 Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth vs. Glow Earth and we're starting right now. With Bacon's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us Bacon, the floor is all yours. Alright, I'll share my screen now. Okay, hello everyone, thanks for having me. I'll start this with the question, what would be a better way to figure out the shape of the Earth than finding people whose lives depend on it? But our bring is an argument, has been used for more than 200 years, it impacted whole civilizations and completely relies on knowing the shape of the Earth. I guess some of you already know what I'm talking about, that is celestial navigation. The process of figuring out where you are, by observing stars, planets, the moon and the sun. Being able to accurately spot where you are in the middle of the ocean was a game changer from your navigation in the 1800s. It was one of the reasons why the British Empire had such dominance on the sea. And it's still used. Sometimes a backup system on GPS fails, sometimes as a hobby, and sometimes in bold races, where people are only allowed to navigate the old ways. Just to be sure, I think we might have lost your screen share. Pardon my interruption. I think it's a blank screen, just in case if you had that on purpose, a blank slide. Oh, good, there now we see a boat again. We're good. Right. Ready for you. Okay. So, how does it work? Well, it's not that simple, but I'll try to simplify it as best as I can. The point in the sky, directly over your head, is called your zenith. If there's a celestial body at your zenith, then you happen to be standing directly below it, where we call the ground position of that body. If you see that body, but not at your zenith, then the ground position of that celestial body is somewhere else, but now there will be an angle between your zenith and that body. That angle is called the zenith angle. It makes sense that the photograph from the ground position of that body to lower the body will appear in the sky and the bigger the zenith angle will be. When doing celestial navigation, we can determine how far we are from the ground position of a celestial body by simply getting the zenith angle of that body. It turns out each degree of zenith angle corresponds to 69 miles of distance over the surface, or 60 nautical miles. That is the first big problem that flutters faces. Once you accept this relationship, there is no height above the surface where you could put the celestial body that could account for those angles. The geometry of it simply doesn't work on flutter. For example, Flutter says I'd like to show this picture when describing how navigation works, try to imply that it requires the Earth to be flat. I'll use it as an example. Let's say the angle measured there was 22.6 degrees. According to the relationship of 69 miles per degree, that would put the ship 4,501.6 miles away from the GP of the sun. That triangle would require the sun to be 2,000 miles away from the surface. If we were to have the distance, the relationship would give us a half the zenith angle. But then that would create a triangle where the sun would have to be 3,500 miles high. It makes no sense. What about on the globe? In this case, as you get further away from the ground position, your zenith starts tilting away from it. And if the stars are as far as we think they are, in this case much further up than my image here can show, then the zenith angle would be the same angle as the arc over the surface between you and the ground position. So each degree that the star drops means you're one degree further over the surface of the Earth. How big would that be? If the Earth was a sphere of 39, 59 miles, like we always say it is, the answer is exactly what you get from navigation, 69 miles or 60 nautical miles. OK, well, what would we do with this distance? We first figure out what is the ground position of that body when we measure the angle to it. Fortunately, there is a book called The Nautical Almanac that contains information that can be used to get the ground positions of many celestial bodies at any given second throughout the entire year. Once you do that, you have a known distance to a known location that gives you a circle. And you know that you must be somewhere around the edge of that circle. We call that circle a circle of equal altitude. You do that for two or three bodies and you'll be able to know that you're right where all those circles intersect. But plotting those circles on the Earth requires a shape frame. You plot it on a sphere, the intersection of the circles actually match your location. Do that on something like the A map. You'll be hundreds and often thousands of miles off. In these examples on the screen, the area is 800 miles, far worse than would be useful for navigation. And that's when the circle intersects, which often doesn't even happen. And if you do it with multiple circles, the intersections are vastly inconsistent. Try the same circles on a sphere. They are right on spot. You can try other flat maps like the Mercator, the Accurating Air Projection, pick any. They all fail. Well, maybe the Earth is flat, but we still have to figure out the correct map, right? Or maybe the relationship between angle and distance is not 6 nautical miles per degree. Or maybe both. That could potentially solve it on flat Earth, couldn't it? Well, as much as this ad hoc's hypothesis might complicate the argument, the answer is still a very big no. And that is because using a sphere is already a working method. And Geometry tells us that you cannot redistribute the point of a sphere on a flat surface without distortions. That would break the circles. You can't have circles of equal altitude working both on a sphere and on a flat surface. It's simply mathematically impossible. All these problems faced by flat Earth are just really some examples of an irreconcilable fact. The celestial bodies appears to be just where they should, given that the Earth is spherical. But I'll be honest, just assuming the Earth is a sphere doesn't work perfectly. When very close to the horizon, the celestial bodies look slightly higher than what you would expect. Just like the horizon is slightly higher than what you would expect on the globe model. Fortunately, there's a well-known phenomenon that solves this tiny discrepancy. I'll leave that to Ruhi. Thank you. Thank you very much for that opening. OK, get over to Ruhi. Thanks very much for being with us as well. Right, I will share my screen with that one. All right, all the time in the servers we hear flat Earth is asking, show me the curvature. Show us that the Earth drops at inches per mile squared. But it's my opinion that flat Earthers wouldn't know what curvature looks like if it bit them on the arse. So can we measure the drop due to curvature? Of course we can. And we do it with pretty simple geometry. So in this slide, imagine we are 1,700 feet away from a building. And we know that building is 650 feet tall and we're a six-foot observer. We can do some pretty simple trigonometry to predict the angle that we will measure above the horizontal. And for those of you that have passed a year eight geometry, the geometry is on the screen, the angle that we predict is about 21 degrees. And if we go into reality and measure that angle, it will match. All right, so similarly, we can do simple trigonometry to work out the elevation angle between two distant mountains. So I've chosen two mountains. And the difference in height between them is 1,400 feet. And the distance between them is 35 miles. So we do the same trigonometry and work out an expected angle on a flat Earth of 0.434 degrees. All right, however, if the Earth is a globe, then obviously the mountain in the distance will drop at eight inches per mile squared. So over that distance of 35 miles, the drop is equal to 817 feet. So instead of being 1,400 feet higher, the distant mountain is only 583 feet higher. So we change our geometry a little bit and do the same trigonometry. And we come up with an expected angle of 0.181 degrees. All right, so we've got two predictions for what we should measure on a flat Earth versus a globe. All right, but as Bacon said, what about refraction? So contrary to what most flat Earthers believe, the refraction we incorporate into a globe prediction is not just a fudge factor that we add in to make it work on a globe. And refraction must be taken into account in all observations basically because there is a measurable density gradient in our atmosphere that causes light to bend. So if you make a prediction without refraction, then you're most likely making a strawman. All right, so how much refraction should we account for? The data I have says that if you're very close to the surface, there's usually a lot of heat exchange between the surface and to the air just above it. And that results in an extremely variable density gradient and therefore highly variable refraction. However, once you are a decent height above the surface, the data suggests about a hundred meters or thereabouts, then the density gradient does not deviate significantly from the average. And it is this average gradient that we incorporate into the curve calculators. And that's where the infamous seven over six comes from. All right, so our atmosphere is structured in such a way where the more dense layer is at the surface and gets less dense generally as you go up. And obviously according to Snell's law, light bends towards the denser medium. So in a typical atmosphere like that, the light will curve downwards. And when light curves downwards, you can see in this diagram that the apparent position of the object will be higher than it actually is using straight lines of light. All right, so let's test our geometry out in the real world. So that's actually me over in California on top of the Californian aqueduct. I took a theodolite out there and measured heaps of angles to heaps of different mountains. The one on screen is called Saddleback Butte South. It's 1,102 meters tall and it was about 32 kilometers away. All right, so what's my prediction? What should I measure if the earth is a globe? All right, so the elevation is different between me and the mountain by 201 meters. But if the earth's a globe, then we need to account for the drop. And over that 32 kilometers, apologies for using metric here after having used freedom units prior to that. So over 32 kilometers there, there would be 81 meters of drop if we ignored refraction. But if we account for refraction, then there's only 69.85 meters of drop. So again, we do that very simple trigonometry to get a prediction for what we should measure if the earth is a globe. And that is a prediction of 0.233 degrees. What is my measurement? What did I actually measure with the theodolite? So you can see the top part of the screen there says vertical angle 89 degrees, 46 minutes and zero seconds. These are measured from vertical, so it's a zenith angle. So it's actually a 14 minute elevation angle. And that equals 0.233 degrees. So my prediction was spot on to the measurement that I made. So I'm gonna say that's drop measured. And the last 20 seconds or so, just quickly the globe made a precise prediction that was confirmed in reality that the flat earthers can't do that. Obviously I took a truckload of measurements. Yes, I have the empirical data to back up my claims. But the question for the flat earthers, what should the angle be if the earth is flat? And do you have the skills to make it? If not, if you don't have those skills, then on what basis can you claim that that measurement is consistent with the earth being flat? Thank you. Thank you very much for that opening statement. And let me just take it out of the screen share here. Yeah, let's finish it. Want to say folks, it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate. Want to say we hope you feel welcome, no matter what walk of life you are from, whether you are flat earth, globe earth, banana shaped earth, you name it, we're glad that you're with us. And we are very excited. As you can see at the bottom right of our screen, DebateCon 3.1 by Modern Day Debate. Our conference is going to be, as you can see at the bottom right of your screen on Saturday, April 22nd in Fort Worth, Texas. You don't want to miss this one. There are tickets to watch it in person, down in the description box, as well as the GoFundMe. If you put in a buck that helps us cover the cost of the venue for this event, and you get to watch all the debates for the whole conference for just a buck. So with that, we're going to go into the opening statement from the flat earth side. Thanks so much for being with us. Nathan and Brian, the floor is all yours. Take it, Nathan. All right, folks, if you don't know who I am, my name is Nathan Thompson. I used to run the official flat earth and globe discussion. When we were deleted by Facebook, we had allegedly 155,000 members. We did not allow cursing or insults at all. We had 100 moderators from all over the flat earth, and the group still got deleted. Shortly after, my Instagram was deleted. Shortly after that, my YouTube was deleted. I've been kicked off Skype, Venmo, my Yahoo account was erased. Now you got to ask yourself, if flat earth is so stupid, why are they censoring it? Why does YouTube go in front of Congress and say we're censoring topics like flat earth? So truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. And you can lead a globe earther to flat water, but you cannot make them think critically about the shape of the earth. Fluid static state when a large body of water is at rest, the surface is level and horizontal to its container, and the sky is a map and a clock. I surprised they would try and use celestial navigation to prove we're on a spinning ball in space with all the heavenly objects gravitating toward one another from an explosion of nothing. I mean, that's your religion, guys. And you're over here saying, the sky's a perfect map and a clock, and we use it to navigate the oceans. You use triangulation, which uses a triangle, which has straight, flat sides. And you're trying to tell us the earth's a globe with triangulation using straight lines? Are you guys joking, okay? You can't demonstrate water adhering to the outside of a spinning ball. You can't demonstrate a gravitational orbit at all using the scientific method. You can't demonstrate gas pressure next to a vacuum without a container. You guys really have nothing, to be honest. And the problem with celestial navigation on a ball in space orbiting the sun is that every six months, we're on the other side of the sun. We should see a completely different night sky, but year round, we see things like the Big Dipper, Orion's Belt, the Little Dipper, and contrary to the globe earth claims, those are all fixed constellations. I mean, you guys think celestial navigation proved you on a globe. When they came up with celestial navigation, they didn't even think the earth was a globe. For example, the Mayans had built a pyramid, El Castillo in the Yucatan Peninsula. And it was between the ninth and 12th century, and the structure can be used as a calendar and is noted for astronomical alignments. For 1200 years, this pyramid's been lining up to the sky. Now the pyramids in Egypt do that. Stonehenge, which was recently torn down, did that. I did the astroarchaeology myself and took the evidence myself. I went there, took a time lapse of Polaris, threw a hole that was drilled 40 years ago, and it's still there. Polaris means pole star. You don't get a pole star on a globe or tilted wobbling orbiting around the sun that's flying through the Milky Way galaxy at 1.3 million miles an hour. That's ludicrous. So hopefully you can demonstrate the three things I mentioned earlier. One of the problems you forgot in your opening is that mountains and objects change angular size as they get farther away from you. So when you stand on a really long hallway, the ceiling, which is above your head, will appear to drop down towards eye level. It's called perspective. I mean, we've been doing this for eight years and Glober's still haven't figured out the perspective thing. How pathetic. I know my teammate needed a little extra time, so I'm gonna cut it short. I'm not even gonna go into my slides, not even go into my presentation. We see way too far. You can't demonstrate gas pressure next to a vacuum without a container. Go look at the NASA bloopers. There's hundreds of videos of them with CGI, wires, green screen, harnesses, augmented reality, people ghosting in and out of screen. I mean, and you can test it yourself. This is the good news, ladies and gentlemen, it's 2023. We have high power zoom cameras and telescopes that you don't have to point up at the sky. You could point them horizontally over large bodies of water. I've done this at Lake Michigan, Lake Pontchartrain, the Atlantic Sea, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, pardon me. All over Utah, I went to South Korea and did long distance observations and spoke at a conference there. The earth is not a global age. I don't want the earth to be flat either. I would actually prefer if it was a globe. It'd just be one less thing. The government, mind control organization would be lying about, to be honest. And NASA wouldn't be stealing $60 million a day of your money. So if you could go ahead, Ryan, take it away. I'm sorry if I took a little extra time there. No, man, good job. And if, Rue, if you could start that slide show, I would appreciate it. I got a lot of information to cram in here. So this is all the things that they say is- Hang on, tell me when to press play. Go ahead, all the things that are impossible on a globe. When you really look into it, I mean, on a flatter, you look into it, they're impossible on a globe. I did this personally, I videoed it. There's the moon well over the horizon. There's the sun peeking its head up over the cloud. They said that a clip, how can that work on a flatter? Well, how could the moon be eclipsed by the earth if the sun and the moon are above the horizon? I did that about a month ago. And so that debunked the globe, okay? There's the sun peeking up over the cloud that are up on the horizon. They say sunrise equinox, due east, works for everybody. Look, yeah, on a cylinder, but once we change orientation, let's check and see how good that works on Google Earth. Wah, wah, wah converges at the equator. So your due east straight line, your deodesic straight line of sight converges 6,000 miles away. Granted, it's up in the air some, but that doesn't change the fact straight line. Here's our buddy Mitchell from Australia. He took a compass, did it live, adequate octon showed that it wasn't due east. In fact, it was 11 degrees. North of due east, which would help explain a platter, okay? And shot out to Mitchell from Australia. So the sunrise in Australia, they said, well, magnetic declination. That's why it was off. So we marked magnetic north on how it's listed and we traced it down to Sydney. What do you know? It lines up perfect. So what are they just declinating to whatever they want? Cause there's no magnetic declination there. So we could try it to the south magnetic pole. That's even worse. That's even worse. So magnetic declination is a fix-all. So they say the globe is tilted. So east converges at the equator, but west also converges at the equator. So you can just draw arrows wherever you want and that's fine. So here it is to Kenya. I'm at Canter at the 80th Meridian and you got to travel north to go south to the equator. You got to travel slightly north. I've traveled up halfway and you still got to travel north to go south to Kenya. So I go south the equator and you still have to travel north to get to Kenya. So Kenya's north of everywhere until you get to the bottom of the globe, then all of a sudden you got to go south to get to Kenya. Now, so let's try and come into Kenya from the west. Now all of a sudden we're coming in south to get to Kenya and then from south the equator we're north to get to Kenya. So there's all the ways to get to Kenya from east and west. I didn't like opinion. They say that underlit clouds prove a globe until you do the math. And you know, shout out to PhD Tony. Why didn't he show this whole film? Why is it clipped off at the left? Why didn't he show this whole picture? And why didn't he do the math and during his humiliation last night? Good job, boss. Because look shows diverging clouds. He wouldn't want anybody to see them diverging clouds. Also, if you do the trigonometry with the sun above the horizon, one degree from a tangent from our feet, that puts the sun 1,600,000 miles above our feet. There is the math in the calculator. And so there is the sun above the horizon. In reality, the mountain peaks are above and it's diverging toward us. It's perspective. There's a sun well above the horizon, shining at the bottom of clouds. That alone debunked the globe. At what per se like a globe proof. Look at the underlit clouds. That sun is well above the horizon. All right, now the Milky Way. We see looking south, southwest, we see the bowl part of the Milky Way. I call it the dome Milky Way. We see it every time we look southwest. And so like the Big Dipper, we should see it in every orientation. So on the other side of the globe, we should see the bowl Milky Way. Like we see the Big Dipper upside down, but that's as much as we get right there in reality, as we get it flat. So perspective is obviously a factor in celestial navigation. And our good buddy, Mark, down the night showed, look at the parallel lines. See the parallel lines he's representing as the stars, then changing orientation to show a different view. Well, that's all fine and dandy until you dive in deeper. Well, we simultaneously see different orientation. We see the stars moving different directions simultaneously from one position. And if you think it's just perspective, look, there's the astronomical society saying that if you point your camera west, you see three different paths, just like we do with the sun from one location, just like we do with the moon from one location simultaneously, we can see the stars all at once. This is refraction, okay? We just opened the garage door, letting cold air look at the bottom right, white light. See it disappear. Now you'll see the green light at the bottom next to it. It disappears just with a little cold air. Disappears right in front of our face. And what do they give us? They give us sugar water. And even then, look at our line of sight. Look, where's the bottom of the city with line of sight? Disappears. So there's your diodalite. Even if the crosshairs were that green laser, they would appear higher up the city skyline in your sugar water. So even if lights were fracking down, it's not making things appear higher. So I wanted to test the radius. So I said, let's see how it works on a flat earth. I put in 69 miles and changed it one degree, just to see. And what do you know? 39, 58.7, the exact globe radius. So there it is on the flat earth. Now you want to- Not about 30 more seconds, Brian. I can give you a little extra time, but I've got it. Okay, and so there, I tried to double that under 38.2 is exactly two degrees. So let's see how far out it works. So we went out as far as 20 degrees. And we put in 1,382 miles. And what do you know, 70 degrees we got. It doesn't deviate by one degree until you get over 1,500 miles. So then we're distances over ocean that wouldn't be apparent until we got down in the Southern oceans. And what do you know, the lowest star we can navigate with two degrees. Can you give me 30 more seconds, please? I can give you 15. 15, man. Unless you just want to grant it. Otherwise I do want to stick to the rules. It's over, man. Okay. Well, there's the McTune challenge. So I come up with, he said I used the radius of earth when I showed him that was triangulation, but I didn't meet all the, he's saying he owes me, but he's saying Platter couldn't navigate. We three of us told him his location to a pinpoint. He didn't pay up on technicalities, which is- Time. Wait, one last thing, James. Here's Brian and McTune. Here you go. So, Brian, I have to keep to the rules, especially when she showed up so late. Brian, listen, we're not going to make fun of McTune when he's not here to defend himself. You know better than that. All right, I'm stopping your screen share and you're going to like it. All right. We are going to go into the open dialogue. Want to say, folks, whether you be, Flatter and Glowberth, we're glad you're here. And want to also say this. We hope McTune is well. Pardon, Brian's faux paw with that. Unfortunately, I don't think they could see it because I changed the screen, but this beautiful close-up of McTune's face, he's a tremendously handsome fellow. We want to say we hope you're doing well, McTune. And like I said, Brian, we got it. I don't want him to not be able to, I don't like it when people aren't here to be able to defend themselves. I let you get away with the PhD Tony one because it was quick and off the cuff, but I can't let you get away with any more than that. Want to say, folks, we are absolutely thrilled if you look at the bottom right of your screen, RNRAW versus T-Jump. You don't want to miss it. This is going to be a huge debate. It's one of the debates at the conference. So if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button and we're going to go right into open dialogue. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Real quick, that was nothing personal against McTune. That was clip from your, his debate against Brian. That was nothing personal. I was just going to bring up the last point that he put out a challenge for Flatterers and three of us completed the challenge, but we didn't follow all the rules, but that was him and he was mad. He was drilling Ryan. So shout out to Ryan if you're watching, come to back here or Earth Awakenings on Discord because he's claimed that all triangles measure up to more than 180. And the very last thing on my slide show was that there are several triangles that measured less than 180. So he was drilling you and he was mad and that's what I was trying to get across. And he was wrong, but all the triangles do not add up to more than 180. Thank you, James. Sorry. Also in that debate with Ryan, he said eight inches per mile squared was not his formula. That was a straw man. You can go back, watch the debate. He said that. And then a week later, he emailed me. Gentleman, I've got to tell you, you have Bacon and Ruhi for here to debate you just to be sure that we're on track. Yeah, this has to do with Bacon and Ruhi because Bacon says or Ruhi says that it's eight inches. Okay, got you. Go ahead. He said it's eight inches per mile squared, but McTune says it's not eight inches per mile squared. That's a straw man. So the Glovers need to get together their little cult of pseudoscience and figure out is the earth curving eight inches per mile squared just like the earth curve calculator says on the website or is it not curving eight inches per mile squared? So I appreciate the interlocutors at least coming with some numbers. McTune did that. Let's take it over to Bacon and Ruhi. Yep, I'll go first for a really quick thing. Brian says that he completed McTune's challenge on celestial navigation. Brian, on what map did you draw your circles of equal altitude? Google Earth. Okay, that's a sphere. Google Earth, that's zero account for a drop Einstein. Zero account for a drop. Okay, Nathan, do you understand? But it is a two dimensional sphere, we'll say. It's on a screen, maybe. Also, Google Earth around 360 degrees, you don't end up on the same place where you started. So it's not a ball, but it was developed by the CIA. It was a subsidiary company called Keynote. Or Key, it's in here. Check it out. The Greatest Lie on Earth by Edward Hendry. But yeah, it was developed by the CIA. Google Earth shows zero account of drop for earth curve at all whatsoever. It's a cartoon. Would you like me to address the eight inches per mile squared? That's what the curve is. So I don't need to address it. I can do the math too. A squared plus B squared equals C squared. I don't need you to teach me the globe earth model. I know it better than you. I guarantee that you don't. But anyway, eight inches per mile squared is the amount of drop from horizontal. What MC2 is talking about is applying, or sort of applying an observer height to that to say what is the hidden amount on the other side? They are different equations. No, he said MC2. MC2 is a straw man. Go back a mile. Soon acknowledges that drop from horizontal is eight inches per mile squared. Would you like to bet $1,000 on it live? Go back and watch the debate. He said Ryan is straw manning me. Yeah, it's probably saying that you're not using the right formula to work out how much is hidden. You're not accounting for observer height. We were just stating what the drop is on a globe earth. Yeah, eight inches per mile squared is completely fine. Which just coincidentally happens to be 0.666 feet per mile squared. When the tilt of the earth is 66.6 degrees, the speed around the sun is 66,600 miles an hour. The diameter of the moon is six times six times 60. The circumference of the earth is six times six times 600. You think that's all? I'm gonna change my background again. Hey, hey, hey, on behalf of MC2. That's all a coincidence. None of us, I'm not claiming you have any money and shot out the MC2. I'm not trying to, you know, I got plenty of arguments to throw against you and reaming with them. But personally, you know, we're good. We have a history and there were technicalities. It was a strict challenge. I'm not saying he owes me money or anybody else, but he threw that challenge out there that like Flatterers couldn't get a location. I wanted to ask Bacon. He said that it doesn't work on a Mercator map or AE map. So what map did they use? I'm just wondering, did all the sailors bring a globe out there to see in the past? Didn't he claim or was I hearing wrong? Didn't he claim that the cell nap doesn't work on any map? I'm not sure I heard him right. Yeah, that's right. What they did, what they usually do is to use plotting sheets. On those plotting sheets, they draw sections of the lines of circles of equal altitude, but when plotting that, they have to adjust for, for example, the length of a longitude. And the length of a longitude, as navigators use, gets smaller as you go north of the equator and south of the equator. That ends up turning the earth into a sphere again. So even what they use, like even the way they do on paper, plotting it, they're still treating the earth as a sphere. Okay, so like take a gyro compass or a cell nav or whatever. So basically, if we're near the North Pole, we have to correct north. We do a circle. So if we head east, we got to start correcting north. As we work our way down to the equator, we got to start correcting a little bit less and less north. And then we get to the equator and we don't have to correct at all. But then we get south of the equator and we have to start correcting north again. That's a, I mean, why don't they correct south in the Southern hemisphere? Why is everything, all the declination, all the corrections, how has it all done north? Is it possible because everything's going around Polaris? Is that even possible? I'm not sure what correction we're referring to because like as far as I understand navigation, I mean, I'm not a sailor. I'm not that experienced in sailing, but I do know the process of getting the fix. You're not a sailor. You're not experienced in sailing, but your whole intro was celestial navigation done by sailors. Bacon. Yeah, but the process. Have I done, yeah, both of us. The process itself. Okay, and both of us have done the process. They use triangulation, right? Bacon. Trialiteration. No, it's called triliteration. Triliteration is, yeah, triangulations when you have unknown points and angles and then you work out, you complete a triangle like that. But in navigation, you don't have angles. You have distances. Those things you measure are actually distances. Didn't you try and use triliteration to determine distance to the sun on a flat earth in your intro? Distance to the sun. That doesn't make any sense. Triliteration requires distances. You don't determine distances with triliteration. In your intro, in your intro, you said it wouldn't work on a flat earth and then you did some triangles to the sun and said the sun would have to be this far, right? Didn't you do that in your intro? Yep, that's right. Okay, great. And then two minutes later, your partner talked about how refraction causes us not to see things where they actually are, but where they appear, right? Do you remember that like two minutes after you've done talking? How your partner talked about, okay, so you tried to use the not actual location of the sun to determine its actual distance on a flat earth that you don't believe in. What? How are you hearing it wrong? How are you hearing it wrong? Yes, the apparent altitude. Oh, let me just respond to that, Brian. The apparent altitude varies from the actual altitude by a fraction of a degree, as I already mentioned before. And that's actually counted for using, if you go to the nautical almanacs that I mentioned before, there are charts specifically for the correction of refraction, both using standard refraction, which is the average conditions. And if you have like measurements of temperature and pressure too. So you can account for that. That's not a problem. Did you account for it in your intro? Oh, I explained in the last, that for a roof, because his presentation was about refraction, was more related to refraction than mine was. I know, but when you calculated distance to the sun on a flat earth, did you account for refraction, yes or no? No, that calculation didn't use it. No, you didn't. Yeah, okay. So. Yeah, but I want to ask you about a quick. Can I just respond to that? I'll respond to that as well. I'll respond to that as well. If you would incorporate refraction there, oh, sorry. Yeah, if you would incorporate refraction there, there'll be a fraction of a degree of difference. And that's far near like what's necessary to account for that discrepancy in the height of the sun. That's not a solution. That's just something that makes a slight difference. Well, go ahead, Rick. Well, sorry. There's a- I don't really do navigation to anything under 30 degrees anyway. But I want to ask, Rui, if Rui- Can I respond to Nathan first? I'm sorry? I was going to respond to Nathan first. Like Bacon said, there is a table in the Almanac that shows you how much you need to account for refraction based on the elevation angle. They are tiny, tiny adjustments, right? So like Bacon said, is a triangle solving, showing the height of the sun, is not going to make much difference if you account for refraction. Right, I want to be a question to work out with flat triangles as well. But anyway- Yeah, hang on, hang on. Second. Wait a minute, you showed the California Aqueduct and you were filming the mountains. If you'd have turned around and filmed the actual Aqueduct, you'd have seen that, and flatacres have done this with the otolite. I'm sure you're familiar with it. They showed that, you know what? The Aqueduct does seem to follow Earth curve. We were surprised until we went down and measured the water because the water didn't care about the construction of the Aqueduct and it dropped down, it dropped down. So as the Aqueduct was dropping, the water remained level. It remained level and it did not maintain the same elevation after a couple of miles. So you should have pointed your instrument while you're right there to the Aqueduct. You'd have seen that water doesn't care about your model. It remains level and flat. Good. All right, just to quickly go back to Nathan for a second. You're correct. Neither Bacon nor I are sailors, right? But we have both done celestial navigation. In fact, I took angles from my house and Bacon doxed me with them, right? Not actually doxed me, but he knows where I live based on the angles that I gave him. I've figured out observer locations from angles that people have given me. So I'm asking you, Nathan, have you ever done celestial navigation? No, I haven't, it wasn't my proof. That's all I needed to know. It wasn't my intro, but I have done astroarchaeology where you line up giant megalithic structures to the sky, which is a map and a clock, doesn't change. Gravity's not pulling everything in the sky towards each other, which is expanding from an infinitesimal dot of nothing, okay? That's ridiculous. The sky is a map and a clock. Will you admit we have constellations? Okay, sure. So yes, we have constellations. We have constellations. So the stars are fixed in the night sky. Do you realize that it belongs to your entire model? They're not fixed. Okay, if they're not fixed, they wouldn't be constellations, Einstein. They have stars have proper motion, which is an actual movement in relation to other stars. They have proper motion, which brings measured. Lars just said something. And all the stars rotate east to west, but they are fixed relative to one another. No, they're not. You just said we have constellations. Now you're saying we don't have constellations, everything's changing. I didn't say that. I said stars have very small proper motion in that they do move in relation to other stars. So the constellations are approximately the same as they were a few thousand years ago. But I think Bacon's about to talk about Polaris, is that correct? I was just gonna mention that the book in which I mentioned in my presentation, that gives you accurately where it's the location of each individual star, we have those nautical almanacs from hundreds of years in the past. And you can check the position of the stars in those very old books, and you can compare them to what we have nowadays, and they don't match. Stars are not the same. Brian, we have to give them a chance to respond. I got to start, yeah, sorry. But what are you gonna call? No, Nathan and Brian, just be sure, hold on. Nathan, shut up for a second. Bacon, did you for sure get to finish your point? Well, I was just gonna repeat the last sentence. We have all those stars positioned documented in the almanacs for centuries, and we can compare them and see that they are actually changing gradually over the years. What are you checking them against, Bacon? The measurements over the years. What measurement? Not measurements, Nathan and Brian, because they were hundreds of years ago. They have to believe their globe scriptures, just like it's the Book of Mormon says the stars are changing around. We have the book, okay? The book's right here, it says it. But you haven't verified any of that, and you have a problem with that also. As I mentioned in my opener, there are megalithic structures that since 9th and 12th century have lined up to the sky and still do to this day. And these people over here saying the entire sky is changing. They've built pyramids. The Mayans, contrary to what you might think, thought the earth was a flat earth, okay? Here we go, thoughtco.com. The Mayans believed the earth was the center of all things, fixed and immovable. The Mayan are known for astronomy and mathematics, most notably their famous calculations for the length of a year. I was surprised to learn that they supported a flat earth model, okay? So none of these ancient civilizations that developed astroarcheology or celestial navigation even thought the earth was a globe or believed in gravity. That wasn't invented until 1666. There's the 666, ladies and gentlemen. Check it. And if you set your gloves, you're trying to prove your model, bro. That's my only point, is you're using a model to prove your model. When I said check it against what? You're checking it against globe distances saying look, it matches globe distances. When I'm calculated as a globe, therefore a globe. I mean, that's... No, Tycho Brahe measured hundreds of stars centuries ago. These are just measurements that people have made of the stars showing that they have moved over hundreds of years. I'm good with that. I'm not disputing a star measurement. I'm saying what you're comparing them to. What are you checking them to, in reference, a globe? So if you're calculating it as a globe and then cross-checking it against a globe, of course it's going to match. That's you using your model to prove your model. It's a good model. They're not matching. They're changing. They're not matching. They're changing over the course of hundreds of years. Are they? These measurements are different. Why do they carry it on the Georgia Guidestones where that a little pinhole, you could see Polaris non-moving until they did tear it down, because if they'd have left it up, because it's supposed to move a third of a degree every 33 years. Three quarters of a degree. The declination of Polaris is 89.25 degrees. So there is three quarters of a degree of rotation every night. Right in that hole. Yeah. Right. So move. When they built it a few years ago. How much, what is the angular size? What angle of the sky does that guide stone allow you to see? It must be at least one and a half degrees. It's one and a half degrees. And I don't know. To be honest, I don't know, but I know there's a hole that you could see Polaris and no other stars. So I mean, how long do you think it would take to move out of that hole? How long would it take? I think in, was it 1600? I think Polaris was like 87 and a half degrees declination, something like that. So there must have been a Southern pole star at some point. Why don't we hear about that? There is a Southern pole star, but it's too faint to see with your naked eye. There is, but there isn't, Brian. Yeah, right. What do you mean? There is, but there isn't. Okay, I got three quick questions. Say that again. There is, but there isn't. What do you mean? That's what you just said. So why don't you just say it? No, I said there is one, but you can't see it with your naked eye. Oh, there is, but you can't see it. No, you can't see it with your naked eye. Have you heard of a telescope, Nathan? Have you heard of those? Yes. I used them to debunk your globe at Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Michigan. So you have heard of telescopes, so you can see it with a telescope. One last question. One last question, quick. Ruth, would you agree that we could see the big dipper in every orientation somewhere on Earth? We could see it in every orientation, depending on where we're at on the North Pole, but why can't we see that with the dome part of the Milky Way? How come it's always domed or flat? Shouldn't it be the same as the dipper looking for the glass? I have no idea. I couldn't pick out a constellation that's got to say it yourself. If we're on the other side of the South Pole, it should appear upside down like the big dipper does. Right? Should the big dipper appear upside down between me and you? Yes. The big dipper is 100% done, but I'm saying why wouldn't the Milky Way fall astute? If why wouldn't we fall if we're on the other side of Antarctica? I think you'd need to make a little presentation on that. Maybe Antarctica is different and maybe the South's different than the North. I think you'd need to make a presentation on that one, because I don't even know the declination of the big dipper or anything about it. So, yeah. If you give us a little more information, we can easily put that on Blender, position the observers, and see what we would expect to see on the globe and compare that to what the claim is and see if that matches or not. So far, there's nothing for me. Does the night sky change every six months because we're on a completely other side of the Sun? Yes or no? It changes in what sense? Okay, if you're on, let's say, January, your nighttime would be facing one direction. Six months later, you'd be on the other side of the Sun, nighttime would be facing completely opposite, 180-degree turn, opposite direction. Yeah. You follow me so far? Yeah. Okay, please explain why we see the big dipper and Orion's belt year round. What's the declination of it? The belt, is there a replacement? Did you not hear what I just said? Okay, let me repeat. Zero. If you're on a ball, regardless of the declination of any of the stars and you're orbiting the Sun, six months later, you would be on a completely different side of the Sun staring at a completely different night sky. And your question to me is, what was the declination of the stars? Can I try to explain why that's wrong? Yeah, if I can. Right. This is good. Hang on, we've got a lecture, Nathan, on what declination is first. Yeah, go back in. Right, so let's say you're over here. Sorry, go ahead, but... And North is in that direction. So the geographical North is pointing that direction. So Polaris would be there. If the Earth was here, we can see Polaris. If the Sun is in that direction, it would be close to the horizon, but Polaris is within that direction. If we move all the way up to the other side, because Polaris is in that direction, perpendicular to this motion, then we can still see Polaris. The prime... Hey, nobody was talking about Polaris. Hey, Nathan, do you have to give him a chance to actually finish his case? Talking to him so. Nobody was talking about Polaris. We do have to actually give him a chance to finish his argument. Yeah, it's just an example. Now I'm going to give an example of a star at the celestial equator. So if you have a star at the celestial equator and it's right overhead, six months when the Earth is in the other side, and at the same time of day, you'll be pointing in the opposite direction. So you wouldn't be able to see the star six months later, but in the case of Polaris, for example, you can. What is the difference? The declination. That's why the declination is relevant. I got a video of Polaris, or the belt of Orion, which is zero declination, right over the celestial equator, being visible almost 10 months. I show their picture of the day and every month it's visible and it's only invisible like two and a half, maybe three months out of the year. So Nathan's right. That does raise a really good question. Yeah, and I think it was not a decision. Then they would have to account for it in their celestial navigation almanacs, but nowhere in their celestial navigation almanacs is they say, hey, when we're on this side of the sun, these are what stars you're going to see. And when we're on this side of the sun, these are what stars you're going to see. We always see the same stars. Polaris is always fixed. They've been using these to navigate for hundreds and thousands of years. Guys, on a ball in space, following the sun, 1.3 million miles an hour, everything's not fixed in the sky. We wouldn't have constellations. We wouldn't have celestial navigation. So have you done celestial navigation? No, I've done astroarchaeology. Have you done any observations of the sky? Yeah. Okay, and what does the sky prove about the floor? Is this a flat earth and globe debate? We can just rant about the sky. Can you demonstrate, for example, water adhering to the outside of a spinning ball? This is your religion, Dr. I could show you the blue marble, sure. This is your religion, Dr. I don't want to see NASA. The blue marble was made by Robert Simmons. He said, I don't know, the actual blue marble. Robert Simmons is an artist for NASA. He's famous, credited for developing the blue marble. And he said he started with a blank circle. They gave him scans of the earth, and he had to make shadows and highlights to make it look like a ball. I understand. I'm talking about the photo that was taken from Apollo back to water. Okay, so you can't demonstrate water sticking to a spinning ball. I just said I could show you the photo from Apollo. I'm showing me something NASA gave you, but you can't stand on screen. So there you go. Dismiss anything and everything, Nathan. Dismiss anything and everything. I didn't dismiss it. It's a photo. I'm just asking you. Oh, it's a photo. So you don't have a demonstration. You have a photo of the demonstration. A demonstration of water sticking to a ball. And how am I supposed to do that on earth? Oh, so are you admitting you can't do it? I can't, I can't on earth. There's a- Oh, okay, he can't do it. He can't demonstrate. Nathan, just to be sure that we hear as he's answering, I've got it. We have to make sure that you can actually hear him because somebody's just speaking over him as he's answering your own questions. Can you or can you not demonstrate it? Not on earth. Not on earth. All right, great. On earth, can you demonstrate a vacuum next to a pressurized system? On earth, yeah, we have it. The atmosphere. We have a pressure gauge that goes to zero. No, we have a demonstration. There's a demonstration. Your demonstration's outside. Where did you measure the atmosphere going to zero? If you want to see- I'll show you Dwayne Kellam's balloon launch going up to, I think it was 0.03 PSI. Okay, so not zero, 0.030. So still gas pressure. Do you understand? Do you understand there's no- Do you understand there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, Nathan? Okay, but can you demonstrate? I didn't ask for proof of a perfect vacuum. Listen closely. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. You're interrupting me, okay? My apologies, my sincere apologies, Nathan. Listen closely, okay? I'll talk slowly so you can get this one. Can you demonstrate gas pressure next to a vacuum without a container, without presupposing the earth's a ball in space, which is what you're trying to prove? Can you say that a bit slower, sorry? Yeah, no problem. It's a bit slower. Sorry, yeah. Let me take it. Can you answer the question? All right, the existence of a pressure gradient means that we don't need a container. It's just your assertion that we need a container. Oh, you can't demonstrate gas pressure next to a vacuum. Real quick, I'm almost- Outside. You can have pressure to be. Outside. Don't say that. The atmosphere. Can't demonstrate water sticking to a spinning ball. Can't demonstrate gas pressure next. Can you demonstrate a gravitational orbit here on earth? I can show you observations that are consistent with an orbit, yes. Okay, observations, the first step of the scientific method. Can you walk me through a gravitational orbit using the scientific method? With an- I can show you observations. Why does it have to be scientific? Are you trying to enforce your narrow scientific, your quantum race of balls, do you know what I mean? Is that it? Okay, what observation do you have? I've seen the- Gravitational orbit. I've seen the moons of Jupiter or the Jupiter. You've seen them go back and forth. You've seen them go back and forth. Go behind. Go behind. So not manipulating the variable. You can't prove that's gravity doing it. I'm over here saying the stars are fixed in the firmament, okay? And you're over here saying we're on a ball in space and everything's orbiting everything else. Can you demonstrate a gravitational orbit without pointing at the sky and saying, look, there it is. You don't get to decide what evidence I use, Nathan. I'm telling you, I've seen the moons of Jupiter go around Jupiter. You don't get to decide what evidence I have. Prove it was done by gravity. Can I prove it? Have you ever heard the phrase science doesn't prove things? Do you know why people say that? Science doesn't prove things. Oh, really? So what does it do? Does it disprove things? You make a hypothesis and then you make observations, oh, sorry, you make a prediction and then you check whether your prediction comes true in reality. If it does not come true, then your hypothesis is wrong. If it is true, then you haven't proved anything. You've just shown that your observation is consistent with your hypothesis. That's all that science can do without affirming the consequence. If your hypothesis is wrong, didn't you prove that your hypothesis was wrong? Yeah, it's a disprove. Yes, yes you did. It's not a positive claim. So you just said science doesn't prove things, but then you said if your hypothesis is wrong, you prove that wasn't the cause of the effect. Well, thank you very much, dude. I want to give Ruhi for a chance to respond. And then after Ruhi responds, it looks like Brian's been wanting to jump in for a while. Go ahead, Ruhi. Yeah, you prove something wrong. That's an incredibly semantic point to say you've actually proved some positive claim. It's actually not a proof of a positive claim. You make a hypothesis as a positive claim. You can disprove it. Yes, if your observation does not match reality, but you can't prove your hypothesis just by making observations that are consistent with it. Thank you. Let me back you up one little bit, okay? So what I did when I heard y'all talking about gradient is what I tried to do is I took about 70 foot of PVC pipe and capped off each end. I contained each end with loose balloon. I put one end in hot water, one end in cold water, and I got a gradient. Inside containment. So I demonstrate a pressure gradient inside containment. So if you wanna see a containment, a pressure gradient inside containment, just walk outside. Yeah, no one's claiming that you can't have pressure gradients in containers. No one claims that. We wanna see one without containment. Please. No, I just said, walk out, look up. Yeah, the gradient you created wasn't at the equilibrium. It should wait a long enough. It would equalize, right? It would have some pressure everywhere. It wouldn't be a gradient anymore. That's not the case for detonator. There's not a static. I can't get a close- Hold on, Nathan, I do want to hear from Bacon. We haven't heard from him for a while. Right, you can put a barometer in the bottom of a tank and you can put a barometer on top of a tank. You can seal the tank if you don't want to because you're seeing it's not a dynamic system. You can seal it. The pressure in the bottom is always gonna be higher than the pressure on the top. That gradient is what you get once the gases are in equilibrium. And containment. Exactly, because they can't demonstrate any gas pressure without containment. They have to have containment. The atmosphere is an example of gas pressure with a gradient that doesn't require containment. You're trying to prove it's made. Nathan, I do want to be sure that we hear each of the debaters, both you and the other person. So just to be sure we're not overlapping, what was the last thing you said, Ruheef? Just to be sure everybody heard it. Yeah, he somehow is not letting me use the atmosphere as an example of gas pressure. Oh, I'm using that. Brian, why would you interrupt as I'm asking him to repeat himself because he was previously spoken over? That means that I'm trying to make sure I can hear him. Ruheef, if you can say that one last time and then we'll go over to, we'll give it to you, Brian, go ahead, Ruheef, one last time. And this time, what I'm getting at here, folks, is when I ask him to repeat it so that we can hear it, I mean, don't interrupt as he's speaking, okay? Go ahead, Ruheef. He's asking for an example of gas pressure without a container. I keep him in the atmosphere and he goes, no, you can't use that. Okay, go ahead, Brian. Go ahead, Brian. Go ahead, Brian. Thanks for repeating. I can use that just as well. Like I said, that I could say, look outside, there's a group of containment and I demonstrated it. You haven't demonstrated it, you know? And I was just saying, that's my proof. Walk outside and look up. That's my proof. Is the ISS in a vacuum, Brian? Is the ISS in a near vacuum? Huh? Is the ISS in a near vacuum? I think that's beyond the capability that either one of us can prove. I think I can prove it in the proving colloquial sense. You can measure the height of the ISS. You can measure the speed of the ISS. You know it's a solid object. You know, it can't be that shape and travel at 28,000 kilometers an hour if it's not in a vacuum. Okay, how long is the ISS observable for in the night sky? Usually six to seven minutes. Six to seven minutes and you just said the ISS is going how fast? 28,000 kilometers an hour. 28,000 kilometers an hour. So how fast or how much distance would the ISS travel in six or seven minutes? About 2,800 kilometers. Okay, so you're telling me. So you're telling me that we can see a soccer field in the night sky from 2,800 kilometers away? Yeah, if it's reflecting light, yes. Okay, you've got to understand the night sky is on the dark side of Earth. You know that, right? The ISS is 400 and something kilometers up. It can see the sun when we are in darkness. Therefore, it reflects light contrasting against the dark sky. We can see it. Okay, so we can see a soccer field from 2,800 kilometers away. You see the light from it, yes. Whether you can resolve it from 2,800 kilometers away, probably not, but you can resolve it when it gets closer. Which brings me back to your opener. Mountain's dropping in the distance. Do mountains in the distance decrease in angular size the farther they get away? Yes, can I share my screen, please? James. Just as you asked for no question. Mountains decrease in angular size the farther away they are. Yes, they do. Yes, they do. Did you offer that? Yes. Great, let's see it. Yeah, on the screen now. So question, do you deny a perspective, Nathan? No, perspective's very real. We've had to teach at the Globers for eight years. They couldn't understand why the sun sets. Okay, so one of your go-tos is the world record photo, right? To pick, Gaspar? Bar de Crens, 280 miles. Pick Gaspar, 275 miles. Not Bar de Crens. Sure. Yes, okay. It's still going to be below 50,000 feet in a curve that you don't have. Okay, let's see. Oh, we see it. So we can measure the distance at 443 kilometers, right? And its elevation is 3,883 meters, sorry. So it has an angular size. We can work out the angular size at about half a degree. Do you agree with that so far? Okay, it looks good. I didn't verify any of this, but so far it looks good. Okay, that's cool. Half a degree of angular size. We can take that photo from Pictor Finestrelay and we can measure azimuths, right? To all these different mountains on the photo. So, you know, Tate de La Praa, I'm only going to try and pronounce these, but we can measure azimuths to all these and we can get a horizontal scale for this photo, right? We're trying to work out a field of view for this photo. Okay, do you understand that we shouldn't be able to see any of those mountains if the Ursa Globe, and you're trying to use that we can see those mountains as proof of the global... How much do you think we do see of that mountain? The fact that we see any of it at all proves there's not 50,000 feet of Earth curve because no mountain on Earth is taller than 50,000 feet. Have you tested that in a curve calculator? Yes, did that... You're trying to make your model... Yeah, have you made a prediction for the globe that has been falsified? Well, if you start changing the size of your radius with seven over six R, you're just making your model un-falsifiable mathematically. In the front. No, not incorrect. We've had this discussion multiple times. Not like... 275 miles is 10 times farther than what we should be able to see. Sorry, you're saying you can't see more than 27 miles? Are you serious? No, that's not what I'm saying, okay? Listen very closely. I'll say it again. 275 miles is 10 times further than what we should be able to see. There's 50,416 feet of missing curve. Missing? Is it really? So how much do you think we are seeing of Pick Gas Part? Do you think we're seeing all of it, or 10% of it, 50%? How much do you think we're seeing? Okay, how tall is Mount Gas Part? 3,883. Okay, so if there's 50,000 feet of missing curve, right? Is there though? You're over here saying we can see a 3,000 foot high mountain. There's supposed to be 50,000 feet of Earth curve problem. How did you get 50,000 feet? Did you just go eight inches per mile squared, Nathan? Is that what you did? That's what would be curving for 275 miles. So when I said that eight inches per mile squared is the wrong formula, this is exactly what I mean. You're not taking into account the viewer height of 2,820 meters. Okay, let's take into account the viewer height. Let's do it. Let's bring up Metabunk, shall we? No matter what you do, you're missing a couple miles of that mountain no matter what you do. Of course. All right, I'll start trying to change that. How do I change the... You're gonna prove my point, that you're just gonna go to Metabunk and use your sliding scale, which I could be wrong. Can you see what I have 6R? Telescope, right? Hang on, let's quickly stop sharing and reshare. On a good day, I could see my own ass in a telescope, right? Check. Yeah. Distance in kilometers, 443 point something. View height 2,820. All right, refracted hidden, if you can see on my screen, 3.82 kilometers. Okay, the mountain is taller than 3.82 kilometers. We should be able to see it. That includes the mountain height, bro. No, it doesn't. I didn't put the mountain height in anywhere. Okay, so hold on, hold on. How much refraction do you have going on there? 7 over 6R, standard typical refraction. How does the refraction know the radius of Earth? It doesn't, Brian. We've been through this in multiple times again as well. Well, you like to elaborate? You're enlarging Earth to make it. You're just making your model impossible. Nobody's calling for you. Let me find my 7 over 6R slide. I'll stop sharing this, thank you. What if that ain't enough? Then why do you do? Yeah, but how did you get R for the 7 over 6R? How was all calculated? Hold on, hold on. You keep asking me stuff that I gotta go backwards and backwards and backwards again. This is a simple answer. How did you get R? Right, 60 nautical miles per degree. 69 miles per degree implies a sphere. Okay, if the Earth was a ball, yes, it would curve one degree every 69 miles. How did you measure the radius of the Earth to get 7 over 6 radius? Hang on, we got to see first asked, how did we get the radius, right? So I gotta go back another step. Where is it? This one's not finished. You've got radius in the opener, Rick. On a flat plane with 69 miles and one degree, you get a radius of 3958 on a flat plane. We've been through that a dozen times. It was wrong. You've accidentally applied the small angle approximation, right? You're assuming that's a small triangle when in reality it's a small sector or a circle. Work both ways. When you get a bigger one, it will show you it's a circle. Wouldn't that work both ways? So we'd have the margin approximation. Yeah, it would. Ah, not that one. What was I doing there? Now you've got me trying to figure out what we're actually talking about. So where did we get? I was trying to prove how we got the radius. Right, the radius comes from the inference that when you back away from a star or a sun, the angle to it changes by one degree. And that linear relationship of angle to distance means that the Earth is a sphere. It doesn't fit with the Earth geometry. Of course, less geospere, right? Less geospere, maybe? No, we're talking about the ground, right? It doesn't fit with the geometry of the Earth being flat. Oh, you need to talk to Walter Bislin. Oh, Jesus Christ. Okay, is James taking, is James? Are you telling me that solarium is not accurate? Stellarium is accurate. Walter Bislin's model is not accurate. What he does is simply say, here is my alt as grid over the top. I've got these stars circling around me like the AEMap has. What kind of light bending do I need? Completely ad hoc. What light bending do I need to make them appear where they should be if the Earth is a globe? Okay. Is James keeping track of all these points that I've got to address? You got the radius by looking at the stars, seeing that they move when you change your latitude on the Earth, and then you, let's suppose, the Earth's a ball doing that. It's the inference to the best explanation, yes. Okay, do you understand that if the Earth is flat and you move away from a star, the declination of the star would also move towards the horizon. You do realize that, right? Yeah, that's a trigonometric relationship. Yeah. You know a linear relationship. Okay, so what you just said is not proof of Earth radius at all. Jesus Christ. Do you understand that if you're on a flat Earth and you move away, you would use a right-angled triangle and a trigonometric function to work out that angle? Do you understand that? I showed that in my opener, Ruth. I showed that it doesn't, it doesn't even by one degree until you hit 1500 miles. So when you start traveling over oceans and stuff, you'd be able to double-check that stuff. And what's the arc length difference to a flat plane over 1500 miles? I don't know. But does Nathan understand that if we're on a flat Earth and we back away, do you understand that you then use trigonometric functions to work out the angle? We see in a- We see in a sphere, brother. Nathan, have you done trigonometry? Did you pass your math math? If you don't have any proof of Earth's radius, you look at the sky. I'm just asking you, do you understand that it's a trigonometric relationship? Do you understand that it's a trigonometric relationship? You're pitting up now. You're moving away on a flat plane, it's a trigonometric- Well, just to be sure, hold on, I do want to be sure we hear from Ruheef and then we'll go over to you, Brian. I know that you're wanting to get a point in and I want to give you that chance, but we'll give Ruheef a chance to wrap up his... I think you had a question for them that you were saying. Yeah. Does Nathan understand basic trigonometry that if you move backwards on a flat plane, you're using a right angle triangle and therefore trigonometry to work out angles and sides? Do you understand? I'll take this because it was in my opener that you're invoking seven over six R and all this stuff, but you're pinning us down to a trigonometric function like nothing else could be going on, but you're going to change your radius size and all this other stuff and have a fighting scale that you're trying to make it un-falsifiable. Basically, when I showed that it's 1,500 miles before you're off by one degree, before it deviates, and what is the distance, what is the arc length distance from a flat plane in a globe over 1,500 miles? Yeah, we'll get there in a minute, Brian. So there's many points that Nathan's throwing at me. I'm asking him whether he understands that that would be a trigonometric relationship on a flat earth. Yeah, but it's not a trigonometric. It's a triangle. Perspective though, Ruf. It's perspective, refraction, you know? Tingler size, there's lots of things. All those things, right, but are you drawing a triangle and solving it using trigonometry? Is that how you should do it? Is that why the angle changes? Yes, okay, but in reality, the relationship between angle and distance is not trigonometric. It's linear. It's 60 nautical miles per degree. On either model. That's reality. Dude, not on either model. That's not on either model. That's not on either model. So we can't have explanations, but we can. That's what you're saying. Bacon, bacon, bacon. Our model, bin light, and our model, we can't do nothing. We're stuck with just the trig and nothing else. Yeah, the Super Mario orthographic view of the flat earth that doesn't account for perspective or refraction or angular size. That's all we get, right? Then can you account for it? Then you account for perspective, Nathan? You're using spherical geometry and refraction and all this, and you're saying we have to use just the strict trig. Is that fair? No, I want you to use some geometry. Show it like my presentation was how to, sorry, how do you model it on a flat earth to get your predicted angle? Please do some geometry, please. What have you got to do? This is a debate about the shape of the earth. Please show it. Bacon, I'll search your dominance. Go ahead. Come on, Bacon. Yeah, I'd just like to clarify some things. So this, if you compare, can I share my screen there with you? Yeah, ready for you. All right, you guys see that? Yep. Yep. Okay, so this diagram here can compare a globe earth in a flat earth using any star how you want and any distance or angle you want. So I'm gonna use what Brian uses for his models, which is 39, 58 miles, I think, for the star and use the trigonometric relationship, which is what you would get on the flat earth. So as I change the observer distance from the star, as you can see, the line aside to the star makes sense here on flat earth, that is because I'm using a trigonometric function, but it doesn't make sense on the globe. It points to different directions all the time. It doesn't match where the star would be. If you use the linear relationship, which is what's using navigation, now it makes sense on the globe because those lines are now parallel, which points to the same star, but on the flat earth, they give a different height for the star at each distance. What Brian was talking about, like the first 1500 miles, is that if you do this, for the first 1500 miles, the difference between where the star is and where the star should be is about a degree. So the first 20 degrees, there's only one degree of deviation from observation to what the flat earth would expect. But as you keep going further, that changes vastly. You get several and several degrees of discrepancy. On the globe, you don't have to account for several and several degrees. There's just a slight difference. Hold on, just to be sure, let's give them a chance to finish and then I promise we'll go right to you, Brian. Yes, sir. Yeah, there's just a slight difference that it's the table you get from the Almanac. So Roof is mentioning that you have to account for it. And that's just for the sake of Brian's arguing, say that maybe the distance is nonlinear, I think I actually covered that in the presentation. Let's say there's not a linear relation between angle and distance. Right. I actually created a webpage for Brian, where he could test different functions for distance versus angle and see which one would work. I put it a couple of star fixes of navigation there, where he could adjust the formula and see if they would work or not on a flat map. And there's no formula can put there. Brian didn't come up with an answer for that. I couldn't come up with an answer for that. There's no possible answer for that. Okay, let me explain. I did it to match reality, 69 miles per degree. And does it not match reality? You tried to apply it to an AE map. What I just gave you a simple refraction calculation to show us why we see 69 miles per degree because y'all kept asking for the math. So it does work for 69 miles per degree, our reality, right? And I ask you- Not very well. An annual refraction is entirely at heart. He just showed his observations on the flat earth side coming from the ground, but he showed his observations on the globe side coming from the center of earth. So are all the three star measurements, is that a parallel baseline, Bacon? You're taking them all from one position. So would that be three parallel baseline? The observation was at the surface. The line to the angle to the center of the earth was just showing that the arc over the surface was the same as the zenith angle. The observation isn't being taken from the center. But with the three observations to the three different stars, okay, over a plane or to the horizon, would that, would they be parallel baseline? The parallel, what would it mean? Would they be parallel to each other? The three star observations, you're drawing a baseline, right? To each star, would they be parallel? No, I mean, the baseline of the measurement? Well, I said no, what do you mean? I mean, the baseline of all those measurements, but the baseline of all those measurements are dipping down because they're even in the horizon, so they would not be parallel to each other. You're a smart guy. True. All right. All right, how about proof earth spins a thousand miles an hour at faster than the speed of sound? Do we have any of that? Sure, again, when you say proof, and I say science doesn't prove things, I can give you observations that are consistent with the earth rotating. Would you like one of those? Science doesn't prove things. We're back to this, okay, so science doesn't have any proof or a globe? Yeah, you can't prove anything about the real world. So science never proved or a globe? Yeah, correct. Okay, great. Now, do you have any evidence? Use it as a sound bite. You have any evidence without affirming the consequence that the earth spins? That's why science doesn't prove things, Nathan, because it would affirm the consequent. You have a hypothesis, right? Yeah, but then what about the globe? If, yeah, okay, and then we get to the semantic bullshit about disproving a hypothesis. Not semantics, it's the scientific method. Okay, should we have a hypothesis? Or disprove your hypothesis. That's what science is. No, you can't prove a positive hypothesis. You can't prove it. You just said you could disprove it. Yes. Okay, so if you don't disprove it, what do you do? Oh, Jesus. And the answer is prove. No. If you need to call out the Lord's name in vain, the answer when you don't disprove. I'm sorry, Pumpkin. Sorry, sweetheart. When you don't disprove your hypothesis, what do you do? If you don't disprove your hypothesis, right? Then you what? No. Prove it. And you proved it. Oh, Jesus. If you have a hypothesis, let's go through the logic, Nick. And let's go through the logic, right? I have a hypothesis that the Earth is a rotating globe. That's my hypothesis. Hypothesis is a cause and effect relationship. Just to hear the answer. Seriously. Point. And then we're gonna have to go into the Q&A pretty quick here. Is that kind of snuck up on me? So let's let Ruhi finish his point, and then we'll go into the Q&A because we gotta run quick through all these questions. Yeah. So if I have a hypothesis that the Earth is a spinning ball, right? Rotating globe. One of the consequences of that is that there'll be centrifugal force for anything on Earth, right? That leads us to what we can do in an experiment, right? We can test whether we can measure centrifugal force, okay? So if Earth rotating globe, then your weight will change with latitude. I go out into reality and I measure that weight change with latitude. If I then say therefore the Earth is a rotating globe, I have affirmed the consequence, right? If I don't measure it, if I don't measure that weight change with latitude, then I've disproved that positive claim. So I've proved it false if you would like to be a semantic dick, right? Oh, so science does prove things. Again, like I said, semantic bullshit. We're gonna jump into the Q&A. Wanna say a couple of quick housekeeping things, my dear friends. There is a poll in the chat. Is NASA dishonest about the shape of the Earth? Here are the options and here's what's in the lead so far. In the lead with 42%, no, NASA is trustworthy. In second place, yes, NASA is lying about the shape of the Earth and much more. Third place, Brian is sexy. And fourth place, this is a fourth is no, but they lie about other stuff. Juicy to say the least. Wanna say a couple of quick housekeeping things as I mentioned. First, all of our guests are linked in the description. That includes at the podcast. Folks, if you did not know, as you can see at the bottom right of your screen, Modern Day Debate has a podcast as well. You can find all of our guests' links there in the description box in addition to the description box here on YouTube. And if you haven't yet, pull out your phone, pull up your favorite podcast app and follow Modern Day Debate and that way you'll have the option when you get a reminder of a new debate coming out to listen to a debate on the road if you want to have that option. And this one coming in from to appreciate your question, Whitsit gets it. That's right. The original says if we used angles via perspective to get an, let me know if I pronounce this right, as a muthal grid to engineer a globe model is pointing out those measurements match proof of the globe. Is that to me? I think that's for you, our Flatter friends. I can't. No, no, no. Sorry, the Glober friends. Sorry about that. I can, I can go. Right. So what is, what could be said that is being forged in a global model is let's say the ground positions of the stars. Because that's, like we can say that we're basing our coordinates on where the stars are. Because you can check that. If you're at the ground position of the star you can simply look up and see that the star is there. What would not be possible to forge is how that star would appear to you as it go to another position. The way the angles relate to the positions on the surface is described by the Hevers sign between two coordinates. That's not something we can fudge in. You can try to start with flat distances and try to fudge that into sphere. The angles won't change. You're not gonna be able to make all those match at the same time. But once you do stellar observations using a globe to make the predictions you get things within a fraction of a degree which wouldn't be possible just by trying what I do have to do because we have so many questions. I do have to keep moving through these without the rebuttals of the questions just because I know for sure Ruhi fast to go in 28 minutes. And then some of the questions we're gonna try to read that aren't addressed to Ruhi after he leaves if it comes to that. So hopefully it doesn't come to that. We wanna get through all of them while Ruhi is here. Once it gets it strikes again saying if Earth is a globe why do tsunami waves wrap around every single continent and landmass on Earth except Antarctica? I believe you had that question answered by PhD Tony yesterday. I'm not a geologist. Ask him, why are you asking me? He doubled that it did, then he just went it. I do have to go to the next one. Earth is life says Brian. Do you agree with this statement? Quote, Johannesburg and Sydney are roughly 67. 700 miles apart on Earth. No, I don't agree with that. Juicy? How far apart are they Brian? Sorry? How far apart are they? Probably about 8,000 to be my guess. I don't think there's no way to prove that over the Great Ocean. We could use undersea cables and measure them except unfortunately we don't have any extending between the Southern continents. And especially on navigation, far to the next one. We can't even use the stars hardly. Also for Brian, Earth is life says Brian. Do you, we got that, they said Nathan and Brian was refraction accounted for in the black swan? If we account for refraction, then that puts us, like I said earlier, seeing our own ass do a telescope or a radius about the size of Jupiter. So they're just making a fix all model mathematically. I hope everybody has noticed that. Yeah, I know. On the court of the globe, because this question was for me, not you guys could buy it. So according to the globe, you can only see three miles out from a six foot observer height. But then when we see the horizon past 10 miles, they go, well, did you account for refraction? Your religion says the horizon shouldn't be past 1.25 times the square root of the observer's height and feet. So at six feet, all that's worth three miles. We do have to, I hate to do this, but just because we find out you've got to go and we've got so many questions. Tim Pryor says Nathan gravity wasn't invented, it was discovered. Yeah, and Newton said don't attribute it to me because nobody with thinking faculties upstairs would believe this nonsense. And then they changed it 100 years ago to be the bending of space time. Space doesn't have any properties and time is a concept. How do you bend a concept with no physical properties? You can't, when they call it a fabric. Jeremy Jutilla, thank you, says Nathan. Can you demonstrate a weather system inside the room that you are in? Since you can't, at that scale, does that mean they don't exist? That's a troll question, dude. This one coming in from, they say Tim Pryor says Nathan, you've been told a long time ago that eight inches per mile squared is not the right formula. You're, as you're being dishonest as can be. You might want to tell the Globers that because they use the eight inches per mile squared and they're opener. Didn't we talk about this with relation to pick gas bar, you didn't take into account the observer height. You just went 275 times 275 times eight inches, right? That's why we say it's the wrong formula for that particular purpose, correct? 50,000 feet of drop, okay? The Earth would curve 50,000 feet over 275 miles. Right. Yeah, right. Yes. Okay, so that's what I said. The next question, please, Jeremy. But how much of the mountain should you see when you're at 2,820 meters elevation? On it, bro. Incorrect. This one coming in. We just did it on Metabunk. We just did it. This one coming in from Eddie Dean says, got that one. Night Shift 1000 says, isn't a scientific law a proof of something in science, or am I thinking about that wrong? They didn't say who it's for. Probably for me. Yeah, they're not proofs. I mean, laws are like inductive reasoning that we just say are inviolable. They, you know, tomorrow, things might start floating up, maybe. This one coming in. A flat. Balloons do float up, like, next question. Thank you for that. Incisive fact, this is what Eddie Dean says. Nathan, since you love demonstrations and mentioned the firmament, will you please demonstrate that the firmament actually exists? What is it made out of? I haven't got a piece of the firmament to test, but we have things like sprites, sun dogs, halos, the fact we have gas pressure, thunder. These are all evidence rainbows. Okay? You can't recreate a rainbow indoors. Okay? There's lots of proofs you live under a firmament. The stars and sun and moon are all fixed. They have repeatable patterns. The Mayans have been linking them up to pyramids for 1,300 years. And these guys are over here saying, oh, it's a spinning ball in space, moving 1.3 million miles an hour and everything's attracted to everything else. Total utter nonsense. This one coming in from Tim Pryor. Says Nathan, I know the first rule of flat earth, which is earth is, don't talk about flat earth, but are you honestly going to give any flat earth evidence at all, even though that's the first rule of flat earth? Yeah, fluid static state when a large body of water is at rest, the surface is level and horizontal to the container. Now, globers will just redefine the word level, not what it says in the dictionary, which is free of bands, curves or regularities. Synonyms are flat, plumb, flush and straight. They'll take level and say, oh, that means curve. Should we look up the definition of the dictionary? Let's look up the dictionary definition of earth, shall we? Well, let's move on to the next question. Cool stuff. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Theros Rex says, so Nathan, you think the earth is flat, but how old is it? I'd love to debate you on that if your answer is anything under a billion. I don't, I've never found a rock with a state issued ID that gave its date of birth. So I don't know exactly how old the earth is. Your religion needs it to be billions and billions of years old and then still the math revolution doesn't even work. So it's your religion that needs billions of years and is super worried about the time and when it was created. Not me, I'm here to talk about the shape. The shape is flat, you could test it yourself, we see way too far. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Flanker420 says, I can see spherical planets, moons and galaxies using an optical telescope. I regularly image Andromeda. At what point does it turn into fake CGI? Are my pictures and observations fake? The moon with a ball would be reflecting light would have a specular highlight. All balls reflecting light have specular highlights. NASA even added one to the blue marble to make it look more realistic. Now my question to the Globers is, and hopefully Brian agrees with me, if the moon is a ball reflecting light, where's the specular highlight? It doesn't have one, also moonlight's cold. So it's not reflecting hot sunlight if moonlight is measurably cold. This one coming in from Tim Pryor. It's the same argument, Nathan. How did you measure the Earth to determine it's flat? Not very bright, are you? Okay, well, there's plenty of places. Lake Pontchartrain, the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean. All the oceans should be curving at the same rate. So you can just go to one location with a large body of water. You don't even really need to do long distance observations. Just look at it when it's really calm. The surface of the water is a perfect reflection. That only happens on a flat surface. You don't get specular reflections on curved surface. So you just go to the house of mirrors at the circus. When the surface of the mirror is curved, the image in the surface is distorted, okay? When the surface is flat, you get a perfect mirror image, which is what we observe on stationary lakes. Cool Lambo says the Bible tells us that the Earth is a spherical object that orbits a central point in the solar system. How do you rationalize your flat Earth beliefs with this information? Say among the heathen, the Lord reigneth, the world shall be established, it shall not be moved. Psalm 96-10. So I don't know where this guy, nowhere in the Bible does it say the Earth is spinning ball in space. Quite the contrary, it says it's fixed and movable. It's on pillars. It will never move. When Jesus comes back, every eye will see him. That's what it said. Anybody, anybody. Anybody. Which it gets it strikes again, he says, the 69 mile per degree comes from the Azumithal grid of observability. Yeah, Azumithal grid of observability. Brian, like seriously, while I'm reading the question, they say a globe model was engineered hijacking that perspective ratio. Do you understand? I understand that Witsa doesn't understand geometry. If he could show that geometry to me, then I'll take him seriously, but he can't do year eight geometry. Yeah, the geometry is you walk 69 miles and the objects in the sky change by one degree. That's the geometry. What is the geometry? What is the geometry of the Earth? Earth's a ball. What is the geometry of the Earth that gives that ratio? If you concede to this one degree per 69 miles, you're pretty much accepting that your penis here. Okay, Austin just said that we reverse engineered that from a flat Earth. Okay, that was the question. It was for you guys. If you guys don't have a good answer, we should just move on. This one coming in from Slickback says, love the channel, modern day debates. Thanks for your kind words. That means a lot. It says, good to see some real conversation taking place. It's been a lively and juicy one tonight, no doubt about it. This one, it wanna remind you all credit to our guests. They're linked in the description. They are the lifeblood of the channel. So we're grateful for them. And I'm jumping into this next question from Earth First Space Later. Says, there is no recorded diffraction in Antarctica due to earthquakes and wave patterns. Whoops, not a continent on the bottom of a ball. Whoopsie! Is that a question, Tony? I don't, well, they don't always come in question form. So it's a super challenge, let people make a comment. Yeah, PhD Tony was on yesterday. He's a geologist asking. I'm not a geologist, I have no idea. This one from Yi Dayen says, Ruhief, is it easier to answer the simple questions about the globe when they're not being shouted at you like you're a child? Good job, keeping so calm. Thank you. It's been fun. Let's see here, we have Tim Pryor, who says, yes Nathan, refraction. The cranes on the oil rigs are not naturally bendy, ding dong. It doesn't matter what the cranes are, the fact we see the horizon past an oil platform that is nine miles out means that the Earth either has a radius equal to the orbital path of the moon, which is not a radius of 39.59 or it's flat, okay? So it's way bigger than they're telling us. Tim, can I offer an alternate explanation? No, we don't measure the radius by looking at the horizon. This one, I do have just to get through these as quickly as possible. This one coming in from Tim Pryor, a critic of you, Nathan says, Nathan, $1,000 right now. If you can give evidence for flat Earth without even bringing up the globe. Oh, and another thousand, so you can't. They're trolling up, next question. They also said, for everyone that thinks NASA lies, there is a poll in chat, folks. It's pretty neck and neck, the top two still being whether or not NASA lied or not and Brian is sexy, has fallen to fourth place. Sorry, Brian. This one, Tim Pryor says, for everyone who thinks that NASA lies, you probably should stop using their technology. Hippocrates! Yeah, stop blinking, tangy. I think his phone auto-corrected. I think he met hypocrites instead of the ancient Greek physician. But let me know if you meant to say the ancient Greek physician, Tim. This one, Tim Pryor strikes again. He says, yes, you got that one. It gets it strikes again. Says 1900s, Lieutenant E. Middleton writes their crew was off over 200 miles using the globular model for celestial navigation in the south. Why is that? I don't know, show me the documentation. How is that being turned? Yeah, stop being a pussy and answer my DMs, what's it? Juicy, it's sliding into those DMs. This one coming in from Prane. Let's see, David Reif says, it's always daylight at noon day. Every six, the constant rotation of the Earth, it should be daylight, you're facing a 180 degree shift in direction every six months. I didn't understand that, did you guys? Yeah, what he's saying is if the Earth orbits around the sun every six months, nighttime would be daytime and daytime would be nighttime, but they calculated this and they counted for it with a sidereal day. They say that the sun doesn't actually go around the Earth in a 24 hours, even though the Georgia guide stones again have a slit in the top that mark high noon and that's every 24 hours, contrary to the globe religion, but they don't want to talk about that, do they? Well done for Nathan for learning something in the last eight years. I know more about the globe than you do. I'm sure you think that, Nathan, I'm sure that you do. This one coming in from Balthazar228 says, dude, did you know that you could create an experiment to test hypotheses around a flat Earth? You might even prove a 15 degree per hour shift or drift and win a no-dell prize. Thanks, Bob. Did that globe card just say science-proof stuff with a hypothesis? Didn't he listen to the entire debate where this interlocutor said science doesn't prove things? So what the hell is that guy talking about? Right, Rudiff? Right? Bob never claimed a 15 degree hour rotation of Earth. He claimed a 15 degree hour period. The question is, is whether it's the heavens above or the ground and he proved he released the data because when he went up higher at the same latitude, it was over a one degree speed in, I mean, a shift in rotation. So how does that work on a ball? Just by going up a higher elevation, do we get? That would work perfect on a flat Earth, but on a ball. That doesn't work. Brian, SAGNAC invented the interferometer and SAGNAC himself says it's the vortex of the ether causing the drift. So apparently we should trust Bob, a flat Earther on YouTube, more than the guy who invented the SAGNAC interferometer, SAGNAC himself. Whoa, whoa, whoa, bads, this is brilliant, dude. I'm loving it. Tim Pryor says, now that you've been told for the billionth time, Nathan, stop using eight inch per square mile. We tell you it's wrong, we never say it, and it was a flat Earther who came up with it. You've been told this. Eight inches per mile squared is what's on the curve calculator and it was in Glenn's opening. So I don't know, these Glovers need to talk amongst themselves and figure out what the actual curve of Earth would be because that guy doesn't even agree with the people on debating. I'll put that into that. You just have to use the correct formula. No, I'm just hearing software. Eight inches. You just have to apply the correct formula to the situation, right? Jeremy Jatilla says, wait, Nathan, you say because pressure surrounded by vacuum can't be shown on small scale, it's proven false, but you not being able to show a weather system on a smaller scale in your room isn't proof? My room doesn't have a sun introducing heat, and so it's not analogous to the Earth, which is a closed dynamic system. The air is anemogenous and anisotropic, okay? You're comparing apples and oranges because Glovers cling to a desperate cartoon religion. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Tim Pryor says sun coming through the window and a squirt bottle. I can make a rainbow. You are lying. Not without a reflector, and he's lying. Yep, he's lying, thanks, Brian. Jeremy Jatilla, we got that one. Whitsakitsa says, actually, PhD, Tony didn't answer my question yesterday. If you guys haven't seen it, there was a juicy debate on yesterday. You don't wanna miss that. Hit that subscribe button, and that way you'll see the future ones as well. They say, let's try bacon. Why do tsunami waves wrap around all land masses on Earth except Antarctica if the Earth is a ball bacon? I think the, I'm not a geology sensor is pretty suitable for me too. This one from Tim Pryor, we got that one. Jeremy Jatilla says, flurfs, I mean, flat earthers. Does pressure blow or does vacuum suck? Is pressure energy? Is energy infinite? That's why the, quote, the atmosphere doesn't blow in to the vacuum, unquote. The energy, quote, unquote, runs out and can't move any further. They would have infinity and zero too. I think they need to rethink that one. So they have zero pressure and then infinity. That's oxymoron. There's no zero if there's an infinity. To me, it would go both ways. So you could have negative pressure if you're pulling on a plunger. The harder you pull, the more negative pressure you're gonna have, push on the plunger. Harder you push, the more positive pressure. That's my opinion on that. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Tim Pryor says, so you have no measurements of the Earth being flat. I got it, measurements are numbers. Quit giving me word salads. He doesn't need an answer, dude needs a tissue, bro. Sounds like he's about to cry. Juicy, I don't know why. Okay, this one coming in from Jason S. If you had a question, Jason S, let me know, I can find it in the live chat. I didn't see one attached. Eddie Dean says, Nathan and Brian, what are your science credentials that make you qualify to speak on the shape of celestial bodies? Appeal to credentials as a policy. I got a telescope and a P1000 which works better than a telescope. But yeah, that is an appeal to credentials, man. It's pretty much no matter what we show, they're gonna claim at the end that we showed no evidence. So last debate I showed, wasted half my presentation showing several, just one after another, experiments. And at the end, they still said, y'all didn't bring any evidence. So if you said the sky is blue, Brian, you're gonna, do you need credentials to say the sky is blue? No, do you need credentials to go out and verify the Earth's curving in all directions? No, you don't. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Bob says, Nathan, globe was proposed thousands of years ago. Heliocentrism in the 1500s, not 1666. Why even lie about that? Great, so Heliocentrism was introduced in the 1500s, but the Mayans were lining up pyramids to the sky in the ninth and 12th century. The brilliant Ironman Glovers, back to the drawing board, guys. This one from Tim Pryor says, so when was it that you decided you're smarter than every scientist on the planet? Nathan, was it your third or fourth or fifth or your 50th YouTube video? As a straw man, I never claimed to be smarter than any of, or all of the scientists. So it's literally, guys, listen to what Glovers say, they are logically illiterate. They have no logic whatsoever. I never said that. Why would you even say that I think that? It makes no sense whatsoever. You're just lying. Your twin brother, Witsit Gitsit says, Captain Nilsson says using the globular model for celestial navigation, their crew was off by 100 miles in the south. Dozens of examples. Is this a coincidence? Send it to me. I'll answer it. Well, doc. Both me and Ruth did celestial navigation in the south. Ruth's fix was just 200 meters off, which is insanely accurate. And in my location, I never got beyond like six miles off from my fixes. So I don't know what the issue is. Where do you double check in this again? I've got to give a position. How are you then determining that they're 200 miles off or 100 miles off? You can blow math and represent it to a globe, right? You're double checking it up to a globe mass, right? There's the coordinates that I know from my house, and then there's the coordinates that I get from the sky. Those are two separate things. The fact that they match. I've got to go to the next one. Bill says, oh, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sorry, Bacon. Do you have any, were you mid-sentence? No, go ahead. I think that's fine. Bill says, if NASA lies about the Earth, what about China and Russia? Do they also lie? Are they all in on this lie? James, do you know when China landed on the moon? I'm not aware of them landing on the moon. Yeah, because they released the video and then retracted it because it was so fake. Go look it up, guys. It was so bad. So they're all lying about space, okay? All the countries are working together to hide the shape of Earth. I know it's crazy. Research it. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Whitsit gets it. Coming at you, Bacon and Ruheave says, quote, all problems solved by the help of traverse tables would be impractical on the supposition the Earth is a sphere, quoting Dun, I can't see, Dunraven in navigation. Then they say, why is that? Yeah, I'm not familiar with that. He's referring to, yeah. This one. Whitsit, Dun, be a pussy, DM me. Tim Pryor, slide into his DMs. Tim Pryor says, last one, Nathan, if we're so dumb, quit using our technology, you hypocrite. Our technology, okay, we pay NASA too, Einstein. So when NASA steals $60 million a day from taxpayers and use them to develop technology, it's not your technology, it's our technology. Whitsit says, quote, in practice, scarcely any other rules are used, but those derived from plain sailing, unquote, says this is from Professor Evers in navigation, in theory, and practice. He said, is he wrong? If he includes celestial navigation in that, then yes, he's wrong, it requires us to. If he doesn't, it's fine. Alex Williams says, James, please stop these flat earth debates. This nonsense really devalues the channel. I've got to be honest, I don't understand it myself. If you guys know how we cut our teeth, we started with religion debates, but flat earth people enjoy. They really seem to enjoy science debates. So that's why we host them. This one from Theros Rex says, also the earth is 4.5 billion years old, fight me. Prove it. This one from Nick B says, atmosphere in container has same pressure everywhere. On a static system, yes. Earth's not a static system, it's closed dynamic system. On a car tire, for example, with no heat being introduced, a car tire that's not rolling down the road would have gas that is pretty much the same in all direction and not moving around very much. The problem is earth has a sun and water cycles, and oxygen and nitrogen cycles. So it's a closed dynamic system. Everything's moving around. It's inhomogenous and anisotropic on both models. That's both models, ladies and gentlemen, please let me know what you guys talk about. Any thoughts on that Ruhi for bacon? No. This one from Nick B, we got that one. Jason S says, Nathan, by rejecting refraction, you're basically saying that mirages and other optical illusions, we can all observe are real. More lying. Hold on, one second. They say, like hovering cargo ships, do flat earthers also believe that magic is real? He's lying, again, lying. I never deny refraction exists. It was my two debaters who said, oh, we can measure where the sun is and prove it's not a flat earth by taking its actual location. And then the next debater, two minutes away, two minutes later says, oh, we can't tell exactly where objects are in the sky. Is there a parent location, not their actual location, okay? So then I responded. Yes. Contradiction. Same response as an hour ago. The refraction correction is tiny. Like when you're 45 degrees elevation, it's like an arc minute. Yeah, so it sounds like these guys are denying refraction, not me, Globed. I wanna talk to your buddies over here. Okay, yeah, other people can be wrong, Nathan. That's okay with me. I am going to go to the next question, but I do want to mention, I know that Ruby, if you said you had to leave, totally okay. We're going, go counting soon. We have people leave when they have to all the time, like that's normal. So whenever you need to cut out, just interject and say so. Yeah, about 10 minutes. Okay. Tim Pryor says, watch, Nathan, I'll give you a magic trick. I'm going to log off of YouTube and I bet flat earth will mean nothing in the world like always. Again, stop using our technology, you hypocrite. That guy is triggered, bro. Holy crap, next question, James. I didn't even hear you. You're not speaking into the mic. That guy is triggered, James. Next question. This one coming in from Eddie Dean. Says Nathan and Brian, your lack of credentials makes your arguments less credible than those of the real scientists. Why can't you accept that that's a meaningful difference? Because what I have been doing for over 30 years is using auto levels. I've done miles of curve. I've done seawalls. And first thing when I heard flat earth is I took my instrument and went out and checked it. And I went along the coastline, checked it against water. And there was no curvature in almost two miles, not for about a mile and a half. And that's what I do for a living is I lay out things level. I do slope. If something's dropping down in the distance, not earth curve, water will go that way. We calculate it, rise over run, not curving. That's my credentials. Yeah, and if you're so obsessed with credentials, go look at Neil deGrasse Tyson. He says the earth's flat from 120,000 feet on the Red Bull space jump. So welcome to flat earth, Globed. This one from Tim Pryor says Nathan, you don't have to say that the fact you think earth is flat automatically says you believe you're smarter than every scientist in the world, you ding dong. He's saying that it's implied that you seem to think you have an edge on them because they're all wrong about the globe and you are correct. I think that's what they're trying to say, Nathan. What about flatter scientists? Are all the flatter scientists also smarter than all the other flatter scientists? Because that's what you're saying. That's so ridiculous, bro. How could anyone think they're smarter than all the other scientists? You'd have to know all the other scientists, then you'd have to know they're intellect. I'm just saying they're either wrong or they're paid and bought out to tell you that the earth is a globe. They are either maliciously lying or in being deceptive or they're ignorant to the fact that the earth is flat and they're telling like school teachers, for example, they're not all paid by NASA. They don't all know the earth is a globe. Gotta go to the next one. Go ahead. Fire strikes again. He says, laughing my ass off. You think NASA created all the technology? That's dumb. I said Tang and Velcro. I don't know all the technology. What the hell are you talking about, dude? Did NASA really invent Tang? A legend. Then a top 10 of their invention, like the dolls of life, Jaren shot out the Jarenism, he went over them and the first six of them, I don't know how far he went, but I had already been invented. So they just, I guess, improve on things and use our money and then sell the pet. You guys really have it in for NASA. Okay, this Gorzilla 37 says, during this entire debate, Brian has remained a stationary as the flat earth itself, cold as stone as if he's a statue. Brian, is it true you haven't moved a lot during this debate? Man, I'm just sitting stationary like the earth, man. Juicy to say the least. This one coming in from, let's see. I think we might be out of questions. Let me just check really quick. Witz, it strikes again. He says, we'll give you a chance since you have to leave soon, Rohith. They say globe was engineered using an azimuthal grid of perspective. Does pointing to that coordinate system and saying it matches that globe prove the globe? No, it's just a coordinate system that we use to describe the positions of things. You got it. It doesn't prove anything. The fact that the actual measurements match the observations. I'm sorry, the other predictions match the observations. This one coming in from. This one to the grid itself. Theros Rex says, I'll give you evidence in a debate. When do you want to do it, Nathan? Nathan scoffs at your request, Theros. But I'll see if I can get it to happen. Jason S says, Brian, I'm a professor, a professional land surveyor. I have to call you out. You can't detect earth curvature with an automatic level that has only 400 feet of range. Well, I'd say he's not a surveyor because even geodetic surveyors, the president of the society said that it's done like it's always been, that they can't go no more than about 100 meters per shot. And anything accurate is done up close in increments. And they told me I was changing angles and shooting my way around the ball, which makes no sense. If anybody using a level lays out a horizontal frame of reference, the ground underneath does not matter. We measure the ground underneath in reference to the horizontal line that our instruments provide. So that guy is not a surveyor. Flanker 420 says we can create F-22 stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, nuclear missiles, but we can't get into space. Yeah, space is pink. And Tim Pryor says, so predictable. When fighter earthers can't answer questions, they just say you're triggered. Dude, we laugh at you, get over it. Even told this a billion times also. That the same guy said he was done like six super chats ago, Brian? Yeah, man. I love Brian as a wingman. Yeah, man. This one from Troll says, Mike Hughes, rest in peace, built his own rocket to prove his hypothesis. What have any of the Flurfs done to actually prove theirs? He wasn't trying to prove his hypothesis, okay? Building a rocket and going 2,000 feet in the air is not a scientific experiment. What are you talking about, dude? How sad. And last of all, John Rapp. Thanks for your patience, John. Says, question for both. Please explain how two people, thousands of kilometers apart, will simultaneously see the same face, shape, size, and phase of the moon. Impossible if circling over a flat earth. Austin said it the best. It has a mental grid of perspective. Basically, we see the dome. The clouds, when you walk outside, we know the earth ain't a mini sphere, but we see the clouds dropping the distance appear to dome down. It's just perspective. And I mean, he said it best, really. Again, you're sort of hinting that this, as a mouthful, the Altars grid does something, like it's a concrete thing that does something. It's a coordinate system. It would be a reification fallacy if you think it does something. All it is, is a coordinate system around you. That's it. It doesn't do anything. We see in a dome, though. We have a dome around. Right? We can have a coordinate system. Do they drop the clouds? How they look like, when you walk outside, it looks like a little dome around you. Is that due to perspective or earth curve? The clouds drop to the horizon. Do the clouds drop to the horizon due to perspective or earth curve? Both. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Tim Pryor says, laughing my ass off, there is no flat earth scientist. Now you're just lying, Nathan. Where's the globe Earth scientist? Where are the globe Earth scientists? Wait, there's no flat earth scientist, but I thought Bob Nodell proved earth rotation. Like, what are you guys talking about, dude? And I thought science doesn't prove anything. So, like, what? This one from Earth First Space Layer. Thanks for your generous super chat. We appreciate it. Says over 52, Selenilion eclipses debunk heliocentricity. Even though just one would called the impossible eclipse. All right, I'll answer that one because it's my last one there to go. Every eclipse, every lunar eclipse, there will be some place on earth that you will be able to witness the Selenilion, right? I'm sure that you understand the globe answer, right? It is the refraction lifts up both the moon and the sun half a degree. So you can see an eclipse moon while the sun is just above the horizon. So it lifts up the sun for us to see the light, but the moon space can't see that light. I want to give Ruheef a last word before he leaves. And then, so on this topic, and then we got to go to the next question, go ahead, Ruheef, and then we'll let you go. Well, I bet that was it. I'm off to go, go, Cardi. So, thanks, James. Ruheef, have a good time. Nathan, I do want to let him go. He does have plans. He does want to get off with go, Cardi. How do you predict refraction months or years in advance to predict the eclipses? Oh, wow. So Brian has seen my graphs of the refraction data. Basically, once you get a decent height above the surface, you know, about a hundred meters, refraction is quite predictable. And that's where we get 7 over 6R from, from measurable measurements of the density gradient. That's where it comes from. But don't we observe the eclipse from the surface of Earth, not in the middle of the Earth? And still, typically, it's 7 over 6R, but if you're close to the Earth, the Earth can vary. So we can see the sun, but the moon can't. Yes. Anyway, with that, thank you very much, James. Thank you, Ruheef. Bye, buddy. Thank you, Ruheef. Take care. Good to meet you. I'm going to reassert. You could say reorganize the screen. But in the meantime, let me get this question in. This one comes in from Witsit Gitsit. We'll send this over to you, Bacon. They say, Globe was engineered using this. I didn't read this one already. No, that's actually an old one. Pardon me. Let me load up the screen and read this new one. Want to remind you, our guests are linked in the description. This one coming in from Theros Rex says, ah, what's wrong, Nathan? Scared, afraid to go up against a Geo degree? Yeah, I'm terrified, dude. I don't know anything to do with you. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Troll says, laughing my ass off, that's no answer. What have you done? Mike was going up to take pictures. I did astroarchaeology. I did observations at the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, Lake Michigan, Lake Pontchartrain. I've done over 100 star trail videos. I tested moonlight. It's cold. I verified stars on Intersect and the Marine horizon. I mean, what have you done, dude, besides make super chats crying about me? I did a pressure graded inside containment. I showed that light and the gas doesn't give any extra propulsion. I mean, we've done a bunch. You should check out our channel in just years worth of observations and demonstrations. Demonstrations are king. Glovers are allergic to demonstration. They like explanation and word. We like demonstration. Did you say explanation and words? Basically. You got it. Is that wrong? All right. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Tim Pryor says, you have to face it, Austin. Do you mean, you mean, Austin? Are you talking to Austin in the live chat or Nathan on accident calling him Austin because they're twin brothers? They say, ask globe believers that you think are so dumb. Control the world and you can't deny it. We don't actually think globe believers run the world. They're lying to you. They don't actually believe Ursa Globe. They know it's not. And they fake it. They reverse engineered all the observations using the flatter just like Austin was commenting about a minute ago. You got it. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Run Boston Bear. So we only have two more, three more questions. They say, thank you, Modern Day Debate for hosting this debate. Thanks for your kind words. We appreciate that. They say, it's fascinating how much truth is coming out. Y'all go to Whitz It Gets It on YouTube if you want more guidance. Right home. Right home. Matt B says, why does it benefit to claim a globe if it's actually flat? What's the purpose for people trying to pull off this lie? It's an archaic model. Times are changing. Get with the times. We're progressing. We're figuring out the universe is above us. It's electrical. Everything's electrical. We're learning more. We're progressing with the time. We're not here to divine the elite's motives for lying to you about the shape of the earth. I'm not Ms. Cleo. I don't have a crystal ball. I don't talk to them on the phone or anything. They don't tell me why they steal $60 million a day and tell you Earth's a globe when it's observably not. This one from Whitz It Gets It. He strikes again. He says, azimuthol. Am I saying that right? Have I been saying it wrong this whole time? Azimuthol. Azimuthol. Very embarrassing. This one, they say, Azimuthol grid explains all celestial observations on a plane. The light does not have to bend physically. It's an optical effect. Thanks, Walter. Now they say, so I'll give you a chance to respond to this bacon. Right. So he's mentioning Walter's business model that it was already mentioned in this debate where the elevation in azimuth, those two coordinates of the azimuthol grid or vision as they call, do not match where the celestial bodies would be. So that would require light not to turn on straight lines. Otherwise, you should see objects where they are. If you're seeing somewhere else, a light can be turned on straight lines. It's as simple as that. This one coming in from, let me see if we have any that have come in. This one from Extra J says, Nathan, you can make a rainbow inside. You can't even get that right. Say, Brian, yes, the surface is level after X miles on a globe. Keep working at it. Not eight inches per mile squared. Not if it dropped down eight inches, then you'll have eight inches of slope rise over run. And you need a reflector to make a rainbow indoor. Need a mirror or reflective ceiling, reflective floor. Try again, dude. This one from Tim Pryor says, we all know flat earthers don't do experiments anymore. And the only pictures that Nathan takes are of Brian. I made that part up. They say, sorry. All right, come on. They say, it's because you keep proving the globe. Thanks, Bob. Interesting, Jarenism. Okay, the debater just said science doesn't prove anything. He needs to talk with the chat because the chat still thinks that experiments prove things. How sad is that, dude? This one coming in from the Cooper, in quarters says, how did it feel to get trolled? Hashtag duck suit. Yeah, they flew me out to LA, put me in a nice hotel, paid me for my time and trolled me, lied to my face because as we've clearly seen, Globers are obsessed with lies. Said they were from Harvard, they weren't. They were YouTube pranksters. And they did what they do. NASA Globers like lies and deceiving people. So that's what they did. So you know, it's whatever, bro. I got paid for my time. I spent a few days away from my dog. Big deal. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Jason S. says, Brian, geodetic surveyors use high precision electronic levels, not the low precision automatic level you're using. And they don't believe Earth is flat. The high precision electronic leveling that we use nowadays is shot off of local tower. Which are called satellites, ironically. We call all these local stations where we get the centimeter, millimeter measurement satellite when they're on stations, on top of building. There's this guy, try again, this guy's just showing his ignorant on the whole subject. At least he used a believe word, right? Like a true globe head. It's not that land surveyors know the Earth's a globe. They believe it's a globe. So good job on the Colt rhetoric there, bud. Tim Pryor says that's pathetic. Bob isn't a scientist, but he proved Earth's rotation with a gyroscope. Your desperation is showing. Bob is ace, man. Bob Nadelle's ace, he proved with his release of the data. He did it live for all to see the ballers and all that. And they didn't like it because at the same latitude, higher in elevation, the Earth curve changed, the Earth term. So explain that on a ball. Thank you. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Let me just plug my computer in really quick or I'm gonna lose it. Theros Rex says, got him, Nathan. You whine more than my team, sister. Technically, isn't he whining about me right now? Balthasar228 says, why is it that those who utilize a globe model are able to not only compute their results with math, but derive them while those who believe in flat Earth must use approximations and calculators. You're not to be more specific, but with 90-degree angles, man. Flat baselines with 90-degree angles. No getting around it. I'll grant them both sides need to do some approximations. This one coming in from, do we get to John Rapp's question? They asked question for both. Please explain how to, we got that one actually. That was about the face of the moon. Then, let me see. I think that's actually it for questions. So one last one came in, Whitsitt gets it. Says, Bacon, I just explained that light does not physically bend. It's just an optical effect. Do you agree that if that is the case, it works? Thanks, Walter. Right, I don't see how it's possible for me to see something in a different direction without light bending. This optical effect will have to make light come from this direction. Actually, it hit me at this direction without changing the path. This is just geometrically nontentical. I don't understand what that means. Well, the example, let me back him up. Can I just say one more thing? Yes, sir, go ahead. I have to leave in a couple of minutes. That's okay. You got it. All right. Let me back up, Austin, because he said so many super chats. He exampleed anti-compuscular rays, which represent a 360 degree field of view. So if we have the rays coming at us that are supposedly parallel and they're spreading out in all directions and then they get over our head and go 180 degrees directly behind us to a point, then that point represents a 360 degree field of view. So it's not the light bending. It's the perspective. And shout out to Austin, man. This one coming in from- No direction. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I want to give you a chance to respond. What have you got? All right, I would say none of that requires a light to be changing direction in which it hits the observer. You have that on renderers. Renderers treat light as drawing straight lines and you get the same corpuscle rays once you model that on something like Blender and render it, you get the same thing. There's no need for light to see coming in a different direction than it actually is. So it works on both models. This one coming in from- Theros Rex says, how do you know I'm a heat? Gas flurfs are sexist. I think you misgendered them. Jason S. is Brian. Electronic digital levels use barcode readings on a rod. There are absolutely no towers involved. You are a complete fraud. Please stop. I said the millimeter accurate. Now he's bringing it back in, reeling it into close local measurement when he's talking about these millimeter accurate auto, you know, this guy's just got it out for me, I guess personally, but anybody, not just me, anybody can take and do increments at a time and measure level water, level as in straight, level as in flat. Anybody can do it. I'm not special. Been done over and over until players do planar surveying. Brian, didn't you say the towers were only used for the long distance ones? Yeah, in the millimeter accuracy. Yeah, for construction, that's the new method. There are, like he pretty much explained the total stations and the laser levels with the rods and we use them all. But as far as the millimeter accuracy, I mean, me, I depend on my own shot. Man, it doesn't get much better than that. That way I know if I'm gonna get paid or not, I know if I'm doing it right or wrong. I know because I'm the one who checked it. So that's how I do it personally. It's worked for over 30 years. If I can do one last one since this is a rare one for the globe side for you, Bacon, and I wanna let you go. I know you gotta go, but I do wanna give you a chance to answer this. They said, as, it says AZ grid uses a globe projection with wrong land shape and needs hyperbolic geometry in the sky, but not earth. Stop trying to make thanks, Walter, happen. Is that for you, Bacon, or is it for the, for? I'm not sure if you understood the question. It was the, basically, if I'm not mistaken, you know, they're talking about measurements that they're double checking and checking up against the globe model. So they're trying to use the model to prove the model, which is a very common fallacy. Juicy. We're gonna let Bacon- I can't respond to that. Go ahead. Right. So the, you can get our coordinates from a couple readings, as I demonstrated before. And if you try to do the same process with other stars at different direction, at different elevations, you get that consistent reading. That's what changes if you change the ship of the earth. You don't get the same, get inconsistency values that wouldn't be useful for navigation if that was the case. That's why I was showing that you can treat earth as a sphere and with very little assumptions, you can not just figure out where you are, but you can get directions like that. And that's it. Or the light curve, maybe the ground ain't curving, maybe the light, or our perspective is curving, okay? You can't say that you're proving the ground. And there are certainly some, that there might be some of the healthcare policies that would allow all that to work on the flat earth. But the fact is that hasn't been demonstrated yet. And what's used now and what has been used for the best interest is treat earth as a sphere. Not a lot of assumptions, more than that is required. It's because you said the model, don't mean it can't be modeled. The Swiss ephemeris works on a flat earth, perfect. But to be continued, right? I wanna give Bacon a chance to take off, thank you Bacon for being with us. It's been a true pleasure. We've got one last question for Nathan and Brian. So if you wanna take off, no problem. I'm gonna read that last question for them after you leave so that way you don't have to stick around longer than what your plans allow. And yeah, thank you Bacon. My pleasure. Thank you. Have a good night. Good meeting you. This one from Tim Pryor. Says Nathan, about 5% of the government's income goes to NASA. Seriously, research dude, they can barely pay for over 2,000 employees. Okay, so because it's only 5% that they're stealing from us that we shouldn't care about it? I mean, what are you talking about dude? The truth is the truth. It's incontrurable. I'm gonna side with the truth no matter what. Love rejoices in the truth, does not rejoice in iniquity. Brian, is this true? Yeah man, I mean that 5% is a lot of money. I think we all got the wrong jobs if they only have 2,000 employees for 60 million a year. But I'm just saying. 60 million a day. A day. I don't wanna put you on the spot, Brian. That was our last question that I had seen. I don't wanna put you on the spot, but I have to say anyone, before I get to this, Mothbether just asked the last question he said. The earlier Super Chat was saying there are huge flaws in that, I know I said the Azimuthal? Azimuthal. Azimuthal, gosh, Azimuthal. They said the earlier Super Chat was saying there are huge flaws in that Azimuthal grid model that Witsit keeps bringing up that they ignore for convenience's sake. They say it doesn't match the globe model. That's what I'm saying. They're checking it and referring it to the globe model and saying, hey, that doesn't work. And that's what's in contention here is the globe model, right? So that's our whole point. It matches the observations we make. Now this one coming in from, actually that was the last question I see. So. It does match the globe model though. That was the whole point. Let me, sorry, sorry about that. You're all right. In fact, it gives people an opportunity. This is honestly, when I say this folks, you're gonna be like, oh my gosh. I can't believe it. It's so true. Brian, I'm not putting you on the spot, but if you guys have seen the movie Dodge Ball, you know the guy who, the scene, he's on the good guy team. You could say, man, this movie is so old. I can't believe how old it is. But the point is this, in the movie Dodge Ball, oh hey, there is a question. Gordzilla37 says, no, this is the last Super Chat. Brian and Nathan won predictively, juicy. You guys have got fans out there. But I've got to tell you, Brian, I want to say this. If you guys out there have seen the movie Dodge Ball, do you guys know where I'm going with this in the live chat? I'm looking at the live chat. You know the guy that's on the team of, what's the main, and the main protagonist's name in the movie, I can't remember which actor that was. He's tall and he's funny. Okay. Now, not patches, but you know the guy that's on the team with patches, I can't remember his name in the movie, but he wears the goggles and there's this scene where he gets mad and he just decimates the entire team that he's opposing. Brian sounds just like him. If you go and you listen to Brian, like just listen to Brian in this debate and listen to, let me see, hold on. Do you have to believe me? I'm gonna watch it, I'll check it out, man. It's crazy how similar your voice is. Get angry. Okay, so there's this scene where he's like, you gotta get mad, you gotta get mean. And I'm just trying to, I'm looking up his name right now. Let me, I'm gonna pull up a clip of Dodge Ball. So you guys can hear this actor. If you guys have seen Dodge Ball, the guy with the goggles and he gets mad at one point, you guys have, you've never seen this. Tim Pryor says, laughing my ass off, another lie, that did not happen. Bob did it three times and kept proving their Earth's rotation. Again, your desperation is showing, Nathan. Einstein said no instrument here on Earth would be able to detect the Earth's rotation because of relativity. So either Bob debunked Einstein and you guys like love Flatterer scientists or what, I don't know. So did he debunk Einstein? Seriously, a Flatterer third debunked Einstein. All right, that's what you guys are saying, dude. I think Anthony B says the stapler guy. He does sound a little bit like him and I think that might actually be the same actor, but let me look this up. I'm telling you, you guys, seriously. It's, you're gonna, when you hear it, you're gonna be like, oh my gosh, like Brian, was that actually you in the movie? Vince Vaughn, so he's on Vince Vaughn's team. Thanks for that cherry in the live chat. Anyway, I'll let you guys go. Want to say thanks everybody for your questions. Thank you very much to all of our guests. Not only Nathan and Brian, we appreciate you guys but we also appreciate Bacon and Ruheef. We had to take off. All of our guests are linked in the description. If you are like, hmm, I liked what I was hearing. I want to hear more, including, like I said, Brian or Ruheef and Bacon who had to leave. Their links are in the description. What are you waiting for? That includes at the podcast. And if you haven't yet, I'm telling you folks, pull out your phone if you're not already on it. Pull up your favorite podcast app, find modern data bait and click follow. And if you're like, James, I've already followed you. Could you do us a favor and rate us? You appreciate that as zero ads on the podcast. So if you don't like ads on YouTube or maybe you don't like our intro music, hey, podcast has zero ads and zero intro music. So you can listen to it on the go. Super convenient. We want to say thanks very much to our guests. Nathan and Brian, it's been a true pleasure to have you guys. Always a pleasure, James. Thank you very much. Thanks, James. Love you, bro. Good job. I love the intro, man. I'd rather watch it just to hear the intro song. Gets me pumped up. I love it, man. I appreciate that. And thanks to Bacon and Ruhi Fad to leave, I'll be back in just a moment for a post-credits scene, letting you know about this upcoming conference. Folks, for real, this conference is gonna be huge. As I mentioned, at the bottom right of your screen, let me just pull this up. Currently it is showing, I know it's showing the podcast plug. However, now it's showing at the bottom right of your screen. DebateCon 3.1 is coming up on Saturday, April 22nd. That's only about four weeks. That's coming fast, folks. So the link to watch all the debates live for just a buck is in the description box. You can watch the debates afterward when they're not live for free. We put them on the YouTube channel either way. So, hey, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button. But the other thing is, hey, make a day of it. Make it a fun event where you can watch the conference from at home for just 25 cents per debate. There's four debates and it's just a buck. And that helps us cover the cost of the venue. That crowdfund link is in the description box. And last but not least, the link to the in-person tickets is also in the description box. If you're anywhere near Fort Worth, Texas, we wanna see you there in person, it'd be a blast. So, one last thanks to our guests. I'll be back to explain more about that upcoming conference. So stick around. Amazing, my dear friends. I wanna say we hope that you're doing well. Thanks for being with us. It's always a blast to have you here. We wanna say whether you be flat earth, globe earth, banana shaped earth, you name it. We're glad that you're with us. And wanna say thanks for all of your support folks. One thing we forgot to mention before I went to the post credit scene is, hey, hit that like button if you enjoy this debate. We really do appreciate that support. It's a little thing to you when you're like, ah, James, it's not a big deal. I'm not even gonna, you know, but it means a lot to us. It really does. Here's one reason, because a lot of people are like, well, why? I mean, does it make any difference? What it means to rank on YouTube. It means that if someone typed in flat earth debate, this debate will come up higher in the rankings if it has more likes. Now, the way it works is a new video will come up pretty early in the list. And depending on how many likes it gets, it'll come up early in the list when people are searching like flat earth debate. And then, depending on how many likes it gets, it'll move down the list because there are way bigger debates that have like millions of views on like ABC news or whatever. But it'll move down the list, but nonetheless, it'll, you could say, move down the list less far. In other words, it'll have a shorter trip down the list with more likes. So we do appreciate it. It actually does make a difference. I wanna say we appreciate that. And as I mentioned, you guys who've got all sorts of cool stuff that I gotta mention in particular, we are planning a huge celebration for you guys, thank you for your support. Seriously. I can't believe that we are only about 1500 subscribers away from 100,000. I never thought, I never even thought that would ever happen with this channel. It's always just, I think a lot of you guys know I'm working on my doctorate and I'm in my fifth year. So this is my last year. That's the plan. And I'm determined to make that the case. I started this in my first year of my doctorate and I love it. It was always just a hobby. And it's still just a fun hobby because I do still plan on being a professor in some way, shape or form. But you guys have supported us so much. Like I just wanna say thank you guys so much that I never thought it would ever get to 100,000 subscribers. But now probably by like April 10th or so, we're probably gonna hit 100,000. So we wanna say, my dear friends, thank you for your support. And wanna let you know if you're like, James, why are you concerned about growing? Are you one of those people that's like all about the numbers? You wanna seem like, you know, Mr. Cool and be like, oh, we have 100,000 subscribers. No, that's very cringe. The reason is this. We believe confidently and without hesitation that we provide a value to YouTube. In particular, the debates are the lifeblood of the channel. We give them all the credit. They make this, I should say, the debaters. We give them all the credit. They make this channel fun. But our goal in terms of modern day debate ourselves, we're a neutral channel and we are determined to provide a neutral channel so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. That's our vision and that's what we're determined to do. This is just the beginning of our story, my dear friends. We are under 100,000 subscribers. Join us while we are small. Join us while we are still just beginning our story because it really is just the beginning as we're determined to carry out that vision and to continually live out our values. Those values are these. One, you can already guess it. We want to be fair. We wanna give everybody their fair shot in making their case. But the second thing is, we believe in the value of freedom. That people can say what they want. Our debaters were free from their first breath and we wanna keep it that way by providing a neutral platform that gives them a chance to make their case no matter how controversial. No matter how, some people would say, silly. No matter how far-fetched or controversial and triggering it might be, we wanna give them their chance to have that freedom. The other thing is this. And this value leads to our third value. Because some people say, James, if you let controversial people have their seat at the table, that's not good. That's dangerous. They might share their controversial views and that might be bad because it might influence people in their direction. That's where we would say our third value of fierce competition comes in. In particular, we don't think there's anything wrong with some people say, oh, I don't like debates. It's about trying to persuade or prove your, you know, make your case and that's bad. And we can say, we don't think that's wrong. We don't think that's bad. In fact, we think it's a good thing and the reason is if there are ideas out there that are harmful, which I don't deny, there are. The good value in a debate and in particular, a competitive debate is that you have a natural selection of ideas. In other words, if you let the cream rise to the top, the best arguments went out. You have to let 1,000 flowers bloom. You have to let the chips fall where they may. And nonetheless, when you do that, the best arguments will come out on top. And I can tell you, some people say, James, I'm not sure about that. I don't know. I can tell you, as a guy getting his doctorate in psychology, the empirical research is in favor of this idea. Cause sometimes people say, James, I'm worried. You know, this controversial person, cause what I always say is I say, well, you know, did you think that the person with the dangerous ideas like had better arguments? Did you think they won? And they go, of course they didn't have better arguments. And they say, well, then why did you think that they won? Why are you so worried they're gonna win if they don't have the better arguments? And they go, well, they might be, you know, more persuasive, they might be, you know, more funny or charismatic or, you know, attractive. It might be those peripheral things that make them more persuasive and win people over to their side. And I would say, hey, the research has been done and it's been around for a long time. This is a very popular theory in psychology. And when I say theory, I don't use it in the parochial sense. I use it in the scientific sense. It has mountains of evidence for it. It's the theory called the elaboration likelihood model. And it says that the best arguments, namely the most logically, you could say logical evidence-based type of arguments are more persuasive than more peripheral route types of persuasion like the attractiveness of the speaker or their sense of humor. That's what the research says. And it is mountains of research that says that. So when people say, oh, James, the funny thing is I always say, well, okay, great. Well, what's your empirical kind of evidence for making this claim that, you know, platforming these controversial people is dangerous. And they go, oh, it's just common sense. And I'm like, well, my view is just common sense too. The difference is I also have empirical research backing up my common sense. But I want to say thanks very much for your support. Appreciate it, Tim Pryor. Thank you very much for your super chat says, so the other 95% of your money you don't care about. I think that was for, I can't remember if that was for Nathan or something that came up about, yeah. So sorry, Tim, you might be watching the debate just a little bit delayed because it's the live stream. So Nathan already left by the time that question came in. But I do appreciate it. This one came in from Malavia. Says, love you, James, see you again in a month. Thanks so much, brother. I appreciate that. And I am looking forward to seeing you and I am looking forward to this conference. It's gonna be amazing. We're really excited about that. So seriously, it means a lot. Thanks for your support. And thanks for upping your channel membership. I think if you look at the scroll at the bottom of the screen, Malavia, I've included your name in the ticker box. So thank you for your support. I just added that. I think it was this morning, for real. Tim Pryor says, your misunderstanding of what Einstein said is hilarious. I think that must have been for the Flat Earth team as Tim was coming at him earlier. And sorry, Tim, that they left at this time that the super chat came in. So wanna say though, I have been sharing with you why we are excited about the future of modern day debate, why we are thrilled. And by the way, have you guys ever seen Dodgeball? Because I brought that up and I'm kind of thinking like, oh my gosh, you guys maybe haven't heard of it because it's so old. It's not that old. Come on. But wanna say, I wanna say hello to you in the old live chat before I go because I've been talking about the vision and I'm excited about the vision. And I wanna say, this is kind of weird. Okay, now the video is up to date. So in particular, my dear friends, wanna say thanks for all of your support of modern day debate. We are excited about the future. We are constantly working on improving ourselves because we'll be the first to admit we have things we can work on. That's true. We wanna be coachable. We wanna teachable. We wanna be teachable. Wanna say thank you guys for being with us. I see you there in the old live chat. Is it Sherry or Cherry? Let me know. I think it's Sherry. Sherry, let me know. We hope you're doing well. Ref Rider, good to see you there in the live chat too. Dear old Davis, glad to have you here. Tremaine Douglas, I see you there in the live chat. Glad you're with us. DJ Batman, good to see you. Thanks for being a moderator. Thanks for that point about the Discord. We do, modern day debate does have a Discord. If you have not yet checked out our Discord, highly encourage you. Please do. As we're really excited about that, we hope everybody feels welcome there as well. I have pinned the Discord link to the top of the live chat. So if you wanna check that out, you certainly can. This one from Hey You, good to see you there in the live chat. Sam Pedro, glad to have you with us. As well as David Reif, glad to have you here. And One Nation Underground, good to see you. Kevin Howe, good to see you, Kevin. Spent a while. And, amazing. Flat Sabbath, good to see you there, Flat Sabbath. Appreciate you being with us. Can't believe this day flew by like so fast. I even woke up early, which is why I'm like, wait, how did this day go by so fast? I'm just gonna find my sleepy pills. Oh, let's see. I've been sleeping great lately. I'm like super pumped about that. So I wanna say, my dear friends, we're excited about the future. We appreciate all of your support. I wanna say hi to more of you in the old live chat, and I'm gonna do that in just a second after I take this little, heavy little sleepy pill. And a little bit of melatonin. It really hits the spot. Melavia says, thanks for updating the ticker for me, James. My pleasure, Melavia. Seriously, appreciate your support. And, hold on, I just have to take a swig. Oh, there it goes. Red Dirt Farm, good to see you there in the old live chat. And, beheaded kamikaze. Thanks for coming by. Ms. Sweet, am I saying it right? Glad to have you there. Says, thank you, Dr. James. You can't call me Dr. yet. But I will let you know when you can. It's gonna be this year. That's the plan. And I'm determined, because I've been in this program too long. Says, much love to you. Thanks for your kind words, Ms. Sweet. Says, much love to you and everyone in the chat. I'm going to go watch Dodgeball. Thanks so much. And you should, for real. You are going to totally, let me look this up right now. Dodgeball. Cast. This movie's not that old. You guys are like acting like I'm Gordon. Gordon in the movie, Dodgeball? That's totally Brian's voice. Like, if you guys like seriously. Gordon. Let me look this up. Dodgeball. His voice is like, you guys, it's uncanny that I'm just like, come on, you guys. It's just so, it's just funny. Like, while I was listening, I was like, oh my gosh. I've never heard a voice that was that similar. But let me just load this up. Anthony B, good to see you there in the live chat. Corey Clark, glad to see you. Jay, I see you there in the live chat. Thanks for dropping in. Hannah Anderson, good to have you with us. Bob, thanks for dropping in. But let's see. Jim West, thanks for coming by. He says, thanks James for being a great host and mod. Thanks for your kind words. Living Room Speakers says, tremendous jug of water. It is a tremendous, you're right about that. Did you know I use the word tremendous a lot? I do. I use, no joke, I use it a lot in my everyday and people will like think it's weird. But flat sabbath, thanks for your kind words, the salutes and good moderating. Thanks for your kind words, that means a lot. And let's see here. Hannah Anderson, good to see you there in the live chat. Thanks for being here, appreciate it. Hope you feel welcome. Hope you're doing well. And I want to let you guys go. I want to say thank you for all of your support. Thanks, Rethink, Inc. I see you there in the chat. Anthony B, thanks for being with us. Troll, good to have you. Tay Lad, am I saying it right? Hope that you are doing well. Thanks for being with us. Kevin DeChille, thanks for dropping in. Master Optics, good to see you, good to see ya. Ooh. You're right, Master Optics says that day the scan of a diploma has to be shown instead of James' live video. That's a good idea. That's kind of cool, I like that. So I want to say thanks for your support, though, folks. I love you guys. Thanks for all of your support. You guys are super helpful. I appreciate it. If you haven't already, that's the last thing I was going to say, is if you know of a friend or a group of friends online that like topics like this or debates like this, hey, click that share button and share this link with them and say, hey, this is a fun one. We appreciate that. You can share it to a Facebook page or a Facebook group or a Discord group or a Twitter thread with friends or even a text message or a Facebook message to someone. So I want to say thanks for your support. Appreciate you. You guys have a great rest of your night. I love you guys. You always make it fun and I look forward to seeing you at the next debate. I think we've got one on Tuesday. We got several coming up this week, though. So thanks, guys. Love you guys. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and we'll see you next time. Amazing.