Good evening, everyone. Welcome to modern day debate. Tonight's debate. Flat versus globe. Tonight we've got Mark Reid, Leo Philius, Kyle and Mercedes to debate that exact topic. Going first tonight will be the globe side. Mark, the floor is all yours. Thank you so much, Justin. I'll just share my screen to get my presentation. Just let me know when I am good to go. Thank you, Justin, for moderating my partner, the amazing Leo Philius, and thank you to the people in the audience for giving me your time. Thanks to our interlocutors, Kyle and Mercedes for being here. So, Flat Earth is a relatively new conspiracy theory. Layed an idea that doesn't fit with the observations that people have made about the observable constellations and physics that we see around us. Since ancient Greek days, we have known that Earth was spherical due to the experiments they performed. And the more observations we have and the more physics we learn, it reinforces the knowledge that the Earth is not a flat stationary plane, but a rather a rotating oblate spirit with a radius of about 6,371 km. Now, the reason, one of the reasons we know this is we have two different models and only one of them holds to reality. And Flat Earth is a model even though it's very, very unformed and sort of very, very vague in its assertions. The crux of the Southern Cross in particular is a massive problem for Flat Earth and I'll be challenging my opponents to see how they explain how this works. Why can people in Australia look south as you can see from here and see the Southern Cross like this and people simultaneously can look south from South Africa and see the Southern Cross. Now, this is simultaneous. This is at the same time. This is also true for people in South America. They look south and see the Southern Cross as well. There's been no explanation of it as to how it's solved this conundrum and my opponents need to explain how this would work. Now, this is how it would work on the globe works perfectly fine. This is on the Flat Earth does not work. This is a time lapse taken from the circumpolar stars in the northern hemisphere. It's in the United Kingdom. Note they're moving counterclockwise if I can just start that. Yeah, they're counterclockwise as you move farther and farther north the stars get higher in the sky and this is really important. So this is from Alaska at Beluga Lake Observatory. As you can see it's higher in the sky as you approach the North Pole the center of this apparently flat at this. The circumpolar stars rotate directly above you. Now, this is the Southern Hemisphere. Notice it's going clockwise as you move further south again they get higher in the sky. And this is a shot from Patrick Kullis at a research station in the Antarctic. Note you see a LiDAR being there that measures atmospheric conditions. Now the stars are directly overhead and that's important. Why doesn't the circumpolar stars appear this? Why do they appear this way? This is how it works on a globe. There's Northern Hemisphere, equator, Southern Hemisphere. And this is how it works. So as you look north and that's why they get higher the further north you go because of the curvature of the Earth. And this is looking south and notice how they're going in different directions. And as you move south they get higher in the sky. Now here's the problem for the Flat Earth model. When you actually get to the North Pole the stars should be above you. But that's not what we see from the Southern Hemisphere. We see them out here instead. So really there should be three sets of circumpolar stars. But for some reason when you go north those stars go down and those ones are not present even on the Southern. So it just does not work on a Flat Earth and there's nothing you can do to make it work. This is a flight once from LAX to Tel Aviv. The other is Sydney to Johannesburg. They're approximately the same travel time and approximately the same distance. Note the curve especially the LAX to Tel Aviv thing. Why are they flying in a big curve? They're not. It's a straight line. They're flying and they're actually flying in a straight line when you spread out flat. It looks like the lines are curving but in reality the pilots are just following a direct line over the curvature of the Earth. Now note very almost exactly the same distance, roughly the same distance, roughly the same time. But on a Flat Earth we've got a problem. One is significantly longer than the other. So I will be asking my opponents how these planes fly twice the speed without referring to any magic or miracles to make them fly twice as fast. And I'll be looking forward to the response of the explanation of how this actually happens. So I've got three major questions out of this. How can the crux constellation be seen at the same time south of both Africa and south of Australia? Explain why circumpolar stars are rotating in the wrong direction of looking south at different places on the Earth. Explain why the circumpolar stars in the northern hemisphere are directly over you when up in the north pole. Explain why flights deviate so far from a straight line on a flat map, but why the flight time is half the distance for about the same time. So I'll look forward for the questions and thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mark. Leo, you may continue from there. So I don't really have much to say. I think Mark, despite not citing all of the evidence because there's just so much of it, cited enough and that's all you ever really need to do to show that obviously the Flat Earth, it doesn't work. This does not align with anything that we understand about our reality. Also, I don't even know what to say anymore. So many people have done so much to show how this is wrong in so many ways that I probably couldn't even fathom attempting that at this point these kinds of debates are really just a game that we play and sometimes it's kind of fun to play it and that's why I'm here. I'm not really expecting to hear or see anything that even remotely comes close to showing that the Earth is flat. For me specifically, because I study physics, physics is kind of particularly cosmology, the thing that I'm very much interested in. I'm not going to say I do it because I don't. I'm not a professional, unfortunately. The big thing for me is just general relativity. You'd have to overturn general relativity if you wanted the Earth to be flat because when you get enough mass contained in enough space, its gravitation is going to pull inward equally at every point on its surface and then anybody should know that that's going to give rise to a particular shape. And this is why stars and planets in large enough asteroids are spheroidal because of their gravity. So the big thing for me is that one of the most consistently confirmed models that we have ever developed for describing reality that does so almost perfectly would have to be overturned for the Earth to be flat. Now, I just don't fathom that happening. Is it possible? Perhaps. But is it likely? I don't think so. And I'll just leave my thoughts there. Alright, great. So right before I give the floor over to Kyle and Mercedes, I'll just remind everybody to go ahead, hit that like and subscribe button for me. We've got over 250 people watching live right now, which is fantastic and we love your support. But 18 likes makes me feel we're doing something wrong. So let's feel some love over here for our debaters. Kyle, Mercedes, the floor is yours. Whoever would like to? Yeah, I can go first because he has an awesome presentation that he's putting together. I just wanted to quickly reply to Leo really quick that Nikola Tesla was actually one of the first people to challenge and pretty much overturn the theory of relativity. So that's just an interesting tidbit there. I'm Mercedes Piat. I'm new to the channel. I'm also known as the Great Awakening and to give some insight to people. I've always kind of been curious and interested in conspiracies since I was pretty young. But I grew up on Stargate SG-1. I grew up on Atlantis. I grew up on Sliders. I grew up on sci-fi. I was really huge into just basically sci-fi and science and space travel and aliens. But in 2020, I had a friend go flat earth and I didn't take it super serious when I was sent the documentary to watch it until my dad turned flat earth. And he's my sci-fi buddy. So once he went flat earth, I took the CS Lewis approach I called it and I tried really hard to disprove the flat earth. And by that way, I mean I went and I started watching all the flat earth stuff from people like Eric DeBay, ODD TV, and a lot of the well-known flat earthers that are out there. I was hoping to dismantle every single argument I found. And one of the first things I found that really struck me was the CEO of YouTube basically saying that she's not going to allow the flat earth stuff to be at the top. She was going to push it all to the bottom. And only the debunk videos were going to be allowed to the top like Professor Dave, for example, who's not actually a professor, by the way. And so I built my knowledge on flat earth from 2020 to 2023. I became a flat earther in 2020. No one really can really even become it because we're all flat earthers anyways that I think I've heard that said many times now. But one of the biggest red flags to me was NASA. I think that's one of the biggest red flags to anyone. I went to their website first. I went to their FOIAs back when they were a little bit more reachable. And I found probably about over 40 documents saying about the earth being flat and non-rotating. And that was a big red flag to me because they were based off of missiles, flight plans, and I've actually got some of them here today. And one of the biggest proofs to both me and my husband who also joined me on this and wanted to be an astronaut when he was a kid. So like I said, every flat earther that you're going to find was once really big on space in the globe was the seven mile bridge in the Florida Keys and the Seuss canal, because the seven mile bridge should you should see it's 32 there should be 32 feet of noticeable curvature curvature because of the seven mile radius of the bridge. So there's no noticeable drop and curve at all. When you see the seven mile bridge. And it's the same thing with the Seuss canal. It was not built with any curvature in mind because it was built a long time ago. And it combines both both the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. And it's a continuation of two seas put together and completely disproves any potentiality for there to be a globe for the earth. When people say they don't understand how like flat earth can have level water. We're not talking about under the water where there's obviously hills and valleys because that's normal where what we're talking about is when you pour like a bunch of water onto a floor. And if your floor is like slanted, it's going to go straight towards the slants and try to flat now. It's going to go to where the level is of that room. It's not going to stay up on a slant. It's not going to try to stay up here. If it was a drip it would why because it's more oxygenated. So when you have tons and tons of water in one area, it's not so much. And that's why we have things like lakes and rivers and they're always flat when you measure across them and around them and through them. One great example of this was the concave earth documentary. Everyone from that documentary disappeared, which is kind of strange, but they did a laser test over large distances to prove the fact that they were trying to actually prove the globe, which is interesting. And they actually did distances between buildings and found that they were equivalent to each other across the lake between Michigan, Michigan and Chicago, a building from Michigan to Chicago. And they were exactly the same across instead of being different. So completely disproved what they were talking about. So their logic has been wrong from time to time about the globe. And another thing that I like really wanted to point out was he was saying, I think it was Mark. Yes, Mark was saying that there hasn't really been like a big thing for flat earth before and this is all new. Well, the Gleason map came out in 1892. And before that, or actually after that to the CBS CBS is air map came out in 1943, and both of those are based on a flat earth, not a globe. And before that you had every civilization across this earth that believed in a flat earth from the Mayans to the Japanese. They all have I can even show it to but I'm sure Kyle's got a presentation I'm sure he might have a picture that comes up about it. Every single civilization across the earth, literally had a depiction of what they perceived to be as a flat not rotating earth. And all the only Greeks that believed that the earth was round were heliocentrists. They were the ones that were following a religion of the mystery religions. And the Greeks at the other Greeks at the time, and other people at the time, thought them foolish. That's we were even taught that in school. They were the outcasts. We're not someone that everyone just agreed with. That's why flat earth lived on for so long. That's why we have so many maps of the flat earth model going way into the future, all the way up to the 1900s. Because people believed the earth to be flat for such a long time until NASA came along. And what's funny is a lot of people say, Oh, well, how can it be all these people? Well, my funny thing is is that just look at the other space stations, because the Chinese space station they're funny to watch like they use stop motion. They do not have good CGI like NASA does. So when you see you can see the green green screen glitch is so much better. They just they can't keep up. So when people say that, well, what about the other countries? Yeah, go look at the other countries. You'll believe then really you will. And the other thing. Okay, cool. The other thing I just want to quickly wrap up then is people always ask why the lie. That's the biggest one, right? Well, I have a kind of different answer than what most flat earthers give. I mean, we should know that they do lie. You look at the UN with one World Government Summit that just happened in 2020. I watched their videos pretty extensively, even their newer ones. And they don't just say by 2030 you'll own nothing and be happy. They also openly talk about like depopulating all of us. So they have an obvious agenda that's pretty well known now it's pretty viral across the internet. I think everybody has seen those videos now. It's like we know that they want to get rid of us and every. Okay, I'm almost done. Everyone thinks money is king. But I would just say that it's actually the product or benefit of power and control. So their main thing is power and control. That's what they need to maintain for the systems they've put in place today, which is stuff like consumerism, factory farming, mega corporation, because if nothing means anything and you're just on a spinning ball floating in outer space, then it's easier to consume. It's easier to convince people that they're not where they're at, that they're not connected with who they are, and that nothing means anything. So just bye-bye-bye. And that's what they've sold us. And the more disconnected you are, the more you're going to, you know, just do whatever the leaders say, which is what they want. And people like George Orwellian and Huxley pointed out that this was the way it was going to go. So I think those are just some good points to look at, and I will hand it over to Kyle. All right, Kyle, she ate a couple seconds of your time there, so... That's okay. Turn that playback speed up to 1.25 and let's go. Well, I really enjoy hearing from different Flutterers. I've never met Mercedes yet, and I'm like, a new Flutterer that I'm not aware of. Yes, I'm pretty excited about that. You've very well spoken, so I really look forward to hearing more about you and in the future. Anyways, I really liked your description of proofs. Flutterers were all about scientific proof. That's what we do. That's our bread and butter. And last time I checked over here with Mark Reed and Leo, neither of them believe science proves anything, unless something's changed since last time I talked to them. And so I think it's kind of odd that they're coming to a debate when they don't believe they have any kind of scientific proof for a globe whatsoever. But for me, when it comes to Flutterers, some of the really, really big ones that really opened the eyes to a lot of people was something as basic as the Bedford level experiment. It's rather than looking at the lights in our ceiling. Oh my goodness. Rather than looking at the lights in the ceiling, we like to actually look at the earth itself.  Act like there is no atmosphere on the earth whatsoever. And also act like there is no firmament over the earth whatsoever. And so you'll see that time and time again. And so with Mark Reed's one of his opening slides, he's over there claiming that you should be able to see Polaris from all places on earth at a single time. But that's obviously not true because we have clouds and atmosphere. And I call atmospheric opacity where the atmosphere can block your view of how far things you can see. But that's kind of going to do another thing. I'll say that for a little bit sooner or for the open discussion. But my whole thing on proof is just kind of with observations like the Bedford level experiment. And we do this time and time again with things like the black swan of being able to see too far on the globe. We should have a limited range of vision because the earth is going to curve away from us. And now with both flat earthers and a lot of the globe erthers out there that will acknowledge the atmosphere, we can know that there's it comes down to like two major claims with things like the Chicago skyline observation. Flat earthers will say, yes, we can see that very clearly. And that proves this observation of being able to see too far proves that the earth is flat. But then the rivaling claim is, oh, well, we can only see that because of refraction, refraction in there. That's one of the times that they actually acknowledge that we live in an atmospheric environment. And the globe earth claim is that refraction is extending our range of view. The flat earth claim is that refraction is limiting our range of view. And so when we actually put that to the test right there, that's our key observation. Is refraction extending our range of view or is it limiting our range of view? And when we go out in there and test it, we do our test, our laser experiments in the dead of winter and the cold of night when we can get the least amount of refraction. And that's what makes those so significant is going out there and doing that. And it's these kind of observations that really prove it. They prove it. But I've got a share screen if I have time. OK, I got 90 seconds to share screen. Let's try it. OK, so this is the, this right here is the skunk bay where there are observations. And you see it in the very beginning. It tells you the time early in the morning. It's nice and cold. And you can see pretty far with these skunk bay observations. But as the weather starts to warm up over time, you can visually see the refraction limiting your range of view, which is exactly what the flat earth predicted. Refraction limits your range of view rather than extending it. So that's my, I think my biggest proof right there. Thank you. All right, thank you very much, Kyle. Yeah, so we're about to head into the open discussion. Before we do that, I'm going to remind everyone once again, hit that like, hit that subscribe button. Modern day debate hitting 162,000 subscribers before the end of the year, which I happen to know is about 22,000 subscribers more than we expected. So thank you everyone for all that support.  I am creating a database of super chats right now as I speak to you. So if you guys have questions for our debaters at the end, make sure you get those super chats in. And we're going to open up the floor to open discussion for 50 minutes, setting the timer by all means folks have fun. I guess we should start open since you finished first. So I heard a lot of conspiracy theories from new Mercedes that that one particular that sort of says you will own nothing and be happy. That was never endorsed by the World Economic Forum. It was actually a in a summit. It was a talk done, but it wasn't something being endorsed. So you've sort of got hold of a conspiracy theory there, not understanding what the actual talk and the originating essay was about. What if scenario a hypothetical if we had complete socialism and nobody owned anything or communism, I guess. What would they put it on their Twitter? They put it on their Twitter page. They announced they announced the talk right though they announced that their talk beginning. They never endorsed the contents of that talk as something worth doing. So you've sort of you're sort of pointing to a hypothetical that was brought up in a World Economic Forum based upon a essay that was given that wasn't actually what they were doing. It was a hypothetical because the World Economic Forum is a whole bunch of different interests that come together and talk about hypotheticals and things. So this is actually I think I said this, but I actually based it off the fact that I you can watch their channel on YouTube. They have their own channels. So if you let me finish, if you let me finish the whole problem is that's not what the discussion is about. So I just want to point out these conspiracies and not what this discussion is. It's about flat earth and sort of that's just true. But what I'm saying is that most people ask why would they lie about flat earth because those organizations would have to be involved in order for that to be the case because they fund and help back a lot of those organizations. So my whole point was that, you know, I sit I sit there and listen to the World Economic Forum, the UN and even the government summit of 2020. I'm not sure if you sat through that. But if you listen to them when they were talking about owning nothing and being happy, they did elaborate on what they were talking about. They did say what kind of system they do want for the future. That's what I was referring to. So I'm not talking about just some article. They actually spell out for 2030. This isn't what the debate is about. If we could get back on subject, it isn't it isn't the World Economic Forum that people say why are they lying about all of this. What they're talking about is all the space agencies throughout the world. You're pushing it and trying to make the thing about it. Excuse me, Kyle, if you could let me finish. They're talking about all of the different space agencies throughout the world, like NASA, the Indian Space Agency, the Australian Space Agency, Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency, the World Economic Forum, all the UN does not actually give any information on, you know, the shape of the earth or what what sort of space missions are doing. That would be the space agencies, including private space agencies like SpaceX and Virgin. Who gives funding to them? Who gives funding to them? Well, the World Economic Forum? Governments, not NASA. Yeah, there we go. That's the point. Governments. Well, this debate isn't about governments, it's about the shape of life. Governments funded the Internet too and the Internet works just fine. At least here in the United States, the government funded the building of the US Interstate Highway System, which I'm pretty sure everybody has made use of in their lives. I haven't. You're not cool like us. But so you drawing out of the fact that NASA is funded by the government, of course it is. It's a government agency means nothing. The fact that the government funds it literally means nothing. To go from there to therefore we can't trust NASA is just an explicit non-sequitur. You'd have to make the argument for why NASA being funded by the government would somehow mean that we can't trust NASA and you haven't done it. Right. Well, first, actually I did.  When you go and watch their videos, you actually see them glitching out like because they're using a green screen. You see them glitching out. You see their harnesses. I've gone and watched these videos myself. I've gone to their actual website instead of just watching the documentaries that Flat Earthers put out there because I wanted to see for myself if those were actually legit because I was literally at that point. How do you know these videos came from NASA? Because you can go to NASA websites. They're from NASA. You can go. So how do you know they're from NASA? Just repeating that they're from NASA isn't answering how you know that. Because it's from, so it's specifically from their website. I went to their website. How do you know that it's their website and not like a spoof? It's right. Do you know how easy it is to spoof a government website and make it look really official? Right. But if it's .gov, if it's .gov and there's nothing else after, because I'm an IT, so I know how this works. You would have to make an alternative copy of the website and it would have to be slightly altered. It could not be the same, especially Can you show me these videos? if it's .gov. I could show you these videos. Yeah. And NASA has their own YouTube channel. Because I would like to see those. A lot of those are over there. Well, what we've got to also keep in mind is we can use a flat earth model. What we also have to keep in mind that there is artifacting in some of these videos and that's a conversation I have with Nathan Thompson that you can point to artifacting within the videos. In fact, he demanded to see another video with artifacting and when I showed one someone actually sent to me a copy of the debate we had where he artifacted his eyes sort of flickered on and off like it was a glitch in the system because what you've got to remember is these are being sent from our space through atmosphere. So a lot of glitches and artifacting can happen in video. And experts that look at them say, hey, that is artifacting. So unless you are a video expert and I don't know what branch of IT you work in that's a very vague field because it's so broad. So, I mean, you work in IT. How are we communicating right now? What does backhaul use? The craziest artifact I've ever even heard of. What does backhaul use? Backhaul. What does it use? Well, first I wanted to answer your first question how we're communicating right now. 99% of international lines is actually in the ocean. It's not in satellites. 99% specifically. I never said it was. It uses light. Light is what we use. We understand how light works and light doesn't work on a flat earth. It basically, you have the sun and the sky and your climate. Excuse me, Kyle. I have not finished speaking, Kyle. Try to have some decorum. Okay. Try to have some class and stop interrupting people because basically in order for the sun on a flat earth to work the light would have to attenuate significantly over the center of the earth and expand on the sides in order to not be seen by people in the darkness on the southern hemisphere or the other hemisphere of the flat earth or the other segment of the flat earth. It does not work because light does not attenuate in that way. And we know that because we use light in order to transmit internet signals through fiber optic cables. We know this to be true.  I'm saying that the sun isn't a flashlight. It's not one directional. But if you have a camera in the darkened portion, you may not be in the main focus of light, of the flashlight, but you will still see the light. You will still see the origin point of that bulb. Try it yourself. See yourself if you can still see the bulb from the darkened section of a disk. You still can. Well, you still can if I have a small disk and a big flashlight. Now, if I have a tiny flashlight, like one of those, you know, those little tiny clip-on ones that are just really small, and I put it on a disk, it'll light an area, but at a certain point, it'll stop because there's a theory, and I wish I had it written down right now, but there's a theory about light that the further you get away, the further you get away from light, the darker it becomes. Inverse square law of light. Thank you, yes. No, no. Light doesn't become dark. Don't believe in the inverse square law of light. It doesn't become dark. It doesn't. That's not what I said. That's not what I said. But I also wanted to say to Mercedes if you can. Try it yourself. You can still see the origin point. You can still see the origin point even of a tiny little light on a round disk. Because the size of the light doesn't matter here. It's going to be the luminosity of the source. Correct. So it doesn't matter if this thing is the size of a marble on your view. We already know what its luminosity is because I can look at it during the day. Again, that much light is not just going to disappear. And you're ignoring the permanent light. The biggest problem with that. Yeah, the light won't disappear, but the biggest problem with that is it even says online, like you can Google this and it'll be on Harvard and everything else. Our line of perception, how far we as humans can see, is only about three miles. And that's about it. So if you are trying to look at an object that's a little bit small, it's going to look like it's not there to you. If it's far enough away. That's why when you're on a straight road, and I've been on a straight road in Texas before, and a car is three or more miles away from you, it starts getting smaller and smaller and smaller, and it disappears from the bottom up until you can't see it anymore, but it's still on that straight road. And if you took a zoom camera, you could actually zoom that whole car back in from top to bottom. It's easy. You can do that with boats. We've already created that as well. Yeah, it's got nothing to do with what he said. You sort of mentioned the Fermanet car. I'd like to basically focus on that. What have you done to prove this Fermanet actually exists? What is it composed of? What are your calculations done on its effect on light? What information can you offer us to in any way believe that this Fermanet is real at all? Okay. The existence of the Fermanet can come down to a lot of different things. I've done multiple videos on the Fermanet. I really like... So what is it? Like Operation Fishbowl. Operation Fishbowl is a great example of that. And so there's different things that confirm the existence of the Fermanet. One thing is like, okay, we have windows, right? And so we can detect a window is there without being able to... when we can see through it, right? NASA just recently did one, didn't they? Didn't they just do one? Have you touched the Fermanet? Wasn't there just a recent one? I can't touch the Fermanet. It's kind of pretty high up in the sky. I can touch my window and I can sort of do tests and make sure that a window is there. But you haven't actually said how you determined this is actually there. You've just claimed it's there again. Like you're sort of comparing it to a window, which I can give you a breakdown of how we can tell a window is there. We mentioned here Operation Fishbowl where they tried to nuke the Fermanet. And throwing... So one thing we can detect a window here is by throwing things at it. What? Who tried to nuke the Fermanet? I did. Who tried Operation Fishbowl? Seriously, who did? Who's got a nuke and shot it? Because the thing is that they just lost a nuke. It's just gone in space now. Which the funny thing is is that... Do you know how many missiles they've shot off for fun? They were high altitude nuclear tests. They weren't trying to nuke the Fermanet. They were just testing high altitude explosions of nuclear devices. That's all, Kyle. Yeah, and... That does not in any way... That does not in any way prove... Hang on, Kyle. That does not in any way prove that the Fermanet is real. That they carried out high altitude nuclear test is not in any way. Like, the reason that they said they were doing that was to test the effect of a nuclear device detonated in high altitude. That does not show that a Fermanet is real. It just shows that you think that a Fermanet is real. So I'm not really surprised that you say that. Yeah, I don't think that's a very good... Yeah, I don't think that's a very good argument at all. It's basically a dodge because you can't actually answer what I'm asking. Well, I can prove, but if you can't agree that cat's eat food, you can't even say that. Yeah, so, Kyle, I'm not interested in the synantics. I can say a lot of these are proofs that are really basic and observable, but you just didn't say anything... Most of what you believe you can't prove.  And then that's why you interrupt because you don't want people to make salient points against what you're saying. Most of what you believe you receive through induction, not deduction, if you know the difference between those. So, proof is a term... You don't read mine, you don't know, like... Usually... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I wasn't... I actually was not done speaking. You already know your point. You have no proof. That's your own admission. I see, I can't even make that one. All right, all right, all right.  Hold on a second. Okay, so to be fair Kyle hasn't really had much floor to speak of. However, Leo was in the middle of a statement. So if we'll let Leo finish, Kyle and then I would love for you to answer. So what I'm trying to say is proof is a term usually reserved for mathematics and logic. That's not science. That's mathematics and logic. So proofs are things sort of consequence that necessarily follow from some set of axioms or some premises. If those axioms or premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. That's a proof. But the fact that we can observe the lensing of light and gravitational waves and all this stuff it does not necessarily follow that general relativity is true. Just that general relativity said we'd see those things if its description is true and we do see those things so we have good evidence for the theory. And I was using it colloquially. I was using it colloquially. If we can see gravitation I would love to hear Kyle speak to you. Thank you. So notice how Leo over here mentioned the word fact and said there's no proof fact is proof. And so yeah.  That's it. They have no points to make all they can say is I think this might be the case I think that might be the case but they have nothing to stand on whatsoever. So what do you think? Yeah. So this is the Kyle dodge. This is the Kyle dodge. He doesn't want to actually discuss the points that are being brought up. So instead he goes to hey anything you say is null and void because I don't want to address the points that are actually being brought up. So from there Carl we can falsify things and some of the things that I brought up do falsify the flat out. So I had a number of questions. I had three questions. So maybe start on the circumpolar stars. Really quick. Hang on. I'm still talking. Thank you. The circumpolar stars. Can you please demonstrate how that works on a flat earth and explain to us how why we see what we see on a flat earth. Go for it. I don't understand the lights on my ceiling. Oh my goodness. All the lights on my ceiling the shape of my ceiling that proves what the shape of my floor is. That's your argument. Yeah. So that argument that you've just used is like saying hey you can't drive by looking at the road. You've got to look at your car because that's what you're in. That is basically the argument. No, no, no, no. I haven't finished talking Kyle. Kyle. Look at the road with you. Why can't I talk? I let you talk. Why can't I talk? The idea that we can tell what situation we are observing the things that are happening around us is very clear in science. We do this all the time just like you drive and look at the road to tell what position you are in relative to the road. We can tell what position and what shape the earth is relative to the stars and how they move around us. We've been doing this for ages. So just sort of dodging and go well don't look at the sky. Don't look at that evidence. Don't look at it. Just shows you can't explain it. I brought proof. I brought proof. I came to this thing with proof. You didn't. What do you mean by proof? What do I mean by proof? Observable proof. And so yeah. You just used the word again. So observable was a word that wasn't proof. Observable? Yeah. Proof is observable. So. Finish that for me. When it comes to proof it's talking about fact-based evidence. And so this is something that's more. Yeah. Then science does prove things. If that's what we mean by science does prove things. What? I said you believe science proves things now. Under that definition. Yeah. It really depends on what you mean. But I have a question for Kyle about the firmament. Just a really simple one. Is the firmament made of? Yes. So what is it made of? What constitutes the firmament? I don't know what it's made out of. It's transparent. Yeah. Why couldn't we go do you think theoretically we could go up and measure it and figure out what it's made of by taking samples and then studying them? Like we do. I don't know. I don't know. Perhaps so. Well if people have done that then why don't like physicists say oh yeah. The firmament's real and here's how it works and here's what it's made of. It's in the encyclopedia. Yeah. It would be like the first to want to know what the physical thing is that we've never seen before and we've never observed before and figure it out. Isn't that kind of their jobs? It comes to like launching rockets and stuff. That would be NASA.  SpaceX does that. Yeah. They're the ones trying to cover this. China does it. Sweden does it. The United Kingdom does it. There's a lot of They all work together. They all work together. They're on the same man. May I just quickly point out one thing that it is in the encyclopedia in the old encyclopedia. I actually have the video where it shows the encyclopedia. I believe it's in the encyclopedia. 1800s and it says how high up the dome is. Yeah. The 1800s. The firmament in the encyclopedia is always scary and unicorns and big foot is in the encyclopedia as well. Why would they why would they put up how high the dome is? How would they Because that's what they thought at the time. We're talking like over 200 years ago. Why would we take that as scientific, like current scientific understanding They also thought about medicine that we had for humans and that you could cure people by, you know, exhaling smoke in their face. They say that. They say that. But how how much research have you guys done into the world fairs? Because you don't say doctors. If you look back in the 1800s, for some reason, the technology looks extremely advanced and they try to say that it was time travelers. But if you look at things, if you look at things, wait a second. If you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, if you look at things, wait a second. If you look at things like World Fairs, they had technology that things like moving sidewalks. They had lights that were working without wires. They had advanced technology. They were even talking about babies and incubators this is proofable. You're even watching the Jetsons or something. Technology back then. I don't need to my point is they talked about AI in the 1800s and then just became a thing. No, I don't know where you get this information Mercedes could you give me some sort of references that show that they had these Look up the world fairs before they destroyed all the world technology What the world fairs were what the world fairs were where they were an exhibition of the most Amazing scientific discoveries of the age one was held at ice palace in the United Kingdom Where they showed off it was an expo or what would modern Lee be called an expo to show off the best technology at the time Now they didn't have anything like what you're describing like sort of they may have been able to sort of do Things that were not can you say that without looking excuse me? Excuse me they might not be they might have been able to do things that weren't normal for the average person at Time, but they certainly didn't even come close to today's technology. That's just false. That's just a hundred percent false Dismissal hand web dismissal No, it's not because if they did have all this technology We would have found it and all of the Bruins and archaeological sites dating back to the 1800s and we don't like there's no records of them Having airplanes.  That's not how you got from New York You sailed in fact it was sailing all the way up into the like early mid-19 You are definitely right about From that technology in that pier yeah from that technology in that period if they have that technology in that period We find even even how we know that the Egyptians didn't have magical horns They could float rucks and stuff like that like we hear from crazy hair alien guy and other people like yeah Because if they did we would have found stuff like that because they would have made a lot of them because that's really cool Even your modern even your modern archaeology is saying things like they had the Egyptians were Giving things like vaccines and had needles and different things that they said shouldn't have existed back then They are finding the emulations did exist back then and that's not actually surprising the About the pipe that knew about what we know as the pythagoree Could I please share my screen Justin? Absolutely, can I please share my screen? Okay, so this is an example of one of the Whoops. Yeah, they're the most technological things. That's a fax machine That's not one of the most technological things actually something better Okay, go for it. I would love to see that's 1851 and that's a fax machine basically a telegraph signal that would print out what it recorded so Telegraph if you're familiar with sort of dots and dashes like like morse. So that's a chemical telegraph Pre-cursor actually that's the level of technology that we're actually dealing with Yeah, I don't know what you mean by proof if you just mean I've got a definition, but excuse me Kyle No, I did not ask a question Seriously, he's just jumping in over the top of people And I love that but Kyle go or sorry mark go ahead and finish so what I said was I don't know what you mean by proof That is not a question What I said is I don't know what you mean by proof because under the definition you gave for proofs Scientific science does give fax supported by evidence so it does give proofs under your or your definition It does and I was using proofing in roughly the same way colloquially. So yes, it does. I Can share my screen now, too.  I'd love to see Okay, let me just pull this up. I think that's the right one. Yes Okay, so this is an example of The Chicago World Fairs right here And so this whole structure that you guys see they try to say was built in just about 20 or so years And this is this is like made out of almost complete gold and I'm gonna tell you right now They destroyed This entire thing this was this was in Chicago. This was in st. Louis This was all across the earth these exact same structures that we cannot rebuild today These were all there and they literally destroyed them. Let me ask you one question. Why would they destroy that? I just I have a question to ask Where's the technological? Technologically advanced stuff because you said it was technologically advanced and that is proves it. Excuse me. I'm talking I'm answering you So well, I have a clarifying thing because people been able to build buildings since Before time we can build way bigger buildings. Look at those skyscraper and Dubai it is way bigger and way more sophisticated than anything you're showing here I can show you some of the technology and the baby incubators too, but it would take me a minute to pull it up I believe we may have gone off point slightly Yeah, that's where I'd like to kind of go back and focus in on this whole observation of Being able to see too far and about refraction and how refraction limits our range of you not extends it Sure If you could after that if you could explain how circumpolar stars work as I've asked would be great. Thank you All right. Well, Carly Sunshine did a great example of that on demonstrating how we can see one rotating light and they went to a big There's a fish tank they went to they went inside this big fish tank in South Carolina And they had a just a phone light and they're just kind of rotating that around But if you look around on this circular fish tank, you can see that same rotating light all the way around the thing Like different versions of it. So there's you can see it over to the right. It's the left You can see the back and I think I counted like 10 different Are you claiming that some of the stars that we see in the southern hemisphere are reflections? Is that what you're claiming? It's a possibility. I don't claim to know everything You what it is not what possibly could be because that doesn't Could be magic lights that To make you I make you think you don't know you have no idea What the firmament was made out of The answer to everything I don't claim didn't know the answer to everything. I'm not NASA's who demands These things are real and these things exist, but we know nothing about it Nobody knows anything about them or how they work. Then that's not nothing that maybe you're just Throwing things in there to rescue some idea that you have that's clearly false Yeah, yeah, you just say I mean it does seem like a rescue device to me Like you have this firmament to say why light behaves in a strange way That you're just throwing in there and now that you know when we say hey, what's it made out of you? You don't know because you've just made it up I would say I would say I would argue that NASA does the same thing because when they came out with a theory of gravity How long did they keep it a theory of gravity? The theory of gravity Universities that have nothing to do with NASA so what does that matter? I Really think Leo was going to drive this conversation forward I'd like to hear what he had to say and then Mercedes if you want to reply to it. I'm fine with that Yeah, I'm just wondering so first off the theory of relativity There's there's two parts of it one part came before the other part because the second part Einstein didn't have Quite the mathematical aptitude for it And that's why he had to work with other people like Ricci and Riemann to help develop the math That is used to describe curvature and spacetime, which is what gravity is That has nothing to do with NASA I don't care that NASA Uses it because literally every cosmologist an astrophysicist on the planet is also using it I Speak on behalf of every cosmologist. Yeah, well, I can't speak on behalf of them General relativity is like one of the most important tools in the cosmologists to a belt and not Recorders of what we understand about cosmology if we didn't have general relativity So I can speak on behalf of all cosmologists because Until you've actually I understand how I understand how prolific cosmology or rather general relativity is in cosmology Well, perhaps you could find an example of a cosmologist that doesn't use it Kyle So can you give us a cosmologist that doesn't use it? I would like to reply to Leo really fast. All right, let's let Mercedes reply and then I believe Mark had a really good question This was my main point My main point is that you guys are saying that everything that we're talking about is based off of theory When I am saying that just because everyone uses your theory. It's still a theory When you say theory, what do you mean by that? What idea do you have in your head? It's usually based off of a hypothesis Hypothesis is what you have before the observations have confirmed that the predictions There is no prediction that general relativity has made that has come false not one yes I would like to hear the question Mark had Yeah, so I was saying to Kyle But I'd like to comment on that first that a theory is the graduation of a hypothesis after headers have been robustly tested and found to be Not able to be falsified by scientists So it is the highest graduation of any idea within science. It is like the germ theory of disease Right, it is has been Vigorously tested and shown to be true that is what a theory is in science So it doesn't mean sort of like we say hey, I have a theory about this movie star cheating on a husband That's not what it means. It means the highest graduation There is no higher thing that we have a confidence in than a theory in science It is the highest status that an idea can get to now my question for Kyle is maybe you could find a cosmologist that Doesn't use these theories in their work Oh Okay I think what comes down to though I can name like different cosmologists, but I'm afraid you're gonna just move the goalposts and do a no-true Scotsman on the matter and say that oh, that's not really a cosmologist.  He's talking about people with a Degree in cosmology or astronomy like Okay, okay, just just one second Yeah, so if I could just if I could just finish Kyle you're being very disruptive and interrupting all the time. I think it's because you're really afraid to Well, I I'm trying to you know, it's just I don't I think about So it's not a no-true Scotsman because this is what Leo was referring to in the first place that you misunderstand What he means by a cosmologist is not his problem and it's not a fallacy. He's committing Big big attack right there. Wow. Okay, so my big point is I don't have to know everything in order to know something exists I don't know how many different blood types an elephant has and and I can still know that an elephant exists I don't know how many chromosomes an elephant has but I can still know that elephants exist Okay, and so there's a lot of different little things about elephants How do you show the elephant exist? I still know they exist and the same thing can apply for the firmament I don't know exactly what it's made out of but I can still observe it being there But I'll actually watch the explosions that hit against it like water balloons and they kept this big That's one of things and then the other thing is throwing water balloons at the firm I really got into on the firmament and the existence of the firmament Are going to go into sky wave technology and being able to bounce radar off of it and being able to bounce No, that's off the ionosphere Really strong thing and then the further proof on that is going to be The vacuum effect mark sergeant's big proof of the firmament was the vacuum effect And so yeah outer space is kind of sounds curious. What's that? Yeah, the vacuum effect is a really interesting one just how Outer space is an impossibility because it would end up just launching everything up How would it launch things? How does it create that force? How does it create that first? Okay? Gas expands in a vacuum. Do you agree in a vacuum under no other influences? Yes Gas expands in a vacuum right under no under influences. Yes, okay, so Yeah The whole outer space vacuum thing is just like extreme extreme vacuum like no no man has ever created a vacuum that Hydrogen particles per square in my that's according to yeah The the extreme intensity of that would just cause the gas to expand and overcome gravity and so that gas isn't under Is under other influences like grass? Yeah, but if you put like a vacuum chamber above your head and then you pop the seal on it that that the gas is still gonna rush right in there Yeah, there's a difference of pressure in earth's atmosphere. Yeah, there's a difference of pressure. Yeah, but though Okay, and so earth's atmosphere is going to not a vacuum Earth's atmosphere is not a vacuum. Yes. Thank you. Okay, but that gas is going to expand outward And so yeah, it kind of gets into a lot more than just that yeah We could get into a whole stars and what what happens when the gas goes into that container that you're talking about a vacuum What what happens to the gas? What happens to the gas? Yeah, in the container when you pump it out when I don't know when you you said you have a vacuum You hold it above your head you open it all the gas goes into it What happens to the gas in that container when you let it into it the gas expands into the container And what does it do? It fills the container Yeah, it equalizes it a pressure equalizes throughout the container correct? Is the pressure equalized throughout earth? Is the pressure equalized earth? Well, we have weather patterns and the whole reason why the wind blows is because of unequal weather Because when you go up in in altitude the the gas pressure becomes or the atmospheric pressure more accurately to say becomes lower Meaning that it's not equalizing It's we still have you not heard of jet streams. Do you agree that jet? Heard of jet streams. Yes, I've got no idea what that's got to do. Are you claiming that jet streams make jet? Excuse me, excuse me. Are you claiming that jet streams are making the air thinner and less sort of Dense up the top and and denser down at sea level always and in a gradient Is that what you're claiming jet streams are doing that is that right? I don't claim jet streams are doing that. I'm just pointing out. Why did you bring up jet streams then pressure up high?  And then you say you've never heard of jet streams and we say I was a question I was asking you if you've never heard of jet streams because you're acting like it's all equal at high altitudes But jet streams are wind factors at high altitude because of an imbalance of forces. It's not balanced But there is a atmospheric pressure gradient going up. Correct There is an atmospheric pressure gradient going up. Yes, right So what is the reason for that? Because if your your example was if you open it up in a vacuum and what should happen? And we agreed what should happen is that the pressure should equalize through that container now The pressure isn't equalizing through the container that you claim is earth Right. So there's a pressure gradient. So we're asking you what the reason is for that and you seem to be saying jet streams That is not what I said at all. And so I just so explain okay, I only brought up jet streams because jet streams are an example of non equalized atmosphere at high altitude, which you did not believe they're not equalized We have a firmament right that the earth is almost kind of like a sort of a snow globe All of the weather shouldn't even be wind because it should all be equalized because it's contained and there aren't any forces adding into it Because according to you the earth the sun isn't a star delivering massive sums of electromagnetic radiation to the earth and that the earth Is it rotating? So then what forces are continuing to create the dis-equalization if we're contained Perfectly equalized already and should have been long ago, but it's not Getting into it that could dis-equalize it. So that's a layer of the earth and now to explain cosmology times it's the entire earth isn't heated up at the exact same time and so because of this Change in temperature around the earth that ends up causing an expansion of gas and a contraction of gas and that this ends up creating imbalances which ends up creating wind and yeah, it ends up creating What's what's doing the heating up? What does the heating up? What does the heating up some way heats up the gases and sunlight is that's one thing. That's not the only thing But yeah, but sunlight is What is sunlight is sunlight is the electromagnetic radiation? What's emitting this electromagnetic radiation and what processes create the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted? What does that have to do with anything? Well when you're claiming that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the Sun is heating things up and I would agree with you But on your model the Sun isn't actually a star and so it doesn't actually have nuclear processes occurring in its core that Sorry, I haven't finished that produced the electromagnetic radiation that would be delivered to the earth that heats it up So on your model, what's heating it up? Where does the electromagnetic radiation come from and what processes are producing it again? You're just asking me something the question like well, how many chromosomes is an elephant asking you how the Sun works on your model That's effectively what I'm I don't know details about your I don't know once again. Oh, there's there's a son Oh With that I will I will jump in That was a great exchange. Look, we got about 10 minutes left of open discussion So I'm going to take two seconds of that right now once again to thank everyone for coming out over 500 viewers watching us right now. So thanks everyone for your support. Let's hit that like button subscribe We also have a patreon and a discord channel as well We're we're we've got all the services. We got you guys covered all over the place. Feel free to Reach out and participate. So we've got 10 minutes left of open discussion With that Leo has a question for Mercedes In your opening statement, you mentioned you mentioned they a lot. I was just curious. Who is day? That's kind of off topic a little Well, but you hear that from Flat Earthers. They're lying to you and they're covering it up. So I'll give it a few seconds Yeah, it's no, it's a good question I did mention it one time and I mentioned it by saying some people have asked Why would they lie because that's like a typical question and a lot of times what they meant by day Was like NASA or world leaders or people that would be of high influence that would know the truth So that's why I brought that up because that is something that is commonly asked to Flat Earthers by non Flat Earthers As something a question that I had for you Mercedes is that you sort of brought up the seven-mile bridge And sort of quickly looking up because I was familiar with this one that the towers. They're both vertical They're 36 millimeters, which is 1.4 inches further apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth Because they have to be So how are we talking about the one in Florida keys? Is it the one in Florida keys? It's the Humber Bridge apparently. I Don't think that's the same one Well, I'm talking about is that big do the one that I'm talking about was specifically the Florida keys bridge And it's a seven-mile bridge in Florida, which should have a 32 foot drop of noticeable curvature And it doesn't I don't think you're using the right calculations there Well Pythagorean theory is how you calculate a hypotenuse it's not it's not used for calculations of curvature Also Pythagorean theorem It takes on an entirely different form when you're in spherical geometry as you would be when describing the surface of the earth Which is a sphere so if you're using calculations in cartesian space where everything is flat Sure, that would be right, but the earth Isn't flat so you have to use spherical geometry. So yeah, that's why your calculations are off Okay, well then can you show me what your geometry says? No, I don't do geometry on the earth You should go talk to like a survey or somebody who's made a profession out of this because it isn't me Okay, so when Kyle doesn't answer a pointed question like that It's like oh all hats off to him, but when you guys can't answer a simple question about the model It's like oh, but we show we don't know that go ask an S expert aren't you guys Yeah, well both of his one does a really good curve Calculator that you can use and that takes into account all of the variables So I can certainly give you the the website for that because he's actually done a lot of good stuff on on earth curvature and and so we sort of can point to where you can get the the information for this Okay, and I can give you Lord of Bizlon's thing in the chat I didn't want to say quickly though that when Kyle says that he doesn't know It's because there isn't anyone that knows because the thing that he's saying we don't know in reference to Like his version of the Sun and the firmament aren't real Nobody knows what it's made out of because there isn't the thing called the firmament. It's not real But when I say I don't know it's not that there just is no answer like there is with Kyle There is an answer. I'm just not the one who has it. So that's the difference there I just wanted to define as it knows everything I just don't know everything that they know Well, he is he is being very modest Are you to It's not It's become very big. It's become very big, but I will say this I will say this though The thing is is that this was something that was believed for thousands of years. So arguably this From the back of the spine That what it doesn't there's a lot of things that were believed for thousands of Lightning but it's a Muslim thing. They believe that sperm comes from the back of the like the spinal cord or something Doesn't matter the what matters is it's a counter to your point when you said well people believe that the earth is What for thousands of years humans have believed a lot of very ridiculous and obviously But the thing is is that that was based off of a religion Whereas this is all the earth agreed. They had different religions. They had different beliefs. They came from different backgrounds. Yeah, they did What I'm trying to say Excuse me, there was a claim that that the Greeks all believed that the earth was flattened. That's demonstratively That's not what I said. That's not what I said at all. I said the majority I said the majority That is called an ad popular fallacy It's sort of saying hey, if the majority believes something then it's necessarily true So my counter to that would be hey, well the majority now believes that the earth is round So therefore it must be true under your own definition of popularity. I wasn't using that as a popularity argument I wasn't using that as a popular I was pointing out it is I was pointing out that it was specifically the heliocentrism the people that believe in Scientology In masonry, they were the specific ones that were the Greeks that believe that Oh, I definitely do I definitely do. Oh, yeah, who in your family was a member and what was their degree? Are you saying that you have to be a member to know anything about it? No, I That's a fallacy in itself, but I didn't make a statement No, I didn't I asked you a question. Those are different things because yeah, you you asked a question You don't have anybody in your family that was a mason very Exactly. So you're using that as your point to say that and what was their degree? I've spoken to someone that has a 30 degree mason Okay, and what did they say they told you that we hide all those conspiracy secrets that everybody thinks is false and science is No, that's how they say They actually did tell me that there was a lot of things that they couldn't say In other conspiracies cite the masons They didn't know fucking nothing about free masonry and what it really is Have you have you never studied albert pike dude? How do you know that when I was religious? I wasn't in the masons. You don't know that I could have been So I'm actually not a mason. I was very close to joining but didn't I might explain but no free masons have nothing to do with like global conspiracies and all this other stuff To stop they would disagree with you by their they would disagree with you by the albert pike Go go read his book and see if Can we get back to the subject of the debate because this is really What I what I'd like to sort of say is The the problem that I have with with what kyle's doing is and and you know Feel free to weigh in on this subject when I point out things like the circumpolar stars The the answer is well, I don't know how I explain that so what what i'm putting across is that I can explain it If you want me to do you want me to explain it? Please? Yes? Okay? If you have the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, I'm going to use something really silly as an example But I don't care because it's next to me There's a little dog, right? If this is high enough up and big enough and someone's looking at it from the back side They're going to see the dog's tail and the dog's butt. They're not going to see the dog's head They're not going to see the dog's belly if someone's looking at it from this corner They're going to see the dog and not the dog's back or the dog's butt or the dog's tail They're just going to see his head and his belly and maybe his feet potentially depending on where they're at So the point is is that if you draw a smiley face on the ceiling and one person's on one side of the room And the other person's standing on the other side of the room facing the opposite direction One's going to see a smiley face and the other one's going to see a frowny face Okay, so why is the dog you see different? Why is the dog rotating? Count a clockwise for one person and counterclockwise for the other person has to do with the direction that you're facing If you spin a chain, I did this with my daughter You spin a chain and you see it going right to left one way and then you go stand in back ever and all of a sudden It appears to be going the opposite direction This is basic optical illusion So people stand on this is a basic thing There's people on the bottom of the earth like on the underside is what you're saying on the side of the earth No Okay, so then what you're saying is in irrelevant because you're talking about if you were looking down at the earth And there was some sort of pattern and you stood at different places on the earth looking down at that pattern You would see a different pattern. That's entirely true Anything down here I said look up. I said I did talk about this guy. I did are you talking to me or kyle? Because I said The problem with that kyle is you would have to be on the other side of the thing rotating Right, so that's going anti clockwise for me. And when you turn it around it's going clockwise, right? That would mean that the person underneath looking up is seeing going in one direction And the person above it looking down is seeing it go. Who is the person above this this this rotating stars? No, we're talking about some we're talking about like no, no, no, that's what you just demonstrated There is no person above. There is no person above. Okay, you've got to understand this thing called the atmosphere Okay, when you when you talk about the the flat earth model you have to include the atmosphere which refracts Okay, you also have to include the firmament which also refracts like okay And so when you have you just you just demonstrated it kyle. I'm talking mark. Hey, let me talk kip the further south you go Yes further it's going to get refracted. And so instead of being like this refracted Tilt downward the further south you go. Hey, if you're right at the north pole It's going to be directly above your head for the further south you go The more it's going to start to tilt on its side because of refraction So why is it rotating in the opposite direction? I just explained that okay once no no no what you explained what you explained If you're rotating it anti clockwise to one person, right? Okay, and that's above you And you you go to the other side of it and it's rotating in the opposite direction That means when you're seeing it above you rotating in one direction The person who sees it going in the other direction would have to be on the other side of it, right? So you're saying that the stars rotating someone is looking at it from the other side No, you just demonstrated that you just spun it and it was going in one direction Turned around so it was on the other side and it was going in the other direction So what that shows me is that if the stars are rotating in one direction above me The person seeing it going in the other direction has to be according to your own demonstration on the other side of it Okay, so what you're kind of looking down is a tube like this, okay? And it's rotating okay, and so you're looking at the stars If you're if you're heading further and further south you're still going to be looking the same direction the entire time You're looking south, right? Yes, and so you're not going to be seeing the north star by looking south And that's kind of what you're describing No, that's not what I'm describing. That is exactly what I'm describing. No, no, no Let me clarify for you because you seem to have misunderstood All right, all right folks, um Mark go ahead and make your point and then we're going to super chat So it's not that you're seeing a star The whole point is that you're seeing the rotation of the circumpolar stars the and I put I put this in my presentation You obviously didn't pay attention that in the northern hemisphere. They go in one direction They go anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. They go the other direction clockwise But what you just demonstrated when you did it anti-clockwise for me Reversed it and then did it clockwise swinging it in the same direction. Let me finish swinging it in the same direction Means that the person has to be on the other side of that star pattern to see it align in the opposite rotational direction Can I talk now? Well, I wanted to end the open discussion We're all going the same direction. Sorry. I could I could see your face was going to explode and I was going to allow you But instead of letting me give you permission to say it. You just set it over top of me anyways, which is fine It's not going on down another discussion hole I'm not going to do that I just want to ask the question if I can be so interested in the lights on the ceiling rather than the shape of the floor itself Go ahead. Ask your question, but it's it's for kyle. Um, you said that the firmament Refracts light, correct. That's right. Okay. How? How uh, how does it refract light? Well, it's got density to it. And so it's called snel's law If you look at it has density to it. You said it when you don't know what it's made of I don't know what it's made of but I we can throw objects at it and watch and smack against it We can throw radio and that confirms that it's a solid object and so When we can bounce things off of it that confirms it's a solid object Well, I don't know. I don't have to know exactly what it's made of in order to you know to to bounce Objects on it bounce project. How far up is it? How dense is this this medium that again? I don't know I just know then how do you know the refractive properties of it? If you don't know how dense it is, how do you know the refractive properties of it? Okay? I can I I've got I've got a little glass. Okay. I can I can point okay. I got my glasses here I don't know how dense my glasses are Okay, I don't know that but I know that they can refract light. Do you get that? Okay, I somebody knows Yeah, yeah, so So a density of glasses 2.5 kilograms per meter square per millimeter of thickness is the I don't need to know that in order to know that they can refract light But that's how we tell how they refer. Yeah, that's how I believe the question was asked and now answered. I'm sorry So I think we're going to Close the open discussion part and lead way into the Superchats we still have time anyone wants to add some super chats by all means Send over some super chats also after this Um Myself and anyone here who wants to join. I will be heading over to matters now for a post-debate discussion little after-show if you will and uh Yeah, I hope all of you guys here debating right now hit that like button Did you did you guys all remember to hit the like button? I am guilty of Yeah, I knew it. There's always one. I do apologize. I didn't just hit them like I'm terrible I made its favorite meal and then ate it in front of it I refracted the light button That's what I did. I refracted it. There we go Okay So here we go our first super chat Uh from doc dyno for two dollars asks. How does flat earth account for plate tectonics? Flat earth account for plate tectonics. We acknowledge that they are there And you know, if we don't have to explain every little thing about so I've Interesting thing for me as uh In the bible, they've got the commandment to not make any kind of graven images about things that are in the earth beneath Especially things that we have no way of actually observing And so I think that's kind of a commandment not to draw those things for a reason because Yeah, we can't confirm it all we have is speculation. And so yeah I think that's what i'm going to say when it comes to plate tectonics We haven't even added to that. I think exactly what causes them I'm not going to give a definitive answer on that because I simply don't know and I'm open-ended on that I don't know if you got a different answer Mercedes Um, there's a lot of theories in flat earth about what can cause plate tectonics So definitely look into it. There's a lot of stuff from odd tv They usually take the more scientific approach versus the christian approach. I myself am kind of like kyle I also take the christian approach as well But I do acknowledge that a lot of the science makes sense on the plate technologies plate tectonics technologies of how it kind of works And it's usually described as the electrostatic and the The way that the well, these guys are probably going to laugh at it But the ether and the way that it works Across the exactly across the earth So there's a lot of different theories that obviously flat earth gets into because of that And the ether was also presented by tesla. So even though they laugh I mean some of the most brilliant minds on the earth have believed in the earth or so that doesn't make them right Doesn't make them wrong. We have a model. We have a model But we can't explain and we don't have to explain how any of it works at all You guys can't explain yours either. It's all theories except that's what we did and we also explain what theories are I guess that went Yeah, all right next super chat from lj Says mark why you start your presentation with a cgi glow pick Oh, just because uh, that's that's the one I could find it's just a just a presentation, dude.  There's a epic that takes images. I can't remember what the camera is called If anyone can remember what that camera is called But the epic satellite takes like real-time pictures picks up things like bushfires and things like that discover Yeah, so discover it basically is a satellite taking pictures and just because an image is digital doesn't mean it's cgi So, you know, I wonder about the radio signal on that thing and how much juice it's got to power that thing So I just think about the inverse square law when it comes to radio waves radio waves or low wave low What do you mean by power it's got to have all this power but radio waves are low wave They're low frequency and radiation Which means we don't need that much power So you're you're misunderstanding how electromagnetic radiation works and how how it um sort of there's there's low frequency signals and high Frequency signals and we can transmit sort of low frequency signals a lot easier and and you know, it also depends on the wavelength as well So if you want something like a laser, right that that's um High high energy, then yeah, you need a lot of power if you want to send a ham radio signal You don't need that much power. You just don't All right next super chat osin talks Sends five dollars Said tesla believed in gravity, but he had his own theory. He also believed in earth. He also believed earth The earth was a globe and space was real quoted people Quote people correctly Mercedes. I guess that was a comment to you Okay, um, there's definitely comments from him that would argue otherwise There was later work found from tesla supposedly after he died by the fbi that stated that he Believed in other things that completely contradicted his early work So it's really hard to know if you know if he changed his mind later or if that was just pseudo work But originally he stated stuff about like stars being attached to the firmament And he argued against relativity and all but all of those Like his quotes and things he actually said in newspaper articles are very easy to find Anything else that said is all just hearsay After that can I comment on the whole nicola tesla thing? You can't I would like her to have the final word. So that's fine. Go ahead. Um, so number one Nicola tesla was not a theoretical physicist number two He made no contributions or at least any major contributions to the field of theoretical physics And number three, this is just an appeal to authority going off of what some famous person said who wasn't actually an expert in the field There's a lot of people almost all of them are either deeply religious or they're flat earthers that or they're like, uh, robertson jenis and they're like, you know Geocentrists of some sort all reject relativity, but anybody who understands it and like how it works doesn't I I find that interesting Siding somebody because they reject relativity as an argument that relativity is false is just a non sequitur It doesn't follow that because somebody disagrees with the scientific theory Regardless of how popular they are that therefore it's false Neil to rock and paul steinhart disagree with inflationary theory, but 99.9998 of cosmologists don't Okay, so the final word I'd have to say on that is that he pioneered the generation transmission and use of alternating current ac electricity Which can be transmitted over much greater distances than a direct current And he patented a device to induce an electric current in In a piece of iron or rotor that spun between two electrified coils of wire It's also known as the tesla coil And it's one of the like biggest discoveries of our time. So no it's not Well, so that's that's And none of those are theoretical physical advancements. I just needed to let them have the last word leo because that's that's the format main It's fine. It's not super hard to the rule But it was leaned that question or comment rather was leaned towards Her so she should be the last one heard on it But the next one from john For five dollars says Mercedes if google is telling us they manipulate search results How is that evidence that the earth is flat globe earth theory predates google Um, even though I was saying that you can google things to find certain things out It wasn't about flight earth Most of what you can find is not by flat earth most of what I found was not by going through flat earth through google to Find about flat earth. I had to go through like nasa.gov and I looked up fo yas I had to dig to find a lot of that stuff because it's pushed down And most of the stuff that shows up on google Is all debunked videos you can't really find it. I had to use duck that go For like the very first two years So now sometimes it does cater to me because it knows that I am a flat earth earther So every now and then if I get to the second or third page, I can find something on flat earth on google, but it's very rare It's evidence of a war that's going on an intellectual war that's going on with they feel the need to censor it Yeah, and so that's what it's evidence of Yeah, I just like would like to address that that there isn't like there may be sort of a war going on inside the minds of flat Earth is that somehow they're You know making headway or doing this kind of stuff out there in the real world that there's there's no war going on Flat earth is sort of just a fringe idea that hasn't gained much traction with any notable businesses The problem is that they can't actually give any kind of mathematical or any kind of Model to account for the phenomenon that we see every day So without being able to do that We naturally use the the model that does in fact work and allows us to predict all kinds of things In in various different sciences, I would like to say that we do use math We just don't use theoretical math, which is a lot of times what the globers go to is theoretical. What's the difference? What's the difference? There's a huge difference because what is theoretical math Theoretical math is when you create certain variables that could equal just about anything and you can make it say whatever you want So all of the foundations of mathematics itself is theoretical math because that's exactly what it does. No, no That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that globers use theoretical math and yeah, what do you mean by math? Like what's the difference? The difference is you guys plug things in like gravity when it's still a theory and use it a part of your theorems and say Oh, because gravity's in here, then it's correct. No, well, that doesn't mean it's circular reasoning Actually, how it through math. Yes, it is. No, it's not because but then how come they're not proven How come they're not what's not proven?  You don't know. You don't know what a proof is But you use them in your math The foundation of mathematics is where you find proof. It's not like everyday math that physicists Yeah, I was going back earlier. I have no proof of anything because proof doesn't exist and nullifying your definitive statements Thank you. Well, it exists in math and logic. All right If I may because I feel the next two for super chat. Well, maybe Add to this discord that's taking place, which I'm fine with But the same person john sends another five dollars To say to say to Mercedes you claim that water finds its level explain why you think that is the case What force is acting on the water to make it level? I mean, there's just density and mass but the The density of the water is more water's denser than air So it's going to go towards Like away from that and towards the center of anything that's level just naturally Electrostatic force There is an electromagnetic current coming down from there from from the firmament And it's coming straight down and uh, it's traveling through us and that is very observable This electromagnetic magnet force is a lot stronger than Anything to claim gravity to be I can't get into it as much as uh, as my fellow globe buster austin witz it does. He does a fantastic job of it I asked him the same questions and he also couldn't answer them I think I think it's almost kind of like it should be common sense question because if you pour water down a hill It's not just going to hang on to the hill and stay there. It's going to flow downhill. Yeah. Why right? Because it needs a force to do that doesn't it down hill. Yeah, but why why does downhill a lot of things move downhill? What force acts on them to push them down the hill? Don't deny a downward force being there. It's brand Brand cox who claims that the downward force is not there. That's brand cox. That's not us It can be explained easily with density That's like why when people do this like why my phone dropped it's actually because my why do dense things denser than the air Yeah, but why does that make it mean it's going to fall? Why does something being more dense mean it's going to fall through something that's less dense There's and how do you count? That's how density works No, you can have two things that are of different densities and still everything is fine like when meteors move through Clouds of gas and dust in space meteors are way more dense than that cloud But it's not like all of a sudden, you know, something pulls them down. That's no so that that isn't actually why do more dense things fall Okay, you can't Because We have like a big battleship and that's really dense, but it's still floating on top of the ocean So it's not buoyancy. Do you know what the equation for buoyancy is? I'm aware of what buoyancy is. I don't know what the do you know what the equation is I don't know what the equation is. I'm sorry. I don't you know, that's really funny Because um in the equation for buoyancy the equation is fb the force of buoyancy is equal to negative p g capital v What does the g there represent? Kyle? It's talking about a downward force again. It's talking about what That's not really an argument. I don't We're just arguing against it either being gravity or it being like an electrostatic natural downward force That's just there. Those are the and we can prove electrostatics They're present in nature, but gravity is not present in nature. They can't even prove that it's made out of 90% dark matter Which they haven't even proven that either. So, well, no, it's dark and it's 90% dark energy. So you don't But forces of rice from fields are not just there that literally makes no sense. Anyway, all right, okay So far I've gone this whole debate without having to mute someone leo you came like that, but Having said that the next super chat is from Lost my spot from john again $2 wants to know kyle does atmosphere have sphere in it Atmosphere has the word sphere in it. Yes All right next question. Yeah, because there's a hemisphere Because of the which is winner has multiple definitions What does hemisphere mean? because there's a firm Hemisphere Snow globes are globes also. Oh my goodness. I'm a global lever because I believe we live in a snow and a snow globe like environment Really? So you think it's a all a snow globe that's like three quarters of a sphere. It's rarium That's right. Yeah, like it's rarium or like the biosphere that they create a biosphere to look it up Oh, okay. Yeah, sure Okay, just like that next super chat um lost my place one second Uh lj for dollar 99 What's the proof of jupiter's size slash mass and gravity? I assume that's to our globe friends here. Yeah. Yeah, good. We got one now. Isn't that mass spectroscopy that they they measure the um composition of jupiter with I believe it is. Um, I think so Spectroscopy can't Mass spectrum mass spectrometry Is the analytical tool used for measuring the mass to charge ratio m ratio? Excuse me m over z of one or more molecules present in the sample It can't get past any kind of filter in front of it since I was told just google things if I want to know the truth How do we measure the mass of jupiter? Yes, we can compute jupiter's mass relative to the mass of earth with jupiter's moon callisto All we need to know is callisto's mean distance from jupiter or semi a major axis in lunar distances and callisto's orbital period relative to the moon's orbital period Or the sidereal one spectroscopy I'm just kind of like looking at like Pointing uh spectroscopy. I think he meant like in terms of like composition of planets. Yeah, am I right there mark? Yeah Yeah, so if you point a spectroscope right up the floor It's not going to tell you what the entire earth is made out of just by you know one portion of the floor All right. Yeah Wow Wow, I don't That's such Yeah, so that there are ways we can determine this and you know, we can look up the answers Notice that we're not saying well, I don't know. We just know that it is so Which is sort of more of a faith Excuse me. Kyle. Please Can we please have this guy be quiet while I'm answering which like Kyle is just a faith based position He doesn't know how he knows. He just believes that he knows Um, so, you know, this is the kind of sort of answer that you would expect Kyle, could you please refrain from being a two year old at this point? Thank you. Um I totally lost my chain of thought. Yeah, just just You know, I'll just basically doesn't know why he knows that it's true.  That's not the math That that best helps me All right, so in the time since we've started to super chats Um, we have more now than when we began So So in the interest of That's great. That's great. But yeah, it just means that we got more work to do so Um, let's turn on the speed around a little bit. Shall we next question from robin webster $2 Explain the round impact on flat earth Is that too? Act on flatter. Is that to us or to them? It sounds like it is It probably is to the flat earth side. I would imagine No, I'm Robin. I think maybe they're talking about the warfare the the actual warfare going on So my youtube channel just recently got deleted. So I'd call that a round impact on on the flatter. That's not what he means That's not a He was not very specific and so I don't think you really get well me and mark We're trying to clarify it for you and you just keep interrupting.  Oh my bad. So I do want to explain it mark. I think you were Yeah, so so basically the the Plus what why is it rounded and where do these impacts come from? How did the majorites get through the thermo?   Well, I I think that's what she means by by impacts. I could be wrong. So I apologize robin if i'm wrong That's what I thought I know she was real excited to get her super chats read. So at robin if you want to Target might like Send it to my name and I'll keep an eye out for you there I actually I have something to add that might help to like the round impact that's had on flat earth I mean, it's been huge because everyone across the earth used to know and believe that the earth was flat and over time that has been debated and I'd say the biggest the biggest time it really started was in the 1800s And you had people refute this too. You had people come up like ebb and as a breach Gilbert johnson Lady blout William carpenter who actually wrote that the earth is not a globe So there were definitely scientists of that time that came out that started having to refute the claim of the globe because it was becoming more widespread and Charles morse. That's another good one But a lot of these guys were scientists and they were kicked out of the science community Because there was a bunch of heliocentrists. It's running it so Robin did send me a message. I don't know if this clarifies for anybody, but she says Coriolis effect Oh Coriolis effect Explaining the round impact on flat earth she says Coriolis effect She also has another question right after we can just go right to her next one then First of two dollars from Robin Webster again. She wants Flat earth to explain time zones on the flat earth model Oh, she just wants us to explain both time zones and the Coriolis effect Well, the Coriolis effect has been debunked because in the water if you look um, and you've got like Those little swirling. I forget what they're called But like the little water spiral things they can be right next to each other and going completely different directions Um, and then there's also the other thing of where they say oh when your sink goes down the water It spins one way but on the other side of the earth it goes the other way But I've tested it and if you take your your sink nozzle and you put it on one side So everyone can test this tonight you put it on one side to turn on the sink It'll spin down the drain the one way But if you turn it and you face it the other way and you turn the water on it'll spin down the opposite way So it has nothing to do with what side of the earth you're on or any of that kind of stuff Uh, so the Coriolis effect is completely debunked. Um Sniper None of them use it to Funny all the ones I do I was gonna say tornadoes It's a really popular globe earth claim for some reason a lot of the goal But there's out there believe that all tornadoes and north of the equator go in the same direction But that's not true and I did a great video debunking that claim and showing anti They're called anti cyclone or anti-cyclonic patterns and We're coming not just from a flat earth perspective saying that but this is coming from different globe Earthers out there who are acknowledging the existence of these anti-cyclonic Weather systems That don't believe in the the Coriolis effect either and like I said most of them are snipers How come all hurricanes that form in the uh, southern Atlantic Ocean always deflect upward When coming into the United States over Florida in Georgia and Alabama They never go straight over to like Mexico Or something or they don't go like straight up and then over and hit the united kingdom They just they they go up like that. Why is that how come how come like they always do that? They don't Hey, okay, you haven't presented every single one to be able to make that big So you're saying that some hurricane I would say I would say that that's actually not You know, I would say that there's been times they've they've said that it would hit one one part of the state or that would hit Yeah, but that doesn't mean the general trend of the direction that it's going in because cities are so small compared to the hurricane And it's general direction. It can still be going in that general direction But miss a couple cities that thought they were going to get hit So that doesn't actually defeat the point that I'm right Well, we could definitely test it but that could also be due to tides. It could be due to the wind It could be due to the atmosphere. There's a lot of factors. How would those cause it? well, we have a lot of normal weather patterns that come from just the sun and so uh, just kind of the sun the movement of the sun is a big factor that can lead to repetitive observations and There are other patterns. There's a lot of different factors that really get into it But the sun the repetitive nature of the sun is going to be the first the biggest contributing factor Uh, what you mean by the repetitive nature of the sun that Are you are you trying to ask why do hurricanes exist in the first place? That is not what I am That's good. I'm that's good. Let's get on ladies. I'll just I'll just add one thing When you do the the Coriolis test in your sink It has to sort of just be water that you pull out the plug and watch which way it goes down Like yeah, if you change the variables, you might be able to get it to go another way But it really the the proof is in like if you do that same thing in the southern hemisphere, it will go the other direction That that's the test. I literally just said how it didn't but hey, James. What was the other question or the other Yeah, and I explained how the test was was when you had still water like fill up your sink Then just remove the plug and see which way spirals. That's the test. Um, all right, so Justin, I know that the the zoom says james, but that's okay. Um, and uh, yeah Let's just move on because in that discussion I recorded like six new super chats So, oh Sorry, we couldn't get to that. No, it's it's fine. It's fine. I think perhaps just and we should just have the people It was directed to us. Yep. Let's let's let's get this rapid fire. I would agree with that Um, I love the discussions and stuff, but We'll be here until monday Um, or tuesday depending on where you live Um, so john for five dollars Uh, Mercedes you cannot accuse google of participating in the globe conspiracy and then say you can google it To support your argument So, okay, so my my problem there is that I actually I've said this once or twice now I never said that you could google flat earth And get a viable result. I didn't tell people to google flat earth I told people to google certain things that could help the flat earth arguments and so many people trust Google and so many results pop up about certain things on google that they might accept But I never said flat earth specifically I said I'd have to go to duck.go or some other place as far as google Not, uh suppressing the information. All you have to do is look up the youtube CEO And you you can also look up statements made by the google CEO because I believe both of them made statements about the fact that they try to suppress Specifically tried to suppress Flat earth content and a lot of times it will even say on there that You know, like the site's been removed Or suspended and a lot of times it's by conglomerates like youtube and google So yes, there is there is something going on. It's the open the admit it Yeah, they do Um, so Mercedes being the new face here You're clearly drawing attention because I got another one with your name in it. It was in talks five dollars Mercedes you say we can only see three miles How far away is the moon to you and why don't you fly up there if it's three miles or less? Okay, so good question So, uh, what I said is that if you look up how far it says that we can see it says about three miles And that can also depend on the atmosphere and a bunch of other different things Um, but yeah, we believe that the earth like the moon and the sun are both small and local Um, so we don't believe that the the moon is Like 95 millions miles away like the sun is and we don't believe that it's even further than that away So, um, if you if it was you would not be able to see it Just like how we tried to use the example of the car going far away from you and becoming small and then you can't see it That's that's the kind of thing that i'm talking about is eventually it would just disappear and you wouldn't see it So if those things were really that far away, we shouldn't be able to see it at all Okay, next question war boss five dollars Uh for the flat earth side Um until flat earth have an accurate map and model no one should take anything they say seriously Can you interlocutors provide an accurate map and model? Okay, um the most accurate kind of map is a picture And so if you go up in in a plane and take a picture of the earth down below Of the city that is a working map It's very very accurate and so and yeah So we can also go into I can also describe that as a model a model is a like a demonstration of something Even just me describing something. Okay me describing the earth as a flat plane That is a model. Okay. And so a lot of people like to oh, no true scotsmen They're trying to dismiss it, but that's just by definition what a model is it's just a description of something I would argue too kind of like how austin did that if we're talking about like Uh models and maps the way that the glovers want it to be they also have fallacies Like it's on both sides because they had to literally flatten out the globe to put it the way that they did on the map And they talk about that they talk about how they had to take like a flat earth and wrap it around the ball on the computer too, so there's definitely Um on both sides they have issues with both model and both with map But at least we admit on our side that the reason we have trouble creating like A model that they they deem necessary is because we can't go past the firmament Just like they say they can't go past the van allen belt But for some reason I guess they tried to say that we did even though it's pretty much impossible and it would be on the globe Um, there's no way for us to go outside of it and actually turn around and see what it would look like for either the globe earth Or the flat earth so We can make models like little little tiny structures for you to see and and base it off of and like we said That's probably the best description would be a dome or a terrarium or like the biosphere too I Was in the army for eight years and we did We're just gonna go to the next question. You had a chance to answer. We want to answer this question But you did get a chance Didn't didn't you didn't you get a chance first and then was Shady's answered and now I'm gonna go to the next Okay, I'll just save it for later. Okay Robin Webster for two dollars Uh, why is the earth flat and other planets are globes Just because the lights in your house are Spherical often that doesn't mean the floor in your house should be spherical also The the lights are completely different Then then the floor in your house is Also, we don't believe that they're planets if you zoom in with a telescope you can see them And it also it kind of looks more like plasma balls and a lot of times what we see them as is wandering stars Which is what they were called all throughout history They've doctored images of what like Jupiter and Saturn looks like so if you go and you look at An image of what it actually looks like through a telescope versus what it looks like through NASA's telescope or someone else's telescope that's been a part of one of these programs It's a doctored image and they admit that So it's not what you're actually seeing when you do go out with the telescope and a lot of people have And they've posted videos of it It literally looks like there's some kind of water and then there's some sort of plasma energy ball That's up there. So it's something completely different from what we are Next question from osentox two dollars For kyle prove all the governments hide the earth Prove that all the governments hide the earth Do you want me to prove that right now? Just just like that jimmy man's shape of the earth, right? I can just point to my opening statement and about and I can point to Neil Tyson and michelle thowler and Bill knight of science guy and all these people who are always constantly saying that Boats appear to sink on the horizon Because the earth is curved and that's their big statement But my opening argument here was about refraction and about how refraction Ends up limiting a range of you not extending it and the whole boats appearing to sink on the horizon thing Is caused by this refraction effect. That's my whole proof right there And so if you want proof that all these people are lying about it that's that Them saying that is the proof and my direct observations is further proof I would say the Antarctic treaty too. We can't go past the 66 north latitude unless you're accompanied by a government entity or whatnot And they all sign this agreement all the countries of the world sign that agreement And then everything that I pretty much stated in my opening was Partially about that about why they would lie and all that stuff too. So There's there's definitely motive There's definitely motive more land more resources, whatever you want to think might else be out there too. That could also be a reason All right, uh forgive me if I get your name wrong Vara two dollars two euros maybe One piece of evidence that would change your mind. I guess we'll just go around and ask everybody Let's start with Mercedes Um if they spun around Something and showed us 24 seven video footage of the entire earth Unedited no photoshop What what piece of evidence would change your mind? Okay, my opening statement was about how refraction ends up limiting your range of view and that's kind of one of those big foundational point points in my model now if you want to claim that refraction extends Your range of view allowing you to see farther than you should That would be a really big step in towards changing my mind Yo Show me the ice wall mark um, I think if the flat earthers could come out with a Model that is consistent with the observations that we have a phenomenon around us And if it was detailed enough to give sort of some sort of explanation of why these phenomenon actually occur and explain them That would go somewhat to to convince me especially if it was more accurate than the upload model All right. Thank you lj 499. It's almost 2024. Why don't we have a non cgi video shot from space? Turning back and zooming into the spinning ball showing people and oceans upside down Well upside down has no Yeah upside down has no relation in space. There's no upside down. There's no right side up There is towards the earth and there is a way from the earth And that's what we commonly think of as right side up and upside down But that will vary as you go around the earth because gravity goes towards the center of mass Now there is the epic discover camera as I mentioned earlier and that captured bushfires that you know They couldn't they couldn't do otherwise. So Or that captures everything every couple of days It is very expensive to get satellites up there and certainly very expensive to stream anything so Well, yeah, there is a continuous live stream and it's on youtube you can just go and watch it That's on the international space station. It's pointed toward the earth and you can tell that the earth is clearly a globe We have pictures of it. We have video of it the only Response to that from flat earthers as well. They're faked and they can never show how they're faked how they know They're faked how like the structure of the image shows that it's fake They just claim that it's faked because it is it's it's the simplest response because it's the simplest demonstration of how they're So very clearly wrong All right, thank you. Our next question comes from christopher custom for five dollars Um, they've split their super chat into questions for everybody starting with flat earth what is the mass of helium And what is the acceleration of gravity on earth? To anyone on the flat side who has an answer I think it's a question for everyone Uh, well, they specifically said flat side What's the mass of helium next? What's the acceleration of gravity on earth? They then have a separate section for globe I've never observed That exactly all I can go with all I can point to that is what a textbook says And i'm not really I don't like to make claims like that This is so because a textbook says so I specifically go out and try to find Uh proof for my my statements like that. So i'm not going to tell you what the exact mass of helium is Just like that when I haven't observed that for myself Um, I was able to look it up. So I it says that it's a helium for adam is a stable isotope That is relative atomic mass is four I'm not sure why that matters but for what? For you What is you? I actually don't know what you is. What is you? Uh, it's it on here. It says four units. Um, that's all Unit that's all that I think it's atomic units because it's talking about the the amount of protons and neutrons in the arm Yeah, and did you guys answer the second half of what the acceleration of gravity is on earth? Uh, I've got it written down somewhere. I should have it memorized, but I don't sorry Yeah, I don't have it memorized either. I can look it up nine point eight meters per second squared Depending on where you're out. Exactly. Apparently it's not really locations. It varies by such a small amount that it's irrelevant Yeah, nine nine point eight meters per second squared is what it says online, too Yeah, okay, so the next part of the same super chat is for the glow side Explain the correct answer plus container Explain the correct answer plus container. Who's that for sir? So this is that same questioner. They say flat side. What is the mass of helium next? What is the acceleration of gravity on earth and they say globe side explain the correct answer plus container? So I think what they were trying to do is set up the globe side to Okay, correct the flat earth side Well, we gate the answer The answer anyway, so okay explain Yeah, at least that's how I think they're trying to form their question And if they're getting at the whole container thing, oh, well guess any container Is that that's if there's no acting forces on that gas and with earth There is earth retains an atmosphere because earth has gravity and earth has gravity because earth has mass a lot of it And so does the atmosphere the the gas is in the atmosphere. I think maybe that's the link to Helium that they're pointing out it still has some sort of mass And is pulled down like everything is on earth that has mass and and it isn't Density that is the deciding factor and how much pseudo forces applied to that that Adams it's it's actually that the mass and that's why it was linked into atomic units And I also want to just because the flat earth response is oh, but if I let go of a helium balloon it rises And yeah, that that has to do with the density of the gases different gases have different densities And so within earth's atmosphere will settle in different places and some might be higher than others But they will settle specifically in those places because that is where the stable gravitational forces on that gas And that gravitational force is going to be different for different gases of different masses We say it's density too. Just by the way All right Yeah, but you can't explain what that then that the density is or why it's the way that it is because you would have to use gravity I say i'm gonna read the next question now displace gamer It's been a member for 22 months Says flat earth never needs to have answers globe earth always needs to have proof Yeah, that's I'm assuming that's kind of for all of us Unless you don't justin sounded more like a comment even though it was phrased as a question Because I was gonna say it's the same reason why like from creationists you get the same thing when you ask them specific like Somebody saw a well, no, you know a biogenesis is is bunk god created life And then I say so how did god create life and then they say well, I don't know how but he did and it's insane that They don't actually have any specifics To their model and how it works particularly at a more fundamental level Which is what you need to have a successful model But then they demand every last little detail for how every last little thing works from their opponent And it's this I've seen it. I see it for flat earthers. I see it from creationists I see it even from like vaccine deniers and stuff like that It's just a way that the conspiracist brain works Everybody I see the opposite maximum evidence for everything that they say But I don't really need to know all that much about my model to know that it's true Yeah, I thought it was just a record of flat earthers to be honest with you because you know I thought that was saying that hey, you know, they demand complete proofs and absolute statements from us But they give nothing themselves Presented proof in the very beginning, but let's yeah, we're are we starting a new debate here or going back to that? No, no, we're going to um to the next question. I'm just recording more super chats here Um robin webster two dollars by 240 bc most greeks accepted a globe earth history motherfuckers That's that's a question or that's not a question. It's a statement, but yeah, I agree with that It's a statement earlier. He said that the greeks all believed were heliocentrous globus But who's atlas whose idea was atlas and what was atlas carrying because atlas was not lifting a ball He was lifting up the firmament All right Lee con the great two dollars Everyone hit the like Why is the globe so angry? Why is the globe so angry? I didn't know it's the planet. I don't think it has emotions as such I think he meant to say why are the globes you two are the globe? Why are you? I'm not angry. I I'm a little disappointed, but not angry Yeah, I mean I kind of expected to have my questions answered that I that I had which you know sort of all I got was a ignorance and and sort of platitudes and dodging and all of this kind of really Deceptive stuff. So um, yeah, I suppose I'm a little disappointed, but then again I didn't really expect, you know them to be able to answer them. So like I said, this is more of a game than Than a debate. Well, always. Yeah, I I don't think this debate is going to decide the future of you know, how nasa operates and stuff. I really don't um, yeah, so It's it's really kind of irrelevant. It's fine So not I know I guess as man's original win productions two dollars Kyle doesn't halaman two five twelve fifteen contradict flattery He's referring to helaman out of the book of mormon and the book of mormon if he reads the full context of that He said if god said move then it should move. Okay, and so that's a hypothetical situation there It's not saying. Yeah, if god were to command Yeah, the earth and say move then it will move, but that's if it's an if then situation And so he's anytime you refer to that you've you've got to acknowledge the full context And it's growing up around someone who have been mormons just to say even though that was pointed at kyle I will say that a lot of times they read the holy scriptures as well And there's over like six or seven verses that says that the earth is firm and immovable. So yeah we're The the firmament shows up a lot of times in our scriptures. So, you know, yes, it does just the bible Oh, yeah, not karan all like all of them like it's yeah, it's in the karan. It's in Uh, judaism even to um in their talmud. Yep. It's in lots of books So I see spin dollar 99 asks the flatter flat earth side Are all space scientists lying? I don't speak on behalf of all space scientists And so, uh, I think lying is when you know something and you say something wrong anyway And so I know the truth, but I'm going to tell you something that I know is not true That's a lie But I think a lot of space scientists out there they say things when they don't really know and so they're just kind of uh Describing the world according to their knowledge and so they a lot of them don't know that they're wrong Because they never question it. That's the way I was growing up It was until after I graduated college and got my bachelor's degree in science that I became a flat earther And so yeah, if I were to be telling my daughter back then when I was a globe earther That's not lying. It's just describing the world according to what I knew But I know better now. It's why I teach my my children better now I agree. It's not all um, if anything it's it's a lot of them at the top That no information like this that would have to know information like this, but it's it's by no means all I would say it's a very handful people that actually know the truth on this that are that are doing it intentionally to deceive people All right displace gamers ten dollars Why can't super high altitude balloons observe the firmament given the atmosphere is very thin at such elevations Because it's inside the firmament and not outside. So if you want to observe the firmament, you'd have to be on the outside of it to actually see it That's just common sense All right kingdom within five dollars This one's just support from Mercedes Apologizing for their tardiness, but they're here Nice there you go I see spin dollar 99 are telecom companies faking satellite signals The faking satellite signals they Say it's from a satellite, but if it's from a balloon Balloons they considered to be satellites echo one for example is a really famous old time balloon That is described as a satellite. And so yeah, it really comes down to how they're describing things or kind of what they mean But I would also I would also say with the underwater communications that I was talking about earlier I mean that that's what they say too that they use most of Even though they they make commercials about satellites and stuff.  But that's not what it actually is. It's it's underwater Fiber optic network cables. Are you kidding me, man? No, it is not It's towers. It's towers and it's and it's underwater sea cables It that was even that was the internet why find the internet aren't the same thing Right, but how do you think how do you think those signals are transferred? To the country to country to the satellite No, no towers because the satellite plays into that. So do towers. That's that's a mobile internet That's actually mobile internet satellite internet is a signal in australia, which I have worked on Their base stations are in broken hill and calvuli in western australia They use satellite to send signals to the most remote parts of australia where there are no mobile towers anywhere within distance We do believe in satellites We do believe in satellites and nasa nasa admits that they have satellites So it's whether they fill up a helium balloon and they send a satellite It looks exactly like a satellite except for it's attached to a balloon and they literally put that in the air There's a whole documentary over. They're the number one buyers of helium. So yes Yeah, so the satellite network has only been one and it actually didn't work properly Didn't wasn't very efficient and actually collapsed. I can't remember the name The thing is that I've worked on For the two biggest internet companies in australia and I've had to send coordinates for the satellites to technicians to align the dishes and even if you look at the the Elon musk satellite network can't remember the name of it sky something Skyline That's the thing from I think that's what you are thinking of because it's star link. It's no no. It's sky star link. Yeah, that's the one Yeah, you see the orientation of the dishes are not sort of in a position that would hit balloons They're they're straight up to satellite connections and that's the coordinates that we use when we do use satellite connections So again the most remote parts of australia where there are no balloons are no Um towers. There's nothing to hit but sky All right, we're we're making good headway guys. Let's keep going. I see spend $1.99 Do airline companies mislead with flight pla flight paths Is that to us? I assume so. Yeah um Again, this is like people at the top. I would say there's a lot of people that are to see there's I mean a lot of people that have come out that have been Airliners specifically airline companies Right. Yeah, because the I mean there's pilots have come out and change their mind later So the airline companies may not know unless they're like the ceo of the board something I wouldn't imagine that the company like as a local locale company would know but that's just my take kyle Yeah, uh, I don't speak on behalf of all of them. I imagine some of them do but yeah, that's just how it is All right, and uh, I see spin again another dial dollar 99. Do ISS crew members get trained to lie? Yes, they do because they have to be in the underwater Uh facility, which is where they're actually at it's been it's been almost proven in a sense because one astronaut almost Kind of drowning in space. Oh that made me laugh when I saw nasa put that out I'm like, are you guys serious? You might as well just tell people that flat earth is real at this point Um, but yeah, that's mine kyle Oh, no, I think you sound perfectly Wonder where all that's in $2 All caps the earth is flat point blank period Phenomenal argument. I'm convinced Yeah We haven't really gotten a decent argument and and again I'll just have to sort of say that sort of I had three questions and none of them were answered in any way shape or form That's because you're looking at it. Excuse me. I did answer it. You didn't accept it. Excuse me. Mercedes Mercedes Upon asking for the reasons as to why we see the phenomenon We will see people just throw their hands up and say well, I don't know the specifics Which isn't an answer to the question when you're looking at questions You're really looking for explanatory scope that it is narrow enough to Focus on the phenomenon that you're looking at an explanatory power how detailed and how expressive can the explanation be Having explanatory scope of you can explain anything like with this firmament and no explanatory power Like you don't know how it does it. That's not an explanation. It's an excuse Justin, can I Can I add just just one thing about this astronaut who drowned in space? Uh, I I guess Mercedes doesn't know that space is extremely cold. It's like negative 170 something to So what this means is that we have to you well, it varies from point to point. So there is like one set There is that's okay. No, there's not. Um So the the thing is is that we have to use we have to use we have to use we have to use methods For keeping humans alive because humans obviously need heat you put a human in negative 200 degrees fahrenheit They're going to die very quickly. So there are water. There's water that's circulated through spacesuits And there was a leak in one as reasonable of a contamination. Um, and what this did is this caused the um the astronaut I can't remember his name But when he was on a spacewalk it caused his helmet to start filling up with water and he did almost drown So yeah, that's how you can drown in space. Yeah, and so yeah almost he didn't actually drown Yeah, and so what's really grim about this is somebody almost died and these people are laughing at that I'm laughing at the whole negative 250 degrees and my little space heater on my back is going to keep me warm Oh, that's what you think it is. Okay, that says everything about what you know about space and people going into it And I don't think I don't think anyone here can fathom how cold negative 237.4 degrees is and if you really think you can survive that with a little heat suit You got a problem and if you think you can survive I always felt radiation If you think you can survive the van allen's belt radiation, which they supposedly went through to get to the boot shielding With shielding. Yes. Wish shielding. What is this star? Yeah shielding no, it's just shielding Faces of aluminium That is the real world radiation goes through things Um, there's no shield Everyone please we made great headway now we're losing headway I see spin is gonna add some spice to this Salty conversation. Why did russia agree the us moon landings happened? I had to they had to because they participated in it They not only signed the treaty, but they also faked going to space as well might I add Go watch russia's because it's funny how fake it looks it is it's freaking hilarious how fake it looks when they sent theirs of Russia is currently doubting the moon landing get what the news Actually, yeah, they are they are starting to but that's I think that's because the whole political realm of what they're trying to do right now So, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Putin like came out and said something If he drops the Yeah They're funding the iss. That's kind of weird I'm pretty sure it's russia that launches most of the astronauts up to the iss too in the oh god. What are they called? Yeah, so yeah capsules. Yeah, that shows that they are in cahoots with each other. Yep. They work together International Yeah, so it's funny if they they are for it. They're they're lying and if they're against it. They're telling the truth This is kind of the confirmation bias that you have to show when you are in the conspiracy theory You know if the one source says oh, I'm bored you have to believe it But mega corporations say they're against it then at that point they're lying because you're using confirmation Mega corporations have always changed their mind based on how the money flows That's that's been proven russia is not a corporation. Yeah, that's got capital to you misadies All right next question squeaky eyes Squeaky eyes Together at a later date if you want because I'm a model I'm not for capitalism. Just FYI. Oh, well good. Then we don't need to debate it. Sorry Justin That was potential debate. I didn't know where that would go. I'm sorry. That's fine. That's what aftershows are for Let's go hang out after We found calling around in the meantime our audience is Really active and enjoying every million minute of this So let's continue squeaky eyes five dollars Theories explain things evidence should be compatible with a theory Stop using this as your argument with gravity Is just a theory I believe okay, so I think it's mostly Yeah, so basically the problem is that I see what the globe is At first it started out with everyone believing in the flat earth And then they started having to come up with theories and models to explain how it could be a globe And none of those held up in fact When albert einstein Made his theory of relativity. He admitted That all of the experiments that were to test the motion of the earth Failed I have the uh, I have I actually have his quote I'd have to take a second to bring it up And I probably don't have time in the question But I post it later in the chat But he did say it he did say that they all failed And that was part of why he had to create the theory of relativity in the first place Which also I think has been completely debunked as well. Um, just on the the data that I've seen so yeah Can I clarify for the audience sake justin after kyle goes? Go ahead kyle What do I get to go out about? Oh, I was just saying do you want to add anything at all about either what I said or what the question was I'm just kind of watching leo squirm. That's it. I'm He's like oh, he's no way. He actually said that and I'm just gonna Yeah, he did say it.  Go look up the quote. It's it's there I know where the quote comes from. That's not what he said comes from Do you want to look up the relativity the special in general theory because I've read it because I I know einstein What he said is that with respect to special relativity There is no experiment that could differentiate between say like the motion of the earth or It being everything else moving in the way that it is around the earth and the earth the stationary because in special Relativity it's an important word there. You there there is mathematically. There's no difference between a car Going past the light post at 100 kilometers an hour Or the light post and the light post being stationary Or the light post moving past the car in the opposite direction at 100 kilometers an hour and the car is stationary Mathematically there is zero difference between those but that doesn't mean light posts move past cars at 100 kilometers an hour So that's what he said. He did not say that the experiments failed He said there's a relativity to the experiments because it's the special theory of relativity Just just to end this just to end this really quick here then Justin I'm just going to read the quote really quick to the question whether or not the motion of the earth and space can Be made perceptible and terrestrial experiments We have already remarked in section five that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result Before the theory of relativity relativity was put forward It was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.  I know what no no no I don't need somebody to explain what he said. I'm just gonna respond there with my own state I'm too drunk to taste this chicken. Oh no. All right Um, okay, let me find my place here because while all of that's going on. I'm still actively recording new super chats Uh, which means I lose my place every time the last question was about the evidence, right? John two dollars kyle define what down is in specific terms Towards the earth Looking towards the ground that is down I think you meant the downers motion about mass and real force about this demonstration I think you meant the downward force Mercedes it was a question for kyle No, I know I'm I'm telling kyle. He wasn't sure what the guy was asking I'm saying I think the guy meant down what you met by downward force Oh, and not just the direction of down because it was it's the global