 Good evening everybody welcome to modern day debate we are due for a juicy one tonight We have flat versus globe Ross Perry versus PhD Tony and to get us started with the flat side Ross you have 10 minutes on the floor and thank you so much for coming back to modern day debate We appreciate you being here. Can everybody hear me? Okay? Yep, we can hear you Alright, if I get too loud, please let me know, you know, I'll have a tendency to do that No, we're just a quick second to adjust myself and get my I Think your audio is okay. I can't hear your audio is actually seems through maybe your headphone all of a sudden It was coming through your mic before so maybe you might want to check your audio settings again in the chat How about now is that is that better? We can hear you that's the main thing. So yeah, you got 10 minutes on the floor and it's all yours Ross I'm gonna I know I said that I was gonna start to debate But I'm actually gonna have a PhD Tony start to debate. That's all right. No, you're not you're going to start the debate I'm making a joke. Don't get don't get sensitive on me already Tony. I'm making a joke. This is I'm joking on you I just relax one quick second. I got some I got some pieces of Content I wanted to show Yeah, I see that you're doing a screen share there, so I'll pop that up It's just loading now. So as soon as you're ready to start your presentation we will get started and Yes, once again, welcome everybody to modern day debate if you haven't already hit the like button we appreciate that boosted up in the algorithm and Try to get this out to as many people so that we can have a big show tonight. So let's have fun Ross 10 minutes has started on the floor We've got we've got two models and the key Question as to which model works best is to compare those models versus observations That's the element of science Model fails to give Prediction then it loses by default. You don't get to just win a competition by saying sure I can do that You have to actually do stuff. So let's look at the most basic Okay, the audio is cut out again Did you want to start making your presentation? It seems like the audio is cutting in and out a bit there Ross You are all we've got a prediction the model Well, we've got a model. We've got a prediction from that model and we've got observations the model and the observations match That is validation of the model. You can't just say well, maybe there exists The audio came through eventually I was assuming I think we got most of it But yeah preferably if you can start your introduction not with a more commentary on things that Tony has said but more of an evidence for the Flat Earth, I understand this is part of the debate optic optics, but I will Regive you So I set the clock back so you still have nine minutes and 30 seconds if you would like to start the presentation for the flat earth Yeah, well, I'm absolutely I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page because a lot of times when I watched these debates back You know People who claim to be quote-unquote doctors or PhDs. They're actually pastors in disguise They like to say that you know You have to have evidence for things and if models don't work you're supposed to throw the model out But then when their model ends up not working They don't throw the model out they keep the model and so what I'm gonna show a whole bunch of evidence of the model not working And I just wanted to make sure he's not able to say that he's not on record saying that if you have two models And one bottle makes correct predictions that that model is by default the correct So I'll go ahead and start my presence. I didn't really want to spend too much time going over the same presentation that I Was going to say I'm undefeated with this presentation, you know So, you know, if you guys want to hear me, you know, go through all the evidence and everything again You know, you can go watch my other debate. I'll go through it. I'll quickly outline all of the things I'm gonna quickly outline the things that you know are irrefutable at this point And then Okay, I can share my screen one more time. That's all right I think so, but it does seem like you may be coming in a little slow on the internet side Well, this is my presentation now. So, okay, no worries. Hopefully the internet clears up on the internet side a little bit but Just given the preamble, I'll just stop the timer, but we are at eight minutes. I did start the timer So it's fine. It's fine. I'm gonna when I start going I'll get through it quick I mean, but I do I like I wanted to show those videos so that way because I'm gonna be referencing those videos pretty much for the rest of the I'm probably just gonna keep referencing those those videos because we're gonna be going through the model He's gonna say that they have these predictions. I'm gonna say they don't then after that, you know We'll just keep referencing himself Debating himself. I guess at the end of the day Sorry about that guys, you know, I had a every time I try to I try to prepare I try to prepare stuff It always messes either way. Alright, so my screen sharing now. Yeah, you're screen sharing. I start the timer. So yeah, let's get to it Okay, well, I said everybody's already seen me do this presentation. I'm literally undefeated with this presentation Nobody's been able to review a single one of these points. All right, so I'm not on the flat earth side All right, I'm on the side of the earth that follows the laws of physics Okay, so if you are on the side of the earth that defies the laws of physics, right? Then you are a quote-unquote science denier. All right So tonight the baby is probably between me somebody who follows the laws of physics, right? And studies what most physicists believe about the earth and somebody who's a science denying preacher, you know I don't I get I get the other PhD attached to your name But out here in these parts the PhD doesn't really mean anything if you're not in the field doing research and Presenting evidence for the topic that we're talking about because you can be a PhD in Astronomy that doesn't mean that you know how to how to do a surgery or anything like that So I don't consider to be a doctor or anything like that consider to be you know Let's say a journalist right somebody who studies what people in the field are doing it and I report on it All right, so I'm just giving you the findings of what I have I'm just giving I'm just reporting the findings that I have come to from studying the subject number one The earth is not moving around the sun All right, so this is this is not up for debate at this point All right, so if you are defending the globe you're defending a globe right that is not moving All right, so we can get into the debate about how people are on the bottom of the globe when it's not moving I'm hoping to hear in your uh, I'm hoping to hear your evidence And your scientific experiments that prove that something like that is even possible But I doubt we're gonna get it number two the earth is the center of the cosmos now mind you Quick Ross, I'm just gonna pause your time. I'm so sorry to interrupt you again, but uh It does seem like you may have the wrong mic settings Selected it sounds like it's coming through the headphone speaker I thought it might be okay, but it seems like it's coming back through feedback So zoom did update. So I'm sure this is not your fault Can you go into your mic settings and just make sure that you've selected that microphone in front of your mouth? Oh, yeah, much better, I think that's better. Let's keep going Okay, I'll start the timer again. You still have six minutes It's drawing even with that even though this happens every time I'm still seven and oh, all right, so either way The earth is not in the earth is the center of the cosmos. It's not a scientific point because it's not falsifiable That's not up for debate. The surface of the earth is not curved or Or the surface that we live on is so big that the curve is virtually undetectable So I would love to see some evidence for that number four. Everything is energy This is also not a scientific point, but I like to throw it in because people always want to know why Why would they lie? Why would they this? The reason is because all all of these findings are different keys that leads to us being able to understand What the world truly is and being able to harness free energy Which you can imagine is going to cost a lot of people billions of billions of dollars All right, so keep let me know when I have two minutes left. All right, I'm running through the evidence really quick All right, number one, the earth is not moving. There have been tons of experiments that have been on this airy failure Right to quote one of my favorite guys mctoon Winston asked mctoon one time. How can you prove that the earth is not moving around the sun? He said you attempt right to To test motion and you get a no result. That's how many times has that been done? Since the 1800s We've done that test probably over a thousand times at this point not one test has come back Conclusive that the earth is moving Let alone moving around in the summer not one conclusive test. So airy's failure is one I like that. I explained this last time. This is the original document. All right Go look it up if you're really that interested number two Uh, uh, mcgislin morally right a lot of people like to say oh well mcgislin marty didn't prove the earth wasn't moving It proved that there was no ether. All right Well, here's anstein saying according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable Oh, and they say well, it's not it's not that ether. It's a different ether. What's not the space ether? All right, be quiet now. All right. You don't know what you're talking about. You're just making shit up You're just making shit up. You're defying the laws of physics Uh, I mean I have this in here because craig tried to say that that the proof of of the theory of relativity Was the eddington experience and he bet me 20k right that uh that eddington was not a fraud and did not Falsify some of his data. I mean craig you owe me 20 thousand dollars. All right So then you have the cnb the cognitive microwave background is proof Or at least like I said, it's it's un-fossifiable. So, uh, you know, it's it's it's the best evidence we have That the earth is in fact in the middle of the universe We can go through that if you want but all other physicists agree So if you disagree with me that the cognitive microwave background shows that the earth is in the center of the universe You disagree with laurence crowds But when you look at the cnb map you also see you can read it at your own time. All right And then uh, let you have the Hubble tension, right? So like like you said if you have two models one model makes a prediction and the other one fails to make a prediction By default the failed prediction has to be thrown out. All right. So the earth not being the center of the universe Uh, and the earth being the center of the universe, right the tola may and the caperna can system, right? That's what we're modeling against each other. All right mathematically and practically. They're the same thing Except for one of them has failed predictions. That would be the caperna can system All right, so your model has failed predictions. Um, like we can get into it if you want. Um, one of the most surprising findings is that the uh, Fluctuation and the cognitive microwave radiation temperatures at large angular do not match those Predicted by the standard big bang model. This is a european space agency If you you're not disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with the european space agency You're a science denizer your science denier if you disagree that all evidence shows that the earth is the center of the universe All right, so we can go through these quotes if you want later. Let's see Evidence to up the shape of the earth, right? So if you have a conductive sphere, all right a conductive sphere will give off a certain A magnetic field. It will be a circular magnetic field that gets weaker as you go away This is not what we observe on the earth. This is right out of richer findings textbook This is the magnetic field on the earth, right? And this can only be uh, basically at least in the known laws of physics This can only exist with perpendicular plates. All right, so the surface that we live on has to be perpendicular I'm not saying what the shape of the earth is. I don't know But the surface that we live on has to be perpendicular because of the magnetic field of the earth This is not up for debate. I don't I mean look I would love and I read one of this last time radio frequencies We sit radio frequencies at a level that where they should be getting blocked by the curve, right? You can pretend like radio frequencies Do this, but when you shoot microwaves, they're basically line of sight So if I take a mirror flash mirrors do not curve around the ball, right? So if I flash a mirror a direct line of sight to you when you're supposed to be curved This is true. There's no curve right there. I'm not saying that there's no curve. There's no curve right there Okay, so Give me some evidence that there is curve or you're a science denier at this point. Um, let's see. What else do we have? Yeah, this is explaining Basically the what I just told you about them sending those those frequencies and I have a whole list Literally a whole list I'm not going to share it But there's a whole list of different uh times that this experiment has been done Where they sent these microwaves too far 30 seconds be a curve in between how much 30 seconds Yeah, you have 30 seconds left All right, so also magnetic declination. Okay, the magnetic declination chart is more proof that the earth cannot At least the surface that we live on cannot be a sphere. All right, so I'm just gonna Make this very brief When you say if you have two models and one works one makes good predictions The other one doesn't which one works. All right, so right here This is let's say essentially the Gleason map. All right You can go read the reason why there's a magnetic declination chart is because when sailors would try to sail Using the this map the map the mercator map the one we have today They would crash in the land and the land bodies that weren't supposed to be there There were two 300 miles off of where they were supposed to be. This is the fact That's why they came up with the magnetic declination chart. You know why because the the map really looks like this This is what the map really looks like we don't need magnetic declination when you use this map All right, I need to put a bow on the intro. Sorry ross. Okay. Sorry. We are at time We have two models this model and this model. I've already shown you three or four different predictions These are not my these are not my words. All right So if you disagree with this you're a size denier and you're a pastor over to you pastor. Tell me All right. What was that? I'd like to take issue with what was just done Well, just one second there. I know I have a phd in geophysics I've studied the shape of the earth and it's um Gravitational field for 30 years And I object To the idea that I am talking outside of my expertise and I object to the suggestion I object to the suggestion that I am a liar and that I am scientifically incompetent and so and Um while I'm speaking can you do me the courtesy of maybe being quiet? We are going to We're going to treat this as uh as tony's intro. So, uh, go ahead tony. We're going to start your 10 minute. Uh, and we will do Hold on You will have to be put on you and we do need to stop the screen chair as well. So I know that we're like I say new to the update on zoom It's definitely different than how it was for everybody. But let's get back to our main debate screen Uh, so yes, uh, let us carry into uh, tony's intro statement. I want to welcome everybody to modern day debate We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science politics and religion. We hope everybody feels welcome Here a modern day debate and we are going to do a q and a at the end of our discussion here Uh, so we got another screen share coming up. So this is hopefully tony's screen I would hope so tony you got 10 minutes on the floor. It is all yours Okay, we're going to start with actual quantitative predictions Um between two models We have three axioms if we know a location's latitude We know the distance of that location from the north pole if we know the longitudes of two points on earth's surface We know the angle they subtend at the north pole We can accurately determine latitude and longitude the specific locations from observational data So this leads into um If the earth is flat, then this gives us a very simple planar triangle We know two sides. We know the angle between them. We can solve for the third side As ross has said, this is the only the azimuthal Equat is well the azimuthal equidistant map projection centered on the north pole is the only map projection With these properties We can do the same thing on a spherical earth We can if we know the latitudes and longitudes, we know the angles to the north pole We know the angle between them We can solve for the distance and we can solve for the heading This is the most basic problem and here are the formula for these headings This is the most basic problem in navigation This problem is solved accurately and reliably Many thousands of times every day um by aircraft By um by aircraft traveling on intercontinental trajectories by ships sailing across Intercontinental oceans We have the sailing manuals from the 17th century which show us that back then they used They use spherical trigonometry in order to navigate We can use the distance formula and we can compare the flat earth distance formula And the spherical distance formula for objects that are physically measurable like railway lines In this case, I've chosen two railway lines one between Jacksonville and Pensacola And the other one between Takula and Carl Gully and we can see that the spherical distance formula Well matches the um observed distance we can also note that these two tracks of railway line equally north and south of the equator if the earth were flat then um the the Southern hemisphere train line must be longer per unit of longitude. It must happen, but it doesn't happen Um, in fact, they're about the same length in terms of units per longitude And we can we can verify this observationally, but which it spews some word salad and apparently The fact that observational reality matches the spherical distance formula Doesn't matter anymore So the fact that the spherical distance formula works every single time Requires that the earth is feroidal and if you want to present evidence that the earth is not Sferoidal you have to provide an example Where the spherical distance formula is inaccurate We also notice that as we move across the earth's surface The elevation angle to celestial objects changes by 0.000157 radians per kilometer That is one over the radius. This is the definition of curvature This is the mathematical definition of curvature if the um the angular deflection of the tangent vector And the normal vector is per unit of distance traveled is the definition of curvature Flat earthers don't know what curvature is. They've never looked at it. Um, so they don't know we've got um, We've and if you want to argue that there is no curvature Show me an example of where you can move and the elevation angle to celestial Objects does not change by this quantity Similarly, we can look at observations of um earthquake Propagations, we can see that earthquake and it wave fronts Propagate outwards from their epicenter in a circular fashion And they converge inwards on the antipodal point to the epicenter in a circular fashion We can look at the travel times the travel times are utterly inconsistent with a flat earth model Flat earth doesn't have a model for predicting this We can look at Rayleigh waves Rayleigh waves are a particular style of seismic wave That travel around the earth multiple times. Here's a schematic of how they work The epicenter is at the top. They propagate out. They get to the um, they get to the receiver Then they go all the way around the earth. They come back From the other direction they get picked up again They go on they come back the second time and then they go around on the third orbit Well the third circuit of earth and they get picked up as r4 waves this This pattern of propagation is also observed in atmospheric pressure waves that result from volcanoes They go out from the center. They go around and they come back Um, so this is only possible if earth is a spheroid. It doesn't occur if the earth is not a spheroid We can look um, but apparently again the fact that the spheroidal model matches the observations doesn't matter So let's look at all hat. Let's look at how shithouse flat earth predictions are We can look at um the sunrise and sunset for the equinoxes Um for all mid-latitude locations sunrise and sunset at the x not equinox occurs approximately six hours before noon Sunset occurs six hours afternoon. They occur at the same at approximately the same time for all mid-latitude points And for that day the sun is close to the equator that means that We'll also define the hour angle Which is the hour between the meridian of the observer and the meridian of the celestial object in this case the sun So we know where the sun is at sunrise on the Um at sunrise on the equinoxes. It's got an hour angle of 90 degrees and it's about over the equator Okay Flat earthers say that sunrise and sunset because of some sort of angular or Distant threshold or that sort of thing we can test this we've got points like hammerfest and norway cold stream in south africa Clearly not the same distance from the sun, but getting sunrise at about the same time um now The distances are not the same So one One way around this is to claim. Well, this map isn't actually right actually cold stream is further eastward Hammerfest is further westward than as shown But that doesn't work because then you run into the exact opposite problem at sunset Sunset occurs at the same time, but they're not the same distance from sunset um Elevation angle cannot explain it either if the distances are different the point that's further away has the smaller elevation angle to the sun So there's no threshold here. So explain to me how sunset and sunrise is occurring The flat earth distance and angle explanation simply doesn't um simply doesn't cut it We can add one more observation on the day of the terrestrial exonaut equinox The sun rises at very nearly exactly east for all points on earth That's not true on a flat earth on a flat earth The sun rises at 45 degrees north of east and sets at 45 degrees north of west We can add yet more observations the northern hemisphere winter solstice the north pole experiences 24 hour darkness Here's a diagram of that the north pole is much closer than sydney So why is it dark all day in the north pole? While sydney gets 14 hours of light How does this work on a flat earth flat earth has no mechanism for explaining this no mechanism for predicting what we're going to see at these points so Flat earth completely fails We can add another observation for points in the southern hemisphere The sun generally rises approximately east and sets approximately west 30 seconds isn't the case We can look here at the um We can look here at the spectrum of sunrises and sunsets over the year over the year. They're mostly in the north um, so The flat earth absolutely fails. It is an abject failure at every level And I can go through and I can explain Exactly how we get The result the formula that predict where things rise and where things set for every celestial object that is known For every day of the year Um, given your location. Okay. Thank you. No worries. Well, thank you so much, tony for your introductory statement and there i'll just end the screen share just as uh As we've discovered before The new update has been giving us a little bit of trouble So we'll just go back to the main screen and once again. Thank you everybody who is here in the live chat We appreciate everybody who has already hit the like button and shared this out in those lovely spaces that they like having These discussions i'm going to get a poll fired up for the uh 400 plus people that are already watching right now So you can give us your thoughts as to where we are on our topic So flat versus globe we're going to hand it back over to a real offended. So ross Uh, the floor is yours to respond to some of what you've heard and uh, feel free to inject, uh, tony When when the time feels right Let's go an open discussion um, very good presentation by the way, I um, you know, uh I'm going to take your word for everything that you said. I didn't really uh, see anything in there that I could Say it was oh, that's completely wrong. I didn't see any conclusive evidence of anything As well And on that note, I wanted to say that the problem with the model conversation Because I said I really just wanted to bring it up because like you said if two models make a prediction And and the prediction is wrong and you gotta fill that model out, right? But to be real, even if a model makes proper predictions, that doesn't mean the model is correct Hope you're at least honest enough to to to say that that's true, right? Because it is No, no it isn't we think that No matter what shape we think the earth is right if I make a model that works based upon all observation I could say that that's a flat earth model Right and if it's on a globe and the flat earth model works that doesn't automatically make the earth flat now No, no, no, I have to do a real investigation. I have to have real experiments real observations If I'm going to claim something is true I can't just have a model a model is not necessarily evidence and even if it is you know Sort of evidence is not conclusive by any means You disagree with that? Yes, I do Um, frankly, frankly agreement between a model and observations is the only criterion For determining whether or not a model is valid An inability of a model to match the opposite I let you speak without interrupting you I'm gonna try my bad. Good Um, your p a d have so many questions. I want to learn from you my bad. Good. Let's carry up Okay Um Agreement between observational data and the model is the only criteria for determining whether or not the model is valid Once a model fails to match the observations Um, then we can regard it as invalid. Now you I have another question. I I got you. I got you. No, my next question to you is are you saying that validity automatically assumes truth? No, okay. So that's right. We're on the same page. We're on the same page Okay, so so a model can be a model can be accurate and be incomplete It can be falsified by later data. It can be, you know, right, so So so that's that's why even though I might have said it wrong I wanted to make that clear that even though somebody can make a correct model It's not just conclusive evidence on the zone. You do need some other things in there But if you do make a model and it's falsified through the model Then you have to take it off So I wanted to make that clear for everybody and all because sometimes like it's just a whole hour on the model And it's like, all right, but even if you are right Don't doesn't get us anywhere, you know, all right, so my next question to you go ahead Well, I I would make the point that um Uh, the inability of the flat earth to answer the questions that I asked during my presentation um That is a significant problem for flat earth being taken seriously. I would agree. I agree 100% now my only thing with that though is Just because you haven't found an answer that doesn't mean that an answer is not out there, right? I'm not saying that even if they do find an answer, it'll make it true But for you to say there is no answer for this period, you would have to have explored all answers. Wouldn't you? um, yes, you would so Oh Well, you asked me a question. I'd like to finish it with two sentences. Um, the um Yes, um, but all of our scientific all of our scientific results are contingent on the data that is available to us now Um, so if new data comes along we can say, okay Um, I said that such and such was impossible. I was wrong about that and we have to be honest when that occurs Okay, um, so um, you know So when the c and b was released and the data showed that What we had predicted from the universe in in total, which even though it's not directly the shape of the earth Like I said, we can get into whether or not we have a a spherical earth That's not moving but the data showed that we should have we should this should be recourse. Yes Well, can you bring up the quote from laurence cross again from your presentation? I'd like to address something in in that quote Sure, and it's not just I have a ton of these quotes that aren't just by him by the way No, no, no, I I understand And you're making your value Um, if you could show it that'd be that'd be better. Yeah, no problem All right, let's pull up a screen share and uh, yeah, it looks like we've got everything worked out on our end here guys So once again, if you haven't already hit the like button, uh, we'll get the screen share up and running We are in open discussion Uh, and it looks like it's going to be a good one. So as soon as you're ready, uh, ross with the uh, screen share Just let me know And it looks like that's up and running. So we can see that. Yeah Let's carry on So the point that I would the point that I would make here is that the cmb Is weirdly correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun If you don't believe that the earth moves around the sun Then the cmb's correlation disappears, right? And it's not that's And it's not no longer noteworthy, right? So you're saying the the the plane of the earth around the sun doesn't exist therefore Um Krauss's Krauss's quote is meaningless Uh, uh, that's you know what I want to give you more credit than that pastor tony But see now you're starting to slip into religious land when you state when you start talking like that That's not what he said. Is that not what he said? I'll read the quote again. All right. So but when you look at the cmb You also see that the structure that is observed is in fact in a weird way correlated with the plane of the earth Around the sun Is this component is coming back to haunt us? They're saying that it could either be the earth is moving or the sun is moving Because it looks like everything What that's not what he's saying Krauss's Krauss does not suggest that the sun could move around the earth Okay, so are you saying that we have proven that the earth is moving around the sun? Are you saying we've proven that? Uh, I am saying that the um that the evidence that we have available to us, um is entirely consistent with that And what okay, so but all to now you're responding to the matter because all physicists disagree with you on that No, they don't Here's the market to the question whether or not the motion of the earth in space can be made perceptible into retro experiments We have already remarked that all the tips all the tips All the tips of this nature led to a negative result Mctoon said if you want to find out whether or not the earth is moving you try to test motion and you get a negative result This is the Hawking If only if only Um, you hadn't cherry picked that quote. You would have um, you would have uh, a notice that actually we can with um, uh, we can for instance with what we'd satellites that move away from earth um Measure the movement of the earth, right? That's not a terrestrial observation. You're the you're the phd. You tell me How do we do it because I have not seen it Stephen Hawking hasn't seen it No, but that's not what Stephen Hawking said. Okay. Here's a different quote No, no, no, no, no This is Come on. Come on. Listen. No, let me civil be civil be civil So which is real the tola make or the kappardike system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say the kappardike system proved totally wrong That is not true That is not true One can use either picture as a model of the universe For our observation of the heavens can be explained by assuming either So why are you a science denier now? That's why I said that you think I'm okay Come on. You're denying No, I'm not So, okay for starters. Where did he say that? So are you okay? So are you saying that we have proved that the earth is moving around the sun? Yes How how did we prove that? We used non-terrestrial observations Which non-terrestrial observations did we take when were they taken and how did we how did that prove that the earth is moving around the sun? For instance placing satellites in the Lagrange point of earth's orbit around the sun and getting them to Getting them to make observations of the solar system Lagrange satellite and when did this happen? There are plenty of them Okay, so you don't say is there any data because today they keep saying that we can prove it But for some reason there is no data, you know, you can shut us all up in one second You really could shut us all up right now phd phd. You have a chance shut us all down pull it up Here's the data Shut us all right now. All right. Okay. I'll open a window. Can you stop sharing? Yes No worries. I can stop the share on my and like I said, it's uh all changed up So go ahead Tony when you're ready with your screen share Once again, I'll remind our live audience that all of these debates are up Uploaded. I can't speak speaking is hard. They're all uploaded to podcast form within 24 hours of us hosting them If you want to catch the live and be able to interact with the speakers on camera and put in a super chat And see what they have to say about your thoughts You're going to want to subscribe to the youtube channel a modern day debate So, uh, check us out on youtube and Tony your screen share is ready. So, uh, whenever you're ready, let's continue Okay We can bring up the data from the parker solar probe for instance A probe that was sent to the sun Um, we can bring up the telemetry mission for um for the pilot So let's just do let's just do that. So that parker solar probe Telemetry data Okay, so you can download you can download the um It says here you can download the level zero telemetry data from the parker solar probe And what is that data going to show us? That data is going to show us the position and the distance of the solar probe as a function of time Okay, and how does that determine Motion How does that determine motion? Yes, we're talking about proving that the earth is moving. This is a this is a huge deal right now Yes, so when I go outside, I don't feel any motion. Nobody has any proof of this. All right They've tried for years. You're trying to tell me that it's a it's a done deal How have they proved that the whole earth is moving my home? It's it's defined the laws of physics You're saying that the earth defies the laws of physics It moves a thousand miles in a spin and we don't feel it and then it moves however many thousands of miles And we don't feel that that defies the laws of physics, sir. So if you want me to believe that you're gonna have to show some evidence Okay, actually you're wrong. It doesn't defy the laws of physics When you simply what was that wrong about? Okay, can you shut up while i'm speaking? i'm gonna try but Okay, the part that you're wrong about is defying the laws of physics the laws of physics do not change If you are moving at a relatively constant velocity The laws of physics can own so if you're traveling at a million miles an hour It doesn't change the laws of physics throwing something up will still result in a Does the earth ever slow down or speed up? Yes, it does How do we don't feel it you just game? I want I want he just said if it's a constant speed, you don't feel it But it slows down and speed up Let's move on the next one. All right, no, let's not move on. Let's move on. Let's not move on to the next one Let's not move on for the next one Okay, you asserting that what you said is right is not the Intellectually honest argument was right. Can you shut up second there ross? So just i'm just going to place you on the mute one second there ross We're going to let tony go through his explanation and if you want a minute I'll give you a full minute to respond. You just have to ask so go ahead there tony Okay, the accelerations that the sun undergoes through the course of a year The changes in angular velocity the day Day length varies by about five seconds Either side of average throughout the year as a result of earth's elliptical orbit around the sun those accelerations so there are about 3.15 by 10 to the seven seconds in around in a year and the And we're going through two pi So earth's angular velocity is 2 pi divided by 3.15 by 10 to the 7 So that's about 10 to the minus 7 meters per second squared um that you're um The that that you know, that's the magnitude of the force. It's r omega squared Um, so it's it's tiny. It's a really really imperceptible amount So no, you're not going to feel that your vestibular system is not that sensitive That's ridiculous. All right, because you're saying like look just for everybody in the crowd Like I said when I use the word science denial and to find the laws of physics I'm not joking. All right. He's saying that you can move a thousand miles per hour But you don't feel it because you don't change speed. Did I ask him a direct question? Oh, but does the earth change speed? Well, yeah, but it's so small All right. See see see see define the laws of physics, sir. You're not going to fool me. All right. That's why that phd Don't stand for doctor stands for a pastor pastor So my question to you is why are you in this debate and not a physicist? Why if if you claim let me finish my question if you claim That what I'm saying violates the laws of physics Yes, why do physicists agree with me and not with you? Which physicists? Every one of them. Well, I pulled up some actual quotes from some actual physicists Do you have quotes from actual physicists disagree with anything I've said today? Yes Pull it up Pull up with physicists and say, oh no, there's tons of experiments that we've done that show the earth is moving Pull with physicists and say no, no, no the c and b It don't look like the earth is in the center. It looks like the earth is moving pull up a physicist that will stand on that ledge I put a physicist It's uh post from physicists. I put an experiment said back up when I said and I pulled up papers I put a paper from cornell university. He disagrees with cornell. Is this what they do over there in australia? You guys don't you guys don't respect You guys don't respect universities and and uh accredited papers. That's what I look at So based on the accredited papers Hey We're gonna give Let's let's give tony now a chance to respond to what you're saying there. Um He's uh, he's getting some searches up here So, uh, I'll just remind our audience again that we are going to take questions at the end So if anything that you're hearing right now is a sparking a thought in your mind and you're saying oh my I'd really like to get the speaker's thoughts on that or I'd like to grill this person on x y z put it in a super chat and they'll be asked with priority So tony, I'm going to see the floor over to you to talk about what you have in front of us right now Okay, so here's a Physics quote saying as I said that the laws of physics remain invariant under a Galilean transform Which is to say under a transform with uniform velocity Now if the acceleration is small Then this approximation 2.3.1 Remains it valid. That's what it means for acceleration to be small Um, because the velocity does not change very quickly Um, so this is the and you can read any physics textbook any No, I'm still talking I'm still talking right My lips are moving and words are coming out Everybody else right? All right. All right, we're gonna have to all right once again Ross if you would like you can ask me for some time to respond Yeah, even if you're like, hey, can I inject here? Uh, that's totally cool. We can like I say we can disrupt the flow But if you just cut in it it does make it difficult and uh throw his people off So just uh, we're gonna let tony wrap up. This is throwing him off more. So go ahead tony Okay, so Small accelerations do not disrupt this they do introduce artificial forces, but the magnitudes that are those artificial forces Are dependent on the magnitude of the acceleration So if I can demonstrate that the acceleration is small I can treat this as a Galilean system And every physics textbook in existence will explain to you that this is the case And if you don't accept that this is physics, then you don't know what you're talking about and you're lying when you say you do All right, it is uh, I I I'm fast take you off the mute there. Ross. I'm going to go ahead. Yeah Dude, the reason why I cut in sometimes when he starts talking at length because he's very slick When he understands that I have an easy rebuttal with something he says He'll say it and then move on to another point to try to distract the audience from thinking what he said was incorrect All right So I like it's not just that those two or three physicists that already read every physicist in the world I don't I don't know. Look There's a quote from julian b barter a physicist thus even out three and a half centuries after galileo It is still remarkably difficult to say Categorically whether the earth moves. All right, so you're taking you're acting like i'm saying this stuff None of the none of the words I've said today have come out my own mouth You're disagreeing with physicists. You're the science denier not me You're the religious person not me. I'm on the side of science. All right, I'm on the side of side. Here's another one Uh, uh, we can feel we actually I'd like to interject then we can all right, but okay Wait, I'm done. We can't feel our motion through space nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the earth is actually in motion I can go through hundreds of quotes from different physicists mathematicians Uh, uh astronomers all agreeing with me. So you brought up, uh, something that said that well the Excuse me what you brought up was not a physicist. It's agreeing with me You were trying to make your point again about not feeling the velocity and so my so that's why I shipped it to Can you demonstrate this in the lab because I want to I want you to show me Where in a lab somebody can go a thousand miles per hour and then the velocity changes the air and it's not fillable You can't just say that remember your quote at the beginning You can't just say I can do this and then you win competitions. That was you saying that did you forget already? No, no, you said you can't just say you can do stuff. You have to actually do stuff So is there an experiment that proves what you're saying right now You can go a thousand miles per hour in a circle and not fill it and then also add Five different motions because you're saying that you won't feel if you have one motion How many motions of the earth has like five different motions go ahead The earth has five different motions explain all five because you can't even explain one He's just gish-galloping What's wrong with I say that was unacceptable Don't talk about what I said. Tell me what I said was it teach me phd. Tony treat me like a student in your class What did I say was it correct? Help me gain knowledge Okay I'll treat you like a I'll treat you like a student in my class shut up And stopping erupting Is this why you guys talk like that in australia all the teachers just tell you guys shut up Well, when we're lecturing in front of a class All right, just one second ross before we get into meta Go back on mute and we're gonna let Tony bring up the next point. I'm so sorry Ross, but if you keep trying to engage in this way, it's just not gonna work out for a productive conversation So we do really want to unpack. We don't want to just uh, you know jab at each other. So Go ahead. Tony. You had uh, you were trying to move into some new territory or response. So well, I was trying to I was trying to Address the misrepresentation of those quotes When he says that it's difficult to demonstrate that it's um that the earth is in motion There is a possibility That the laws of physics as we understand them are completely wrong and that um, and that there are many other forces at work that are moving stuff at um Faster than the speed of light around us It's difficult to argue against that position But it is equally not the case that they are saying we have proven the earth is stationary That is not a correct interpretation of what they're saying. They're not saying the earth is stationary they're saying That um, it is you know, we have constructed a model for the motions of objects Inside the solar system and throughout the portion of the universe that we can observe That makes sense in which we are um, we are moving around the sun and I will Step further into this the claim that we are at the center of the universe is transparently false Because the distribution of stars around us is not What it would be if we were in the center of the universe. We're not even in the center of the galaxy Right, so how can we be in the center of the universe? To be in the center of the universe the mass of the universe would have to be distributed uniformly around us and it isn't so this This entire line of reasoning is is factuous He's cherry picking these quotes and these are actually not quotes from scientific papers And I want to make that point very clear. These are not peer-reviewed comments. These are private comments in popular science media That um that he has taken out of context in order to make the claim that the earth is stationary The available evidence to us suggests that that is inconsistent with the laws of physics as we understand them And he's claimed that physicists agree with him is not true And if it were then all of these physicists that he's citing would be flat earth debaters and they would be here instead of him Fantastic for all the people in the comments saying i'm not listening Uh, uh, I am listening. I'm taking notes too, right? Okay, so that last thing that you said what you're either severely misinformed on the subject or if you're dishonest I don't want to put that on you because I saw how mad you got so let me not ruin the debate because you know, you Are emotionally out of control, but based upon the distribution of stars The earth actually looks exactly in the center, you know, so that's what the c and b that's why the c and b keep getting redone and redone They keep claiming it's instrumental error. So that's just not true correction I want to make a correction. I'll let you go. I'll let you go. I'll let you go He's just wrong Actually, correct. He's factual. Tell me after tell me what i'm done What's the point of letting you prattle on when you're starting? All right, so don't be mad when I interrupt you All right, so don't be mad when I interrupt you then, okay? It's fair game right turn about this fair game Okay, so based upon the distribution of stars the earth is exactly in the center. That's 100 true All right, and I do agree what he said that just because we cannot conclusive say it's moving That is not conclusive evidence that is stationary. We both agree on that But based on all evidence so far The earth is not moving. All right, all physicists agree with that He keeps saying i'm cherry picking clothes But he hasn't pulled up one quote of a physicist disagreeing with that not one. All right Uh, and then he said there's a possibility. No, this was first. He said the laws of physics He said it's a possibility the laws of physics could be completely wrong See that's him trying to find a way to slick justify because he knows that deep in the reasoning Of what the globe is It defies the laws of physics So they have to accept that at some point. Matter of fact dark matter defies the laws of physics It's been debunked already. So gravity relies on dark matter dark matter defies the laws of physics. It's being debunked The gravity the way we know it has been debunked. That's why they don't call it mass attracting mass anymore Anybody who's on the leading edge of science would know this but or you're just disarmed. All right, and then You know what? I'll leave it there. That's pretty much everything that you said Yeah, the distribution of stars and the cnb, right? That's why they call it the axis of evil They call it the axis of evil because wow it looks like it all leads to a central point If you draw a straight line here in a straight line here in the center of that is the earth It matches the prediction of the earth being in the in the middle of the tolamatic model not Copernicus Okay, it matches tolamate not Copernicus PhD Tony said in the beginning of this debate that if we if we make a prediction that don't fit We have to throw it out Copernicus is out the door. All right Copernicus is gone All right, and I get it that makes you science isn't caught up yet, but the people who are on the leading edge have known this for a long time All right, so don't be upset just because you have to Unlearn and relearn something that's the sign of intelligence. All right Just because you thought you knew something and now you don't know anymore humble yourself. All right I have to do that. Hey, I don't know that's why when PhD Tony tells me I'm wrong I think yeah, don't tell me I'm wrong. Show me show me pull it up. Teach us all teach the class right now. All right We're gonna we're gonna hand the ball over to Tony Okay, the start is the claim that stars are distributed as though the as though the Earth is at the center of The galaxy is just a simple force would the distribution of the milky way across the night sky Clearly, please clearly not symmetrical about earth So that claim was just false the claim that the cmb is Is aligned on earth is not true as kraus himself suggested It's aligned with the plane of earth's orbit around the sun That was kraus's statement and that's the axis of evil So you can't use the cmb to argue that the earth doesn't go around the sun That's um that is implicit in the definition of the axis of evil As for not being on the frontier When was the last time you published a paper on earth's gravitational field? I'm going to guess never. I've published several this year So saying that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to gravity and also I will make two other points one Earth's motion is not related to its shape This is a cube That doesn't change just because it's rotating it doesn't change just because it's moving It similarly the cosmic microwave background does it affect the shape of earth doesn't um relate to the shape of earth These are irrelevancies and he's just getting away from the fact that distance formula don't work that the propagation of seismic waves doesn't work that um navigation doesn't work um, and that um The prediction of the motion of planets and stars and sunrise and sunset and the rise and set of every celestial object Simply doesn't work on a flat earth um, so How about instead of distracting people with stuff that is completely unrelated to shape You start talking about the evidence you have for the shape of the earth All right, so you all that sounds good and I'll take your word for it pastor But you didn't show us any evidence of that you just asserted it, you know, and so um, that's textbook sophistry He hasn't this he hasn't listen. I started off by with experiments point blank period These are experiments that are repeatable. You can do you can do these these prove the shape of the earth Now so you said the Milky Way across the night sky Okay, so the reason why I brought up the c and b it wasn't proof that the earth is not moving around the sun C and b was evidence toward the earth being in the center of the universe and when Lawrence Krauss says that it matches, excuse me, uh Uh, it correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun Uh, I like this is why I question the phd me right because when he says that right He's saying that we think the earth moves around the sun Like this right and he's saying that the c and b Matches that motion what we think the earth is doing around the sun. This is not about whether the earth is moving It's about it being in the center of the universe So what that means is the same path that the earth has around the sun. It matches the whole galaxy I hope you understand what he's saying. He's like that doesn't make any sense Because this is supposed to be random But for some for some reason the whole galaxy Follows the path that we think the earth is taking around the sun So you're telling me that the earth is taking that none of more realistically that whole Galaxy is moving in that path and it even has the tilt that we claim the earth has that's what he's saying right there He's not saying that It has to do with the the the earth moving around the sun So if the earth's not moving around the sun the c and b is is null. I'm not sure how you pulled that How you even got that out of that I just wanted to make that clear for the audience right that is not what that means He said what we think the earth is doing it looks like the whole universe is doing that In plain language what we think the earth is doing it looks like the whole universe is doing that So it's more realistic that the earth is not moving because basic global laws of physics that's what we observe All right I have several corrections First of all the c and b has nothing to do with the galaxy Right the galaxy and the c and b are different things the distribution of the stars in the galaxy Is unrelated to the cosmic microwave background They are different things they don't relate to one another so saying that the c and b Is aligned with the plane of earth around the sun is not The same as saying the galaxy is aligned with the plane of the earth around the sun You seem not to understand that distinction I said I said it was in plain language I'm not saying a one-to-one for the people in in the crowd who aren't going to stand For the people in the crowd who don't understand science. You're going to say it wrong How about you say it right the galaxy has nothing to do with the c and b The galaxy is not aligned with the plane of the earth around the sun Is this upsetting you Tony? Yes, you're a fuck with it and and it's annoying me I'm a bucket. What does that mean? Fuck with all right All right, not not that uh, you're not taking any great stride, but um, yeah Let's try to push into some new territory Not just uh, like I say semantics or you know meta discussion on who could know what but like Evidences, so let's let's get into it. So again, so with the cosmic microwave background, right? Talk about the earth we're talking about the shape of the earth I'm right. I'm trying hard not to joke. All right, but for your sake. I'm trying hard not to joke But he's he's throwing me out of youth. I want to joke on him so bad. I'm gonna start you out Go Tony. I can see you're already mad All right, so the Rubik's Cube example, right and in fact Perfect segue the reason why all this matters like I said in the beginning Because once you get rid of the fact that we don't have evidence for all this other stuff now You have to explain a spherical earth. That's not moving in the center of the universe So now you have to explain to me how if we're on the sphere, how are we on top? And somebody on the bottom and it's not moving. Where does the gravity come from? That's confusing So that's my first question and then my next question since you want to talk about the earth so bad How do we have? Well, first of all, you're not disagreeing right that we have a a letter your uniform gradient in the magnetic field, right? You agree with that at least It's linear with the radius. Yeah, but it's radially but it extends radially It does not extend What do you mean by that? So the so the equipotential surfaces are approximately parallel to the surface of the reference ellipsoid I understand that that that you you did a good job painting that picture for me, right? But now my only thing is that There's no place on the earth where it's radial. It's always linear No, it's radial everywhere Not according to Richard Feynman Um, well, I'm sorry. Did Richard Feynman say that the earth is flat? No, he did No, we're talking about we're talking about clearly he doesn't Nothing fallacy calm down. It's all no it isn't. No, it isn't. You know what an all-or-nothing fallacy is Yes, I do. Okay. What is it? An all-or-nothing fallacy is the claim that you have to agree with everything that somebody says Um, in order to use data that they're saying but fine. You just said you just said Richard Feynman didn't say the earth was flat He doesn't have to agree with me for me to use this data. Thank you for clearing that up for us, Tony Thank you for clearing that up except except That peer review is based on the following if you look at the data and you come to a different conclusion from the author Um, you say logically I use the same data, but I come to a completely different conclusion peer review says you're wrong That's the purpose of peer review the peer review process is to determine what is logic what logically follows From the evidence that was presented. I don't know how we got the peer review But I want to know about the linear distribution that we have that's it's not linear So you're a size denier again. He disagreed with Richard Feynman. No So Feynman also if we want to get into this actually I have a presentation may I share my? Oh Yeah, you sure can share your screen and I'll just remind our audience. We are just over an hour of Since we started our debate here Generally, we will go into q&a You know within probably 10 to 20 minutes, but it just depends on our speakers and how long they want to go So if you have questions for either of our speakers get them into super chats now And they will be read with priority. So your screen's up and running there, Tony. So the floor is yours again So we start with an observation all unsupported objects near earth's surface experience a downward acceleration of approximately 9.8 minutes per second squared This downward acceleration is applied regardless of the object's mass and composition Note for flat earth is the word Helium balloons and that sort of thing are supported by the atmosphere remove the atmosphere. They become unsupported We have another observation There is an electro potential current near earth's surface of 100 volts per meter and that is With the earth's surface maintaining a negative charge and that is we now hypothesize This is what causes downward acceleration. Okay, this is a testable hypothesis We can introduce two plates with an opposite charge The separation of two meters potential difference of 200 volts We charge them up now in between the volts There is now no potential gradient. So if we introduce an object into that Into that green area, it should float it should not move downwards because there's no electro potential gradient We can repeat the same experiment except we can increase the We can increase the potential difference if we introduce an object in between there It should shoot upwards at 9.8 meters per second. That is not observed to happen We can come up with another observation Actually things in contact with the ground have the same charge as the ground. That's what the term grounded means So if this potential difference was what was causing us to move down We would not have weight because there's no potential difference between us and the ground Zero potential difference zero force. Therefore, there should not be a weight We can do another experiment. We can show that actually the voltage that you need to lift an object Is more like a million volts per meter in order to lift 0.1 milligrams This is a scientific paper. I've given the reference here since you're so keen on them So the fact that you need a larger voltage to lift something Then you do to force it down tells you that there is something other than And much larger than the electric field that is forcing things down Whitsitt has done an experiment that has debunked his own plane And he's too dumb to work it out Nor is it nor is any other flat earther nor is any other flat earther bothered to tell him of the stupidity of what he has overlooked All right. Well, um, I agree with almost everything that you said there except for you You didn't quite answer how that's even possible with a with a spherical surface You need to conduct the place and just so the audience know you don't right just so just so the audience knows right I don't know. I have to like dive it deep into his explanation on what experiment should prove That you can manipulate the field to change the weight But the experiment he brought up that which he did is not which it's experiment This is an experiment that that that engineers have been showing at least as long as I've been alive All right, my uncle was the first one to show his experiment You can basically get a thin the graph generator and flip the field You can flip the polarity of the field and then the object will float All right, and also you can introduce sound which I had a big a hall a huge Back and forth with mid-tune on how a wide sound is also electric frequency So you can manipulate the electric quick the electric frequency with sound or even during rain storms Right during lightning storms lightning will manipulate the frequency and then it will affect the weight of things All right, so I mean about it's not a big about that. We're talking about the shape of the earth now So how can you so so so we both agree we both agree that that is The the the gradient can you demonstrate in an experiment? Has it been demonstrated in an experiment that that gradient is possible on a spherical surface? Show me where that has been demonstrated in a lab Okay Um, well a it's been observed in nature Um, we know that the top we know that the charge at the top of the atmosphere is different from the charge And when you say that it's a vertical gradient when you say that it's a um That that's just an approximation that Feynman was using Feynman would have agreed like every other person who maps Earth's electromagnetic field and there are people who do this professionally Um, that it is actually radial. It is not vertical Okay, so let me ask you a question. Does this specify that or specify that? So radio wouldn't a radio distribution get weaker as you go away? Yes, so Our distribution gets stronger. See two predictions radio if you just said it You just said it's a hundred volts. It doesn't It doesn't so what does it mean when you say what does it mean when you say that a hundred volts as you go up being in the charge Get stronger. What does that mean then if you're saying it doesn't get stronger if there's more electricity As you go up If you would shut up long enough to let an answer sneak into this conversation you might learn something the Gradient the near earth surface the gradient is a hundred volts per meter as you go up by a meter The potential increases by a hundred volts But that does not continue as you go up that you need to go further in order to Get your 100 volt increase. So it tapers Exactly as you suggested it does not the the gradient gets weaker as you move upwards. It does not get stronger I mean you can say that but Demonstratively observationally like I said if there was radio it would get weaker. We observe it getting stronger Now you're saying yeah, but it's only in our observable area when it gets stronger Once we get to the area that we can't necessarily go ourselves. Trust me. It gets weaker. Believe in me. I promise No, I swear. I swear to god. Do I have experiments that prove it? No, but I swear to god You swear to god. I got you. Okay. So radio. So what you want is radius on data of electromagnetic field strength Bring it up go and search for um You screen share you do the search radius on data of electromagnetic field strength So so you don't so you're not quite sure just yet. Is that what you're not quite sure? Um Well, I don't see how you can be sure if you haven't even done the google. I'm not saying I'm sure I'm saying well Yes, you are you're saying that I'm wrong Well, I'm saying that you don't have evidence for what you're saying. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even saying you're wrong Oh, look, just be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong. All right, because you could be right You really could but it's not just about you. How about you do? How about you do the google google search? I did a radio song data of electromagnetic field strength If you haven't done it already, that's fine. I'm just saying I'm not you have to have evidence for what you're seeing Whether you're wrong or right. I don't know if you're wrong or right. Well, you presented the claim you dickhead Like you You presented the claim. I'm still speaking you presented the claim You presented the claim that this was impossible on a sphere. You made that statement Yes, I said I said And now and now you're claiming that you could be wrong. Okay, you don't know that you're right I'm a real scientist, so why did you make the claim? All right, look, look, let me be clear. All right, I said and you agree that a spherical Object would have a radio distribution in the magnetic field. We both agree with that So that's not necessarily my claim. That's a claim in science. All right, we all agree on that And then what we're disagreeing on is whether or not our distribution is radial I mean, excuse me is linear and whether or not it increases like linear Distributions do or decreases like radial distributions do based upon Richard Feynman and you agree too Your diagram shows that in the measurable universe that we have it it increases linearly I don't so no, I don't it's so Look a plot for three minutes a plot for three meters near the earth's surface Cannot be meaningfully extrapolated to the rest of the universe and for you to even make the suggestion That that is true is completely fucking bonkers So to be clear, you're saying that all the other evidence I have is true But it's just not a wide enough area for you to say for sure All right, and I said no, I'm saying that you completely misunderstand the topic on a fundamental level In which way which thing did I say that was it correct? Correct me, please I think it could be Good you said that the gradient that you presented is impossible on a On a sphere and it's not you can have that value in the lower atmosphere And have a different gradient as you move upwards You got it. All right. You know what you get me on that the score is is 75 to 1. All right. You're right I misspoke. Okay. Yeah, you know how you know how in all sports One of the competitors gets to choose whether or not they win That's that that's exactly how Um competitions work you get to decide whether you won every point okay, so Oh Maybe it would be a good idea just to put a bow on some of the things that we've gone into if there's any hot ones that We haven't been able to actually I'd like to I'd like to I do have something to bring up. Sure thing Okay I just want to put a bow on that though just to put a bow on it. All right. No, we're not Come on chill. All right, because I was in the middle of speaking and I was giving you a point I was saying you were right about something, you know, so I want to give you that I made a mistake by saying it's impossible on a sphere But we just have not demonstrated it I would like to see demonstrations that a distribution like that could exist on a sphere anywhere Based upon the no laws of physics. That's a bow on it. Let's move on to the new point Uh pastor tome Let's not let's look at so you're looking at the Feynman lectures, right? Yes Okay, go to if you go to figure nine four in that Feynman leger Feynman lecture You can see that at 50 000 meters above sea level the potential difference between that and the surface is only 40 000 volts It's not five million volts Right, so this is observational data that's the 100 volts per meter Does not extend indefinitely above earth's surface. Would you agree? Yes 100% Okay Would you would you step back from your claim that earth's electromagnetic field is is impossible on a radial earth? I already did I step back and it's impossible as a stretch, but it has not been demonstrated though Except that we've done it here. We've measured it here But the shape of the earth is what's in question though, you don't get that Tony So you can't use the earth as evidence for the the thing that's in question. You have to do something else Find a lab do you understand how do you understand how idiotic what you just said was? You can't use the earth. You can't use the earth to Demonstrate the shape of the earth. That's effectively what you just said No, that's not what I said I said to demonstrate this principle on whether or not this is possible. You have to use something other than the thing that's in question You don't get that That's like saying that's like saying that's like saying Hey, the bible says that Jesus is real and you're like, well, how do you know? I'm like because it says right here on page 22. I'm gonna know the bible is what's in question You can't use the bike. No, that's how ridiculous what you just said sound That's Tony. I might listen man. The phd's is Jesus. Okay, so that so can you tell me Coulomb's law? Let's pretend I don't know. How does that relate to what we're talking about? Because it gives you the distribution of electrostatic potential in a spiroidal Around a spiroidal body With a charge distribution Does it match the earth? Yes I would love for you to pull that up. I would love that I just did no no no no because that No, okay, okay, okay. Okay, so we got So you put up my data that was my info that you pulled up. You said this is what you're looking at, right? Yeah, you have to pull up somewhere where okay This is what it would look like on a spirit demonstrate it here here and here and this is what it looks like on my earth That has not been done yet. All right. Okay. Well, let's let's let's go to my field of expertise Then shall we sure let's go to gravity Oh Okay, so you apparently don't accept the um Mass attracts mass. In fact, you say people have stopped saying that it's not the billion working of space time now, right? Yes, it is. Oh, so it's not mass attracting mass. I was correct again. It is that too Oh, it's both. Oh, yes And you're positive about that. Yep. Okay So it depends a little bit on you. It depends a little bit on your framework You can have philosophical discussions about which is what But let's look at some um, let's look at some, uh, Let's look at some papers on gravity. So let's assume again That your electrostatic that wits its electrostatic theory I am not a witsit sir. Just so you know, like you're not debating witsit. You're debating Are you are you denying? So what's your proposed mechanism for gravity? You had the dielectric thing up there before Right, right, right. Yeah, but this doesn't have anything to do with witsit though Attack the idea attack what I'm saying because he pulled that from other scientists. He did not come up with any of that No, he didn't right. You know that he didn't come up with any of that Okay, he's reading and researching like a good scholar should. No, he isn't he's making sure Yes, he is because he's finding the same things that other of us are finding He's just finding the same thing that we're finding in our readings. So Here we have Measurement of gravitational acceleration by dropping atoms. Atoms are electrically neutral They do not have charge distributions. So the mechanism is you've got a You've got a trap you Project the cesium atoms up and you look at there and you look at their Properties on the return This field has been this field has been extended To To what's called cold atom? Cold atom interferometry Um, well cold atom gravimetry. It's called here for instance We've got a set up with an optical with a magneto optical chat trap where we project strontium atoms into a An observation chamber we hit them with a layer we Select out or we apply our clock perturbation we select out atoms that have not made it into our velocity Requirements we then hit them with a ramen laser that will project half of them upwards Then we recombine we pass them through Then we recombine and we look at the matter wave interference and from that we can measure gravity again. We've got evidence that We've got evidence that atoms fall under gravity here. We've got neutrons falling under gravity um Here you project neutrons into a cavity between a mirror you use ultra cold cold neutrons so that they remain trapped They end up in bound gravitationally captured quantum states And you can measure them using um height distributed sensors like this and you can compare your results to the calculated values like this So the green is the Properly computed the red are the observed intensities of um neutron flow as a function of height above the Above the mirror so neutrons fall under the fall under the influence of gravity have no charge An electrostatic field has no impact on neutrons. We can demonstrate this in the laboratory So the claim that the electrostatic field is responsible for Neutrons falling is instantly falsifiable. It has to be something other than electrostatics I'm just gonna assume that everything that you said and that was correct But even even if it is correct though, it still doesn't lead to the conclusion why it's a total non-sequitur Right, I said this in the craig debate right where you guys were saying like 10 true things in a row Like this is true. This is true. This is true. I'm with you I'm with you need like and so that means that it has to be gravity I don't Is it dishonesty or is it ignorance? I'm not sure because in a proper scientific experiment You have to be able to manipulate the variable that your claiming is the cause for what uh for the outcome Right, like if I say the light is being moved by the volume knob I have to be able to manipulate the knob So you guys have to be able to affect what you call quote unquote gravity And you have to be able to affect the quote unquote electrostatic field Manipulate it so that way you can be sure that these are not the things that are the cause of your outcome We haven't done that in any experiment. Definitely not the one you just showed. Yes. Yes. We have that's just a lie How did you how did you differentiate between electrostatics and quote unquote gravitational pull? What did you do to differentiate between those two? Okay, so A lot of that also a lot of that also It assumes that you understand the nature of how electricity and these neutrons and atoms working general because we haven't even really identified The electron like that to even know that it exists when you look at the Higgs boson and a lot of the other colliders They're starting to realize that there's a lot deeper There's basically a deeper coding for our whole level to these things and these things are more of an interface rather than The deeper coding to what's really going on So we don't actually understand the nature of how these particles move anyway And this is a leading edge of science. I know so you might not even be aware of this But if you are reading what's coming out of the colliders. Yeah, a lot of these things are being completely debunked Namely the existence of the electron in general So, um, I'm going to show this and then you're going to bring up a scientific paper concluding that the electron doesn't exist I would hope that you would bring up an experiment that everybody could do You're going to No, you're going to bring up a you're going to bring up a scientific paper that demonstrates that I'm not a pastor. I don't want people to worship paper. All right. So So in this in this case we've in this case, we've used our attractive masses In two ways to look at the in in the left hand side This is a time of swing experiment. So you bring the masses in the middle there. There's a Pendulum, which is suspended from a From a silicon fiber Our test masses those black things on the outside Stainless steel balls Suspended on tungsten we vacuum out the The thing with the lever in it There we cover it by gold coated cylinder Um to shield the system to shield the system from electrostatic effects And we place them in we place everything inside a vacuum to remove out air So the the mass here is an aluminium coated silica block So it's just made of purified sand With aluminium on top of it and the outside is stainless steel So we've reduced the magnetic effects. Then we've got the then we've got a second experiment which actually uses a Okay, so No, no, no, no, I hadn't finished speaking your claim that we hadn't excluded electromagnetic forces is wrong. Isn't it? I'm gonna explain to you how because you're saying that you blocked it. You cannot block electrostatic effects Yes, you can So so there's my electoral excuse me, but my uh static electricity and interference in a vacuum Um, yes, there is okay. So you can't block out electrostatic effects even in a vacuum Yes, you can you can put you can put part of the apparatus inside a faraday cage And you can make the faraday cage solid so that the um, so that the frequency of the electrostatic forces that can get through it Is small small. Yes, but not Not not there at all. But you can read but you can reduce it to agree You can reduce you you can reduce the influence of electrostatics to much smaller Than the effect of gravity So you can eliminate electrostatics. You can eliminate electrostatic as a causal mechanism Walter Lewin from MIT. Go look up his lectures. I've been over this at infinitum already. All right, Walter Lewin at MIT Disagrees with you. So this is not me versus him. This is Anthony. It should be Tony pastor Tony versus science He's a scientist at MIT Why isn't he here? Walter Lewin What does he say bring out the paper in which he says it? I brought up a lecture in my other debates. I go No, bring it up here. You're not in your other I'm not I'm not doing that right now. All right. Go look at the water It doesn't exist. I don't I'm not I'm up against you I'm up against you client saying somebody said something Somebody said something that's evidence, isn't it? Listen, man. Listen. All right. So just like I said in the beginning, all right We're gonna keep referring to your original code All right, if you have two models and the model makes a prediction and the prediction fails, you throw it out All right, the prediction for gravity was thrown out in 1933. That's how far behind science Pastor Tony is in 1933. There's what's called the fritz wiki observations He looked out into the galaxy and he thought hey based upon what we think gravity does there should be this much mass There was so much less mass than what was predicted. They had to come up with Dark matter. All right. Why did dark matter? Why was dark matter invented dark matter matter that we can't see can't touch can't interact with matter that's Not there to find the laws of physics, right? Well, how did we come up with that because we made a prediction based on gravity. It came up false This was 1933 guys 1933 gravity's been debunked. Why are we so argument about this? This is done already So there are two points to make one is that a theory that is valid on earth Is not disproved by what happens by what happens in a galaxy far away to In order to accept as wiki's result is valid, which clearly you do you have to accept the existence of It may dark matter so You have to accept So On the record ross here accepts the existence of galaxies outside of the milky way He accepts that earth is located inside a galaxy and he accepts The um the heliocentric if he doesn't accept those if he doesn't accept any of those Then he doesn't accept zwicky's result is real and if he doesn't accept zwicky's result is real He doesn't get to cite it He forgot what an old nothing fallacy is that quick He he's why pastor, right because you'll say one thing that you'll live completely different. No, no You're rejecting you reject everything about zwicky's analysis It's not a matter It's if you reject all of the observational data that zwicky is introducing You can't adopt his conclusion because now he has no data on which to base the conclusion You reject all of his observational data You can't just say I take the conclusion and then I apply it in order to say in order to take his Conclusion you must accept his data and his methods if you don't accept that You don't get to use the conclusions. We urge you. We urge you. We urge you right and I hear you But that's ridiculous because it's called an old nothing fallacy and what I would be doing is invoking a hostile witness That's called a hostile witness. I can't believe they don't teach you logic in australia It's just like I've actually done from a logic universe wits that tried this nonsense as well It's not I do and it's not an all-or-nothing fallacy you are rejecting everything about zwicky's Except for the conclusion That you can't do that. It's not logically valid. It's not logically valid It's not logically valid and you saying that it's an all-or-nothing fallacy is just you are searching that you win again You're not the judge here What's it? What have you done to this man? This man has nightmares. He he's thinking that he's debating you right now. He's Waking up in a little nice sweat and thinking about that debate with wits, don't you? I didn't listen. These are not wits. It's words. I learned this my first year of school Logic 101 all-or-nothing fallacy just because you say This is not an all-or-nothing fallacy. You're just repeating yourself. This is not an all-or-nothing fallacy Excuse me. Oh no. Relax. Relax. Jump. Relax. Jump. All right. All right. We're gonna have to move into q&a if we can't actually Like I said, we can't just be You know what you're doing is not cool. So let's carry on Anyway, just because I disagree with two things that somebody says if they say two plus two is two I don't have to now think that two plus two plus two is four I don't have to now think that two plus two isn't four just because this guy Just says some stuff I disagree with. I don't know where Tony's mind is acting. I really don't know Come on, man So just saying that something is an all-or-nothing fallacy or just saying that something is a fallacy is not an establishment That that that fallacy Validly holds in the context that you're using it. So just saying that's an all-or-nothing fallacy That's a that's an appeal to authority authority fallacy. That's that's blah blah blah um All physicists think this when they demonstrably don't Um, you know, if all physicists thought that if all physicists thought what you think Then you wouldn't be here. You'd be replaced by a physicist who would be telling me how i'm wrong Um, that's that's not even an argument He's not even an argument. What argument is that if you're so right then the physicists will be here magically Magically a physicist would just take your place make an argument about what shape the earth is Make an argument that the earth is a movie make an argument that the earth is not in the surface universe You know me and show some evidence because you're saying that i'm wrong. We don't show the evidence contrary No, I did I showed so I showed no you showed papers not experiments No, I showed The papers describe experiments you cretin um, also The also I showed that the spherical distance formula is always accurate. You can't show that it isn't I showed that um spherical models of I showed observations of spherical models of seismic arrival times They're always accurate. You have no model. You didn't show that they weren't. Um, I showed that spherical I showed that spherical models of um, uh electrostatic field Were accurate. I showed all of this observational data and you've just fucking ignored it No, I didn't ignore it, but we agreed in the beginning that models are not evidence alone So Observational validation is intrinsic to whether or not a model is but we but we agree that that's not conclusive evidence for truth We're searching the truth. Yes, but you haven't presented a model for these phenomena We need to be able to compare How these you're right Tony you're right. Okay, you're right But the reason why I have presented the model is because models aren't conclusive evidence I've presented evidence not models No, you didn't present close and papers and papers. I provided all of them So so this is the so this is the fallacy. This is the fallacy What is that earthers think that they can read? They can read a scientific paper It's not the case that anybody can read a scientific paper and properly understand it I can't read a quantum mechanics paper and properly understand it Quotes from Yes, you've taken quotes from people out of context. You haven't given If they're out of context, showing them in context You have not cited where these quotes are from, whether or not their peer reviewed comments, whether or not they're Just off the cuff comments, whether or not they're informal dialogues, whether or not they're just from popular science books I haven't done any of them. I agree. I agree. But this is what I'll say though This is what I'll say if anybody cares about the subject for real if they care about truth Go look up what I'm saying after and if I'm wrong come correct me, right? But think about it like this. Let's say what I'm saying is true What what if what I'm saying is true, right? If all the stuff that I'm saying you can say that it's wrong Go look it up for yourself and find out if it's true and when you discover that it is true Then what now what now what now if I'm correct then I'm right If I'm correct then I'm right then the earth is not moving Okay, so like deal with that then because there's no evidence to the contrary Don't tell me that I'm saying it's wrong. Show me contrary evidence, please Once again, he interrupted me when I was making my point The person to ask about the proper meaning of a scientific Paper or an utter inspired scientist is the scientists themselves So if scientists agree with Ross That the earth is flat and that the evidence supports it Then they will say so they do not say so Because they do not agree with this Ross has read stuff. He thinks he understands it He thinks he understands the mindset and you will notice very often he goes into magic He can mind read what what Lawrence Krause meant when he said that the You know, he gave the thought process of Lawrence Krause's utterance About what Lawrence Krause was referring to no, you can't do that. You don't know that The best way to get at this is to ask Lawrence Krause Are you saying the cosmic microwave background? Demonstrates that the demonstrates that earth is at the center of the universe Lawrence Krause will answer and and again he's interrupting me and Lawrence Krause will answer No, that is not what I'm saying So if I bring up a video of Lawrence Krause saying it, you'll say, you know what Ross? I was completely wrong. I'm a dumb australian. I may say this Sorry, you'll say you Ross. I was completely wrong. You were right You didn't take out a context. You'll say that if I bring up a video of him saying it No, I will I will say you You asked me a question. Are you going to let me answer it? Sure No What I want is a I don't dispute the accuracy of the quote. What I dispute is your interpretation of it So the key discriminator I'm still answering the key discriminator on whether or not your interpretation is correct Is to go back to Lawrence Krause and say did you mean to say That the earth is at the center of the observable universe and Lawrence Krause will say no He will say Ross's interpretation of what I said is wrong So it doesn't matter how many quotes you Ross has Because the people who said those things do not agree with his interpretation of them Okay, so for the record everybody can go look this up on their own There's tons of videos out there of Lawrence Krause talking about this at length. Actually, that's how I know that All right. I didn't pull that out of my ass. I've heard Lawrence Krause talk at length He's actually my favorite physicist to listen to I watch his show almost every week. So shout out Lawrence, right? One of my favorite guys let's do I disagree with the loss of Lord says But I think that he's a brilliant man He looks at things from a logical perspective and he's very good at communicating All right, so you can go look this up on your own and see that phd. Tony is misinformed It's going to be pastor Tony. All right. He's misinformed on on on on that subject specifically, you know, so Again, I am not disputing the accuracy of the quote. I am disputing your interpretation of it He's explaining himself And you are you and I am still speaking And it is your interpretation of the quote that is an issue here You are saying this quote is evidence that earth is at the that all physicists think that earth is at the center of the Universe and your interpretation of the quote is wrong And the physicists maintain no such thing So while the quote is accurate what you are claiming to be the consequences of that quote The logical entailment of that quote is simply false You have made shit up based on a quote that you have misinterpreted All right, sounds good. Well, let's see if I make this if I misinterpret this quote So this is a quote from Nicola tesla today scientists have substituted mathematics or experiments and they wander off the equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality Right. We all love data sets and data sets. Yes are Do count as evidence but not conclusive evidence alone data sets and mathematics papers None of that is conclusive evidence conclusive evidence is experiment And then that experiment has to be repeated and that experiment has to come after observation All right, so this is why I say he's a science denier and he believes in stuff that defines the laws of physics because In reality, we don't observe any of the things that he's saying We observe the world the way it is and then they come up with all these different weird ways that it's really not that It's an illusion. That's really what they're saying, right? Do we see the earth moving? No We can't and when we do an experiment is the earth moving? No, but guess what? It's an illusion That's the answer. All right, grab. He's real But it doesn't map on the reality, right? It doesn't map on to the whole solar system It doesn't map on to the whole to all the galaxies, right? But there's dark matter there, right? You think it's it's not there But it is there. It's an illusion. You understand what i'm saying. That's the side They're trying to convince you to believe in illusions. All right Don't let them do it just because they have to work phd in part of their name It does not mean what you think of me, right? It means pastor It means pastor creature total All right guys, I think uh, it might be a good idea for me to uh Chime in with my very feminine voice and push us into the q&a I have I have one quick point. I'm sorry Can I make one quick point? You want to put a bow on something? I'll give you like 15 30 seconds here okay so the Um, sorry, let me find my window. I have a feeling that this is not going to be a 30 second It uh, it should be reasonable Reasonable, okay. Well, we'll see what uh, what your thoughts are unreasonable. Uh, go ahead. Okay, so this is So here's a plot of the night sky. Okay, this is how we map things in the night sky You will note that there's a thing called the celestial equator that is 90 degrees away from the pole That makes no sense on a flat earth the um, the equator is not a plane In re in observation the equator is the celestial equator is a plane in um in a flat earth That can't be true It's a cylinder and angles to the angular separation of an object from the equator That angle is going to depend on a flat earth on where the observer is So the claim that you know the flat flat earth observation. Sorry, that's the the claim the flat earth observations reality Completely false Right. Well see but that doesn't take into account the azimuthal field of vision. All right That's very very easy answer that everybody. Please don't look that up on your own azimuthal field of vision That's why the angles are off Euclidean geometry euclidean geometry does not work at long distances All right, so we'll search it without faces. Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to move Just for the record, you're saying that we use euclidean geometry at long distances Yes So how do railroads touch in the distance in if it's euclidean? We'll carry on Exactly. That's that's carry on. That's perspective. That's that's perspective. They don't touch. I never do They just appear to thank you. So you're talking about the perspective of where we see stars Perspective is altered by the azimuthal field of vision. There's no euclidean geometry You're trying to calculate it like euclidean and perspective will change Yeah, you're searching that without evidence. You're just asserting Then present it then present it Present the evidence you just Show No present it now no i'm not doing that now ryan is trying to end the show. Why are you so rude? all right, if If we yeah, it's all very well for him. This happened last time ryan This happened last time we got into question and answer and then which it was all about as a myth of field of vision as a Myth of field of vision and he had not demonstrated it. He had no evidence for it He hadn't even properly fucking described it and all of a sudden it was evidence for the spurs for the flatness of earth They do this constantly. They just introduce stuff at the last second Without having established any factual basis for introducing it. I responded to you. You want to do that at the last second All right, be that as it may I understand that the expectation is that you guys aren't going to agree with each other Not only on the topic but on the tactics as well so Let's move into the q&a and see if we can spur some new ideas and go into some new territories So I do want to thank everybody who has come out to the show So we just have shy of 500 people watching right now I'm going to close the poll and I'll let everybody know where it stands So once again, everybody everybody's hanging out. We are going to move in to our q&a shortly Let's see here. I'm just going to close the poll And that'll give you guys an opportunity to if you need to use the washroom you need to Grab a refreshment. That's fine I also want to remind everybody that we got lots of debates coming up on modern day debates I'll make sure that you check out Our upcoming events and hit the notification bell. We would love to see you guys there and Let's see Unless one of the other mods closed the poll and I didn't notice if one of the other mods closed the poll If they want to let me know where it stood I'm pretty sure we were sitting comfortably somewhere around like 67 on globe and I think it was oh there it is it's 63 globe 20 flat and then 17 voted a loaf of bread so phd is back 17 voted a loaf of bread. Thank you for that. That's funny No, by the way that that 17 percent goes to me because I said we don't know So I get the 17 percent too 17 percent too because the that's a technical. I don't know. All right. Let's carry in to you. I still lose No, I mean, this is the last one. You still got 98 to 2. I think you had two good points To a I'll give you that though. Most people they don't even get one. All right. You got me on those two points All right for the sake of our audience Let's get into the super chat So if you have a question and get it into these super chats Because we're going to get into it right now And I'm sure that we're going to have all kinds of thoughts as we go through lj asks Why doesn't earth spin under a hovering a helicopter? Well the The helicopter is suspended by the air and the air in general rotates with the earth as a result of four billion years of friction So the momentum of the air is the same as the momentum of the helicopter The helicopter doesn't move the relative to the air both stay in the same relative position To the surface of the earth. It's very simple and Here I think is it is revealing that this individual thinks That this question has eluded the greatest scientific minds of the past 100 years No, we do understand why that happens That you don't Is more a you problem that it is I think he wants to know how do they pick up the extra speed because if the environment is moving at the same speed is You're saying it's in my step So if it's further the circle it has to take is longer Where does the extra force come in so for the environment to pick up the extra speed it would need to keep up with the earth Well, it depends how high you go, but um, no if you if you're um any net um any net Lack of movement is going to so let's suppose that you're right Let's suppose that um the the air isn't moving as fast as the earth That's going to show as a westward wind and the helicopter is going to have to adjust Only if it's moving so but real quick though No, but we do agree on but we do agree though that if if the environment if the air up here A thousand miles up is moving in lockstep with the earth because the circle is bigger It has to be going faster. Yes Um, but it isn't at a thousand miles above the earth Well, I mean even if it's 10 miles above the earth, it still has to be going faster, right? It's not it's not in lockstep with the earth at 10 kilometers so that the well at any anywhere with lockstep If it's any amount above the earth, it has to be yes It's it's going to show it's going to show up as a wind pattern if it isn't So, you know that the fact that winds exist is well understood And the fact that price and the fact that the dominant winds are from the west Is also that is also well understood Um, so, you know, that's that's how they made the globe model. That's why there really isn't a global model It's almost so this is that what we had and then they they basically designed the globe around those wind patterns They assume oh, we have to be moving this way because of the so it's not conclusive evidence on its own It's evidence for not conclusive on its own um, yeah, but um You don't have a model that explains anything You can't explain distances. You can't explain the rising and setting of celestial objects You can't explain where to find you can't explain Pardon Okay, calculate the distance for me between sydney and um, You just have to go what do you mean? You just go there you calculate the distance by traveling Listen, if I can if I know the distance between Fresno and LA That doesn't mean that I know the shape of the entire earth We have no idea what the terrain is between LA only listen We don't know what the terrain is between LA and Fresno So there could be an arc in between LA and Fresno They're really good. So there's a whole bunch of variables that you're not taking into account Last word to Tony for this one But we can prove that the flat earth formula is not accurate ever There's only one used you you yourself brought up the azimuth liquid distant projection Under that projection the flat earth formula is well not never accurate, but it's mostly inaccurate It's by a large portion All right Let's move into our next super chat And once again, thank you to our audience for hanging out and having the discussion And also the people in our live chat Lots of fun going on in there Uh, don't think I haven't been reading and also enjoying as well So Otto says, uh, a question for my personal statistics Does flat earth side support Ukraine or Russia? I bet it is Russia, right? Well, honestly, this is such a It's never a discussion. This is this is a strange thing. Let's get this one. Um, so here's here's what I would ask Ross if you want to personally Let our audience know where you may stand on certain issues And that might also spur some people that to contact me and say I would love to debate ross on So you can go ahead and answer that or just say I don't want to respond Yeah, well, I'll say that I think all wars are wrong period. I don't agree with any war I don't I I agree with the non-violence principle 100 you should not aggress all people that are being not Not being minded against you or not threatening violence to you or your property period now that being said the geopolitical complexities of the area are What we see if you die deep into it, all right the number one the number one and almost only problem in the world today is The existence of government period and the american government is a number one culprit. All right It's always the american government's fault. I'm not saying that i'm america hater I'm an america first person. I don't want our military and our soldiers providing money or resources towards anywhere period And i'll debate anybody on that Well, um that if I may Offer a comment that position was adopted by the us many times ahead of world war one It was adopted. It was adopted ahead of world war two and it never worked Because it always ended up that america's trading partners and the people and the people that america was politically allied with Ended up in would end up in serious trouble and would need to be helped out. So it's never worked in the past It's not going to work in the future in particular on the ukraine russia In particular on the ukraine russia war ukraine are fighting a defensive war. They didn't choose this war They didn't start this war. They are defending themselves against a hostile aggressive And um murderous and genocidal That has been stealing children from ukraine and shipping them inland into russia. So You know Putin is a murderous thug and if he isn't stopped here with western help Then he'll keep on going into poland. He'll keep on going into eastern europe. Um, it's not going to you don't stop Thugs like putin by appeasement World war two demonstrated that And if ross disagrees, he just doesn't know history as well as not knowing physics. Please. This is my area of expertise Actually, I'll give you one thing Putin is a murderous thug. So it's every president of every nation ever, right? Everything that he said other than that is 100 percent false 100 percent 100 you would get embarrassed in a debate about that. You're completely wrong about that Especially when you talk about the not intervention policy Let's use the u.s. Not intervention policy didn't work. The world has been to shit ever since the us started intervening All right, the u.s. Didn't intervene. There was no world war. All right ross We do ever since they have to move into our next super chat ross. So, uh, we can debate on that later because that's crazy We do have uh, yeah, I was gonna say we have uh, quite a few super chats to go through but uh, if anybody has any other questions Do let us know By putting into the old super chat there Uh, but yeah, let's uh, let's carry in and see if we can get some more back and forth here Lj asks the globe religion requires early childhood brainwashing with globe toys and stories At what size do all observable flat bodies of water start to curve? um, generally around 200, um, uh 200 Kilometers now you can um, actually confirm this by putting gps receivers on ships And you can measure their height above the reference geoid as they travel along So you can definitely track that we've also got satellite altimetry Images of earth and you know, so if you go along the coast of india East coast or west coast it doesn't really matter you'll find that um, the sea level is inclined That um, the sea level south of india is about 50 meters Lower than it is at the at the top of india part of that is to do with the mass of the himalayas Um, gravitationally attracting the water towards it part of it is due to a gravitational low Um, where they're subducting material just to the south of india This is called the indian ocean gravitational low and it shows up in sea level maps So whatever you're talking I don't know what this guy's talking about and we we know that water curves We've been mapping it and using it for ages and in fact Actually, I'll get I'll do you one better If you've seen a map of the earth where they show the ocean floor That ocean floor geometry has been determined by using the gravitational signal of um ocean floor mountains On sea surface height. So we look at the sea we measure sea surface height We say okay, it's piled up over here. That means that there's a mountain range underneath it Um, and where there's a valley where there's a depression that means that there's some sort of chasm or something So whenever you see those and it actually if you look on google earth, you'll see these little snail trails Going across the ocean floor. That's actually the high resolution acoustic measurements of ocean floor depth Um, the broadly agree with the gravitational the gravitational has a lower resolution. So yeah Water curves get used to it if I could just make a quick comment because The idea is that we don't observe Based upon the known laws of physics water always lays flat, right? Like think about if you're trying to do if you're trying to make something level There's some water in there. You know why because the water will always go flat We use that to test levity, right? Okay. So he asked him When where do we observe this happening anywhere? And because this is this is the shape of the earth in question The only evidence that water ever curves is the thing that's in question So there's no scientific evidence for this this defies the laws of physics what he said Okay, um a if you take a water droplet and just drop it if you put it into zero g It'll it'll go round Be if you look at water in a beaker, you'll see that there's a meniscus on top of it So the claim that it's flat is false and be and and see Water does not what I'm still speaking. I'm still speaking Water does not go flat water follows Equipotential surfaces Um, so it follows surfaces where there is an equal equi potential Where where there is an equal rotational and combined rotational and gravitational Potential and that can easily be demonstrated in lakes So So your claim is just nonsense And I'll I'll I'll say that was my question I get the last word That is true. And uh, yes Let's carry on into the next question. That is a good idea as I see more super jets are coming in The more you guys discuss I think the more our audience is going to want to engage with both of you As it has been interesting and you guys have brought up all kinds of And I think different things than what we've heard on modern day debate in the past So if you are enjoying the discussion hit the like button share this out in those lovely contentious spaces spaces Where you like having these discussions? Um, next question coming in from even lord. Did jesus look a mediterranean or was he black? Jesus cries And they're doing this because they know that I like the political stuff or I don't like the political stuff But they do it because I'm always discussing history. Like this is crazy. That's funny You said you wanted to have a debate on history. Tony. That's my specialty. I specialize in history 100 yeah, it's actually it's actually something I have um postgraduate qualifications in as well. So well done you Yeah, man, we don't know what kind of jesus was. We don't even know if he was a real person. How about that? Yeah, so um, so I think the I think most scholars accept that jesus was a real person um, and uh, he would most likely have looked have had a mediterranean cast um Or 11 teen more, you know more accurately 11 teen appearance. So um, an occupant of the levant We're talking about yeshua. We're talking about jesus because jesus is really just another name phonetically of saying the name zeus If we're being honest jesus is just zeus Hey zeus, hey zeus, hey zeus The transliteration that I've always said is that it's hess it's a transliteration of hessua or joshua I'm surprised. That's the original name. Yes, but then they change it to jesus. So I don't know about jesus, but hessua was obviously a real person There there are people who would take issue with that claim who claimed mythologism. Um, I personally find that Not convincing as a as a hypothesis. I think that he did exist and he's like and as you say his name would have been a hebra one um, I would have Let's carry on. Uh, the question is not uh overly relevant to our discussion today, but uh, once again, uh It could cause people to message me and say hey, I really disagree with uh, you know Tony or ross on this subject and I'd like to debate there. So I would love somebody to debate on that Ukraine thing like that's crazy I've never even considered doing a debate on that because I can't imagine how somebody could look at the facts and think But look somebody wants to debate on that ukraine thing Please All right Chase hatchet says If I'm driving 70 miles per hour I don't feel the difference when I slow down to 69 or speed up to 71. It's called relativity That's not called relativity at all But you would feel the difference when you speed up and slow down Maybe you don't because your brain is only halfway there while you're driving But hey if you're paying attention, you can tell the difference between 70 and 69 now. How about a thousand degrees? We're talking about thousands of degrees and we're talking about multiple motions thousand degrees in a circle That's just one motion. How many how fast is it moving around the sun? How fast are they corkscrewing? All right, all these different motions happening at once it defies the laws of physics to think that we could have all those motions going on and not through a single one of them No, that's that's absolutely not true You can have as many motions you can have as many vectors as you want Of motion you sum them all together. They only turn into one vector There's only one vector of motion that is relevant. You sum vector. So Velocity is a vector quantity if you have different components of velocity You just sum those vectors together You end up with a particular vector with a particular direction and a particular magnitude. So He's he's obviously intimidated by big numbers And he's also intimidated by the fact and by the by the concept of vector sums, but Vector sums are very trivial. Um, and so I don't know why the five different motions keeps on getting mentioned by flat others It's utterly irrelevant Yeah, it's it's quite relevant actually. Yeah, it's important defies the laws of physics That you would be moving a thousand miles per hour and not field it at all Especially if you're changing speeds, especially if you're curving and moving in different in different motions All right Demonstrating in the lab Defies laws of physics Yeah, the question was for you Ross. So I'll let you have that last word matters now This is also for you Ross. So I'll give you the first that ozian That is ozian Well, potentially it could at be mxxd. It could also be I'm not sure at this point. It also could be isa So, uh, let's just read the question and see what you think Ross, what is the independent independent variables and constant for the electrostatic force? Columns law fe equals ke q 1 q 1 slash r Two r to the power of two is it after show on matters now I don't know lack of math skills Yeah, the question was kind of weird What are the independent and and control variables for the force? I even have to bring up a specific experiment or you're saying how would you do an experiment? And what would the variables be? I don't know maybe reform that question a little bit more coherent But there's times of control variable. That's the main point that everybody's missing. All right. There's honestly Like a bunch of of control variables. You can't really anticipate, you know The day the time of day the weather there's tons of things that you have to basically control for When you're doing a proper scientific experiment and then it has to be repeated. So Listen, we can give you a long one Yes, all of the experiments that I listed today were controlled and were repeated Um, what he's trying to say that what ozine is saying Matters now is saying the Coulomb's law takes the form of a constant times the product of the charges divided by r squared So it dissipates as a function of r squared just like gravitational acceleration dissipates as r squared That's all he's saying I'll let you have a last word even though it should be good You got it. So I think that would be the last word. So let's carry into the next question Uh, thank you so much. So yeah, there's going to be an after show on matters now. So Tune in for that. Uh, if you want to hear some more commentary, uh, there might be some familiar faces over there Melissa Schultz says if we were turning around in one day and going around the sun in one year It would gradually become a dark noon every six months Ross explain it if you can Then tony answer Please So, uh, they're inviting the back and forth, but we were going to do that. Anyway, uh spoiler alert melissa I I don't really quite understand what she's saying. It's not exactly my area of expertise But I will say that again Everything that happens the way we see it on the earth is the way we see it Okay, it means nothing for the discussion of whether or not something is true or not When we're discussing models because the models are taking all observable information and then figuring out what we believe off that So we all have the same information. All right, we all see the sun and the moon and stars do the same thing We're trying to discuss why it's happening All right, so I can't necessarily just like I said, it's not my area of expertise But you to come up with an explanation on why something is happening in a model You basically have to run an experiment on that and when you're talking about astronomy Like this is not science at that level because it's non-phosifiable You'd have to go up there to the stars to all these other places to do these experiments and control for a bunch of variables Because you can't do that. It's not falsifiable. That means it's not science I hope you guys understand it if it's not falsifiable It's not science. So these are these are really philosophical conversations So she's asking philosophical questions and I invite those but it's irrelevant at the end of the day to the scientific question Or what do we know for sure? all right Your thoughts over there, tony Okay, what she is saying is if this is the sun earth Earth at the initial position has this side facing the sun What she's saying is that six months later We're around the other side of the sun and the other side of earth is facing towards the sun um, what she's kind of overlooking is that a day Is not the time that it takes the earth to complete one rotation That's a solar. So that would be a sidereal day Which is not the same as a solar day a solar day Is the time it takes to turn around To face back to the sun So it's the time between one noon and the next noon and it's off by about four minutes a day So when the when the earth is over here, that's enough that we're out by 12 hours And so now Sort of we're facing towards the sun again. So it's daylight. So I think that's what she's referring to So yeah, you need to you need to accommodate the difference between the sidereal day and the and the solar day Because the sidereal day is actually a more accurate um assessment of Earth's rotational velocity All right in your last words there ross before we move into the next super chat All right, awesome. Well, if anybody else has any other questions, make sure you get them in the old super chat We're going to go right into the next one here I see that there's a few more that did pop in so Once again, a big thank you to uh, melissa matters now chase hatchet even lord lj auto and uh, yeah, let's uh, let's get that next question here milk john's mom Says stuttering john versus shuley. Who wins? Not sure what milk john's John definitely me. I have a video on my page right now actually About how much I stutter you know me because a lot of people have been perpetrating the name of my people this week People try to act like having a stutter is a quote-unquote missile disability. That's where they can't do stuff Get out of here. All right. I study worse than everybody else and nobody I'm the worst at interrupting So I don't want to hear nobody who stutters complaining about other people interrupting them. All right I am proof you can still be an asshole with a stutter All right. Well, uh membership chat from ozian talk says azimuth grid a vision is subjective not objective Uh, I see saying that it's not true Or are you saying that different people have different azimuthal field of visions because they have because their eyesight is different Or they're you know, whatever it may be. I'm not quite sure what it means But I I suppose it would have to be subjective because we're talking about perspective And as I said, euclidean geometry does not work at long distances So your your interpretation of how far things are is subjective. Yes That's true All right Uh, ozian talks also says I am only here to support phd tony and for my show Well, ozian, thank you. Uh, it seems like you gave us two dollars to support this show. So I don't like modern day debate no more is phd tony or nothing I mean, I just I was just having fun ozian. I I do love hosting you, buddy So, uh, you know anytime like, you know, you send me facebook messages And I'll try to get ahold of these speakers that you're interested in debating Uh, but uh, yeah, I did find that funny as I was going through Uh, the super chats that you're only here to support phd tony. Um, yes, uh, your ruthless plug Hey, ozian. Hey, ozian, I would love to um, I don't know if we got an official debate on on xe But I mean, you know, maybe you can come redeem phd tony and redeem redeem, uh, uh, uh ftfv Man, it's like not what would I say eight zero before this nine zero now like jesus You guys need some help man. I need some help Okay. Yeah, the opinions of delusional people don't generally can send me All right positively diverse podcasts asks flat Answer to the stars rotation per the hemisphere Yeah, the as I said earlier, there is no global model They made the global model by looking at the ways the stars rotate and assuming that it was the earth rotating And not what we observe, which is the stars. I think about we observe the stars moving Our answer is not oh the stars are moving, right? That would be too logical We have to say no, it's an illusion and it's faking dark matter and then this Yeah, all right. So the stars are moving guess what because the stars are moving. I don't have to explain that We all see that that's what's going on. All right. I support the earth that follows the laws of physics. All right Um, I'd like to comment the question you were asked that somebody paid good money to ask you Was how do you explain the fact that northern hemisphere star? Star rotation paths are in the opposite sense to southern hemisphere stellar rotation paths Why do they go clockwise in one? Um hemisphere and anti clockwise in the other Okay, well just so everybody knows right just based upon the laws of perspective If I'm looking up at a fan, right and the fan is going this way when I turn around it'll be going the other way No, we won't No, that's not true If you if you look up at a fan and it's going one way and then you go above it It'll go it'll look like it's going in the opposite sense But if you look at a fan and it's going clockwise, it doesn't matter where you stand under the fan It'll still be going clockwise That's just a fundamental property of the direction clockwise. That's why we use clockwise I'm not sure what we're looking at visually there ross But it's ross it's ross pretending that he did a proper analysis and then shaking his head I'm trying to listen. I'm trying to understand what he's saying You know, I mean like I said the laws of perspective change when you look at things from a different perspective, right? I'm looking this way the fan is moving like that. That's the way it's moving this way the fan is going like that It looks like it's moving the other way now So is your Body in the southern hemisphere is facing south all the time Everybody in the northern Placing north all the time. Is that your plan answer to it was my answer to it Like I said, I'm like, you know, the stars is not my area of expertise And so I defer to people that know what they're talking about But again, right all these things are laid in by the laws of perspective And if we're talking about models this model is the flatter perspective in general We look up the stars do what they do. So now we're trying to figure out why the stars do what they do No, that's not that that's a model has to be able to predict and explain The observed characteristics of the system if it doesn't do that if you can't predict what the stars are doing Then you don't have a model you and it Science is all about determining whether or not a given model is accurate Your inability to predict stuff your inability to want to quantitatively assess The um stellar motion is actually a loss if you can't do that And you fail Last word for us to explain stellar motion last words for us Like I said, it's not my area of expertise. I don't get into the stars that much. I'm not an astronomer I like to focus on what we can confirm. All right. That's not science up there. All right. It's not falsifiable We can't confirm it. So that's our You want to talk philosophy on that pool? I want to focus on the science and when the science shows us what can we confirm? All right All right Next one coming in this is from cane skeptic All right, so this says This is from cane skeptic. Sorry. I had to turn up the mic a little bit there Ross, you can't listen if your mouth is moving Oh, they're getting spicy on you there. Ross if you ask a question and be courteous enough to listen to the answer Well, that's a little bit of meta discussion. So maybe maybe best. We just don't interact too much with that one But that is your first super chat. So we'll give you some Listen, I love modern day debates, right? I really do. I watch modern debates all the time Right all week. I'm watching one debate one debate or another when I watch pad toning He is annoying. He does not be quiet He does not let other people talk and I and this is the same thing that I did the mark, right? When I watch debates and it's the reason why I wanted to debate mark I want to debate mark is ruining the debate for because he won't shut up So I want to see if mark could be that to me same thing with p.a.d. Tony I was looking after the I was watching the debate and he just interrupts every two seconds every two seconds That's why he's so mad at wits. It because even though he interrupted all right, okay Okay, like I said, we don't want to do a big meta now Do this in your own space. That's totally fine. I didn't even entertain it I saw it was the first super chat and you were ready to just go and But yeah, we're just gonna do meta analysis. We just have to rail it in here, right? So Tim Pryor says until he can name any field of science or scientists that agrees with him Then he needs to stop mentioning science That was to you Ross Are you sure because I'm the only one that recording scientists today You didn't what are we talking about? I quoted science all day. It could have been me couldn't have been couldn't be He's talking to you last word. Tony go ahead um well I quoted I quoted scientific papers. Um, Ross presented out of context um Presumably popular science media Um that he failed to correctly interpret So his claim that he represented what science was saying is wrong He put quotes on the screen and then he made bizarre and insane interpolations from them to support His deranged hypothesis that the earth is flattened stationary Despite all of the evidence that he all of the evidence that I presented that his model was wrong last word That's that's that's a one. We got the last super chat coming in. We'll do our closing statements Positively diverse podcast comes in with another super chat. So thank you so much for the second super chat here Uh, let's see. Thank you. Tony Ross find a fan and experiment police Please they say I did thank you. Thank you for that super chat All right, excellent. So, uh, let's move into one minute closings. Uh, Tony one minute on the floor Your thoughts on our discussion tonight where everybody can find you and maybe some other topics you'd like to discuss on modern day debate Um, so I'd be very keen to discuss wits. It's theory of gravity, but he refuses to debate me Because he's a coward so That's a that's a good place to start the next thing that I'd um The my observation about this discussion was that ross made an Unsubstantiated series of assertions. He started with the claim that earth shape is related to its motion. This is false He's he claimed that earth's position in the in the universe is related to its shape. That was false He presented a bunch of completely out of context quotes from a variety of people that he had completely misinterpreted And then he said that that was what science says um Ignoring the fact that there is not a single scientist who will say that any of his interpretations are correct They do not science does not claim that the electron doesn't exist Science does not claim that the earth is the center of the universe science does not claim that The sun goes around the earth and science does not claim that the earth is stationary science claims none of these things And he's um, and he's uh repeated assertions were completely unsubstantiated in that regard All right. Well, thank you so much a phd tony for coming out and having the discussion on modern day debate We really appreciate it. We hope that everybody who can who has fingers or you know any You know heat activating devices in their body, uh, you know, hit the like button. That's right Uh, yeah, come a full circle. All right, it's over to you, uh, ross One minute. I want to say I I appreciate, uh, ryan and uh, pats from tony. Um, you guys have been great this evening I love uh coming to the church of science denial And uh dealing with the reverence here in the house of god It's been nice meeting here in the house of god Um, either way you can find me at real offended. I'm gonna do uh an after show right now I might pop on to matters now depending on, you know, I mean who's over there and what the discussion is like, but look, man I'm undefeated in this like I present the evidence. Nobody has any evidence of the contrary when you say that my polls are Out of context, that's not true unless you can present a quote of the person saying the opposite When you say it's out of context, you have to show me how in context It means something different if you don't say that then you're just being dishonest, right? But he's a pastor. How can I expect anything less? You know what I mean? It's the name of the game if you're a pastor, right? You preach to people you get money and then you do something completely different All right So like I said at the beginning of the debate if you have a model and the model doesn't work throw the model out In 1933 the model gravity was throwing out everything that requires gravity after that Is science denial All right, so if you want to come to my channel and show me evidence of something else then all right But as far as look, I know I've done this look eight times. No one has been able to present evidence. All right, listen Shout out ryan shout out martin. I a unlike ozien. I love modern day debates It's a great platform You guys have great debates on here when you guys are doing the slew of religious debates There were some really interesting debates in there. I swear to god every time I had a whole bunch of them saved like You guys had the Hindus we are made in the indians very good stuff very good stuff Even though you are saying nice things Hey, follow me at real affiliate. You know what I mean? No worries. Well, thank you so much ross for the shout out to the channel as well Uh, I did want to let you know you were at time there and uh, you know, I do uh one of that tony and you also You know get some time to uh Yourselves this evening So if you haven't already hit the like button if you enjoyed discussions that are open and free like this On modern day debate, uh, we do have some upcoming debates on modern day debates So if you haven't already hit the notification bell for the trump or biden debate, that's alex stein versus dr jf garapy And then on friday, I am This isn't totally confirmed, but we're looking at getting adhd projects versus big country on so Um, it's looking like that's going to happen. So just keep an eye out for that But if you haven't hit the notification bell, we got two new speakers coming on sunday allegedly eon versus the right corner Uh, you're not going to want to miss that. That's going to be does god exist. It's going to be a very broad debate And we're going to be able to touch on hopefully many, uh, different subjects Regarding and that subject. So, uh, definitely hit the notification bell Once again, big thank you to tony or real offended everybody who put in their super chats and our live chat for keeping everything friendly I don't think I really last thing to the chat Are you guys in the chat saying that I don't this I don't that I promise you won't come and show me any evidence of what you're saying Right. I'm going live right now. Don't come make a fool of yourselves. All right. Well, thank you so much And uh, yeah, we will see you next time on modern day debate. Thanks again for everybody being here. We'll see you Have a good night