the modern day debate everybody tonight we're going to be debating uh it's we have Nathan pitch uh pitch lumen versus mctoon it's going to be flat earth versus globe earth and the first 12 minutes we've decided to do 12 minute openings uh between the two speakers first 12 minutes is for you pitch a limb so uh pitch lumen sorry i'm used to calling you Nathan so uh 12 minutes for you go ahead all right if i could please uh share my screen here sure thing uh do you see a um do you see a power point here yep we're looking at your power point now okay awesome uh so this is the uh cosmological contention this is globe versus flat so which is it the earth could be flat globular or neither because the flat and globe claims are mutually exclusive empirical science can determine falsification of at least one of these models we should consider where the evidence most simply without contradiction supports which model based on the preponderance of data collected from various fields measures observations detections and claims of logical reasoning to explain phenomenon in the model again without contradiction when considering an alternative view in good faith please consider trying to omit all of the current model's claims and take what the opposing model has to offer for this alternative contending viewpoint we have a body of data we can draw from observe from observations to body senses experiments with variables to maths and predictions with cosmology earth's physical shape is the primary determiner all other phenomena are explained off the ground which is very measurable so favorable for figure it sky data is secondary upon the ground or around the sky and how objects interact over the surface is tertiary due to happening within the cosmology and not directly addressing cosmomorphology let us take a look at samplings from each of these levels of determinants geomorphology sky objects and this is just something even to i'm sure my interlocutor here would agree and people in this community of cosmology discussion terms like fe what that stands for heavily censored so maybe we could use a term like geomorphology or something to hopefully get the word out there more to spread it and get around the algorithms because they are quite censoring to this topic so we'll discuss these three geomorphology when we first look out into topography of the earth observe what the observable shows us we do make observations that are planar more suited to planar and observations readily explained by globe that itself is a gnarly feat of nature we observe events at times under natural available conditions that objects upon the surface of the water um hold on one sec i got this screen in the way here oh wait i can minimize it um there we go um let's see um when we first look into our topography of the earth observe what empirically observed world shows us we do make observations that are more suited to planar and observations readily explained by globe that itself is quite gnarly we observe events at times under natural available conditions that reveal objects upon the surface of water to a inherently impaired planar that would be just a second i don't think they see yeah they did not see it because i did a window share my apologies and i looked at the i i've looked at the the live chat i see you guys hanging out so sorry nathan um let's continue on because i have a window share going on so everybody can see us so sorry about that okay um okay and i don't think i had okay so i should be i'm good to keep going yeah you're good okay uh so the the top left here we see things that appear inherently planar to us likewise we observe at times under naturally available conditions that real objects being occulted from the bottom up inherently appearing to look like spherical curvature which i have down here with the boat and the skyline this alone would be impressive for either model to make claims of cause explain and account for both observations without contradiction as the observations themselves appear conflicted consider the water observations are the most physically bearing for shape as both sides claim a characteristic of water to be that it seeks level and water does not have topography gradual slow pills jagonist etc um demo and explanations control variables and recreations using them granting both sides their ability to recreate the apparent observation we must see if there's a way to recreate the contrary observation with conditions we would expect nature to provide aka real-world experiences so on the left here you have a parent spherical recreation on a flat surface this would be a simulation of bottom up disappearance and so as you can see here you have low objects taller objects medium objects and as there is a temperature inversion you get a bottom up disappearing even only leaving the tallest structures the apparent planar recreation on a curved surface the globe so far has failed to recreate a planar observation on a known curved surface using any claim variables and demo the variables ability to create the contrary natural observation globe has yet to substantiate the apparent planar surface seen in reality uh as far as the claim to motion goes because it's not just shape but also motion the globe does claim to be mathematically and philosophically equal to the flatter claim of stillness so the lack of motion and sensation of motionlessness are equal here as to how of accelerated motion is not being felt or detected that we can be addressed in the tertiary realm of discussion dealing with forces and attributes that reality exists in uh motions or motionlessness observations claim measures of the sky diametric opposition of helio and geocentered claims being 180 degrees opposite means reality can exclude one or the other through empirical demonstration the planar earth currently having primary support claims that the stars move are approximately equidistant and can be used for navigation and time due to having cycles the globe claims and apparent still sky moving due to earth rotation different distances to different stars and have the properties attributed to cyclical behaviors uh this is just a beautiful picture of our night sky i know people zoom in on stars i myself i prefer this kind of open sky it's just beautiful uh extrapolations from the abode of the above due to relativity claiming equality overlapping with the motion slide uh direct determining of which is happening earth or sky moving while the other is still is not discernible uh aka the relativity trains where one is moving and the other is still or the one is still and you are not moving uh or are moving the only motion we measure explain is the only motion we measure is explainable by both without contradiction as we measure 15 degrees per hour planar earth claims ether vortex while the globe claims rotation as an absolute motion while all other claimed globe motions are carried in spacetime fabric that has the discernibility of constant linear motion hence the trends uh the display of distance both models clash with distance being roughly equal plane or variance globe and can again be empirically filtered based on natural laws the specific version of parallax used here is able to discern betwixt the two claims optical parallax is a phenomena that we observe when we move our observer and compare motions of close and far distances to the observer we observe close close objects boogie through the field of view fast and scale and slowness relative to the distance back as objects farthest in the background appear to move slow think foam poles tree lines behind them and mountains off far as you travel along the road the poles move quickly past you at the same rate which is key and the trees further back with a little slower and the distant mountains appear to hardly move it off compared to how the foam poles how many foam poles you have passed time lapse observation when we see a time lapse of the sky pictured at the right uh we look at the sky we see the stars move at the same rate this is comparable to the uniform motion of stars and flying the same distance from the observer to the stars this is similar to the foam poles that pass at the same rate as one travels along the distance as we move at 15 degrees we see in an angular field of view we do not see more distant stars span less angular field while we turn about this empirically shows that stars are similar in distance otherwise they would conform to observational parallax to cover cycles on the slide navigation techniques and cycle configuration have been accomplished by both cosmologies both people can navigate and have a cycle prediction and just as a side note if anyone is appealing to newtonian the lack of a shift in all the stars by one degree per night is not apparent showing no orbit around the sun because there's no one degree shift as we move one degree further along in the sun uh of our orbit so object kinematics just the claim would have just to let you know you're past your six minute mark so okay all right thank you just the claim of an absolute motion to a rotating globe means we can all collect data to see if rotational forces aren't part of not objects as they lever it the earth is rotating so motion is angular therefore acceleration and acceleration is not only felt but observed and measured as well needing only the ever present earth frame to base the motion at top we can intake military documents accomplishments industry lingo white precision measurements of inforometry and our sense is determined if something like centrifugal force is caused by the rotation of a sphere earth the preponderance of evidence so this is angular acceleration this is a nasty document showing how they use a flat non-rotating earth this is a focalt pendulum that has not moved for up to date this is actually down here in the bottom left is an email from someone who shot the world's longest target 4.4 miles they said they did not take choreolists into account this is the michelson morally result and then this is centrifugal force and then the tomatoes i'll get to with the centrifugal force so geocentric explanations uh the planet earth needs to be accurately represented as possible to see if it offers an explanation of the world view meaning seasons times on sunrises and sets light patterns circumnavigation and flights images of globe observed forces all need to be explained cohesively the earth is not a disk in space accelerating upward having waterfall edging using a basic model while it's not specifically to scale can help conceptualize and maybe less thought of idea like zetatic astronomy the sun and moon do not go under the earth they remain above so these all these are misrepresentations um and then i think here like this is a star of close which is still really cool but i like the sky but then now the un flag map and then the gleason map and then this is just something to help get an idea of how things might work uh natural workings uh of the planet earth several claims demos examples and explanations seasons are only are explained by the sun moving between the tropic circles cancer and capricorn these are only locations that the sun can appear overhead at zenith 90 degrees perpendicular uh there are more time zones in the southern hemisphere than in the north with the equator having 24 to match the one hour distance of sun travel in a day there are some 30 time zones plus time zones in the south uh tropic circles close small circles in the summer distant large circles in the winter a less direct more distant sun passing by faster so less exposure to light throughout the day all cooling for a winter time this matches the solar anilema a globe would provide equal loops to the anilema so long as the uh claim of the earth orbit is planar and that we're not on an ecliptic i think it's just the earth that's tilted um but you have the anilema here to match the smaller circles in the north and then the larger circles as it loops on the outside sunrise and set sunrise and set have been shown on a flat surface using atmospheric variables like magnification and temperature variance to show how sun can appear to rise and set while keeping the same size and shape so these are actually globe scientists who say that the atmosphere acts like a lens this was during the um chicago skyline um chicago city being viewed from michigan which defies the curvature rate of globe and then this year shows using lensing that you can get a sun at rise and then have it set further back here and it will still appear the same size this is just something talking about fraction here uh sun casting light light can only travel so far from the source of emission attenuation of light and the light patterning of the source like time and day uh it's supposed to be time and date has been recreated using a dome to simulate the firmament so this is just a light pattern here and then this is a very crude example but it shows how you can get 30 seconds these lighting effects um circumnavigation we uh can circumnavigate but anytime they try to go to the south pole they always bank they never go straight through north straight through the south show a compass needle flip especially then go back to north flight routes we have an emergency flight from chicago to dohan and it stopped in moscow but despite closer emergency flight routes being more available uh images of earth you have photoshop because it has to be nasa using flatter sizes of the continents are extremely different this is a water ball and then we use flat maps which are able to have a key and scale and we use them to travel uh and then duplication um and then this is the force which am i am i out of time here uh yeah you did run out of time unfortunately uh so okay all right well um yeah that that is all and then uh yeah okay thank you very much so those okay anyway yeah i'll stop there no worries if there's anything you missed i have no problem if you want to bring it back up and come full circle that's no problem uh so let's just get back to our main screen here so uh welcome everybody uh to modern day debate uh if it's your first time here hit the like button share this out in those spaces you like having these discussions we're having a lot of fun over here we're discussing a flatter the versus globe earth uh you just heard nathan and i'm sorry to anybody who was seeing my screen for a second there i'm doing a a window capture so that we can see the speakers while they're doing their presentations because we had so many screen shares last debate so uh over to you mctoon thank you so much for being here all right um i'm sharing my screen sharing is caring let me know when you can see it yep we're up and running all right well my beginning will be quite similar so how should we determine the shape of the earth uh in a series of lectures by richard feinman he described the key to science so let me out i want to make sure that this audio comes true let me know if you're getting it ryan yeah first we get it yeah then we come well over there that's that's really true then we compute the consequences of the gas to see what if this is right if this lord of the guest is right we see what it would imply and then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compared to experimental or experience compare it directly with observation to see if it if it works if it disagrees with experiment it's wrong and that simple statement is the key to science um to actually establish the shape of the earth it requires computing the consequences based on the hypothesized geometry including applying the laws of physics ignore the laws of physics and you're not you're not computing the consequences then you test these computations by comparing them the observations and if the computations match then you have evidence that your hypothesis is correct nothing is proven but it supports your hypothesis and if the observations don't match then the hypothesis is wrong it is falsified but flat earthers fail to do these uh these in two ways mainly first is by getting the globe computations wrong when you ignore confounding variables which is super common you're strawmaning the globe and number two by never providing computations for flat earth if you're unable to compute the consequences for flat earth you showed up at the horse race without a horse you're not able to even begin doing science sorry to cut you off like can you give your mic a little more love you're just coming in a little low um i don't know if i can okay i'll turn you up don't worry just carry on okay all right um as a contrast to the standard flat earth method i'll use both globe and flat earth to compute the consequences of each hypothesis and compare them to observations i'll use both flat and globe to predict the sunset time for my location today february 2020 2024 in minneapolis minnesota um to predict for the globe i used noaas or noas salkalk website which is on the screen there to predict the sunrise for the or the sunset for the globe noa provides a spreadsheet with the formulas for the calculations on that web page there if anybody wants to verify how the consequences were computed so i calculated the sunset time for today february 12 for minneapolis the globe predicted sunset time is 5 47 p.m and i was at a Thai restaurant in richfield at 5 47 p.m and there's the picture out the window the sun was setting so i personally observed a set at 5 47 p.m globe confirmed the flat earth uh well that's harder i couldn't find any resources for predicting the sunset time using flatter so i computed the consequences myself to compute the sunset time for flat earth we need to determine uh when the sun will cross the horizon according to flat earth this is done by applying the laws of perspective first we need the elevation of the sun we're flat earth some flat earthers give values for the height of the sun not very common but some have samuel robotum said less than 4 000 miles wilbur valiva claimed 3 000 miles alexander glissen who popularized the most commonly cited flat earth map but it's just an azimuthal equidistant projection from the globe anyway in his book he claimed the elevation of the sun to be 17 125 nautical miles or 1985 statute miles and eric debay even gives a value himself both the sun and moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3 000 miles away but there's some variation there so i measured it myself on both equinoxes from 45 degrees north latitude where i live in minneapolis hypothesizing flat earth and got 3 105 miles details of that on my website if you want to see um i'll start with this number and if any flat earthers have a different value with a more rigorous method than mine i will be glad to use it but i have never been given one sometimes you know i keep asking but flat earthers rarely present any method anything that's testable to determine the elevation of the sun or anything else over the earth own flat earth why not guys give it a shot just predict it get to work roll up your sleeves anyway i did it for you once you have the height of the sun you need the distance from the observer to the subsolar point on flat earth this would be easy to obtain from a real map however gleason's map doesn't have a scale there are no flat earth maps with scales but we do have this from gleason's map this is this is the thing that sometimes they call a scale it's not a scale you cannot take that and lay it on on the map to determine distances but the part i circled there states very clearly that there's 60 nautical miles to the degree and that is definitely true for lines of latitude i completely agree with it there that is a fundamental part of celestial navigation so i'll use that happily um but when we do that then we can shoe hold you can sort of shoehorn the latitude and longitude into being a polar coordinate system i won't go over the details it's it's an algebra high school algebra um then we can apply the polar distance formula to get the distance between any two points again flat earthers i'm computing the consequences of your claims if you think this is wrong provide the right method i'm i'm simply applying geometry to flat earth's claims the subsolar point of the sun is the position on the earth directly below the sun it's well known for any moment of the year at 45 47 p.m central time today the subsolar point was 10.8 degrees south and 173.7 degrees east this is the ocean north of new zealand and applying the polar distance formula we get a distance of 7,788 miles for flat earth now we can fill in the distances and apply perspective 3,105 miles high for the sun and 7,788 miles across the surface to apply perspective we simply solve the triangle then get the angle of elevation for the sun right there this is when you solve the triangle 21.7 degrees above the horizon that's the flat earth prediction for 547 p.m today as what we should see for minneapolis but observations do not match because in reality the sun was setting at that moment flat earth falsified again flat earthers i'm simply applying geometry if you think it's wrong provide the right method i don't want to hear it's wrong and then have nothing to follow up with it show the right method do you think there's some sort of optical effect at play provide the empirical evidence for these effects and the method to compute the consequences and i'll be happy to update my method catch phrases and word salad are not a substitute for computing the consequences of your claims there you go all right well you still had some time on the clock there so we'll just put this back to our regular screen we are going to put it relate into open discussion there so if you just got here and you're just hanging out once again hit the like button we're going to be doing a q&a at the end of the debate and you know what for funsies i'm going to pop a q&a in there right now so if you're hanging out in the live chat at modern day debate we'll put up the poll there and you can vote and we're going to put it into open discussion so over to you pitch lumen and uh yeah let's uh let's have fun yeah let's um that that's uh yeah thank you mic for that um i i find them with the with the keys to science uh compare calculations i guess real quick uh mic could you uh clarify compute the consequences for me compute the consequences would be um in in most instances mean doing some math you would need to um not it doesn't absolutely always have to be that but you can uh for example if you are hypothesizing that a benzene ring or a six six carbons in benzene is in a ring shape so computing the consequences of that would be some some way of then um you know like measuring bond angles yeah of the of the ring what what the angles would be yeah yeah okay that that would be you know computing the consequences but if if uh you know if the sun is hovering over flat earth then computing the consequences of that would be well at this time of day what angle should the sun be at um for this location when should it set what is its angular size to be these are all these are all computations that we can do based on physical objects and known laws of physics and geometry okay um so if i may point out here so in your diagrams it had shown um geometry which i do agree with that the math is correct if you measure the the height of your object and then the length of the shadow that it casts in the angle you can calculate uh the height i would like to point out as potentially some scrutiny to the um how well that mathematics compares to reality um as far as trying to apply it so the uh the claim of a flat earth has an atmosphere which can have a distortion refraction cause a shift in a parent position there is also claimed to be a firmament at least that i will claim a firmament above us so it is a a structure that is a different medium from the air especially if the air is very thin up there and then it suddenly hits like a dense medium and i'm actually not sure how far embedded into the firmament the sun might be um three feet or fifty feet or a hundred is it on the other side of the firmament and maybe the water up there is another medium change so i think that those would uh in in the geometry you showed i think you provided straight lines which is accurate for geometry but i think that those apparent distortions the refraction to light would cause a bend of the light so maybe those triangles are not necessarily um ascribable to reality uh because i like i myself not how would so then my my question is then then let's go through it well what's the correct way to do that then um so i i'm not sure because i don't i don't know how to correctly try to measure the sun as far as its height um unless like i i can't think of anything taking a tape measure up to the firmaments even if we say we we touch the top of a tape measure to the firmament and then dropped it all the way down to the ground with a really long tape measure uh whatever that height is if the sun is behind that glass casing we're not we can't put our measurement up into there and and determine that physical tangible measuring uh itself so i i actually i don't um i don't know of any way does glass reflect radar uh does glass it does it's a it's a true question of course it does uh so why when we when we point radar up to the sky uh does it not bounce and show up as as um something there at some reasonable elevation for what the firmament would be unless we point it at the moon when we point it at the moon then we do get a bounce back of that radar and the distance is a very particular distance uh for based on the amount of time that it takes but everywhere else we don't we don't get that well not everywhere else because when we point it at venus we get it back or at the sun we get anyway if we don't point it at the planets we don't get a reflection so why why is the firmament which you said is glass not reflecting radar um yeah glass uh maybe i should say i might have misspoken there i guess i could say like crystalline structure or it's like a a molten glass i don't know the exact chemical makeup of things things that would still things that would reflect radar well if if it's a chemical uh crystalline structure that we we are not really too familiar with it could go it could penetrate back and then it could hit objects like if the sun and moon and luminaries have uh some sort of reflected property which they so how do we how do we do science on that then because this is a lot of conjecture yeah so how do we go how do we empirically verify these things has it been done um well there have been things i believe um like dominic and fishbowl operations where there were things sent up into the air um and i believe that the van allen belts are something that is claimed to to inhibit us getting out of lower orbit and then you have like bill nine who says we're an enclosed system i think that there's there are the sky i i will let me let me address let me address a couple things yes um the the uh the operation fishbowl and dominic those were not attempting to hit the firm environment they didn't go nearly as high as as the claims of the firmament typically are though the the claims of how high the firmament are are all over the place they vary even more than the couple examples i gave of people's sloppy guesses at the height of the sun um i think there were tens of miles not hundreds of miles up uh in those those things the the uh we can get through the van allen belts and the the quote that you're thinking of is specifically about the computer systems and navigation systems in the Artemis um missions so you need to certify any system that uh people write in before people write in it that it won't have an error in it so when you're when you're that particular quote which which was a kind of a fluffy thing made for you know end end users are you know popular consumption not not a scientific description of what was the promote space travel yeah it taking that as a hard scientific statement isn't isn't the right thing that's not its intention so um the van van allen belts nobody has trouble getting through it um they're not that dangerous to people um shielding against it for people is pretty easy so because they were supposed to have had shielding back when we went to the moon allegedly it was that there was a shielding in place i think one of the astronauts said they didn't know about the van allen radiation so they weren't they didn't i don't think they had necessarily prepped for it on that journey but if they did go through it and come back without any shielding or even went then it would show that yeah that van allen radiation those are they did they did have shielding they were inside of a craft that craft is the shielding it was metal how do you shield from that thin pieces of paper will will shield you well against alpha particles beta particles you need a little bit more and metal is is just fine okay all right well and that's so like with things of the sky like distance to the luminaries or something like that that is something that i i will readily i admit that i don't have precise measurements the size the shape i i think that you would you would maybe be assuming distance or size and then calculating based off of that because if you don't know the size you don't know distance or if you don't know the distance you don't know the size i think that though i mean i went through the math no part of the math used the size okay i i i would i didn't know the size and nathan yeah i know you're you're you're not bad at math i know that you followed along with that stuff though right yeah no i i i did follow i just i i would that that's part of what like with this sky with claims like that i don't i don't know exactly the specifics of the sky which is why i would prefer to focus on on the ground um because i i think that though that's a little more testable and um like airplanes and stuff i think could be more known um but that's what uh i was uh yeah i didn't want to bring that test to the side because oh and then uh with the sunset too by the way that that thai restaurant is is good um spicy have you been there uh yeah yeah joey joey's thai restaurant i haven't been there for a long time but yeah they did not ask how spicy i wanted it which usually in minnesota means it's gonna be not spicy but it was yeah there are ones still like a four so um the places he uh um but uh that's where we've gone right that's great i am curious the uh even to like with with the sunset you do have something like um like refraction that can be at that sunrise and that even like i think the global claim sometimes the sun is maybe set before it's actually set yeah i have a i have a thing i can show if if you don't mind on refraction in the air can i uh it's showing right hold on i need to switch on you're good to go okay so here here is here is a batman there he's he's looking at a building um and this is this is no refraction the light goes straight and so that light if we take that that beam of light that started there at the top of the building and then we add some refraction you can see that beam of light won't get to batman's eyes it'll you know hit hit the ground somewhere before him so then if we look at another beam of light that came out from that uh that point because the light emits in all directions from from the surface and let's just got something special going on that light that initially would have gone over batman's head is bent down that's what batman sees and to batman he sees it at an apparent higher position so this is downward refraction and you mentioned that you had a picture of downward refraction in your uh in your presentation so downward refraction causes distant objects to appear higher um i have a significant amount of of documentation on that on my website mctune.net slash refraction so i'm not just saying this blindly but i'd like to see could you bring up your your thing of the uh the chicago skyline yes yeah uh because i have that that thing from skeva i have it so it's on the floor behind me here i want to point out something that's uh that's important uh this here that's the one yep so now look at on the left side there you've got the demonstration done by the um the the scientists as you said i think it's a teacher somewhere and you see there's a magnifying glass there you see that that ring there on the other side of the table yep i should be able to if you can see my mouse this here yep so you're looking through the top of the magnifying glass and the top of the magnifying glass will cause light to bend down because of the way that it's shaped right then on the right side there you don't see it but that that box there on the bottom there that bottom of the three there you don't really see it in this particular picture but skeva is using the bottom part of the magnifying glass there and the bottom part of the magnifying glass will cause light to bend up not down so this is this is a straw man of the flat model or a straw man of of how refraction actually works because refraction uh you need to use the other part of it and i i don't have it handy but i i actually you did the same thing and i moved the magnifying glass down because i've got a table with leaves in it and i i dropped it down a little bit so that only the top part just like in the demonstration there on the left side it's only the top part of the magnifying glass is being used and it causes it to set um or it causes it to be a little bit higher so it sets a little later but it's still um actually it doesn't set because it's over a flat table so it makes it higher it still appears to go down it just is further back yeah it never set when you do okay and so when you refract light the correct way it doesn't set so what what i how i would respond to that would be if if you do use another portion of the lens that does cause it to require to go further away to get that apparent of setting you also have when we look out to the to the sun for example for a sunrise or sunset we also have the ground itself in the sky converging on a point where that is going to create a vanishing line and things and so you can hide information visual information beyond that line and i'm gonna need empirical evidence supporting that claim i've heard that claim many times but never seen any evidence for it um what you described though is is an application of perspective things get smaller as they get farther away but the sun can never be close to the horizon on flat earth the the uh example here that i used for minneapolis would was 20 over 21 degrees in elevation nowhere near so if close well that it was 21 degrees based on then assumed height and without any medium or measure change measured height i measured the height hypothesizing flatter so not yeah it was measured 21 degrees but there is there's medium and atmosphere that it's traveling through plus and firmament structure uh that it would be i'm just going with empirical evidence though there's no empirical evidence for the firmament it's just an empty claim well science hey it's just a religious belief right that you don't have evidence for it that is i do not have a piece of firmament in my hand which i think would if not if the firmament wouldn't know i'm not expecting that right i said radar i mean there's other there's many ways to to confirm that something exists other than just going there and shipping off a piece of it yes well what i was so like if uh so you say with perspective if you have um if you have perspective you get something like the objects that are further away they will shrink and then um there is also a change in apparent size and that's actually one thing magnification does help you said the same thing twice well they shrink and they get smaller right they that's the same thing they do get smaller and solving triangles is how we how we can resolve those things that's how you apply perspective yes they have they have an an apparent size and then as you as you go further away if you have refraction bending the light downward the light the sun won't have to go as far away because it will be be being bent down so that will cause the light eventually to not reach batman's eyes for the sun and it will hit the ground instead and run but but the light emits in all directions from the sun so you'll still see it it's just the light that that would have otherwise without refraction gone over batman's head well that's where i think you can get into things like the the optical effects of of light with a dome where you can get light to like this here is a light source and it's it's going further out towards um what would this be south uh south america over here but it's not even it's it's horribly going past the north pole here so there does appear to be and this is a very crude example but i think if there is an all wise all intelligent all knowledgeable creator they would be able to set up a system so well engineered that it allows us to to perceive a sun that can keep its it's at the right distance angle to the material dude that's a hypothesis that you can't even begin to think about testing but here's my question for this one uh my response that that that acrylic dome that you pointed that you have there it has an index of refraction of about 1.5 and the light is in an area of air which has an index of refraction of about 1.0 in reality the air above us is not an index of refraction of 1.5 it's 1.0 and if there is your your hypothesized dome then then it has the index of refraction of 1.5 or something more so you actually have it inverted this example is the opposite of what your claim actually is so that so light would be light would be bending upwards because of the the dome because this this dome is showing a lighting pattern that that matches uh it is but it not quite but but let's let's imagine i'll give you grant you for a second the imagination that it did match somehow time and date um thank you it won't it won't match the direction that the sun appears to come from well that won't work but let's ignore that for a second the problem is that air does not have an index of refraction of 1.5 and that's what your example here is using and it's using an index of refraction of 1.0 outside the air portion of it so you've swapped it so what you need to do to test to see if your hypothesis could even begin to work is to put air on the inside and on the outside have some sort of a structure your your dome stand in or analog some sort of crystalline and maybe water behind it yeah you see you've done the opposite so this this is evidence for for flat earth doing light patterns as you as you hope it does because it's the wrong materials the wrong index of refraction yeah that would make sense so this would have to be something that would be uh recreated in an inverse having a pocket of air inside the dome and then uh and then medium different mediums outside right yeah okay well that'll be something that I will have to um I'll have to I'll have to look into into that um do you mind if I uh bring it to the um to the ground okay uh so let's go uh let me see here real quick uh this this here is just an image of a bay where you can see it's the same same day but at at sometimes you can see the the you know so much of the horizon and then at other times more is exposed and so I'm curious like if we have these different days where there's different amounts of refraction or the temperature is different um how do we get uh how do we get these observations that appear to have multiple data points that if you line them up they're linear is there uh is there any demonstration that you're aware of that can show a surface that is is curved that can recreate using refraction using lensing uh any variables that can that can create a known curved surface to appear planar like beyond mathematics I'm talking like a demonstration yeah yeah um so there is I I I I'm not exactly remembering where it is um but he's on discord a lot and he has so he this um somebody in the chat can maybe help me remember his name he's super super nice guy um he he did a uh salt in it or sugar in a tank of water and he created a curved used a curved piece of metal I think and he suspended it in the middle of the tank from the side you can see that it's curved and then but but from the end to end you look through it and it appears flat um no it's not dufus man man so you are you're looking through you're looking the long way you're looking out towards a horizon yes and if I can find it yes if you could please um because that that is something that I hope makes sense uh like here where like with with one of the things that that biblical earthers get a lot of flippers get a lot is like bottom up disappearance and and this here is a flat surface at least it's a floor it's you know flat enough and I'm sure carpenters and everything would would talk about that it's flat enough and these objects are certainly large enough to to be to scale and this is showing that the the flat earth can actually demonstrate hiding objects that would be bigger and harder to hide yes so I will I'll ask what is the um the the conditions that is being simulated there uh so what is the the uh the relapse rate that's being simulated uh the the exact lapse rate I I don't have I will say that it is um it is using the the variable of temperature variation uh because over uh something like water and land water has a different uh heat specificity so it holds on hold on hold on hold on back it up a little bit here says just back up two sentences and uh say it again the the water uh water has a higher heat specificity than land so water what what does that mean what does that mean water stores heat it takes more energy to heat water up than it does to heat land up so okay there will be yeah it's called specific heat yeah you're you're you're with sitting on me here it's not specificity I don't mean I I was I was taught um heat specificity as a as the training for it are you serious okay well four point one four eight or something like that it's specific heat four point yeah yeah I think that's water is the definition yeah it's but yeah specific heat it water takes a lot of energy to heat up and so that's the point of it is that is that temperature would be different over water than over air than over land so there are a mixture of temperatures and you can have hot and cold and so that can cause that's why I asked what is this what is this um simulating what is the the actual index of refraction gradient that this used for this demonstration uh the index of refraction I I'm I'm not sure that this is just showing that the the claim of changes of temperature is enough to to cause a hiding of the bottoms of buildings of shorter buildings and and to cause us to reveal something that would be similar to only seeing the the top portion of hall buildings or bottom the bottom of uh the top sails and mass of a boat uh this this shows that there's a variable that that we can use and okay okay I I asked you because I I I didn't know if you knew but you don't that's that's fine um in order to cause this type of effect you need to have a a specific index of refraction gradient or a lapse rate as it's sometimes called where you have an index of refraction that's um low near the ground and high as you go up which is the opposite of what we see in reality almost all the time so this is this is showing the opposite the refraction can you say that one more time yeah it's sorry it's it's because it's inverted so um in order to cause things to appear to get blocked by a flat surface you need an index of refraction gradient where the index of refraction is low near the ground and increasing as it goes up but that that's not that's not a stable position because generally that means that you have denser air higher than lower and they want to reverse then so you'll get this churning effect and the they swirl around and things like that it's unstable where it is stable to have a low uh uh more sorry a denser air with a higher index of refraction at the bottom and less dense air as you go up which has a lower index of refraction so then if I may ask going back to the the planar recreation you had mentioned that there was a a tank with salt water that was used to give an appearance of linear despite the the metal itself being curved um so isn't that going from um a low density medium into uh very high density medium into a medium density medium and then back through the glass on the other it's it's low density at the uh at as you go up so it's highest density at the bottom but this demonstration you have here um well it's not on the screen anymore but the demonstration you had would that one there yeah that would require the inverse so wouldn't wouldn't this if the person is looking through the fish tank aren't they like it they're looking through a low density and they're looking horizontally as opposed to considering like the changes as you go vertical they're looking horizontal and they are looking through themselves they're looking through low density extreme high density and then the density changes as you go through salt water to get an apparent um an apparent flat look to to something um because this like these these examples here are all through air like these are all through air and then this here is through air as well and yeah well it's simulated it simulates yeah it's just it's a it's an attempt to try to isolate or say hey we claim a variable and then we want to try to show can it and I think that's that's the point of this demonstration is just to show that it is possible to use natural conditions there's no blaster furnace or extreme freezer or anything like that this is this is using natural conditions to show that it is actually possible to get the bottom uh up disappearance and I am curious uh as well um because I know we like people have have made measurements of and observations uh say just across lakes large lakes or bodies of water and they've done it at freshwater saltwater lakes bays and everything various distances um long and short you know relatively speaking um okay but then I have I have it ready if you want to see yes um I will stop sharing but uh we see we see these these various um far sightings in various conditions and I'm just uh there is actually something that I'll pull up once you're done but it has to do with in um in chemistry I I learned for refraction that you have your standard temperature and pressure that you make a measurement at 20 degrees standard pressure atmospheric pressure and if you add one degree Celsius to that measure uh to the the conditions you have to take your measured refractive index and then you have to add 0.0004 and if you go colder than 20 degrees for every one degree Celsius you have to subtract 0.0004 so the hot and cold temperatures actually change your refractive index and one will bend light further or less than the other and we do see far in both conditions of cold and hot despite them having opposite bending effects on lights and I can I'll show my I'll show the document after that but yes go ahead go ahead yeah here's the video are you getting this right yeah we got it and uh yeah if you're hanging out in the live chat right now uh we still got well we had a plan to 20 minutes of open discussion before we move into the q and a so if you haven't gotten a question in there there's tons of questions so once we move into that I think we're going to be here for quite some time gentlemen so just brace for impact um but with Mike it's never long enough who doesn't want to hear him he's got these sites this is the science this is the actual convention Mike is awesome you guys are awesome honestly this is one of one of my favorite ones to host because I get to sit here and just listen to you guys uh chit chat and uh aren't you guys glad though let me know in the live chat if you're happy that you can see the speakers on screen I know I messed it up at first and you could see me typing the live chat ha ha ha Ryan silly but isn't it nice that we can see our speakers while they're doing the screen presentations because there has been a few of them so hit the like button over to you mctoon without further ado all right so there you see I'm gonna play it you'll see that that bar in the water is curved right there and he's showing now the laser going uh right over the bar and the laser matching the curve of the bar he's got like some little topography that he added and the laser is actually bending more than that bar and then it'll show us from the end here it gets down closer to it and you can see when you get right down to the end here that bar which is curved in reality looks straight so there we go right there so that bar looks straight which we know is curved in reality and that's the that's what bending downward of light causes uh and that's uh again the index of refraction is highest at the bottom which which is similar it's the analog to cold air over over water for example and then as it goes up the uh index of refraction reduces which it which would be similar to the air over water getting slightly warmer as it goes up so there's the would you be able to um would you be able to to back that up a little bit um and also if you could send this to me or all i'll probably watch this again because i this is yeah this is something i'll uh definitely be needed to look at just curious too about those uh nodes that he has sticking up on the metal those are um it's some sort of a it's like a clay that's a meant to simulate topography like and he's shining he's shining the laser by the clay yes buy it okay um i and then i just noticed there at the beginning so it kind of looks like that that laser is entering into the glass uh straight yeah it's coming into the glass orthogonal okay so that the laser is level and then it goes upwards uh with the the curvature so this so then i would ask it so you could yeah you could be right there the the laser might be not quite orthogonal so that it it it matches the angle of the the left side of that bar okay and i'm curious too because this is showing um i i would i would wonder what the observation would be if you uh because like if we're if we're talking about like the the four lights experiment or those uh observation or those those windmill bases that would be uh on a globe you would be looking tangent out and then um and then they would they would be dropping down whereas this this bar is kind of going with uh with a hump and so um i'm curious if this would have the the same effects uh tangents uh going tangent as opposed to going uh riding the the curve uh the curvature of the i i imagine it would because this appears a little more um severe so so the light is going it goes once it enters into the salt water it travels upward and then once it gets to about that halfway point that's where it will start to then bend due to refraction as soon as it's yeah when it's in the water then it's going to begin bending due to the the index of refraction gradient so how does how does the light go upwards uh to get up the curve the angle that the light is uh outside the um the tank it's slightly bent up so like i said i i misspoke when i said it's orthogonal to the the tank it's not it's it's t tipped up a little bit it goes which could maybe i don't i don't know if that could have something to do with reflection um as far as the angle you receive is the angle you would flex yeah once it's passed that the the glass or whatever the tank is made out of then then it's effect on the the path of light is done it can't affect it later on it's already gone through it it could maybe tweak the initial entrance into the medium though into the tank it it certainly uh it very likely does because it's not coming in orthogonal it's got a little bit of an upward angle to it so like like you know the cover of the uh dark side of the moon album by pink floyd not not a severe because it's yeah because the the the glass is parallel both sides are parallel it's not angled like on that album cover yeah okay and prisms prisms specifically are chosen because they have a high index of refraction and uh fish tanks it's not super desirable to have a high index of refraction of course strength is more important but um when they're parallel pain with a when the pain of glass is parallel it doesn't have that same effect like on the dark side of the moon cover but it does affect it it is going to come in it's going to refract towards the normal and then when it comes out it's going to refract towards the normal again okay um so that would be refracting so it goes okay so it goes up and this will be yeah i'm gonna have to look into because the the laser does appear uh the the spacing of the laser from the metal it does look to be riding riding that the contour of that metal yeah um uh do you mind if i real quick let me pull this up could i just show um sure if you can end your uh your screen share there mctoon yeah there you go there you go over to you nathan when you're ready all right i'm just trying to find the um here it is uh my chance to smash the like smash it yeah if you're watching on mctoons too i mean hey why not you know i think you're still streaming over there you know join over here and for a second hit the like join in the polls hey like it if you like it right while you're while we're on this little aside here n dash 99 god uh wants to debate me i could i would mention it in the modern day debate chat but i still cannot chat there ryan don't look at me i'll figure this out i swear i'm gonna figure this out uh you just do it in i'm gonna figure that out but um yeah honestly uh i just i just gave that uh that individual uh mine and james's email so you can email me at bc.adt at outlook.com or james at modern day debate at gmail.com uh if you'd like to participate at modern day debates uh i know james is pretty busy writing his thing right now so you know if you want to get a hold of me that's cool if you want to get a hold of james you might be waiting a little bit but you know then you'll be getting to talk to uh to the top notch boss there so uh let's carry on fellas yeah you're okay uh so yep uh is it you see this here this paper i got ya okay so yeah this is uh talking about the index of refraction uh with fraction uh so this uh talks about the velocity of light it's not constant in all medium the bending with beam of light as it passed through the interference of two different media as a consequence of the variation uh so it talks a little bit about how to calculate the uh index of refraction and so uh this here is actually um the standard temperature for measurement of the refractive index is 20 degrees celsius if the temperature deviates from this a correction of 0.0004 degrees uh per degree above 20 must be added or a correction of the same amount must be subtracted from the value read directly from the refractometer so this is talking and then it gives an example here about how uh you would alter uh the the measurement um and so this this actually uh i would put in line with um for for example the uh the four lights observation was done in winter and then actually even in the um in the uh this here so this is winter this is a frozen lake uh and then this here you're not showing yet it says that you're starting because there you go it's ready okay uh so so this this here uh these the bases of these windmills would be in in a warmer weather condition and then these here would be in a colder weather condition because this is a frozen lake so this is showing that despite temperatures influence on light bending it in alternate directions changing the refractive index uh that we actually match measure we have to apply correction we are able to see very far despite uh the the weather conditions um and then this can go into things like i i think it's the mount kanagu that the extremely long distance observations that we are able to make despite the claim of a if a globe which and and one thing to consider about the the point of earth or the globe earth um planet earth is uh and this might be a false sense of illusion of knowledge or something i i don't know how to the words there um but with with the globe we're claimed that we know the um we're claiming that we know the distance of the sun the size of the moon how far away stars are and what they're made of so there's a lot of claim to knowledges of um of the sky and and these sorts of things but i i think that there are there's a there's a lot that we are are still trying to understand um but we do the the claim of the globe is that the earth has a given radius and a given curvature rate and i i know the eight inches per mile squared is an approximation that is like up to a percent off i think out to like an eight inches eight inches per mile squared is perfectly fine when used in the right method but yeah because it doesn't back up observer height right yeah it's not it's not a method to determine the amount of bottom up obstruction it's a fine method to measure or to predict a horizontal or sorry linear drop from a horizontal tangent but it's a lot of people say it's the curvature rate the curvature rate is not it's the curvature rate is one degree per 69 miles or one degree per 60 nautical miles that is the curvature rate yeah eight inches per mile of earth traversed with curves but that's that's you would have you would basically be resetting your yeah it's a drop is that's all that's giving you is a drop from a horizontal tangent and i've used that in several things jaren used it in his um his experiment in the movie and and it's the correct formula in that instance he he still made an error in his math uh but it's the correct formula so you need to use the correct formula correctly he almost got it he almost got it okay um and actually uh real quick i would i would like to say this too hopefully to maybe get a little bit of heat off of jaren but uh if i might just real quick address that that movie uh the documentary or what some people call a mockumentary behind the curve um jaren had said and i believe there are some globe defenders maybe people who are not too fond of the flat earth idea as well people have contacted those there um and people have on both sides said that that night nothing was shown and jaren actually i believe some people made um some some money or something off of his interesting quotes and he he did not and so i would i would just like to point out that that documentary there was things about the the directors and them not being quite quite honest with him or telling him all of the words before he agreed to do that um and then there was also like they had wanted to make it a balanced representation until i believe a kid rose up at um a convention and had said that some of the flatter stuff was kind of making sense so they decided this is a little bit serious so we should kind of slant the message um a little bit um because yeah i think the whole parties left that night with that experiment with jaren um that they had had said yeah it's not really conclusive we've gotten results kind of showing both so i just kind of wanted to state that as well and we could talk about like the measurements of the 15 i uh i just want to throw that out analyzed i've analyzed what he did in a lot of detail uh i did a video on it a while ago um and i someday someday jaren might be ready to talk about it but he's not ready yet all right let i have i have something to show you you were talking about frozen lake um so uh there is empirically confirmed measurements of the effects of the index of refraction change so and and the biggest driver of it in the low atmosphere is temperature and over over water water has a high um heat index or specific i i didn't want to say it wrong i'm like darn it you got specific heat so it has a high specific heat so uh it changes temperature during the day slowly so in the afternoon when the air has had a lot of time to warm up the water is still much cooler than the air so on a sunny day the the lapse rate is maximized in the afternoon and it peaks after sunset uh cold lakes and you live in minnesota like i do and maybe you've walked on a lake like i have you can be comfortable you could you could have your coat unzipped you could have your hat off and your feet are dying because they're so cold when you're walking on a lake because the because that ice is not going to melt it's going to be at freezing temperature uh it it just absorbs all of the heat so there's a very high index of refraction gradient or temperature gradient first above a water does just as a fun fact water does have some interesting freezing behaviors around the 32 degree zero degrees celsius mark there's like zero to four it's it's incredible it is very unique if water did not do that life probably could not exist because lakes would freeze bottom up instead of top down um so anyway um and every year in the spring we get to see that in lakes you'll be walking along you'll see a lake it's frozen it's frozen and then the next day completely gone because it it the whole thing inverts it's pretty cool okay so the index of refraction gradient uh or the lapse rate the lapse rate of one this is the key the key number empirically confirmed one degree per 10 meters is is the number that is that is an important number so what happens is as we saw that meters raise an elevation vertical yes so that that beam of light that laser that we saw um has a curve to it and that curve has a radius in the air that the curve the radius of that curve is equals to the radius of the earth when the temperature gradient is one degree over 10 meters vertical right can you say one more time so the the yeah the the uh lapse rate is the vertical temperature gradient when the lapse rate is one one degree celsius per 10 meters then the radius of the ray of light is 6300 kilometers so that would match the so the the measured empirical lapse rate of one degree per 10 meters happens to be what is required to bend lights along the contour of the earth this yep the same radius of the yeah and it's okay and it's rarely exactly that right if it's more than that then light will bend down more and and hit the surface more and reflect off of the surface if it's a shiny surface like water tends to be um so um okay so so just a second so so um I had one more thing before I oh oh again on my website mc2.net slash refraction I have several of these uh have a list on there and the final one that that's on there is the one that that is particularly to the point where they use the lapse rate and they measure the the curve and how much and match them up to determine empirically how much they match so uh the point is one degree celsius is is enough to curve light if it's if it's over 10 meters so if it's less than 10 meters you get 10 one degree change it's a big deal it's going to it's going to curve the light there would be a lot of refraction yes so here is my personal measurements using a NIST certified thermometer on a lake in minnesota so here we have at uh this is just above what's this 18 inches so it's half a meter right I did these I have a an imperial tape measure but I did it at metric elevations where the half a meter don't metric we should we really should grinds way ahead of us in canada do do science and metric so 0.2 degrees celsius base 10 at half a meter here is at 1 meter 0.7 degrees celsius here is 0.9 at one and a half meters and 1.2 at two meters so we actually get a full degree change in one and a half meters which is a significantly higher lapse rate than is necessary to bend that ray of light more than the radius of the earth so I don't know if that if that hits you I don't know if that sinks in but but this this means that that over ice over ice you the index of refraction the sorry the coefficient of refraction coefficient of refraction is how much light bends in relation to the radius of the earth the coefficient of refraction is very high okay so I maybe I have I have two questions here one might be would the lapse rate be as strongly increasing here on ice would it be similar if you were doing it over warm water because we've we've made long observations over warm conditions and then um I would ask too about the the lapse rate or the the implications on the refraction of like again for the the linear observations we make in the natural world and then the attempted recreation of a curved piece of material uh is the lapse rate using glass mediums and salt water sugar water are those comparable to conditions we could find in uh looking over water in in our in our natural world uh well those are those are like the one from Jesse that's uh that's a proof of concept that he didn't do anything to measure the index of refraction gradient and of course the lapse rate that's in the air is significantly different than than the salinity lapse rate in a tank of water I don't know if anybody's done any of the uh the application of the salinity lapse rate in a tank of water I think that's probably outside what anybody would would have previously been doing it but it that's a frontier of science it certainly somebody could do that but I think that the point is it was a proof of concept can can a and you ask the questions the this was just the answer that can a an index of refraction gradient cause something that is definitely curved to appear straight and um as we saw then yes and and I think that is important to note too that these are like yeah maybe you would agree uh like that it is it's important to be able to have kind of maybe these rough outlines of proof of concept where you can kind of show it and then to be able to you know if you have the engineering the apparatuses at the level of precision you can get more into controlled experiments and isolate more variables and set things and then you can use those uh laboratory empirical extrapolations and you can turn them into things that you're then able to predict with but I think it's it's good to have these proof of concepts to show that things are tenable and plausible and that they can actually then hopefully be tried to be used to establish a further understanding of our world um just to inject right quick Nathan because I know that you're just about to go on this next thought um before we get too far back down into what we were discussing we got lots of questions in the live chat and that is going to keep you guys potentially tied up for a little bit but I want to check um how much longer do you guys want to keep the open discussion going before we get some of the audience interaction push the conversation along because I don't mind if we have a long Q&A where you guys are you know expounding on what people are talking about because it seems you have a lot of ideas but uh what are you guys thinking maybe 10 15 or did you want to get there quicker I have one question or one topic that I'd like to bring up and maybe Nathan has one all right let's let's give her 10 and then we'll get to the Q&A there guys and we can try we'll not be swift here we'll see all right okay we'll see don't don't worry about this don't let me rush you uh in your presentation you said that the seasons on flat earth are caused by the sun moving in and out uh and I have uh a little that's about to be little glissand projection from the globe map so the the sun doing small circles in uh in June and doing big circles in in December and varying between them so the radius of that uh that rotation is varying constantly in a sign pattern so what is the cause of the variation in the radius of that circle so the uh the philosophical framework for a flat earth as far as like the the medium that carries light would be the ether and so there would be a rotating vortex that uh interacts with light uh it also appears to have some impact on matter based on the alias effect well an eclipse during with a pendulum swinging um so the if you think of like a bike wheel you have the the center and then radially out the whole bike wheel turns at the same rate of we'll just say 15 degrees per hour or 15 degrees per you know unit of time and so you would have no matter where you're at so long as you're on the spoke uh that same spoke you're going to keep your 15 degree heading there would just be an increase as you go outwards you would have a greater arc to cover and so that would um from what I've I've seen and heard and gathered so far it appears that sun rises and sun sets in the northern summer are um they take kind of a while there's light lasting for a little bit for a quite quite a while longer than in the northern winter southern summer but the sun sets and sunrises have a much briefer twilight time um as opposed to um what would maybe be a symmetry because of the earth and i might do you know is the globe claim to orbit the sun on a plane or is the orbit as well tilted not just the earth's axis of rotation uh well yeah the earth orbits in a plane okay so then i would the plane is not identical to the other planets in the solar system okay so then what i would um what i would suspect then would be the case with the globe is if you have a globe tilted and and this is the sun wasn't asking about the globe though no no no i'm just uh i would i so the i i think it has to do with the the vortex of the ether rotates and so everything on that spoke if you're closer in or further out from the center you're going to keep that rotational heading because the whole apparatus is arcing in the same um angular distance it's it's covering the same whether you're in or out um and and i do believe what the sunrise and sunset that i could get on right to the globe all right let me let me re-ask the question because you didn't really go to answering it you've said that the sun moves in and out through the seasons and that's what causes the seasons so what causes the sun to change the radius of its circles above flat earth uh so i i do believe the sun was made with a path set in mind it could be an interaction as far as like the phenomena of what's pushing uh pushing and pulling the the sun in and out um it could have to do with the positions of okay that's good i i don't i don't need a whole bunch of what ifs okay if you if you don't have an actual empirically verified answer then just say that and and then we can within the audience can say okay well it's just faith yeah and that well it would be i i think it could have something to do with with the charge uh how far away it is um just guesses it's just it could be it is but again it could be this it's the sky and that is something that i i do it i do admit that the sky is is a frontier to us um unlike the the earth uh so uh yeah but it is it is something that i think is uh i i i have hypotheses and speculation um and and it i i think using a bike tire as an analogy uh the sun is staying within the vortex and if if you put an object in a in a fluid and you rotate the fluid it's gonna keep it's gonna keep that that heading um so uh yeah i i would i would i would probably go with with something like that um could i i sorry i don't i that might not be a sufficient answer but i do i mean i will i will initially off the bat i'll claim that i the sky is a lot less substantiated from my understanding um so uh do you do you mind if i ask a question all right well just if i could strap it yeah go for it respond yeah you in the beginning of your presentation you talked about falsification and and so you don't even have a falsifiable uh uh guess as to what it could be so that's not science that's not scientific that's not empirical it really is just a phase would you equate the ether to this is not my question but i'm playing off of that would you equate the ether which is maybe not as substantiated as um something like dropping a pen uh would you substantiate that with spacetime fabric because that also is not able to be quantified is able to be manipulated or malleable or handled or measured uh it is also mathematically uh conceptual uh it's a framework yeah so so the bending and warping and the the properties of spacetime have been empirically confirmed uh the properties of the hypothesized ether which at one time both of them were just hypotheses but uh the hypothesized ether being specifically the luminiferous ether or what clinker fuse called the undulating theory of light being the medium through which light travel travels that particular definition of ether does not have any empirical evidence for it um but i do agree that versions of ether can and have been falsified by empirical testing but i do believe that there are um ether frameworks that are able to account for well yeah and so then when you when you change the definition of it and assign the name ether to it it gets confusing because now the word is overloaded you've got multiple things that both have the same name well if we approach it scientifically we could discard those ether theories like fineman said if you if it doesn't if doesn't conform to the evidence throw it out so we can we can throw out that ether and then form a new ether framework and then try to explain based on our updated observational gatherings our updated understanding of of how phenomena are um the variables the conditions that can cause things to be um so all of that needs to be done though right there are just kind of some some ideas there are some vague ideas and some less vague ideas yeah well i mean back back if it's if it's um like if it came to to where i had to really make a stand i would i would still claim that uh what goes on up in the sky if the whole sky turned purple that doesn't mean that the grass is purple uh the what goes on in the sky is secondary to the the primary of the ground of geomorphology the the shape of the topography and and uh so that said actually because one of the other things and we've been talking a little bit about the the sky and the shape of the earth and everything and so observations along water um but i one of the other distinguishing uh mutually exclusive claims of a globe versus a flat earth or still earth is the motion itself and so i i'm curious because there are the the globe does claim that's the only absolute motion i could have a couple questions off this but i wanted to just run something by you to see what you think about it um the globe claims that the rotation is absolute and then you're you have the orbit of the sun the galactic orbit and then the orbit of the drift of the galaxy as it as it exploded or exploded from the the big bang those are all relative motions because of the spacetime fabric um so i am i'm curious the earth moving would supply a force and actually if i could share my screen real quick here uh this here yep you're up and down awesome uh so this gear uh i don't know oh i can zoom in yeah oh whoops uh hold on a sec so this for you if you like um this here is is a diagram um that shows it's the gravitational force central feeble force and the effect of the weight so uh even so and i i haven't done it myself but you know people have said that they've measured is if you go to the pole an object weighs more because you have these double compounding the full effective weight is going all the way down to match gravity if you go to the equator you get a counter um the centrifugal force and the effective weight are kind of going at it with each other so it makes an appearance of a lighter object at the equator and if you'll notice all these red lines are actually they're all going straight to the center of the earth they're all gravity goes straight down so what you get here in this 45 degree area is the greatest amount of centrifugal force and uh so this actually would equate to something that is like a a tugging that it would pull us towards the equator and what i was told is it would be about the weight of like a tomato of pressure like if you put a you set a tomato on your arm you would feel it and then if you move it to another part of your arm or wherever you would feel it if it was resting there so if you are looking self at the equator the back of you is the one furthest away from the equator and is what is feeling that pulling and say you look self deadlock the whole of your life it would be constant so you would never notice a change but if you turn in any direction you do not feel any sort of change of where that tomato would be on your arm you don't feel a change in the the further away from the equator side of your body you don't feel that that change being applied to that new area and uh so i i'm i'm curious what like when we drop an object no matter if we're at if if we're um at the equator at the pole somewhere in the middle doesn't an object go straight down without any sort of plugging influence to maybe it's just not dropped high enough but my understanding is things go down uh okay so yeah a good a good question um you took it off the screen just i was gonna say i'll put it back up i'm sorry yeah so what you do is you sum the vectors vectors sum so just wait i'm still waiting to see your screen there you go at that that middle one which would be about 45 degrees north latitude where we live you can see we've got the downward vector of gravity you've got the the sideways uh direction of centrifugal force it's not straight up when when you're not at the equator at the equator it's straight up everywhere else it's slightly modified um but you sum those vectors and that's what that that is at the blue i think i'm currently at purple purple okay so that's the sum that's all we feel is the sum of those so all right you take that off the screen for a second so okay well hold on so you said we feel the sum so this here the sum is off tangent from straight down where where gravity is so we do measure things falling off from straight down yeah all that we get all that we get is the is the total the summed forces together so all right if if whoever played the game decent it's a first person shooter in space you're in a spaceship it's pretty old it's way too old for me to have ever played being just 13 but but rumor has it that people have played it in that game and other first person shooters of the era some of them had um a quirk where if you move straightforward you move at speed say one and if you move sideways you move at speed one but if you move forward and sideways at the same time you move diagonal at the speed what uh one squared plus one squared equals c squared uh well um two squared two squared two 1.4 so you actually go faster if you do both at the same time because it sums them now future games fixed that that that problem but people that were really good at it would use that to go faster than you could normally go for speed runs for yeah or if you're doing first person you know uh pvp better than quicker yeah so so but you're like you're looking sideways when you're doing that so you have to get good at it you need to know the map things like that but people could they they exploited that so that's what happens in when you sum vectors um so all right so that so we got that so we have that vector slightly uh uh oh there's a skew yes so but but the quantity is very small so at 45 degrees north you take the the let's go for a sign you guys are doing a good okay cosine of the latitude i think is is what how much you you get from that but um uh because of where we are and how and the angles there so i'll show you um and and you're you're exactly on you're you're right here and so i have this gravity challenge that i did and uh the point of the gravity challenge is to predict the downward acceleration not gravity the downward acceleration better than gravity so it's $10,000 i have money in escrow i have it all written out here um i can't change the rules there's even a uh check sum there so if i vary the rules you'll know so but the point is that that there's a method i describe the method for the globe and it's not it's not the ideal method for the globe but i'll show you the method that i use use the the uh law of gravitational attraction i use a second law of motion i need a centrifugal force there oh sorry this this is this is not centrifugal force this is essentially the gravitational field strength and then this is centrifugal force so in in my my challenge i did not sum the vectors the right way i did that on purpose it makes it easier for flat earth actually it's actually easier math too uh we don't we don't do anything higher for flatter because i'm not uh because it's it's not as precise as it would be as it can be but in order to be as precise as as it as possible for the globe then the math is more complicated and i thought ah i'm gonna keep this as much as possible to freshman high school level math and think things that favor so are you just uh you're you're someone who would say hey if i'm gonna offer a challenge to the opposition you want to try to favor the opposition as much as possible give them as much slack to try to um you know rise up to the challenge walk away for one second you guys are all what's going on here okay where have we gotten to we get okay good so all right so i'll run through this really quick so yes the downward acceleration is higher at the equator or sorry at the poles and lower uh at the at the equator so here's um let's see what are you yeah for today's a brazil is is the one i used here it's it's close to the equator are you asking for a downward measurements you're asking for measuring the rate of measurements have been done and i have documentation of where the measurements and those measurements are straight down the the direction is unspecified it's just the magnitude so is there is there any way can we can we measure or detect the tomato pressure tug towards the equator on an object there are ways to to measure the deflection of of the downward acceleration at different latitudes it's very precise and it requires looking outside the earth whoa you have to use an external you have to use an external reference that uh that seems difficult because we're talking about the earth so you would have to like do that from space uh no you'd have to do it from earth looking to something in space like a distant star so looking at the star is used to determine gravity no you were asking specifically asking specifically how could you determine the the offset of of the of the downward vector on the surface of the earth relative to the true tangent at that location and that's what i'm talking about so that requires this is outside of any of the stuff that's in this challenge but that requires looking at an external reference which we we can't we can't just look sit on the earth and not have it uh just look internally we don't know you have to look externally to to do that so so are you dropping it to get those kinds of precise measurements you're dropping an object and seeing it fall down and then you're comparing it to how it drops like and with respect to a stellar object no okay the the amount of deviation last that you're talking about tune before we go what's that i said last day last word for you before we go into the q and a go ahead okay all right well the the measure downward acceleration in the four laser brazil is 9.7 that's the sum of all the vectors and in in uh international falls minnesota 9.8 slightly higher because we're at a higher latitude there you go all right well on the screen should we get Ryan do we get closing oh you'll definitely get a closing don't worry there Nathan we'll definitely give you a closing or sorry if you'd prefer to go by pitch lumen uh uh you can it's either it's you know sometimes people aren't being to me and i still respond so well i appreciate you being here i appreciate both of you uh our speakers have been a pleasure really honestly this has been great to listen to you know it when when i have speakers on that are as great as you guys it just gives me a chance to just interact with the live chat and fix things like mctoon is now back in our live chat back thank you he's back great to make a narrowsmith reference all right so if you haven't already get at him y'all mice there go talk to him ask me questions you know these fellas didn't believe me that i i do rock music you know i don't believe that i i like screaming at people for money it's like free therapy all right so we're going to go into q and a everybody if you haven't already like a say hit the like button share this out in the spaces that you like having these types of discussions which i know all of you like hanging out in those facebook groups i see you don't worry i'm hanging out in there too because i gotta find i gotta find all our lovely speakers so let's get into the q and a kango 44 for 20 says question for the flats all of new zealand is in daylight three hours before sydney sydney is 2225 kilometers from wellington and z and z is 1600 kilometers long so why does sunlight take three extra hours to travel 625 kilometers new zealand sorry i just uh no no problem so um it could have something to do with if the light is going through a certain part of contour of the of the firmament it would cause kind of a muffing of the ability of the light to travel so it could slow it down for those portions and then by the time that the light actually reaches sydney it would it would have gone past that part of slowing that the curvature of the of the firmament imparted on the lights this again would be something set up by an all-wise creator who has has all the distances and everything and that's what we observe and then we measure and then we build our model off of off of that um yeah all right any thoughts on the other side there before we move on to the next question um yeah what if art science it's what what is asserted without evidence is dismiss without evidence and and i would to to say to that i would say the sky is not the primary when it comes to the ground shape so all right we'll move on from the old hitch and slap everybody but if you haven't slapped the like button give it a go it will not displease you i promise pt callan says nathan assuming the earth is stationary and the sun is moving above us shouldn't we expect a more dramatic change in the sun's angular size uh that's it so yeah we with perspective when an object especially along the ground when it when it moves away from us it goes through the speed changes of parallax uh oh um it'll it'll start to appear to move slower it'll appear to shrink that is true the object that we're looking at on the ground is close to us it doesn't it's you know out to three miles to the horizon with perspective when you look up there's more visual data in your in one section of field of view uh it covers a greater span uh and and that carries true all the way through the sky uh as it goes down to your horizon so when you look up at things that are elevated there is a the apparent size and the apparent shape actually are less they it takes much more for them to change so the the elevation actually helps keep the the shape of the sun and the size of the sun as well as things like water vapor at being like magnification to help enlarge the sun as it goes away um and and things like that to help it keep its its appearance there are there are variables in place to help it appear which if you're if we're considering an intelligent designer uh that would be an intelligent design to make a sun that no matter where it's at can be the same size um and the same apparent view to help with the light properties and everything of the sun all right thanks for wrapping that up and uh just before you get into uh too much there did you have any other thoughts on the other side and i do see in the live chat it's m c tune sorry about that earlier i'm married to a medic so i you know um naturally i'll just go with hitchhens raiser again okay i'll go back with the earth over sky for determining earth all right let's carry on there fellas this is fun and honestly like i said now one of the most amicable discussions i think we've had on this in a long time so big kudos to you guys you know you made you made my life a breeze tonight so uh especially after all the i told you guys already it's fine kango 44 Nathan it is very easy to measure the shape of the earth bob the science guy did it with total stations you could do it in an afternoon kango's coming for you what do you think okay uh yeah so okay apparently say we're gonna measure the size of the earth let's even let's even throw it out to like eratosthenes or these ancient greece greecians who knew 2,500 years ago that the earth was a sphere if you're looking out to the horizon and you see a boat disappear bottom up is the horizon at three miles away approximately or exactly is it 2.9 or 3.1 depending on refraction were they accounting for refraction and then they take the three miles is six feet hidden uh and so we can extrapolate that into a globe with the given circumference of 24,901 miles uh or whatever unit of measurement they were using back then it how how are you getting are you assuming your your radius are you assuming the distance to the horizon uh as opposed to having a firm fix how are you making a measurement without having some sort of refraction put into uh the measurement Nathan let's let's go this summer and uh make it happen let's measure it ourselves how about that yeah I'm damn trip I said an experiment oh we we both we live near each other we can do it yeah yeah we'll go go to a lake uh set up uh elevations oh come on guys come to Nova Scotia we gotta get a big body of water we can go to I don't know how long how long across is malax malax is not calm that's the problem we need something that's got tranquil water because it's got trees or like c cedar lake north of north of Calhoun is a good one maybe I don't know would that be long enough it's long enough yeah but I'm office gone yeah oh okay but it's somewhere in the house I do apologize Nathan I'm sorry if I cut you off yeah it's just that I have reviewed the questions a lot of them are going to be you know directed towards your arguments that you made tonight so if I inject just to try to get a mic in there it's just like I say for the sake of engagement and trying to make sure that we have some things that can be addressed so that it's not like you know too much gets put out there before we can get into it right so uh the more questions the better as far as I'm concerned whatever gets to truth because I and if I might just interject here real quick what regardless of the shape of the earth whichever it is um I mean there are people out there who I know it's hard to believe for some but there are people who are willing to harm others for their own gain and so if the earth is a globe all religions are false we can stop religious wars and everything because they all claimed at one point a stationary center earth that would falsify all of them the bible included whereas if the earth is planer we expose lies of people who are trying to manipulate us control us and so either way works and whatever gets us to the absolute truth can bring unity and can get people to at least agree on peace and not arming one another then we at least can prevent the preventable things so I'm fine with whatever questions that help us get to really where the you know the potatoes of the argument and whatever so I'm fine at all questions please I encourage them that's why I got to have a channel if I ask ask stuff and you know I want to I want to know too I used to think the earth is a globe I love astronomy and now I want to I want to know I'd like to live on the same earth as my loved one so uh yeah that's that's yeah I was gonna say I think uh I think that one was pretty directed I don't know if you have any thoughts there Mike but I honestly feel like I might have a question once we wrap up uh just because you've you've sparked me there so any thoughts there Mike hey you're you you can hop in the Q&A too go for it ask that you're here you got no that's fine it's fine we'll we'll save it the audience can just sit there and smolder and wonder what no one's gonna know Ryan's question all right all right turn up no let's get yeah I'm I'm anything's fine really I I encourage open dialogue free speech I'm I'm I'm huge on all that so and I think that's really like I love science I love questions I love questions I love I love critical analysis critical thinking strengths and weaknesses of arguments I think all that stuff is amazing allows us to innovate with science so well not to not not to inject again but uh we have lj here actually um so let's let's ask lj's question because it's going to be for you Mike has gravity gravity has gravity ever been measured as force when as force directly as force you measure it uh one way to measure it is with torsion bar um and that uh it's an indirect measurement like most measurements because gravity is not technically a force right that's yeah that's that's a reference frame question within a reference frame it it it exhibits itself as a force is is the torsion bar uh appealing to Newtonian mechanics of matter matter matter attraction it's it's it's just mass attracting mass so there's there's no distinction between between that because Einstein's field equations solve to Newton's Newton's law of gravitational attraction for the specific things that we have in our reference frame which is low velocity and low mass okay okay so Einstein has to incorporate an explanation for low velocity low mass objects yeah uh Einstein could build off of Newton was the point yeah the the Einstein's field equations include application of velocity and mass where Newton does not so Newton is the simplification of of Einstein I mean it didn't happen in that order but wait doesn't doesn't Einstein isn't that force equals mass times acceleration in that velocity and mass that's not Einstein no Einstein field equations are Newton is f equals the Newton's law of gravitational attraction is force equals mass one times mass two times a constant a gravitational constant all that over the radius square there the distance between the centers of mass squared the f equals ma is the second law of motion which is also attributed to Newton so he gets a lot of credit for different things but it's just the second law of motion all right seems like we're all in agreement there we're all just kind of and jiving along if you're jiving along and you're enjoying the discussion let's bring it up here you know like we're an old mc announced or you know we got mc tuned so let's do it ladies and gentlemen ladies and gentlemen hit that like button yes let's get ready to q&a next one coming in uh kango says nathan please explain in detail a sunset ah i figure that's what he meant sunset yeah so that would that would be the um i think i kind of showed it in my in my slides you you have uh the sun moving away from you with perspective you have um different compound variables in the area that way all through the size of the sun to keep it constant the shape of the sun to keep it constant and as it moves down it's going to appear to set behind the vanishing points and once you are beyond well at every elevation has a set vanishing point given the conditions and so once you go behind that vanishing point it's not going to be able to be seen and then if you increase you're going to push further back this is why you can go to the bottom your mic got covered up my uh nathan your your mic got covered somehow my mic is my it's you it's my laptop can you hear me yeah i can hear you it for some odd reason all of a sudden it sounded like you put a cloth over your microphone so can you repeat what you oh sorry about that yeah okay so um so you have a vanishing point a hard vanishing line that given your elevation you are going to have a certain amount of distance of ground you can see and up sky and so anything that passes that is going to be cut off as it goes and as the sun for example would go down bottom up it would enter into that line uh and so that's why for example like in dubai there's a building where you can see the sunset at the base and then if you go to the top you can see the sunset again because as you increase in elevation that hard set vanishing line at the back of the perspective of what you're looking at is going to be pushed further out so you can get more information compressed into that bottom half and the top half and then they're going to and then you have the sun and sky they're colliding and then that they're competing for visual you can only resolve so much with your eyes so they get into competition with very very small things off in the distance and they actually they cancel out and create that vanishing point and so the sun goes behind that and and sets or rises that depending on you know which way it's coming from or going from all right uh any thoughts over there mike or you want to carry on none of that is how things work uh those are just assertions and um incorrect claims about how light works last thoughts for you 10 seconds there nathan um incorrect thoughts about how light works let's see so i do think if you go up in elevation you can see more grounds you can see more sky and so there is something being pushed back to allow you to see further with both so i think that those would be observed all right well thank you so much uh let's carry on there fellas uh yeah you're right max i should always moderate with the uh with the wrestling voice but i don't i used to do the impressions and all that but i've since behaved myself so you're taking pay for pays for the whole thing but you'll only need the edge of your seat that's right that's right all right so free free palestine you know if somebody says if somebody asks for jordan peterson i'll do it i swear i'm in that mood why all right so free free spell and sign says why there's no polar stars at the south and only polar stars at the north answer earth is seriously flat and stars are not light years ago stars are underwater check out star in a jar experience sonu luminance i feel like i should have read that with a jordan peterson voice because the cadence is in this was that was difficult uh go ahead uh i think that one's for you all right there is there is no star at the true center of rotation in the north or the south polaris is about half degree away from the center of rotation so the premise of the question is false to begin with um then the rest is just claims without without evidence uh the the distances to stars have been empirically measured not not the not the time to go over those now but they've been measured and if you want you could you could probably come on my channel we'll talk about it i think that's earth is seriously flat is that you ready um sonu luminescence is is definitely not how stars work uh the uh the the front hopper lines of stars confirm that there's a particular thing that's happening in physics to cause the light to uh to be emitted any thoughts there nathan or do you want to carry on uh yeah if i could real quick uh share my screen here oh yeah um we got a sunny and share let's go for oh i uh i see that that was too far too far i'm a dad i get away with that go ahead nathan go dad hey dad dad humor dad jokes is the most elegant form of comedy even over puns it's the most elegant and refined source of comedy um in my opinion uh so this year uh to to the claim of stars being different distances away uh like what i what i had showed here is you can see how objects in the foreground actually move a lot quicker and cover a larger span of your field of view than more distant objects so this here shows the hat in foreground it moves very quick along the screen compared to the light back here only covers it doesn't cover the full gambit of the screen so more distant objects should because we have observational parallax a lot of times cosmology parallax gets put out to light the earth on both sides of the sun but the falsifying parallax to different claims of distance is the observational parallax all objects in the sky when we look at the time lapse they move at 15 degrees per hour regardless of where they are how far away they are or close because some stars are claimed to be very close some are very distant but they all appear to move the same which would be like if you were looking at uh a bunch of bat bags here and they were all in in the same line it would be they would all be moving at the same distance whereas where we're not seeing something like a close star like approximate centauri versus a very distant star or light in the sky moving at a different rate they're all moving uniform which would imply equal distance as opposed to variation of distance like we always i've yet to see any parallax anyone show any parallax that can refute close objects versus far objects and having fast moving close objects slow moving far objects it's it happens all the time with our optics and with observations all right any other thoughts there uh mctoon yeah in in 18 in 1839 Friedrich Bessel measured the parallax of star 61 sycney to be 0.314 arc seconds the uh 6 000 about closest stars have been measured have had their parallax measured with a couple exceptions so it's been measured uh if you want i can send you citations i've got on my on my website if you just go there and search for stellar parallax you'll find a long list of please if you could send me those i do ask though is it is it parallax like looking at the star from one side of the sun or the other or is it is talking about night time shift because this would be the parallax i was showing there with the screen share and with the revolution of the earth over one night that would be a nightly parallax that we would see every time closest stars if the stars were close enough but uh they're not but they are different it's it's not a matter of the it's not like after two light years away suddenly everything is far enough to appear uniform there's a scale so distant stars it's not it's not two light years it's it's the the width of the orbit of the the earth so many q and a's there guys so many q and a's let's try to move on there's i think that's that's a big one i think i think one way or another no matter what we're talking about right now we're gonna make it full circle before we get out of this q and a like the stars oh you stop it yeah you you're trying to tap me all right let's see here lj oh yeah a bunch of people did say they wanted peterson oh my god okay let me see if i can conjure this up if the moon was physical and asteroids were real we would have countless non cgi videos from earth of asteroids hitting the moon by now why don't we at the end i i went to kermit on it so yeah if the moon was physical and asteroids were real we would have countless non cgi videos from earth asteroids hitting the moon by now why don't we that's for you mike oh we do yeah and i actually to mike's answer i don't know if you're done there mike but i would like to say there was a video that i saw i think it was from about a year ago maybe a year and a half it was um an amateur astronomer astronomer i believe in japan he that it's called like a moon impact crater or a lunar impact uh and they someone actually caught a bit of like a light flare on the moon that was claimed to be an asteroid hitting the moon and puffing up dust high enough above the moon's surface to get illuminated by the sun and then it settled down but uh there are claims like that but i think it might be plasma or something like that but personally for for what i think the moon is but i but those kinds of things are plasma but i haven't been there yet i mean if they were gonna go thank you first thank you for supporting for supporting uh my uh my answer well i yeah i want to throw out what i what i've observed but i i will say like if we're going off of what is uh empirically have we ever measured moon rocks or tested what they're made of if we're going off of the empirical measurements the i mean the claim of moon rock is driftwood so we're testing tree it's not it's not driftwood don't straw man well there was a case of driftwood being you didn't look it up don't wasn't it given to the dutch or the prime minister or something you didn't you did not all right i'll i'll explain it send it send it to me send it please send it no no no you brought it up i think i think i deserve to to explain what really happened yeah so the the claim was that that the uh the Apollo 11 astronauts gave a moon rock to one of the ambassadors for the netherlands the uh the Apollo astronauts never gave any moon rocks out to anybody ever the moon rocks were given out through diplomatic channels and it wasn't in 1969 i think the first moon rocks to be given out or later than that so the claim is that that some dutch um at uh ambassador has a moon rock but it wasn't actually a moon rock it was petrified wood not driftwood but there is there is actually no evidence to suggest that anybody thought it was a moon rock because the actual label that was in the the display case so these things were found in a drawer and then a display case was made from them there's a there's a little paper placard of some sort that says given to him uh the ambassador by the Apollo astronauts but it doesn't say what it is um and then the moon rock was placed next to it not the moon rock the petrified wood which was in the guy's drawer as well so some people made the the uh the connection that the petrified wood was what was given to them that was never the claim uh it was never of the material it was it was a misunderstanding of what happened i there's there's a couple people that have done a full write-up i have links on my website to them if you search for probably netherlands on my website you'll find it okay or back out check out mctoons website all right let's carry on to the next question i put up a silly little uh poll there so if you want to put on that that's fun let's carry on there oh my uh most is doing some strange things all right so let's see here lj having a degree only proves you can memorize books um that's a bit more of a statement not always i don't know if that warns too much here because we have so much lj to respond to but uh you had your haza you catty catty all right let's carry on uh i love you lj hey we're actually real quick if i might add this um to that because go ahead with um i i was on a debate recently with somebody there there are many people who have degrees who work very hard who report on honest data who are are very intelligent very wise very nice people and they do good work um there's there's a lot there are a lot of degrees going to school for medical or for trade or anything like that those are helpful to society um so i and i i i've had some issues with the school system myself but there are definitely positives to being educated having a literate public so that we can read and discern things for ourselves and communicate with each other things very important so anyway thanks for this so boss no problem you know what i you know i i did up that poll but i have to say honestly you guys have uh set a new bar for engagement uh you know we've got lots of q and a and i think it's because uh you guys have made yourself so palatable uh for our live audience that they just they can't help it they want to engage so let's go science is amazing the discussions uh kango 44 says nathan sunrise in sydney australia is three hours after new zealand is total daylight new zealand is uh 1600 kilometers in length sydney is around 20 sorry 2225 kilometers from wellington new zealand why does the sunlight take an extra three hours to travel 625 kilometers didn't you guys ready i think yeah i think i think we read that one it's the the travel of the white uh the dome might slow the light down as it as it travels the distance so um i yeah the sky not the ground so again i mean the sky's purple so the ground is i i play baseball it's a round ball a round bat around you round the bases hit for a rounded average therefore the field must be rounds i think there's a misconnection no problem this is this is going to be 12 hours if if we do this yeah so can go can go pay after the game again i gotta yeah yeah we we've only got so much time here everybody so uh you know and our speakers already they were like let's go for a long one guys uh because we're having fun uh lj how were solar eclipses predicted pre-globe model that's for you mike for me they were before the globe the the uh the path of totality was not predicted before the globe all that they had before the globe it was was identified um patterns in the day that they were likely to happen sorrow cycles and uh they did not know the location they did not know the time they didn't know how much of it whether it was annular or total uh none of that was done so they weren't doing much predicting based on they weren't doing any predicting based on geometry is simply based on repeating patterns but now the specific location of the of the the eclipse is known years in advance though the one in in april coming up the path of totality is known it's known how much of the of them the sun will be covered it's a total eclipse the amount of time that the the sun will be eclipsed is known all of these things are well known it all uses the globe it does not have any flat earth geometry in its calculations and uh i would i would say to that maybe if we're talking ancient times there's no telephones or anything it's harder to get information to travel distances so maybe if you're observing an eclipse in india compared to england people in india might have eclipse data from their viewpoint of the sky there whereas england would have theirs and so you you might have a problem relaying information to be able to put together a whole work but it's about predictions they didn't they didn't do so now we now we have the eclipses now we have the data we have databases put together and it's it's cycles so you have cycles either going around the earth or above the earth but they're still cyclical and if you have enough data points on the cycles you could have the whole cycle this this particular path is not based on a cycle this particular path has never happened before and it'll never happen again but you could see where if eclipses happen at such a frequency you can see where the where the moon will travel and where if i can plot there you don't know what time you don't know what time you don't know the location you don't know the totality you all that requires geometry all right let's carry on freepie polstein says the analema is evidence of a local sun and polaris for you mc tun and polaris so mc tun i've been warned so uh the anal the analema uh is uh hey i i has never i have never seen any flat earth or compute the consequences and then see that the output is analema how high is the sun you don't know how far away is is uh the distance across flat earth no flat earth or nose all of these things are necessary in order to relate the flat earth model the geometry of flat earth to the analema the analema is a very specific claim about geometry now the analema is evidence for the earth being a globe and that the orbit of the earth around the sun is slightly elliptical that's what the analema is evidence for and somehow polaris i don't know why polaris was done there but polaris is not the dead center it's about half degree off and it measures uh to change in location annually before you respond nathan i want to check with mic i'm cool to keep this going as long as you guys want to go you know you guys are super cool but we've got to end it we can't just go indefinitely okay cool i was gonna say i i know how long you're willing to go now now mic uh you know let's let's just leave it out of context don't put any context on that and we'll just carry on with our live chat you know i told you i was a dad i make some inappropriate jokes here and there it's fine jesse bergs says a while ago coby cotton of the dude perfect group went up to out of space and on the video we can see that one he floats freely a two we can see clearly from the window of the capsule a rounded earth yeah this one's for me to answer right i think so yeah buddy so i was gonna try to put this into my slide but i couldn't really fit it on there i was gonna throw it in with flights um with the airplanes and everything but uh if i pulled this up here and then i can i guess exit that and then go here and then if i share my screen and i clicked on this uh is this okay now it's just about pop up shares all right let me just make our faces a little smaller so that we can see your diagram oh my our faces is this on this this is on the screen yeah i'm just trying to make our faces a little smaller once you're like you can see it curved rectangles or something uh so this this here actually is a diagram of a plane window but these um and i don't know if it has to do with making them more uh having more structural integrity having a stronger um a more toughness but window panes on flight craft are curved they're actually physically curved uh which can cause the effect of seeing what appears to be curvature but uh if you look at the red bold jump which i actually think i have here uh you can see that you also have um uh you you can see that you get the planar uh oh you have a you have a flat horizon you have the you have weather balloons that can go 120 000 feet in the air and they they reveal a planar flat horizon uh even you can you send me one Nathan Nathan one one with a non-fish eye lens can you send me one at 120 000 feet with a non-fish eye lens non-go pro well uh yeah i will i'll show i'll send you what i got um but i will say two don't go off there because because i've seen them i've seen them all all the ones that show a flat are gopro lenses and they're cherry picked just a couple seconds or a minute or 30 seconds whatever where where it's uh at the correct angle to make it sort of look a little flat typically the edges are curved up making it look concave but find one find one with a rectilinear lens where we know the properties of the lens okay yeah i will uh i dare you i'll find what i got because i do i will say like the uh the dog cam video that goes up you can the it'll it'll as the the camera wobbles and oscillates and everything you will get the horizon to appear um not the right one to use yeah that's a gopro but they are but they're they don't convex and concave and then they're flat at the middle it's sure you can see level at different tilts and angles yeah no matter which way it's oriented yeah so so i don't know why you'd want to use a fisheye lens use a rectilinear lens instead but a fisheye lens curves the more of the further away you go from the center of the lens and it curves opposite directions above the center of frame and below the center of frame but that dog cam shows no curve whether the horizon appears lower than center or above the center appears plain or it appears straight especially not the curve level of a fisheye it it does not it's not a fisheye fisheye is what a lot of flatterers say uh for gopro gopro a barrel distorting lens barrel distortion yeah yep find one that's that's not a gopro find one that doesn't have strong barrel distortion i hope i came in at a good time guys you sound like right at the end of the thought and uh it's all good i just had to check on my son he was calling for some water so dad to the rescue let's carry on yes sir that's just not always always gotta make some well yeah dad's gotta do not nine and a six year old right you know uh it's it's one of those things every once in a while you're in the background you're like aren't you supposed to be sleeping i'm a novice coach everybody it's 12 o'clock right now if there's a sleep uh i don't know what i'm supposed to do those two hour lists are some nice though let's carry on guys and there oh my goodness there are so many super chats we might have to set a timer if mike you have an intention of getting out of here in good time let's set a two minute timer for these questions because that's a good idea we'll be here all night if we don't do something else all right so uh jesse bergs says a while ago a kobi cotton of the dude perfect group oh yeah we already won jesse bergs says again lengths of train tracks in southern places are much shorter than what it would have been to be on a flat earth why ignore the clear evidence for a globe well so yeah i think the the distances over land i think we can measure pretty well because they're over land we can we know if we're laying a 10 meter section of track it's going to be 10 meters as far as the contour of the land if it slopes at all if you're if you're trying to go around a turn or anything it could change the uh straight line distance to distance actual distance like if you go straight over something versus having to take a hill it's going to appear longer if you take the hill uh but i do think we can know distances over land pretty accurately as far as the the spacing between them over like southern oceans and everything i mean even a few years ago there were problems with flights disappearing and stuff so maybe the the continents have have their shape but that also too uh the military does own the gps and they don't give away a lot like their their most accurate data for for for reasons defensive purposes to not have direct pinpoint location of any craft or anything but they hold they withhold the most accurate maps and the the UN the international civil aviation organization uh the usgs and all these they all use a flat earth logo for whatever reason as their as their logo they don't use like one of those bendy globe things that looks like a ram or anything so i just i i yeah i i think we can accurately know and and then i like i showed in my slide in the bottom corner of one of the slides i showed a a map of the united states it's like one of those things you would fold out in your car it's a flat map on a flat piece of paper has a key has a scale you can travel with it it shows rivers it shows roads it shows highways it shows cities all that stuff so we'll we'll give mike a chance to respond to some of what you said a very specific question was about distances over over surfaces which you you said was primary not secondary tertiary primary and so the distances of things like train tracks are well known across australia you talked about it with uh phd tony match the predicted distance when you compute the consequences of the globe matches when you compute the consequences of flat earth they don't match that science flat earth falsified unless you have a different way to compute distances between points on flat earth that note but no flat earthers ever represented that that is time uh we've done the polar distance formula for you but you don't like it well i i would i would say to that that we last we're doing we can we can make a map of maybe a local area like australia and have a map and we might not have it laid out as far as resolution and everything to try to put it to an entirety flat earth map but there are no accurate globe maps or anything either so yeah there's there's definitely every accurate globe maps well you'll get a chance to expound on postline paradox it's just one second you just wait before you trigger every week we can we can wrap that you're good all right leo crow says over to you mc tune i gotta get used to saying that too just so i behave myself what evidence do you have for the sun actually operates by nuclear fusion this has never been proven in human history and is impossible if indeed maintains an axial rotation two minutes on the clock uh non sequitur for why it would be impossible uh but has it been substantiated i i um that's a good question not super familiar with with the details of it uh one of the things that is uh is done is spectroscopy to know the particular makeup of it and knowing the distance and the angular size we know the the linear diameter of it that gives us the ability to determine the mass of it and what happens in the the center of it so these things are of course yes we nobody went there nobody scooped out a bucket of it to test what it was you have to just like basically every single measurement in science every single thing in science except for the very most elementary things you have to do something other than just looking at it and grabbing it to see what it's made of or what it what it does or how big it is or any of things like that but um melodically orcs is a good point fusion gives off some neutrinos and we do measure them so there you go all right and i do think like the globe would have have to explain what a star is and try nuclear fusion is a part of the cosmic evolution of the of the universe that with with stars fusing light elements into heavier elements up to iron and then they go supernova or red giant and they explode and become higher elements so it that would be the claim that's it's it's the phenomenal claim of what stars are to help allow for the idea and conception of a globe to be able to be um you know not conflictory as far as how how we get these higher elements and everything from a big bang producing helium hydrogen and lithium um so but yeah it's it's the model but yeah it's and i would two questions back to my very first part of my presentation the flat earth has nothing you need to compute the consequences for your claim and then see what the sun is if you're claiming that the sun is local and small and then it's it's on you to provide the evidence for that so asking me for evidence when you don't have it hypocrisy i think the sunspot the local sunspot all right um oh okay yeah i was gonna say actually you know what it's good that you wrapped it up there because i was for tune mr e-man can the flat earth are explaining the change in the length of day throughout the year yeah so the sun on a flat earth model the claim would be that the sun is making this a small circle uh in the uh in the northern hemisphere and then or inner circle on a you know flat earth model uh and then it as you go further away the sun moves away from you and it does increase its speed to keep its 15 degree power heading uh and so you're getting a more distant sun you're getting faster traveling sun you're getting less direct sunlight because it's further away it's lower in the sky typically so you have more atmosphere thick more thick atmosphere to cut through uh with the light and so these things would all cause you know the variance in days as the sun ebbs and flows small and large and back in the small circles again and again as it makes its solar cycles was that your last lot of circles that's good i mean i yeah i think if if mike school i mean if you want to answer that or cool but i that seemed kind of like how would a flat earth explain this which i'm sure mike might have might know about how how the attempt of explaining day length is and everything but again too like if you look at the crude example of that dome and everything it shows a similar light pattern to see mike is back on a day i was i have a response to that i was just about ready to ask him my question just to push it along but you know what save it after this go ahead my response is quick hitch and razor over to you ryan no no let's carry on let's carry on let's i i thought you might be gone a little bit longer there mike but uh you know uh that's all i have your profile that's all i have i know what his answer is you're talking about i didn't need to be here to hear it you're talking about your response not the bathroom break right that's all you have all right yes let's carry on all right oh let's carry on uh did you do let me scroll up and i say scroll up because there's a lot of questions i'm setting too many timers but you guys are just you know going about 30 seconds over so um phd tony says phd tony yeah we were gonna you were talking to him last time can tune name a material oh maybe this isn't the same phd tony can tune it name a material capable of supporting its own weight over spans of thousands of kilometers if no such material exists how can a permanent exist yeah there there is no known material and uh i suppose if you were to compute the consequences of of a firmament a dome of some sort that would have to be 12 000 kilometers or sorry 40 000 kilometers in diameter and an unknown height but it doesn't matter some some tall height the the material behind that would be um quite something including that the claim is uh that there's water on the other side of it so how would that happen uh boy that's that's a high high bar that which is asserted without evidence is dismissed without evidence all right yeah and i would say so like i think the hardest object that we have is diamond i know like hydroxyapatite on our teeth is pretty hard as well but like we have these hard substances and so but we're able to break them if we if we want to or if you know if we do the right things apply energy to them or anything like that um but if if the creator who's all powerful all capable makes a an unbreakable material because man cannot go into the heaven five seconds then no one is going to get past that or be able to scratch it or test it or anything like that extract material to then be able to analyze because god made it unbreakable it's the firmament it's the sky it's the barrier thoughts there mc patients razor okay toby walker coming in why do globers pretend that we perceive space in euclidean and ignore the fact that train tracks cover in distance toby walker says to follow up on my previous question about train tracks do parallel to do parallel lines ever actually converge in reality uh that's a great question so so parallel lines so on flat earth you've got the the flat earth which would be parallel to the plane that the sun is in and so they do not converge in reality so the sun could never set because they never do converge in reality thank you for that toby um but uh we we do not see in euclidean or in hyperbolic space i did read that paper uh but it is just human perception about distances of things that was hyperbolic it wasn't actually that humans see in hyperbolic space and of course measurements devices like the electrolytes which is what was used in that particular paper uh don't have an issue with that they measure angles they measure specific things it's not a problem for them and to that i would say if i draw this here the circle if you have the earth and you have the sun setting why why it does actually appear to set is because if if the sun if this here is the vanishing point and the sun is going this way once it crosses this vanishing point it's going to it's going to appear to set behind something because the just because the span of the earth is great doesn't mean that an observer's vanishing point is is the same or comports to that because if you go up in elevation you change your vanishing point you can bring that sun back in the point the point of topi walker's claim though is that is that parallel lines do not converge therefore there's no actual th