer. Can we trust what we see optically through a lens? Uh And we try to pin on different parameters like how trusting it can be right because we have curved visual space depends on the conditions I don't know why you're bringing up someone else. That's not in this debate. That's weird Who am I bringing up? Did you say tom or something? No, you you I watched one of your debates today And you said that you can't trust anything that comes out of a lens That it's going to have a curve to it that that it's never said contacts or concave I actually watched one of your debates today And yes, you did and he brought up that we could use a pin camera Something without a lens to take a look at things. So I will go back and I will find it So you do do you believe that lenses round lenses can be accurate? Optically relatively but they do of course impose curvature This is a well-known thing and the fact that low birthers have to deny things like this that like all lenses create Distortion and that based on your angle of view relative to what you're viewing It's going to have a distortion or added convexity optically is highly suspect Also, this guy said he works with robotics You should be looking at the most cutting-edge robotics Which says that they have to account for curved visual space for the accuracy of the visual space accounted for in the robotics They actually had to update the learning methods and learning models for the robots to account for you A non euclidean curved visual space for to accurately be able to look out They've actually proven that visual space is not euclidean and straight perfect lines like you guys claim So yes that combined with the fact that linds is always imposed convexity combined with additional atmosphere conditions You have to account for these things and understand that it's merely optical, which is why it constantly changes This should be just unspoken You're using lenses to make a point here that you asked everybody in the airplane to look out and see if they think That the that what they're seeing the horizon is flat or not flat No, she was responding She was responding to him claiming that when he'd gotten the plane He knew it was a curve right he knew it was curved and she showed a video of that She didn't do anything except for respond to his ridiculous claim And i'm actually still asking do you guys in if you have any valid evidence that the earth is a globe or that the Globe model was actually true void of logically fallacious reasoning It's a simple question. We should be able to have I got an image from a space station. That's that's pretty good I got an image from the space station. I think that's pretty good Oh Same station that you know people around the world could do I mean do you we have a clock Give you the name of the clock and it uses the rotation of earth as a power Oh, thank you for bringing that up. Thank you. All right. Let's talk about this. Let's talk about this Let's just destroy the globe. Sorry Mercedes. You gotta give me just a second. I gotta destroy that Please do preface the game over. We brought it up So actually your audience DPS satellites and I try to break this down. These won't be rebutted But if you pay attention DPS satellites assume for an actual curved path According to insigning mechanics in the current globe model. It's not a curved path It's a linear path, but they actually have to account for actual curved path specifically an ellipse, right? We're talking about GPS satellites I'm going to grant them to you and then show that they actually just prove heliocentrism and your belief that the earth is spinning They also account for a change in velocity relative to the center of eci With this is the earth centered inertial frame according to your actual model There can be no such thing as a change of velocity, right? And even first in that the atomic clocks, right? So for the actual synchronization according to the official GPS manuals The the time synchronization requires c plus v Meaning that it actually has to account for the the speed of whatever it is That's carrying the clock that's moving and it's been proven on the ground in trucks and in planes and with the actual quote-unquote satellites themselves It says that actually whenever the transmission goes from east to west it goes 14 nanoseconds faster than from west to east In the scenario at san francisco to new york This is well documented in the mainstream official manuals, which means that the Constancy of the speed of light has been disproven And you actually have to account for a change in the speed of light to have accurate distances with gps satellites Which absolutely destroys relativity and it destroys your entire model if gps satellites do anything It proves you have to require real inertial forces actual curved circular paths a change in velocity relative to the eci And a change in the change in the speed of light for clock synchronization And decay rates which all disprove relativity which means it all disproves your entire model because you need relativity What are you talking about bro? I'm talking about the jigger legore clock That's that's the worst argument No, no, no, hold on. Hold on with the overshot my question. He didn't even get I'm not talking about atomic clocks I'm talking about a clock. It is called a jigger is something french clock And it uses the rotation of the earth literally to power itself. It's a type of uh, it's a What would it be? I just a movement I guess that would use a movement watch movement not movement movement of the Earth it uses the movement of the earth to move the movement and the watch To power the movement of the watch is movement is basically what it is The watch and I'll send you a link, but yeah, it actually is a real thing They're feeling take them apart and there's there's channels that go over them Long island watch is one that goes over them. Uh, and he's pretty thorough Okay, I never heard that bro, but I'll tell you it's very I don't want to talk about with you You're just going off in the weeds with that. I don't know because I thought you were actually Something like It's like something that uses the the rotation of the earth to power itself is pretty substantial I would say that's pretty good. That that that defies your model because you're not because I can bring it around places I can bring it around the world different places that if it works and I can counterfeit how it works Then I can go. Hey, we know it's the shape. What's it if I have a shape and I throw I throw darts from it. What's it off of that shape And I have little like tracers coming off the darts when I look at those tracers We're going to see a like it's it's going to be a shape. It's a physical shape that exists So it's going to be a shape. Hey, it's such a homerun argument. Why don't you let me respond? So that would actually That would actually defy. Yeah, because I like we're talking about satellites, but that would actually defy your model Right. I did destroy you know centers. I don't think that destroys the model Oh, buddy, buddy So it actually would falsify your model because you shouldn't be detecting the earth's rotation on the earth That's a major you problem because you totally can you just stop Well, you're lying with it and everybody's already heard this. We all know you can we all know you can detect with a gyroscope We all know there's a clock that uses it for power. We all know that you have no friction You can see it on nice ceramic bearings. I could do it if I really want to it's not that hard It's just inaccurate and it's very small, but it's very detectable. This is very detectable. It's not detectable optically. Oh my god This interrupts because I know you're going to say what you're going to bring up the Einstein quote It doesn't matter about optically. We're not using optical experiments. So what you're saying is stupid. Stop saying it You're going to waste our time continue. All right. First of all, it's it's optical or terrestrial experiments. That's the Einstein quote I'm gonna fucking call you on that one, bro. Let me okay. I just showed the quote to the whole entire I know you showed a quote Delco, I would ask you to please just allow the other debaters a chance to speak a little please Hey, can I can I have a question? How how did the platter first? Um, how do they explain ligo mark mark mark? What's wants to what's it really wants to answer delcos? Oh, okay. I thought he'd answered there. I thought he'd already answered No, he's been struggling to get the answer out. Um, the second he gets his answer out We'll give the floor right to you or maybe what's it will ask you a question Yeah, or we can go to Mercedes. I want her to get into but um, all I'm saying is that When you bring up things like the ring laser gyro, etc That's engineered off the sagnik effect You'd have to show me the very specific mechanisms that this clock supposedly operates on and then I will happily discuss it If it uses for example an actual interferometer What does it use to detect this supposed motion? Because the only thing you could really invoke is that it uses an interferometer Which would be engineered based on the sagnik effect. I know you actually don't know You're probably looking it up right now as we look to the left. But anyway, yeah It's okay. It's okay. I'm looking at how the clock works with it. I know you don't know either so don't act like a little brat Bro, continue. Okay. I know you're trying to do try to my character I get it. You have to do it for your audience, but don't okay. Go ahead chill. I'm begging you, please Let them finish and um no more brat talk. I don't like the lie It's not particularly fair to say well, you don't either I didn't invoke it as positive evidence of something that's contrary to all experience in the history of mankind that the earth is Actually moving but the point is it would have to probably use the sagnik effect with interferometry Well, that's a major you problem. There's not even a relativistic agreed-upon solution for the sagnik effect And then whenever you account for the fact we now have linear interferometry that attacks linear motion You have a major problem and actually the sagnik effect which Validates ideal rotation starting with michelson-gel-piercing in like 1935 has been verified multiple times at different altitudes When we detect the actual ideal rotation at different altitudes it goes faster and faster the higher you go It changes with season and it changes with direction that's sort of preferred direction the propagation rate of light So if using interferometry, it's a major problem And what else could you be using unless a presuppose spherical coordinate system based upon like a crystal court a quartz crystal that assumes for time variables or maybe an atomic clock, which you said that it doesn't so Anyway, that you would need to actually substantiate the mechanism that supposedly does it But if Mercedes wants to jump in our marks next I think you said and then maybe Yeah, I think my my biggest high up it and the proof of the global earth is gravity And he's not really giving us any alternative for gravity So let's talk about LIGO Explain that the gravity the gravitational field detectors that we've built we've built two of them We made predictions we spent billions of dollars on them and those predictions came true So explain how LIGO works based on your electrostatic gravity theory Okay, so on a flatter earth we believe that There is a light downward force down is down up is up essentially If anything's affecting that it's density mass and the natural static that lives within our natural atmosphere So there was no reason for gravity to exist unless you put it in a globe model Because in a globe model you would therefore need the water to stick if it's going to be upside down You would need people to stick to a globe Yeah, there's people on the other side of the world, correct upside down Up and down is a construct of earth. It has nothing to do with the universe. It has nothing to do with the solar system What's up? What's down? What a bad fate How's it a bad faith response? You know what she's saying that There's a down you say there's an objective Explain why the question wasn't for you or Mercedes. Thank you Ask explain LIGO explain it explain that we we predicted that we would see gravitational waves We built machines for billions of dollars. We bought two of them so that we could back up our experiment Explain why we've seen exactly what we expected and these gravitational fields are almost non Existent. They're so small yet. We detected them. It's considered one of the most unbelievable things that we've done except for predicting the The the the radiation background that we expect from the big bang This was another prediction that we made. No, let me finish This was a prediction that we made that if gravity Is acts in a certain way that we should be able to detect these gravitational waves of two black holes merging or two stars merging That we would see the the effects of the gravitational wave and that's exactly what we detected So without gravity because your whole thing here really seems to to to rely on gravity not being real So these billion dollar machines that have come true Explain how we made a machine that was to predict gravity that was to detect gravity But all of a sudden it's now just detecting these um magnetic What is it magnetic electrical gravity what gravity gravity replacement theory? How did that work? Well, for one, that's a fallacy because we never had to assume that a gravity existed So we don't have to assume that are you familiar with why go It's you that has to prove that gravity Or that that this whole model was based off of the fact that gravity has to exist in order for the globe to work without Are you familiar with why go and what they're doing there without gravity mark without gravity You guys have nothing. Why would you have to come? Whether there was a light mark this is the point whether there was a light force of gravity that existed on a flat earth or not Our model would still work yours wouldn't It's yours. What are you talking about your model? That's why I'm asking you a question trying to interact with you and you're not answering me Are you familiar with why go and what they're doing in this experiment? Yes Oh, yeah, make sure that the guy is gonna destroy the pseudoscience and knows every single part about it That knows way more about why go than you don't answer that one We try to get a gotcha Mercedes when she made a good point and you skated past it. She said you're you're the one that needs It begs the question Make a very new one. What's her good point? Well, you wouldn't know because you kept interrupting her Um, I'd like to have Mercedes answer mark question if she's familiar with Lagos and then at that time What's it since you appear to be you can go ahead and Jump in before I answered Lagos I just wanted to clarify that yes You were you were basically begging the question and it was kind of a gas letting Lighting technique because you said that we needed gravity to not exist work on our model I was just proving that it's actually Yeah, and we heard that Okay, so the question is are you familiar with Lagos? I have not done a lot of A lot into that as far as like studying what this is how new was it that was what was I was trying to ask you before I was interrupted a few times I don't know what's been around for about five to seven years. I'm guessing Time's going fast as I get older So so my point is if I can wrap up my point and then I'll be quiet If you're gonna say you're not familiar with that mark. I'm sorry. Let's let Mercedes finish. Yeah Yeah, I want to know I want to know what kind of technology they use To identify gravity and how they identify what gravity is in this experiment. Good question Who said that was a good question I did I want to know what's the answer mark you're revoking it Why why we came up with an experiment that would interact with gravity as we know gravity So at the beginning of this conversation you said That's not what she asked. That's gas lighting Looking to me. So you're saying that Oh, you got to talk over me. So you're saying That was delco. Here you go down. No Hold on. Hold on. Yeah delco. I thought I was muted. Sorry. It's all right. Let's give mark a chance to reply now mark is all So you're saying that everything that we do is fallacious everything that we do is based on assumptions When we sat down to build Ligo to prove Gravitational waves so that we could detect them and see the effect of them across the universe We came up with a plan. We built a machine We spent billions of dollars on it Then we built a second one so that it could back the first one so that as the gravitational wave went across the first one It would also reach the second one at the speed that we would expect it to So we've seen an interaction between the two facilities that are so many miles apart And it it matched our prediction Absolutely perfectly based on gravity nothing to do with electrostatic anything it matched our predictions Dead on what we would expect Merceys don't let him off Don't let him off He's trying to avoid the question because he 100 percent has no idea how it works As no idea what exactly it does and has no idea how it supposedly detected the waves. That's why he just repeated He repeated the same monologue without specificity Mercedes asked you how does it work specifically? What is the machine you're claiming detected gravity and how does it work? And how was it that they actually detected what type of gravity that they were actually claiming it was attributed to a gravitational wave? They actually asked you the specifics of your claim. You don't know it You deflect it. Let's see if you can answer this time and if not, don't worry. I'll teach you I don't know it. No, I don't I wouldn't know how to go out and build like go right now But I know that they're shooting lasers. They're keeping lasers to within a temperature of billions of percentage points they're shooting it on a mirror and then they're they're Reading how long it takes to come back because again, even though you deny you you talk about this speed of light when you're talking about gps Um How it's all wrong and this and that But yes, we know the speed of light. We know how long it's going to take to get down to the mirror They know how long it's going to take to get back. They do it in an l shape So as the gravitational field goes over and stretches and contracts The distance that it needs to shoot it down to the mirror and back to its its detector They can see that as it went across the first one it varied that distance by this amount It went across the second one it varied the distance Then it made it to the second back up facility that we built and it did the exact same thing there And it was predicted that this is what it would do You just claim a shot lasers to space bro No, no, do you have you never seen ligo what no, I know exactly what ligo is I know exactly what it is. I'm gonna tell you what it is. So it's actually I thought you said something about shooting it back coming back It's a michelson-gel piercing test just in modern times and yes It uses interferometry and lasers because what it does is it sends a light beam out or a laser that's completely in a single phase That's why I just send one and they split the light beam so that it maintains the same phase It's the only way to come right It's the only way to actually ensure that it's in the same phase exactly so it splits it Okay, now they're claiming to have detected some type of disruption in the laser interferometry That must be attributed to it must be attributed to it now This is what you said that they predicted exactly what would happen and that there would be two stars collide or two black holes collide They knew it and they'd get a gravitate all lies. They say they don't even know what direction it came from They said that they have no idea where it came from They also went through this whole thing where they supposedly found at the first time Rint gave the results and then everyone is celebrated had a press conference and they admitted Oh never mind that was actually a simulation. It wasn't really the real data Here's the funnier part. It actually used a learning neural network that actually takes noise data and runs through Presupposed algorithms do a neural learning network to try to decipher through the different noise data Claiming it's so sensitive. It detects when a car drives a couple miles away They have to arbitrarily Determine which one of the noise data they can throw out and then claim one of them's can't be attributed to something other than Gravitational waves. It's highly convoluted neural network. It's a learning neural network and that's literally how it works It's it's an incredibly convoluted computer model. Only we had an expert on that. I don't know you're out of luck Shit sucks. If only we had somebody who knew about that. You understand that that's not that's not real evidence If you have to understand that if we're training a network on real evidence that we've collected real numbers Then it will by definition be learning on real information and then give like if I train an LLM again We're gonna use that because that's the well-known thing now on Shakespeare It's gonna know Shakespeare like it's not this isn't an argument saying. Oh, well, it's yes It's trained just like a human brain is trained correct. Well, I know you don't understand it and neither one I don't understand. Oh, okay. I Continue. Yeah, I'm gonna explain why you don't understand it. Just try to try to be calm I understand that you guys get the talking you get the talking point that like go detect the gravitational waves And how did it do that and it sounds so good? No, you clearly do understand that you claim that they predicted that black holes would hit each other and we would know They they literally admit they have no idea where it came from They can even determine which direction it supposedly came from and they're talking about a vibrational displacement The width of like one ten thousandth of a photon of a proton that's what they claim that they detect it Are you talking about specifically ligo? No, I think yes, but what specific thing are you talking about that happened? What do you would the whenever the bench the big like we detected gravitational waves I don't remember having a few years ago and it first they did it and said oh never mind That was wrong. It was a simulated data and all the employees even got tricked so much so that the second time It happened one of the main employees refused to accept the data for like two months Actually, you can read a book by our paper by steven crothers completely buries it and explains how it is nothing More than a convoluted neural learning network and it has so much different noise data. This is the important part There's so much noise data and what it's reading the computer has to get rid of so much of it to try to decipher Which one of it could allegedly be a gravitational disturbance? There's an immense amount of noise data So it has to use presupposition presuppositions in an algorithm to try to randomly decipher That this noise data is from here and there and there and this must be from space and they admit They have no idea which direction it came from and that it again that it is the width of us of one ten thousandth of a proton Okay, it's cute when you pretend to be an expert. I like it I'm not an expert. I just know you guys are I have no knowledge because the stupidest thing the stupidest thing that he said was that it could be a car driving by Well sound waves do not go through the earth from one Detector the three or four or five thousand miles away and make it to the other detector at the speed of light So you even bring up the noise the noise from a car driving by is just the stupidest thing you could ever say This is something that is traveling This is something that is moving at the speed of light Gravitational waves and it's going from one detector that is in one location And it's making it to the other detector that is a distance apart so that it can't be a car driving by And yes, what they're doing is they're using computer Obviously to wash out background noise. Do you think this is new that that we use things to to get rid of background noise That is that it's not part of what we're trying to measure Okay, so that was a strong car What does a car driving by ligo in in its first location have to do with the second detector? Thousands of miles away also picking up that gravitational wave Explain what the car has to do with that Oh, it could be a car driving by I'll have no I never said it could be a car driving by that's a strong man fallacy. I get that you did it Oh, here we go Right, you never said that it could be just noise of the ground vibrating Okay, I think you're misunderstanding his question actually or what he's saying you are misunderstanding I'm saying it's so sensitive it can detect stuff like that Let me see you're saying that that they're using that the guy admitted. Oh, well, it's just machines because they're using a learning algorithm Right. So knowing nothing about what they're doing I would assume that they're using it to filter out That would be the point is to filter out noise so that some jackass doesn't have to sit there and go Oh, bro, it's not no, he's And if I train it if I train something like an image classifier to identify a picture of a dog Right, it doesn't mean that if it detects a dog, I can't use that in my research paper If I trained a thing to detect a thing. Well, it's very simple with that Well, I was going to respond to his straw man and you interrupted to pretend you were going to do it for me And then he didn't get the question and I am informing you that you were incorrect with it because this is literally my field I'm telling you that you would use it to filter out that is the point. Of course it will Okay, can I respond now? So I didn't claim that it could be detecting a car. That's a straw man That's not what I said at all. We already know no no mark We already know that mark misunderstands Even delco even you said wits go ahead and respond. Oh, he's addressing the wrong question though I already went over mark misunderstood. He knows he misunderstood wits It is trying to address mark instead of me because I made the actual point. That's what's happening I wouldn't address both of them. They're both very easy to address. Um, But it was a straw man It was a straw man. So what I was pointing out is that it's so sensitive. It gets all kinds of noise So that's why you have to have this highly precise computer model now admittedly admittedly it requires speculative assumptions It has an error bar, right? Of course But actually so much so that the people that worked there didn't know that the first time they claimed success It was merely simulated data the computer was completely wrong Told all the scientists quote-unquote the pseudoscientists that they detected gravity They actually did a press conference and bragged about it And then that's why the second time they didn't even uh, there's one person that's involved Didn't even accept the data for two months There's a paper called a critical analysis of ligo's recent detection of gravitational waves caused by merging black holes Steven Cruthers and that's march 2016 You can go read it and this is one of the things that says the ligo scientific collaboration and vergo collaboration have announced that the 14th of September 2015 they deduct they detected a transient einstein gravitational wave designated by gw blah blah Produced by two merging black holes from a single black hole and that's where he got that because at one point They tried to claim that's what they thought it was they now admit They don't even know what direction it came from the two black holes that merger reported to have uh been of 29 solar mass 36 solar masses respectively the reported detection was obtained not during an observation run of ligo But during an engineering test run prior to the first scheduled observation run on 8 uh, september 18 2015 Another part of the paper the insurmountable problem for the credibility of ligo's claims is a questionable character of the theoretical assumptions upon which They are based in this paper various arguments are presented according to which the basic theoretical assumptions and the Consequential consequential claims of detecting gravitational waves are proven false the apparent detection by the ligo-vergo collaborations Is not related to a gravitational wave or to the collision and merger of black holes So the computer model isn't just being assumptive and then making all kinds of algorithmic predictions and assumptions It's built upon a base Foundation of unverified presuppositions into the computer model to then try to shift through noise data presumptively That is a fact. It isn't magically detecting gravitational waves Okay, so I didn't say that with it I didn't say that I said if you train an image classifier for example because it's better for you to understand pictures I get that you're kind of slow So we use pictures as an example if I train a neural network to identify a dog And I train it on random pictures of dogs drawings of dogs after whatever and it can identify dogs correctly It is not it's not not usable. I don't understand why that's the thing and second off I don't give a shit with some random ass website. What is that? Oh, that's interesting It's a it's a it's a third off that is interesting but third off Who cares because that's the test example. They're talking about they mistook a test for the real thing. Oh shit Oh, no, you said this you listen to the words that you say what's it you said the second time How did they figure out the second time? It was right with it because the first time they figured out oops We ran a test and it was we ran the test thing. Oops. There wasn't a fire We ran the fire drill that doesn't mean there wasn't a fire the next time with it You're just pulling little points to try and make a point. It doesn't actually connect anywhere No, what he says is even what he says is even on their own website That's what I'm saying, but they're talking about a test that they did they mistook a test run Hey, will you not interrupt the lady? Thank you, man. Why don't lie with it? Well, you don't lie and I won't have to correct. I haven't lied once. It's very simple It's very simple. I can't stand that this was my point then can we wrap it up? Yeah, we destroyed it. So they've made they they have detected gravitational waves 90 times 83 of them Have been merger of black holes So why are you going back and talking about that? We admitted if this paper is even true that we admitted that the first time it detected gravitational waves We made a mistake. It was a simulation. Everybody got excited. It wasn't what really was going on Why are you sticking on only that paper and not talking about the fact that it's detected them now? 90 times And 83 of them are black hole mergers. So where are the papers that you're going to show us on that? I can answer that. So like if you look at my screen right now, I've got lego up This is them themselves And I have it highlighted right here and it literally says that lego is more susceptible to lower Frequency frequency environment noise which can drown out low frequency gravitational waves Okay, and then absolutely counted for in the paper. Correct. Yes. It's known to count it It literally says that they simulate a vibration from the environment around lego in a test. Yes You We're at time In fact, we're a little over time at this point And I appreciate that some people still had some more points to go But yeah, it's it's I can understand it's frustrating but Let's just I mean you guys aren't going to settle you're not gonna there's no point Or the four of you are going to go, you know what? Yeah, okay, we feel yeah, but I mean even when she's trying to make a point Like they won't let her so then I feel like I have to try to get in there to try to say Trying to recap the debate inaccurately. That's very funny. That's it whatever Hold on a second We know as well as everybody else that we're about to enter into the super chats And when we get into the super chats either this topic or one similar will come up There will be plenty of opportunities And the super chat list right now is deep so Real quick i'll get into some housekeeping here and remind everyone We've got a like and a subscribe button over here They're very lonely. They they need a little little love. So don't don't be shy Um, go ahead and give them a hit. We've got over 1200 people watching us live right now So that's not a small number for a modern day debate. That's for sure. So we're real happy. You guys are all here Um After the super chats there will be an after show over on matters now everyone the debaters the viewers are all invited over there Uh Yeah, we got visible uh mobile provider over in texas if anyone's in that area Give the link in our description a click and check them out. Um, and I went ahead and signed up for planet fitness Now being canadian I didn't get the 10 dollar a month deal But i'm probably going to get to meet james in person this year and I don't want to feel small So i'm going to go bulk up Um With that we'll go right into some super chats. Are you guys ready or what? Yep We are going to say someone's not going to speak now. So let's go ahead and lay out the nerves. Let's go ahead and lay out the rules So You're really jumping in archie. You're very scared. Well, this is the cute. So by the way, I would dunk on youtube to Wait, so you had the chance and you failed. What are you talking about? I would just dunk on youtube. You couldn't handle me. All right, whatever. Come on gentlemen. Come on. Um, I keep asking james to say that to the one debate So I mean he won't do it This is my 10th modern day debate. I'm in double digits for modern day debate Moderate, so thank you. Um, and with that, uh, three of them have been with witson. So, uh Cool. Um, yeah, so I do have a little bit of a rule or a process to super chats And it's that if the super chat is targeted to a specific debater I always like them to have the last word Which means if someone asks What's it a question By all means you can respond to something which it said or what have you But the final word I like the person who the question was addressed to to have that final word. Okay. Um, also All of our viewers spent the money and took the time to send us these questions I want to try to get through the list All right, that's kind of the least we can do for them to all come hang out with us tonight All right, uh, let me go to the top of the list. Can you hear rain in the background or is it good? Do you hear like a rain? No, no, you sound you sound fine Yeah, all of our debaters tonight. Well, I'm not all of them, but most of our debaters tonight have been dealing with uh, with weather So and I mean if anyone is anywhere in canada or america, we all know about the snow and cold Anyways, let's start with our first super chat is can go 44 Uh, 15 new zealand dollars Mr's beast spent 50 hours in antarctica. He filmed the sun at 2 30 a.m. 4 30 a.m. 9 a.m It never set. He did not see the ice wall He was not stopped by any military personnel If you think he's lying maybe say that and then he can take you to court Oh my god, it's so weird want to say he's lying. No, it's sure. I will I don't I don't even care I'll say it. Yeah, but he didn't claim to see the sun for 24 hours Like only the anti-flat earthers go around and claim he saw the sun for 24 hours And even if he did Yeah, he's lying if he claims he did tell him take me to courier He has to prove you'll never prove it'll get dunked on former nasa employee stated in artica for six months Said you never see the sun for 24 straight hours was even funnier though And I will point this out is that you guys keep on saying but no military personnel stopped him as if that's some type of rebuttal for the flat earth position And we say you cannot freely and privately explore into artica without pre-approval and permits Right, or you will be stopped. That's a lie So we all know that's a lie Mr. Beast did get a permit that was like the whole saying into the person that answered that asked that question I would also say um actually look up someone that took a flat earth or to court because it did not work out for the global The flat earth or one and I gotta say what's what's really crazy And I tried to say this on the after show that matters now last time If you guys really wanted to show people that the earth was a glow What you would do is stop lying about stuff like antartica Right where you can literally prove that you have to get permits. You cannot privately and freely explore there You can't just go down there and start exploring that's literally A lie to claim that you can and then to pretend that we say you can't go down there at all When like I have family members that have been there. We're planning a trip to go next year We know you can go on a approved guided tour, but you have to get a permit to explore I know this because I've pursued them. I've pursued them I know for a fact that you cannot freely and privately explore So like whenever a person that's not used to the subject Here's you guys have to misrepresent things like that. They're like, dang. Maybe I should think about flatter Right. That's what they think. So it's like ironically you're helping us when you do that I also want to point out as another example that uh during the red bull jump When they tried to prove that he could see the curvature of the earth There's even a clip out there where where Neil deGrasse Tyson said That he was using a fish eye lens and actually lying about seeing the curvature of the earth And he used an actual beach ball to use as an example of the earth and said that you're not going to see any curvature Two millimeters above the beach ball that it's just going to be flat and nothing else And I can show that later if uh if I'm able to but yeah, that's uh Yeah, of course people have lied Even your own side says they lie So so are are you guys surprised that there are restrictions for people to go to places that are extremely dangerous that that Governments will put restrictions on where people can go. No, you think you can just go walk down into a an active volcano Are you surprised if there are regulations for people going down to Antarctica? That they want to know who's going down there and who's going to be there So that when these listen so that when these stupid people go down there and find out the the environment is Deadly and they have to launch these multimillion dollar Reconnaissance to go down and dig these people out of out of the the snow and bring them home to their loved ones Is this really surprising? Do we not say that Antarctica is is a little bit of a harsh environment? Mark, I'm from montana. I know about harsh environments and they let people go from Canada anywhere Okay, well, then you should know and there's Alaska too and that's that's actually oh really So you you can go to yellowstone park and just walk anywhere. Can you I didn't realize I go to active volcanoes. I didn't realize he can just go straight down to Antarctica and expect people to come and save you Yeah, they never put restrictions on any dangerous places. You're right They never put restrictions on dangerous places You brought up a federal national park which is hilarious and non sequitur and non analogous to an entire continent That would specifically show us what the earth actually is also create incredibly efficient routes to southern to southern places But this is what super funny. No, I don't find it surprising that there's a permit there What I find surprising is that the people that defend the globe in 2024 still have to lie About the fact that you cannot go there and freely explore without a permit That is hella weird and sus bro And now it just makes tons of flat earthers because they can go read You can go to flat earth wiki page about the true earth wiki page about Antarctica And it has every single permit every single resource every single downloadable pdf straight from the government's websites That proved that devin is wrong and that he's blatantly wrong So I would just suggest that I would suggest kindly that you guys Probably stop lying about stuff like that because you're making more flatter. There's I think it's weird And mark also I would if you did watch my last day, I'd really I'd really I just That I mean for a for a super chat. That's plenty Let's let's get going forward here. Maybe there'll be more super chats on this topic later In fact, the mr. Beast thing has been such a big thing later lately. I'm sure there'll be more super chats about it Um, so we got a couple comments here. Just quick free free Palestine since two dollars flat earth winds pseudoscience globe lost And our next one is from Mercedes f1 fan for 299 Use I used to be a fluff before I went to college Um, and then right after that that's a lie Yeah Right after that we got our great channel friend lj who loves to send super chats 499 NASA is an adult version of disneyland if the moon is bright enough to be seen 238 k miles away. How didn't the astro knots get blind when They did one of those Ending on it landing on it. All right. They they did a thing where they spelled with caps and small letters at the same time It drove my dyslexia ready How did the astro knots get blind when not when landing on it? So I assume this is for globe side So the sun the sun shines on the earth Do we get blinded because we're on the earth when the sun is shining down on the earth? What kind of question is that? Would we want to go on a white beach and because the sun is shining on it? We're going to be blinded too. It's ridiculous Justin was it like up and down characters back and forth like they're capital lowercase capital lowercase It was capital taping. Yeah, that's I think that's a sarcastic comment. I don't think they're actually It has to be if it's like that. I think it's supposed to be like a of me like oh No, how do they get blind if you understood the question then you understand that it's not analogous to the earth Because we can see the moonshine from the earth as a specific brightness applying the inverse square law of light Every time you get closer to it. It continues to get It's not a thing you say a technical term. Is there just laughed about the inverse square law of light? Yes, like think about how very cute you just told me I wasn't it's fine. It's a technical term Yes So it's a globe question. So delcos mark if you have any final words on the cop on the question I would think it's a joke question, but It's gotta be a joke. Yeah It's gotta be a joke. I'll help you if you don't understand. I don't know how to help you All right next question Flat earth ball or dollar 99 looks like this is their first super chat So thank you so much Mercedes. You need to get your own channel Yeah, I know I'm sorry guys. I procrastinate a lot Mercedes fan one Mercedes f1 fan two 99 What about aerospace industry, which is private? Um, they don't really say to who that is. Does anyone have an answer to that question? What about aerospace industry? Which is private? I'm sorry Yeah, basically implying like what about the ones that aren't the government are they in on it too? And oh the part that will never be rebutted Was that they actually have to use a geocentric earth's equations in physics with a real set of inertial forces a really inward Centripetal angular momentum. Oh big words word solid And that's objectively what they have to use real inertial forces when their model claim There is no such thing as real inertial forces of the universe spinning around they use a ecf earth centered earth fixed Coordinate system or an eci earth centered inertial system, which actually has the day and night And an insane rate so they take take change of velocity Curved ellipse paths and change of velocity relative to the center of dci These are and then they also account for a change in the speed of light Right based on direction according to the official gps satellite So these people would just engineer it like it's that right like and then it would work Realizing that actually if it proves anything it proved geocentricity because it counts for the universe spinning around with inertial forces With actual curved paths and ellipses, which would be new tony mechanics But can't work in your current paradigm because it had to be fossilized by mmx This will never be rebutted satellites disprove the heliocentric model if they do anything I'm not laughing you for word salad with it. I'm laughing you the way you say the words It's very very fun. I am having a great time. It's not the structure. It's the tone that you use. It's wonderful I love it It's passionate It's not passion. It's it's the way that he speaks It's clear that he's never used them in a professional environment and it's an interesting tone as somebody who has I like it It's very interesting. I like it. It's fun. Continue. Sorry Okay, but no one hasn't ever responded. Yeah, whatever. Well, they didn't respond to anything you said they were Yeah, it's all good. They were fanning you with compliments. So yeah um So the next question is free free palestine sends another five dollars How do you verify the distance between us and polaris? 432 light years ago and not two light years ago Share formula just pseudoscience globe lies That's for the globers for sure. That's to you What was the first part of that? So how do you verify the distance between us and polaris 432 light years ago and not And not two light years ago share the formula What and then they and then they just say pseudoscience globe. Why what are they specifying? What are they asking? How do you know the distance to polaris is 423 light years and not and not to okay? I get what you mean. Um, I don't know. I would google it I'm sure there's videos on youtube that have fairly in-depth like review and there's chat gpt now as much as I hate them Open the eyes. I'm not think it doesn't matter. Anyway, the point is Just use that it could walk you through it if you really want to or choose anything. I'm not the person to ask about that Are you think out to a certain distance? They can use parallax So they can they can get to a point where with parallax alone where they know that it's at least that far away So we can make a measurement when we're on one side of the orbit of the Going around and then on the opposite side So halfway through the year we can make two measurements and we can work it out with parallax Where scientists have become extremely smart I know these guys just want to make it sound like they're just out there Willy-nilly building these billion dollar experiments hoping that gravity might exist It might not but these are very smart people There's millions of people working on these different problems very very educated people not the outliers So he's incorrect again. Um, Polaris you cannot use parallax at all. What's up? You cannot use parallax. No, you cannot use parallax at all You could let them let them reply mark, but you'll still have you guys will have the answer though According to the mainstream model, you cannot use parallax at all for something as far away as Polaris Okay, they use different methodologies and they admit that it's not nearly as reliable because you can't use parallax on Polaris And actually it used to be four like three hundred and twenty three light years And now they've changed it to four twenty three or four thirty three It's it's either way. It's either used to be four hundred now it's three hundred But in the last like 15 years it's changed by a hundred light years, which if the audience doesn't know one light year is 5.88 Trillion miles. Yeah, they had to change it by a hundred light years almost 30 percent change in the last 12 to 15 years according to nasa go look it up And so the claim that you know how far it is is insane They admit that they don't the answer to his question is that you guys don't know and you that you're so soon You can use parallax when you probably can't with Polaris because it's too far away in your own paradigm So that's the truth you guys admittedly don't know how far Polaris it's funny It's it's funny that you you claim that i'm always the one that's making statements that you said I never said that parallax can make it all the way out to Polaris What my exact words were is it can set a minimum because there is a distance that we can measure With parallax and I said it has to be over that at a certain point So that that is what I said I did not say that that's the way that we could come up with an exact measurement out And yeah, we're constantly refining distances constantly science continually updates You got to remember back a couple thousand years ago There were actually people out there that thought that the earth was flat and it had a dome over it Like that's how ridiculous things have been That's all you got How far are we from against that? But what's the problem is No, no, what's it hold on I just want to put the question to bed. So delcos go ahead You can I think it's funny because you know, oh, what's it come on now? What gaslighting what are you talking about gas? You don't know What's it? Oh, I know what it is. I don't know what you're doing I think it's funny because you talk about it like science changing is a bad thing when that's the whole point And it's ironic. It's very erotic too because like you don't you don't update You've been told repeatedly that that's not what it is and you failed to do so you fail to update what you speak about So I think that's very ironic that you piss on science for changing when you failed to do so yourself And it's why you're fucking wrong all the time with it because you fail to update Although you did try and divert from flat earth a few days ago I saw that you're trying to move to like a spherical like center thing instead of flat Maybe for a class that you're selling or something. I don't know, but it's an interesting migration I'm supposed to sit here and listen to see like lie about me and I'm having a great time with it I don't know what you're doing, but you're very excited whatever Clearly you can't use a question as an opportunity to attack someone and not let them I'm not attacking you with it. I don't care, bro. I don't care. Just smile. You don't smile enough I think the most Forge and pretend that they're stupider than us and somehow we're more advanced than they are And just because we are more advanced and have different technologies than they had That somehow makes us superior in knowing what we think we know Which we've proven time and time again that we continue to be wrong as mark just pointed out NASA even within its own thing continually wrong So no, not wrong continually updating models to become more and more accurate and more correct Right, okay. Well before they said that Earth was millions of years This question was for the globe side and I really want to get to the next question So I keep I want them to have the last word on the topic, please So we'll just we'll move on right there if everyone's cool with that Um, so we got lj for another dollar 99 and like I said lj big supporter. Thank you for coming lj Has gravity ever been measured as a force and then he answers his own question without a big nope um, but all of our globes to comment or respond I mean It's not a force so you wouldn't measure it as one But you I mean you could but like that would be inaccurate You could measure something polling, but I don't know why you would want to do that in this debate, right? It's silly to say would you what's it would you say the perturbation? Of ether is what you call gravity What's what's the exhibition perturbation ether waves? No, there is emf coming from the sky down to the earth measurably There's a downward electric current on the earth. So yeah, there's yeah, even in a faraday cage There's a vertical electric gradient. So that's the answer. It creates a downward bias everything that turns electric I would say there may be something to the idea of a theory Displacement so kind of what you're saying like perturbations like fluid like displacement Which even people on your side are now saying gravity is which is funny, but This thing gravity is fluid like displacement. Yeah, but if something akin to an ether, yeah, you can look up the guy that just Yeah, the astrophysicist from australia who just said that he falsified dark matter to signify confidence. That's very silly You know we have like millions of science I don't care what one dude says science is is if you could demonstrate I work very often the weeds my work is very often because I deal with consciousness and simulations of the things Doesn't matter point is I'm very off but I never have to say I know I'm right because I never have to say that's conspiracy I never have to just ignore somebody's work because it's inconvenient with it If you can't demonstrate if you demonstrate your point is real that science will accept. No, we're good Mark one more thing mark. Do you have anything else? Do you want to add to that real quick? Yeah, what it always is is they look for outliers, you know, just like we were talking about with uh ligo Yeah, that's what we do. That's what the computer programs do It erases background noise These people that they're continually quoting that oh so-and-so in australia says this about gravity Uh, they're outliers. They're they're one in a million scientists come up with these papers And then they cite them as oh this person because he's a um, he's an astrophysicist says this Well, guess what? There's just as many police officers that are murderers as there are in the general public But that doesn't mean that every police officer is going to be honest or every doctor isn't going to kill There's always going to be outliers What the? Just moving on with Free free palestine with another five dollars all maps are based on the standard datum plane Not standard datum globe. We have airplanes not air globes Be smarter Be a pure blood flat earther sounded more like a Comment but all out globe to respond. That's a bit of a weird way to phrase that I don't know about the last part of that that phrase What did he say? I'm not being organic. We can't talk about it on this something about pure flat earthers That's a bit. He said pure blood, but we can't talk about what he's talking about on this one. Oh, it's it. Are you getting weird on me? Delcos delcos this isn't about this isn't the like Sorry, it's just like I appreciate um, how So what he makes you but maybe we just like I'll moderate a 1v1 someday if you want Right, I keep it. I know he doesn't need me to come in here like this But we just want to read the questions discuss the topic. We're we're not who wasn't in our question I thought you asked what it meant. I was trying to tell you a comment and then you said his I'm going to explain to you guys what he meant by the comment. It's something we can't talk about on youtube Okay, so that's what I'm just trying to let you know because if you keep asking it's gonna get answered So we'll move on okay Um matters now sends ten dollars So fe so this is for flat earth Feynman also says in that paper that navigate current flows down to the earth via Lightning and the photo shows that a voltage drop across the thing on the ground is 0v I assume volts after show on matters now What does that have to do with it doesn't What does that have to do with the fact that there's a downward electric by it? That isn't somehow falsify my position at all As sometimes there's a change in electric field in a very isolated area during things like lightning strikes or a flip of temporary flip An isolated area of electric field all over the earth. There is a downward electric bias There is emf pressing on everything in this realm Objectively and the question is what a downward electric bias Are be the result of a downward electric current answer is of course, yes And it can be measured it can be manipulated you can make things go up and down with it So this is just a fact. I don't I'm not even making a claim. I'm just stating a fact Right, so it is what it is. There's a downward electric current. I just had to use Feynman So the people we can avoid the whole no, uh, you know Uh, so no big deal. I mean, we just let it go. We have evidence for our position You have merely theoretical reification fallacies attributing physical properties to conceptions such as a privation like space We don't have to do that. We don't have to just all off in the fairy tale la la land We just go into real world and measure it And actually that kind of proves it too because a lightning strike goes from the top to the bottom It goes down to the earth. That's a downward force You always see lightning strike downward not up There's some exceptions if there's something that charges a certain way right above it And then there's an area above the earth that kind of creates a differential and it can become tibbering polarized or polarized But yeah at all times there's downward electric current And I think it's like oil if you have something like manipulating it. That's one thing. Yeah Yeah, like an external variable, but what I want to say is one of those things just so everyone understands Gravity come from the word gravitas. That means weights Okay, we know that objects have weight. We don't deny that we dispute your claimed cause of it little g is downward acceleration mg mass volume times density times Acceleration right that's what weight is so we don't have a problem with that We have a problem with your belief of gravitation and that space and time can come together make a little space time baby And bend and warp to find logic and physics right you would need evidence for that You don't have evidence for that. We have evidence to support our position. It's it's very simple All right, our favorite initials lj $1.99 It's 2024. Why don't you have a camera on the moon yet? We did like a long time ago. We already did that We've been there. We did it with film instead of digital too. So you should like it even more, right? Doesn't somebody in the community own like a negative or a film reel from the moon or something? I think it's mr. Sensable doesn't he that's pretty good. That's a pretty good picture having the film. I mean, I don't know Oh, now like we did it already NASA already filmed over it. They they even said they came out and said that they accidentally filmed over the telemetry data Which if for example on a drone is just when I move the stick up or down or turn left That's irrelevant. Nobody, you know, that's that's garbage information. That's just used for troubleshooting at the time It's not that was all it was deleted. Everything else is fine. It's in museums It was just telemetry data and I think it was only from one mission too. It was on these kind of reels actually He's asking why is there not just a moon camera on the moon all the time just showing us the ur 24 7 live It would be like the most viewed thing in the history of what I wouldn't watch it I don't care what the hell's happening from the moon. I I don't give a shit. I don't think you would watch it I don't think anybody in the audience would watch that stream live 24 7 Just go on youtube and type in moon video and do that We took a picture. We took a picture with film We took hundreds of pictures of multiple times from the moon with film Devin we do that all over the years though where we like Somewhere in the middle of the woods and just watch birds or watch whatever like yeah, but those are birds We're not going to stare. This is not interesting. It's cool for a second It's cool for a second We do it with um Yeah, we do it with satellites and you guys deny that those cameras are on satellites pointing back down to the earth No, we don't do it with that. I that too. They stitch them together admittedly. What's it? No, no, no Oh my god, you have to know see this is the interesting part of it with it. You have to know that's a lie You're just saying you have to know everything. It's a lie. So nobody dives. It's so I didn't say it was a lie I didn't say it was a lie. They obviously didn't say it was a lie. Thank you are You are lying when you were doing that. Okay, everybody. All right, everybody. Oh, I almost muted I almost muted that was going to be the first time ever mutant But I didn't have to um questions for globe. I want globe to Shut the question down without leaving a question in the air. Okay Go ahead. We have pictures from space. We have them on film. We have hundreds of them from different missions. And there you go That's all you need We have pictures of other planets and they don't like that either So so what good is a camera on the moon going to be and we haven't been there since the 70s All right So auto pln 25. I don't I don't know what pln 25 is but thank you Is it true that people who believe in flat earth are more likely to be the victims of russian propaganda? So what's it? Do you support ukraine or russia? Actually, you know what if you don't want to answer that you don't have to I don't pick uh sides of geopolitical conflicts that clearly benefit powerful groups of people that propagandize The entire world to pick one way or the other a little bitch I would I would obviously not pick ukraine with all of the mainstream propaganda shoving it down my throw And then all the normies that don't even think for themselves literally ever just changing their profile pictures to it But anyway, I'm not going to get into that because people feel real passionate about things. They don't understand Just watch cnn news Um, but but what was the thing trying to tying in they was trying to say is that flat earth is a russian propaganda sigh Up right because this comes from typically I got popular by somebody named michael sartain Who was admitting that flat earthers always dominate debates and globe earthers always have to use tactics But he's a globe earther and he's had physicists on and stuff they keep winning So we explained what he thinks happened is that right around the time of the elections The russians were messing with our internet by content and that they pushed flat earth to deceive the west And so that's basically what he's suggesting I think that that's a ridiculous claim, but uh, yeah, cool. Whatever if you want to add to that Mercedes But um, do not feel like you need to answer this question I don't know. I'm good answering it. I'm against the russian and the ukraine propaganda as well They're all on the same team. So there's really no point to pick a side because They're all in league with each other. I mean if you just look at Putin's history alone and what they say and actually follow Like what they do Then you would realize that there's not really uh one side or the other They're just trying to get you to pick so it's not about being a a little b as devin was pointing out It's about waking up and realizing that instead of trying to put us or pit us against one another That there's a bigger thing going on in that whole realm of things all right Moving on rich c constitution ten dollars I work on a ballistic missile that we test often the missile travels 4 000 plus nautical miles and we use a rotating globe model for the flight path Not a flat plane Guess what it guess what it works every time We use a rotating globe for the for the flight path of what? Of a ballistic missile that travels 4 000 plus nautical miles And they say it works every time You don't use any type of rotation for that whatsoever And I don't get why you guys don't understand that actually with like military things like that target requirement It's used as a cartesian coordinate system from the actual position that you fire the trajectory. This is objective That's why whenever there if you find out if you find your enemy and you you're doing target requirement You make a concentric circle grid system Right a cartesian coordinate system from your position to locally analyze it Now if you're you're claiming that they shoot missiles all around the world and stuff really how often does that happen? How often do they claim to shoot missiles all around the world like basically never ever you don't even claim it But it doesn't matter you just make a transform from the globe core or from the uh plane earth coordinates to a globe coordinate They don't account for the rotation of the earth and we've already hijacked and proven that uh gyroscopes and pendulums Both backfired interferometry shows the spin increases without the two at the same latitude debunking the globe So actual detection of side deal rotation has falsified the globe model And literally not one globe earth during three years can even formulate or pretend to rebut that so uh, yeah, whatever So you do you got anything that Yeah, I mean, it's just a fallacy because they're saying oh, I saw this so that's why this is real I mean we can't prove it that this real she's got no proof She just he or she is just saying what they're saying I could easily come back and say yeah My dad's in the navy and I can guarantee you that they don't use that kind of a model They don't use a geocentric force But then you're just going off of my word and you wouldn't believe my word either So it's just that's it just won't work. She needs a better here. She needs a better argument Berman the consulate All right, our next super chat comes from devin delcos for ten dollars He's apologizing for his technical issues everybody. I'm very sorry I keep cutting out It's fine. Um, it was stated early on to even mercedes admitted that she was having difficulties over there too It's it's january and if you're anywhere in the northern states or canada Yeah, it's tough Can go 44 50 dollars a question for what's it What's it have you worked in any any industry that uses any of the sciences have any qualifications Published a scientific paper formally study any of the sciences. I'm not debating you so there's no fallacy These are just questions. No, but they're questions to imply an attempt to discredit me, right? So no, I mean, yeah, I Went to high school took some physics honors one and two went to college, but I didn't end up finishing college I don't even regret that at all everyone I meet from college that actually gets a degree or something further than that They think they're way smarter than they are so anyway, um, and that's just a generalization but uh That isn't a pill to credentials So it doesn't in any way validate or invalidate anything that I've said, right? Like uh, the some of the smartest most successful and innovative people in the history of mankind have consistently not been college students with specific degrees Nicole tesla for example from your own side. You have einstein. Okay, so that's it doesn't really matter, right? The evidence is what matters The evidence is what matters if I inform myself on actual evidence and I can present it that can be verified That's what determines the validity of my argument But the the short answer is no I don't have specific qualifications for any of these which is a blessing because I get to smoke the globes on all the subjects I don't have to just focus form one thing forever Sorry, I didn't mean to smile, but when you said the short answer and I was like like from witsett Next question from base theory for $1.99 is a challenge to witsett to debate him. He says stop dodging my challenge I don't know who that is bro. You know how many people say that I got I'm in discord Grayson from base, Grayson from How are you gonna say that I'm ducking in the last literally the last video on my youtube Grayson Will jumped on to debate me Or like an hour and a half two hours the only one talking with me the whole time But uh, I did say that I would eventually debate him on specific subjects. I don't care to do that but I'm making an exception in a way, but Dude, I just gave you my platform for two straight hours on the last show. He thought I'm ducking you debating, bro. That's weird Good try I guess Next question taking back Eden FE five dollars canadian Globe defenders in a cult. Can you feel the supposed earth tilt? Feel here see the supposed spin velocity Change when traveling go against their senses So this is clearly for the globe side. So they're asking a bunch of questions We can disregard the cult part I guess Can you feel the earth's tilt? Can you feel here or see the supposed spin velocity change or traveling? What velocity change? What tilt like I I don't understand what the question even is there's no model that we have that would Allow us to detect any of those Questions so no absolutely not As a human can we detect the tilt? Can we can we detect the spin? Can we detect? No, not not as a human. Can we measure it? Do we have equipment to measure it? Do we see it? That that's a better question You got anything there? No, I had to fix my uh Pop filter it was falling off. Uh, it's yeah. No, I think mark got a pretty good pretty good camera on that Um matters now for two dollars Does an informal fallacy mean it is false? It's not directed at anybody. So Um, they'll give everyone yes or no is an informal fallacy mean it's false Uh, no, right? Like if you think that someone uses a fallacy and that means that their conclusion's wrong That's called the fallacy fallacy Oftentimes people use that against me to claim they think it means if you just call out fallacies a lot as a debate tactic or something But no, of course pointing out the fallacious reasoning and your opponent's argument is how you debate quite literally It's about logical validity and consistency But if someone uses an informal fallacy, it doesn't mean that their conclusion is wrong It doesn't validate their argumentation But if you were to say I'll give an example because I want people to stop saying this Right because fallacy fallacy is for example, if I say he causes water to boil then someone says no, uh, how's that true? Prove it and I say everyone knows that he causes water to boil bro, right? That's an invalid argument. It's an appeal to consensus It's a pill to majority. It's a fallacy, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't cause water to boil That doesn't mean that my conclusion is true So to apply it to this a globe or there could still technically be true that they're using fallacious arguments They're not substantiating that conclusion with any type of logical validity. So it invalidates your argument not your conclusion Sadies Yeah, that's I mean, it's basically the same thing All right, uh Devin No, I think we're good. Sorry It's okay mark. I'm trying to let mark We're good We're good. Oh well, okay Uh mercedes f1 fan 299 um And we skipped the rest of that question free free palestine 10 dollars We're all flat earthers in the center of the whole universe Globe is pseudoscience to make you believe that your great great grandmother popped out of a chimp and lost on a spinning ball I mean the majority of the world is religious So I don't get why flat earth would make them more religious if you already are Like I I think that would be silly. I think the world's a lot more impressive the way it is than like They're saying they're saying that your side is religious because it will literally take a lot to believe that you came from a chimp No, I think what they're saying is if adjusted if you reread it I think they're saying I think you guys are kind of both, right? You're just focusing on different parts of the of the super chat here So at the beginning of the super chat They say that all flat earthers in the center of the whole universe and that the globe is pseudoscience um, and then they attack, um I guess evolution here so that you believe Well, I know a little bit about animals. We We didn't come from a chimp chimps are alive today. How could we come from a chimp? We came from a primate So no, we didn't come from chimps. We're primates We forked off of another primate that no longer exists. Um, however many millions of years ago No, we didn't come from a chimp. Nobody says that we came from a chimp. We're primates That's just a belief system that you have and you at least admit that it may not be true Of course it is So there's no way that it's not true Yeah, can you at least say that maybe it could be false Everything could be false. That's how science works. That's the difference between us. Everything can be false Everything can have different levels of truth. Everything can have a different level of mistake Or as you would guys would call it a fallacy or a lie Just because we make mistakes does not make the whole science a lie Why do you turn it on us and start gaslighting? What what the what the crap bro? We're now we're gaslighting Now we're gaslighting mark. You believe that truth itself is relative not gaslighting. Just a simple question Do you think truth itself is relative? Uh, yeah, absolutely if you're just saying it to me right now how far away is the corner store I would say to you um, I think it's about a mile and it turns out to be 1.1 mile Are you listening and it turns out to be 1.1 mile that that's not a lie or a fallacy. That was a mistake That was an inaccuracy or it just it didn't have Pardon me Is truth always relative or there are times where truth? Well, why do you want to call it truth or do you want to call it knowledge or and what we know We're continually updating our knowledge and we're continually updating the accuracy of what we consider true You invoke objective truth in your example You said if it turns out to be 1.1 You said if it turns out to be 1.1 you invoke an actual objective distance or your example Question this is their objective truth our inability to be confident that we found it is not relevant That is their objective truth Well, is there objective truth That's the question something that we know to be absolutely true Doesn't matter if we know it or not. Is there an objective truth? I would say no I don't know about that mark. I think you could get accurate. No, I It's getting into another interesting topic frankly, but it's kind of varying off a little bit of flat earth The question is to the globe side. So delco go ahead make your comment or your Go ahead and I was gonna say put the question to bet for me. Go ahead Maybe I mean it depends on how you consider it if you want to say like workable reality Then no, but if you want to get like technical, I guess eventually we could maybe given enough time Eventually, I don't know. This is not really a noble question. I guess Like 2 plus 2 is always going to be 4 and that's a truth But that doesn't apply in the real world But if you're gonna ask us if you're gonna ask us about something that's very complex that we think is true today There's always room for improvement That's what we do as people. That's why when you sit here and talk about einstein and stuff You're going back almost a hundred years to and you're quoting science of a hundred years ago And you're quoting the few things that they that wasn't well understood And that that's your always your aha moment All right next comment from taking back eden fe to canadian dollars Little bit of a I guess a little bit of a shot at delco, but I don't think it's too harmful Let's count the times delco dodges questions. Oh, I don't know about that. It's kind of hard to count to zero So like that like a fist All right, it's just gonna move along really fast so we don't get up stuck here Can go 44 and z five dollars witsit Yeah, okay, witsit having to cry about the debate is going As he has nothing yet again Yeah, every single one of my very specific points was ducked the entire time And I specifically refuted and had to teach them about their own claims each time and every time that it got pulled back I found out they didn't even know how their own claims works So I don't know why people just baselessly assert what everyone can watch to not be true. It's very fascinating phenomena But it's all good. I was just saying I kind of The only thing I was saying at the end was I kind of wished at Mercedes that I got to talk more And I feel trapped in a way where they try to corner her into a question Well, you were the one that interrupted most of the time So I wouldn't be talking witsit. You were the one that jumped in when I was trying to talk to her multiple times And interrupted her. So I don't know what you're talking about bro projecting. Maybe You are kind of dumb so you might do that. No, no, so delcos Those are comments that you've gotten away with a couple already tonight Um, so please don't no, it's not about calling the other debaters on the platform Names, okay If you want to say their argument is dumb By all means. Oh, okay. They are definitely Not dumb. No, your your argument is very flawed and incorrect Well, I was gonna mount point was just like I wish Mercedes that I got to talk more because she's I haven't seen her much. I think she's pretty articulate and makes good points And uh, from my perspective, she was getting back teamed by you guys and kind of cut off And I know what we're just talking to her But then you would to be one or not let her talk and so it was a bit frustrating because then I felt like I had to jump Into help and it's all good, but I'm not trying to I have said many times I have said many times. I think Justin's one of the best moderators on here. I think he did a good job It's kind of far certainly to be too. So it is what it is, bro I'm just saying that the claim I didn't have anything is just clearly an untrue statement and it shows that you're coping All right next question from bonds 499 Why does the spin of the earth affect a bullet but not a plane? I'm an avid hunter and I have never once used a spin calculation. I use wind reads So this is clearly for the globe side Mark, do you shoot guns ever? Yeah, I used to manufacture ar-15 but actually um, it's because of the spin It's a spin. It's gyroscopic procession. So as the earth is spinning you've got a spinning bullet And uh, yeah, it'll always move down into the I believe it's the left It's been a lot of years and why would a plane have to account for that spin? There there's yeah, absolutely no reason But the spin that we're doing according to the globe model is we're falling over backwards at a thousand miles per hour And when a bullet spins it's spinning like this. It's not falling backwards over itself. So how Yeah, it's when you take something that you know what gyroscopic procession is Yes It's when you take something that's spinning and you apply a force to it any kind of force to get it to try to change direction It will have an it'll have a reaction where it tries to move off at 90 degrees So it's like when you try to turn a bicycle wheel you try to turn it Um level up and down it'll push off at a 90 degree angle So that is why a bullet so it the bullet's going through the atmosphere The atmosphere is moving with the earth gyroscopic procession causes it to spin down into the left Yes, why does it happen with the bullet it's not a plane? It's predictable because the plane is not spinning The plane has engines and is being flown and a bullet is not Bullets done of engines and a plane a plane is constantly having inputs put into it It has trims like that's the part that makes me laugh the most about your when people fly planes Do they fly it like it's flatter? Of course, they fly it like it's flatter. There's small amount of trim will keep you Exactly where you want. You think there's no input put into an airplane Your teammates the one that said they didn't do that, bro That's not what I said. What's it that is not what it's documented That is not I gotta I'm gonna have to dip and come back because I kind of like lagging and frozen. I'm sure you do What's it? I'm sure you do. He's he's lagging. He is lagging Oh, yeah, I just saw him move really quick real fast Yeah, he gets that he gets that over there once in a while and and the funny thing is is when he was talking about the clock That can run off the power. I didn't actually get to talk back then, but that's exactly it It's it's taking the power from the movement of the earth That's where it's getting the energy from to run the clock Or whatever he was speaking about All right Um, the next question is from lj, which means it's for the globe side so we can go ahead While withs it comes back So lj $1.99 Delcos, why hasn't space tech improved since the 1970s? I don't think that's true because didn't we just land a rocket backwards? That was pretty cool. That wasn't in the 70s I don't know what that argument means like obviously it's gotten better What do you mean it used to explode and now it lands backwards on it. That's it. I think I think and I'm only extrapolating and you can go ahead and I could be completely wrong. I think they're kind of replying back to the camera on the moon question So the whole idea of tech improving since the 70s to go back to the moon, maybe I we I mean because it's not financially viable. Oh go ahead mark. Sorry We've made it to the sun I don't I don't understand what they're talking about a few years back. We made it to the sun We actually got into the sun's atmosphere With with a space probe. We've done incredible things the accuracy now that we go out and slingshot ourselves around planets to end up to where another planet is going to be and to nail it within Not even kilometers like they nail these trajectories and they do it all based on things spinning on gravity These are incredible predictions and I think that's why these become such um heated debates Is because it's really such a kick in the head the amount of work that's put into this the amount of technology And then for someone just to come along and say, oh no, that's all life You know we are on earth our gravity is this electrical thing But they don't explain why there's gravity that we can deal with slingshotting things around mars Is that an electrical gradient too? Where's the electrical gradient start like this is all the stuff that they're just talking points But no explanations on how it works throughout the universe All right. Thank you very much. Um next question So jack Cervantes five dollars giving flat earth legitimacy is the saddest shit on the planet. Why are we doing this? It's like indulging a schizo that voices in the radio are real There's always something to learn from people and I think you should talk to flat earthers because of a small group Of people can be as crazy as they are and believe this delusional and not wits it obviously, but you know The real flat earthers that believe the earth is flat Um, if they can believe that then you can believe something that is less crazy, but still equally crazy And I think it's important because it's it's important to check yourself and they serve as an interesting view into What can happen if you don't Sometimes We think that our ancestors for thousands of years that did think the earth was flat as you Do you think that all of them were just crazy and morons too? Well, no, they weren't crazy But like if you really want to get into that an iphone for example Is better than the pyramids There are things that are borderline the size of our dna that are inside of those little chips That is a billion times more amazing than guys who stacked rocks in the desert and had nothing else to do Of course they could do that. That's not impressive. We have directly pushed forward We are like, I don't even know how to describe it We are infinitely smarter than they ever could hope to be or will be or ever could because they're dead And they saw that's true then why can't we recreate a lot of the structures? I'm not talking about the pyramids. I'm talking about like giant Cathedral-like buildings with giant doors made for people that look like they were a lot bigger than us And we can't We can't even remember those with the technology we have Well, we can they're just not in style right the buildings some of the buildings that we've had the modern buildings Like built into cliffs and stuff. These are infinitely infinitely more difficult to build than any any old structure Especially these old structures are all vertical. They're all small at the top and big at the bottom. They all sit nicely, right? They're not that impressive. They're very pretty. They're very detailed That's because people took the time to like carve little shit into them Then the buildings themselves from an engineering perspective are shitty and terrible and boring, right some of the That's the point. The point is they're not really that impressive. They're very fancy. They're very decadent But technically from a physical level, they are not very complex. They're very simple and optimized to hold themselves up Yeah, to say that we couldn't go start cut no great big huge rocks and piling them up is just wrong Our technology is increased. We now grind up the stone We go we go to the spot where we're going to build these things and we pour concrete because it's way smarter And so instead of taking 100 years to build a building we do it in six months Why wouldn't we it's called technology. That's things. It's not that we can't do it. It makes no sense to do it All right next question. Welcome back. What's it? No, bro. Um from A wall trading five Sorry, I was supposed to mute it. Yeah, okay Um, did the first plane to fly around earth always keep turning right or left or did it fly straight forward? Planes can fly straight forward. Yes. I believe this is for the flat side That's so crazy that globers don't know that if you circumnavenate on a globe You still have to go in a circle and you have to also turn They literally think that you don't have to turn in fact FTFE went on this big thing with jaren Betting and money and then backed out once he realized he was wrong Because of course you have to do that even on a globe common sense But I will say that if you're flying a long distance, you're not going to know if you're slowly curving updating for like a direction Right, you're not going to know that that's just a fact, right? I mean, why do people say things like this? I don't know But if you were to go circumnavigate east to west around a plain earth relative to north Well, you're flying such a great distance that even if you're slightly updating relative to your direction You're not going to be able to notice that you're doing that But even on a globe you would have to turn right very simple stuff But it's all good if you understand how the angle actually works the angular displacement of the Plane relative to whatever the angle on that sphere is then you would actually still be turning slightly very simple, but Yeah, anyway, obviously there's no exclusivity in east to west circumnavigation I think this is one of the things that glober should retire Because it it actually creates more flat earthers when you make arguments like that Sadies anything else? Um, no, he pretty much covered everything. I would about say honestly on that one already um Free free Palestine five dollars the ISS doesn't have a dashboard or a speedometer, etc Not really a question there I guess yeah, it actually does we know exactly the altitude so that means we know the exact speed that needs to hold that altitude Um, yeah, it we we don't need it We we honestly don't need it You said actually it does but we don't need it. So which one is it? Yeah, yeah Actually, it does, you know, but you don't need a speedometer. You don't need an actual speedometer sitting on the thing They know the height which means they know the speed Okay, if they know the speed they know the height Okay, but it doesn't have one. I mean, I don't even know what the point of the question is other than like your answer Was just a contradiction. So cool. We can move on. Well, I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure there are computers there That's telling them exactly how fast they're going pretty sure and their height sure. I would imagine if it was real that would exist Yeah Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's a semantic thing It's obviously it doesn't have a Chevy dashboard with a free exactly. That's what I'm saying Yeah, but but I've actually proven in terms of their equations and physics that it would require a geocentric earth with real inertial forces An elliptic circular path with curved motion which defaults to a geocentric stationary earth and falsifies relativity, but whatever Which means all satellites are alive, which means all the GPS satellites are alive It means all our broadcast satellites are alive. Everything's alive No, it specifically doesn't mean that I'm going to share the screen really fast I don't know if you can help me out and show the audience, but this is To cover all those points that I said the whole time. This is an astronomer Gerardis bow. I'm not a philanthropist authority. He's just actually correct here You can look up to yourself Again, once more for the record has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations of physics used by NASA to launch satellites are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe Thus if the space program is proof of anything it proved geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism The evidence for heliocentrism is even weaker than the evidence for evolution Whether you agree or disagree with him He is factually correct that they use a geocentric universe physics Not just kinematics, but dynamics with actual inertial forces acting inward on the alleged satellite with real curved paths Which would only be present in a modern geocentric center position So just saying that I claim that they're fake when I specifically said if they're real They're actually proof of geocentrism is kind of a weird tactic Some guy says and he agrees with you. That's what that's all about one guy one guy I got this guy's paper and he agrees with me and here it is. So it must be true. That's not my argument I specifically said I'm not appealing to his authority or the fact that he said it I said he just You can independently verify they use geocentric dynamics and kinematics with real inertial forces I've said that 10 times in this debate. You strongly mean said I said all satellites are fake I'm saying no if they're real if satellites are real It's evidence towards a geocentric position with actual inertial forces So a centrifugal centripetal and euler forces which in your model does not exist nor do actual circular paths Or do actual ellipses nor do curved motion nor do changing velocities relative to the center of the aci None of that should exist in terms of physics according to your model and relativity If they're really up there, they are proof of a stationary earth if anything All right next question can go 44 Uh spends five Uh question for witsit if I build a device that would only work If the earth is globe and it works What does that mean to you? What a cool story I don't know such thing exists So, you know, I what would it mean to me? I don't know. What would it mean to me like dale said if it or devon said Well, what if uh Unicorns came and dat me up. What if you know little fairies are breathing in at the center of the earth and bringing everything towards I don't mean You just use a transform from a plane to a globe coordinate system You use geocentric position and then you say the earth is the opposite of all those things So there's not any piece of technology that actually requires the earth being a rotating globe and all of it in all engineering requires The earth be a stationary plane as well as planes and helicopters and missiles and everything that we use Literally everything we use in the world But if I was going to apply your logic and say oh if we have to assume the earth is something for us to use the technology And then it works you're implying that proves it and welcome to flat earth You've just claimed that we prove flat earth every day a million different ways All right, we're losing debaters That it's spinning but they won't accept that the stability of the earth proves that it's spinning The stability proves it's not stable. That's very interesting No, this the stability of the earth is proof that it's spinning Just like any other thing you take a ball put it on the floor can roll in any direction try spinning it and getting it's Move in any direction without applying force to it I know you like to call the earth wobbling to to make it sound like it's so ridiculous What is this wobble you're talking about a couple degrees your model how many years your model claims? There's four different wobbles. Do you know what they are? Do I know what all the wobbles are no go ahead explain Like there was just one and that it was real small. You don't even know what they are. There's nuttation There's no we we got a wobble We got a wobble where the the tilt of the earth changes a couple degrees I don't even know if it's a couple degrees done never looked it up. Don't really care. I know it goes up and down a little bit um, so yeah Okay, but there's like what's the other big wobble that proves that it's a flatter That's a straw man never claimed the wobble doesn't exist What actually happened was they they worship the procession of the equinoxes over time and they said okay The only way we can prove this with the spinning orbiting earth is that it must be wobbling They didn't measure it They saw that the equinoxes process over time Then they realized that that doesn't work to explain the orbit of the moon over time So they had to add a second type of wobble which they call nuttation They didn't saw a different displacement and the stellar observations and they had to add a third wobble So you guys have multiple I don't even know how you can physically demonstrate more than two wobbles at one time No one's ever done it, but it's just the clean that you make I don't say it to make it sound stupid I say it to accurately denote what the model says which is that the earth is tilted wobbling four different ways spinning flying through space But none of it can actually be directly measured or detected or whatever All right next question Um, I don't I don't understand it at all I think they're Maybe poking fun at you a little bit mark, but I don't get it So it's Eli sends two dollars. This is what do you do question mark? Mark I drive Um, maybe that was a comment. I think what they're trying to say is um, at the beginning of the debate it was very um, Devin Austin heavy, so you were Just chilling at the start like you you didn't And actually my my wife was driving. It's not a matter of that. I don't drive I was doing a debate so my wife was driving and as an engineer So as an engineer and then I like I said I used to train lions and tigers I've done a lot of things played drums and bands. Yeah, my life is not what I would consider for I think they're referring to just like earlier in the debate. They may have felt your participation was minimal But you know, well, I didn't want to over talk though. Those two clearly had a bunch of stuff to hash out I know they've debated before so I I knew that it was going to start out pretty heavy with the two of them Picking up where they left off before All right, so it looks like Delco's I'm just going to read all the way to the last super chat. I just got everybody just saw it sends another two dollars This is the powers out and have fun guys. Love you. What's it? um, so Yeah, I guess we're going at it with I'll try to adjust my my overlay to accommodate just the three the three of you But I'll read the next question first so Zins, wow, this is a cool name Zins nose 499 wits it if you admit the ISS exists and is real we can see it Why not trust the images from it? Are all countries that visit it just lying? What a false dichotomy, bro. Like First of all, yes, like our four governments lie They all sign the Antarctic treaty. They all shut the world down overnight So why would I think they wouldn't cooperate to lie about something like that? I'm actually people from the inside have suggested that it's very clearly very compartmentalized. You basically get gifted The opportunity to tell the next space travel story Someone working on the alleged next moon mission came out and said that's literally what happened and they gave it to Japan but japan has to agree not to talk about what happened in the past He's probably a quack anyone that disagrees you've filtered their authority until they disagree but Anyway, I don't believe in things that can be proven false So if you actually examine the footage from ISS you will catch them faking it The fact that people deny that is very weird. So go look into it instead of just desperately looking for an excuse Just looked at they're clearly using wires They're clearly using green screens even caught doing it So no just because I see in the sky doesn't mean people are on there doing backflips It doesn't mean that the footage that's been proven fake is somehow real false. I got it And my favorite is that if there's so many space agencies out there like besides NASA There's you know RACA and RASA and all these other kinds of Chinese have theirs Um, didn't that prove that somehow there's not a big conspiracy? Well, I always say go watch theirs go watch the ones that are outside of the us because they look so fake They use stop motion. They use older older technologies and you can catch the uh, you can catch it a lot easier It's it's actually really funny to watch. Yeah, for sure So when you're talking about shutting the world down, I take you you're talking about COVID You're kind of cold. Are you trying to talk? You know, we can't talk about that Regardless of what you think about it. Yeah, the world did agree to all shut down in unison with very minor exceptions So we have international cooperation. That's the point. We're not going to debate. Well, we can't debate We're just talking about international cooperation And like she said, I've never heard globers actually go watch like the chinese footage and defend it It's so blatantly fake That you love to invoke that they exist but not their footage the chinese and japanese footage Just go to their youtube. Please go to your youtube and convince yourself that stuff is real. It's hilarious um The next one is a comment towards delco who's not here to Really defend himself on this, but I think mark might be able to Toby walkerson's five dollars. Thank you delcos for creating more flat earthers today fallacies drive honest people to the truth Yeah, but you want to comment on that And like I said, it's just it doesn't matter what we say It doesn't matter what kind of proof we come up with like they said Why don't we put a camera on the moon? Um, if we put a camera on the moon, they would say that's a lie There's nothing that we can say because their automatic response is that it's a fallacy that we're making it up That it's a conspiracy that we're doing all these multiple things like think just sit back and think to yourself How many? Disciplines of science they have to attack to make their model work Every single discipline of science They have to tear it down and they have to say it doesn't exist And it's just a bunch of people making stuff up And that's the funniest thing about it. And then you got to ask yourself. Why are they doing this? What's the motivation to you at the beginning of the debate that that isn't what we think It's just uh, you're poisoning the well and you're saying that we have to believe something that we don't That's a straw man and you seem to imply that fallacies don't matter Yeah, if we have to point out fallacies every time you guys say something That's a you problem And if you can't defend that it's not a fallacy it invalidates your argument isn't just a tactic It's how debates work. So I don't know why you guys have to say Everyone in all the scientific fields have to be in on none of us think that that's absolutely not true The vast majority of fields assume the earth is a plane Okay, they don't have to account for the earth being a spinning globe And then when they model it into that even in specific isolated fields, not all of them It doesn't mean that it is doesn't mean that they're lying, right? They're just trying to model what they believe please stop straw manning us all though in a way I don't care if you do because like toby said using fallacies like that actually create more flat earth There's the number one email that I get Since you're speaking for Delcos mark go ahead with the last word Yeah, it's actually not the truth if you notice everything that we say there's a reason why it's not true There's a reason that the international space station is green screens and it's it's wires And they're saying that no these people don't know that they're part of conspiracy Okay, so everybody that goes up to the space station the people that built it The people that are behind all the math to get it up into the air building of the rockets to get these pieces up there to put it together They're all just making it up the Hubble has just been made up I I guess that doesn't go up and circle the earth I I I guess all all the things that we've sent into space just just don't exist because it doesn't fit their model So we have to get rid of trillions of dollars worth the things that we've built That has built the technology that we're we're actually sitting and talking over right now All right next question Run boston bear ten dollars if someone shows up to watch their first flat earth Their first flat verse globe debate they will notice the flat side is calm and collected while the globe side spirals Why is this always the way? Because like I was saying you can only be kicked in the balls so many times These are serious people that spend a lot of time they go for educations They spend you know, there's collectively again billions of dollars a year spent on people to get education So that they can go out into these highly technical fields and do the things that they're doing for humanity Building the satellites building our communication systems Making us what we are today compared to ignorant goat herders of the past That you know walked around randomly looking up to the sky and making up gods for licensing for For lightning and storms, you know Everything that we're doing is being built off of the backs of the people that they're saying don't exist And that their models don't exist and that everything that we do is is just wrong and we're lying and And he'll say that he's not saying that But that's exactly what they're saying when they're talking about green screens and wires and the chinese and this and that No as a group of a person a group of people We've done incredible things and then we have these outliers That are sitting there talking to people and trying to make them convince them that this is not reality And it really is is is a kick in the teeth because we should be proud as a society of what we've done not have people trying to tear it down Oh, he's very always virtuous. Mercedes. Can you try to convince him? We don't think that or maybe maybe he'll listen to you It's just kind of rich to me that uh, you guys invoked that the thunder and sky gods and everything would literally all of the planets are named after Gods and goddesses When were they named pattern? Huh, when were they named in modern times like modern nasa missions. They'll do it So so what's wrong with that? We name all those things we we name What do names have to do with that? Well, what I think is weird our side was not our side was inferior because there's thunder and sky gods I'm trying to point out. I didn't say we're inferior. I didn't say you're inferior Actually, I started out the conversation saying that I've heard I've heard his debates. I think he's well read I think he's an intelligent person That was the first thing that I said before I even started my debate I've never said that you guys are stupid. I've never that's not my style What I'm saying is you've called us liars over and over you've called us fakers over and over that we're Putting things up on wires and we're we're green screening things I haven't said that to you. We are you saying we? Yeah, exactly. What do you mean? I don't you yeah, we As as this side the people who consider the technology that we're working on every day to improve I'm considering that to be my side. Not me. I don't vote every day and build satellites I'm saying we our side the people that are doing the work to make all this stuff happen That's the problem. You actually collectivize that as if it's somehow your accomplishment And then you guys come here and say we we we we Basically your response to his question of why our global global is not the ones that are chill when they should come here Be like, dude, we just proved this thousand years ago What a joke and the flyers would always more calm and respectful and specific to the point Why would the globe earth there be freaking out your answer was that you're coming here Basically virtue signals saying you're coming here to stand up for all the scientists that we're denying or something Which is seemingly a weird answer to why can't the ball earthers just show some type of respect in the debates I don't get it But i'll say one more thing there's obviously a huge difference in a group of people at the iss faking something and Everyone in all fields of science must be lying. Okay. They're just a handful of people that clearly would have to be in on it Yes, if they're faking footage don't believe everyone's lying bro, and you're not doing it either So we're not calling you a liar Come on bro I would challenge anybody to come up with one word from me that has been derogatory towards you or Marcedes because I haven't done it once so don't say that I have and I have been calm That's the thing now has my opponent been that's up to you know or my uh, my partner That's up to people to to determine for themselves, but I'm my own person I have my own style and you know, we were asked why we find it so Offensive and why the hair on our backs get up so so bad and and that's it We just feel like we're we're defending something that is um, you know It's it's put us where we are today. It's the same as when I do Debates on medicine or we do debate on on religion where people think that you know praying is going to make the world better It's no it's doctors that make the world better not praying All right, well if you're trying to debate with someone about like a flatter versus glow model I don't understand why there's not more curiosity from your side instead of There's a lot of attacking and a lot of defending But the the truth of it is that from a lot of the things you've even said today mark It doesn't sound like there's a lot of things it sounds like you know some things about the flat earth But there's a lot of things it seems like you don't know fully how the flat earth works So this is just an assumption But it seems to me that you haven't looked into All the ways the flat earth works. Is that correct? Well, I've asked I've asked the questions to have you explain it and they they have not been answered today Like I said, we did build an experiment to prove gravity and then he brings up a paper on one particular Detection of gravity and he's reading out this thing and then I point out that there's been 90 more Detections of gravitational waves and then he brings up. Oh, well, it's all just background noise We're having troubles separating out the background noise. No, we're not We we separate out the background noise and then we detect it thousands of miles away again And we detect it at the exact speed that we would expect to get there So that wasn't covered at all. So that's that's what i'm saying You're always just confronted with these I found this one paper Where a scientist has admitted that he's made a mistake. Uh-huh. The whole program is garbage Okay, you can't just monologue and then me not address the storm I have to address trauma now. So the question is taking too long. I'm going to address your strawman because you're misrepresenting I never said I never said that one I found one paper where one scientist said one of the times was bad Therefore it discredits all of them as blatantly a misrepresentation. I read the paper The argument is what I'm making that's in the paper the insurmountable problem for the credibility of ligo's claims Is the questionable character of the theoretical assumptions upon which they are based and this paper Various arguments are presented according to the basic theoretical assumptions and the consequential claims of detecting Neural positional waves and are proven false Okay, and that it they all use that they all use the same base presuppositions with a computer neural network So that is the actual argument It's that it's based on presuppositions That you can't verify that can be proven false and then it runs through a neural network To try to make up what the results should be admittedly. It's highly speculative That's it. That's the actual argument. So you you know though, you know, you're you're a smart guy You know and you clearly understand what they're doing at ligo because I heard you speak about it You clearly know what they're doing there and you clearly know that these computer programs are there just to weed out background noise any vibration that's localized even if it's an earthquake is not going to Reach the other detector at the speed of light like gravity is going to get there So when you have something hit one detector arm make it to the next arm that is L shaped Make it to the next one three thousand miles away and then the next arm next to it two and a half kilometers away We can rule out everything that is background noise and all it leaves is gravitational waves Yeah, it's it's it's clever. You can read the paper if you want to I want to put the question into bed there Um, I mean it wasn't specifically to uh anyone Um, but it did kind of antagonize the globe side. So I'll let mark out the last word there Um No, we're good Bonds for 499 wire hunters not trained to account for more choreolists in the aqua Equatorial African than in the arctic circle, Canada There should be some noticeable difference Because they're not shooting out at a distance that would matter any hunter that is taking shots of two three four five Kilometers should have their hunting license taken away The the distance isn't there to deal with it Why would we be dealing with that at that short of a distance? But if you want to talk about Coriolis effect, why is it if you take a bucket of water and you pour it into something with a hole in the bottom? Why does it drain out clockwise on on one side of the globe and counterclockwise on the other side? Is that the magical um electrical field thing again or what are we dealing with? There's a wonderful effect perfectly demonstrated where you can see it right in front of your own eyes Clockwise one way counterclockwise the other way and I've been to australia. So don't tell me that it's not true Okay, it is objectively not true It's been proven It's based on you can do you want to bet $15,000 that you can go to australia and watch it go the other way If you get it going the other way Yes $15,000 that you can go to australia and have it go both ways That's an arbitrary arbitrary number. Is it not why would we have to go to australia? We can test it in canada Okay, yeah, so you claim that every single thing that goes down a drain in north and north of never said that I never said that dude. It's never said that It's well known A ball cut of water with a hole in the bottom of something a container in the northern atmosphere It'll go one way or the northern Northern if you go to the south Of the globe, it'll go the other way the majority of the time now If something causes it to go the other way like it for instance a flushing toilet where the jets are made to start The the vortice going the one way then yes, it will start that way But it's natural way to go down the drain nine times out of 10 will be opposite on different sides As I go to refute you you interrupt in monologue and then everyone's like, okay Let's move on from the question so that you can dominate it and spread misinformation now I wasn't really trying to bet you money I was trying to help you to make you realize that obviously I'm so confident in you being wrong here That I'm trying to help you before you make it more embarrassing your own side Readily admits that that isn't actually true. It's a gimmick It's based on the actual way that the drain is made whatever the sink is the tool it is whatever Everyone knows that isn't an actual thing Everybody knows no that is not an actual thing even on your own side Okay, dude. Take it or leave it audience. Please go research it You will see that that is not real in reality things don't go opposite ways when they flush in the north and the south That isn't real All right Even the globe side agreed with me on some parts of it Yeah, we're gonna we're gonna I'd like to put this one to bed here if we can Oh my gosh, wow Taking back Eden fe two dollars canadian This one's poking a little fun here if we are in the matrix delco and mark agent smith Um Can't go 44 10 dollars wits it the pressure differential between the ocean and the sky is large Why does the water not rush to fly fill the sky? If it's density then isn't the sky denser than the vacuum of space What why doesn't water rush to fill the sky The pressure differential between oceans and sky is large. Why does the water not rush to fill the sky? If it's density, then isn't the sky denser than the vacuum of space Okay, you should I guess you should have said denser isn't the water denser than the Sky the sky, but either way it's liquid It's not the same thing as gas which disperses Omnidirectional in all directions second law of thermal dynamics entropy increases in all natural and spontaneous systems the usable energy decreases in relation to the entropy increasing It's just a natural law gas fills the available space So that's not analogous to a liquid a composition of material liquid In the ocean that's insane basically saying why doesn't the ocean rush off into the sky? That's wild to think that that's an actual question that people say But anyway, yeah, the question still remains. Why does the gas not fill the available space? You can verify that's what it does to believe in the globe. You have to just believe in anomalies I promise the globe is the one exception. I promise I promise So anyway, that's a wild question. I'd retire that one Okay, um, so we're getting we're getting close. We're getting close to the end here. So don't forget guys There's an aftershow over on matters now um And i'm going to speed it up just a little bit. All right, so um, if anyone who's got their response styles to 10 Let's maybe go to seven Um Taking back eden two dollars. Thank you Mercedes austin soldier american heroes Free free palestine two dollars earth is seriously flat be smarter embrace reality Um more of a comment. Let's just move on Flat last 499 since the globe can't provide exclusive evidence of heliocentrism Can they explain? The solonium eclipse did I say that right? Seven million Okay, so mark, can you explain that? No, I'm not even aware what it is That's that's when you can see the sun and the moon at the same time Even though it's why wouldn't we be able to try to explain it to you, dude I think she doesn't have to say anymore. She just said it's when you can see the sun and the moon at the same time During a lunar eclipse. So she does need to say more, but you interrupted her Right because because we're yeah, I heard her say that because we didn't she didn't say it Because the moon because I know what she's talking about as soon as she started explaining it to me I knew exactly what she meant. I I became aware of what she was talking about the the the termination The the name the name of what it is. So yeah, there's absolutely no reason that the moon can't get between the sun And the earth I I can't even imagine People who think that the moon is just something that comes out at night are just playing wrong Dude, she doesn't he doesn't understand him or say a lunar eclipse in your model is where the earth blocks the light from the sun Right has a shadow onto the moon into the moon. Yeah, okay the selenium The selenium eclipse is also referred to as the impossible eclipse That's actually a name given to it by even nasa because during the eclipse the sun and the moon can both be seen above the earth Even though they have to be below the earth Because in order for the earth to block the light from the sun it has to go from behind and below the earth So your answer is not just people. I can't believe think that are so stupid and they think the moon The answer for your model is oh, it just looks like the sun is above the horizon But it's actually an illusion that is your actual official position. I didn't say anybody was stupid Well, you implied it by saying I can't believe people would ever even think that you didn't understand the question It's okay. Do you do you agree that the sun is actually not above the earth during the lunar eclipse of selenium eclipse? It's just an illusion No, I'd have to look up what exactly they're talking about. No worries. Thank you for being honest All right, by the way, that was flat last his first super chat. So Thank you so much for joining this flat list Yeah, that was Run boston bear five dollars. I know that name. Please check out the aether cosmology They are doing a maze amazing work over there Um, so aether cosmology run boston bear would like you to check it out. Um, I assume he's talking to the globe side Um Scoony 10 dollars. Why would you think other planets are different from ours? I think that's a question for flat Um, so it's like the same thing is asking, you know, we're on a floor right now I'm on a floor and there's a circular light above me. That's like looking up at the light and going. Okay That's round. Why isn't my floor round? It's literally this sort of thing Also, I think a really important part of that dude is like Our position is that the earth is in the center of everything So like why would we think the one thing that's in the center, which means it's unique from everything else? It's the only thing that's in the center and not moving while everything is moving around it Why would we assume it must be like everything else when it's quite literally the one thing that's different from everything else Weird and we also see the planets more like instead wandering stars quote unquote So to us they are stars. They are not quote unquote planets are the same thing is what the earth is All right, so david george five dollars the world the record photography is 275 miles Is the farthest distance you can see on a flat earth The sun and moon is only 275 miles Okay, the sun the sun and the moon are higher Right, and we can't even determine a specific distance in which you can see it right but obviously you can see further when you go higher and Believe it or not. No, that doesn't only happen on a sphere. That's very ignorant to change your angle of view, but Uh, yeah, the fact that we can see 273 is you problem. I guess you're basically implying. Why can't we see forever? Why can't we see the sun and moon forever? I can't really I mean it's like he's saying So is that as far away we can see the sun and the moon? Well, it's different The 273 is picture of mountains on the ground the sun and the moon are up in the sky So we should know that we'd be able to see them a bit further in that right because they're really high in the sky But uh, yeah, we can't see forever on a flat earth pretty crazy, bro Like that's another one of the things the globe earthers should retire because it it makes more flat earthers Um, the next question is for delcos and it's very similar to the last one that was for delcos after he Um disconnected was the uh from enlightenment to sun five dollars Uh Saying that he makes more flat earthers than than they do assuming he's a flat earther But we won't Well on that any longer um air gt 999 witsit uh Right never mind moving along tristan arnold 499 These globers are not on your level witsit globers are like Our lake titles way smaller than ocean tides. Does the moons gravity change? So, okay, they're a fan of I kind of read that sloppily So these globers are not on your level witsit and it's not a question for witsit It's a question for the globers wire lake tides smaller than ocean tides. Does the moon's gravity change? This will be good We'll see if you know what i the tides, but he actually said that there's mark the tides all over the place Yeah, obviously we see um, so so people seem to think that tides come from the moon gravitationally pulling up on one particular spot just over top of the moon So that's not at all how tides work It's gentle pushes all the way around a large body of water that pushes it up in one area Just like when the moon goes over top of us. We do not get lighter that that is not how tides work look up I think pbs did a really good example of how tides work But no, we do not lift up when the moon goes over top of us. We do not get lighter All right, next question from drago 13 55 $99 their first super chat Where do meteors come from so they don't address a single individual? So let's give everyone a shot to answer What's it? Why don't you go ahead first? yeah, um They claim that it's just like Space dust but uh, that's a cool story Uh, they look like electrical discharges to me and there's something called sporadic meteors They're consistent and cyclical tell me how that happens in the heliostrache model that we can predict primary radiant sources of sporadic meteor showers that consistently happen in the same place I don't I don't know either but they look like electrical discharges They claim that there's like these giant craters on the earth and that's where meteors landed But conveniently that there's no actual rock debris in any of them And that they just claim they basically all make 90 degree impacts and they'll claim oh well it goes so fast It does it and blah blah blah So they basically just beg the question reaffirmed the consequence no actual evidence of it meteors were proposing a science fiction book before They were ever supposedly seen And yeah, cool We see shiny stuff in the sky looks like an electrical discharge and the consistency of them this parupelio centrism again cities Yeah, we don't actually really know what they are And to kind of actually point out what mark said because I noticed earlier he was saying like We try to act like we got it all figured out. We have all the truth It's actually kind of the opposite because we know that anything Above us that's inside of the firmament. We can't really Like explore or say that we claim to know like NASA does like saying that the sun is 93 million miles away We don't claim to know how far away it actually is we can give like an estimation of it But we can't be sure so it's the same here too with meteors. We can't actually be sure what it is We can guess at it, but that's about it And mark And nobody claims that all the meteors hit the earth at 90 degrees. I've never heard that before We have pictures of them Coming into earth's atmosphere It's not an electrical discharge because we can work out the speed that they're going by the the pictures that we do have of them And last but very not least we've landed on them with probes So again, they're gonna have to come back and tell us that the The time that we landed on a meteor it was a lie. It was all stage screen screen wires Here we go again, but just a quick question there I said that the gun was a lie in my way. Nope. Nope. No corrections needed But mark, but where do the meteors come from? Out of the orc cloud most of them are coming out of the orc cloud What was left over from when all the uh plans and another reason that we know everything is spheres That's just the way gravity works. It compresses itself into a into a sphere That's just the way gravity works. It's what we expect. It's what we see throughout our solar system It's what we see throughout the universe Most of them I think come in come come in from the orc cloud. They're just left over the um, the the uh The solar system is relatively young All right next question tristan arnold dollar 99 Mercedes used her intellect to think critically And they put a little heart emoji there Bonds 499 globeside looks I think they mean disingenuous. I'm not really sure Flat side has good Physiognomy Can't wait I don't know if they spelled these really wrong or if I can't read them Um, can't wait to see more Mercedes unless she has a boyfriend Yeah, you don't you don't need to know that information and Mercedes doesn't need to share that with you Moving on kingdom within two dollars Mercedes and witsett. Let's go Um, john mark michaud five dollars canadian first super chat Um dig a hole dig as far as possible to the other side. How far can I dig? As far as the earth is wide is there no life on the other side of earth? Um, I feel like that's actually a flat earth question a question for flat side Mercedes you got it Um, so I guess they're trying to imply is there any life underneath the earth um They're very well could be we have we can't go to pass to certain level. I think the marionic trenches What is it like nine nine point three miles down? Yeah, like roughly eight same as the deepest hole ever dug Yeah, and we can't we can't go past that point So we don't actually know if there if there's actually more down there or not to be honest We don't want to make up un-fossify un-fossifiable claims with no evidence. That's what we're trying to avoid All right next question from can go 44 another big supporter tonight and uh witsett already knows it's coming for him If you if you can try to not make it a five minute response though, it's it Witsett desperately trying to steer every question back to his script Uh, if you say if what you mean by script is like Me having to tell all the glovers out all their points. I mean, I don't I don't see how I have a script when I just Studied the model. That's what I did. I studied the model. I know a lot about the model I found out a lot of it is based on pseudoscientific presupposition and fallacious reasoning But to each their own I'm not trying to steer anything back. I just want it to be substantive and valid I wanted to actually be about the subjects not personal psychoanalysis and vague appeals to emotion Most everything we've gotten from the glober side been a pill to emotion and poisoning the well So I'm not I'm not engineering it back or steering it back to my script I'm trying to steer it back to logic so we can have a logical discussion instead of trying to psychologically manipulate the audience with the pills to emotion But one thing if I can add to that just really you can you can add but witsett gets to Very short So so for example, he he'll cut up gravity But not once will he bring up that we have satellites to go over the globe and it detects So this has again nothing to do with his electromagnetic gravity thing They can actually detect denser portions of earth underneath the crust and they can see that with these two Satellites the way it'll speed one up and slow the one down that's in tow And and it's just unbelievable technology with an accuracy again that is just mind boggling But he won't look into stuff like that to form his opinion and his model all that stuff's ignored Well, I actually know more about that than you and what's funnier is I have to now show you again why that is I have to now teach you again Why that's logically fallacious So you said that the way that they can verify improve the density is different underneath the air So you made a claim that these satellites fly over top of the earth And they're able to know the density underneath the surface with the miss precision. It's incredible mind blowing precision density But how do they say density? Speeds up and slows down. You did say density. Maybe maybe you meant something else. Yeah, but you said go ahead You made me density distribution is relative to mass in your paradigm So there's there's mass fluctuations, which calls gravitational anomalies, which is what you would have to be talking about I know all about it You like the south Atlantic anomaly, which your model can't explain with density or mass or anything South Atlantic anomaly, but basically saying that because the satellites slow down and speed up That must mean my version of gravity is true And if I presuppose and reify it then I would have to then assume that the density and mass is different under that portion Because that's what my model says So therefore presupposing reifying and affirming the consequence of what I believe Therefore when it speeds up and slows down it has to be going over. It's just fundamentally fallacious bro So what else could it be? I don't have to do anything with that All you're all you're saying is it's a lie, but you're not telling us what else could be causing these two satellites to vary in distance By the width of a human hair What else is causing it? That's that's the the accuracy that we're measuring down to to see these gravitational anomalies, uh, where we can see that there's there's uh Places with more mass compared to other places and we map out the entire earth and we show the gravitational field For all these spots on the earth. Oh, I know it's it's ridiculous, isn't it? It is. Yes. Let's go ahead reply. But let's put the question to bed with this reply Yeah, so when you say something like oh, it's so like with the with the fraction of a second or degree or whatever like that doesn't matter Yeah, the actual sensitive measurements are cool. They probably use interferometry They use interferometry different things like that like maybe maybe even a ton of clocks That's how they measure vibrational displacement. That's very cool But the precision of the measurement on whatever it is that's moving in no way equates to precision of accurate gravity Measurements you presuppose your version of gravity assume that if there was a change in speed that must be Caused by your version of presupposed gravity. Therefore, that must be happening in the earth stop saying So we build they measured We build billion dollar machines for luck or something we find it and we're wrong I'm trying I'm trying to let witsit Have the final word on the question since it was directed at him. Sorry Uh, no, it's just a basic presupposition. It's affirming the consequent reification fallacy begging the question You're just assuming the cause of the things speeding up and slowing down because your worldview requires it That's the third time I've had to say that right, so Next question is late for five dollars l8. I assume they mean late also their first super chat a lot of first time super chats tonight um Flat earthers explain time zones and sunrise sunsets Simultaneously using a single ver viable model on the flat earth sun below earth equals night everywhere This is like a basic thing. Oh my god uh Assume that this is their first time seeing this kind of debate So basic Go ahead So basically you have the earth and instead of the sun and the moon going like this On as it would on a globe it goes like this Over and so it has different rotations. So towards the summer it'll be Ah man my camera. Okay, it'll go in the center and it'll have It'll have smaller rotations and when it gets towards winter the rotation of the sun and the moon it goes out more like this And that's why the seasons change So it's just it's just different the way that the sun does it so instead of this way it's this way And if you need like a representation of that, uh, there was really good videos done by you know How did the seasons work on flat earth? And I think that one was either done by eric de vey or odv tv But the the model representation of how they showed how it went around Uh could give you a much better view than just me trying to do it with my finger Uh, but yeah, that's that's how seasons work. It's just it's just rotations the same same sort of way on the globe Just the other way Just the original way Right and you play at about time zones too. I mean like the day night cycle perfectly works on a planer can be replicated You have the analema the sun changes on its ecliptic path your model claims That's an illusion It's actually because the earth's tilted making you look like that or it just changes on its ecliptic path and gives us Seasons and it's hotter when it's closer to us because it's local or that's just all coincidence and it's all an illusion time zones on a globe should be perfectly One out even one hour 24 increments. So 24 one hour time zones It should be such an easy beautiful concept on the globe earth I'll go ahead and tell you their answer. Oh time zones are political Then why'd you just invoke them as if they were definitive and actually verify the globe? Because what we see is like on a flat earth there would be more land in the south guess where there are more time zones In the south there are 32 in the north there are 18 right around the equator We're on a planer there would be just about 24 is where there are 24 What a coincidence because it should be perfectly symmetrical on a globe earth You have perfect one or 24 one hour segments, but we don't have that We have way more time zones in the south. So Our current construct is better explained on a flat earth and all of those things that you asked are also explained on a flat earth Go to flat earth sun moon. So yeah clock up So the moon are smaller and our model too. They're local So like the sun is not going to just light up or nothing's going to be all in darkness It's because we have a localized sun and a localized moon and the patterns in which they move They light up the area that they can which isn't the whole area Which is why you have it where you can even see sometimes during the day You can see the sun and the moon in the transition between night and and uh and light in the day So so on the earth we we have two areas of Sorry, sorry. I'm just gonna so my my super chat list just updated. Um, and we're you got lots We're not even halfway through them now. Okay, go ahead. So so let's just like let's let's speed it up We'll do like 30 seconds to the person who's the answers the questions addressed to and try to plow through some more of these When you got a big audience you get a lot of questions, right? So Question for Mercedes 25 from kango 44. Um, are you not familiar with ligo and it's not currently a flat earth meme We addressed it with specificity So it has a convolutional neural learning our learning network That's highly speculative based upon unfossilable presuppositions that claim to detect a vibrational displacement One 10,000 of a proton. Yeah, so but question for Mercedes though. Oh, sorry Um, well, I didn't I mean I was fine with Austin answering it because I didn't know about the experiment I had to look it up. I even shared screen, which I hope is okay. Justing because I didn't ask before I did I did that a few times no one sees anything unless I allow it and I did put it up briefly Okay, awesome. Um, yeah, so I did look into it and what it was about and Obviously hearing the guys go back and forth. I have a much better understanding now of what it actually was and is so And I actually shared in the presentation if you go back and watch The screen share at one point and how it does have the fallacy written within their own paper So all right, so Robin Webster gifted a membership. Thank you Robin Love sound and noise my bad. I've sounded noise mark looks confused up there No, I'm not confused I'm just I'm agreeing with you that there's no way that any one person can know about all the experiments going on all over Earth, uh, there's been lots of things tonight that have been talked about that I know nothing about I I couldn't even I I knew nothing So don't hold that against her because she doesn't know about one newer experiment that's going on Oh, okay. Yeah, I I really just want to keep it to the person the questions for yeah, but you caught me like Reading a whole bunch of them just to get past them here. Um, so verbally finished five pounds Um They don't believe in the flat earth, but what's it dominated the debate? Um Anihima gifted five modern-day debate memberships um These debates are like watching mike tyson fight peewee herman. Sorry globe ps Mark, it's called compartmental my compartmentalization That one's wrong. I'm enlightenment Tucson Yeah, um god carl five dollars there for a super chat um What's it how do things like the iss and the moon orbit a flat earth? Why do they not fall? Yeah, so we detected an ether drift is what I would say it is whether you throw the word ether out or whatever No globe earther ever can rebut this he can roll his eyes, but he can't even get close to rebutting it But we make interferometry measurements at the surface. It shows that there's a preferred direction for the speed of light So i'm going to use my 30 seconds all the way up here So as you go higher than that actual propagation rate that friendship the interference pattern actually increases with altitude at the same latitude And the preferred direction shows that it cannot be the spin of the earth It also changes with the solar motion Which means there is a drift tied to this ideal rotation over top of a stationary earth So if you go higher you have less air But we've actually shown that this ether drift effects pendulum Which is physical matter with the alliance effect recorded 17 straight years by harvard Which means it would affect material up there with no air impeding it And you could use electric gravity propulsion or using the torus field ellipses with the magnetic levitation Or quantum locking or you could just use the ether drift itself because we've proven that it affects matter So yeah, there's many things that you can see up there You just go up there and eventually eventually at a certain altitude you could catch the drift All right, zin jose 499 witzit You can go there. I assume they mean the arctic without approval They just won't come and save you get yourself a boat dock up and go explore a jail is worth proving flat earth That's actually incorrect. It is quite literally illegal certainly in the united states Now what happens is each different country has their own places, but uh, we are looking into getting going there Okay, and documenting this alleged 24 hour sun when we don't see all the globes I have excuses or claim that I lied or whatever, right? But no, you cannot just go there You have to have permission Because you could die and they don't want you to be able to do that That's the cover story and to save the penguins why you can't fly over it blah blah blah Just please stop lying about Antarctica. It's super weird You can't freely and privately explore Antarctica without specific permission Some of the permits require a quarter million dollars If you actually wanted to privately and freely explore Now what mr. Beast did an isolated area where they approved it cost so many hundreds and they can still turn you down No refund I looked into it and talked to them directly Okay, so I don't need to hear you guys just misrepresented anymore. It's super weird All right Robin Webster been members for four months at this point and she says that everyone should go and hang out with Matters now after the debate max carol sends her first Her or his not sure could be I think it's a him max Sends a dollar first time They don't add any comment, which you can't for a dollar um Eli five dollars can witsit provide evidence that humans see in a hyperbolic space Yes, there have been many pests done including the alley experiment or where they actually put like the spear in the middle of Location out in a field they had people with different distances use Ecosentric pointers and what they did was map out what they saw I also showed you that robotics which obviously use the same type of layout as the human eyes That's like how we make lenses in case you guys didn't know Okay, it had to use curve visual space to be highly precise to interpret the depth and the actual distance in locations of our directions of things around it So yes, there have been many tests that have many papers If you actually want to read the papers instead of getting a got you can message me I don't know if I should say that actually So yeah message me at telegram on telegram at witsit and I can give you the papers if you actually wanted them Okay, uh next one. We'll just give this one to Mercedes. Um, how come gps's that orbit the earth shows spherical earth and not a flat earth From shan for five dollars What do they mean by gps shows that it's spherical? Do they just mean like the satellite imaging based on a digital representation or I mean, I can only tell you how come gps's that orbit the earth shows spherical earth and not a flat earth We don't actually believe that, uh, the gps is Coming from space. We believe that it's coming from the ground. Uh, that's why it's it's even said by nasa Um, and in many like modern documentaries that you can go watch from their own side that I think it's 99% of all Undersea cables are basically for our telecommunications and we do believe in satellites satellites are Actually talked about by nasa. They do have They're the number one buyers of helium and they do have a lot of satellites that are attached to balloons And they go down and people have actually taken lots of pictures Of satellites attached to those balloons and they can be using those to do that as well for the geo positioning That didn't require a spherical or so ZS $20 Do flurfs really think that in a world of constant political turmoil there could exist a globe conspiracy Where every scientist on earth from every nation works together to hide the shape of the planet from the public I feel like I answered this already By 20 times doesn't it for $20 give it one more shot Yeah, but we find it very weird that in order for you to convince yourself that flat earth must be wrong You have to create a caricature of what it actually is that should make you think why do I have to do that? We both sat here and told the audience multiple times That we don't believe that every scientist in the world is lying about anything You're you basically added one nuance there that there's like political geopolitical like tension and stuff like that Yeah, well when you started to find out that there's international Cooperation you'd realize that a bunch of these things are set up to just basically enter and implement central banking systems and all kinds of different things So, uh, we don't believe every scientist is in on some lie And if you wanted to prove that flat earth was wrong You should probably actually look at what the position truly is Instead of creating a caricature in your mind to beat up the straw man And convince yourself that it's stupid because it sounds like you're kind of running away from like what we actually think And it's okay, brother. You can you can come over here. It's gonna be all right It's kind of a foul. We have trying to appeal to the majority actually too because back in the day everyone was whining about how You know, they were teaching church and stuff in schools because they used to they used to teach from a christian, you know roman catholic type of position Um, and everyone everyone whines about how that when that was the the majority And now that it's scientism or heliocentrism, which is a different religion, but very it's a religion nonetheless Um, and and seems like nobody is seeing that because it's being taught as Something that's outside of a religion or a non-religion, but that's not the case Because a lot of what they teach is theory based even by the people themselves. For instance, darwinism Darwin himself said that uh at the very end of his life that everything that he basically came up with about his theory was Not actually a able to be proved at all So Yeah, that's where I stand from let's yeah, let's Let's see if we can shorten these answers up a little more um John michael b five dollars canadian on a flat model How does depressions like we had in the last three weeks work? Is there an et with a blowing machine pushing cold air from up there? Did you say depressions? Yeah, but they're clearly talking about the arctic blast the winds that we um have been dealing with over the last few weeks Okay So that would be for flat earth. Is there an et blowing machine? Or what for for arctic winds? Yeah, so on a flat model, how does they wrote depressions like we had in the last three weeks work Is there an et with a blowing machine pushing cold air from up there? Why would it not work? Why would we not be able to have winds or depressions on a flat earth? It's weird that people well, this is what happens people are like Hey And you answer every one of my questions the top level of millions of millions of people on my side Can't answer that right now and they have different theories competing and we haven't know to answer for hundreds of years And I haven't even intellectually dissected any of it But if you can't answer how everything in the universe works and replace my unverified pseudoscientific fairy tale Then mine remains true like bro. We don't we don't have to know how everything works, bro I don't even see you have to articulate a reason that it didn't work, right But uh, yeah, anyway, there you go Resupposing the earth's a globe is an evidence of a globe And it's kind of the same thing with a globe because even as uh, he's gone now But as devon was saying they keep they keep changing it and they say it's because we're finding out new information But they keep changing the information over and over again. So obviously they don't know everything either So that's not really a point of contention of saying. Oh, well, then the earth's not flat because you guys don't know everything Because it's the same for either model All right nominal sends five dollars to say to at marcos is dark metal real If so, is there proof and what percentage is in the room with you right now? Um, so it looks like someone sent a super chat to directly address someone in the chat Um, osion talks five dollars No current flows negative to positive Feynman is just talking talking concepts Reification fallacy he doesn't describe negative to earth and positive to earth This dude just said That Feynman was just talking about concept and it was a reification palace You can go out on the earth and literally measure a downward electric current to such an extent that you can run a generator on it We plug things into the ground so that they ground and discharge because the positive charge can discharge into the earth A surface of the earth actually absolutely is negative Of the positive air increases from the surface and there's a measurable downward electric current for you to say it goes from negative positive That's crazy. Why do I run the generator on the ground? From the sky then so no, he's not just saying something for no reason It's just a fact it's so weird that you guys can't just admit that you can replicate it with the vandicraft generator and two metal plates Just like he showed just like I did and it's in the level documentary. We literally did the test It's very simple and when you flip and polarize the field it makes the thing go up So just a weird is one of those weird things again where we just have to deny reality It's like you must be scared that if there's a downward electric current maybe maybe just maybe we do have a viable explanation So we'll just deny reality. It's weird All right, uh black morally obese vega 1999 if they are lying about the shape of the earth To hide god's creation. Why does the majority of the world population believe in a god? Seems like an insane amount of effort for something with such poor results. And this is their third ever super chat I think this one's more towards you mark I I have no idea what they're talking about how we're getting religion into this now is just um, you know We're just going off on a tangent It's it's it's gonna it's gonna be the same thing all the time. You know what I mean Everybody's just making stuff up Um, you know The the biggest problem that I have with this whole flat earth thing is was what marsati said She actually has can't have any idea how gps works if she thinks that you can just send balloons mark I appreciate you're trying to engage marsatis, but like Honestly, we're gonna be here for like five hours if we start and strike another conversation. I get it The question was from flat earthers to be honest. That's what they were saying Don't know because the question the question is why the question is if you guys think they did this to hide god They weren't very successful then because look most of the world is religious That's a question for flat earthers and we would I don't know we'd have different answers whatever I would say that obviously religion and just tradition because your mom and dad told you something Isn't the same as a sincere relationship people find out that there may actually be a creator of the earth's geocentric It's inevitable if the earth's in the center and that's the same as just I'll just say I believe in it Because it's tradition mommy and daddy will be happy. So yeah, people still are the atheism is growing exponentially All right, I didn't understand it completely But for $20 it was worth exploring Kyle g 10 pounds. I missed the open discussion section of the debate But seeing witsit. I know it must have been another flat smackdown It's weird to see del not pretending to drink from an empty glass every five seconds I forgot I forgot I was not here I still have water left. No in the last debate del did that when I was debating and he kept like drinking the bottle when it was empty Yeah, but he's not here to defend himself. All right. So rissy constitution two dollars Um, what's it? Are you trying to tell me how to do my job? I believe they had the question about the missiles earlier I'm telling you that it's a fact that for target acquirement use cartesian coordinate systems If you if you actually can verify your credentials and are willing to come on camera You can come on my show in the field where we specifically talk about what your expertise is in And how it does improve at the ursa globe. So I'm all for it, bro You know first you said it requires a rotating globe and then everyone in the chat said he didn't say rotating so You did and that was debunked and I don't even know what's left of your argument other than a globe transform And then cartesian coordinate system of concentric circles. I'm speaking fast because I'm trying to help you out here There's a lot of information. There's a lot of information and that's what sucks. It's like because it's all good They're not gonna they can't just google what we say and what we've discovered Right, so we have to tell them you can just google and blindly leave whatever google says on the globe side. So, but anyway Uh Justin johnson member for three months. What was the result of the flat or glow pole? Uh, currently the pole sits at 55 flat 45 globe Um native wild man two dollars is your flat earth hollow? I see that as a yes or no. Just no We know there's depth to the earth All right Hercules five dollars their first ever super chat. They don't say anything. So thank you very much Hercules um Eli sends another two dollars And that's his tenth ever super chat and i'm not going to read what he said um five dollars That's a little bit No, we'll skip that so stagnant five dollars. Thank you uh Samir farzane two dollars is earth the only piece of planet in the solar system We're saying Okay, it is for us. Oh great. Um, it was kind of the thing I was explaining Uh earlier that we are in the center. So earth is Special to everything else. We don't believe in planets We believe in the fact that they're wandering the stars and everything is circling around us Um as proven by what they did with the waves In the skies as what's it was talking about before they make perfect circles around us Um, so we are at the center of everything. So yes, there is just the earth And yeah, thank you Felix offer ten dollars one thing about flat earthers is we require a lot of evidence to ignore our own senses No one can see the curve detect the spin detect the movement We can see too far and send radio signals too far. So that's clearly um Felix offers uh position on his flat earth mark if you want to reply quickly, but we're trying to go quick Yeah, we're only going to be able to see so far standing on the earth looking in a certain direction Especially when you think about how the atmosphere is just above the ground. You've got heat waves You've got a lot of things that are warping. Um, you your visual How far you can see in a straight line? I heard arguments with radial waves before to going in a straight line Radio waves don't go in a straight line. They we we can beam things very straight now And I've heard arguments before that a radio wave shouldn't be able to make it around a globe Yeah, when we used to broadcast it was not as directional as it is now So there's no reason that a radio wave can't go up bounce off the honest bear and and back down and be received halfway around the globe All right, so for scale we are now at the super chat delco set when he dc'd Um the method for two dollars. That's it. That's all they sent there for a super chat Richie constitution five dollars. Uh, what's it you are lying when you say all engineering assumes the earth is a stationary plane Please stop lying. Why is the earth flat? Uh, what is the flat earth model again? Yeah, so for all actual real life engineering We have to assume the earth is a plane for up to a hundred square miles And when we build anything longer than that which is very rare We actually break it up into different increments less than 10 miles right 100 square miles 10 miles each direction It's the own government's engineering manual will say you have to assume the earth is flat Negate or ignore any notion of curvature for all engineering up to 100 square miles So that's bridges railways bridge like you name it runways Um, what is the flat earth model? Well, we don't we don't believe in specific rigid Models that we didn't claim to know to be true without being able to actually verify it. It's a reification fallacy They're being concreteness to conceptions. We do have a general model. We know there must be a container We know that the earth stationary topographical plane. We know that all evidence suggests that we're in the center We know that anything can possibly attribute to gravity is just weight and that that's actually electric There are different speculations within it, right? And we'd like to honestly denote that certain things are speculation Um, but yeah stationary topographical plane that is contained in the center of the cosmos And then there are many different things. I think I have a good model But I don't claim it to be true. I don't pretend it to that. I know it's true I don't give it concreteness. It's a concept models are not reality Thank you Um next super chat two dollars Um, I don't know. I I think it's harmless and kind of funny. I'm just gonna say it. No one needs to respond norak When yo mom sits around the earth. She sits around the earth Um free free palestine five dollars We are one beautiful family on a non rotating flat earth in the center of the whole universe test the globe stop bending Uh I'm gonna skip the last part of that super chat Tyler for three two ten dollars mark. There should be thousands of videos of rockets docking to the iss Where is just one? There's tons of videos of of docking to the is what are the what are they talking about? They show them when they open the doors and go into the uh They and transfer the the supplies and the people into it. I I don't know where we're getting at that There isn't thousands of pictures of it There there's probably hundreds of thousands of pictures from the the international space station. Why wouldn't there be? Just to say that something doesn't exist. It's it's not reality All right, so we're far saying two dollars. Why is it new in beijing now if the earth is flat Oh my gosh, you're asking about day and night bro There's a local light source that only lights up certain part of the day comes back around to give you day and night It's warmer when the sun's closer gets cooler when it's further away very basic ladder 101 stuff All right sumo bono um I don't know what currency this 200 is but I think it translates to 130 dollars So the mars rover curiosity which I Did an assignment on in university Is not on mars right now and those who can control the robot aren't actually Controlling it not only Other agencies are part of this conspiracy, but all universities and students are as Well Are with your ideology Notice how every glober on this place because normal people aren't globers just people here like acting like that Have to cope by creating a caricature of what we actually claim Why would you want to straw man the position if it's so stupid you wouldn't have to do that? First of all just that you supposedly did some test Or or whatever like assignment on the rover doesn't mean all universities and all university students anyway If you took how many people supposedly did that it would be like 0.00001 percent of even university students And you obviously didn't lie about anything you were just given information They claimed to be true and in the in the 60s They admitted the head of the nasa Apollo missions admitted that we have such great simulated data and simulations that No one on the team on the Apollo team can tell the difference between the real and fake ones Astronauts have come out and said that you think they couldn't simulate some a rover That's wild bro You think that you did some calculations on data that they tell you is really on mars and that proves it or you must be lying No, you just believe it, bro. Please wrap your mind around what we're actually saying That would be that would be great. All right, uh lost my place one second. There's the big one Um Okay, so there we go Robin page five dollars. There are no flat earth artillery gunners in the military artillery crews and snipers Have to account for the curve and rotation at long enough distances Uh, not really a question. They're more or less, uh, just I think sharing their input in The interest of brevity. Let's move along Taking back Eden It's incorrect Um, taking back Eden two dollars mark, please show us the globe picture you trust If you have one Yeah, and you're on mobile too, there's just so many things. All right, so many things about the globe that I trust pseudonym five dollars mark Does a mains Lions feathers move on a spaceship in a spaceship while moving light speed or only when your government says it's okay Nothing can move light speed except for light Never space can go four times the speed of light Uh, sure you can You can't move four times the speed of light, you know that We know that because of the stern super collider We know the speeds that we can get to and how much energy it takes to just move one bold atom at a certain speed We know the energy required. So no, no, we're not moving it four times the speed of light I do not believe in an infinite universe just to ask All right, not trying to start here doesn't matter if it's infinite or we can only see out to the event horizon We can only guess how much further it goes on beyond that But another thing that we do see about the expanding universe is every day we can see stars falling off the edge That that red ship themselves into oblivion. So that's just another, you know, there's just so many things So many disciplines that no one person can know about but they all get ignored All right Pseudonym two dollars for the flat earthers Why is the crux not visible in the north? or deep I think basically it's like why can you not see Polaris forever Mercedes? Why can't you see Polaris from across the entire earth? I don't know. Maybe they'll listen to it if it comes from you Oh, I don't know because I've answered a few of these and it's been the same answer a few times We have a limited perspective of how far we can see And we've talked about that a few times now actually So there's only so far that we can actually see We don't believe that stars are millions of miles away And millions of times bigger We believe they are smaller and local and that is why you cannot see them from different parts I've also used the analogy that if you are Standing on one side of the room and someone is standing on the opposite side of the room and you draw a smiley face To the person standing on one side of the room It's going to look like a frowny face the other person standing on the opposite side of the room It's going to look like a smiley face So you are going to see different things based on your perspective relative to where you are standing on the earth at the time All right Um Howdy smith five dollars. Hey a new name. What do you say? What's it this questions for you? How does scientists even amateurs hit the reflectors on the moon that are the size of a boot with lasers from earth? No, that's crazy because they claim to have done that before the moon missions People invoke that as if it's proof that we went to the moon and put a reflector on there But they claim to have done that before then they also claim that they get like One photon back out of millions every once in a while if they keep doing it It's just a really cool story, bro Ask them how they actually differentiated that light from other ones And if you don't get it millions of times and you get a little bitty one I'm sorry. I don't believe that you detected a singular photon, which is pseudoscientific reification. Those don't exist Actually, uh, the intersection of the electric oscillating electric and magnetic field They're an event But uh, anyway, you have to reify the idea of some physical ball coming back from the moon I'm supposed to believe that and just I just want to say it again So the globers know they claim to have done that before they went to the moon So that isn't proof of the moon if they're claiming they did it beforehand But it's also pseudoscience. They're not actually doing it It would take a lot more to go specifically into depth as to How false that claim is but people just think it happens all the time it doesn't they admit it has a terrible success rate All right, so robin page five dollars. We're just i'm just going to read this as a comment Okay, because it's in reply to their question earlier of meteors. Um the 2013 Shia bins meteor proves outer space exists The apophis asteroid flyby in 2029 and again in 2036 Will kill flat earth forever? the next question Nanonet 50 dollars their first ever super chat I just joined modern debate today after many hours slash days and debates to ask Mercedes What can we do to help ensure we get moderation that better ensures the audience Limited and valuable time to learn in these debates isn't railroaded like today crap modding Go ahead I disagree. I thought Justin did a very good job. Uh, it's hard to be a moderator and Yeah, I was I was fine with how today when I think we I think both Austin and I did very well so Did I have people spit over me from time to time? Yes, it did happen, but that does happen in debates Yeah, and uh, I was happy to let Mercedes answer that because I was confident that she would pretty much say that um, the debate Platform slash format is agreed upon in an email by all the debaters. Everyone got to see it um People like Austin who have been on this channel many many times probably doesn't even look at the format anymore It doesn't concern them. We all know that it's going to be Kind of casual if they wanted a more structured debate Where the moderators would time every answer we would be totally willing to provide that Um We're almost there. We're almost there. So we got Tristan Arnold another name. I haven't read yet today So 999 charged objects will bend the positive molecules in the water towards it Do you think this could cause the waves if the moon was negatively charged? This would explain why salt water has bigger waves That's the only a flatter through speculating alternative to tides. Uh, I think it's possible You know like the electromagnetic interaction there does seem to be some relationship with the moon, but It's significantly behind the moon and changes and then the title nodes seem to show like a vorticee Uh, which would be consistent with many different aetheric vortices inside of a torus. So Uh, I don't know man. The ties are a rabbit hole even for the global model. They admit they have no idea They can't come up with anything Yes, it's possible that it does have an electromagnetic interaction with the water Thank you. Kevin Howe $5 their fifth super chat Wits it. Why don't we see another angle of the moon if it's circling around us? If it sees through or a plasma why the craters? Okay, so uh, you can replicate many different things of plasma looking like they have texture I've actually created like a holographic projection making it look just like the moon replicating the Cycles the shadows the color changes all of that you can walk over there and put your hand right through it I've replicated it and recorded it and people say no, uh, then I show them the recording they say No, uh, you know like I mean there are many things that the sun the moon can be Um, but you're assuming solidity assuming medium assuming Everything about your model, but yeah, it could it could be plasma Honestly, it does look like that's possible and you can clearly have the depiction of texture within that Just a distribution of light within polarization. We've literally replicated it Um, but I guess if we just say no, uh, then we have to believe that the moon is actually spinning But we see one side of it for all recorded history and if it was going one fourth a mile per hour faster or slower We see the rest of it, but conveniently that's not the case. Okay, bro story, man I believe Caution shakable 20 canadian way to run a debate justin you won this one Mercedes and witsett um Have considered perhaps covering the basics upon which helio is supposedly built on With your opponents. We know you've done the work, but have they nicks run around Does anyone have anything to add or comment or I didn't really follow it personally Um, just are they saying that are they saying that are asking I guess, um If we need to talk about heliocentrism more with our opponents that don't know as much about it like the globes or what Maybe it sounds like they might have been saying something like that. Yeah Perhaps covering the basics upon which helio is supposedly built on with your opponents I Yeah, yeah, maybe so that would be productive. I guess but People get people just act like like we're wrong about if it comes from a flat earth or they just deny it So all right I'm going to read this last one here and i'm stopping there I've skipped all the two dollar ones folks. So I apologize, but um our debaters do have things to get to It's almost midnight here for me. So the last super chat And oh, yeah, don't forget like subscribe and go over check out matters now for the aftershow, which I believe has already started so Daniel make glocklin for 999. So modern kind of cosmology is a religion and people are making up new claims every day um Sorry, I got a new super chat and it moved everything up. So like rewriting creation account every day And they still can't even make something that makes sense It sends us 20 bucks. I mean, I'll give it something right. It was 10 bucks. Go ahead. Okay. Well real quick. Yeah I mean, it's kind of true everyone can think about it themselves I mean they do make up creation accounts whenever the evidence doesn't match it They get to go back and rewrite the creation account So it's like way worse than the bible who's had to stay on the same claims forever They can actually just go rewrite the creation account every time it's just proven Which is pretty interesting. I don't see how people don't see that that is not science and it is in fact religion, but whatever Yeah, coition shakeable sends another 20 dollars to say I mean like real basics inverse square law signal path loss I know same shit. Yep Well, I don't know what that's supposed to be too, but Um, I I think they're just yeah, they're just trying to clarify that they're their question earlier or whatever But in any case, thank you so much everybody for coming Still over a thousand people hanging out to hear all these super chats amazing. Thank you so much That makes it worth it when you guys stay for the super chats like that Um, even after when we almost kind of come up to like four hours nearly that's that's pretty impressive Um Mark, do you have a youtube? You have an internet presence. Should anybody go looking for you somewhere? No, just leave me alone. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding I'm all over you with my animals and stuff and my debates, but no, I don't have a channel or anything like that I'm really busy. Like I said, I go between grenade and the Caribbean and uh, Canada a lot. I'm still going on a channel sometime soon that people can come check you out Now I'll be back on modern day debate. So sweet Mercedes. Um, are you starting a channel? Um, so I kind of have one Uh, it was called the great the great awakening. Um on youtube I think there's one old dome earth documentary. I made like four years ago. That's on there I also have a channel on telegram. That's the outcast researcher Um, and that one's been around for like three or so years Uh, so that's that's like the two places you can find me. But yes, I am going to create a channel I will probably name the youtube channel the outcast researcher and I will be putting stuff up I'm just a procrastinator. So I apologize All right, and what's it you don't go on the internet, right? But uh, my youtube channel did just get demonetized and all I do is talk about alternative cosmology So if someone can make that make sense to me how I have harmful content on my flat earth channel That must be demonetized and of course, yeah, you know I'm a grifter or whatever. But anyway, yeah, you can go to uh, what's it gets it on youtube? I will say that's actually part of the reason why I've had such issue is because when I had my first account on youtube Um, I had 6 000 people that watched it and I lost my channel Like directly after it was it hit 6 000 views my channel was gone So the one that I have right now, I'm just kind of I don't really want it to go away if that makes sense Yeah, I struggle that they know that some people know nothing about All right. Well, um, thank you everyone for coming and hanging out with us Anyone still here when I click the stop button will automatically be redirected over to matters now Which is really cool and handy and I'm going to go over there myself I think but I'm not going to stay there too long because Good grief. How much time can you spend on the internet? Um, yeah, thank you guys so much for hanging out with us. This was a long one, but it's always fun Uh, and devin if you're out there and you're still listening or if you rewatch this later It was also excellent to have you as well. Um, and I will see everyone again next time