Hey everybody let's get this debate started tonight we're asking is the earth flat or is it a globe so allow me to introduce you guys to our debaters tonight over here we've got guillotine and heat pride on the globe side and of course when it gets it and Nathan on the flat side we'll start right out with the globe gentlemen with your opening statements we'll do 10 minutes each team and then we'll go into open discussion globe the floor is all yours globe Earth skepticism is ultimately derived from the lack of trust in the scientific community and I get it I agree that science is a liar sometimes and NASA in particular has a motive for trying to obfuscate reality namely the moon landing but I think globe Earth skeptics are throwing the baby out with a bathwater I think a lot of globe Earth skepticism is due to NASA being sketchy for example common thing I see in these debates is the fact that the pictures of the spherical Earth provided by NASA are artificial composites NASA even admits this um let me just share my screen real quick that's saying no sound no sound from me okay sorry basically all these globe Earth skeptics they can smell there's something fishy going on with these globe Earth images or you know just a lot of information coming out of NASA but their explanation for these discrepancies requires way too many assumptions given all the other observable data that are not getting from NASA and I think it is so important to keep this moon landing straight going that I suspect a really popular there's a lot of Earth can partially be attributed to a digital campaign it discredits you can just read it in quotes credit a man land up skeptic by negotiating us with low birth skeptics as a man landing myself I can confirm that what are you some kind of ladder usually the first thing people say when I say my position on the landing like or not really cool really cool has always been active mechanism of control as far as I'm aware there was really nothing to be gained by popular theory maybe you can correct me on this but there is a clear incentive for NASA to propagate flatter theory in my money this course and provides a great way to dismiss any skepticism about me or help help where those don't get tax dollars go bottom line I think thank low birth skeptics are unwillingly doing the deep state bidding and yeah it's my turn can you all see my slides. So tonight I'm going to be presenting kind of two different sections the first is just evidence that the earth is not flat from your observation. I'm going to be doing four different things here. You know hear me. Y'all can hear me. Yeah. Okay. So first of all talking. So we do not see Polaris from anywhere above the equator. You can only ever or you can only see it when you are above the equator from southwardly of the equator you can no longer see Polaris and when you're thinking about a flat earth it doesn't make any sense that a star that is at the center of the night sky for the middle part of the world somehow the outer part of the world when they're looking toward that same center. They're not seeing the same star doesn't really make much sense but so observations of players first the second rotations of stars in the northern versus southern hemisphere. She does a quick little clip here. I don't know how loud that is but basically these are observing. So these are observations of stars the northern versus southern hemisphere Arizona in the top left and Australia in the bottom right. And as you can see in the in the northern hemisphere. In the northern hemisphere they're rotating counterclockwise whereas in the southern hemisphere they're rotating clockwise. And so the difference in that apparent rotation would not be evident on a flat earth. Next observation observations of shadows caused by Mount Rainier. As you can see in these many different photos Mount Rainier is a massive volcanic peak. It's located near Seattle in the United States. And so on clear days the peak dominates the horizon and thusly causes this shadow where during the sunset or shadow shows on the clouds. Something that wouldn't be possible if you have if you have a flat earth model where the sun is always rotating above the clouds. And then lastly we have videos of 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Where you have somebody. Sorry I'm just trying to get to the part of the video so yeah you have somebody showing a watch showing that they're tracking the time throughout the entire day. And that the sun is there for the entire day which if you have a sun rotating around a flat model again doesn't really make much sense how the sun is shining on only the outer rim but somehow not in the center. This is called frozen south Antarctica 24 hour sun 4k. If you want to look more into that video. Next, just evidence that the earth is rotating oblate spirit. So just trying to use the technical name there basically that the earth is spherical. So, unlike my compadre, I do want to present at least these photos birth, many of which were taken by NASA. The first photo in the top left here. This was a time lap part of a time lapse movie reel which showed the curvature of the earth in the hold on trying to up here is taken by v2 number 13 sub orbital space flight. And that was that was taken in 1944. The second picture to the right of that just one from. 1966 is the first picture of both the earth and the moon. From the Earth's orbit December 11 1966 third one to the right of that. First full disc pictures of the earth from a geostationary orbit also on December 11 1966. And then the last three are first full disk image of Earth of Earth from space taken by person. William Anders on December 21 1968. Number fifth number five in the bottom left is the the earth rise image. That's December 24 1968 and then number six is from the Apollo 17 mission December 7 1972. So all these photos come before the development of Photoshop in 1987 by American brothers Thomas and John know. These are basically before the time of Photoshop. And while my, you know, compatriot here may not entirely, you know, like this while I understand the flat earthers might not like that. I do see these as evidence. Next is just different engineering feats that took Earth's curvature into account when they were being constructed. So the Humber Bridge, each, each tower on the bank of the Humber is 36 millimeters further apart at the top and at the bottom, which is how they took account of the curvature of the earth. Number two, the Verrazano-Nara's Bridge. Because of the height of 693 feet, the distance of each, the distance from each other being 4,260 feet, the curvature of Earth's surface was taken into account. Towers are not parallel but are one and five eighth inch farther apart at the tops and at their bases. And then LIGO, so LIGO's arms are long enough that the curvature of the earth was taken into account when they were being constructed. Over the four kilometer length of the arms, the earth curves away by nearly a meter. So yeah, these are just another just interesting examples that I thought. And then lastly, just the results of a ring laser gyroscope. So ring laser gyro basically works by shooting two lasers, which hit the mirrors. And given or when there is a delay in one of the lasers reaching back to the detector, basically that's how you would tell that there is a drift. And when you use these lasers as famously Bob Nadel did in his 15 degree per hour drift video or in the Netflix documentary about Flat Earth, he showed there was a 15 degree per hour drift using a ring laser gyro. So yeah, that's basically it for me. So ultimate question with this stuff is always just kind of why is this something that people get into their head? I don't really understand it in a time where science has advanced so much. And yet we still have what I would at least term kind of arcane views of the world. So yeah, that's the end of mine. Well, basically, sorry, my last point being that personally, I think it comes down to on the one hand religion on the other hand, wanting to be a part of a group that, you know, you kind of think of yourself as being different from the system. And while that may not be true for everybody, those kind of seem like the two primary reasons for me. Yeah, so that is that is all. Thank you very much. We'll definitely explore those questions with the flat side in a second. First, I just want to tell everyone thank you very much for coming out to check out this debate here modern day debate. Make sure you guys hit that like and subscribe button we are so close to 125,000 subscribers. It would be amazing if we could do that right here right now. If you guys want to see some debates live, including Mr what's it gets it. Go down in the link below get your tickets for debate con for November 4. It'll be very exciting. Team flat. The floor is all yours. All right, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen here. Do y'all see this is pulled up now right. It's my slides. Is there a way I can make the wait minimize was my set. Did my mouse disappear. Okay, anyway, I'll try to do it without it here. Okay, so our side here is about the flat earth and why that is true. And so basically, my approach with this opener does tie a little bit into my opponents here about how a biblical earth lie can be pulled off so it's pulling off the literal worldwide deception. And then so to put it in context, the earth scientifically is planar over water with the four lights observation and does not move according to the MXM MX the Microsoft Morally experiment. Our shared reality regardless of what a math or majority says is empirically still and fixed. We are on the ground therefore we can access the ground and perform tests and experiments on the ground, impart conditions upon the ground and etc. And we have interactions with the ground and water. Once reality is measured and there is a mismatch betwixt the observed results and what is taught at public tax dollar expense and academics. It is reasonable that one might ask who is deceiving, who could trust. How could trusted elites do and why would they lie. So, our experiments show and and relatively confirms a stationary earth we observe flat water over open bodies. So then you get to this conspiracy component of it which is real there has to be someone is live so the first thing is who is deceiving. And so anyone who knows what the science demonstrates yet claims a globe is deceiving. Honest people are not deceiving honest people who sincerely think they know quote unquote the earth is a globe are not liars delete deceivers or malicious in any sense. Humans could lie to one another on a lesser bird lesser burdensome claim and rip people off to affect the one who stands to gain from lying about the shape of the world would be evil.  They might even put their number as a signature of their cosmology the plum bob upright of an angle is 90 degrees. If you subtract the earth's 23.4 degree tilt you get 66.6 degrees Earth orbit of the sun is at 66.6 thousand miles per hour, and there is 0.666 feet of curvature per mile traveled upon an oblique globe with an equator of 24901 miles of circumference. Those are their models and so here you have a King James Bible verse which does say. And we know that we are of God and the whole world lieth in wickedness so there are people in positions of power is the claim. And so I can't really get rid of these side boxes on my screen so they're like all of our pictures are in the way, but I have here kind of some some pictures laid out. So you have NASA which actually looks like a snake's tongue. And if you look at a cursive T that actually looks like a cursive T a little bit might be a little bit of a stretch but that does give you an anagram for S A T A N, which is Satan. And if you look at the dollar bill symbol next to it and you spell out you draw the this triangle pattern, you points to you capture the eye, which is a religious symbol of evil people and some evil people like Satanist and Luciferians and then it is a Mason and it's kind of more known now that DC was set up by masons there's a pentagram and everything the obelisk and all that, which actually right next to that picture I do have a picture of the obelisks there's one in London one in DC one in Rome these are city states separate of their country but they rule over the people down underneath the NASA logo with the snake you have a picture of the Roth child they're a banking family, who they party pretty usually that's their house party from 1972, and they get into some stuff with like the goat you can see there, they have bird cages and whatnot dismembered baby dolls, they're dolls, but they're on like the tables scattered about. And you can see right next to that a picture of Will Ferrell who is in horns antlers white looks there's that creepy girl with the mask on his right. This dude's covered in blood with a bunch of people in masks and cloaks behind him. Underneath that picture will fairly see another picture of Will Ferrell, and what that is is to the left. He's at an event hosted by Marina and Bramovich she is there speaking at the Roth child Foundation lecture. And so she is promoting these art parties and stuff these are elite powerful social influencers of our of our culture. So to the right of Will Ferrell you have Marina of course holding some thing with horn some sort of bull to the right of that. Hopefully y'all can see it it is Jay Z dancing with Marina and Bramovich and under that picture is him wearing a shirt that says do what thou will. So to get further into that how this gets here is in the middle of the screen on the top you have probably the biggest loot the biggest loser who's ever existed that's the bathroom it's. So regardless of anyone's views of religion if you're Christian if you're atheists if you're Buddhist, there are people out there who do worship a devil and do believe it very sincerely. And so then to the right of that you have someone who was a very high ranking Mason manly P Hall and he talks about when you get to the high levels of these degrees, you are going after the seething energies of Lucifer, which is the deceiver of the world who would be able to pull off this sort of a deception and underneath that you get Buzz Aldrin who is a Mason and actually to I have a little picture there of Buzz Aldrin. He was actually at the last bunny mansion I don't like that company but he was at the last party that was ever held there. I'm a very damaging place to a lot of men and males, but he was at that party probably hard to get there, but that ties in later with some of this other stuff so if you go to the left side. You have of the bathroom it you have jack Parsons, who will actually in the picture that's a lester Crowley, who wanted to be called the bathroom at 666 wanted to be the most wicked person ever did a bunch of vile things has written terrible things, and he actually taught a lot of jack Parsons, who started jet propulsion laboratory which is a part of NASA and it says right here, Jack Parsons studied in the bottom left there he was a fellow might occultist which was started by Lester Crowley. Under there to you see the Beatles who actually had a lester Crowley in their album artwork. And you see today Lil Nas X has the Satan shoes the drop of blood which is a witch spell, the pentagram, the Bible references to the left of that you see Warner Von Braun who started NASA project paperclip he actually has a biblical reference on his tombstone to literally And he started NASA on the bottom right here you also have a picture of the three astronauts in the Apollo mission they don't look very chipper, even though they just accomplished the greatest thing in mankind's history. And right above that you see a bunch of astronauts supposedly on the ISS just flashing up a sign, which happens to look like some horns which to Satanist that's a real symbol for them. So then I have here. Whoops. This is Timothy leery who talks about the counterculture. Yeah, a total credit for sponsoring and initiating the entire conscious movement counterculture events of the 1960s. Wrong. Nobody's right. Or it's the test. Everybody's wrong. Not needed. My rebel is the totally I think that I've carried on. I started those 100 years ago and I think the system themselves. So there he says it do with that well ties into a lesser Crowley and then here we get buzz all. Me wrong song. He gives this speech. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Mr. President. Members of Congress. Hello. Ladies and gentlemen. Right. Once noted that the only bird that could dock was the parrot. And he didn't fly very well. So I'll be brave. This, this week. America has been recalling the Apollo program and reliving. They've only completed a beginning. Today we have with us. A group of students among America's best. You we say. We've only completed a beginning. But we think that we've done enough. Thank you. Much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to. Those who can remove. One of truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief. Those challenges are yours. So compared to a parrot birds that are known for talking, not for flying. So saying you went to the moon rather than flying there. He kind of did like a couple of things as well, body language wise and whatnot, if you get into that stuff. But he talks about the parrot and he talks about peeling back truth's protective layers, which ties in a little bit with my opponent and the skepticism of the moon landing. So then how would they do us for NASA to deceive us? They would need to fake a globe and space. As well as, perhaps some of the things that would be seen, such as the organic materials need good on his hardworking scientists to provide them with the welded joint for the rocket that scientists genuinely believe is going to space. And what are there any examples of their efforts towards helping the public. So here you get the first image of the earth in 43 years. This actually happened kind of right when flat earth was really getting big. And if I actually flipped it there on the right of it, you can see on the bottom left of the original picture. It actually says. which writing backwards is a part of witchcraft and Jack Parsons was a part of sex magic practices and was a witch and did these types of things. You also have NASA duplicating the clouds and there are many shots of duplicate clouds and everything in NASA's images. So you have cloud duplicates, you have Robert Simmons here talking about its Photoshop but it has to be on the far right here. You have a picture of the earth where North America is one third roughly of the hemisphere. And then in the other one it's the full hemisphere. So that's a massive size difference. And then on the bottom right, you also have the flat strips of data which is out of the words of Robert Simmons' mouth. Those are flat data strips that they wrap around a ball. That's why they have gaps and everything too. So then wait, they have to know to be lying. So is there anything like NASA would have to know that the earth is flat to lie about and to see you? So you have more pictures here of different shape and colored earths. You have the Disney imagination arc. There's a lot of tie-in with Walt Disney, Masonry as well, 33rd degree. There's actually Club 33 at Disney which is more secret society stuff. But you have the arch that rockets take, they never go straight up. You have this here, the balloons that NASA, they're the number one user of helium. And so they send balloons up all day long. They use the sorrow cycle which was developed by a flat earth geocentric culture. And so that's how they predict their eclipses. And then you have technical complicated documents that need to be accurate. And they use a flat non-rotating earth in their technical documents with very complicated mathematics. So it's probably not just for simplification purposes. And then let me see here. It's not letting me, hello. We're pretty far into it, just so you know, brother. We are, okay. I think my screen actually looks like it's stuck. Move on to Witzitz opening. Oh, there we go. There we go. And then you have just some fakery stuff here. You have the ISS, this is Don Pettit. I could play it, but it's him saying that it would be a pain to go to the moon. We don't have the technology, we destroyed it. Here's parabolic flights. It's one option, how they fake weightlessness. Here is something I will play that shows a clear wire being pulled by this astronaut flipping in the air. He has this thing sticking out right here, gets pulled and pulls back towards this guy here with the military shirt, which also goes into up here. Military is in NASA and in the government and the military is known to keep secrets and to do things like operation sea spray here on the far side. I'd go to, and then so efforts of assisting the public, NASA can make it rain and we have droughts and there are wildfires, but we use weapon weather warfare through Operation Popeye. There's NASA's budget in the corner. So we give them all this money, they don't put the fires out. And if anyone wants US code 5150 US code 1520A, that talks about how they're able to actually test on us and experiment, do stuff without our consent just as long as they call it scientific research. And so why the lie? Basically we are created, we are special, we are loved, our creator built this place for us, wants us to be polite towards one another, have a relationship with him and with one another where we are respectful, kind, polite, decent. We don't treat each other like animals, like some are superior. These types of things, like things don't matter, things like quality of life would change and everything. I can get more into this later, but it's not about money, it's not about control, it's about your soul and it's about the Bible and the creator and how much the creator loves us. So much that he sent his only begotten son to die for all of mankind's sin. And so we have defeated death. So Austin, I really crunched you on time there, but please, I actually don't know if I can, wait, here we go. Am I still, oh, there we go. Stop, share. Okay. Okay, I can't tell, did I just start lagging again? I think I just started lagging again.  Yeah, I don't know how much of a headache it would be for me to back out, but I think we did pretty clearly go over anyway. Love to you, what do you want me to back out and see if it works again or I don't know what happened? I'm kind of hoping it's gonna just catch up. Do you have an opening statement? Can we tackle that real quick and then you can back out? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll keep it concise, I know I'm delayed, but so it's really simple, the default position, regardless of how much people want to fight this, is that the earth is a stationary plane. That's just objective. So, you know, the word horizontal literally comes from the horizon. We see that the oceans are flat, the horizon is flat. We see that the stuff in the sky moves and that we do not move. And that's the default position. You see that everything in the sky moves around the earth in the central position for all reported history. Now, could it theoretically be something else? Yes, could it be a tilted wobbling, spinning, revolving water ball on a vacuum of ever expanding nothingness? Sure, in theory. And all of it's an illusion? Yeah, but the burden of proof lies on the globe. One guy, I think his guillotine is a screen name, did claim some proofs. We'll get into those things because I don't have much time, we're already over, but simply put, contrary to popular belief, the globe has the burden of proof based on Occam's raisin or empirical evidence and standards of evidence. And so we'll get into that. We tested the earth, we tested the globe, it's objectively not that. And people get caught up in the why would they lie. I don't think if your girlfriend's cheating on you, I don't care why she's cheating on me, right? Like I want to see the evidence that she's cheating on me, we'll deal with why later. So hopefully we'll get into the specifics of the evidence and I think it's cool that Nathan kind of touched about some of the bigger things that people want to avoid. And yeah, why would NASA lie about so much if there's nothing to hide? It would be the better question. So we'll get into the evidence and we can go from there. Sorry, I'm delayed, I don't know what happened. It's all good. We heard you loud and clear, which is I think was super important here. So once again, everyone, if you wanna see what's it gets it live in debate with no delay on stage, go ahead and get some tickets for that debate con four. We're also doing a crowd fund details for that also in the description. Yeah, what's it if you want to at this point attempt like a restart to see if you can be undelayed by all means. Yeah, I'll be right back. Don't be alarmed everyone. The overlay will go a little askew while we wait. In the meantime, I'll remind everyone, go ahead, hit that like button. We got 600 people watching us here right now live, which is a pretty impressive number from what I can tell, which means I would love to see those of you who are not subscribed take the time, go ahead, hit that subscribe button. I'm really, really, really hoping or wishing that I could see that modern day debate subscriber count go to 125,000 subscribers. Last time Witsett restarted earlier, took them just a few moments here. Nathan, I'll ask you, how do you feel about starting the open debate without your tag team compadre? Austin brings a lot to the table. There's no doubt having him here. If it would help, I'm willing to start without him. And I think we could start off the discussion then when he gets in here, you can say what he's got and get into the conversation too. I'm cool with that if all are. Can I say a few things? Oh, we're waiting. I suppose so.  I still think my theory leaves a lot less unexplained. And to be clear, Nathan, your theory is that Glober is being pushed to steal our souls. Is that what the deceivers are getting out of it? To get people to not be so interested with and go towards the Bible, towards Jesus, and towards the Creator. Yeah, it would be. I feel like most Christians don't even care about Flatter. I think it's still kind of a marginal thing, right? Yeah, and it has nothing to do with salvation. Faith alone is for salvation, but it just has to do with validating the Bible. The Bible to be the literal word of God has to not be inaccurate in its claims that can be tested. So the Bible does make a claim that the earth is stationary. That's a claim you can test. And so we happen to test and get no motion to the earth, like through the Michaelson-Morley experiment, pendulum's mechanical gyroscopes, they show no motion to the earth if they're mechanical. And so this actually confirms the Bible and it's actually even more fortified by Einstein's position. Einstein through relativity says ultimately there cannot be any detectable motion. It's all a reference frame where either one thing is moving and the other is stationary or vice versa. And you can't tell in that instance which one is which. So even the modern theory of today is capped off with the saying that any motion to the earth is not perceptible. We can't measure, we can't detect it because everything has to be relative. There's no absolute motion for you to detect motion against. And so it's, there are other claims as well that the Bible makes that can be tested, like diet and nutrition with plant eating, reversing diseases that other nutrition's can't, cleaning your hands with running water, those are things that can be tested. Whereas like having faith in the Bible is not something you can necessarily test, that's a faith claim, but it does add credibility if the earth is flat. And then you have the 666 is mentioned by the Bible as the number of the enemy. So if someone was gonna lie and they were the enemy to mankind, then putting a 666 in many different positions kind of, and I know it's in imperial English units or whatever, but these things are, they're all over and English is what's- I mean, if you change the units, then you stop having the tilt thing. That was 66.6, right? 66.6 there is? Yeah, and that one would always be there. Yeah, no, but if you, instead of using degrees as your way to measure the angle, if you use radians for instance, then suddenly the 66.6 goes away because radians, you know, it's like two pi is equal to 90 degrees or some shit, right? Yeah. Yeah, it's a pi. I mean, it's really just- 180. Not a two pi. Yeah, no, I don't see- Mind if we drop the religious angle because that's like a whole other debate. And- Yeah, no, I just wanted to set that as far as like the conspiracy aspect of it for people who question about like how could they lie about the earth and stuff? Like that shows a lot of cultural influence of like satanic things and how it's crept into society. So you just think they're just like evil, basically? It's been a deception that's been in the works for a very long time and some very intelligent fallen angels. They're dumb for rebelling, but they do know things. They've been around for a long time so they know how to reverse engineer. That's why they can look at the sky and just say, no, the sky is still and we're moving when really all we see and experience in all of our colloquialisms and our terms and our day-to-day verbiage is sunrise, sunset. That implies motion, abyssal planes, plate tectonics. These are things that indicate flat, indicate stationary, indicate a moving sky. So how things rise and set. It should be the earth turns to and fro. Like it shouldn't, it's in our, kind of like what Austin was saying, our terminology. Austin, are you back by the way? Yeah, yeah. We are at full debate power now. So yeah, thanks for coming back there, Austin. Everyone, don't forget to get your super chats in, right? So at the end of this debate, we'll ask our wonderful debaters some questions based on your super chats, all right? Keep things friendly. Yeah, let me, let me, yeah. Let's get back to this open discussion, Austin. Because what I was about to say was like, if we can kind of all agree on a couple of parameters, right, like let's try to keep our points concise into the point for both sides and then try not to interrupt each other or like interjections and interruptions are different. I think we'll have like a very productive combo because everyone here seems pretty chill. And so I think we should be able to do that, right? Like I, I do have one thing I want to make sure we all agree on in my opening, I brought up that the globe has the burden of proof as in what we experience is that the earth isn't moving, that the stuff in the sky moves, that the horizon is horizontal. And the globe says, oh, well, it's so big, you don't feel it. Oh, it's so big, you don't see it, blah, blah, blah. And sure, it's physically possible, right? But do we all agree with that, that our default position with our experience and our observations is that the earth is a stationary plane and that to substantiate that it's actually a spinning globe would have the burden of proof. Are we all in agreement with that? Yeah, sure. Cool. I don't know that I would. I don't know, if you have the evidence to like... Yeah, the things I presented in the beginning of my presentation, we're kind of, that's what I was trying to get at, just evidence that it's not flat from mirror observation. I mean, it's very clear ways to be able to tell that. I mean, I don't know, I see your point, I just don't think that, I don't think that the globe has the burden of proof. I think...  Right, exactly. So like your evidences would be substantiating the burden of proof, right? Like when, yeah, exactly. Like when you gave those... You can meet the burden of proof, so it's okay. Exactly, like when you offered proof, so you would be substantiating the burden of proof. We can go through them. I would say it's more just evidence. I wouldn't really call it proof. Yeah, but it doesn't prove the point, but yeah, it's just evidence. So we can't prove the errors above it, but that's somewhat semantical, I get your point. But we can go through the evidences, bro, right? Because it's a misconception that people that research this and come to the conclusion that the globe model isn't true don't know these things or haven't thoroughly understood them. So we can go through them. Now I had typed them out as you said them, but I had to restart, right? But I do kind of remember what they were. I remember that you had Star Trells, right? Star Trells, yeah. I remember that you had a gyroscope. 15 degrees per hour drifts. Right, so that would be motion. So do you guys want to start with some motion? You want to, yeah, exactly. You want to start with the motion or the geometry first? Because there are two primary claims, right? That the Earth is a sphere and then that the Earth is spinning or that the Earth is a plane and that it's stationary. So we should break them up, they're different. Would you guys rather kind of cover the geometry or the motion first? I would just want to hear your explanations for certain observations that we have. Like, for instance, why is every other celestial body around? Gotcha, yeah. So if you look at it from our perspective, it's that from our perspective, everything moves around us. So if you know what relativity says, it says, well, sure, everything looks like the Earth is in the center of the universe, but that's just an illusion. Okay, so from the perspective that the Earth actually is in the center of the universe, that would make it special and unique, right? The Pernican theory says that it's not. Pernican principle says it's not special or unique. So like, if the Earth, here's my question for you in response to your question, right? Like, if the Earth is in the center of the entire cosmos, because that word's better, it means order, then what would make you think it should be the same as everything else? If it's the only thing that's in the center, everything moves around it, what logic is there to suggest that it should be the same as everything else when fundamentally it's different than everything else? Well, that's how it is in the Hillary's model. Like, there's a sun, and the sun is the same shape as all the planets, right? Yeah. It doesn't seem that crazy to me that, you know, every body in space would be the same. So what about the geocentric? What you're saying is you're saying if we look up, we see the sky doing a certain thing, or we see something certain in the sky, things look kind of circular or spherical if you want to. So we look up and we see that, but you would also, if you're gonna say, we look up and see the sky this, you are wanting to claim the circular appearance of objects, but you're not wanting to claim when we look up in the sky, we see it move. So you're trying to claim that we observe one thing, but we also observe the other thing at the same time. And why things are circular in the sky or why they look like, if the earth was purple and round or in a cube, that doesn't mean that the things in the sky are purple cubes. What the earth is below is not always what it is above. We see light above coming from stars. We don't see the earth emitting its own light, kind of like if you play baseball, you play with a round ball, a round bat, you round bases, rounded batting average, but the field itself is not round. It's, you can't associate one to the other. So do you guys, are you saying space isn't real? No, no, no, no, the area above us where we see lights are real. Many astronomical observations are real. Many of them are not. They're taken with RGB filters and they're taken with spectrum data, right? Emission and absorption data and then we translate them into images. But, and you covered that and you had a pretty honest opener, but there's two ways to answer this question. One is say I have a pool table over here. If I pick up the pool ball and I say, look, it's a pool ball. So since it's a ball, the table's a ball. For I say, oh, the light bulb is a ball, but it's a spherical. So therefore my floor is a sphere. They're unrelated. Well, no, no, cause like, I don't think the shape of space is necessarily spherical. I just think the bodies that are in space are all spherical.  And then the pool table itself, that would be space itself. So it's okay if it has a different shape. Also, what is the shape of flat earth? Like, is it something like this? We don't, we don't make a shape claim. Flat, flat is a description of a surface. And I would say it is a circle and that the creator drew a circle, but I leave that. I leave that separate. Bro, bro, you understand that you're conflating two models. So when you're like, but in the heliocentric model, but that's not, you asked, why would they not be the same? Well, from a geocentric stationary plane position, the earth is in the center of everything. Everything is paying homage to the earth and moving around it. There are lights moving around the central earth. Why would we think the earth is the same as everything else? It literally isn't. It's the only thing in the center, right? Like that's what I'm asking you. Like, if you put yourself in our position, which in the bit, you have to be able to still man the other person's position. So like, why would we think that the earth would be the same as what we see in the sky when from the observational's perspective, it's not. It's the center of everything else. So it's special and unique. So if it's unique, it doesn't stand to reason that it would be the same, right? Those are contradictions. Yeah.  I just, I don't think that necessarily because, well, one, I would question how you know you're at the center because it feels like you're staying kind of like it relies on knowing that you are the center, which I would wonder how you know that. All evidence ever. All evidence ever. All observational evidence ever. Yeah. Mechanic evidence that what gyros. That we're in the center. Your model claims that everything looks like the earth is in the center, but it's an illusion. That is the, that is you. And though it claims that it claims that from every point in space, like in every single point, you could say that you are the center. So you agree that all observations from our earth, you would look like you're in the center. So you agree that all observations from the earth make it look like we're in the center. It's what, no, if I remember correctly, theoretically, you could say that from any point in the universe that you look like you're the center. So, so what the globe is saying is that no matter what observation we try to make, we're only going to get the earth is the center as the result. So now the flat earth is saying, we interpret that as saying the earth is flat or is the center. That's the simplest explanation, Occam's razor and all that. So it's the globe that claims something other. And then they're like, okay, well, we're going to make an observation that the earth is not the center. What are they going to do? They're going to set up a device on the earth and measure it again. And it's going to come back that the earth is in the center apparently just, you know, according to a globe, it's in a parent position, but it's the thing we always get when we empirically demonstrate reality and try. It's an illusion. It's an illusion. Like I have a book right here by Stephen Hawking. It's called stubbornly persistent illusion. It comes from an Einstein quote. He writes a three page forward and the whole rest of the book is Einstein quotes. It's a stubbornly persistent illusion that we're in the center of the universe. So we can all agree because you guys have to agree if you're claiming the current model, which is that when we look at in the sky, any observation we make from the earth makes it look like the earth is in the center and you're claiming your model claims. Well, everywhere in the universe would look like it's in the center because everything's expanding away in all directions. Well, you asked me, how do I know the earth in the center? And my answer is because literally all observational evidence ever shows us in the center. But what about the background radiation? Background radiation. The earth being the center. There's a clear position in the universe where it seems like that's where the Big Bang came out from. It's not like the Big Bang could have happened right next to us. Like we can see from the background radiation, or sorry, the red shift. I don't know what it's called. Microwave background. The different things. These are cosmic microwave background and then there's red shift. So cosmic microwave background is we did many different quote unquote probes and you can do it without high altitude balloons or whatever. Anyway, it showed background radiation in all directions and they claim that's evidence for the Big Bang. But there's two terms to be familiar with, right? In homogenous and isotropic. And isotropic means without a preferred direction. So the Big Bang cosmology claims that there's no preferred direction like he was saying. It looks like we're in the center but everywhere it looks like it's in the center. There's no preferred direction it expands in all directions. But when they looked at the cosmic microwave background they saw that there was an isotropic distribution meaning that actually there was an axis of evil, right? So it was basically it should have been smooth everywhere but it was bumpy in a couple of places. And when you drew the lines on those bumpy areas it intersected on the earth out of the entire universe. And it's called the axis of evil. The CMP actually proved that the earth was in the center and redshift is a different subject which is everything expanding away from us and makes it look like we're in the center and that's Edwin Hubble in like the 20s saying, oh, well that's an illusion. So both of those are good evidence for our position. And doesn't that seem a little bit like you're kind of refuting yourself from a globe position? Like if the default position is that it appears stationary and appears flat and that the things move around us the sky moves around us. And then when you set out to perform a test you're admitting that there's nothing you can do to test that shows that we're moving. It always has to confirm. So you can't. No, wait, well there are some things. There's a- We definitely can. When we support the flat earth claim and you can, we can't falsify the globe. I would like to know how you guys explain- Yeah, that's wrong. Why there are different seasons at different parts of the world at the same time. Wait, before we get into like the, I just want to say this, right? I think it's important that we don't have a subject and before we address the conclusion, we just move on to, well then I want to know how you explain that. Let's, let's, let's wrap up the conclusion, right? The cosmic microwave background and reds. Okay, so it shows that the earth is in the center. So the question is, is there any actual evidence? Is there any exclusive evidence that exists that proves or shows, cause you don't like proof that the earth moves around the sun in a solar system. Anyone give us evidence that's exclusive to the earth moving around the sun. That's what we need because that's your claim and that's not what we observe. So do you want to pull up on this for show, Guillotine? Even if we're, even if we show that it rotated, the rotating and being able to show curvature would also be very important. But yeah, I don't understand that your claim of this, of like the acts of evil for one do. I don't understand why it's like but even if this is true, this acts of evil, how do you know this isn't just something that like you've interpreted this, you know, the, the scientists called it that. They're called, it's called the acts of evil. Look it up. Quite a, quite a few people who are kind of high up and just are well, well publicized or public figures that are aware of the acts of evil. And that's what they called it. Bro, what is the acts of evil again? Right, so it sounds weird, right? Because evil isn't science. That's like some emotional, moral argument. Yeah, so, but that's what they called it. So they called it the acts of evil because this is around the time where we had like Middle Eastern situation going on and George Bush called them the acts of evil. So we just named it there based on the political climate. The idea of it being evil is that it just didn't go along with the model. Like it was supposed to show that the earth is insignificant. Everything is distributing everywhere. For some reason, it was a 23.4 degree tilted anisotropic distribution of energy that intersected on the earth. It's called the acts of evil. Because that's their term, not our term. And no one's ever explained that, by the way. The current academic explanation is, oh, well maybe the instruments messed up. So there is no expert. Yeah, I feel like we're into it. It's an intersection of what they're measuring up in the sky, it intersects with us being at the center. And that could have something to do with the machine itself being the epicenter of its receiver and of its, what is it called, processor and everything. Like it's doing all of its function out of the center of itself. So that could have something to do with it. But that also does that observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation does align again with Einstein and saying that it just, it appears like we're at the center. So it doesn't actually conflict with the globe in that explanation. They're actually covered. They cover the CMB. Oh, actually, actually, actually, wait a minute. That's not true though, because so. They say the earth is tilted on a 23.4 degree axis. And that's why the sun has the ecliptic plane. So we see the sun move in like a plane, right? Ecliptic. And so they say, oh well, it's because the earth is tilted and it makes it look like that. Well, the CMB showed that that tilt goes far beyond the quote unquote solar system. It goes all the way out in the deep space, which means it cannot be because of the tilt of our position, or it would only be local. It's all the way out in this space. Relatively, we cannot explain that. No one can explain that. The current explanation is, oh, the data must be wrong. It's okay if you're not familiar with it. If you guys want to move on to something else, that's fine. Like we can talk about whichever one you want, the geometry, the motion. We can do whatever you all want to do. I just don't understand on that one. Even just because somebody calls it the axis of evil doesn't mean that one, it is evil.  You can call it the cosmic microwave background radiation. It's the same. I just want to know what, we're somewhat the evidence. Who cares what someone called it? I think it's funny that they call it evil. Because that's not scientific at all. Yeah, I don't understand. That's also weird to call something the god particle. Yeah, that was really bad. At CERN, they have a deity statue of Shiva, the destroyer deity outside CERN, for whatever reason, but they just have religious statues. And they call it the god particle because it gives mass to the majority of the particles. So would you want to talk about the motion of the geometries when I'm asking? That's a different one. That's like the solar system. I can tell you right now, I can save us time. I had a conversation on my channel once it gets in on YouTube, PhD astronomer. OK, he's a professor in astronomy. He quickly conceded that there's a kinematic equivalence with the geocentric position, meaning that all the motion that we see in the sky is equally explained on a stationary Earth. All of it, retrograde, parallax, aberration, all the motion of the planets and the stars are perfectly explained from a stationary position as well. They're equally valid, according to relatives. So we can save time with that. If you guys have evidence that the Earth is moving or a ball, we would love to hear it. And we can cover what you brought up. Was he saying that it's a stationary globe or a stationary flat plane? What was his? That's a separate part. So like, if it's in the center or not, it's not particularly related. It could be in the center, but that doesn't really determine whether it's flat or not. Well, couldn't I share my screen real quick? Good luck explaining a stationary globe in space. It's going to be done. It would be kind of tough. It's just that it all like I've heard it before. What's his name? St. Janice Robertson. Janice, he's also on my channel. I've heard it from him the whole like, you know, the everything rotates around it. But like, and that generates the force of the what I'm trying to get at is how here. Look, let's go to let's go to geometry then. And if you were to show this to start the geometry talk here, this here, these are our four lights that are all they're one foot off the ground. And these four lights are five, six, seven and eight miles away. And they all are in a straight line, whereas a globe would have them getting further and further bent down. Because if you think of like a circle, how it's curved, like the further out you go, the more downward your direction starts to tend. So the further out you go, there's a more extreme drop. So these, if you plot what we observe here at five, six, seven and eight miles out, if you plot that on a graph, these points are in a straight line. And this is actually from an observer height of like seven inches. So the camera is actually tilted up at these lights. So this is actually a geometric proof. I know in science, it's evidence. But this you can coordinate this out on a Cartesian coordinate system. And it will plot out that the that water is planar because if you put all of these points together, it forms a line. So this is a geometrical proof showing that water is planar in bodies of water, like lakes and oceans. Yes, they. I need like no diagram. It's hard to really tell what I'm looking at. It's like three or four blurry dots. Where is this? Basically, all basically all the lights should should be at different positions on a different refractive indices.  Is there like a top down angle look at this location? The weather like so many different factors that could happen.  You got it. So this is this is in the winter. This is on a frozen lake. And so this is, I think Rock Lake. And these lights are are five, six, seven, eight miles apart and the five, six, seven, eight miles away, one mile apart each. And the observer, he's at an observer height of seven inches and he sees these on a straight line. And what what this does is if you think like this five mile away lights, this is one foot off the ground, right? So what the official globe narrative is that at three miles back in the ancient Greeks time, they were watching ships disappear bottom first over the the horizon over the curve of the earth, supposedly. And that a six foot high ship was supposed to be able to get hidden at three miles away from the observer. So you have something that is one sixth of the height of a boat and it's almost two times further away and it's still visible. I mean, but I've seen I've seen the ships disappear bottom first. So like my eyes. Yes. OK. Here's the here's the thing is you can. Like this would be something. This is an observation. We may just show me like with a ship, maybe like this is too abstract for me. Do you have like a ship really bottom first? Yeah, let me get evidence. Let me see right here. So this is like a ship disappearing there are a buoy, but it's you can see it. And then when you when they zoom out. You're going to see that the buoy disappears. And so this is how you can you can get bottom up disappearance. And you can cause think this is what I want to find is. Isn't that proof I could so I can still see. Wait, wait, wait. Just so you guys understand, like, yeah, boats would disappear from the bottom up optically on a plane earth. Yeah, wait, that's what. Yeah, no problem. I'm going to I can I'll find it and I'll pull it up here. But here's here's the thing is that the the globe and the flat earth are making claims and we make observations in reality. And so what the what the flat earth is able to do is the flat earth can make a claim and make an observation. And they can say, OK, we see bottom up disappearance. The flat earth says that that is caused by temperature change in the air and the difference of temperature between the air and the and the surface. So what now a flat earth can do is they can go to a flat surface and demonstrate bottom up disappearance, which is the observed phenomena using the conditions that they claimed, which represent realistic possibilities.  But let me tell you this about that that for light experiment.  And I've asked, can you show me a demonstration where you recreate that observation, because that's a real world observation on a known curved surface claiming any variable you want, refraction, give yourself the right refractive index, claim whatever you want and show a recreation where on a known curved surface, those lights that are definitely on a curved surface can just appear to be flat and there's no demonstration associating the claimed cause and then shown, but the flat earth can't do that. And then I'll pull up here, the bottom up disappearance. Yeah, I mean, I will say it takes some time to understand this, but like, let's let me break this down, give me like one minute. So like, if you stand at the end of a long hallway, the ground's going to look like it's ramping up. The sky, the roof, the ceiling is going to look like it's ramping down. They're converging, right? We can all agree on that. Just a fact that perspective cause just like if you look at railroads, they converge, we'll flip them on the side. We're going to converge to the middle. So if I look at a hallway, it looks like it's converging to the middle. Okay. So the bottom is ramping up. Well, is the boat closer to the bottom or the top? It's closer to the, to the water at the bottom. And this is where it gets a bit technical, but it's not that complicated. Okay. There's something called reception and propagation angles. So everything is light. Now, I don't actually believe that light travels, but it doesn't matter. I might be delayed again. But anyway, so. Wait, you don't believe light? Light? Yeah. Yeah. Explain the light thing. Yeah, I know. Yeah. Okay, light. I'll explain that real quick. Light is already there. It's the background medium. And then it gets excited. And it takes a certain amount of time for us to perceive the illumination. And people call it the speed of light. It's already present, which explains its dance action at this. Some quote, unquote, quantum entanglement. And the variance speed of light that's been observed in many observations. But that's a side note. It doesn't matter. There's little pieces of light, okay? Little points of light. And it's coming to us. That's how we see everything. It's light, right? So say there's a boat. Well, there's like a billion little points of light on that boat. Each one of those points have a propagation and reception angle, meaning the angle at which the light propagates to us and the angle on which we receive the light, okay? As soon as the reception angle drops below the resolution angle, you can't resolve it anymore. Well, the angle at the bottom of the boat is smaller than at the top. Right? So if I draw a straight line out to a 10 story building, the bottom of the building is closer to my eye in the top of the building. So that means that the bottom of the building will lose resolvability first. Also, last thing, the atmos has the most dense at the bottom. There's a gradient. Well, since it's the most turbulence called turbidity and the most dense at the bottom and the attenuation of light, which is a fancy word of saying the light is absorbed into the medium, that rate is higher at the bottom than the top. So the light gets absorbed faster at the bottom and the resolution angle, it falls below the resolution angle faster at the bottom. So things would literally disappear bottom up as the ground ramps up due to perspective on a flat earth. In fact, it would have to do that scientifically. And here real quick, before you respond, if I could just wait, is Austin still talking? I'm going to back out again. I'm going to back out again. Just heads up. Okay. So I'm going to I'm going to show now kind of in accordance with what Austin was saying there real quick before, before I give you a screen share back, I'm just going to say we'll probably do this for about maybe another 10 minutes. And then we'll get into some super chats. Okay. Hey, Nathan, I mind wrapping this up because I still got a few questions that never heard of Flat Earth or explain. Audrey, though. Oh, yeah, I'll, for sure. Let me just real quick. I'll show this just to show this is, this is an example of like the Flat Earth being able to say, well, we say that this causes bottom up disappearance, you know, say temperature change.  And so these are down low. You can see the bottom of that. This is a bread tag. And then as you let the air in, you get this bottom up disappearance, which causes you to only be able to see the top of these objects. And it causes the blurring in everything, the magnification, the bands that appear towards the horizon. And then as it settles back down, you start to get a revealing of what is beneath. It starts to come back into view because it's not anything physically that's obstructing it. Not gonna lie, man. It's really hard for you to like, yeah, I don't know what's going on here. Um, it's not really, can you just explain what is gravity? How does gravity work? Um, yeah. Great. Yeah. So gravity, um, like things fall down. Uh, gravity will be like a Y things fall down.  If I let right now I'm folding it so it has potential energy. My, my hand is putting energy into this object, I'd or front to back because this is at the same level that, that the object is in. So there's no tendency and it took me energy to go up. So I had to put potential energy in. So it's taking energy to lift. So if nothing is putting energy into an object to keep lifting it higher and higher, it's going to go, it's not going to go up.  It can't go any way around on the plane. So it can only go down because it's going from potential energy here to kinetic energy. And then it falls and it's what objects want to do is seek rest. So the lowest potential energy that they can get. So if you have something high up on a shelf and knock it down onto a lower shelf, it went from a higher state of potential energy. It can, it went kinetic as it's moving. And then it hits the matter, which puts an energy into it. That gives it a new potential energy that's lower. So what explains like the acceleration of gravity, though? The downward, the nine point eight, like we know it's nine point eight. Like you agree, that's nine point eight, right? Yeah. And it's a measure that is pretty accurate in a lot of places. And yeah, I know it fluctuates like on earth. Yeah. So it doesn't fluctuate. Like too much. Like it's pretty. No, yeah, it's like the farther away. I think it's like if you're on the top of the highest mountains, there's like less gravity, right? The the gravity. If you're on a mountain. Do you subscribe to the like the flat earth that's constantly accelerating upward? No. Oh, so there. So you're not like there is a downward force that pulls objects towards the earth at nine point eight meters per second squared. But you agree with that. There's yeah, there's something that causes objects to fall. And why it might have something to do with like a solid object has a very high density of like atoms. It's they're like closest packing is something that like solids will do. They get as close as they can and as dense as they can. And gas molecules, like there's a lot of it's called translation. I mean, some gases fall to earth, too. Yeah, liquid or liquid nitrogen is basically a gas. Yeah, but you can it's it has to do with with the density of the medium, the relation and why I think things fall at a nine point eight. Pretty much, you know, we'll just say for for the conversation. Nine point eight is because that there are so many more atoms in this pen than in the air that is underneath the pen and surrounding it. And so because like in a mole, there is six point oh two two times ten to the twenty third atoms. And so there is like many, many, many millions and billions and trillions and quadrillions and gajillions of atoms in this in this pencil. But in the air, there's, you know, relatively speaking, there's significant orders of magnitude less. So if you compare those differences, that probably gives you because any change to solid matter is going to be so negligible compared to the difference that it that's why you keep that nine point eight meters per second average. Roughly. But like it happens no matter like what medium you're in, what you're dropping, like it's not just like. Yeah, it happens in water like, yeah, like it happens at all points in time, basically everywhere. So like, why does it happen? Like over different mediums with different objects, it will happen. Well, if you exclude resistance, you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. At all points on the earth, no matter the medium that's being dropped through, no matter what like the object is made out of, it is being pulled toward the earth. We can say wherever we want to say that is, but toward the earth at nine point eight meters per second square. You're one of them. So if you have. There is a force pull. There is some. It is there is something. That's a pseudo force acceleration. Yeah. They say it's like a railroad track guiding it down. Yeah. Gravity. Electric. So like the global theory, it has a pretty good explanation for what gravity is. That's not. Yeah, it does. No, it doesn't. Because admittedly, levels of academia, relativity doesn't work. So. Hey, can I. No, it definitely does. It definitely doesn't. So I'll, you know, I'll cite some specifics here. So. Which. Some specifics of, okay. So in 1933, that's almost a century ago, they looked at galaxies and they saw that their galaxies in the galaxy cluster should be escaping out of the cluster because there was only 1% of the mass needed to keep them in the cluster according to relativity. It was off by 99%. So did they throw their theory out once it was off by 99%? No, it's a religion. You can't throw it out. So they said, okay, well, there must be an invisible thing of matter there that we can't define. We can't detect. We can't find. We can't tell you what it is, but I promise it's there. It's called dark matter. It's in a century. Also doesn't work on the quantum scale. Relativity doesn't explain the variant nature of light when it comes to the preferred direction of east to west inside of gyroscopes and even accelerometers with linear accelerometers and interferometers. So relativity doesn't work. And everyone that's an quote unquote expert will tell you that relativity best case is significantly incomplete. It has to be updated. So no, they don't have a good explanation. They claim that two concepts called space and time physically bend in war. And that's not even, that doesn't even make sense. What's the flatter theory for? Does it like reconcile theory of gravity and theory of relativity? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I have a better explanation than theory of relativity, everything is intrinsically everything's intrinsically electrostatic. So there's not one object in all of existence that is an electrostatic. You could have named one object. All of them are. In fact, the molecular bond that holds objects together is electrostatic. So you can type in all forces. Yeah. And Van Van der Waal voices up all molecular and intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature. There's also a measurable downward electric current on the current coming from the sky down to the ground. It's 10 micro micro amps per meter and it's very weak, but it sets the up and down. It sets the bias, right? And so that's why we ground things into the ground because that's where they equalize and disperse and discharge their excess charge. So everything has a charge. Medium has a charge. It exchanges charge to the object. And then it seeks its equilibrium at the ground that sets the up and down and then density and buoyancy sort out the rest and density is intrinsically electrostatic. Well, my question there is so how does so again? So how does how does this just this electrostatic force make it where any object that falls through any medium falls exactly 9.8 meter meters per second squared? They don't do that. So they objectively don't do that 9.8 meters per second squared is just an it's an average. It's an agreed upon average is very tight. The average is not. It's not like they're not. It's a very tight average. OK. But you just said it falls at exactly 9.8 every time. Excuse me. OK. I'm sorry. It falls relatively very close to 9.8 meters per second squared. So it's not a constant force pulling it down. It's very. It is. You can make pretty accurate predictions. At the changes. Assuming it's a constant force. Like. Yeah, you can. Have you guys ever heard of a gravimeter?  I have not heard of a gravimeter. So it's a little vacuum sealed box. OK. And it's how we measure the most precise measurements on the earth of how fast things fall. It's a vacuum sealed chamber called a gravimeter. And it drops a little BB right over and over and over. It has these lasers that measure how fast the BB falls. It's called interferometry. So you have spring loaded or interferometric interferometry is the best. OK. It measures how quick it falls. They've proven that objects fall at different rates at the same location. And in fact, they change during thunderstorms. So so when there's lightning or thunder around the object falls at a different rate, it's because everything is electric. So the most precise measurements of downward acceleration on the earth prove it's not constant. Prove that it's electric. The claim that, you know, space and time bends and warps is just a claim. Someone can show me some science for that. I'd hear it out. I've researched it way too much to believe it. Sorry. I've never seen the science on this, you know, that thunderstorms are affecting that. But I'd love to see that. What would you think about it if it happens? What would you think about? I think it's interesting. I don't think it's debunking the entire theory of relativity. If a BB drops a little, like if a BB drops, what faster when there's a thunderstorm around it? I don't think that's slow. Slow. OK. Well, I don't think personally that that one experiment is going to disprove all of Einsteinian physics. I mean, there are tons of different ways. They're like, I just don't understand. Can you prove Einsteinian physics first? Why isn't there more like technology? Why aren't there more predictions that use flatter theory if it's accurate? Well, they do. That's the funny part. The funny part is that they actually do. So all physics and all engineering assumes a plane, including his bridges where he said that one end is different than the other end. What's funny is the change between the flat water beneath it. So that's how they got it. It's literally they measured the different distance between the flat water beneath the whole thing. It's because the bridge is curved so that flexibility and structural integrity is high. That's why the anyway. So we always assume that we curved over flat water. You can see it sometimes. It's that apparent where the bridge is deliberately curved over. You can juxtapose it to the flat surface of the water. And it's so it's a gives a structural integrity. You can't. Are you asking about gravity? Specifically, you're asking why doesn't why don't people use flat earth gravity or whatever? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, we you we engineering uses gravity, but it uses little G, right, which is 9.8 meters per second square. Specifically, it uses the weight of objects. And the way that we determine weight is mass times gravity, right? So it's like. So the mass times how fast things fall on average, which is 9.8 meters per second square. You don't need gravity to get that that little G. You can use a kinematic equation of initial velocity and height and you'll get the same exact value always. Well, no. Then like you would still need the force of gravity for the height to mean anything, right? Why? Well, if you're doing like, you know, just standard Newtonian physics, like kinematics, then if you like throw a ball, like you can calculate where it's going to land, you have to incorporate gravity in addition to like the horizontal velocity, right? Well, yeah, you use the little G. And we can use the equation of Newtonian physics. Can we get that from the big G, the gravitational constant? No. No. That's one of the. It's like the G. No. No, it's it. No. A little G equals M1 M2 over R2. Right. There's no big G involved. Big G is different. What? What do you say about us getting into some super chats at this point? Works for me. Yeah. All right. Gravity is a joke, bro. I'm just letting you guys know. It's just so light. It's just everything's electromagnetic. There's lots of different things that general. There's nothing. Parallel. It doesn't work. Cover the Antarctica. It does. It does actually. That's crazy. I really want to get into these super chats and your 10 second video will very quickly turn into 15 more minutes. Yeah. Probably true. More discussion. Okay. Just know I got a video for you. Yeah. Wonderful. It's all good. Let's just, we'll get into some super chats here because some folks are on a clock. So we'll just start getting into some super chats. Everyone. Don't forget to hit that like button. Still hoping to see that subscribe button hit a whole bunch of times would be quite the feather in the cap to hit 125,000 people sub to modern day debate. By the way, if you lovely debaters were not paying attention, modern day debate launched a poll in the chat. And the chat right now it's pretty, the poll right now is pretty close, but it is leaning to a flat earth. So there's that. Got to say, which is your great speaker? Let's go into the super chats. So right off the bat, we have for 499 from LJ to the Globes. What are the percent chances in your opinion that you're wrong to everyone? Would you ever get on a roller coaster that will go 17,500 miles per hour? Percent chance. I don't know. 1%. Come on, bro. I mean, like all of us, I'd say less than that. Yeah, he's going to be a fighter. I got money on it. So this is the percentage that you're wrong. So the next part of the question is, I think it's pretty, pretty damn low. So then the next part of the question is, would you ever get on a roller coaster that goes 17,500 miles per hour? Yes, but I'm a adrenaline junkie. So that's not really accurate. If it had a failure rate that was equal to what I think the percent chance that it is that it's flat. If that was the same, then I'd get on a roller coaster. Okay. That's what's up, dude. There you go. I might die. No, no. I will be very okay. I promise. You'll get there, brother. So the Batman for $2 says, the Globes are a mess. I believe this was a comment to some audio issues we were having a little before with between the screen share, whatnot. They've all been settled. The entire stream has been fraught with technical difficulties, but I think we got it under control now. Next we have 499 from LJ again to the Globes. Do ships disappear over the hump when they sail away? How high do I need to go to see a hump in the horizon? Also, why is Flat Earth insanely censored? Flat Earth is censored? I don't think that's true. People just, you know, laugh at it from the most part. They literally came out in Congress and admitted it as censored, brother. Wait, wait. Where specifically? YouTube went in front of Congress and admitted that they censor Flat Earth as dangerous misinformation. But there's all these Flat Earth debates that you participate in. There are these debates, but these get censored as well. There's like the context. There's going to be a Flat Earth back check box. Yeah, but I mean, they have that for everything you say. There's a lot of voices for any conspiracy. The question was to the Globes.  So, yeah, not bad. Neat pride. What were you saying? What was the question again? Um, well, the thing that lit the fuse was Flat Earth being censored. Oh, I just, I don't think it's that censored. Um, you might feel that way to you guys, but I mean, I was looking at Flat Earth videos all day today and I never left YouTube. Yeah. No, same, like, even, even if it is people debunking your, your content, the people who are debunking it are more popular than you. I mean, like, I don't know what else to say. Like, is it problematic if the people that are debunking us are debunking models that show a pizza in space accelerating upwards? No, whatever confirms their biases. Hold on. There's a wide variety of products. MC Toon's gotten dunked on so many times. Hold on. There are plenty of different. Give me one sec. Let's give Flat Earth a quick opportunity. I think with it had a point here. Go ahead. Yeah, like I'll say this, bro. If you, you can just test it, go to my, go to the search and type in with it and type in a specific name of one of my videos. And do you get the video you typed in? No, you get all the hip pieces about me. That's the definition of censorship. It isn't just removal. It's suppression. They promote the alternative position that hates on us. And then they hide the, the actual position. So I mean, it's easy to say that it's not censored by watching hip pieces. They're popular. More popular in us because they're promoted by the algorithms and we're suppressed like provably. So we should. It's not even in a debate. Go ahead and respond. Nope. Sorry. Or they're just simply more popular. And there are plenty.  They're not doing any of that.  Like they've, they know what you're saying and they're still debunking you. Let me ask you a question, Nathan. Let me ask him a question. Hey, if you type in my name with my name of my video and then my video, wait, tell me about my video has 25,000 views and instead you get promoted and suggested and suggested a video that has 300 views that is just making fun of me. Is that censorship? Yes or no? Okay, dude. I just on, on YouTube, I just like search for you. And the first thing that comes up is my channel is my channel. But yeah, search the videos, go down the videos. They're all hit pieces. They're all hit pieces. The first one is your video. Just do it. Maui files.  I can share my screen. You're not being censored. You're the first two selections like what's right below the second, what's right below the second video. Then it's professor. It's like the main enemy. It's live right now. I'll just, I'll just share my screen right now. I'll show my screen. Hold on. Can I share my screen please? I have to. I don't dispute it. It's different. The fact that you guys are denying that flat earth is censored is hella weird. It's here. Here. There you go. I'd like to say it's fascinating to me how, um, what's it turned this question into 600 people, like just searching his channel now on YouTube. Yeah, let's go. I didn't know. I'm very good. Debate aside. Brilliant. Oh, which side of us. That's crazy. I literally should share the screen though. Cause I'm going to prove what I'm saying. I just share my showing that yours in the top two. And then it's literally this debate is the third one. Yeah. Sorry. I shared the whole screen, but like, yeah, it shows these two videos. Okay. This. Yeah. What now? What's this? Hey, does this have my name anywhere in the video? No. What's up with this? Oh, a hit piece. What does this have anything to do with me? No.  Oh, oh, all these are hit pieces except for a couple versions of me. So why are all the hit pieces put up here? How does Professor Dave come up as the fourth result for with it?  It has nothing to do with me though. People love their life. Oh, it's about Flatter Earth. It has four million views and it's about Flatter Earth. Like it's money. This was so funny, right? Right. It's really popular. They admitted in YouTube and Congress that they censor Flatter Earth. And we now have people in 2023 saying that they don't censor Flatter Earth. I mean, they said they didn't do it. Despite YouTube saying that, clearly it's not that censored. It is because there are examples where people have typed in. Hold on. There are examples where people have typed in titles of videos that have Flat Earth in the title. And those do not show up. But then here's the other thing too about censorship and about how this goes is you do get to things like there are, it was a Congress video where they're saying yes, because of the Flat Earth, we're going to put a box under videos that says no, the earth isn't flat. But then here you can get that kind of stuff going against Flat Earth.  And that is a clear no one's allowed to do that, but they let that go through. Elon Musk is like the richest guy in the world. He can do whatever he wants. That's not a really good example. Yeah. NASA can also post edit their live streams. So no one else can. Why would they need to post edit their live streams? I think just most people don't really care that much about Flat Earth. I mean, it's not about Flat Earth. Why is NASA allowed to live stream a rocket launch and then post edit it when no one else on YouTube said it? One, one, they are literally boring parts. I agree with you. Nobody wants to watch. No, they don't. They don't wait time out. They don't edit the boring parts. They edit the. Oh, the rocket launch landed on two pads accidentally. So they took one of the pads out. And it doesn't matter if they edit boring parts or whatever, whatever they're having recorded. Hold on. If someone is looking in the future and they're looking for videos and they see these live videos, they're innocently going to be watching that video and thinking it is legitimate. What happened when they were live streaming it? That's the problem. The editing is that you can go back in and change it. And now someone is thinking they're seeing literally a different reality of what was going on at that time. Yeah. And we all agree that censorship is bad. Yes. I'll agree. Some ship is bad. But the photos and videos from the past are crappy. Like we want better photos and videos in that. I don't understand. You still don't have them. We do have them though. I mean, I showed you the examples of ones that were done before Photoshop. And just because a photo is photoshopped, like just because like if I get a photo of a deer, like just because I photoshopped like the photo a little bit doesn't mean that the deer didn't actually exist. But you can also just take pictures of models, which they admittedly had back in the 50s. And Photoshop existed in the early 1800s. Just because you Google it and it says 1979. Yeah. Dude. Photos in the 1800s, dude. They doctored photos in the 1800s. It's well known. I used to do these to you a spiritual, spiritual imagery. You would take a picture and it would your, your loved one spirit would show up in the picture. It's because whenever they're actually developing the photos, they would add that person in there as a, as a scam. This is in the 1800s. I've never heard of that, but perhaps that is true. But I do find it a little preposterous to think that every photo, every video that NASA's ever produced is not, is not, that all of them are wrong. Perhaps some of them are fake. I don't know. Perhaps, perhaps some of them are. They do admit some being CGI, like Robert Stewart. Some videos are CGI. Like some videos generally in the world are CGI. That doesn't mean that the ones that aren't CGI are somehow fake. Which one's real? Yeah. I want to let Globe have the final word on this question. Which size of the earth, which size of America is different? It's true. I don't know. Well, there are different ways to measure the size of America specifically, but the size of the earth, I don't have it pulled up, but I can pull it up with whatever they're expected. 24,901. So how does, how does America change from half a hemisphere wide to a third of a hemisphere wide? No, that's the map projection. Yeah. Oh, no, they're images. They're supposed images. Yeah, they're images. They're different. So they are stitched together images. Well, let me help you out here. Let me help the globe. Let me help the globe out here. Nathan, if you take a globe in your room and if you take the picture from different angles, different distances, you can make the same land masses look bigger and smaller. For sure. Yeah. So that's what their argument is. Their argument is that it looks like that because it's different angles and different distances. I want Globe to go ahead and have the final word here right now.  I just wanted to add my intro. I just think you guys are throwing the baby off the water. There's better not to be a flat earth. I think we don't have a possible future debate topic is Flat Earth censored. Yeah, that's crazy. I didn't know people would be that. That woke up all four of you pretty hot pretty pretty quickly. So let's move on to some more super chats. Shall we? We got medicinal mass media having an after show at the medicinal mass media discord servers. So if anyone wants to head over there, they paid money to have me announce it and then there it is. I did so. And they immediately send another $5 to ask what's it? Why do boats have to constantly tip their nose down while going over the curve? Obviously on a globe, but boats wouldn't have to on a flat earth. Dude, I've been in the trenches for years and I've never. That's got to be the planes. That's got to be a joke, dude. Some flat earthers making fun of it. I don't know, but yeah, you know, dude, if the globe was real, boats would not be dipping their nose down on the club. So that's super weird to me, but boats have to make sure that they kind of go into the water as it waves and oscillates, right? And it swells. So if they do dip their nose down, it kind of makes sense based on the actual undulations of the water itself. I've never heard that. That's the funniest thing I've heard all night. But yeah, there's the answer. If it is true. All right, we got nominal since $5. Not really a question. Don't know what happened here. Let's see if it sparks anything with anybody. JFJ, JFK junior spoke against secret societies subverting the country. And then dot, dot, dot. I smoked. I threw it up in the air and I'm just waiting for someone to catch it. Yeah, hot sun. Yeah, they're not speeding up. I think you can see that he didn't even really get killed that day. You want to really go down the rabbit hole. Yeah. Just because like, I mean, OK, fair point. I agree. It's totally fair.  That doesn't mean that everything they do is terrible. We shouldn't deceive you. You shouldn't blindly trust them then, right? Yeah, we shouldn't. They're literally willing. Yeah, I don't trust the government at all. Yeah. I don't have to trust the government. I don't have to trust the government to know that the earth is a spherical. Oh, man. I need flat earth like, like, you know, I look into it like pretty extensively. Like I've watched a lot of these debates and like, I don't know. This doesn't add up to me.  Go to my channel and watch. Just a tad. Okay. Looks like they immediately right after like sent another one that just finished the sentence of just make up 95 percent. And then they just last couple of words is we're not in the center. Oh, okay. Well, it's okay. You're still special even if you deny that you're special and in the center, brother are good. And the globe does claim dark matter and energy, which is 96 percent imaginary theoretical hypothetical. Sorry. Substance that we can't measure way quantify or have interaction with. That's science, Nathan. No, it's math. Dark matter, dark energy. I agree. There's something else going on there. Like it's that theory is not like a hundred percent. Science is not settled on that, you know, is your name also settled? It is. It is. Nice, brother. Austin, check this out. Did you know that if the earth was in the center, you don't need dark matter or dark energy and all the math and observation. Yeah. I heard out. Zirka said that in some debate. Zirka. That's my voice. I'm just letting you know. I'm letting you know. It may be in the center. If all of a sudden, everything works out when we treat it. What was that penny analogy you gave? Penny's in a desk. Oh, yeah. I did that. There would be a hundred pennies in the desk and they went to the desk and they found one penny. Instead of being like, man, my theory is wrong. Right. Clearly it predicted a hundred, but there's only one. They said, no, actually there's 99 invisible pennies and we can't find them or define them, but I promise they're there and our theory is still correct. That's why your desk is still on the ground. Yeah. So like, I'm going to say something real quick. I hate how a lot of science has become super dogmatic. It oftentimes it really does like feel like a religion. Like, you know, do you guys believe in plate tectonics? Well, I believe that if there. No, dinosaurs are sus. Okay. People used to not believe that that was real for the longest time. It took until after like the first person theorized it died after he died, then eventually people got around to it. But yeah, there's too much dogma in science. I totally could see that. Oh. People who do lie to try to pass agendas in science as well, the bone wars and everything, people will try to be fraudulent to get claims made on behalf of their renown. And that is and scientists also don't always peer review and look at the crisis of reproducibility. Anyone heard of that? Yeah. There's like medicine. All right, let's get on to some more questions. You guys were just out for a beer.  We got cool by go for $5. Just exclaiming the globe model is taught in every school in the world. Let's go. Hey, and under the globe in every classroom is a sticker that says not for educational uses, just like how on the side of a mask it says not for medical uses. I shouldn't go there. But it says now in the vast majority of them, the so is like you. Hey, do you identify as a spaceship?  It's retarded. But I have to back out again. I'm sorry. I tried to turn off my camera. It doesn't work. So I will be back and I take the L for the stream. I better come back because I got a bunch of questions on deck that are like direct. I'll come back in less than five minutes or two minutes. But the next question we can move right on to from nominal for $2. Imagine a theory so bad. Dark matter can't fix it. So did you guys imagine that you have a comment for it? It's flatter. It's the answer. Flat Earth. It does. They don't specify it. They're just saying. No. Imagine a theory so bad. Well, flat earth. Well, but flat earth. Luckily the flat earth doesn't need to rely on a substance that's, you know, a hundred percent imaginary and 96. Yeah, no, that was a joke. It was a joke. Okay. I'm quite serious in my response. Yeah. Oh, no, it's. I mean, just because just because something's a theory does not mean that like. I don't get. I don't get the implication that y'all are trying to make. And I'll throw it right out there. Like that's why I throw out the dark matter, dark energy thing is I like to create a parallel between like when the flat earth, because flat earth, we don't claim to know everything, every phenomenon, no measurements, sizes of exoplanets and everything. Nordus Globers. They kind of do, but like the thing about a flat earth is that like we, we consider that there could be different options, different explanations for things. And so we're still kind of working through these things, but like some people on a flat earth model, there's actually divide. Is there an ether or is there not? There are some people who think there is some people who think there is not. And I do personally think there's an ether, but that is something that I also just like dark matter, dark energy, I cannot weigh it on a scale. I can't tangibly interact with it. I can explain that it causes certain phenomena, but it's a philosophical thing, which I will, I will admit, but it sets up certain frameworks that you can use to make predictions and whatnot. But what it, sorry, are you good? Yeah. And I'll go ahead. What it seems like to me is that, yeah, the globe definitely makes, I would, you can say it makes more predictions. And I would say, yeah, it does make more predictions than a flat earth does. Lames or predictions? I think it more accurately predicts reality more. I'll put it that way more accurately predicts what happens in reality. And because there are more examples of that, the problem, the problem that I have a flat earth isn't so often the, the examples that you're using in this case are like, you're saying that something could fix it. And the reason you can say that is because you can just kind of make it up. It doesn't really have like, whereas it feels like more often when the globe worth predicts something, it's like, oh, well, it predicted that because this probe went to X position and did yada yada. Like there's some concrete logic that is based on science while we did it. And whenever I feel like we try to drive down to like the, the, the core reason why y'all believe something, it just gets into word salad. Like I hear y'all talking. Yeah. And whatever. The whole like geometry stuff you're talking about. Yeah. Like I kind of zoned out, man. It's too esoteric. No. You're something with, with like word salad and like, especially with someone like Austin, he says a lot of words, but they are, he says things that are very similar to like the people who were part of the early on setting up of our like electrical field theory and everything like Steinmetz and heavy side and these people, there were people back then who were ether advocates and they were talking about how like we have what the ether essentially is, is it's like a background. It's, it's some ubiquitous fluid and it allows for an interaction of the electrical electric field, the magnetic field, the electromagnetic field and it's able to account for like differences when you're moving a magnet against a coil versus a coil against a magnet. There are differences. The ether is the medium that, that allows these interactions to take place, but these fields are here and we can measure them and these people back then who were helping set up our electric system, they were using the ether framework to try to go towards these predictions and may and send them the way that they did. My point here would be, again, science evolves like just because people in the past using ether doesn't mean that there is an actually, is actually an ether, just because people in the past used Newtonian physics and there were times where Newtonian physics accurately predicted something doesn't mean that it wasn't surpassed and bettered by Einsteinian physics. Einsteinian physics merely made Newtonian physics into something that was more accurate at more extreme examples. And so there are times where in the Newtonian framework this less good framework that includes, I don't know whether they were including the ether there, but just because people in the past did something a certain way and came to a conclusion a certain way and that conclusion is correct. That does not thus mean that because we do something differently now the methodology is completely different now that it somehow is wrong or that it doesn't work and that feels like a lot of what y'all get at you. You go to like the, you know, Aristotle and these are these people who lived 2000 years ago and you're very keen on saying like, oh, well, we don't have proof of them doing this. But the fact of the matter is like, okay, even if we want to say that what they did just didn't happen, whatever the story says, whatever the prediction he made was accurate, very accurate for that time. And so it feels like y'all want to nitpick very deep in the past, but you don't want to address the reality of like the modern day. Like we have very good science that goes that all the evidence accumulates and y'all being wrong basically. Okay. Well, and I just so I agree with parts of what you're saying in the sense of like you can have a starting position that might not be accurate, but you can because of your predictions and your premises that you set up and everything you might be able to determine things in our actual reality, even if you are wrong. So one of the reasons why it's good to mention things is because it gives you different perspectives to look at. So you might consider new variables or something to adjust. So I do agree with that, but then like Eratosny is the thing about if he did something 2,500 years ago, science is science. So like repeatability is a thing. And so you should be able to repeat even if he was fake. If he did this story, you should be able to go out and recreate the results. So I do agree. We do. We do and it works. That's the thing we do and it works where we have more accurate methodologies now so we can get more accurate numbers and whatever Eratosny's got with the sticks and shadows and crap, but that doesn't mean that we don't get very similar to the number. And like I said before, just because his methodology wasn't the most accurate doesn't mean that he wasn't accurate for his time. And like I said, science is the most accurate. It's not accurate. Let's move on to some more super chats. At this pace, we're going to be here all night and we just don't have it. So I believe Witsit, can you tell me is WG would that be someone calling out you in a short form you think? I think so. So WG explain the impacts of meteors and asteroids that we have on planet Earth. Yeah. The vast majority of the claimed physical impacts are like yet to be verified but even if it did happen, I believe there's actually like a gradient density layer of plasmas that turns into potentially a super solid at some point and there's a super fluid above us which ironically mainstream physics is now saying dark matter is a super fluid. It looks like the flat Earth weren't so crazy after all. Long story short super fluid is based on cyclical electrical discharge could cause an actual piece to break down and come off from above us if that were the case. Like I said, the vast majority of these assumed impacts are just looking at craters in the ground assuming that a rock hit it even though there's no rocks there there's no debris there and we know that underwater underwater causes those exact same formations. So it's like bubbles coming up and to the opposite of what he said too we actually also can get supposed meteorites that have no crater but they're these gigantic slabs. The truth is stranger than fiction YouTube channel has a meteor coverage about where he talks about like the biggest meteor in Namibia I think and they're like there's no crater but it's a huge piece of metallic ore so yeah sometimes you get craters sometimes you don't and yeah underwater okay and so good yeah nice awesome. Okay awesome. LJ199 said globe so this is to the globe folks how did you isolate gravity from electrostatics I don't have the physics to do so your audio was rough there for a sec say it again okay I do not have the math or physics capability to do that no I haven't isolated it same sorry it's all good it's basically impossible to isolate it because everything that exists is electrostatic so welcome to the squad bro $2 $2 from Dr. Tapioca Weasel for flat side does a gas always fill vacuum question mark heart emoji a gas will fill the available space that it can take given the energy that the molecules have it can go up to a certain height in a container. Here we go $5 who would notice being on a merry-go-round that rotates a 15 degrees per hour light instrumentation that's very accurate exactly wow he smoked that question pretty quickly I set it up it got knocked down so we go back to nominal for another $2 why does flat earth get a pinned wiki link on tube takes you right to flat way is that for flatter son are you talking about like a little the context I'm asking a lot because like the people who run YouTube don't like flat earth I mean that's that's what it comes down to it you do got like a grudge against you guys I got it agree a lot and you agree a lot of stuff that like actually may be true or has truth to it gets censored by the mainstream and back checked yeah yeah sometimes there's a little bit too far from me I heard you brother you get there it was it was intense for me at first there's a lot of ancient entities behind the lies society's been trying to set up a globe for a long time it's a very maybe I'd be more receptive to flat earth there was like less religious talk in it I'll leave it out I mean you agree that if the earth was in the center of the cosmos all of a sudden you're like wait a minute if the earth is in the center of everything that exists something had to put it there so that's why people end up believing in a creator that doesn't require a god or us being in the simulation my other question is how do you know that yeah so what's are you saying that the earth could be in the center of the entire universe and they're not it could be theoretically but it doesn't mean that we're special are you saying you could believe in it so long as there's no creator involved in it why would it no no I'm saying it makes it harder it's like a higher hurdle to clear I agree that a lot of people a lot of people lead with a lot of people lead with religion and I think it's a disservice this is the misconception is that people believe the earth is flat because they're religious what actually happens 99% of the time is people find out about flat or if they think it's stupid and they try to debunk it they end up not being able to do so they go try to test it in the world they still can't debunk it and then they find out the earth in the center and they're like oh damn does that mean that there could be a creator and then they end up believing in a creator that's the real sequence of events that happens so it's misrepresented 100% misrepresented you put in your opener you put that it's religion people wanting to kind of have a special knowledge over others that they can break this but really what does it for a lot of people is the science it shouldn't be if the earth was absolutely a globe and moving and everything we shouldn't get documents that use a flat stationary earth we shouldn't get it's a simplification it's not moving these things the simplification it literally is so you can't do the technology with it over some distances you can assume the earth is flat when I walk out of my house I'm not like holy shit there's a literal ball beneath me no it looks flat yes sure but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is flat there are certain distances over which we can assume it's flat and doesn't really change the math that much but when you look at a big enough it's why the whole I don't know if you ever did this but the whole 8 inch per mile squared thing used to be a huge thing among flat earth and it can easily be debunked because that mathematical equation is a parabola that's why you should stop watching professor Dave that's literally not that's actually not who I'm actually referencing it from oh what's his name another anti-flatter earther no he's one of your guys if you take 8 inches per mile literally I'm talking about that because of Nathan Thompson 8 inches per mile squared is objectively accurate up to a thousand miles up to a thousand miles it's within inches of any equation you use so if you're making an observation under a thousand miles it's accurate which is what we do so like I said you can assume I'll grade that and I'll actually know if it's true but I'll grade that so like what I said at certain points in time when the distance you need to calculate is not big enough you can assume you're at the flat but like you said it caps if you want to say it caps out of a thousand miles I don't know if that's true okay well even if it is sure yeah so over a thousand miles you have to use the actual curvature calculator the actual curvature formula which would give you a spherical object you can't make observations more than a thousand miles man so like it's just a talking point to dismiss the fact that we see hundreds of miles too far and anyone that goes and tests it themselves sees that and they're like damn do I keep this to myself or do I let a bunch of people that are ignorant ridicule me that's the question we see we see that happen over we see that happens at very specific times even the shadow on the clouds thing I showed you earlier only happens at very specific time of the years the shadows on the clouds they go into a plane all of a sudden you'll see it from the top down going horizontally out across I'd love to see that so do you agree that you would stop bringing that up if you then saw that in fact it's just due to perspective and once you go into a plane you can see the same shadow on that right there when they go in the plane they see the shadow on the cloud they see the shadow exactly going down on the cloud correct you guys are off having to be on yourselves again so let's move on to another chat question we're trying to save these people brother I'm trying to prevent can go 44 a big super chat supporter tonight question for witsit given your in-depth knowledge of relativity can you please explain how the sun sets okay obviously it's like a joke saying like oh you think you're so smart you know relativity but you can't explain how the sun's at absolutely so there's actually different types of experiments showing that if you take like a laser it'll it'll be a circular light source and you can change the aperture and all of a sudden the bottom of the light source will begin to disappear with a hard cut off because it's moving beyond resolvability as you change the observability or the resolvability of it based on the aperture so yeah pretty much the sun moves away from you and eventually it gets beyond the point of resolvability and since the propagation angles at the bottom are lower they fall below the resolution angle or limit sooner so it disappears from the bottom up as it moves through the most dense part of the atmost the highest attenuation rate at the bottom people can say that that's word salad but I would encourage you just listen to the words I said very specifically bring it back if you have to and research it listen to Austin's words the other the other thing you can do is you can just get a solar filter and you can watch the sun go through the sky and it never changes its shape when you have a solar filter and when it goes past the horizon just goes past the rising I don't understand all of Whitz's perspective yeah so we have observations with solar filters any of what he talked about so I decided he asked how the sun sets on a flat earth I explained it with science and we have observations with solar filters where the sun disappears above the horizon so thanks for playing you can disappear above the horizon sure that doesn't mean that it's flat okay well thanks for playing what does that mean okay let's just assume that it disappears above the horizon okay why does that make me care you claim it would only disappear below a curve can I go behind the cloud can I not go behind the cloud can I share my screen real quick uh no let me share this I'm just asking we're just gonna go to this is supposed to be just a real nice question for Whitzit we got the answer let's go forward we got pages still to go alright can we all agree to speed through on please can we all agree to speed through I'm not saying even speed through them but you guys are so likable and friendly with each other I just feel like I should be the barmaid and just start pouring some pictures I'm saying speed through like I'm saying alright so Felix offered since ten bucks yeah he immediately right after since another five dollars just says macaroni put the nail in the globe coffin I'm sure the Globies don't know what I'm talking about Whitzit please do the honors macaroni macaroni put the nail in the globe macaroni okay yeah I'm french man what do you want from me radio transmissions in the early 1900s they were projected to only go out maybe a couple hundred miles because the Earth's curvature should block them but in fact he sent the transmission out over 2200 miles and they said you can't do that bro the Earth's gonna block you so I'm gonna try anyway first success attempt was successful I mean first attempt was successful and it went 2200 miles and it hit the target so they invented the ionosphere claiming that it must have bounced from space and came back down right because the Earth should have blocked it so yeah marconi's radio transmissions early 1900s debunked the globe since then they claimed the ionosphere is 40 megahertz and so ionization will reflect radio waves so that's what they claim happens it reflects back down from space but we have radio transmissions over 100 megahertz that also go over 2800 miles and anything over 40 megahertz would penetrate the ionosphere so if it's a higher frequency it penetrates it so the globe's been debunked with radio transmissions so shout out to marconi it went 2200 miles should have only gone 200 miles it was a real one thanks for playing yeah apologies to marconi if he's listening macaroni that's his nickname the big cheese I can read good 244 another 10 bucks it's a bit rich for flat earthers to talk about censorship watch mark sergeant censor information from his viewers when mc toon tried to show the evidence mark wanted I don't know anything about that man I think it's a lot different if some random flat earthers censor to comment and the government works with the world's biggest media company to actively censor a specific ideology seems like a bit of a red herring I mean I think he did more than censor to comment I think what they're trying to say is that flat earthers creators in general do this is they censor science that shows that they're wrong really why does mc toon censor me why does mc toon censor me when I absolutely intellectually eviscerate him scientifically I don't know he has thousands of video I don't know which specific case you're talking about it doesn't count I'm not saying it doesn't count he mutes me and doesn't let me talk when I debate on his channel or against him because he gets destroyed so it's ironic someone would ever dare complain about him being censored I'm not saying he's censored I'm saying that the flat earthers are doing the censoring of the accurate science that disproves them except that we haven't heard any tonight maybe next time I mean I presented some of the beginning which we didn't really talk about much I'll run your claims down there's a light work bro it's like we just went in and started warming up like ring laser gyros let's see it ring laser gyros we're focusing in on one thing here we go give me 30 seconds ring laser gyros 15 degrees per hour that's actually called a sagnik effect it was based on the vortex in the ether if you combined that with the mickelson moorley result which did show that the earth has to be stationary there's a varying speed of light there's not even agreed upon a relativistic application or explanation for the sagnik effect or the ring laser gyros there's like 15 different academic theoretical explanations no one can figure it out and since then in 2004 wang used millimeter precision radio waves to show that there's a linear specific variant direction preferred propagation rate of light and that completely debunks relativity it debunks the idea that the earth is moving ring laser gyro debunks the globe earth model if you actually research it the ether which would carry the light in one specific direction going back to what I've talked about before just because the creator of a certain technology says something does not mean that the thing that they said is accurate it's based off the ether that's not true I said subsequent much more precise tests have shown that the propagation rate of the light is preferred in a specific direction meaning it's faster in a specific direction it's been proven with millimeter precision in the 21st century with radio waves and relativity claims that light is constant in all directions and all reference frames it debunks the idea it's just like swimming with the ether drift down a stream, mickelson warley combined with mickelson gal pierson debunks the idea that the earth is moving there has been a rebuttal in like seven years I mean there has been it's the ring laser gyro is the fact that they record a 15 degree power drift every single time but they're used the only time where you see any variance they're moving them up and down when you're changing part of it if you leave them still every single time it has ever been used the ring laser gyro will record a 15 degree power drift that is not true it's recording the rotation of the ether it never will record no it's not it's just moving you're moving it if you just leave it still and let it just hold on if you just leave it still and let it just be attached to the earth which is theoretically to you know our side rotating and thusly it shows that yeah religion okay great yeah that's a good one but it's not but okay it literally shows every single time a 15 degree power drift I don't understand what you know can I ask you a question bro so the truth is it actually varies within 2% and that's it's whatever but this is what I want to ask you so why does the effect happen faster in one direction east to west the light the interference pattern which is based on the propagation rate of light that's what a ring laser gyro does it uses interference why does the light go faster east to west than any other direction I don't know that it does I've never seen evidence that it does so if it does do you agree it debunks the idea that the earth is spinning no not necessarily why would it change with altitude it changes in altitude when you're moving it if you take it at 1 altitude if you take it at 1,000 feet it will record 15 degrees if you take it at 2,000 it also records 15 degrees so do you agree that if it's not moving and you took it to a mountaintop and it measured something different it would debunk the globe no I don't if you took it to a mountaintop and it's not moving it wouldn't record that anywhere why wait I'm saying according to the globe model the earth is a sphere so based on what latitude you are you're going to measure a specific procession it's going to stay the same no matter what altitude you are it's just based on latitude on a sphere right okay well they've done this test and they've shown that when you go to higher altitudes the propagation rate increases with altitude the closer you get to the sky the greater the effect is and it's always faster in one direction according to relativity in the globe model it should be the same in all directions it's been disproven way but if you're just changing altitude why is it changing which direction I don't understand what you're getting because all I'm saying going up in elevation and going in a favorite direction show an increase in the speed of light exactly and that can't happen on the globe that's not even what I'm talking about what I'm saying is it's a very hard drift every time I've never seen it not do it it's measuring how fast the sky spins and there's an ether drift that spins with it but if you increase in altitude wait wait wait if you increase in altitude you're getting closer to the movement so it would make sense in our framework that it would get faster and faster the closer you get to the source of the movement but in your framework no matter how high you get that's been disproven with precise measurements I've never heard of that I also don't get what you're saying when you email me I'll send you all the papers okay I will legitimately but I don't get what you're saying with it changes based off of like I'm not getting what you're saying you will email you that information is what you say so we'll go to the next super chat alright alright alright so this next super chat seems very much in the spirit of being read as James now I'm not qualified nor have I been here long enough to do an impression of James but for those of you on team free James and if you're missing James you should all know that he's working hard to get the bait con four off the ground and in his spare time he's trying to get a doctorate so he's only got a few moments here and there so here we go with me trying to do James's catchphrase I don't chud I don't trust the government SEP NASA amazing SEP NASA that's a joke it's my boy Shal James Zoom just did something I don't know I guess it looks like we're still alive we're still good there's censorship coming for us brother I got kicked out of zoom but the zoom's still running so I'm not sure anyways carrying on can go 44 5 dollars question for witsit do you agree the sky is green anyone can go outside and see the sky is green sometimes the sky looks green weird question let's move on okay Felix offer again 10 bucks another curious thing about all of this is the radioactive 1912 a key provision greatly limited their transmitting range I wonder if the government has ever tried to suppress technology before nah it would never I think cutting edge stuff doesn't the public have the exact same cutting edge technology that like militaries do or are they like a year ahead of us or something they don't I mean it would be pretty weird if everybody just had like an F-18 in their backyard that'd be kind of weird well gps is now that's pretty cool yeah I mean there's a lot of things that the military slash NASA have like you know given us they're pretty pretty cool things I'd say like what name one name one better preservation of food is a quick one that comes to mind did you know that that patent actually came from outside of NASA I don't know where it came from they haven't come up with anything you can even name I researched this and turns out all the stuff they claim some other individual came up with and then they use our money to come up with some stuff like maybe five things and then they sell it and make billions of dollars or millions of dollars on after we paid for the research and development we should probably give them more money and trust whatever they say well wait so I agree with what you said that what are you saying would be would be bad does it be corrupt but regardless of what you're saying here what you're saying is the government invest money into cool technologies that do good things and then eventually the people get those technologies yes we don't all have to pay for them after we paid for them to be developed yeah that's true yeah I mean it's it's not really it's you agreeing to give the government money to do cool things agreeing or going to jail agreeing might not be the right word you're going to jail you're right no you're right you're free to pay or not but if you don't we're putting you in a bar I'm gonna put a gun if you agree then it was optional I agree for you what's it you're correct for both of you you are being forced to pay a tax to an organization that you think is terrible in my perspective however we're paying money for the government to invest in things that are good for us and are cool you agree they should just be scientific and not talk about and create rain over crops but why doesn't NASA ever do any of that like why don't they make it rain and put some fires out or get some food growing in the soil I mean the government doesn't do a lot of things that would be hold on hold on the government doesn't do a lot of things that would be good if they did those things that's that that doesn't mean that they're like somehow evil for not doing those things what you're saying is well the government's not doing a thing that I wanted to do and thusly it's bad no I got one question why didn't NASA why didn't NASA doctor their quote-unquote global temperature recordings all the way back to the 50s to push the political narrative of climate change no you can prove it why did they they literally admit that they went back they went back and admit that they doctored the temperature recordings and then it's made it hotter so that it would go along with climate change or quote-unquote global warming it's hard to have that with no globe and I want to know why is it that the scientific community wants to tell me all about how so many of them are gay like how does that have anything to do with science so they're pushing they're pushing just google NASA gay and you're going to get like 30 minutes of videos people like telling you that they're gay what's the problem with that I don't NASA should not be pushing political agendas and propagandas onto my children just because people just because people in NASA are pushing certain things does not mean that NASA as an organization is pushing those things no NASA is officially stamping it they're an official NASA video so ask me tell me why NASA is pushing political propaganda when they're supposed to be scientific that's what I want to know you can have political ideals and still be scientific not they're not supposed to be political they're supposed to be scientific you can't wait so nobody's that's what I'm not understanding so who exactly is allowed to be political in this situation individuals and not particular scientific government agencies they should be doing science so it's only if you're a scientist who works for the government who can't be political but if I just work for like Pfizer those individuals can have their individual views but when they are working or when they're representing a company that company doesn't slap their CEO's political agenda onto the company exactly I mean it's the fact that NASA is putting out a claim that they do and I might even say that sometimes they do but I mean that doesn't mean that just because somebody in an organization or even a large amount of people in an organization have an agenda does not mean no no no brother brother you're not understanding NASA themselves are putting out official NASA videos about this subject so that is unacceptable it's supposed to be scientific and not political who who cares one I care I don't want I would like my tax dollars to go we've gotten like three more I don't like everything the government does boo-hoo I'm sorry I can't control that we've got like three more super chats during that one question so at this rate I think we're officially spinning tires so going on moving on although another good possible debate topic for another time nominal two dollars there's another one of those macaroni words at Pythagoras it nestles itself in the dark matter but I say that Pythagoras Pythagoras that's a tough one I don't even know what that means yeah I don't know what they're trying to get out there Pythagoras was a cool guy except that he was a pedophile it was probably during the dark matter topic when Witzit was re-logging run Boston Bear 499 for Witzit how far line of sight did those radio waves travel 2200 miles in the case of Marconi and since then we've done 2800 to 3200 miles over 100 megahertz would penetrate straight through the 40 megahertz ionization frequency of the quote-unquote ionosphere so up to 3000 miles direct line of sight should have been blocked by the curvature of the earth at 200 miles physical refutation of a globe I may have to back out if the next question is not for me I might have to back out again I don't know what's going on well hang in there we'll get there so can't go 44 again so huge supporter tonight guys 20 dollars what's very funny is watching reality denying brackets flat earthers on the internet on a video call LOL flat earthers general knowledge of how things work is zero yeah it's called an ad ground towers and we're able to communicate based on those towers and through cables and through underground fiber optic cables and balloons up in the air not really satellite yeah I'm literally using fiber optic right now because like even wifi trash much less the claim of satellite so that's that's weird that somehow fiber optic wires under the ground debunks flat earth maybe you can email me and let me know however and there are 5g towers all over the place and signal sucks I'm gonna be real with y'all my phone service sucks like you can't get services anywhere because there's limits to the penetrating of light it doesn't just go on and yeah it's all it's all towers it's all the technologies all ground based and the airplanes and stuff that they can fly up in the air for long periods of time there's a lot of technology that is not the most readily available but it all supports a flat earth another big supporter tonight nominal for $5 95% people believe in the globe but we're the ones that need a community come on man oh man that's crazy that like the vast majority of people used to believe that stealing people against their will and beating them was good and then the vast majority of the Babylonian civilization murdered children and ate them why would I care what the vast majority of people that haven't researched it haven't tested it themselves believed in all kinds of propaganda don't even know that jabs are bad whenever they have like preservatives that are aluminum and mercury and give all kinds of neuro toxins to children you don't know the basics but because most people are ignorant then therefore we should just throw our hands up and say oh you got it you said something about a community I don't know yeah I mean you guys have a community it's very cold like I don't know if you have true communal like concern and love for one another but we'll accept you with open arms if you decide to research the truth and throw out the Cogniz and even if now we're praying for you on your way to it yeah we love you sorry I'm a little aggressive sorry we can see the finish line we're almost there folks don't forget one last time get into that into the links below and support the bait con for what's it gets it will be there live if you guys want to see him unlagged I hear on stage he does the same trick live on stage I hear it's beautiful it's refraction in the in his light the image that the lights constantly look like refraction heavily so nominal again for $2 question direct for guillotine at what distance is the globe edge what distance I hope it doesn't have an edge watch go over the boat go over the what the horizon edge of the earth leading sphere edge your horizon but it doesn't a sphere doesn't have an edge as a leading edge of a sphere yeah so a seroid does not have an edge leading edge of a sphere from your horizontal tangent he looks off for $5 question for neat pride I saw you drinking your plastic filled the fluid water lol what this this looks more like this is maybe another little bit of a maybe a minor attack here I should have re-read it or pre-read it a little bit closer but they're saying plastic plastic filled water lol please detox from all chemicals a cleaner diet that glass this is a glass bottle hey let's go Austin yeah glass because because plastic has microplastics and when it eats up it gets into micro yeah yeah look at him he's ready bro I thought the government couldn't release anything for us that was bad so there's no way plastic is bad y'all are denying official science it can be it could be bad yeah lots of things yellow seven and food products lots of things lots of things are bad lots of things are bad but if the lie makes me uncomfortable then I just get to assume it can't no no no it's not that at all it's actually just that lots of people lie and that lots of people are bad and just because some people lie and are bad does not mean that every single thing is a lie and is bad well we don't think everything's a lie they tell you what you kind of do you kind of do a lot of that's got a straw man poison poison really poison I said earlier in this debate that there are points that we see light in the sky and there are these points that they're looking at and taking in through their optics a certain spectrum or wavelength of light we're able to see those that's not a denial that they artistically render it later on and everything and make it look you know pretty and all that is a separate thing but I mean there's not there's data that isn't isn't denied I still love you guys though you guys you guys are good you'll get there alright three more to go guys three more here we go nominal his last one or their last one five dollars if space was fake we wouldn't tell velcro changed my mind what about the burrs in the woods that stick to your clothes velcro wasn't even truly invented by NASA it was invented by an individual and then they then absorbed the patent and then some mainstream article told you told you that NASA made it even if they did make it that wouldn't somehow make a vacuum set adjacent to a near like to a pressurized system wouldn't somehow make like everything been in warp as concepts what what NASA NASA made velcro so they must be going out into deep vacuums like that's that's just weird so run Boston bears last one here the paper modified segment experiment for measuring a time travel difference between counter propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber riyang wang a yees okay this person I shouldn't have commented I was french now because they're really alright I'll help you I'll help you I think they're trying to reference a paper yeah yeah he's quoting the name of a paper by wang and it's very important and people should look it up if they've never heard of it but it is about the very things we were talking about earlier it's called modify sag neck experiment for measuring travel time difference between counter propagating light beams and uniformly moving fiber and that's by weighing you should look it up it's from 2003 published I think 2004 was like 2003 ish and it shows that there's a variant speed of light counter to relativity claiming that light is constant in all directions and in all reference frames and it shows that the interpretation of the globe model claiming that the ring laser measures the spin of the earth is objectively wrong and it verifies the michelson molly friendship detected showing that the only scientifically viable explanation is that the earth is stationary that quote-unquote light speed is variance and that it's actually based on the directional preference of the ether drift but no one will ever robot that they'll just kind of say no cherry pig blah blah blah a favored position of light is completely independent and diametrically