 Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth versus Globe Earth and we are starting right now with the Flat Earth team's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us, Karen B. The floor is all yours. Hi, my name's Karen B. And I'm here to say that the earth is flat. Why do I think the earth is flat? Well, because I participated in two independent measurements, direct measurements of the earth for curvature and both times curvature was not measured once over the Lake Balaton in Hungary, which is the largest lake, landline lake over there in Europe. And also we did a measurement of earth's curvature in Denver, Colorado using survey equipment over land. And that also showed no trend for curvature in either direction. Also, I remember visibly seeing the Feralon Islands from San Francisco, the coast of San Francisco, and they're about 30 miles away from the coast of San Francisco. And they're not even more than 110 feet tall, so you shouldn't be able to see them all. They should be behind the curvature, yet you can see them on a clear day. And so that is why I think the earth is flat. What's it? Okay, yeah. So I always point out that really the main critique is everyone says, you guys think there's flat, where's your model, answer all these questions, what exactly is going on, blah, blah, blah. And I consider it to be a very dishonest way to go about this because there's a positive claim on the table that we were all taught and that it's that the earth's a ball of a certain size and very specific claims. So if you want to be honest and look into it, you need to just see if that claim is true before you, you know, get ahead of yourself and you're like, well, how would all this other stuff work? We need to figure out if that's true. And like Karen B said, I have similar experiences. I went around the whole U.S. doing the same thing. So we've done laser tests, we've done mirror flashes, we've done long distance observations. You know, we have some observations where you see mountains from hundreds of miles away. Globe position is that just an illusion. It's not really there, but it clearly is. We're sitting there, seeing what it is, where it is. So anyway, there's just no actual evidence when you look into it that the earth is a spinning ball. And so an honest position, now, what the critique will be is, oh, they're just detaching themselves from the burden of proof or they don't want to answer the questions or whatever. But again, an intellectually honest position is, well, if we're claiming this is exactly what the earth is, a spinning ball with a certain size, we need to figure out if that's true. That's the first step. Then we can go trying to figure it out, right? Flat's not a shape, it's a description of a surface. So long story short, there's tons of evidence that debunks what they claim. And we can see that the earth is provably and measurably a topographical plane. We're not allowed to freely explore the whole earth. So we don't have to know exactly what the earth is. We don't have to know what all is on the earth. That's kind of ridiculous. So in summary, we just need actual empirical verifiable evidence of this alleged curvature, this alleged spin and revolution and this alleged vacuum. None of that exists. And yeah, all evidence shows us that the earth is a stationary topographical plane, which means it's geocentric in the center of all things. And yeah, we're still waiting for this proof of this alleged curvature and spin. So that's kind of the problem. We falsify what they told us. It isn't true. We're waiting for empirical evidence void of begging the question policies. So there you go. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening from the Flat Earth team. And I want to say, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral channel hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from, whether you be Flat Earth, Globerth, Christian atheist, politically left, politically right, you name it. We're glad you're here. We hope you feel welcome. And hey, if you haven't seen it at the bottom right of your screen, King Crocoduck returns for an epic debate against David McQueen creationism on trial. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button as that debate is coming up this month and you don't want to miss it. So hit subscribe and with that, we're going to jump over to our Globerth team. Thanks for being with us as well. Amy and Taylor, the floor is all yours. Oh, you're on mute, Taylor. Should I go first, Amy? Sure. I'm good with either way. But if you're ready. Well, yeah, I mean, yeah. All right. I've got a little bit of a janky setup right now because my computer is not cooperating. But let me know if everything, if I need to adjust anything, and I'll jump right in. So the main things that I see from Flat Earth is a basic misunderstanding of simple physics, geometry and optics to the basic, the most important things, and which understood properly can explain and demonstrate the Earth's round shape. So there's a couple of ways beyond that that we can use. There is actually a live feed of the Earth from space. It's called the, well, the one I like, I'm sure there's others, but it's called the Hemowari-8 Weather Satellite. It's a live feed. You can see the entire globe. It's not a compilation of pictures. And so it can't be faked because you can check the live weather patterns. Flat Earth or Geronism proved that the Earth is curved when he did his famous experiment, where his friend went out on the lake and he had to lift the light to get over the curve. And speaking of seeing stuff behind curves, refraction can actually account for seeing further than the actual physical curve is. But refraction cannot account for that if the Earth is in flat. It can only refract on a circular planet or surface. And thankfully, I've got a white board behind me so I can explain that later if we get into that. But basically, since the atmosphere is curved, the light's going to hit the curved atmosphere that's different densities and it will refract around. On the flat Earth, it's all the same density in a straight line. So there's no, it's not hitting different densities and bouncing like refraction would require. So refraction only happens on a globe. You do actually need a model because this is a flat Earth debate. This is not globe on trial debate. And it's really funny that all attempts to put even globe people try to put the Earth on a flat surface and it doesn't work. Flat maps don't work accurately. So that's a problem. And let's see. So basically, how perspective works is we're taught on a flat surface like an art class that we can draw those straight lines and the horizon converges with that. When you draw on a flat Earth, it should work like that. On the real Earth, it falls below that line. So that's one thing. With the curvature, we can observe that over lakes like Lake Pontstrain. We can observe both the water and the causeway curving over the horizon and dropping lower than a linear perspective would. And again, refraction cannot cause this effect if the Earth is flat. Geometry, I wish I had my slideshow, but the fact that the stars spin in opposite directions on opposite sides of the globe is impossible on a flat Earth. In fact, flat is the only shape of the Earth that does not work with that. Because if we were on a flat Earth and the stars are spinning in opposite directions, then that means that the stars are getting farther and closer to each other and that's never been observed. In fact, we observe that they're all the same relative distance from each other. Basically, gravity, if you understand gravity, you understand why air and water hold to a curved surface and why the surface is in fact curved because everything falls in the same direction. Those are my main points other than the and I'll help out with it because last time we moved on before I could answer his question about the Cavendish experiment which demonstrates gravity. So the independent variable is the mass of the torsion bar and the dependent variable is the direction of movement. So mass accelerates towards mass. Gravity is a proven phenomenon. Those are my basic points. I'd really like to stick to the gravity thing and go ahead Amy. Thank you so very much. Hello everyone. My name is Amy Newman. I create skeptic content along with my co-host James W at youtube.com slash Amy Newman as I am a comedian counter-apologist and multimedia enthusiast with degrees in graphic design, game development, film and motion graphics with a specialization in visual effects, education and information technology which is what makes topics like the flat verse globe so much fun because there are videos hell life feeds from the international space station 24 7365 of the earth being round from space but when it comes to a flat earth all we get are cartoon representations of something like a dome or as they sometimes call it affirmament from biblical cosmology but more on that later. Let's first talk about why the world is round because we've known this for thousands of years. Ancient Greeks like Eratosthenes along with his counterparts would record shadows from cities hundreds of miles apart. He began to notice that directly overhead at noon there was no shadow in cyan but a very long shadow at Alexandria something only possible on around earth though would become useful thousands of years later as time zones allow us to figure out what part of our day night cycle we're on. Pilots take advantage of the round earth by bypassing the side instead of going over the top they could just save some money look at that wow right over the top. Another touchy subject for conspiracy theorists I know but again more on that later in fact circumnavigating the earth by heading in the same direction is another way that we know the earth is round because on a fine on a flat plane of any finite length you will eventually find an edge. All of the water would end up falling off of said edge like you would expect trying to drink from a dinner plate or a disc yet this seems to never happen in fact it appears we live on a giant massive ball like the vast majority of giant celestial objects sun round moon round literally every other planet round round and around we go yet a flat earth or we'll try to sell you that the earth is flat while none of these physical laws of nature matter and why well because we're God's special creation oh which is the seedling or possibly the root of the problem here tonight though don't take my word for it ask your local flirt quote you can't really be a flat earther and an atheist end quote with sit gets it though if religion is the seed and the flat earth is the fruit of this rotten tree then conspiracy theory would be the stem you see this kind of mindset that we're dealing with is conspiracy theories the types that have not met a conspiracy that they don't love but i wish i was being hyperbolic flat earth sure but anti-vax 7-11 was a part-time job the ether is real gravity isn't real space isn't real the atomic theory isn't real whoa with these people are trying to sell you is science isn't real because the entire process of science is removing human bias from the question if someone asked well did you take that test for yourself you might be talking with someone who rejects science though it will be something we asked of flat earthers since they are not in the scientific consensus thus the burden of proof will be on them to come up with their own model instead of acting within mainstream science and saying whoa mainstream triggers me are you going to accept what the media has told you don't you know they're only trying to make money well sure 24 7 cable news is horrible the peer review system by which people formulate a hypothesis go out into the field for research collect data then submit their results yeah that's still can fantastic in fact it's the only way we can separate fact from fiction so all we have left to really deal with is the root of the problem while I could say religion what I mean is superstition you see liberal conservative atheist theist we can all be prone to believing bush sometimes that comes from a fundamentalist view of a holy text other times it's crystals vibrations and magnets the key here it's not a science debate because science is about testable working theories this is about theories versus conspiracy theories or rather what tools we use in our epistemological toolkit thank you thank you very much for that opening from snake and amy aka snake slash taylor synonymous but want to say folks thanks for being with us at the app and have a question you can at me in the live chat as well as if you do a super chat we put those questions at the top of the list we'll have q and a after the open discussion thanks very much for being with us wits it gets it karen b amy and taylor the floor is all yours for open dialogue so guys since my uh understanding of gravity proves that the earth is round um how about you educate me on what i'm getting wrong about gravity and why do things fall towards the ground and not sideways okay right after we address your guys is monologue though so why do you dodge the question i want to address the intro okay so you claimed himawari proves that the earth's a ball and that it shows us live time footage of live time weather patterns and so therefore it couldn't be fixed that's patently false though i mean it takes a minimal of 10 minutes delay admittedly before they even give you any type of image and secondly you claim that star trails in the south debunk it and then you said that's impossible it's only possible it's possible in every shape except for flat which in my intro of the three things i said i helped you out and said flat's not a shape bro so when you guys say flat's a shape it sounds really ridiculous it's a description of a surface you can have a flat square circle triangle you name it okay then you brought up cavities we'll talk about that since that's what you want to talk about and then amy said you'd find fall off the edge you can't go past 60 south latitude so there's actual no proof of any of the stuff that you guys are saying there's a bunch of sophistry so i just wanted to address your intro all right go ahead what's your what's your question you're asking me to explain gravity yeah and then after you asked that question i want to know why you wouldn't fall off an edge because that's not right so i want to know why you think otherwise yeah so amy would you like a 60 a south latitude it's illegal to go past there can you fall off the edge of a lake no it's the law that's keeping him from finding out the truth they can't send drones up past a certain feat because that would really hurt their feelings they can't figure out how to do a drone themselves they can't figure out how to get through Antarctica themselves even though people go to Antarctica and have won world records okay so you can't freely and privately explore past a 60 south latitude you can only go where you're on in a private approved guided tour you asked if we could fall off the edge can't fall off the edge of a lake so that's a good approval and there's something oh there's a approval you know what yeah but what if they don't why haven't you gotten approval because i know you can travel there you can buy a ticket only where they let you go yeah you kind of are comprehending you could do the same thing how about you go get approval and go do that trans content that trans polar trip and prove that the earth is a globe i mean you guys could do the same thing so that is like a really ridiculous argument there because you can it's easy to prove the earth is not a globe without going anywhere from the first place without risking your life but if you think what would you know if you guys claim the earth is a globe that's a positive claim go prove it go go from one pole to the other so first of all it sounds like austin said wood is not falling off the edge because i didn't go there so him not going there is physically keeping water falling off no you guys interrupted me oh okay well let me finish the point finish your strawman fallacy okay moving over to karen and is that the reason why we don't have to do the test is because we're defending the scientific consensus you are going against the scientific consensus you're trying to present your own model and if you're just saying i'm asking questions scientists don't care your views aren't going to be taught in science textbooks okay so for one science is antithetical to consensus you seem to not comprehend that it has nothing to do with what other people think secondly i was explaining that you for one can't go past the sixtieth south latitude privately and freely and then people have actually been intercepted trying to do so thirdly you actually don't fall off the edge of a lake so there's something containing it an article is known to have the highest elevation in the world fourthly veneziaan to seem to gas pressure is a physical container therefore there could be something literally coming down and keeping that gas pressure here therefore you wouldn't be able to go past it or through it much less fall off of it it's a baseless assertion where in which you want to escape past the fact that you have no idea what's past there either how interesting contain it what is containing it uh we don't have to make a claim as to what it is it's a necessary antecedent is currently falling off the edge we don't we you haven't been to that don't there's uh oh i shouldn't say the d word somebody said there was an edge no one second it's a flat so it's an infinite plane right it doesn't have an edge it's an infinite we're we're claiming that there's a if there's a container it would touch down on the earth can you fall off of it say that again if there was a container containing the gas pressure and it touched down the earth could you fall off the earth can you prove there's a container i just now explain to you my man it's illegal to privately traverse past the 60th south latitude you must not be listening yeah you can explore anywhere on earth you cannot privately and freely explore past the 60th south latitude who's gonna stop you uh different military organizations dude are you literally this is why you are the best recruiters for flat earth ever just in case you were wondering because you guys don't have to lie this is why you're trying and you have to interrupt me no you're just loud earn those so yeah there's no all right there's three people speaking at once so quiet just so we can hear what it doesn't make sense it cancels out the purpose of having the panel of the people speaking over each other because then they can't hear anybody so just want to be sure uh let's see karen we haven't heard a lot from you so if you have something to say we'll kick it over to karen otherwise we'll kick it over to taylor okay well first of all i've talked to a man firsthand that i know personally who worked for nasa and when he worked for nasa he actually spent time working at both poles he worked at the north pole and at the south pole the quote unquote south pole and he also believes that the earth is flat knows that the earth is flat because he didn't see the sun's disc the whole time he was there i mean there's and and the whole time he was there was on a military base of course you have to be military to go to go to Antarctica there is no roaming around down there and not to mention the fact that it is an extremely more harsh environment than the north pole it's not it's not equal like in the north when at summertime in the north you can go to the north and you can watch the sun go around and it's actually kind of pleasant there but it's not the same in Antarctica it's it's it's much more colder and there's no flora and fauna there all is like penguins on the shore and that's it it's different it's completely different so why isn't it the same if the earth is a globe like the way it should way it's described it doesn't even make sense what have you got taylor um you could go around the military bases in a very short circle instead of around it the entire globe in a big circle so you can actually figure out the direction you could just go around the military bases and it will be an enclosed circle not the outside of a flat desk or whatever have you done that any flat object have you done that have you you can do this privately they won't stop you you can't go past yes you cannot can you listen to what i just said go around that latitude and look at the military bases wouldn't get anywhere near the military bases will be at 60 degrees you can't even see the shoreline of Antarctica dude and also notice what they say it's a conspiracy you can go around it could go but they're stopping you it's the government what do you watch the news amy it's not a conspiracy it's called the Antarctic Treaty which has tons of subsequent legislation that is easily accessible you can go read it it's illegal to privately and freely explore past the 60th south latitude that's objective you guys are saying no because you can't because how come and how come the Antarctic Treaty bans military activity on Antarctica how was that relevant silence okay i was relevant to military military activity what type of military activity i mean they still have bases down there they are military run name one so McMurdo what's up now what's up now is that what you said ironically you're the one that just got silenced i answered your question so it's a non sequitur that do people have tried to go and been intercepted there are scientists on Antarctica now people have run for Guinness world records in Antarctica have been recorded have been filmed somehow that's sometimes a uh not good enough for flat earthers non sequitur film non sequitur as you can't go there i know a guy who filmed that went there they filmed it we said you can't privately get that guy to publish a paper so other people believe it and he's not a conspiracy theorist you said you can't privately and freely go there so that's called a strawman fallacy if you can just name someone that went on an approved guided tour that's a non sequitur strawman fallacy you'll get there though you can go there what you're trying to say is i don't want to go there because then that would disprove the thing that really gets me in my feelings no if you attempt to get approved for circle navigation across the center of the uh Antarctic continent on the bottom of a ball it will not be approved they say it's too dangerous of a journey to even attempt and they will not approve it because they don't say they think they can't rescue you so you're just making stuff up so they'll arrest you if you do it yes people have been intercepted trying to go past the 60th south latitude multiple times there you go gentlemen you can't go to Antarctica you can't go there for any reason at all whether you're a scientist or trying to transverse it doesn't matter that scientists are there right now that we have strong record transversing it remember you can't go there except for strong and fallacy again it's a straw man except for it's your exact position which makes it a steel man it's not in my exact position we don't claim no one can go there we claim that you have to be approved and you can only go where they let you go you have to go under their conditions it's in private citizens been there only when approved on where exactly they're going to go and they're not allowed to go anywhere except for where's approved there you go ladies and gentlemen but they've been approved to go there only a military base but it's the government to go where they let you go and they do not approve circle navigation all the way over Antarctica they claim it's too dangerous but you can go into Antarctica so I can go any that doesn't mean I'm approving the Ursa ball and it's an ice cap on the bottom I'd have to go over and come back up on the other side of the ball wouldn't I tailor and McMurdo is not a military base by the way it's a research facility okay are you going to just yeah so you're gonna escape past the point no I was wrong it doesn't matter I already told you that I know a man who went to Antarctica and it doesn't prove that the earth is a ball either way so I know a guy who went to the moon he worked for NASA to hear one person at a time he literally worked for NASA I know a guy who went to the moon this is non-secular a guy that worked for NASA that was stationed in Antarctica says that you do not in any way are able to prove the Ursa ball by being there and that you don't see the 24-hour son he works for NASA and was stationed in an article for NASA and he's a flat earth or so it's not just the same as saying I know a guy so he has published a paper on my house it gets peer reviewed what was he doing there can I ask what was he doing research on what's it you got a name he was actually doing uh I can't remember I did an interview with him a while ago but it was something to do actually with satellites oh oh fantastic and weather it was weather and satellite related it was weather related on that note ever on that note Amy would you like to explain why you can't fake the footage from the Himawari weather satellite because you would have to be generating that in real time at all times it's not real time it's a 10 minute delay time yeah how fast can you photoshop accurate weather patterns now you're asking us so first it was photo time first photo realistically you guys have been exposed for claiming it's real time and you're objectively wrong and now you're saying oh 10 minutes isn't fast enough when you have algorithms of computers and artificial intelligence that can success every cloud so somehow this technology exists that can record every clouds movement and then put it photo realistically into a picture every 10 minutes did you check every cloud of every picture to make sure it was actually correct and true to weather patterns and can you show me that I didn't but you so so the claim is the scientists you can debunk it let's you the the claim is the scientists are generating visual effects for you people once again it's a massive conspiracy they're generating visual effects you're just appealing to a motion based on I'm sorry what was your model what was your model you're just appealing to a motion you're so the floor is yours for your model I'm ready what Taylor said your class is yours you guys are freaking out but this is great recruitment for Flatter so you guys claimed that it was live time and it's objectively not right so we have weather patterns no we said there's a delay what with weather balloons right so we we do keep a documentation of the weather very frequently and yeah you would just feed this information to an artificial intelligence algorithm that would give you a picture they're not even always accurate and you can actually go look and see that it is not a singular picture when you look at the actual extrapolation of the data now whenever can be asked you okay have you done this doesn't mean anything you made the bold claim that you can prove it by looking at weather patterns and then she said have you done it and you said no you should do it so you're gonna just do it because because you're the one claiming that it's fake so you show me any any instances of fake on this but you just claim with no evidence that this is amazing technology exists and that it is in fact being used to fake you're claiming it's real evidence so the positive claim is that it's real right we're saying that's okay sufficient evidence or proof of anything because you could easily fake an image and then send it to people that doesn't prove the earth not easily so that's a call to storm and fallacy failure no you would need i'm glad you said that though because you would need a technology that has not been shown to exist in order to do this and i'm wondering what is your standard of evidence for a picture or video is it that you don't like this so you just claim it's fiji and but so like what picture or video would you accept do you just automatically reject all pictures and all video because it might claim that comes from the government claiming that they want to outer space and we can't personally verify and it's not legitimately testable we don't blindly give our entire worldview like mental midgets and say okay well we're gonna blindly believe this because the government made a claim so that's our actual stance i try again but you do believe a video you do believe video and picture when it's shown to you in other circumstances though don't you if it's independently verify i want to point out that he said ladies and gentlemen remember the government is generating an algorithm it is a massive conspiracy that they are trying to fool you that the earth is round now he doesn't want to say the end of that sentence he just wants to say the beginning but ladies and gentlemen they're lying to you the governments are working together creating wars you're just making stuff up now so yeah we know that governments lie right like they admittedly lie within the intrinsic description of what a government is they automatically compartmentalize and keep things classified that's what a government is admittedly our government has started wars ironically like gulf of tonkin's declassified a false flag attack our government did themselves so we're not claiming we know that not everything the government's saying is a lie we're not claiming millions of people are in on it that's a straw man what we're claiming is we don't blindly believe stories and propaganda that comes from the government when they are notoriously known to be dishonest and mislead us we need something that's independently verifiable right so i don't trust the government either i don't trust the government either at all so i'm with you there except we have this whole scientific community that isn't the government that's independently verifying what uh nasa says really can you give me some specific examples it's illegal to privately go out there and do this so what are these magical scientists you're talking about literally all physicists literally all physicists all physicists went to space is that it is a round earth in which we have went to the mood do you believe there are actually i know tons of physicists that don't think the moonlighting was real you guys are just making stuff well i'm waiting for them to hear do you think the earth is flat i just talked to the astrophysicist the other day who thinks there may be an ether and that relativity is wrong and the earth could be geocentric i just talked to another physicist the other day who knows the earth is flat so you guys are making once again how many people you talk to at the end of the bar does not matter you need them to publish papers you're the one that appealed to the idea of physicists try to keep up amy so you guys want to move on consensus not guys at the bar do you understand i can't scientific consensus be talked to you oh my god why do i talk to a guy who believes the thing is good enough evidence for you but scientific consensus is not that's another straw man fallacy i didn't claim that because this physicist thinks the earth is flat that means it proves it what i said was you claimed all physicists proven verify nasa's claims now this is patently absurd and false on its face for one it's illegal to go to space we're talking about these claims of them going to space and turning around and taking a picture of the earth okay no physicists ever verified any of that you made that up and then you appeal to all because your guys are just appealing to a motion you're appealing to the idea of science right it's the most fallacious idea ever and i'm pointing out that actually not all physicists agree on really pretty much anything so can we get to the actual evidence maybe at some point are we just going to keep a pill into a motion my favorite right there might be there might be like one or two physicists on the globe who believe that you don't know if you're actually a true that knows what all physicists think man you sound ridiculous do most physicists agree with you what do you what do you think that percentage is i don't it doesn't matter to me that is claim to have talked to 99%?" 99.9999%?" we don't appeal to authority yeah your the PCR majority if 99% of people think slavery is real and I mean moral does that make it good what a stupid argument it's an appeal to personal T is your factuation with the bible so you guys are just all over the place just imploding right now can I actually ask you is the main reason why you are a flat earth or scientific or religious. It's scientific, even though measurements action not science question, but yeah, scientific, uh, qualification of the globe Earth claims it has nothing to do with religion. No, literally nothing. Nothing, even though that you say flat earth, there cannot be an atheist. Yeah, that doesn't mean you don't understand it. So no, tie those that tie that square that circle. I will I will pull that pencil out and take notes or something. So if the earth is stationary, okay, write it down. If the earth is stationary, and that would mean it's geocentric. And if it's geocentric, it's the center of all things that are perceived, meaning there is no logical postulation that could explain that without it being placed there. I've got one simulation theory. If you convince me of the simulation, if you convince me who created the programming of the simulation. Yeah. If you convince me that the earth was flat, I wouldn't go to automatically to God. So why don't you teach me how this gravity thing works? Because that's why I'm convinced that there is a globe. Really? Because what's gravity? Yeah, what's gravity? But he also said an acceleration of mass towards mass. He said it was put there, but he didn't say creator like he does half sentences like it had to be put there by. Oh, that's the point. So the religion would come in when you personify or make specific claims about what the creator is or whatever. But the necessary into seeing to design is intelligent design. So it just means that it's placed there atheism would no longer be viable. You don't have to personify it or come up with a religion. And that's not why people think the earth's flat. It's once you prove that the earth is flat. And not what they said it is. And it's just an antecedent for a geocentric stationary earth. So I don't want to just not let Karen B talk though. I mean, Karen B would destroy you guys. You guys are just she's a little too polite for you guys, I think. That's what I thought. Do you have anything to say about how our understanding of gravity is all wrong? I'm here to learn. Yeah, yeah. So go ahead. I mean, well, first of all, you keep talking about mass attracting mass. So what about Einstein? Einstein is supposed to be the prevailing gravitational theory and that has nothing to do with mass attracting masses like bendy space time. So how do you how do you reconcile that? The difference between Einstein and Tony and gravity? Under his theory, mass warps space time, which causes mass to accelerate towards mass. It's not attraction, right? So like, yeah, I said acceleration. Well, at first, you said you didn't actually. So but either way, either way. So the question is, did you not do it? Did you just say it has already been demonstrated to have tons of problems and it doesn't it's actually provably right now at the best in the best case scenario in complete within your own paradigm? You didn't know that. So you think that I said it attracts response? No response. It doesn't matter. It doesn't not doesn't matter. When you say, do you think that I said it or accelerates? So you're when you say well, you said that the independent variable was mass, right? But so actually the cabinet, yeah, actually in the independent variable according to relativity would be the bending and warping of space time. So the so it wouldn't be the mass itself. It would actually be the effect of the bending and warping of space time. So that would be your independent variable. So when you said according to that model mass, let's this is just very dishonest because what works space time well in your paradigm that is under that model in your in that model in your paradigm, the mass displaces the bending and warping. Thank you, right? But that's not the point you let's move on variable which is supposed to be the cause. The cause is the bending and warping of space time. You need to manipulate space time and just reifying it by saying oh, I changed the mass doesn't actually verify that causal agent which has been debunked in your own paradigm. How do you warp something that has no properties? No, because mass has no properties. Space has property. How do you what are the properties of space? So space and time are dimensions tied together wherever you have a time wherever you are in time, you have a space. So it is a single landmark that we call space time. Non-sequitur. So she's asking how does space have physical properties? That's what she asked. Once again, dimensionality is a property. That's a mathematical description. That's not a physical property. Try again. I don't consider that a property. It's a description of a physical property. No, it's not. It's a description of an amount of area of volume. It's a different Cartesian coordinate system of area or volume that isn't a physical property. It is. No. It is a property. It is a thing. It's not a thing. It is a property. They claim it's nothing. They claim it's emptiness. So space does not have dimensions? Dimensions is just an arbitrary description mathematically to describe a sort of Cartesian coordinates that are applied to something but your religion or I mean heliocentrism claims that space is emptiness or nothingness. It's a description of something that has that space time has, right? No, you can just mathematically describe it with the Cartesian coordinate system. Space is considered nothingness or emptiness. It's not considered nothingness. So it's considered emptiness. Space, space, empty of matter, right? So space has dimensions. Well, you could describe it. Therefore it is a property of space. That's how English works. Sorry to burst your bubble. You don't understand dimensions aren't physical properties. You have to have something physical in which you're applying the dimensions to. So you'll get there. Dimensions are physics and it is physical. Yeah. Dimensions are physics. Dimensions are not math but dimensions is physics. Math. Dimensions are math. I also want to know both which is physics. Math isn't physics. No, it's not. And I wasn't commenting on your math comment. I'm saying it's not math. So that's probably what you're thinking of as physical. It's not math. It's not math. But it is. But there are non-mass things in physics that are physical. Okay, can you define physical? Anything that has to do with physics. Anything that, okay, so the definition of physical in your own paradigm is energy or mass. And space. Is which one? I said and space. No, no, no. Energy and mass. So which one is it that space falls under the category of energy or mass? Neither. Okay, so it's not physical even within your own paradigm definition. So we can move on. All right. Physical universe is anything that we are able to interact with. That's why we don't seem to get any experiments from the flatter side. In fact, both of them said that they went out. They did the experiments themselves. However, as far as I can tell, neither of them published papers. And so there is nothing to be added to the scientific community. And if long as they put, you know, how they got the results, their methodology, other people can then do the same thing. There is a paper published actually a very long paper. It's over a hundred pages long PDF that is that has been published by the group of people that I did the measurements with. I didn't call them experiments. They were actually direct measurements of the Earth's surface to try to measure the Earth for curvature because they do give us a given size of the Earth, which is the radius of 39.59, which then from that you can go do basic geometry and extrapolate the numbers. And then you should know how much curvature you should see from one point to another. And every time we did measurements, we did not measure any curvature at all. And what journal was this published in, if I asked? It wasn't published in a journal because you're not going to publish a scientific mainstream scientific journal, something that debunks everything that they try to push. Yeah, so we did publish it ourselves but we did publish it ourselves and it is available for public viewing and I can give it to you right now. Engineers, yeah, so by a group of engineers and it's in-depth documentation of all the tools, all the methodologies, all the data, all the refractive conditions. Seven different measurements. Yes, seven different measurements. Apparently the rest of the scientists don't think it was good methodology. Oh, have you seen it? You can also find this published. You need to do that. www.thisisdefinitelyscience.blogspot.com So all you guys are doing is just like, because you guys have no substantive value to your argument, so you're just appealing to consensus. You're like, oh well, the mainstream didn't peer review it and say it was true, so therefore it's not. But ironically, what you just claimed is true, right, which is relativity, I can cite since you like to appeal to consensus so much and whatever a scientist says is true, which is stupid because they all disagree, I can tell you at least 500 different people that say that theory of relativity is not viable, must be replaced, and is in no way complete or compatible, for example, with quantum or the cosmological scale. And you just said you know you proved it with Cavendish. So you have a contradictory worldview. You're just trying to gaslight us. That's all you're doing. You're gaslighting us for the audience to pretend that somehow since you have the majority of people on your side, that that means you're right. So how am I supposed to tell the difference between you actually being right and all of us being wrong, and all the experts being wrong, and you just teaming up with some people and saying, I know a guy who said it wasn't round. How am I supposed to tell the difference? Do you know what strawman fallacies are? Because it's like the most dishonest fallacy that one can use in a debate, where no one made any of those claims that you're saying. We didn't say that some guy told us and therefore one guy told us so the earth is flat. No, we said you can go out and physically prove the empirical, replicable demonstrations, measurements, and experiments that falsify the claim of the globe earth model. That's what we're actually saying. So everything you're saying is a non sequitur, bro. You're just making up strawman fallacies. It's lame. No, how am I supposed to know the difference? Because I know of several ways to measure the curvature. Name one. And you just call them CGI. Name one. Pictures looking at lakes that curve with your eyes. Pictures of lakes that curve. Looking at the stars, which can't spin in opposite directions unless you're on literally anything but a flat surface. None of those things measure the earth. They do. Hey, can I share the screen? All you can do with the lights in the sky is observe them that you can't use them as a form of measurement because there's no frame of reference. You can observe that and those aren't spinning in different directions, you're just slightly warping it. Okay, so that would give you the optical illusion of things moving in different directions based on the containment actually. So what's up? What's your answer? No, it doesn't. Why not? Because that's not an optical illusion of things spinning in opposite directions. We're literally looking at it, though. And that's an interesting thing. It says glass dome. That makes it almost seem like this dome is made of glass. Wouldn't that be interesting if you just go up to the dome and try and crack it, get right through it? Why are you changing the subject, buddy? And this is on top of the dome. My lady, right up there. You're changing the subject. So, Taylor, you just said you have any substantive specificity of any value or? Because it's not spinning in opposite directions. Maybe it's a frame for me, but it's not. And this is not observed. And this is taken from above the dome. So, this is not a model. You would be perceiving the stars through the dome. More cards. Under it. There's also a magnetic building that's parallel to things of stars themselves. Actually, two sets of stars within a magnetic field that can be depicted. You would get the exact same thing. Also, magnetic calligraphy. Also, magnetic. Your speculation. I just I love your saying. You said it was impossible. I'm showing you that's not true. There are many possibilities as I then lay out the possibilities, which refute your claim that it's impossible. You now say it's speculation because we can't physically go to these locations and verify things. So, that's a non sequitur. Your claim that it's impossible has been disproven. You're not showing me stars under a dome. You're not showing me anything like that. Does this show that a container that some type of physical container can alter the stars and make them look like they're going in opposite directions? Yes or no? Not like the Earth and it doesn't look like it to me. Okay. Well, we'll let the audience decide that if you just say no, doesn't mean anything. Everyone can see I'm going in two different directions. No, it looks like it's just going in one direction to me. Okay. Well, I'm sorry that you can't see. Pretty bad frame rate. Can I ask, do you guys believe in the atmosphere? Yeah, we believe in the atmosphere. What is holding the atmosphere down if not for gravity? There's a physical containment. We don't see gravity hold gas down. It goes in all directions. A physical can tape it once again, like a glass dome? So, we don't have to claim glass or anything yet something containing it. We can pick something out of that key. You guys got nothing. So, if gravity is holding the gas down, why does it go in all directions? Why does it have density gradient? What do you mean why does it go in all directions? Because it's fluid. Why does it have a density gradient? Why does it why is there a gradient? That's your question. We have an electric gradient on the earth and we have the most gas being introduced at the surface level and the only way that you can have a pressure gradient is to have the pressure in the first place which requires a containment. So, that was easy. Does not require a containment and only requires acceleration. Acceleration. What? What does acceleration have to do with the pressure gradient? Because if something, if the air is accelerating toward the ground, then it's going to accumulate toward the ground. It's not, though. It goes in all directions including directly up away from the ground. So, if something's going up away from the ground, is it accelerating towards the ground? Most of it is accelerating towards the ground. That's a non sequitur. The point is that the gas goes in all directions. It's actually a direct answer to what you said. No, you said that it's all going down. Yeah, most of it is going down. Is it most of it might move a little bit? So, what? That's how fluids work. So, it's like water. It has to be contained. Taylor, you don't know that. It doesn't need a solid container. It needs physical containment. Gravity, gravity, which is physical, but not solid, will contain air and water. But it doesn't at the surface where it's the strongest. It goes in all directions. It does. It goes in all directions. So? It's also there's an electric gradient on the earth. So, we can prove that there's an electrostatic field, an electric gradient on the earth. Which electrostatics on the smallest scale is 10 to the 39th power stronger than gravity even claims to be. We can actually prove that's there. So, can you actually prove that this magical bending and warping of space time is there without just begging the question and saying, look, I moved mass around. Can you prove it? It doesn't matter. We observe the phenomena that all matter accelerates towards matter. It doesn't matter how it happens. Oh, really? So, we don't have to know. Yeah. All matter accelerates towards other matter. Including air. And you can demonstrate this. You can fill up any container with air and weigh it against something else. It's going to be heavier when it has air in it. Okay. Because air is mass. It creates pressure. Pressure is not weight. Well, really? Well, what's pressure over area of a scale? What is that? What's pressure over a certain area of a scale? It's not weight. It literally is. You have a certain amount of downward pressure over a certain area that's called weight. Yeah. What did you just say? Downward pressure? What causes that direction downward? Why not sideways? So, you admitted you can't prove your claim. So, I'll help you out. So, there's an electric gradient. Everything's intrinsically electrostatic, right? So, all molecular and You can't prove that? All molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature. There's not one piece of matter in all existence that is an electrostatic. That's a citation from Purdue University. What do you mean I can't prove it? Literally, everything that exists. Because so, if I drop this, it's going to fall at a certain speed. If I put it next to something, it's not going to fall towards that. Because it's not attracted electrostatically. Okay. That's right. That's a non sequitur. If you were to turn... Oh, it proves you're wrong. No, it doesn't. If you were... Yes, it does. Wait, are you saying the marker isn't electrostatic? Not enough to move it. Oh, not enough to move it. So, it had to be stronger, but it's still there. Thank you for playing. So, if we increase the electrostatics to the other marker, we could draw it in and we can prove electrostatics does this because we can use a vandagraph generator and make things float manipulating electrostatics. Can you give me an anti gravity machine? Can you show me where you manipulate the bending and warping of space times and make things float? If you can make something float and turn off its gravity, it will just keep going. And then answer the question. It reaches a certain point where you it reaches a certain point where you push it away and then it falls back down. Can you answer the question? So, in science, we have an independent variable, right? So, we have a naturally occurring observable phenomena that things go down, downward acceleration. Now, not all things go down, things go up also. The question is why does it go up and down and not side to side? Well, we have an intrinsic bias and electric gradient going up 100 volts per meter on the earth, right? So, we have a positive above negative surface charge on the surface and everything's electrostatic. We see it happen with electrostatic levitation with bumblebees and with spider ballooning and with beetles. They use their electrostatic nature to levitate, right? So, then we're going to test our hypothesis. Does electrostatics have something to do with why things go down? So, what we're going to do is manipulate the electrostatics to see if it's the cause of the effect. When we do that, we can make things float. So, we've proven that electrostatics is at play and does affect the direction that things go. Now, you're claiming there's something else there called the bending and warping of space-time. Can you manipulate the bending and warping of space-time, please, improve that it's a cause or is it just me that has all the scientific evidence and you just have a religion? You have zero scientific evidence. So, the- Also, before you go on, Taylor, I just want to point out he used religion in a negative way. Austin, I agree, we should continue saying religion is bad. People should not believe in religions. And now, right back over to you, Taylor. I don't like religion. There we go. We agree. Yes, man-made doctor built the point. You're arguing in favor of religion. So, you can't- It's a conspiracy theory, though. You pretended like electrostatic forces can debunk gravity, and yet there's still a force of gravity pulling it down. So, yeah, you can use a magnet to make something float, but it only floats so far. You're accelerating something in this direction. Here we go with the white board. Yeah, that's all I got, unfortunately. You can't even respond to the point, though. There's something moving it in that direction, though. We just explained it. Yeah, there's electrostatic acceleration. All objects that go down are electrostatic. Whether you drop rubber or glass or wood, you name it. It's all electrostatic. The surface of the earth is electrostatic. The air is electrostatic. We can replicate this with a van de Grapp generator and make things float. You lose. And you can't make it. You can't replicate the effects of gravity. What am I talking about? But you can with mass. So I can use things of differing electrostatic strength and get the same effect of gravity using the Cavendish experiment. Cavendish uses mass. That's electrostatic. But it doesn't even matter, because even if I granted you all this electrostatic woo-woo, it would still mean that you can hold an atmosphere to the surface of a round planet. It would still make a round thing. Nothing could stay flat. If there is indeed electrostatic, it doesn't matter. It's an attractive force of some kind. Even if there's a big pressure differential, what about the pressure differential between quote unquote space and earth? If there's some electrostatic attraction. If there's electrostatic attraction of air to the earth, then, yeah, it can hold it to the earth. Do you know what space is supposedly supposed to be? What are you looking for? Do you know that they say that space is 10 to the negative 17 tour? Do you know that they say that it's like 76 quintillion times less atmosphere than on earth? Like nothing? So that's a huge space right to be filled up without a container stopping that. Right, and what's stopping that is something that's pulling the air down. Yeah, yeah, that's what you're claiming, but gas goes in all directions and the only thing that happens. You claimed it too. Well, no, what I'm doing is acknowledging what's provable with science so we can prove that we have electricity on the earth. We can prove there's an electric gradient on the earth. We can prove that you can get a downward current on the earth using as electrostatic generator. We it's called a corona motor. We can prove that things can float with the manipulation of electrostatics. So we've proven everything that I'm talking about, we can prove that all matter that exists is electrostatic. This is all provable. Now you're claiming something else that's not provable, but you want to try to critique my claim with all these different questions, but you won't even provide any evidence for your claim at all. So can you please prove you're bending and warping up space time? Well, I also want to ask because you brought up a question from a while. We were talking about the dome that you didn't want to talk about. It seems to be that it has like a integrity that just doesn't break. And so I wondered why it seems to be lasting all these years. You would think it would need maintenance. You would think that it would need repairs. You would think that it would need something then a law of nature that is making and maintaining. We're alive, so ourselves maintain. Why is it that this dome just seems to be there forever? That's a complete non-sequitur trying to shift away from the actual conversation. Taylor, you're getting exposed here, man. Can you tell me how you proved the bending and warping up space time? No answer. Gotcha. Yeah, I'm asking you, Joe. I think that's unfairifiable and it's a non-sequitur. So you're you're just speculating about what you think. Yeah, you just assert there's a dying for no reason. Yeah. What is maintaining the dome? Not for no reason. It's because it has to do with the second law. Is it finite? Yes, pressure and all that. Will the dome go away? I'm sorry, Karen. You were talking. Yes, you just smoked you. I'm just saying. Yeah, so gas mean whatever. The way the second law of thermodynamics does not hold on. Yeah, gas pressure. Well, it does not work containment. Yeah. So vacuums don't suck. The way gas pressure works is it has to push into the one said vacuum suck. Yeah, I didn't say that. I didn't say you did. And you have a script. I didn't say. Did I say that you did? Did I say you did? Then why are you pretending you're teaching us about how they don't suck? Because I'm making a point about why something would go up or down. It would fill the available space. Regardless of what direction. No, it doesn't. Because guess what? You asserted this downward acceleration. I don't care what causes it. We can call it electrostatics. We can call it gravity. But there's a downward acceleration. We can't call it gravity, though, because they're for there for amidst on midthought. Therefore, so you have empty space up here. There's stuff being accelerated downward. What's going to cause it to expand upward? Nothing because it's accelerating downward due to the force that you admitted. When gas is going straight up, believe it or not, it's not accelerating downward. Okay. The reason you can't say it can be electrostatic or it can be gravity is because electrostatics is way too weak to do what you needed to do. Now we can prove electrostatics is there, but they had to make a new claim because it's too weak to claim that you can bend the convexity of the oceans around a ball. And also they're nonsense. So you had to make up a new story called gravity, which has constantly been changing, has been debunked on the cosmological scale, on the quantum scale. And everyone knows relativity is wrong. It's incomplete at the best. You have dark matter, dark energy, and it doesn't work on the quantum scale. It doesn't work on the quantum scale at all. You guys run around the internet and pretend you know it's a definitive fact when everyone that is in the very group that you're appealing to, the scientists that I speak with say there's no doubt relativity is wrong. And 100% is not actually what gravity is. If it does exist at all, they haven't been able to discover the graviton, and I could go on forever about what's wrong with relativity. You're claiming it though. I demonstrated to the audience and to everyone else, I can prove electrostatics. You're claiming something additional to that. And every time I ask you for evidence that we can prove that you manipulated the bending and warping of space-time, or can you prove that relativity is true, you change the subject. Because the answer is no, you can't prove it. And every single physicist that you ever talked to that knows anything about this conversation would know that you can't prove it. Because it hasn't been proven. Your favorite paper going against relativity, you seem to be scientists or say, the guys are the scientists at the end of the bar we're at. We're saying it. Do you know if any of the scientists that you were talking at the end of the bar published any papers? Yeah, literally all of quantum mechanics knows that. Yeah, literally, literally. So you seem to be ignorant of the subject. So you trust those scientists for some reason? Well, that's experimentally valid. Like we can actually test that. We're physically manipulating things and testing it, right? But whenever you talk about your fairy tales of space, that's a totally different ballgame. And even in your fairy tale of space, relativity doesn't work there either. And it's known for a long time. So it is experimentally validated that if you have a larger mass, you get a faster acceleration toward it. I don't care whether it's the bending of space-time or electrostatics. I don't care at all. You should care, though. So not for this topic. Yeah, for this topic. No, not for this topic. Because it only matters. It only matters. Yeah, it only matters. Yeah, it's irrelevant, but it only matters what the direction is. No, you don't understand. It matters about the strength as well, Taylor. So the strength needed to keep... Well, listen carefully. It's not... I don't care if it's electrostatics or gravity. You can't say that. Because for the Earth to be a ball, it has to be gravity. It can't be electrostatics because electrostatics is too weak. It wouldn't hold the gas down next to a pressure system of 10 to 17 tor. And neither were gravity, by the way. And it wouldn't explain the complexity of the oceans. It wouldn't make these planets revolve around each other. Electrostatics doesn't work. You need what's called gravity. So when you say I don't care which one it is, you're showing your ignorance of the subject. You don't fully understand it, which is normally why people are globers. And then after you speak, Taylor, I want to make a question. Except that air actually falls, and you claim it's due to electrostatics. I don't care what it's due to. I only care what direction it moves. I said gas doesn't always fall. Gas doesn't always fall. So? It goes in all directions. It does always fall. Does helium fall? If I fill the balloon with helium, is it going to fall? Yeah. Depending on which environment you're in, if you fill up a tank, a solid tank of helium, it will be heavier with the helium in it. How'd you measure that? Oh, it'll be heavier. How'd you get the helium in that tank? How does it stay in there? I'm not familiar with helium technology. But if what you say is true, if what you say is true, that this electrostatic gravity cannot hold air to the ground, then we should have higher air pressure up the top toward the dome that you can't prove, that you just speculate about. But we actually see the opposite, because mass always gets attracted downwards. And yes, mass can push mass in all kinds of directions because I can move my arms and push air up. But it's always going to come back down. It pulls it down and pushes it up at the same time. Can I also add? Yes, it's bending. It's bending spacetime. Wait, don't you get it? The bendy spacetime. We can all bendy spacetime in every direction at every moment on all over at the same time. It's fine. It all works fine. I know it's hard to believe, but you can have opposing directions of acceleration. No, I know that. I know that. Taylor, see, all you can do is try to straw man and pretend you're smarter than we are. Because Taylor, it's called sophistry. So what just happened was you said you know that you can have opposing accelerative directions, right? But actually, what I was pointing out that what you said was stupid was because you said that it was the gravity that was pushing it away, that mass can push it away while pulling it. You're ignorant. That's not what happens. So that's what you said. I didn't say that. You may have misspoke. I know that you said it. The whole audience heard you say it. You 100. I didn't say that. Yes, you did. You said the mask. I did not. You said the mask can push it away. You said it pushes it in all directions. I did not say gravity can push. You said the mask pushes it away. Can I also ask the normal force? That's what a normal force is. Sorry. Oh, no. Said a lot. We have the moon, the other celestial bodies like our star, all of the other planets. Do they have those? What is making them round? Okay. Gary, you got it, man. Okay. All the things in the sky are just lights in the sky. Nobody's gone there. Nobody's physically touched them. Nobody's physically measured them. They are just lights in the sky. How do you know that? That's it. How do I know that? Because I can see that they're lights in the sky. Nobody's physically measured them. Do you know how they measured the distance to the sun? You're claiming what they are. Did they get a physical tape measure? No, I didn't. I just said, do you deny that they're lights in the sky? You said they're just lights in the sky. Do you deny that they're lights in the sky? So are you claiming that? Are there are not lights in the sky? There's no luminaries. Are you saying they're not stars? There's no luminaries in the sky. Is this what you're saying? Are you saying they're not stars? When you say they're just lights in the sky. I just said they're luminaries in the sky. I'm not assuming anything about what they are other than that because I haven't physically touched them. I haven't been there. Nobody I know has been there. It's not independently falsifiable. We can't verify it. We have pictures of planets that are round. You have CGI. We can see the other side of them. Ladies and gentlemen, remember, these are two people with literally no expertise in CGI, film, or anything about those. Excuse me, little miss. I have a degree in graphic design. I also have a degree in graphic design in multimedia. And I've been using Photoshop since my first iteration before there were even ladies. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Before there were even layers. She has seen a pixel and quite a few shoots in her time. And so she knows that the worst comedian ever, by the way. I know this is insane. You're not funny at all. You're allowed to call me the worst comedian because comedy is a subjective thing. And we're allowed to do that. You're funny, but not in the way that you're going. I get it. But ladies and gentlemen, they do not have anything but cartoons and CGI that they create. Meanwhile, we have actual photos and I have measurements. I put a link in the chat here to the measurement, the measurement PDF. If you want to read it, be my guest. I also know it's a measurement of a lack. Yeah, there are. Okay. What are the measurements of curves, Taylor? So if you have measurements of curve and you have measurements of no curve, what does that mean? What are the measurements of curve, Taylor? I've already been over this. Name one. I'm responding to Karen because you cut in. You cut in while I was responding to her. And I've already answered your question. So I'm not going to waste any more time on that. I can't answer. I did. I did. So we expect that there would be flat parts on a giant globe. We do. And then, yeah, because it's so large that the curve is so gradual that some parts are going to appear flat. This is just a ball. And it's a golf ball. So I don't measure curvature on this, but if I increase the distance, I'm going to start measuring curvature. It's not a ball. I hope you know. I mean, whatever. We're on a ball then. That's how it goes. So flat things on a ball. No, we're not on a ball. I didn't measure curvature at all whatsoever. Any time I ever tried, there's multiple. There's literally dozens of measurements that show that there's no curvature. So why would we show like literally long distance, the long distance photo? Mount Kanagou in France, it debunks the globe. I mean, it's literally impossible. Are you going to tell me that refraction? Oh, OK, refraction. Refraction does not bend light around the Earth curve. OK, like the curve of a ball. Yes, it does. Three miles in the air. Taylor, like this is the thing. You don't even know the specifics at all. You're just making it. You don't know the specifics of the conditions. You don't know the specifics of anything. You're just saying the word. You know, you have to say in response to every observation. And the truth is, we know way more. I guarantee you, I know way more about your claim about refraction than you will ever know. I know all about it. You just say the word. And the truth is, just so the audience knows what we're talking about, we saw mountains from 200 over 250 miles away. And the globe, where it says they should be blocked by three miles of Earth curvature. And yet we saw the miles. I mean, we saw all miles of the missing curvature, the all the mountains. We saw the shoreline of the mountains. And they just say, oh, well, it looks exactly like the mountains, but it's just an illusion. And actually, the mountains aren't there. They got optically lifted up three miles in the air. So cool story. You can just say a word before. Yeah, refraction is a confirmed phenomenon. Does it mean it's doing what you're claiming it's doing? Yeah, exactly. But I also want to go back to this graphic design equals I have experience in CGI thing, because I have you ever rigged a model? Have you ever? 3D? Yes. Have you ever rendered? Yes. And yet you're going to sit here and say that the footage that we have is being rendered right now and has been rendered since the 60s. What do you mean rendered through the 60s? Strawman. We went to the moon. We've known we've had video footage of celestial bodies, the earth being round, the moon being round. You don't think they could have used models back then? I didn't say it was all CGI. It could have been models back then. They could not have used those types of programs. Those sorts of programs did not exist back then. Oh, she just said a model. They didn't have to use a program. Back then they could have physically built a model. In fact, you can see photos of them literally building scale models of the moon. I mean, it's not a secret. And the earth, yes. So your argument is just ridiculous. Once again, it is a conspiracy that they went and they built tiny little models and they just happened. I don't know how tiny they were. Yeah. They were pretty big, actually. The ones that they show, they were pretty big. So there's just CGI or models up in the dome showing us the different sides of the planet. It's nothing but straw man. No, no, no, no. Dude, this is crazy. Okay, so they're planets. All you can do is straw man us. What do you think the audience thinks? When everything you say straw man you're saying and it's a lie every time? What do you think they think? That's not what I said at all. You said, so there are models in the firmament dome? No one said anything like that. I didn't say the ridiculous example that I know you don't agree with because the observable phenomenon is that we can see the different sides of a planet in the sky and to believe that you would have to believe that there's CGI or models in the sky and I know you don't believe that. So where does that leave us? Why do you think we have to believe? Why is it one or the other? Why do we have to assume that we know what the planets are? What is your explanation? There's a pulsating orb of light that has a cyclical nature within a fluid-like medium and its own luminescence based on the auditory reverberation. What's up now? Oh, it's just speculation. Yeah, no, you just like to speculate about the sky. So thank you. You just speculate it and it's not. That's what you do. That's what I say. It's not even we don't even bring that up. Like we don't even I don't even go there because it doesn't prove anything anyway. I'd rather talk about the earth where we can actually physically stand and measure right here that we could touch it. We can physically touch and measure the actual ground that we stand on and there is no measurable curvature. And we can make observations that would be on the geometric curve. The sand, mountains, craters, riverbeds on Mars. That's just a pulsating light, says Austin. That's what we see. I guess I'm converting now. I don't care about I wouldn't even want you over here. So like I'm not trying to convert you. Like I'm saying we don't believe in fairy tales from the government. You say you believe the government lies all the time and you don't trust them. But NASA, everything they say is true. I'm like okay you're getting kind of weird but whatever you want to believe over there, my guy. We don't believe in stuff like that. We went and tested the surface of the earth. The geometric horizon is nowhere to be found. And now we've discovered that the globe earth argument which my friend Mr. Anderson said, this is why they don't want the debates on mainstream television. This is why. All right, because it would just be so bad it would be immediately everyone knew. So we're asking for physical empirical evidence that can be replicated to prove the geometric curve of the earth and that it is where it's supposed to be. And all the globe earthers say is refraction meaning we never see the curve of the earth from the ground. We never see the actual position of the curve of the earth. So is that what you think? You think we never see the actual geometric horizon? We see it from satellites. You just claim it's CGI with no evidence. Which you see it from the earth though. No evidence. Yeah, you can see it from the earth that it might be a little bit bigger because of refraction which does happen. So then we don't ever see the actual position of earth. And it's just what? I might say no consensus in any expertise field. No expertise in the visual effects field or in any physical field within the. You are a textbook sofist. Okay, continuing. No physicist that is writing papers and when we ask them to present papers they say, well, they won't accept our papers. Okay, so Taylor what I asked you was are you saying that we can never see the actual earth curve? Like we can never see the actual position of the real earth curve on the ground. That doesn't mean anything. I'm asking you. Is that what you're saying? I can't answer that because that doesn't mean anything. Do we see the actual position of the earth curvature on the ground ever? Like the horizon? The actual curvature. The position of the earth curvature. That doesn't mean anything. The actual position as opposed to an apparent position or location. It literally does mean something. So what are you talking about? Curvature isn't a position. It's not a point. Okay, there's a geometric location relative to the observer's height. Yes, it is. You have a tangent point. So I'm sorry you don't understand things, but you literally do have a tangent point. It's called a geometric curve. It's called a geometric horizon. So that's the curve of the earth. You would see a bulge or what you call a geometric horizon. Your claim is that we never see the actual geometric horizon or curve of the earth that we always see an apparent horizon from the ground. You can see the horizon from the ground. What is your point? Is the horizon we see the actual curve of the earth or is an apparent refracted horizon? It's the actual curve. But so you just now said that when we saw the mountains, the reason that we didn't see the curve is because we was refracted. Or what about when the horizon moves back and forth? It can't be the actual curve because it's moving back and forth. I mean, the earth's not breathing in and out. It is the actual curve. So why is it going back and forth? It can appear distorted. Is that what you're asking about? Why does it appear distorted? Well, no, it's just we never see the actual position or location of the earth curve. Like it moves around optically based on the atmosphere. It's because of refraction. That's what your position says. Your position says that we never see the actual geometric horizon because we always have refraction within the atmosphere. So it constantly moves it around. And the horizon we see is an apparent location, right? And that the actual location is never seen. But the question then is, and that is your position. I'm not strumming. I still meant it to help you out. So the question is, then how do we know it's there? If we've never seen the actual position of the earth curvature, we can never see the actual earth curve. How do we know it's there? Because it can't curve on a flat surface. That the light cannot refract like that on a flat surface. So why do you say that? The curve looks a little bit bigger sometimes. Can't do that on a flat surface, though. You're saying there'd be no horizon on a flat earth? Well, it would be above it. The horizon is always, what are you talking about? The horizon rises optically up and down above you. What are you talking about? I explained this in the opening. So like flat geometric, straight perspective. So refraction makes you see further. Well, you converge at a certain point on a horizon. When you actually compare that with actual photos of, for example, Lake Pontchartrain, you can try and line that up with geometric perspective. And the horizon is always lower because it's curving down. Because on a flat plane, it would just keep going. Now on a flat plane, actually, the horizon would also be below you because you're going up above the earth. So it would rise towards eye level, but it'd still be below. It's an apparent location that fluctuates based on optics, like atmospheric or atmospheric conditions. So you would have a horizon on a flat earth, right? You have a vanishing point. You can't see forever. And it constantly changes. And on a flat earth, that's what would happen. The globe earth claims the earth physically blocks our view, yet it constantly moves around. And it's never where it's supposed to be, and we see way too far. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you're claiming that there'd be no horizon on a flat earth, I mean, yikes. What I'm talking about is, Ada, if you've been taught to draw in school, right? You draw a building. A perspective. Right. You draw the lines, converges with the horizon. All straight lines. Right. That's what you'd expect on a flat earth. On a globe earth, they curve and it ends before the actual geometric horizon on a flat earth. That's observed reality. Observed reality is what? That the horizon constantly moves back and forth, and it's sometimes below our eyes because we rise above the surface of the optical convergence or vanishing point. That does improve that the earth is curving. I just addressed all of that. Well, you can't get that effect on a flat earth. That just proves that we have a dynamic, at most, that changes from day to day. Your visibility changes. It doesn't have anything to do with earth curvature. Yeah, it does, though. You're just saying it does. It does our built over it. What structures are built over curves? Like structures are built over. Like Pontchartrain. Like Pontchartrain. Talking about the bridge. It's built over curves. Okay, but do you not think that you can build a curved bridge? It doesn't curve with the earth. The design of the bridge is curved way different than the rate of curvature of the earth. You don't think that they make the bridge go up, so maybe boats can go under it at some point, and then it can go back down to the land. Yeah, and it just increases structural integrity. It doesn't go straight into the ground, and yet that's what it looks like if you're on one side of it, which is only possible if it's curved. No, it constantly fluctuates how far you can see. That's the horizon just an apparent location. It's an optical illusion. Like the ground doesn't literally merge with the sky. That's ridiculous, right? So it's an optical illusion and moves back and forth based on the atmosphere. The globe earth claims that there's an actual curve blocking us, and that it moves back and forth. But trust me, somewhere within there, it's a real curve. That's just objectively what it is. So the question is, why do we never see the real curve? The answer is because there's always an atmosphere. Fair enough to be fair. It's like, okay, fair enough. Then how do we know it's there then? That's the question. On a flat surface, in order to get refraction, you would need air density like this, air density increasing diagonally. That's not reality. Why? That's how refraction works. What? We don't need refraction. What are you talking about? Refraction fluctuates constantly. It's a flat surface. You're saying there's only one direction that light can refract in? You think that light only reflects in one direction? Do you know how that air density works? Yeah. If you have, it has to get air of different density. Right. Which way does the light go? Benz toward the normal line. The normal line? No, it doesn't. What's the normal line? What does that mean if Benz towards the normal line? What's the normal line? Where does the normal line start? Bro, you're saying refraction could happen if the earth was flat? Perpendicular. When it hits something, it bends towards this perpendicular normal line. So, because you say so? When you have. Yeah, because I say so. So, I've met the amount of evidence that you've brought, because I said so and my buddy said so. So, I guess we're even now. Are we physically? Anyway. The room can go physically measure and falsify the claim derivative of the earth curvature. You've just appealed to cartoons and stuff like that. But it's called Snail's Law, which is that light will bend toward the denser medium. Of course, assuming light rays in the light physically travel from point-to-point P and refine the photon, but that's a total aside. So, we'll just give you all that. It's eye digress. So, anyway, it goes towards the more dense medium, right? And so, that's cool. Whatever. We have to use a differential equation, though. We can't use Snail's Law for the atmosphere. We have to use something a totally different. Even the differential equation doesn't work for Snail's Law. It's a totally different type of refraction. Nevertheless, it's a mathematical construct has nothing to do with what you're talking about. When we explain it on a globe, we use 7 over 6R, an average, based on assuming the R value. So, the fact that you think that somehow we wouldn't have a horizon on a flatter earth, it wouldn't move around due to refraction on a flatter earth is just patently absurd and wrong and objectively not correct in any way. I'm sorry. Amy, I guess math doesn't work, because Austin said so. In fact, speaking of light and speaking of light, can I ask you guys what if you have done the shadow experiments that they've been doing for thousands of years that air-toss me is an Aristotle? That literally proves nothing. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says it can be duplicated with a small local light over a flat surface. So, that's a no? You can do it with a flat surface and a small local light. Yeah. So, that should be easily confirmable. It can be replicated in two different ways. That's a no. That could be easily confirmable. How's your research going to go visit the small local sun? It'll go visit the small local sun. Yeah. Your guys' questions. These effects. Why do you think that they can't do the sun? I don't even claim that anybody can visit the sun. I never claim that anybody can visit the sun. Because you'll never do the research. We have done the research. You mean research in for seven years? Okay, let me ask you this. Let me explain. You can tell me how did they find out that they could see the sun? How was the distance of the sun measured? I have no idea. I care about gravity. No, because you didn't do the research. That's why. You said you cared about gravity. I gave you ten opportunities to provide that proof for gravity. Ladies and gentlemen, take note there. It's all based on assumptions, by the way. That Taylor said, I don't know to a question. They never actually physically measured it. It's all based on assumptions. Why does Karen Baffa teach you that? How skeptical Karen B was that she almost tried to make fun of Taylor for saying, I don't know when that's the correct answer. But that's okay. It's not the correct answer. But there is an answer. More sophistry. There is an answer, though. There is an answer. So why are you making fun of Taylor for not knowing the answer and saying, I don't know? I'm not making fun of Taylor because he just said, well, you didn't do the research. And then I asked him a question. He says, well, I don't know. And I said, well, it's because you didn't do the research. Once again. Listen, you should there. And because he just answered like question after question after question after question. And then after he finally hit a thing where he said, I don't know. You're like, this is all a waste of time in sophistry, Amy. It is. You said to go into the Q&A. If we give it one or two minutes, we can give you a chance to wrap up. If you want to draw together some of the threads from the discussion. Otherwise, you don't have to. If you want to say I'll defer, you can pass on that. We're going to start with go left, right. Wits, it gets it. If you want to go first, the floor is all yours. Yeah, sure. So like we were talking about gravity has never actually been proven in Cavendish. You can't account for the variable of electrostatics. It's always there. So electrostatics is a small weak force. And it's not strong enough to explain gravity. So although that's all we can prove, they have to claim gravity. So currently it's called a theory of relativity and everything hinges upon this idea that light has a constant speed in 1905 to 1915, blah, blah, blah. It's general relativity and it's admittedly doesn't work. We have dark energy, dark matter. We only discovered in the 30s that the galaxy has only had 3% of the mass that the relativity would predict. The universe needs to expand 10 times faster. We're off by 10 to the 120th power. Some people guess a little bit smaller than that. So we have dark matter and dark energy that makes up 96% of everything that relativity doesn't predict or cannot explain. In addition, when we take the theory of relativity or gravity, it doesn't work on the quantum scale. It doesn't affect anything. It's not seen anywhere. And it can't be discovered or explained. So the theory of relativity doesn't work at all. The problem is there used to be something called the ether in the background. It was thrown out for Mickelson Morley because it showed the earth isn't moving, which in the conclusion, that's the truth, that we can physically measure the surface of the earth. It's not curving like they said that it is. And there's no evidence that the earth is moving. And in fact, it's a philosophical decision to pretend that it is. And even Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Evan Hubbell will all tell you can't prove that the earth is moving. It's a philosophical decision because we don't want to think that the earth is special. So there you go. There's a summary. There's no physical empirical evidence of any of their claims that just silver streamed and appealed a consensus in majority. You got it, Karen? Yeah, what's it said? You got it? That and I measured earth curvature. I measured for earth curvature myself. I've seen it with my own eyes. So I suggest that what you do is you go get a laser and you go get somebody else to help you out and go do those long distance observations yourself. And then you decide whether or not you're seeing light bend around the curve. And also maybe you should study refraction to know that light does bend towards a denser medium and that you get different densities depending on the temperature of the water versus the air above it. If the water is cooler than the air temperature above the water or the water air temperature is cooler than the temperature of the water, you're going to get different light bending in all kinds of different ways. So remember that next time. And earth is flat. You got it, Amy? Thank you so very much. The earth is round. We have known this for thousands of years. I wish I could even pin this solely on religion but Christian medieval theologians knew and recorded that the earth was spherical and kept it going all the way up until the enlightenment. So we have known that the earth is round. We have been able to prove it through not only natural philosophy but through science. Scientists have known that the world is round through empirical means. We have not only video evidence but multiple ways that you can do the experiments yourself. I do want to thank Taylor for being my debate partner with Sid and Karen as spicy as I've been. I really do love everyone. So send them love to them and of course James for being an awesome mod. And if you guys haven't already hit that like and subscribe button, then what are you doing? Appreciate that. And it is true, folks. I would say this. If you thought your side was more persuasive, don't worry, Tyler. We're going to give you a chance to speak. But, or forgive me, Taylor. But I want to say folks, if you thought your side was more persuasive tonight, you're like, you know what? I think they were a great way for more people to see this video is that you hit like for real. Because if you hit like, that boosts it in the algorithm, meaning that YouTube will recommend this video to more people. So if you haven't yet, hit that like button. We have 646 watching live. We're at about 200 likes. We can easily get to 250 with that. Taylor, go ahead with your closing as well. All right. So number one, what we were talking about in the closing. So you said that the effect of different shadows of different lengths can be achieved by a small local sun. So I asked you, can you show that there's a small local sun? That should be pretty easy to research. And then we had a bit of a meltdown there, which is what would happen if there was a small local sun. I believe it's my closing statement. Yeah. So you guys had a very robust disagreement with the fact that I asked you, where's the small local sun then? Because this is your saving, your rescue device for this effect. And it should be easy to go discover. Anyway, measuring the earth yourself, you've given me no reason to believe that your measurements are good or correct. I have no way to tell you from a wing nut if you're correct. And I have no way to do that. No method. And speaking of working methods, we'll get to that. But yeah, you measured some flatness. Other experts have measured curves, and we can look at them. Then, so Austin said that we can't account for electrostatics in the Cavendish experiment, except you can, because you can use materials of differing electrostatic strength, and you get the same effect showing that the effect is mass. That's what a variable is for Austin. Also, it doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters for my whole argument was the direction of the acceleration. So if there's an electrostatic acceleration attraction force, whatever you want to call it, it's working on air. You claim sometimes it just works on air. Sometimes it just turns off and doesn't work on air, except all the air is accumulating down because it's moving downward, because it has a force downward, an acceleration downward. If it could just kept going upward, it would accumulate at the dome. That doesn't happen because it's denser at the ground, and this is why working models are important, because you can't navigate on a flat earth map, and you've presented no working models. And with that, we're going to jump into the Q&A. I want to say thanks so much for your support. We already crushed it with 250 likes. Thanks for that support. If you haven't yet, as I mentioned, many more juicy debates coming up before we jump into these questions. For example, as I mentioned, the bottom right of your screen, King Crocoduck Returns taking on David McQueen and a debate on creation versus evolution. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. This first question coming in from, do appreciate it, and I'm going to move through as fast as I possibly can. Folks, there are some that I'm going to skip if you were insulting a guess. That's not what we're looking for. We're looking for substantive questions, as many as we can get. This one coming in from Theo Megawarty says, Let's see. In another universe, the Glovers were on time. Just a little just because we started late. David Benscombe, Ben Cosme. Thanks for your being with us. It says, James is ripped. Okay. Thanks for that. The Space Audits with Alan says, There's no way to verify images from so-called satellites. Even if you compile the raw data, the metadata from it is already removed. I think they're saying that the picture, the alleged pictures from satellites are not real, Amy and Taylor. I think they're saying that. Can you ask that question one more time? They said there's no way to verify images from so-called satellites. Even if you compile the raw data, the metadata from it is already removed. Once again, that just sounds like a conspiracy. It's the main shtick of a conspiracy theorist. Did you get that data yourself? Did you do that test? Because what they're saying is, we don't trust scientists. We don't trust scientific consensus. It is a Fox version of being a contrarian. And so can you give us a reason for why we should distrust NASA and other agencies? NASA, I know they hate it, and we get paid by them and George Soros, but they're actually a fairly well-liked government agency because they keep their butts as unpolitical as possible. They are just trying to do good things. And for hell, for all much, I'll hate Trumpy Stan. He put up Space Force and supported it. They're doing good work. This one from Brandon Cannell says, for the fire earth gas, how do you explain the difference in weight between the North Pole and equator? Globe earth slash gravity predicts it? Question mark. Amy, it says y'all are awesome. That's a good question. So Einstein himself, which most of the Globes don't know, this Einstein himself said in a letter in 1913 to Ernst Mach that if the earth was at rest, but the sky was moving around it, there would be a translation of centrifugal force. So you would get the same effect that drags the pendulum around or cause procession in the gyroscope. And that would also affect weight distribution measurements, meaning that the actual weight that's measured would be affected by the centrifugal force and the transition of the system from the moving sky around the earth at rest frame reference. And that is Albert Einstein himself, but just the mainstream Google won't tell you that. So yeah, since the sky is moving around the earth, then you would actually have centrifugal distribution within a toroid vortex. And it would change the weight distribution. You got 20. This one from Theo Megawarty says, graphic designer equals globe earth expert. I don't know what that is referring to. You heard it there, folks. Not taking part. So let me tell you though, before I only put an asterisk on it, because she's probably an amazing graphic designer. And a graphic design is an amazing degree. But once again, it's like when physicists, creationists like putting physicists to tech, biologists and biologists to tech physicists, because if you get someone in their own field, it seems that they don't have consensus. And so yes, I would love to see someone in the post production industry present some sort of methodology that we can take to show that it's CGI. You can't just claim it's CGI visual effects because your gut tells you. Like that's what they say it is. That's what they say it is. They tell you it is. Right. Correct. This one coming in from NASA. NASA. Bad jinx. The Batman says Amy and Taylor are about to get flat snacks. Brandon Connell says to use the Bible as proof of flat earth. Don't you first have to show the Bible is actually correct? Although I don't know if either of you if that came up per se. No, no one knows that. That's a straw man trying to dismiss us. Yeah, it's just a straw man. Cameron Hall says if earth was flat, wouldn't you be able to see Europe from America using a telescope? Also, why can't flat earthers just go to the International Space Station and show us a picture? Okay. There's angular size change with distance or angular resolution limit and something called the attenuation of light. So no, you wouldn't be able to see forever. We have an optical vanishing point. Why can't we go to the ISS and take a picture? That's the question. I mean, what kind of insane absurd ridiculous question is that? I don't even know. You got this one coming in from lunatic picker says we have mapped the position of stars in the night sky. Why does the night sky spin counterclockwise when observed from a northern position? Clockwise, though, from a southern position. And goes from east to west at the equator. I just explained that there being all stars rise in the east and set in the west. Yeah. And there will be an optical effect of containment and it could be magnetic calligraphy and we can show that a magnetic field would do the same thing. So there's a plethora of options, but literally just a little paper weight will show you that there could be an optical effect that make it happen when you look up. So you're just looking depends on which way you're looking at it from. The wicker man, thanks so much for your super chat. If you had a question to attach to it, let me know in the live chat. Brandon Connell says for the fighters, get your pilot's license and go. It's not illegal. You just need international flying clearance and planes aren't that expensive to rent for a day. It is OK. Money bags. It's illegal. It's like 500,000 laying around to charter a jet. OK. And that's a lie anyway. You can't fly planes over Antarctica. It's illegal. You can't do that. They say it's too dangerous. It is a lie. The pilot offered this. Yo, really? Then we actually contacted him and then he backed off because he realized he didn't do it. He wouldn't even tell us his company. He snuck away back into his corner. Yeah, you just he just did it. So you could say stuff like that. You guys could just say things. Yeah. And we called his life. The pilot said he would do it. OK. OK. We have the documentation of it. So whatever. Yeah, I totally trust your account. We have the documentation. You don't have to trust us. You can actually go find that out on your own. Yeah, we have the receipts. Have fun. This one from Psychor says, Lake Michigan is so big that you cannot see the opposite shore even on a clear day. It's from the curvature of the earth. Team Flat, can you refute this? Lake Michigan. You think Lake Michigan helps globe Earth? We can see the Chicago skyline across Lake Michigan from up to 60 miles on clear days. Yeah, from across. I thought the locals there. Yeah, I think what was it? St. Joseph, I think. Illinois or someplace. I can't remember what it is. You can see it always. Like I talked to all the locals there. They said you can see it two to three times a week. So no, you wouldn't be able to see forever over a flat earth. It's not complicated. Yeah, things get smaller. Remember like Sesame Street near far. Remember that? This one from Ben Cosme says, Brandon, look up Antarctic Treaty. Who's Brandon? All right. Say look up Antarctic Treaty. Does anybody know what that refers to? Not the land part, the Antarctic Treaty. Yeah, they were just trying to deny that it exists when you can look it up and you can look up all the legislation since then. Objects up. You can't freely and privately explore there. Brandon, I brought it up because I do say it exists because the military is banned due to the Antarctic Treaty. Yeah. So working with freely and privately exploring. And people aren't putting their houses there. No country has been able to expand to settle. But you can still go there. As a scientist, as a private individual, they will say, oh, you need to get permission from the government and then you're back at they. But you can go there. You can only go where they allow you. They don't let you go all the way across it. See what I'm saying? You just have so many streets. We never said you can't go to Antarctica. This one from Brandon. You just can't go do whatever you want there. Brandon, what is the name of the law stopping anyone from going there? The Antarctic Treaty. Got you. There's additional laws in the United States since then that are subsequent like legislation underneath that that are very specific with the laws and the rules. Oh, I just realized that Javid Benz Cosme was saying to Brandon who asked that question that they should look up the Antarctic Treaty. OK, I'm sorry, you guys. I'm a little bit dense. This one from Brandon Connell says, show the sun section paragraph and line. I don't know what you're talking about. But we did take azimuth and azimuth like longitudinal readings over a year and it shows that the sun seemingly is a magnetic holography that acts as a toroid. So pretty interesting. So when he said look for the, where's your like local sun? Like, yeah, we did azimuth distance readings and we showed that it's like a toroid type projection. You got it. And I want to remind you folks, our guests. Don't worry, we have more questions, but I want to say this because you're all here. Our guests are linked in the description. So if you, I mean, since you just got your first, potentially first exposure to them, hey, you can learn more about their views by clicking on their links below. What are you waiting for? Which it gets it. Karen B, Amy and Taylor are all linked in the description box. And that includes if you're listening via the modern data bait podcast, you can find our guest links there as well. This one from Tim Pryor says, if you admit people can go to Antarctica, then you can't deny them witnessing the 24 hour sun. You guys say doesn't exist there. Again, she told you that the guy that worked for NASA that was stationed in an article said, he never saw a 24 hour sun. You just see the sunlight. The only supposed footage of it is provably photoshopped and chopped together. So that's kind of sketchy. We have a million shots of it in the north, none of the south. So yeah, it doesn't exist. Sunlight and sun itself is not the same thing. You got it. Theo Megawarty says the Himawari 8 is a compilation of weather data from international systems with extrapolation overlaid on the blue marble data set. It is photoshopped. There you go. According to what? You're asking someone that can't answer their question. Because I looked up the Himawari data. Did you extrapolate the metadata? You got access to it? No. Yeah, you can't. It doesn't let you. You got it and this one coming in. And so that doesn't mean it can't be or it's fake. Tim Pryor says, have you guys ever got a photo analyst to prove that every picture of Earth is fake? Have you done that? Have you? Have you? You don't have to. They admit that it's composite images. They take high altitude footage and then they put it together, stitched together over a flat map, surface wrap it around a ball, bring an artist to do an addition. I don't know why we'd have to have someone prove it when they openly admit that that is CGI and it's not actual full pictures. This one from Tim Pryor as well. So sorry, but you guys are going against every scientist and billions of people. Burden of Proof is always on you. This is why you guys are not persuading me. And we said this is long. They said, guaranteed you're lying. You did not talk to a physicist who thinks the world is fine. What? Think they meant flat. Physics alone says that's impossible and all physicists agree with gravity. You have to lie or be lying right now. We have a chance to respond to that long. Yeah. See, this is a tactic, right? It's baselessly asserting it because they have the confidence of having all the people on their side but they don't know anything about it. I literally did just now talk to a physicist the other day. All quantum physicists will tell you relativity does not work on the quantum scale at all whatsoever. They're trying to find something called the graviton. It also doesn't work on the cosmological scale. No one is lying. Not all scientists believe anything. Physics is based on the relativistic application and that's proven to be incorrect on the quantum scale. That's why they're looking for a GUT which is a new grand unified theory to replace it because everyone knows that it doesn't work. So just the truth of the matter is tons of physicists actually do know there's something going on with this whole gravity and this earth spinning around the sun thing because they're trying to reintroduce to either which would make it stationary. So yeah, there's a lot of people that think different things. Just want to point out that the general theory of relativity and special relativity right now are as far as we can tell non-dispute. No one is writing papers against them. I don't know where he's getting this from and the trying to figure out how to tie something big with something small is the theory of everything or at least that's what its PR term is called and that's just trying to tie quantum mechanics and general relativity together because we know both are facts. And they don't work together. You're getting there. So you just said no one says that. If it's my super chat, I'm finishing the response and the response to you just blatantly lying is that actually it's known that relativity doesn't work with quantum so they're looking for a new model. It's admittedly doesn't work on the quantum scale at all and this is just subjective. This one coming in from Enslave by Truth says God hates spheres. This one from Gord. I didn't know either. Gordzilla 37 says strange clouds has smoked too much. Globes a fairytale fool. Who's strange clouds? Sir Horowitz says changing mass changes the degree of warp. Okay. Yeah. That's a reification fallacy though. Like the question is does the mass actually warp space time? Right. And so if you just like, look, I changed the mass. Therefore I proved that space time been in work. Well, that's just begging the question which is why it's well known that relativity could entirely be wrong and quantum has actually shown that. And he said that you can control for the electrostatics in the Cavendish but that's not true. The best fairytale cage in the world still has electrostatics. If you grounded still electrostatic the air inside of the chamber is electrostatic. The balls are electrostatic. The torsion cables in the rods are electrostatic and it barely moves at all if any. So yeah, electrostatics is clearly the most strong variable there and you can't eliminate it and this is objective. All molecule and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature. This one from PsyCore says straw man non sequitur straw man straw man straw man. They didn't say who it was for though. This one from down in the rabbit hole. Good to see you hope you're well says we found a NASA FTP server which has all the Hemo. Let me know if I mispronounce this. Hemowari eight raw images. They wrap flat radar images over the blue marble sphere. The video is on the flat earth clock app under quote satellites on the FAQ page. Yes. Once again, if you are taking multiple pictures and they are accurate pictures of the world then I don't know what to say. It's not CGI. His claim was that it was a real picture. Okay. And that it was a single picture that wasn't composite. He just told you you can look it up. That you can look into the data. It's actually not real pictures and it's wrapped around a presupposed ball. They don't pick a picture of a ball from space admittedly improbably. What it sounds like you're saying is at a certain point like on the Google question that I see coming that certain companies when it goes so big and you can't have a single picture have to go picture picture picture picture picture picture. So that's what a composite is. It doesn't mean that the earth is flat and I once again would like for an actual picture of the flat earth. Like what they're saying is what the flat earth they're saying is well it's not a full picture of the round earth is it? And then we go no that's not how they're trying to put it together and we say do you have a single picture of the flat earth and then all of a sudden well they won't let me hear they won't let you go there. All the secrets that for some reason it's a dome that we have no evidence of that we can't get to. So I guess my only question would be why is there no actual pictures of the flat earth? Why are you such a sophist? Okay if you don't have an answer just say I don't know. You can't get outside of the earth it's stupid. It's a stupid question we can't get outside of the earth. So if we can if we can just compile things from the ground then there's no reason to have a satellite looking at it from down. There are colored there's color correction and there's overlays on the website that you can turn off but there's no point in having a satellite if you're just taking all the data from the ground and just put it together. This one coming in from Hades Stair says Taylor and Amy you look hungry I don't know this uh I don't understand that one. Sponsored by Snickers. This one is a space audits with Allen says if in Einstein's field equations he uses variables that describe a completely empty universe with bent spacetime you don't even know your own religion. Again it doesn't matter people don't know everything about gravity therefore gravity doesn't exist. No you literally said it's not gravity you said it's that's what you said anyway uh yeah like I said it doesn't matter what the actual cause why does gravity exist why does it work it only matters how it works and basically what direction it works in which if you want to call it electrostatic doesn't matter it's all still moving the same direction so it doesn't need a dome. Oh I just want to point out I want to appreciate once again a negative take on religion I want to keep on saying that word should be used negatively and I am still waiting for an actual model come to our side it wouldn't it be nice if we could just come some sort of flat earth model. If we get it you're scared of the creator and I have a flat earth model it's my work. There we go the creator you couldn't have said a better word that makes you happy as a flat earthers talk about logic what's more logical that flat earthers are smarter than billions or they watch some youtube video and are just being duped. Yeah you got it I mean build a consensus. Joshua Kelly says Amy actual science can be done without papers. Well so science isn't a body of knowledge it's a process and the process would be doing a hypothesis going out there in the field collecting data having results and publishing that methodology so that other people can do it because that's the difference between all the religious views superstition doesn't matter if we were to restart the clock all of this nonsense would go away but if we were to delete every science textbook right now each and every fact would be rediscovered. You got it Amy. If you could do the science sorry if you could do the science you could publish papers. Yeah but it won't get actually pure read and published by mainstream academia if it doesn't walk the line everyone knows that so you guys are just chanting. Nope scientists disagree with each other all the time they fight a lot if you actually read any science you'd know that I read way more than you ever have. Only the only the ones who push the narrative that they want to be pushed get published though. Except they they challenge each other's narratives so you just didn't you just don't listen to what I said and but not with repeated your accusation. No no one questions like the earth you're not allowed to talk about whether or not the earth is flat or whether or not the earth is not moving. No you're not everyone in mainstream science. Come on man it's just like weird that you guys have to lie so much we can just move on. The audience can tell you guys are lying. You've got a lot of questions. Tim Pryor says well to be fair Amy when Flat Earthers did do experiments they proved rotation and curve. Thanks Bob. Interesting Geronism. Notice how after that all Flat Earthers stop doing actual experiments. And not that's not true. Yeah we do experiments all the time all the time. And then just like Taylor did he lied about what happened with that too. It's just a bunch of lies but so Geron actually had to hold it up a little bit but it showed that it was right in between the glow prediction and the flat prediction. It was actually closer to the flat project and since it was like in the middle Geron was like interesting so they chopped it up and lied. And yeah we found 15 degree per session which is a sag neck effect. The person that discovered the sagness is the vortex in the ether that gyro the ring later gyro is literally engineered and calibrated with the sag neck effect. He took it to a different altitude at the same latitude and got over a degree in variance showing that it's not the earth spinning at the same latitude. It's based on the vortex of the ether that changes at altitude. So this is awkward. But not only do I agree with the questioners take but just like the earlier question was bringing up Einstein. First of all you could take your choice if you want to be on team Einstein or team conspiracy theory but Einstein did not like quantum mechanics. He was one of the people who hated it the most. And what he did was test it and test it and test it and test it and test it and begrudgingly Einstein had to accept quantum mechanics because of the peer review process that is how strong that it is. You're just reading. You don't even know why he didn't like quantum. It's because of spooky action at a distance and superposition isn't consistent with relativity. I read both of his letters where he talks about it. But he got over it because of science. You guys are just pretending to know things that you don't know. Because of the peer review process. It's contradictory to relativity because if they're superposition then the bending and warping of space time would be in all kinds of different positions simultaneously and that's one of the many problems. You don't know any of it. It also disputes a constant speed of light. We can just move on. This one coming in from want to remind you folks if you've enjoyed this debate if you're like hey I like this hit that share button. Right now you can click share and share it into group threads or Facebook groups discord groups Twitter threads you name it even over a text message. You can send a link to a friend if you think they'd enjoy this type of debate as we are striving to provide a neutral platform to let the chips fall where they may to let a thousand flowers bloom so that the cream will rise to the top for the best arguments. Delco says my dad went as part of a private research group and even had their own transport. Please explain why he lied for years. I think they mean went to Antarctic said no dodging please. No one said that he lied he had to get approved before his private group went at the point that you can't privately and freely go wherever you want to go. You have to get approved by the government that you are in the country of it's just objective. It's weird you guys got to spin it and lie about what we're actually saying. That's called being dishonest. You can go. Question the answer says I'd just like to second what down in the rabbit hole said that is true Delco strikes again says why do our industrial robots need to account for gravitational pull when using a very small and a factor next to something with a few microns small. Doesn't count for gravity's pull it accounts with an accelerometer of downward acceleration that we actually get precise measurements with interferometry. That's all that you're doing. You're not actually bending and working space time and everything's intrinsically electrostatic which gives you an attractive force and so again you know it's nothing more than downward acceleration using accelerometers and you're begging the question which has been debunked within your own paradigm for like the 20th time tonight. This one from Tim Pryor says Flatter Thursday did not come up with science. Nobody that actually does science agrees with them. They should not be allowed to even say the word science. You got it Karen. You got you got the you got the questions that are just I think you're better diplomat than me. What did he say again. You're not even allowed to use the word science because Flat Earthers deny science. So as you know use the word Flat Earthers deny science. That's why we go out and actually do measurements and actually try to try to debunk Flat Earth. That's why we did that. You know you guys think we all just came here just believing it. We try to debunk it. We want we're I was fine living on a globe. We're all fine living on a globe until we the problem is where we find out it's a lie. That's where the problem is the problem is not with the globe itself. The problem is with the lying. I don't think you guys get that. This one coming in from you appreciate your question. As Tro Nut 66 says to wits it if the earth were flat there would be 108.47 miles per one degree of longitude at the equator. But we measure 69.17 miles per one degree. Why you're talking about celestial navigation looking at the stars and you get 69 miles per degree. So what you're talking about is actually it's optical declination. They take the optical declination of the sky relative to the observer's angle and the position on the earth and they apply that optical declination to the end of to a presuppose confecity of terra firma itself. So pretty simple. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. The sleeper seven says to team cartoon ball. You don't look at the ceiling to measure the floor. Cheers. Oh, so I assume that's a pot shot at the star spinning and you can understand the shape of something you're on based on how things move around. You know, yeah, I guess we can move on. So when you're on a basketball court and then ball the players are throwing the ball around that means that the court that you're standing on is round. Because there's a ball going around you. If they're doing something that's impossible to witness from a flat surface, then yeah. This one from Tim Pryor says, but the air is thinner at the top of Mount Everest. So no, it does not feel the empty space. You guys have yet to explain that. I suppose that I think that was for Karen B and with it. They said, but the air is thinner at the top of Mount Everest. So no, it does not feel the empty space. I think they mean, Phil, you guys have yet to explain that. Okay. What does that mean to explain that? So we have a pressure gradient. There's an electrical gradient on the earth. Most of the gas is constantly introduced at the surface. And so based on temperature production and introduction of gas at the surface and that electric gradient, which is 100 volts per meter, then we have a gradient in the earth. And that's seen to gas pressures physical container. And that's what keeps the closed dynamic system intact, where in which you can have the electric gradient. So that's all that there is to it. The fact that Mount Everest has lower gas pressure is a non sequitur to my actual position or our actual position. The point is that the gas would violently fill the available space. If it wasn't for the closed dynamic system, giving you the pressure with the gradient determined by the variance of factors that I listed. Tim Pryor. So there's a non physical container towards the ground. Interesting. In case it was gravity is why that it gets thinner as we go up and the air gets lighter. Begging the question. I would accumulate crushing. It would accumulate at the top. If there wasn't something pulling it down. Okay. You guys don't listen. So we'll move on. Tim Pryor says, better question. If you guys do not believe in space, then why do you believe there has to be a container? Well, that's a good question. Right. So, so no telling. They're not telling exactly what's up there. Fluid like medium. It seems like it could be super fluid and then a super solid. Maybe you can potentially semi permeable. But what we're saying is for sure, you definitely couldn't have any vacuum without a container. Now, yeah, we don't believe in the vacuum because actually redshift, blue shift, all observations, cosmic microwave background, energy distribution relative to the center of the earth, or the earth as a center. All shows us that it seems to be a more dense medium, a more local medium, a much younger and much more local lights based on all the observations. So if it's more dense and fluid like then yeah, technically, you know, it could be a variance of things. It wouldn't necessarily be as big of a deal as the vacuum, but there would be something acting as physical containment, regardless. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Tim Pryor says, better question. If you guys do not believe in space, then why do you believe there has to be a container? Yeah, same, same answer. The necessary antecedent to gas pressure is physical containment. We would have to have something physically containing it relative to whatever it is that's up above us, which is a variance of things. Even Edwin Hubble himself said it could be a much more dense medium if there's a misinterpretation of redshift. But you know, Glovers don't know these things. But yeah, so it could be a lot of things. Even though there's no pressure pushing back at the top. Sir, Corduroy says Witsit uses real citations, but warps them fantastically to fit his narrative. I doubt he's even read these understanding atmospheric pressure isn't hard. So yeah, I've literally read all the things that I talk about. It's not about understanding it. I understand the globe very, very, very well. Like typically better than most of Glovers. That's why I don't believe in it. And you know, so just like falsely attributing like incompetence to the other side enchanting doesn't actually mean anything. So the truth is I do understand it. And yeah, I just explained gas pressure two different comments in a row. I just explained how relativity is just a is a figment of your imagination attributing physical properties to conceptual abstractions, which is a reification velocity and it doesn't work within your own paradigm. So whatever man. This one coming in from Crimson air says globe side. Can you explain the selenilion selenalion a.k.a. impossible eclipse where the moon is end shadowed when the entire sun is still above the horizon? I don't know what that kind of eclipse is. So I got you. I'll explain it for the guy that sent it. It's called the selenilion eclipse. It's a lunar eclipse where the sun and the moon are both above the earth during the eclipse. So he's asking if the earth is blocking the sun and casting a shadow onto the moon. And how could we have the lunar eclipse? If it's your shadow if the sun and the moon are both above the earth during the eclipse. Don't know. I don't I never studied eclipses. And I do have a paper from space.com that's explaining when we have a lunar eclipse sun earth and moon are geometrically straight and line of space of the earth. The middle of the sun is above horizon must be below horizon. Completely out of sight. Oh, it's going. Oh, it's going towards their favorite word. Atmospheric traction. Okay. So there is an actual explanation. Which is that the sun looks like it's in the sky, but it's actually not there. And the sun and the moon are not where they look like they are. They're both just looking like they're in the sky when we see them. Wow. Yeah, you know you. Affirmative refraction. So affirming the consequence. Affirming the consequence. This one coming in from Samir Farh saying he says, How come all people who toured the world on hot air balloons came back from the opposite side? How come none were gone forever if earth isn't a globe? How? Circle navigation east to west is literally very easy to do on a flat earth. You just go around relative to north. The idea you think that east to west circle navigation is somehow impossible. This shows you haven't actually even understood flat earth yet. Which is why you're probably not a flat earth or north to south circle navigation would be impossible on a flat earth. The same way you go around the block. Same way you go around the block. You can go around a straight line. Neither is circle navigation. That's the point of why it's round is they went all the way around. He doesn't. Round. Yes. Tim prior to strikes again says, But yet millions of people have jobs depending on gravity's existence. Again, this is why I'm so skeptical. Again, so no, they don't have any jobs depending on gravity's existence other than downward acceleration being 9.8 meters per second squared, which is basically just the weight distribution or density and buoyancy relationship of something being more dense in the air and going down. It's called accelerometers. 9.8 meters per second squared is the effect. It does not in any way prove that gravity is real, which is what claims to be the cost. No one's denying people's profession using the fact that things go down and agreed upon average. Once again, it's a drastic misunderstanding of the whole thing. You got it? Yeah. There's no science except all the technology that metaphorically makes the world go around. He said it again, but it just uses accelerometers with just the effects. So all you're doing is basically chanting. It's called sophistry. This one coming in from Brandon Connell says flat earth. There's why does time dilation have to be taken into account for satellites if space time isn't real? Snake may be able to elaborate more. No, he can't. Yeah. So that is a way to prove that the prediction that math affects time, spacetime. Okay. You don't know. You don't know. I'll help you. I would like you. Well, he said I could answer, but Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Anyway, the prediction is that spacetime is affected by mass. So the more you remove it from the mass, the more you have to correct for time dilation. That's not what it is. Because satellites are further from the mass. That's not what it is though. Yes, it is. No, actually, it's based on the convention of the speed of light. And so since the speed of light is actually just presupposed to be constant in the same one way as two way, because we don't have two way, there's never, I mean, a one way speed has never been measured. So we just have a two way using a mirror. So Einstein wrote in his paper what we're just going to assume that it's the same both ways. So they use this convention for the relaying of transmissions of different data from the satellites and then assuming the speed of light, they actually account for the time differential of the clock because you could never prove that the two way speed is accurate because you could never move one clock from one position to another without it not being synchronized. So that's what it actually is talking about. It's not just you vaguely saying the words mass and space time. Right, and the light moves differently based on what mass is closer to. No, no, it's about action. It's about motion. I think you can just drop that from the equation. It's about motion. And it and it'll make sense. It's about motion and speed of light because when something's in motion, it supposedly time dilates and widens and therefore slows down based on motion. So I don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. We can move on. That's also part of it. This one coming in from David Benzcombe Ben Cosme says question for James is the beef with Professor Dave Reel or is he making it up as an excuse to not debate with it without a bias moderator because he only wants to debate with it on a bias platform. I have no idea what's going on with Professor Dave. I haven't heard him saying anything about modern day debate or me. I don't remember us ever having a plot of a conflict. So I don't think I've even heard from him email wise for like a year as it reached out to see if he wanted to come on. So I don't know what's going on there. This one from Sameer says Witsit said quote planets orbiting then says does he believe they're also flat or is earth the only odd ball? Planets can't be flat. Even I can see them spin. Oh my gosh. So when I was talking about planets orbiting I was talking about the idea that the earth is a ball the model that is believed you know so whenever they try to claim that earth's a ball going around the sun along with other planets orbiting they have to claim something stronger than electrostatics because electrostatics wouldn't work. So that's where you have to get the need for coming up with gravity. Yeah dude I don't claim planets are flat. They're not terra firma. They're not solid. Sonaluminescence would give you the literal optical illusion of an orb like as in a spherical orb of light. There's all kinds of things that it could be. I don't make claims that I don't know. I can only speculate and the fluctuation and the non-static nature of them, the dynamic nature of them seems to be consistent with sonaluminescence. This one coming in from Kyle says how was it possible for astronauts to go through the Van Allen radiation belt when they claim today they haven't discovered the technology to do so. Is that for us? I think so. That sounds like a conspiracy so I'm going to need some evidence. Taylor you know what it's talking about come on man. I'm not an Australian program. I'm not an astronomer. You know what it's talking about. I don't know why they could go to the moon. Is this about oh yeah that we don't currently have technology because we didn't make it and any more of it and the one that we did make is old? And you can't replicate it. They said it's a difficult process to recreate the technology. Oh yeah I'm sure it is but they already did it. What's the point of spending money to do it again? They say they've been trying to do it the whole time. They literally claim they're trying to go with the Artemis program right now. What are you even talking about? What about Mars? Notice the theme here. It's that they're lying to you. They're holding something back. They, they, they, they. No we're telling you what they said Amy. You only have talking points of sophistry. This is us quoting NASA. Or you're misrepresenting it to make it sound as ridiculous as possible. Quoting it verbatim. No they say it, what they say is ridiculous enough. We don't actually have to change anything NASA says because it's ridiculous. You also use the word sophist a lot. I would like to know are you just a rhetorist? Do you have any empirical evidence or is it just your opinion that's flat earth? Which is what I've heard today. I'm just saying, okay you're a sophist. We go, go ahead. Joshua Kelly says you have to literally lie to yourself to claim that all quote unquote impossible observations are the cause of refraction. The globe is dead. I have to lie to myself because I know refraction exists and can explain it. I'll read it again. You have to, you literally have to lie to yourself to claim that all quote impossible observations are the cause of refraction. Well if it's something that can be caused by refraction, why wouldn't I think it was refraction when it looks like it's refraction? You got it. This one coming in from Javid Ben Khazmi says, James thanks regarding Professor Dave. Yeah I have no idea what's going on. I've never heard from him or I've not never heard. I haven't heard from him in a long time. I'm open. The door is open if you wanted to debate Whitsitt on modern day debate. I know that was something that some people were talking about but no I hadn't even reached out to him. I don't know what's going on if he's said anything about modern day debate. Has he? Like I'm curious if he did say anything about modern day debate or me. Kango44 says, Whitsitt holding the most dishonest position ever. Take a weekend off and measure a shadow in three locations at the same time of day just like it was done 2000 years ago. Sticks and shadows Whitsitt, don't you get it? Yeah we just explained you can literally show you can do it with all kinds of different locations on a flat surface and I can map it out and tell you how the flat table is a sphere. If you have a closer light source explains it, not to mention taking as a myth distance measurements from the same longitude for an entire year show that the sun actually has a magnetic holography effect as if a toroid breathing in and out in a sort of way. It's an optical illusion in a way relative to your position. That's what the data shows. So yeah there's tons of different ways to explain it and it doesn't in any way work unless you assume a distant sun an infinitely distant sun with parallel rays and you assume the surface of a globe and you should know this fine now if you've been looking into that's really really kind of sad. Find that small local sun and I'll convert. Good one. This one from Kango44 says Whitsitt holding, we got that one. Sir Corderoy says ironically Whitsitt just demonstrated that he doesn't understand refraction. I don't know, they don't say what they're referring to. Weird world says Ben a flat earther for three years now and I've never been more sure the earth is flat than after hearing these two cartoon loving globers debate Austin and Karen. Stop worshiping these cartoons. And can I just say I like those words because once again it's a form of projection. We only have video and photos and they only have cartoons. There is no such thing as a photo literally don't have any photos. They admit there's no photos. I just literally no real photos. No, you said that you had photos. You don't. Okay. But that's not true. You could say that. No, it is. It's what NASA says that they don't have photos. Okay. So there you go. But see notice says so. Okay. Can I ask is there a journal that you would accept? Like if I were to go to nature, if I were to go to specific physics journals that said the earth is round and I could show you different people, would you actually, is there any actual source you would accept? Verifiable evidence. Yeah, there you go. Verifiable repeatable evidence. Yes. Simple. Okay. I mean, that is what all of the empirical evidence. That's why the physicists is why it's taught in, you know, middle and high school. No. Continue. Yes. No, that's not why it's not taught. It's not taught? No, why is it taught there in middle and high school? Is it they? Because they want to blindly believe it. It was proposed about 500 years ago by Jesuits who then proposed that there was a Big Bang theory in a previous energy, which was Jesuits. And then they admittedly, Einstein, Edwin Hubble, and Stephen Hawking will all tell you that we choose to believe that the earth is a ball that spins around the sun, although it can never be proven according to relativity, the Cartesian coordinate systems are the same. We believe it because of the Copernican principle, which is the idea that the earth cannot occupy a special or unique position in the universe. And so based on philosophical grounds of quote unquote modesty, we must ignore the intolerable position that the earth is special at all costs and avoid that horrific location or idea. So it's philosophy and that's your answer. It's not science. It's philosophy without actual empirical evidence also known as a religion. So Amy, ironically, you are in one of the world's biggest religions. Sure. That doesn't make sense. But I just want to point out that the round earth doesn't come from Jesuits priests. That's kind of cray cray. It has been around for thousands of years. It survived for thousands of years. Some of the medieval Christian natural philosophers actually kept it while the peasants were thinking that it was a flat earth. Nonetheless, it is not a religion. But I want to keep on saying, well, the four debaters on here, we can all agree religion is bad, ladies and gentlemen. It's just great. You're interreligion, though. I'm not. Yeah, but I'm glad. Negligent religion. Can you just keep on using religion badly, please? Okay. We're not. NASA just pays too much. James trying to talk. So we're trying to talk. KO44 says, Whitsitt, duty jump radar experiment, measuring the moon, would take you a weekend done. If you were actually a truth or you would just do it. That's hilarious actually because when you presuppose that you send the radio waves to the moon, how do you differentiate between the spectrum that you already received when it comes to the background radiation from the sky? Oh, you don't know the answer. Secondly, NASA actually says that it takes like many, many, many, many opportunities and even 10 years to hit the one that supposedly goes around it. In addition, they claimed they did it before they had the reflector. In addition, then actually by the time that the signal got back, the earth would have moved so far away from it, you'd have to be significantly far away from where you originally sit it. And in addition, we've actually taken that same spectrum that allegedly goes through the ionosphere, then sent it over across the earth. And it goes hundreds and hundreds of miles too far when it should be allegedly reflecting back down, also debunking with horizontal propagation. So there's no way to actually distinguish that there's not just cosmic rays, it's just a baseless specification and begging the question of fallacy per usual. This one from Technics One says, is this a debate about flat earth or about distrust in the globe? Is there CGI of flat earth to or only of the globe? Thanks for the great show. If the earth isn't physically curving anywhere, then what is it? Javid Ben Cosme says, James, I thought you guys got along too. That's why I think, I don't know what's going on with Professor Dave. Seriously, this one. Flat earth, Debbie Lara B says, modern day debate question for Taylor. Calling you out, Taylor. Can you name one experiment that replicates water sticking to the exterior of a shape? I know it's not going to answer what you want, but you can just put water on shapes and it'll stick to the exterior. It's not because of gravity, but since you worried your question so poorly, that's what you get. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Hymnsake says, thanks for hosting, James. Keep it up. All credit to the speakers. For real folks, they're linked in the description. Appreciate your support, Hymnsake, and our guests are linked even in the description box of the podcast, which is growing fast, you guys. It's ad-free. So if you don't like ads on YouTube or maybe you're like, hey, I like listening to debates, but I don't want to have to rely on my data because if I'm driving through a part of town that, you know, doesn't have a connection, which I often experience, it's nice. You have the podcast and you can find our guests linked there in the description box, too. Brandon Connell says, I've personally been on top of the lake three building. Let me say that again. I personally been on top of the Lake Way three building. You can physically see the North Shore, but you can't go on the ground no matter what explain. Who's that for? I'm not sure. I'm glad it wasn't just me that wasn't sure. That's not coming in front of anybody. If any of you know, let me know. I think it's the Antarctic they're referring to. If I had to guess, I don't know for sure. I said, I personally have been on top of the Lake Way three building. You can't physically see the North Shore, but you can't on the ground no matter what. The North Shore, what? I'm not sure. I'll keep an eye on the chat in case they update me. K044 in the meantime says question for the Flat Earth people. So the sun does not change in angular size as it sets. I can watch the sun set twice from a higher vantage point. Please explain this on a Flat Earth perspective, please. Please don't say perspective. Angular resolution. If you go higher, then you're widening the angular angle of resolution. The sky is on different planes on a higher plane. Yeah, they're asking that while we can see further when we go up. Yeah, yeah. When you go higher above a flat surface, you can also see further. And the angular size change of the sun. Actually, you can look at sterile celerium and it'll tell you that there's a time of the day where the sun changes angular size and actually gets smaller than bigger than smaller than bigger. So that's pretty interesting. But yeah, it seems to be similar to a focal point where it's in a certain part of the atmosphere doesn't change. When you go higher above a flat surface, you can see further as well. Just like Karen B said, it's like elementary. You're watching. Sorry. I was just saying, dear Watson. Sorry, guys. Bren, this one coming in from Sir Corderoy. K-044 says, the fact we are real-time video streaming this debate is proof that Witsit is very, very wrong. Wow, Earth must be a ball, bro. That was crazy, crazy good comment. Astronaut66 says, Witsit, if the Earth were flat, there would be, we already got that one. Question of the answer says, Amy and Taylor, your crusade against truth is fruitless in all caps. Funny enough, we are skeptics that we don't, we want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. And so we are always open-minded. I think there is a good Rich in Dawkins quote that says, open-minded, just not so open-minded that your brains fall out. But Taylor? Yeah, and I think it's a simple thing. Just show me the small local sun and I'll convert instantly. I think it'd be cool to have my mind changed. I do it all the time, like my mistrust of the government, for example. We see it every day, buddy. So show me the long-distance ball of gas in a vacuum. Like go above it. You can't go above it, it's too high up. You can't go that high up. What are you talking about? You're asking to go above the sun? But it's in the atmosphere. So we don't actually know where it's at. We don't know if it's in the container, outside the container. You can see it. We don't even assume that the sun is actually a physical object that you can go physically touch. Exactly. Could be magnetic. You can see it. Just look at it and go toward it. We just told you that it could be magnetic. They're flying machines, humans invented flying machines. You'll get there one day. Any jet pilot will tell you that you can't, you can't chase the sun, though, like that. Do you mean like you can't touch the sun? Because you'll burn? Like is that what you're telling us? Because it's very high. It's always moving. You guys have, yeah. Nothing but straw man fallacies, which means you're probably wrong if all you can ever do is to lie about the other side. It's a question for clarification. It was a stupid question because it's a straw man. Okay. Well, that just sounds, never mind. I can tell you love out there. He's only got a couple responses. You just straw maned us and said we could go above the sun if the earth was flat. You don't understand anything that's actually being stated. That's called a straw man. If it was local. You can't go high. If it's low, what if it's 30 miles? Is that still considered local? What if it's 100 miles up? Is that still considered local? Why don't you go try and find it? You can't go higher than that. You can't go that high. Thanks for pulling in. Also Taylor, there's a reason that they don't because they're like one of the recent flat earthers built a rocket and it exploded. So when they try. That dude admittedly wasn't an actual flat earther. Javed Ben Cosme says for Taylor, best flat proof. James put up this video which shows refraction films feet to prove she's not elevated. I can't post the link in the super chat but I'll post in the chat underneath this. I like I'm sorry. I don't think that there's links like it's I don't think YouTube allows you to post links in the chat unless you're like a moderator. So if you're all if you want to come on for a debate or something that works. But it's hard for me to like put up a video that one of the speakers isn't asking to be pulled up. So Javed Ben Cosme email me at moderndatabate at gmail.com if you're interested though. Some of your things for your question says we should start a petition for Elon Musk to take the leader of flat earthers on the next space flight if he promises to tell his friends what he saw. Maybe Javed Ben Cosme again says Taylor and Amy Google earth turns into CGI once you zoom out past airplane altitude proving no satellites in space. When I started googling some of the stuff that he was doing it is all flatter of sources which means this is their narrative shtick if you feel that you have uncovered something once again publish a paper. This one from KO44 says hang on all the stars are less than three miles away then because that's as far as I can see when looking over the ocean and according to Witsit that's because light does not go forever. Very ignorant yeah it's called the attenuation of light which is relative to the medium density and over the water is a much more dense medium than directly above you and we don't claim to know the medium differentiation or composition of what's above us and we also don't know what's up there again it could be so in luminescence so just an ignorant basic misunderstanding of attenuation of light. Also light does not go on forever look at the inverse square law of light. This one from the wicker man says Amy and Taylor drop the mic boom you got fans out there as well. Tim Pryor says you're lying again in college in college I went to Antarctica I myself witnessed the 24 hour sun. You did not see the actual sun in the sky for 24 straight hours if you did prove it you're the first one ever to have the actual evidence just because you're saying it on the internet we're not gonna blindly believe you because we happen to know that 24 hour sunlight it isn't actually 24 hour sun and so that's just a cool story by the way when you went to Antarctica you are an approved guided tour guaranteed you can go without getting approval. This one coming in from do appreciate your question as well. Brady D says Taylor is the moon in Earth's atmosphere. Depends on where you cut it off it's not really there's some air there's a little some air particles up there but uh no you could fit all the planets between the earth and the moon. Yeah I would say it's the nitrogen oxygen and other gases that are on our on the planet it's that the moon is just tidally locked with us it is going around us as we go around the sun. Yeah since it's in the atmosphere you guys since it's a since it's a gradient there's no like hard cutoff point so. So the atmosphere actually goes all the way to infinity got it great story. That's not what you just said you said there's no cutoff so if there's no cutoff then where does it end? It's not what I said. Yes you did. In atmosphere you can get to zero in a gradient but there's no hard boundary anywhere in the gradient. Where do you get to zero? An atmosphere is just the gases surrounding a planet Mars is half of our size and thus it has a much smaller atmosphere because it has a smaller gravitational pull. Oh the moon doesn't have an atmosphere. That's really yes it does have a little atmosphere. No no it doesn't. There you go. You don't even know what you're talking about. The two PhD scientists you have it. This one from Tim Pryor says your phone does photoshop pictures. Why do you guys think keep thinking photoshop means fake. You can photoshop all kinds of stuff like photoshop was first done in like the early 1800s so photoshop has been a thing for a long time but you can take real pictures of something and photoshop it so no one's claiming that just because someone does a composite that means it's fake but the fact like I can take a composite of my car down the road the point is that there's no actual real picture and they take composite over cartography planes right which just gets flat matte projection then wraps around a presupposed ball and dude it's pretty simple man just like Karen B said we would believe in the ball if it was legit we don't have like some independent motivation to believe that there's this giant conspiracy at the earth is flat there's no actual evidence for the government always lies we've caught nasa lying tons and just seeing cartoons admitted CGI composites are not satisfactory to us we need verifiable evidence we can't trust the government man this one it's almost like it's almost like navigation only works when the compositive curved this one huh he doesn't know he's talking about how's a great circle is also used for navigation he was presupposed as the dude it's insane dude how do you explain them yeah in great circle route on the earth if there would be over 3000 mile differentiation between your five hour trip down south with 500 kilometers an hour how do you explain that there's 3000 kilometers difference that you don't have to account for on the meridian longitudinal great circle route so you're talking about there is no there's no problem accounting for distances on any globe models that problem occurs when you try and put the earth onto flat maps okay you don't understand the question that would fit underneath the plane 3000 kilometers going north to south on the per the longitudinal meridian great circle route i i didn't hear because you kind of talked over each other for a second the great circle route on the globe earth on the longitudinal routes of the meridian would have drastic differentiation because the earth would spin underneath it so you'd have 3000 kilometers in a five hour trip yet we don't see that and there's no correction accounting for that and flatter a globe where there's other talk about the great circle route east to west as if it proves that the earth's a ball when you can have circles on a plane but no globe earth there can ever give any adequate explanation for how you have a great circle on the meridian on the longitudinal without having to account for the spin of the earth at all and never have an answer almost like engineers account for that they don't this one from javid ben cosme says since professor dave doesn't want to debate witsett on modern day debate get fight the flat earth instead maybe i mean they've debated a lot but let me see who else i can get i think i can get some some big timers for witsett in addition because just like i said there's just been a lot of debates between fight the flat earth and what did i think if i remember you guys have i'm not i'm not debating him on a principle ever samir farsane says are two billion chinese people lying when they say it's 12 am there when it's noon here and vice versa otherwise how would you explain it with flat earth that would be explained with the small local sun a small local light moving over a large plane of the earth that's how or the light stops short in one direction goes much longer in the other no i think we're gonna stick with what karen b said things though this one from dave hinkle says can amy please invite her favorite scientist for the next debate i mean sure i invite my favorite side i would prefer any well first of all i have been above my debate partner taylor he's amazing um but i will i mean any physicist and with james approval i mean i will do any debate bring it on um but i mean if sean carroll wants to join i mean if we're just going out there to be in sean carroll baby so we'll bring it on i guess juicy and john locks says why do flat earthers go out and do all the research and globes just sit behind the computer spouting mainstream indoctrination is it impossible for globes to think logically for themselves and prove anything empirically for themselves well they won't go to the small local sun they won't go to an artica even though you can you might you might have to fill out some paperwork uh or you know spend some money or become an explorer who can figure out how someone does that this one from tim prier says it takes pics are 30 minutes to render one cgi frame and you actually believe himawari could do it every 10 minutes austin oh i know that it just takes uh there's already there's a huge database of all the weather already and yeah you could easily just kind like add it together in a composition later with the blue marble that's already there so yeah you could absolutely do it with all the the data already accessible that's great and you're also not comparing to uh the same quality image they're not equal when you're talking about a pics are you're talking about a much higher quality image than what they tell you the himawari eight is so yes you actually could render the quality of the himawari quite quickly less much less than 10 minutes as compared to rendering a full um a full high resolution movie talking about a movie and i would like to flat even though actually do that and not just make that claim because it takes a lot of time and energy to render things not in that low of quality did you not hear it depends the quality like and if you stretch you can replicate it as a flat earth try and actually do that you're saying it's so easy oh they can just do it they just throw up an algorithm let's just move on this one and if you stretched an image to fit a shape that it doesn't actually map onto then you're gonna have differences in quality image quality and it's not gonna fit and it's not gonna resemble reality and you're not gonna be able to navigate based on okay you don't navigate based on himawari pictures buddy so we can move on they didn't know what you're talking about nobody knows you don't know what you're talking about javid okay site one person in the chat i'll give you money we gotta move forward to javid and cosby says amy and taylor there are treatments for cancer that perform better than chemo and radiation these treatments are not peer reviewed though so how am i supposed to know that name for alternative medicine that works it's called medicine and so if they would like to get those type of cures which may actually be out there there are things that we don't know and are learning in medicine all the time and i don't mean to be a record keeper a record a uh uh broken record but you need to peer review this one coming in from appreciate it simon the science guy says our meteorites breaking through the glass dome austin no that's a ridiculous question but ironically all meteors came from the same six radiant sources for all recorded history and so that actually debunks the heliocentric model on its face because it would come from different parts of the sky but they're predictable reoccurring cycles they're cyclical and all meteor showers come from the same six radiant sources so debunked in heliocentric and it looks like they're actually uh just electrical discharges so there's the answer this one from josh says amy and taylor are the essence of cognitive dissonance says amy if you actually want to become a comedian much you must watch jim brewers somebody got to say it short well first of all jim brewer is a fantastic comedian i love his stuff um but there's only one bard being a comedian and that is going up on stage because you could be a bad comedian a good comedian that's really up to the audience but if you want to call yourself a comedian all you need to go is go up on stage and put a microphone in front of your face tim prior standard bob did that experiment or bob did that experiment three times even closed the gyro still picked up a 15 degree per hour drift stop lying austin okay so watch i'm gonna say it again but this is what this is the problem james right like they don't want to know the truth they'll say the same thing tomorrow like i didn't say all this okay but einstein himself will tell you that if the earth is stationary and the sky was moving around it you would get a translation of motion to the interior of the system and you would get centrifugal and coriolis effects the only difference is that it would actually be actual effects and as opposed to fictitious with the earth moving in addition we know it's from the sag neck effect that's how the ring laser gyro is calibrated which he said it was the vortex in the ether it's also proven with michael singel pierce in from by with michael sin michael some morally debunks of the earth is moving and so we get the 15 degrees per hour but it's not because the earth is moving and then bob took it to a different altitude at the same latitude and got over a degree difference which debunks that it's the axial rotation that has to stay the same when at the same latitude okay this one coming in from do appreciate it john rap says how does one get gobbledygook gobbledygook out of a beard my beard tim prier says so basically you agree with gravity but just don't like the name and come up with a different word for it austin gravity oh it's not that i'm in cognizance that all the empirical evidence ever literally shows that relativity is wrong even if i presuppose the earth was a ball all the evidence shows that it's wrong relativity says you can't prove that the earth is moving so i can give it that at least it's it's honest in that sense because it says all evidence shows you it's not moving i don't have to give it a different name i'm talking about what we can actually replicate and demonstrate to demonstrably be true which is that everything that has matters electrostatic and that's an attractive force and we have an electric gradient on the earth everything else claimed about relativity is literally not proven and quantum mechanics debunked all those claims this one from tim prier says but the ceilings normally the exact same shape as room which means the floor what if i see a light bulb i don't think it makes the ground a light bulb i think that's for us maybe so yeah if if the ceiling was spinning around and we saw it spinning in one direction that way one direction that way but we look at the ceiling and no part of the ceiling is actually getting further away from each other then we're the one moving and we're on uh anything but flat basically it could it could be a cube this one can't be flat i've gotta say folks just because we want to try to we're going on it's getting close to three hours it's been like two hours and 55 so i do want to say please we probably can't take any more new questions at this point please we want to get our speakers out by a decent time so they get to sleep so i want to say thanks for your questions but you probably can't take any more as of this announcement techniques one says so no container now just electrostatic that's just another straw man fallacy no one said that there has to be physical containment it's necessary and to sink the gas pressure we don't have to make claims as to exactly what it is it could be all kinds of things we don't make claims about the medium i just said that it could be a fluid like medium and so i'm in essence above it this one from said all matter was affected flat earth gemini says taylor first said all scientists are in agreement then later stated scientists fight all the time yeah um that's saying that you can bring up something that they disagree with and fight about it they're all in agreement on this particular subject you could bring it up you could fight with them about it um there are subjects that they do fight about that they don't all agree with this subject they do but the point is is that they're not against you disagreeing or breaking the paradigm on principle which is the conspiracy theory that these guys have this one coming in from well can i just add on really no sophistry amy you got to do better than that well no when we come up when we come up with a new concept scientists fight over it and then eventually it's whittled down to there is a scientific consensus and that's not relativity dot jay this one coming in from i do appreciate it tim prier says instead of all the mind words you could have just said i don't know about the dome uh i already said i don't know exactly what it is that is containing i just know that it's there for like the four hundredth time there just has to be something physically containing it tim prier says i'd like how it's all could be maybe possibly be but no evidence literally we have all the same evidence as you which is naturally occurring observable phenomena and observations you guys make up fairy tales that maybe polaris could be 400 light years away then you guys just change your mind said never minds 323 light years away just a few years ago so your little model that you think is so perfect literally isn't perfect they're guessing as well ironically the only difference is you're making claims that are can be debunked within your own model like dark matter and dark energy angle quantum scale someone's trying to say that that doesn't matter it does matter they're still mass on the quantum scale which means it has to been in warm spacetime so ironically when we speculate that's what you're doing only we're honest enough enough or enough to know that we're speculating and we don't pretend it's scientifically proven it just gets changed every day this one from tim prier says virgin galactic is now selling tickets to go to space are you going to say everybody that has money to go there is also going to be in on the conspiracy going a few miles up in the air doesn't prove that the earth is a ball they don't even claim to go up above or outside of the low earth orbit they literally don't even claim to go to space so it's a parabolic flight you're going on a big parabolic flight admittedly go ahead i was saying admittedly you only float for a few minutes just like a parabolic flight you go up and you come back down and then people just say stuff like that just it's just kind of sad frequency says project paper clip anyone i don't know what that means 1945 the us yeah good what's it's like an encyclopedia over here he's got all the answers but it project paper clip is when basically at the end of the world war two all the nazi scientists were exported out of germany and over here to america and they started nasa boom you got it this one coming in from do appreciate it tim pryor says find me a part for a 1939 model t since nobody makes those parts anymore does that mean that car did not exist same way with the technology back then with nasa i think they're saying with regards to nasa not being able to do things that they were able to do not doing cgi's they really not the same thing because we've got bigger and better cars that go faster and travel more efficiently than the old car so we made improvements in that technology it didn't just disappear so not the same this one coming in from tim pryor again says i'm assuming when you say globers you mean everybody that has not watched youtube videos and believes it am i right and then says same way around the block so i'll do the same argument why aren't planes constantly going left or right if they're just going in a circle they use a compass your clown they use a compass update relative to go from point a to point b they don't have to go left or right tim pryor says the formula of buoyancy literally relies on gravity everything you're saying agrees with gravity you just don't want to say the word actually the principle predates the formula that put the little g in there and in hijack columns all effectively meaning that there's an electrostatic attraction if you look at it they're very similar then people say oh it came after didn't hijack it meaning a hijacked up phenomenon which is electrostatic i don't care to say the word gravity is actually nothing more than incoherent dielectric acceleration or incoherent magnetism and that's all that it is that's all that is provable the problem is that there isn't something called the theory of relativity making gigantic balls and vacuings fly around each other that's all made up nonsense and it's not even logically viable on its face this one coming in from tim pryor says in my spare time i'm an amateur astronomer i've seen jupiter's moons catching shadows on it and have calculated jupiter's rotation please explain never mind you guys like using cameras to look at planets then continues like an emp pulse can fry computers which means newer cars would be inoperable but older cars were not i think that maybe they meant for that to be too separate uh super chance this is tough i can't tell where one starts on the other ends they said we'll give you the first one they said in my spare time i'm an amateur astronomer i've seen jupiter's moons catching shadows on it and have calculated jupiter's rotation please explain yeah so it's it's a long time been known that they try to claim that blue that the earth is heliocentric would actually know it works in a neo-tychonic system so that doesn't mean anything the fact that they're seemingly as something relatively moving in the sky so one another and then moving around the earth i don't really see how that somehow proves that the earth is a ball that spins in a vacuum it's very ignorant with regards to the idea of whether or not nasa had technology that they cannot replicate today and that they could not move beyond or improve on they say tim fryer says like an emp pulse can fry computers which means newer cars would be inoperable but older cars were not we have new technology the radiation belt will mess up that technology the same way i thought you guys did research we understand the story we understand what you're saying it's just a very convenient story that you can't actually recreate the technology to go back to the moon now they're claiming that they're going to they seemingly can't get off the freaking ground i don't care if you want to believe they're very dangerous we're pointing out that it's stupid brandon connell says lake way three is the big building next to the causeway in new orleans let me go back to their original so their original question was i personally been on top of lake way three building in new orleans you can physically see the north shore but you can't on the ground no matter what please explain oh sorry i was totally zoned out what i don't i don't i mean i would have to see a picture to know exactly what he's talking about he's saying that you stand in a building you can see the north shore but you can't see the ground so what is he saying you can't see the ground because of curvature that would mean that there's no curvature you can see the north shore which i uh i don't understand i still don't understand like brandon is the lake three building is that like out just a bit offshore when you say you can see the physical shore or the north shore they said you can physically see the north shore but you can't while you're on the ground no matter oh okay yeah but again so you can see further when you lift up when you go higher but hey ask him if you sit there on the ground and you tape a time lapse all day every day will it change the answer is yes there will be certain days that you can see further and the the alleged obstruction constantly moves up and down because it's not physical it's pretty simple tim prier says i want to set up a debate with witsett give me the details of how and when that sounds like a good alternative like i said fight the fight earth has debated awesome and fight the fight earth have clashed a lot this may be a good one tim prier seems like he's very well-ridden experience so tim prier if you email me at modern data bait at gmail.com we'll see if we can make that work and that's modern data bait no spaces no hyphens at gmail.com and let me know and we'll see what we can make happen try out the insult dog says went on international flight weeks ago saw a curve well you disagree with the world's most famous businesses the geometry says that you actually can't see the curvature from a flight so you can't even see it from 60 miles up so this is awkward your model says that you wouldn't see it so something's going on also actually over a flat surface flying 80 000 feet up in the air say they don't see curvature so but this guy on youtube said so in a super chat because he's triggered that we're dominating the globes but the truth is that if you were over a flat surface and then there was a local light source you'd have something called a circumference of light and that would actually give you the illusion of some type of convexity uh which is pretty ironic and of course your eyes see in a circle but obviously the earth is not flat and like she said you can talk to pilots all day they'll tell you that you they don't see a curvature you guys just say it and if you say it boldly enough with an ad hum about how we're stupid the earth becomes a ball magically this one coming in from do appreciate your question semiarfar saying says what's at the edges of the flat earth or gradient two well nobody said there was an edge all we can go to is um for this we can get to his Antarctica and we don't even know that Antarctica goes all the way around the earth so there is no edge it's just a shoreline like a lake what's beyond the shoreline i don't know tim prier says austin really needs to learn the definition of religion flat earth is the epitome of the definition of religion well no actually it's not no really like that could be a juicy debate in particular flat versus globe christie says as you approach a mountain while at sea level would you see the top of the mountain first or not and why hi james hi chris good to see you oh was the question was for us what was the question yep they said as you approach a mountain while at sea level would you see the top of the mountain first or not most likely probably yes you would see the top of the mountain first what does it mean that the earth is a ball gosh instead of the entire thing growing large at the same time which is what you did because that's not how it works that's not how horizontal planes and angular resolution work yeah an angle of view that is how it works oh okay so what you're saying is then we are seeing the literal physical curvature blocking at its actual location then when you say that we never do and your model says that we never do you see how what they get to do is just make all kinds of contradictory claims simultaneously it's insane it's so funny it just doesn't matter if you want to be honest listen to what we actually said research the subject honestly you don't have to fit in with everyone else that's that's the truth you know some people are just afraid this one coming in from or near the end christie says at what point after joining quote the government are you briefed on the flatness of the earth and begin your lifelong journey to lie to everyone forever you get access to space lasers right afterwards it's great they give you free shirts i think they're for austin and uh and karen b i think they're kind of trying to raise if you might say a sociological argument saying why is it i mean maybe i'm reading too much into this i think they're saying like why is it that like is it really the case that everybody in the government like there's been no whistleblowers out of all the people that have been told by nasa or the government that the earth is uh actually flat yeah there's whistleblowers there's tons of subject matter experts if you go to mark sergeant's channel there's people from the military all to all all kinds of people that come forward and say that the earth is flat they just don't get any public recognition or time on on mainstream media there's actually two alleged astronauts a soviet union and a polish astronaut who literally came out and said that the earth is flat you guys say there's no whistleblowers but in addition we don't think that everyone's in on some major lie with millions of people just straw man that you use to try to make it look improbable but we know it's just compartmentalization most people believe the lie so again it's the same thing it's just so history where you got a lie about what we actually think which is pretty interesting huh this one from tim prier says no it doesn't stop deceiving the glare makes it appear to change size use a solar filter this has been shown to you guys a billion times using the solar filter doesn't prove that the earth is a ball even your solarium says that it changes angular size and your model says it changes angular size throughout the year and you say no just because of because of whatever it changes angular size it wouldn't change angular size during the day you just straw man that onto us because you have to make up stuff this one coming in from tim prier says flat earth has no model so there's no straw manning it then says so now i'm also lying like millions is that all you have well whenever you tell lies yeah i've been you're lying and yeah it's a straw man if you make up what you don't understand like straw man examples of flatter we don't have to have an entire model to know that it's a straw man when you say if the earth was flat there wouldn't be a horizon if the earth is flat we know for a fact that the sun would change size if the earth was flat we'd see across the entire world these are straw man fallacies due to your lack of understanding and basic incompetence that's what it's called a straw man fallacy you got it and this one coming in from do appreciate your question rumbly depuses wits it when does the sun or the sum of angles in a triangle equate to more than 180 degrees when dealing with spherical geometry helpful when navigating the earth that isn't true geodetic surveying in the modern time never does anything over 180 degrees the globe earth just claims that as a talking point and then they bring up some paper from 1850 or 1796 but no one ever does that they also don't even understand the actual data of that and in addition if you just presuppose spherical geometry i don't think you're actually proving that the earth is a sphere this one from tim priers to stop lying you do not have to get approved to travel there you can take a cruise there anytime you can get jobs there anytime love how everybody has to be lying if they disagree with you just again you double down karen but you got it they just doubled down the line they're just doubling down and making like i mean go look it up for yourself it's it's you can go look into it on your own you don't have to believe what we say or what that guy says you can just go try to do it yourself go look it up have fun this one coming in from the only like folks for real no more questions this one coming in from do appreciate it wokenstein says hey james hey modern day debate flat earthers why do hurricanes rotate in opposite directions on the northern half of earth than they do on the southern half they actually don't always do that but you can look up something called a solenoid or a bar magnet and you would get a similar type of effect with the magnetic flux readings that we have and with the solenoid bar magnet type effect over the earth electromagnetic field or a magnetic field they actually don't always go the exact opposite directions though that's been debunked and also just now explain to everyone that even ironsign will tell you that the sky is moving around the earth it would be a translation of centrifugal force onto the earth so i mean it just you guys don't even know what relativity says and that's why you guys ask this type of question because you just read google articles tim prior says i would love to see flat earthers start using flat earth technology since we globers are so dumb and it's funny that flat earthers claim the moon is local but then claim we've never been there think about it i shouldn't have to explain you should because that's ridiculous no one thinks you can land on it we don't claim it solid sorry i'm not trying to take all the questions i'm just kind of over it like and we don't claim that it's solid we don't claim it's something you can walk on so yeah that's right you can't go land on the moon or go to the moon because it's not something that you can even go to and yeah it's much more local than what they say that it is and you said where's the flat earth technology why don't you go talk to the nazis because they actually had electric or video propulsion devices using ether physics and throwing out throwing out the uh relativistic physics so interesting tim prior says loved how wits it thought he debunked meteorites with a bunch of words salad yep that's why museums will pay thousands or millions of dollars for a piece of rock it's money laundering bro what's yeah maybe so like their pictures but what's so funny is i it's not word salad when i say all meteors come from the same six radiant sources in the sky tim you just don't know what that is or how to respond so you just try to dismiss it with your little two word phrase which is nobody's ever observed a rock falling out of the sky and hitting the surface of the earth the only reason they call them meteorites is because they have high iron content which is not a foreign material that is all material found here on the surface of earth it's funny how they find they finally find space rocks but they find them on earth exactly they claim that they claim 70 percent of the moon rocks we have were found on the earth it's hilarious stupid beta energy says it's very simple wits it the sun doesn't change angular size because it's big and far away not small and within the sky over a pizza earth uh well we get your claim and your strawman of a pizza earth we showed you that magnetic holography seems to be a viable option based on the longitudinal azimuth and declination readings over the course of a year and that's to larry on which uses your model itself says that it does change angular size throughout the day then you guys say oh well it's just not enough to matter so your entire claim went out the window you begging the question of presupposing something means nothing we don't claim the size the shape or the distance we see a circle that looks like a light and then we don't know where exactly it is or what it's encompassed in so you can desperately try to straw man all you want but anyone that wants to know the truth of this conversation is going to do one thing they're going to go research the veracity of the claims from the globe earth and see if that's actually true and anyone that doesn't want to know the truth will frantically try to chance ridiculous comments like that and never go look into what the actual evidence says tim prier says first stop quoting einstein because einstein never thought the earth was flat and no michelson morally did prove the earth was not moving stop repeating what people say and read the paper from them themselves i literally have read the paper i sure you haven't i understand all about it it's called detecting earth's motion through the ether it didn't show a friend shift it showed one six of what was predicted it's even less than that now it was supposed to show 30 kilometers per second revolution or orbit around the sun it didn't show that the what it showed is that the earth wasn't moving combined with michaelson gill pierce and which matched the sidereal rotation prediction within 98 percent which is literally how we have gyroscope to the satanic effect to this day which shows that it's the sky moving around the earth it's not actually it's not actually the earth moving and this is just objective and so they threw the ether out because if there was an ether then that would mean that the earth was not moving and now quantum mechanics popular physicists are now coming out and saying it looks like we're going to have to reintroduce the ether but they can't figure out how to make it work with michaelson morally because it would mean that the earth is not moving this is what it actually happens in reality not your stories this one coming in from and the last one tim priors says no what i'm saying is the ceiling is normally the exact same shape as the room so yes looking at the ceiling will tell you the shape of the room we're not looking at the ceiling we're looking at lights in the sky we can't literally see a of a ceiling we don't go touch a ceiling so that's just a ridiculous question i could tell that it was actually someone being serious about earlier just ridiculous question nothing that's on the ceiling and the ceiling can never tell you what the floor is it's literally very remedial you've got it and with that folks want to say hey a couple of things first and most importantly we appreciate our guests you can click on their links right now to check out their website their youtube channel their twitter go ahead right now click on their links because we're gonna have the post credit scene in just a second but hey i gotta tell you we appreciate our guests they're the lifeblood of the channel you had some exposure to them right now so whether you're listening via youtube or podcast you can click on their links as we put the description put their links in the description box for both the youtube channel and podcast i want to say thank you witsit karen b amy and taylor it's been a true pleasure to have you tonight thank you just research it for yourself and stay open minded don't worry about what other people try to tell you about it just be honest looking to the globe keep asking questions thanks so much for being with us and folks hope you felt like your side was treated fairly we really do want to welcome you whether you be flat earth globe earth christian atheist politically left politically right you name it all of the strange creatures in between those uh you could say differences as well we hope you feel welcome we do appreciate you we hope you are having a great night i'll be back in just a moment with the post credit scene letting you know about upcoming debates you don't want to miss them hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up and with that i'll be back in just a moment one last thanks to our guests he's in i want to say thanks so much you guys we are pumped to have you here let me just squeeze this picture down very embarrassing you guys i am thrilled to have you here want to say thanks for being with us at modern day debate we hope you felt welcome no matter what walk of life you were from whether you be christian atheist muslim agnostic you name it whether you're like nah i'm really more just like skeptic undecided whatever you want to call it we hope you feel welcome we do appreciate you hanging out here it's always fun here at modern day debate we've got a lot of juicy debates coming up you don't want to miss them i've got to tell you first want to say hello to you in the old live chat cgi fan done thanks for coming by creature good to see you big pine sailing thanks for coming by as well as Amy Newman good to see you iron horse glad to have you raven ran wolf thanks for dropping in stupid beta energy thanks for dropping in curt hanuman good to see you mr white thanks for dropping in origami glad that you are here says thanks james thank you seriously it's my pleasure we hope you felt like you got a fair shot in other words that your position got a fair shot as it's important to us we really do i told someone today they asked me they said why did you start modern day debate and the truth is i said i used to go on debate channels myself and someday i'll probably debate again but right now like i'm excited i love building modern day debate it's it's something that i'm passionate about it's the vision that i think we can all agree on whether we be flat earth globe earth you name it i think we all agree on this in particular that everybody wants a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field that's important to us as we really do want to give everybody a fair shot we don't want moderators jumping in and systematically taking one side in the debate that looks pretty sketch i mean really seriously it's gross that channels do that that's why i started moderating debate is i thought there's something better than this youtube deserves a better class a debate channel and we're going to give it to them and we are doing that as we want to say thank you guys for helping us grow you guys for real the debaters and you guys are the reason that we have grown so much seriously it has grown monstrously we appreciate that and seriously it's i'm beyond thankful as you guys all the different ways that you've helped modern day debate for example subscribing really does help seriously it kind of gives you could say social credibility it's like amazon reviews if somebody has like a good review on amazon and then it's like well that's that's good i mean one's better than zero but if they have four thousand or seventy nine thousand and six hundred that means a lot more where you're kind of like wow is like people enjoy this so seriously that is a way but also i've got to say there are other ways so for example hitting that like button really does make a difference that boosts the video in the algorithm we're at 329 likes that's a lot however we could easily get to 350 for real that is not far away as we have 329 that means only about 21 more likes it'll be at 350 which is pretty monstrous i mean that'll be beyond a third of a thousand that's big for a live stream so that does help and especially more importantly if you're like wow i don't care about helping modern day debate well here that's all right i don't blame you you probably just met us maybe you could think of it this way if you thought your side was more persuasive in the debate well youtube will recommend this video more from this neutral platform where you think that your side was more persuasive whether you be flat earth or global birth youtube will recommend it more to more people and the video is going to get a higher ranking when people search like let's say flat earth debate on youtube if there are more likes on the video so that's a good reason to do it is maybe you just want people to hear the truth and you think that truth prevailed in this debate so that's another reason but the other thing is this you guys have helped so much in terms of all of the shares like i can the creator studio the little youtube kind of like background scene i could see how many shares videos get and you guys do share our content a ton which we really appreciate if you let's say have a discord group or maybe a twitter thread or a facebook group where you want to share this video go ahead and click that share button you can share the link and then somebody also see it and be like hey cool that really does help a lot as hey we think this is a vision and a mission that everybody can get behind whether they be flat earth global earth christian atheist politically left politically right whatever you are whatever walk of life you come from everybody can get behind the idea that everybody every position deserves a fair shot to make its case and for us that's important and it's not just important in the sense of being fair to everybody but also we want there to be liberty if people are going to say something that's considered out there or kind of like oh it's kind of like far-fetched or kind of controversial or we want them to have the chance to say it we want people to have the freedom to make their case for what they want to make their case on that's important and a lot of people might say well james what if people spread misinformation or you know dangerous harmful ideas and that's where our third value comes in because we care about our values they're important to us and our third value is competition in particular when we let a thousand flowers bloom when we let the chips fall where they may believe me folks you're gonna see it it's going to be the case the cream is going to rise to the top the best arguments are going to win out and not only is that just logical it just makes sense i mean in the world the best things went out the best car manufacturers outlast the ones that put crappy cars on the road or it might be any type of competition the best athletes rise at the top the best arguments rise at the top too we believe that in the empirical data suggests that's the case petty and cassiapo i think i've told you guys before i'm working on my phd in psychology i can tell you the empirical data does suggest that rather than peripheral factors so for example whether or not a speaker is good looking or has a good sense of humor more importantly the more lasting influences are logical arguments logical arguments change people's minds more strongly and for a longer amount of time peripheral things like oh well but what if this person spreading disinformation is you know they've got a sense of humor or they're charismatic and so they just kind of charm people into believing in their misinformation or their bad arguments well the data doesn't suggest that's going to happen the data suggests that like i said when we let a thousand flowers bloom when we let the chips fall where they may the best arguments are going to win it's that simple want to say hello to you in the old live chat jj hem hemcrete bear thanks for coming by malavia says calling so-and-so dishonest isn't attacking him most sane people here can tell he's being dishonest let's see tna plastic thanks for coming by and trillian thanks for dropping in what glad to have you here in the old live chat tom buddus thanks for dropping in and stupid beta energy thanks for dropping in globe asunder thanks for coming by but mr. white glad to have you here one neo thanks for dropping in as well as lori wagner thanks for coming by good to see you see pames happy to have you with us i see you there in the old live chat and want to say though for real thanks guys for all of your support you guys have supported us in so many ways and we appreciate that if you didn't know we do indeed have a modern day debate patreon which helps as we are trying to put on bigger and better debates all the time so if you haven't if you didn't know that it is in the description box modern day debate patreon as well as hey i mean there's also modern day debate channel memberships here on youtube that helps support us as well so a couple of things that you might not have known about but also want to see odin all father all farther thanks for coming by jesus died for you thanks for dropping in i see you there in the old live chat jake green i see you there how are you see in the live chat amanda good to see you thanks for all of your support of modern day debate oh yeah amanda just in case if you don't i know it's super busy so i hope you don't feel pressured or swamped or anything or like when i ask if you happen to know about locations and what venues might work or any potential pricing for our conference in october or potentially november now like i am pumped to hear about it feel free to always get in touch i don't know if i gave you my number i feel like i hope i did i could have sworn i did but just to be sure let me know if i didn't because i just want to be sure you can get a hold of me with that info but want to say trillian thanks for coming by thanks for coming by gene lorette so james should be earth's moderator i appreciate that gene thanks so much seriously it means a lot and brady d thanks for coming by seriously we hope you are doing