pace so I can share it. He says it's blatantly CGI. You want me to share a screen? No, it's the questions for me. I can share a screen. Thank you very much. For everyone at home can go do it. This doesn't look like CGI to me. I don't know. But you think anything from space must be CGI. Wait, you think that's a real picture? I don't know. It's the first one that pulled up. It looks like a real picture to me. Okay. Well, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't even be claimed to be a real picture, but that doesn't look real at all to me. So here, let's see if we can find other picture. Here's another picture. That's clearly CGI. That's not even claimed to be real. See, it says the stock portal Getty images. They're all cartoons, man. You don't find that weird? Here, let's find a real photo. From a... Oh, here's European Space Agency. It's not going to show the whole continent of Antarctica. Look, there you go. Good. So you can see part of it. That doesn't look real either. But even if it was, it's not the continent of Antarctica. So you're making my point, dude. If you Google it, if they're all cartoons. This is the first time I've looked. If I can find one. That's fine, brother. It's all good. I'm not trying to like... Oji or something. I was just telling the audience. That's like high-res stock photos. These are satellite photos. I was just telling the people at home they should check it out. That's a cartoon. That's your claim. You think that's a real picture? It says it's satellite image stock photo. I don't know. Oh, my gosh. No one thinks that's real, bro. That's your claim. Yeah, this is crazy. Do you think all photos from space are fake? No, I'm saying these are blatantly cartoons and CGI. Here is NASA. Antarctica, land, ice village. That is CGI. They're showing like the... Okay. So you can't find any real pictures of Antarctica from space. Well, I want you to spend a minute looking. We go up to the top and click on images. Go on to the top and click on images. Is that way we can see them all at once? Here we go.  That way we can see all of them at once. There's NASA and NOAA. And our satellite image at the Earth set against the background of the stars. That's how you know that's not a real picture. You can't see the stars in any of the pictures they show us from space. On the surface, seas and oceans, blue. Here we go. Dude, this is embarrassing. That is clearly not real. It says the data from a variety of combined data that creates an image. Go up to the top and press images, Ozean. Why won't you just go to the top? Because I need to know what source it comes from. Oh, no, what I'm saying is it's going to make the point, though, right? Like if I need to know what source it comes from. All right. Whatever, man. You're afraid to do it because then the audience will get to see all of them and that they're all cartoons. And that's why you're not doing it. No, because I need to know what source it comes from. Unlike you. OK, then well, can we do this on a different time because you don't have one or can I? You're the one that rebutted the question. Oh, this is embarrassing. Do you want me to share my screen and show the whole audience that they're all cartoons or do you want to just move on?  And so just trying to find a satellite. OK, I'll try to do a better search. Satellite. I really do. Can we move on? I think it would be a good idea to move on, but this would be a fun discussion to have some other time. Even a point of discussion about Antarctica itself, since you guys always seem to want to talk about Antarctica. And it's a hot topic for you two. So why don't we reserve this discussion for another day? Early as satellite photo images in Antarctica reveals. That's not a picture. Early, early as satellite images of Antarctica reveal highs and lows for sea ice. Yeah, I actually think it's awesome that you're doing this. 1964. The audience can see all this, right? Because it says it's from the Ndimbus satellites are revealing new information. Wow, yeah, man, for sure. You're making my point for me by showing the audience. And that's all I was trying to say is, you know, if people just kind of believe we go to space all the time, you would think logically, well, yeah, of course, we have pictures from Antarctica. We're in space. No, actually, go look it up. They're all cartoons. They're all CGI. It's ridiculous. And you'll notice that most of the people that believe in it are trying to make fun of it. Well, this is like. I've never even looked into it. This is looking for specific data. So it's not like doing a color resolution. You don't have any real pictures of Antarctica from space. That's cool. All right, let's end the screen share. We're going to move on. Thank you so much. Let's see here. Thank you for that. All right, so I just closed the poll. We were a little bit over the vote count, but we should still have a pretty accurate result. So the first poll, we had 785 votes of votes. The second one, we had 791 votes. So the question was, is the Earth the center of the universe? So for yes on the first vote early in the debate, we had 47 voted yes. 43% voted no. And undecided people, 9%. Second poll we put up, we had 48% said yes. So we had an increase of 1%. We had 43% said no. So we had the same percent on no. And 7% voted on unsure. So it's a decrease to the unsure and the yes increased by 1%. So take that for what you will. This is a neutral platform, and we do these polls for the fun of it. So let's carry on, everybody. And thank you, everybody, in our live chat, who participated in our poll and helped us get those results. We'll put up one more poll before the end and carry on with our super chats. So Bitter Truth asks, What's it? What is expanding universe equation? I don't know. I know I don't care what it is, right? You have the cosmological constant, which is supposedly the energy that causes the Hubble constant. And that's just fake news, right? Like, I don't see how me not knowing the equation off the top of my head somehow means that it is expanding. And then if Ozean looks it up right now and pretend he knows it doesn't change anything either. So like, accelerative expansion of the universe is a ridiculous claim. You need a lot of energy to try to even theoretically make that happen. It's called dark energy, right? The cosmological constant. And it's called the cosmological constant crisis because no one can come up with this energy. We saw vacuum energy on the Earth, tried to assume it'd be in space. It was off by 10 to the 120th power, wasn't even close. You have to claim that space is expanding four to eight times faster than the speed of light with an energy source that no one can define or find. It's nowhere to be seen, but it has to be there.  Oh, and then when you make your different forms of measurements of this assumed expansion, you have what's called the Hubble tension problem because the measurements don't match up. They don't even match up. They show that it would be expanding at different rates. It's called the Hubble tension problem.  Any thoughts on the other side? Um, no, I didn't appeal to expansion. So, like, I just doubt it. But the mainstream model does. Yeah, so, but that's science. So I'm not appealing to science for my argument. I asked you what the center of the universe was and you just said what we can observe. So that's just appealing argument for ignorance. So you're just saying, all we can observe is this. We don't know what's beyond that. So how do you know what the center is? So it could be here. Okay, this is what it is. It's V equals h times R. V represents the galaxy's recessional velocity. R, it's distance away from the earth. And h is the constant of portionality called Hubble's constant. So that's the part that I didn't completely remember was, like, exactly what the distance is. But I guess it's obviously just a radius in relation to whatever point it is. I guess that, you know, even though it's moving at a second, you do the equation. Oh, yeah. Okay, cool. So there, I did not know that off the top of my head and it doesn't even change anything. Neither. All right. It's weird though. I would have looked it up if I wanted to. I did. It was like, I got you, you know. Oh, never mind. Magic, magic energy is making the universe. Did you see my debate with Caleb? I tried to save him. They asked him, like, the first derivative of 3x squared is, I said, don't answer that, dude. It's a calculus question. He answered 81.  It's pretty bad. Pretty bad, guys. I'm not a cosmologist or a physicist. Like, I have a business degree. I went to law school. I went to graduate school for history. Like, come on. Like, I'd be like, yeah, I got him. Told you.  Do you want to do a debate on flat earth?  Like, do you want to be on flat earth? Okay, we'll move into that sometime.  But let's carry on. I opened up a new poll. It's just a fun poll on whether you hit the like button. If we can pass 500 likes for the stream, then I'll open up who's your preferential speaker for this debate. We'll open a catty one, okay? And, you know, have a bad one. Let's see here. Next question. Joshua Jamie says, why are you assuming the earth is not moving and it must be the center of the universe? And saying I don't know where the center is doesn't mean I don't think there is one. You asking me? I think that's me. Because I'm the one that said I don't know. But he's directing it at me. He's defending you saying one thing doesn't mean the other. But you did say, right, that there wasn't a center, right? Yeah, I said, I don't know what the center is. Or you said that even saying the universe has a center is incoherent. Probably incoherent unless you can measure the universe here. Yeah. But his question is asking me, why do I think the earth is stationary? Well, first of all, let's just use our brains for a second. That is the default. We don't feel it. We see everything in the sky move. We see sidereal rotation. The stars move. We see the sun move. We see a cycle about that. We look out in the space. We see everything moving in relation to the earth. So that's the default, okay? But you could say, well, the earth is so big, it moves at such a rate that you wouldn't feel it. It would make the sky look like it's moving. We all know that, okay? But the point is that it's the default. Then we take interferometry measurements that directly falsified the claim that the earth is orbiting. In fact, it does have a friend shift that is consistent and it changes with altitude, time of the year, etc. Even Einstein said if that's not instrumental error, everything is everything's wrong. Everything's refuted. Well, it's been verified in modern times, even with a radio wave, millimeter wave propagation test, many different tests. Yeah, we falsified that the claim that the earth is moving, even though the default is that it's stationary. So why do I think that? Because that's just objectively what it is and it's been proven. And what that means is that the earth is in the center, the cosmos. And so, yeah, I agree that you may not know where the center is or if there is a center in your paradigm, but that's because you made up a story. You made up a story. They explain away the evidence, but I encourage you to reconsider, man, it's going to be okay if you're special. It's not going to be that bad. All right, let's give those you a chance to respond if he has anything to say and we'll let you close out. Yeah, the blue marble picture shows the Antarctica, not all of it, of course, as you know. But anyways, I think we can... Admittedly, not real. I think we can be special without presuming a physical, locale, as central. Even if you believe in God, I don't think God believes requires that there be a center of reality. So I believe specialness can come from our familiar relationships, our culture, our identity, and stuff like that. Let's carry on there. Not everybody has to hear my... All right, even though I can do it with my mouth. Toby Walker says, How does nothing expand into something without violating the first law thermodynamics? Will you take your time kind of answering that I'll be right back? Sure thing. Damn it. I was just going to say, raw man argument. So that's a philosophical question. I will take your time to explain that. So the question really is, why does something exist rather than nothing? So that's really a philosophical question. So right now, there's a form of something that exists. So because there's a form that something exists now, there must have been a potential for this form of something existing right now. So the potential for this form of something existing meant there was a free... There was a potential for which it exists previously. So why does something exist at all? It means there was a potential for its existing to exist. Now, all examples of causation I have ever experienced in all of my life, 51 years of living on this beautiful, wonderful planet of existence that we all live on, all of us, all of us humans that live on, has been natural. As far as we know, they've all been physical. It seems like as far as we know that intentionality arises from brains. All minds have correlations. All intentionality have correlations to brains, physical brains, natural things. So it doesn't look like existence has to have intentionality behind existing. So it seems like the fact we exist doesn't require intentionality. So my belief, the reason why anything exists at all is because something previously existed. The potentiality for anything existing at all existed. So does that mean there's a turtle all the way back? Maybe. Does it mean there was some eternal thing that a causally caused this thing that we all experienced to exist? Exist? Maybe. So you could say, well, infinite causal chain of things is a sort of incoherent concept. Well, that could be true, but I could believe in like a tenseless theory of time, which means no moment in time has any preference. Like past, present, future all have ontological equal claims. Like there's no special preference on today, tomorrow, or the future. So in that concept of time, the whole set of past forms of existence caused today to happen. We have another question for you though. They're Ozean and we'll just carry on. What's it has a little reprieve there? Ziggy Sigwal from 666 says, and he's triggered me again. It's the Iron Maiden, right? You know, instantly I'm like, I got to listen to that song. Il Sagan. He's going to say it, you know, he will. But yeah, that's a great album. Someone please tell Whitsit we don't praise Newton or Kepler for their beliefs, but for what they got right also feels a bit dishonest to expect for people to get 100% things right. We yet haven't discovered Il Sagan. So we'll let you respond to some of that there Ozean. If you got thoughts. Newton and Kepler were geniuses, like especially for his work in calculus for Newton, for his work in understanding like laws of motion. I do not understand Newtonian physics, like I understand like the general concepts of laws of motion, the general concepts of the laws of planetary motions, but the physics that grounded has any, have you opened, Whitsit have you opened up like Newtonian physics, like the actual books? Like they're like, there's like hundreds of pages, like all the different principles that he, like they're right. Like I, the math involved, like, I don't know. Like it's, people like see like Einsteinian physics are complicated. I couldn't get through Newtonian physics. Like I would need to go to, but why would I learn Newtonian physics when the current paradigm is Einsteinian physics? Like, you know, I was just saying. The craziest part about all that though is that you can actually derive Kepler's laws from Newton. Well, yeah. Which is, so you can do it in reverse, which is a kinematic derivation and shows that all they did was look at the periodicity of everything, like the cycles it has, and then reverse engineered it, which is pretty telling. And then this is the part, I have not, I'm going to clean out, I never read like the entire Principia or anything like that. But Newton point blank says like, you know, the earth could be in the center if there was a force, a kind of gravitation that was the equal and opposite reaction. And then he goes on. That's the final thing he writes in this whole Principia. He writes all this stuff. And then he says, well, the earth could be in the center. And then he writes subsequent things that say stuff like, well, I can't even understand gravity, right? Like that would be insane if that actually exists. And it would have to be a direct act of God. And there would have to be some type of medium that everything is in, because everything like for it to be instant, because he doesn't have a time variable on his equation, right? And there would have to be a medium touching both the bodies at the same time for there to be that. Then he talks about an ether and how if it was like really dense, like liquid silver, but with no viscosity, then maybe things could move perpetually for 10,000 years and all this stuff. So yeah, Newton is kind of misunderstood. He was really big in alchemy, really big into God, really big into metaphysics. And wasn't even like claiming he knew that the earth moved around the sun or anything. Like he said the earth can be in the center, so. Can you agree he was a genius? Yeah, yeah. If the story of Newton is true, he was a genius. He discovered Newtonian gravity and calculus. He created calculus by 22. They, like calculus was created by two people concurrently. Like there was a big fight like between two people who created it first. It's really. I'm suspicious of the story. Let's carry on. We got lots of super chats and I will apologize in advance. I can hear it outside right now. There is a vicious rainstorm pounding on my roof. So if we cut out for any reason, I'm going to apologize in advance because it's just pounding on my roof right now. And I'm a little concerned. Matt Hightower says, please for once tell me what flat earthers think. They are seeing in the night sky. What are all those lights? Please offer a detailed explanation as to what we are seeing. Could be sonaluminescence could literally just be vibratory displacement and cyber fluid medium that would create what we see. And then everything expected to look kind of spherical because if I have a source of light and it has a radius of light, right? How far it can go in all directions and it'll look like a sphere. It's like you can look down a railroad track to a train with rectangular headlights and it'll look like the light is a circle, right? That's just how light works. But yeah, it could literally just be vibration. Some type of vibration. And what it is that's vibrating, I don't know. And it would be ignorant to make up stories and spend all kinds of time and energy and money in like coming up with different aspects of that story if it's just baselessly made up. I think that that's the craziest part of the whole thing is that people have been told so many claims about space even though it's constantly changing. It's made up. It gets falsified. They feel like they need a replacement for it. And you know, anyway. So yeah, what I think is it's in a torus field.  That's expected to see some type of redshift. Everything's intrinsically electromagnetic. Galaxies look just like the center of magnetic fields with the spiral. So yeah, everything's electromagnetic. Seems like there's a fluid medium. Things are much more local, much closer and maybe sun luminescence is the cause of the stars. But everything is for sure electric. Current model is a complete joke. Let's give you another one there. What's it where you had to where you're gone? What's it? What did Edwin Hubble change about astronomy and feel free to respond after Ocean? Yeah, so he he's the one that he introduced expansion, which is kind of what I was trying to give into earlier, which was that we ended up getting these telescopes that were much more advanced. And everyone was kind of theorizing about what was going on. But at the time, everyone thought that there was like a singularity. Everything expanded from there, which how does everything expand, including space, from a singularity? What's it expanding into if there is no space? Or space is the antecedent of expanding. But anyway, they thought that when we get these really big telescopes and we look out there, I showed a picture of it in my presentation, then we're going to see everything moving in different directions because there was a singularity way over there. We're tucked away in a corner way over here. So it should just show that we're insignificant. Like we're swimming in a sea of stuff that doesn't care about us. But what they did when they looked out further is they saw that actually everything's moving in relation to us, right? And predominantly the recessional velocities of being proportionate to their distance from the earth. And that's not what was expected. So what he did was say, OK, well, to explain this, you say that the redshift is actually velocity shifts, that that there's actually kind of like a Doppler effect that space is expanding out from us. And so he's the one that introduced the idea that everything's expanding away from every other point. And it makes it look like the Earth's in the center, even though it's an illusion because it was unexpected. They had to revise the model. So that is actually what happened. Ozean, what do you think? Do you agree that's accurate? As far as I know, yeah, I'm not an expert with Hubble. That's what I've heard. Did you know he also said that he called a special position like the Earth in the center? He said the Earth being in a central position akin to ancient civilizations can never be disproven. He said, but we disregard that possibility because of the horror of a unique position. And he's talking about the implications on many of his other theories and contexts as well. But he refers to it as intolerable and horrific. He says that the central position can't actually be feuded. And then they come up with an idea to say, oh, it's all an illusion that we're in the center. And it sounds kind of like a religion. Now, I do have a rebuttal to that. Because the ancient religions, the ancient cultures at the time believed that their concept of world was where they lived. So they thought it was flat where they lived. A lot of them believed the heavens were the skies above them. The underworld or the pillars either was something they floated upon above the waters or were pillars like a house foundation that kept them up from sinking below them. But they didn't believe the concept of world was a local thing. And a lot of them, they had maps and stuff of their world. So worldview to them was like their cosmology, their gods, their life cycles and stuff like that. It wasn't. So when we, so like Hubble, when he said something like that, sort of like a presentism view, his concept of world was different. So he's looking at it from a presentism view, looking back. So his idea of world in the present time was much different from what the ancient concept of world was. So he should be looking at it with their concept of world was in ancient time, which is much different than today. If you go to my channel Matters Now, it is the point. If you go back to my channel Matters Now, I spent the last week talking about ancient civilizations and their worldviews in a little bit of detail. So real fast. Someone said, wait, if miss quote Hubble, like, okay, here's a direct quote. It's on my X. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outward symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable. Moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape, and that is Edwin Hubble, 1937, an observational approach to cosmology, page 46. Oh, no, I didn't miss quote him. All right, let's move on from there. And thank you so much, guys, for expounding on that and giving me a chance to have a wash and break myself. Dominic says, Osean, belief is the enemy of knowing. Substitutes, faith for evidence. What would it take for you to question your belief in heliocentrism, Austin thoughts? Yeah, I was going to say they're trying to bounce it themselves. But yeah, they're asking you, belief is the enemy of knowledge. Substitutes, faith for evidence. There's not a lot of punctuation here, I'm sorry. What would it take for you to question your belief in heliocentrism? I think we got it there. Well, obviously he doesn't know the definition of knowledge. Knowledge is a justified true belief. So if you reject belief, you reject all claims to knowledge because all claims to knowledge are claims to belief. So a justified true belief is a belief that, so something you accept is true that is justified through some type of empirical justification. But all empirical justifications are based on our observations of the external world. Hopefully you have some type of methodology of proving that, like methodological naturalism, such as scientific method or something like that, which is my preferred empiricism. But that is based upon not deduction, but induction, which is the best explanation. It doesn't lead us to proofs. Science doesn't leave us to proofs. Deduction would leave us to proofs. So you can't necessarily say it's knowledge. You could say it's pragmatic knowledge, which is fine. So a rational belief is something that is justified. So I believe that my beliefs are justified. So whether they're true or not, whether they exist as some referent externally or not, we can have a debate about. Do I believe most of our beliefs are true? Yes. So can we have a debate about them? Absolutely. So what can vis be that the earth is flat? Show me a picture of the earth. All right, man. Hey, everyone go smash the like button. Yeah.  Everybody smash the like button while we stare. Let's do it. Yeah. We're all going to sit here. Which eye off face with it? We're going to sit here and not talk until you smash the like button. Oh, man. Well, if we get to 500, like I said, we'll open up a poll for who was your favorite speaker tonight. Right now we just have a did you hit the like button poll up because over 700 people apparently can vote in our poll, but you can't hit that like button. It's totally free to hit the like button. It doesn't do anything to you. In fact, it brings you great joy. Trust me. Try it out just once. Let's carry on there, guys. And thank you, Witsit, for that. Let's see. I am Oz and Witt explain Airee's failure. How much tilt would be required to see the star based on Helio versus Geocentric predictions? Lastly, what were the results? Let's start with you. I'm not good with Airee's failure. So my brother, you know it better than I did with it. It's like an old test, like with the tubes pointing up to try to see light through it. Is that correct? Yeah, basically you have a tube tilted with water in it. And the angles are different based on the legend motion of the earth. You should see basically the light be displaced once it enters the water. If the earth is moving and it should it should displace. And then, you know, basically going to the side of the telescope, what they saw was that it didn't do that. And the only slight displacement went the opposite direction. It is a direct refutation of the claim that the earth is moving. The fact that it displaced at all and went the opposite direction is a major problem for to this day. It was actually Airee's success, right? But I've never heard a rebuttal, by the way. In fact, what you'll find out is all the people that talk about the globe earth and all this, they don't have a rebuttal. Like none of them even know what to say back at that. None of them do. And yeah, so like just to make sure everyone understands, the idea is you're on the earth, the earth is moving. And then you have a telescope filled with water and you look at the star come through the water, right? As it gets into the water, obviously that's a different medium. So then the speed of light changes in relation to that medium. So what should happen as you're moving, the star should be displaced at an angle based on your movement. It should go into the side of the telescope. There's a predicted amount that should happen based on the movement of the earth. And then what's actually observed is that there's only a slight displacement and it goes the opposite direction, from my understanding. It's been a while since I looked at it. Obviously that's a major, that's a major. I thought I had to deal with the ether though, to the stationary ether that he expected the change in the light due to the stationary ether. He didn't get that predicted measurement. Yeah, but the ether would just be like, it was just assumed to be this absolute in which was measured against. The fact that there was a displacement actually with the opposite way of the prediction, not only shows the earth not moving, but also shows that there is an ether and that there's a drift within it. Well, there could be an ether drift, but it falsified a stationary ether. But it wasn't a very good test, right? So the proof, that's why the Mickelson-Morley experiment was a much better test to falsify the stationary ether. All right, let's carry on guys. We actually are only 80 votes away from me changing the poll over to preferential speaker poll. And I'll just say to make it fun, whoever wins the preferential speaker poll, I'll give an extra minute for the closing statement because that's fun and lets the audience interact. Wait until they'll get it. Let's the audience interact with the speakers, but we'll see what happens, Ozean. We'll just wait. Free Free Palestine asks, how do you confirm the distance between us and Polaris 432 light years ago and why not one day light ago? Please answer CGI, globe lovers and no more. Is it parallax or whatever? How did they know it like in the past? Like they measure it over time and they like do you use math to backtrack to see what it would have been however many years ago in the past? Any other thoughts on the other side? I'm not sure how to push that one along. I missed it. How do they know how far Polaris is? I don't know, they changed all the time, they have no idea. Okay, Bob asks, question for both. Why come it be the way it do? Thanks, Bob. I don't know if we can really get anything out of that. Why come it be the way it do? Bob, I'm sorry. I don't think there's a whole lot we can get out of that. It's a fun question in the way you worded it, but I don't think we have a whole lot of meat to dig in there. If you want to put something in the live chat, Bob, maybe he's just asking why is it, let me give you the benefit of the doubt here, Bob. Why is it that the earth is in the center? Why come it be the way it do? I don't know. I'm trying to help you, Bob. Bob, put it in the live chat. I don't want to fill in the blanks here. Bitter truth says, what's it? We read that one. Jeff asked, Austin, what college gave you a degree? It's not really relevant, but if you want to talk about any experience you've had, you can go ahead and take that moment. I got an athletic and academic scholarship to a private university and then dropped out of college. Never went to class. I just partied a lot and played football, so I don't have a college degree, which I'm actually thankful for now. Less debt, less indoctrination. It was a pretty good private university. It gave me a full ride. I just threw it away. I didn't just partied and tried to. What position? Lot of girls. Lot receiver slash tight end. How was the tightest end? How was the tightest end on my team, too? You're small for a tight end. I know. I was slot receiver. They tried to folk me up and tell me to maybe play tight end so I could get in early as a freshman. But yeah, I was slot receiver. Because we did meet at the bacon floor. We did. Yeah, you're really tall. Yeah. I enjoyed meeting both of you. I think Andrew Wilson was a little intimidated by me. He was funny. Let's not go down what happened. I wanted to be Andrew. Let's say you're in fun. I know. But honestly, yeah, I enjoyed meeting both of you. When it came to my schooling, just as a fun point, I didn't get very far because I was very loud and I just wanted to play guitar. Only the music teachers liked me. I just took all those government tests and they gave me grades. Oh, well, there you go. Free free Palestine. Let's say let's move on to our next question. Actually, you got two here. Free free Palestine asks, how do you confirm? Oh, that's the first one. So, so, no, so no luminance. I think that's on a luminescence. So no luminescence. So no luminescence star in a jar scientific experiment. There's a water above the permanent. Therefore, stars are underwater. Vibrations of love for flat earth. Oh, yeah. That's what I was talking about earlier.  I mean, there's a there's a test called star in a jar. It's about sonaluminescence. You just introduce sound to water. And what happens is it creates this little bubble that like implodes in on itself and then creates light. It looks just like a star. It's actually very cool. You've never seen it. So just propose as a possible explanation of what could be happening. Literally just vibration in a fluid medium would create what we receive to be stars. So I shared a screen if you want to, I don't know, do the matter. Well, if it's if it's on point, I have to respond. Oh, how did I ensure I want to stop? Sure. Sure. You want to stop? I'll share that. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't matter. Okay. It's pretty cool. I wish I could just pull it to my thing. I'll do that. I can't do it. Never mind. Oh, okay. It looks pretty cool. So, all right. Did you want to pull it up and respond to Whitsitt? Or did you want to carry on? No, no, no. No, he was supporting what I'm saying. Just look the look up star star in a jar if you've never heard of it. Most people have. It's pretty cool. All right. Let's carry on free, free Palestine. Rockets can't get high enough because of the Fermanent and astronauts are only going to land on Epstein Island.  They say free, free Palestine. I heard that's flat. Well, thanks for that. Yeah, man. That's like a claim to me. Yeah. I mean, free Palestine, man. All this is what's up with this genocide, man. Oh, man. All right. Nathan. Oh, wait. Did you guys see? I heard a conspiracy. I want to know. Ozin, have you heard this? Supposedly, they're discontinuing P1000, one of the reasons is that they have some type of agreement with NASA, like a private exclusive contract or something. And they're now someone said that it's like a, it's like a, it's like a parameter of the DIL or something. I don't know about that, but that they discontinue the P1000, which I don't even know what that means. But yeah, Nikon's discontinuing the P1000, which is the camera that all the Flat Earthers use. Because it has like one of the most, the best commercial optical zooms. Optic. Yeah. Oh, you have one nice. Yeah. And something about NASA. Nice, bro. I only have a 900, but yeah. Anyway, I thought that was crazy. Like NASA's, NASA is pretty ironic, even if it's just like hilarious, like NASA signs a DIL with Nikon P or Nikon and they're discontinuing the P1000, and supposedly as part of the DIL. I don't know. I think that's, I don't know how true that is. Disclaimer. I just heard it word of mouth. I just think it sounds great. All right, let's carry on. They'll probably come out with a better one. I don't know. Let's see. Nathan Bishop asks, Whitsitt doesn't get it. He's coming right for you, Whitsitt. And I know you can handle it. You should totally go do another standup comedy in front of Mount Rushmore. I'm not sure what that's about Whitsitt, but Nathan Bishop. I got arrested for pre-speech and people are super lame and think it was like cool or something that I got arrested for pre-speech. No, it wasn't cool. All right. I'm not sure what that was about, though. But I'm sorry if that was not a great time. But yeah, let me hear that in the chat. Okay, I didn't want to, I didn't want to stir up bad. No, people should go, people should go read my motion to dismiss for facial invalidity. Because it's, it's like a really good motion. You should read it. Did you win? Did you win the motion? No, no, but like the judge didn't even really rebut the arguments and then everything the government said, you knocked it down. The judge was like, wrong. He's right. He's right. Like they, they told, they made it awful. And she's like, no, he refuted that here and he showed you, you were wrong here and all this stuff. But then she just said, what? I don't, I'm not going to do it, which I mean, I was asking her to change the law. I wasn't like trying to fight to be innocent because I thought like, oh, it's just a fine. I tried to change the law instead of like fight my guilt, right? Because I think it's a free speech violation law. So, all right, never I tried. I'm placing manner. Yeah, yeah. Sorry there, Ozean. Let's carry on. We are more than halfway now. So thank you once again to our speakers for being great sports and answering all these questions. Even some of the more pointed juicy ones. Thanks guys. Bitter truth asks once again about your educational background. I'm sorry, bitter truth. We had a question about it. I think we got the most out of it. So I'm sorry we're going to carry on and I will ask your next question just shortly. Siggy Sigwald asks, what's it not understanding Michaelson Morley, an experiment done in 1887, and then cherry picking a quote, while ignoring their satellites in orbit right now and is streaming publicly available data every few minutes and gets old really fast. That's why you're here spending money to talk about how you're watching. So whatever. I mean, this is what I do think is funny is what gets old really fast is that you guys all have like a script that you say and you just repeat it no matter what. There's literally nothing I can say if I pull up the papers and read it on context and show you exactly what it says and we go through the entire Michaelson Morley experiment. No matter what you will claim falsely that I cherry picked the quotes and that I misunderstand Michaelson Morley. But no, I completely understand it. Okay. And it's just the fact that there was a predicted friendship value. We did not see that. They threw a falsified Newtonian gravity. You had to claim that Earth was freefalling in a linear orbit. That time expanded slows down and that matter contracts. You just can't tell. This is all just a fact. So I think it's weird that people lie about that, to be honest. That's what's actually weird. And even, yeah, I don't have to believe fairy tales about space, even if there were satellites in orbit. They use geocentric equations and physics. So. All right. Thanks a ton, brother. Oh, you had a question there. Did you want to interjection? Geodesic orbit, close enough. No, geocentric. Geodesic. But I'm saying they use geocentric physics in equations. Yeah, you can see it's a linear orbit, but it's a geodesic. Well, yeah. Oh, you're not. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's both. Right. Well, it's because... Geodesic is linear in your reference frame. Yeah. All right. But it's like the shortest path takes the least amount of energy. You're also freefalling, so you're going straight. In your reference. Sort of. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Bitter truth is coming in. I argue with people. It's a philosophical... Anyways, I argue with people about it all the time. Yeah. Relativity is just philosophical magic. All right. Well, thank you, fellas. Bitter truth asks, Whitzit, who says Earth is stationary Earth is orbiting Sun, and if not rotating Earth, some of the areas will be dark forever. It's not a lot of punctuation here. Sorry, bitter truth. No idea what that said. He's saying that on a flat Earth that the Sun wouldn't... Like some places would have to be dark 24-7. Yeah. All right. Let me try to put some... 365. ...faces here on the right syllables, okay? Who says Earth is stationary Earth and is orbiting the Sun, and if it's not rotating Earth, some of the areas will be dark forever. I tried to do it justice, but that's the best I got. Obviously, if he's actually... Yeah, like the Earth moving around the Sun, or some moving around the Earth, there's a kinematic equivalent even within the mainstream model. And if you are talking about flat Earth, which he didn't mention and what this is about anyway, but obviously there's light attenuation. There's an extinction point or limit of light relative to the medium, specifically the turbidity that's turbulent and density of that medium. There's a radius of light, especially with a local light source, and it's moving. Now, it doesn't sound like he's talking about that. I kind of disagree with Ozin's interpretation. Sounds like he's just saying something I don't understand or isn't coherent, which is that if the Earth is moving around the Sun or vice versa, that somehow the Sun's moving around the Earth that there would be areas that are dark forever. But he may be... I don't know. I couldn't tell you. So there you go. I tried to say there's a kinematic equivalence. The Sun can just move around the Earth and that's what the evidence shows us that it does. It changes its position throughout the year. You think like its extinguishes at a certain point, you don't believe in the inverse square law of light? Well, there's also... Yeah, yeah. Well, inverse square law of light is cool, but there's also an attenuation rate of light and it gets to where there's no resolvable information. Right? Just like we have... You have headlights and then you have fog lights. Right? So when it's foggy outside, how come I can see the car with fog lights but I can't see the car with just normal headlights? Because the intensity of the light in relation to the medium, because the regular headlights have... They attenuate in the medium, right? They absorb and then they have an extinction limit. All right. Oh, okay. We'll let you use that. That's okay. Are you sure? Okay. Let's carry on and I'll just remind everybody in the live chat we are only 35 lights away and we will open up the poll which will allow you to vote for your favorite speaker and give them an extra minute on the floor to close their thoughts, so if they'd so desire. Let's see. Toby Walker says, What's it? I heard a guy named Wang measured linear motion using the speed of light. Can you explain what that means for measurements of the Earth's motion? You had your hand up there, Ozean. Is there something you want to say? Oh, no. Nothing. Okay. What's it? So if you want to repeat that, I can or if you want to go ahead. I got it. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. So he's talking about Wang. So it's a linearized sag neck effect and he detects linear motion with interferometer. I'm guessing that Ozean was raising this hand because they have a scripted answer to say back to that which is that it's just relative motion but they don't fully understand it. So like actually people have tried to explain it from the heliocentric paradigm or from relativeivities paradigm but they admit that they really can without invoking absolute space and then changing the position of the observer and then creating a cylindric, a cylinder coordinate system. However, cindrylic, I don't even know. So yeah, that's not, that doesn't work because relativity says that space is not absolutely fixed. Now, this is what he's asking though. He's saying like what does that mean based on the model? Well, like we said earlier, right? The Earth's orbit according to Einstein is the Earth free falling in a straight path and Ozean said a geodesic, well, he calls it in his paper curve linear, curve linear, right? Like literally calls it linear because it free falls in a straight path. So the point is, they said, well, you can't detect the orbit of the Earth because Mickelson morally didn't because it's moving in a straight path, free falling in a straight path. So there's no deviation or the light to measure. Well, now we've proven that you actually can detect and measure linear motion with interferometry which now directly refutes even the ad hoc excuse that was come up with to explain away the evidence that refuted the Earth is moving. So last thing I'll say to recap it, they claim the Earth, they thought the Earth was moving, measurement showed it wasn't moving, came up with an excuse to say why you can't measure it even though it's moving. That excuse, even though just made up has also been refuted with the detection of linear motion with interferometry. All right. James Brown spent $7.77 to mirror Siggi and said to shut up Siggi. So he's coming after Siggi who's another person in our live chat. So you spent money to say that and it's funny. Numerology 777 is the number of gods. 666 is the number of man. I feel like I love 7s. I was going to say James Brown is not feeling good, I guess, tonight. Numerology 137 is her... 139 is the number of man. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Let's carry on. Siggi Sigwold and don't mind them Siggi. We appreciate all of your super chats including the last one. That's always fun. It seems like you guys had quarterback and forth in the live chat. So once again, appreciate the mods keeping our live chat. Siggi Sigwold asked, so all of this because Whitsit couldn't develop, that's kind of rude. He said self-esteem is an irregular human being. I know you can handle it, but it's just rude. I'm sorry. There's nothing there for us to sink our teeth into. So I read... I didn't really hear what he said. That's good because it really doesn't add to anything. I love whoever said that. I love you, man. Everything's going to be okay. No hard feelings. Who's insulting you? Mr. Monster. I love him. It says, I believe I can see the sun and the planets. They must be real. Furthermore, I can see the other planets are going around the sun. Therefore, dot, dot, dot. I think they're making, it seems like they're making a mockery. Maybe you should put this in quotations, but it seems like they're saying, I believe I can see the sun and the planets. They must be real. Therefore, I can see that the other planets are going around the sun. Therefore, dot, dot, dot. He believes the sun is the center of the solar system. Yeah, so I don't know. I don't think anyone disputes that we see what people call planets. I don't know which side he's trying to aim at, right? But basically, I would guess that he's making fun of the idea that you can just say, therefore, we must be going around. We must be a planet that's going around the sun. That, of course, would be ridiculous to think that is logical, or automatically makes sense, or whatever. But it is what it is, man. We've falsified the Earth moving through space. That is a fact. And I really think people should let go of their bias in research. It's pretty important. You can tell I've already read this one because I already laughed. And we'll just read it anyway. Seven at ten extracts says, What's it? I think Ozean is trying to get to the center of Uranus. Thanks for proving the Earth is in the center of Yahweh's beautiful creation. All right.  I swear.  That's it. My, my.  Ozean, you had to throw that in the debate towards the end. Well, yeah, we're getting close to the end for sure. So we've almost got to our likes. I'm going to open up that poll, guys, shortly. It looks like a disavow live chat has really. I'm not Christian, so it doesn't matter. Sencal Grizzly Raider. We're going to carry on, guys. We're not going to get down. Oh, you're going to go ahead. Go ahead. But if you guys want to discuss that, anytime you let me know, Sencal Grizzly Raider says, Globers eat corn the long way. Change my mind. Thanks, Sencal Grizzly Raider for that visual. Simon Allen says, a viewer's W. Well, I think that means win. Viewer's W. Viewer's win. Yeah. So thanks for that, Simon Allen. I'm glad you guys are having fun. We're going to open up the next poll here once we get a question that our, our speakers can dig their teeth into, so I can actually open that. Mr. Monster says, I can see the surface of the moon with the telescope. It's definitely dusty and not light. You can't tell it's dusty by looking at the moon, man. It's ridiculous. There are, there are lunar waves. There are celestial waves in general. It seems like it's translucent at times. There's recorded situations of stars being seen through it, like even by the Royal Astronomical Society. All that aside, it does certainly appear a certain way and could be plasma, could be many things. I think it's pretty asinine to claim you can look at the moon and tell it's dusty. That is just so not true, right? I mean, we have an idea in our mind of what it's supposed to be, and you can think of that when you look at it, but that's just super weird to me, so I don't know. Nope, it's the light for the nighttime. I don't know what it is. It'll be plasma.  I don't agree with his personal perspective that it's dusty. I don't see how he can reach this conclusion, but that's the conclusion he's reaching. But this idea of lunar waves and stuff, has anybody ever done that from two entirely different observation points using two or more different cameras in two entirely different locations pointing at the moon at the same time? Well, no, because he had to document the moon.  He had to document the moon for insane periods of time to catch them. And what people tried to say was that it must be from a plane or a jet. You can literally look at it and prove that there is no such thing at all. For vibrations? Vibrations of what? Is his tripod? Vibrations will make it look like a wave goes across the moon. Yeah, it can be an artifact to the camera. As soon as someone can replicate that, I'll consider that an option. That's not how it works. I did on a video of that. You replicated the lunar wave by moving a tripod? With other devices, but anyways. You've never seen it, bro? Not moving it. Yes. Do you know it also? He also ended up catching it go across the whole sky? The sky is fluid, man. It has fluid-like properties. Which even makes more sense. Why is it just him and why can't we replicate it in multiple locations with different cameras? Why is it just one guy? Why is it not being replicated in multiple locations? I don't know. Then it should be replicated at the same time in multiple locations, is my point. So it's just one guy that's replicated. I mean, I'm always for more replication, dude. There's just one dude with a camera who's making a claim and you're just accepting it as true? No, I saw the video and I thought it was interesting. I've never heard a sufficient response to it other than to try to come up with made-up, baseless excuses that are easily disproven like it was a plane or something. So if I just post a CGI and you just- I know him personally. I don't believe it's CGI. I didn't claim it was some type of- Well, it could be multiple explanations for what it is. Rather than a wave across the sky. Okay. Is that one of the explanations that it could be? Be multiple explanations. Including that. Including that there's a fluid-like medium up there? Test it. You can't even say it out loud. Do you have a motivation for it being a fluid-like medium? Well, no, it just seems to be consistent. Outcome when I look at the sky every night, I don't see a fluid. I don't see it. How come I don't see it? Someone said like 50 people have filmed it. Why are you claiming it's just him? Are you sure? Dude, how many- We should have a poll for that. How many people have seen the sky cause a wave across the sky? How many people will just stare at the moon for like five hours at a time? I used to go lay out staring at the sky all night long. Okay. Okay, dude. You haven't? Yes. Yes. Let's carry on, guys. We're going into circle here. Jesus Morris says Ringo had an unfortunate relationship with his wife. Well, I'll look into it. I don't know anything about that. It doesn't make his- I hate when people ruin rock stars. It doesn't make his banjo playing any worse. Banjo playing? Real fast. Let me read this off. Nikon is claiming parts acquisition problems for the P1000 and its conspicuous time in that they signed a contract with NASA for future outfitting of the Artemis program. So not directly related but like interesting timing, right? Pull the P900 off for parts and then sign a deal with NASA at the same time to be helping with the Artemis program. But, you know, whatever, conspiracy doesn't- Well, thank you for injecting there with six. I couldn't read your question verbatim there, Jesus. Cause it's an accusation. I don't think I'm able to make on air. And the Beatles are a bit bigger. Is it about my sexuality? I'm okay with that. No, I was going to say the Beatles are bigger, I think, than modern data baits. So we won't say anything about them. Mr. Eman says, the Wallall expedition duplicated the verified the Eddington experiment in 1922.  Say it again. Say it again. Wall Hall. Yeah, I'll try to clean it up because some of these- Can you spell it? The Wallall W-A-L-L-A-L-L expedition duplicated and verified the Eddington experiment in 1922.  So they're coming right at you, Whitsett, with this question. Well, I can- It's funny because you're saying verified it and literally Eddington said, oh man, this observation is a major problem for relativity. It didn't match what was predicted to happen. And it has to happen if relativity is true. And the vast majority of the plates didn't show it at all, the photographic plates. And then they say a couple of them kind of did after corrections, but they lost them. Eddington himself said it was a problem and didn't match the predictions. You're saying that it confirmed it, right? Or corroborated it, corroborated what? The fact that it didn't match at all. I'll have to look into that one specifically. I don't know. From what I remember for one, the very phenomenon itself can be thoroughly explained with classical mechanics and things like plasma. But outside of that, we have to establish it's a real legitimate phenomena to actually have to explain from understanding most of it, like all the subsequent tests were also off and rarely observed and stuff like that. But I can look into it. But one thing I know for sure, people should stop saying that the 1919 Eddington experiment proved it because that isn't true at all. That is a blatant revision and mischaracterization of history. And bro, if you guys are telling the truth, you should make sure to stop lying about things because it's just going to hurt your cause anyway. So I don't know. You're right. I don't know that much about the 1922 test though. I'd have to look into it. Let's carry on. And I will say I opened up the poll for you to vote for your favorite speaker. But I do hope that we received those 10 likes to get to 500. We were so close and I figured this was a good time to open it. So I sure did. So vote for your favorite speaker and we'll give them an extra minute to expound on their ideas at the end of our debate. Joshua Jamie asks saying we are in the center of the perceivable universe is misleading and irrelevant to where we actually are located in the universe. The answer right now is we don't know. The evidence right now is that all astronomical observation ever shows that the Earth is in the center. We made interferometry measurements that are over 10 times more sensitive than it needs to be to measure the Earth's assumed orbit. It didn't measure it because the Earth is not moving. And that basically what modern cosmology now has is the universe must be expanding in all directions and accelerating to create the illusion that the Earth is in the center, which means there has to be some incredible energy force, energy source that's causing it to do that. We can't find it. It's nowhere to be found. It can't be defined. No one can even like understand what it could be. And then when we applied vacuum energy to us off by 10 to the 120th hour greatest discrepancy in modern quote unquote science. We have no idea. No evidence for knowledge has to be there because well it has to be. And then of course dark matter problem, Hubble tension problem, modern cosmology is a complete and total disaster because they will not even accept the evidence that's right in front of them that the Earth is in the center. So just because you say we don't know, well, yeah, actually the evidence has shown us that the Earth is in the center consistently. We falsified claims of motion, which means you have only one option almost done. Only one option that's that the Earth is in the center and because it doesn't have the dark matter and dark energy problems, it's a minimum of 96% more viable. So stop having a bias. All right. Good to resolve the problem dark energy, dark mattery. So 96% more viable. And the Hubble law says that any place in the universe would appear to be in the center of the universe. I know that's what you said, but in order to claim that, you have to claim that the universe is accelerating and expanding in all directions, which requires dark energy, but has never been found and was off by 10 and 120th power with a predicted value. So you just, wait, we don't need dark energy. We don't need dark energy. I just explained Gupta's paper that just released like this month does away with dark energy. It accepts CCC and tired light to explain the model and the universe is 26 billion years old and does away with dark energy and dark matter. That's not a new idea. I know it's not new. They tried to double the age of the universe like a year ago because of Hubble's observations. I know. Any copy? It's funny though because we've pointed out it's flat Earth. There's that red shift could be because of attenuation of light, which is what tired light is. And we get ridiculed by everyone. I don't know what physicists you just brought up, but it just proves my point further that your entire model is a disaster and it's falling apart. I don't accept it as true. I'm just saying there are other possible world views that don't include dark energy and dark matter that don't require that all that exists is the Earth. You have to have dark energy to claim the Earth just appears to be in the center because of expansion and to say that it looks like it's in the center, but it's not in the center requires expansion. That's just a fact. I just gave an example of the model that doesn't include dark energy and dark matter. Does it include expansion? Does it include expansion? It includes expansion, but it doesn't include dark energy and dark matter. Okay. Let's carry on. Then it hasn't. Yeah, we'll just stop. Yeah, okay. Thank you so much. I know you guys got lots of thoughts and we're going to try to carry on. Cole Wilman, Wilheim, sorry, and we'll just try to keep this to you, which is just this is their first super chat. Thank you so much for your participation at Modern Day Debate. What is a meteor on flat Earth? And we'll just let you answer that one with it. There's basically no actual evidence of rocks falling from the sky. There are craters, which have been observed to happen, say when certain water actually comes off underneath the ground. That's a real phenomena. That's for sure a real thing. It makes sense because as the water comes up, it gives you an equal distribution of the water. You have a symmetrical circle. The claim that the rocks came and hit the ground has no actual evidence because conveniently what it says is, well, when you go look at the crater where the meteor hit it, all the rock got disintegrated. So you won't see any pieces of rock or anything. It's all gone. And oh, it may have come in at an angle and stuff, but it exploded. So it makes it look like it's evenly distributed. And the entire idea of a meteor was literally predicted in a science fiction book before it was ever even claimed to exist, including the craters where the craters were ever even claimed to be discovered. So it's literally meteors were predicted in a science fiction book long before they even claimed to have discovered the first crater. We don't ever see rocks actually falling from the sky. As for meteor showers, they look like electrical discharges. They're cyclical. We have six radiant sources for most of the sporadic meteor showers, doesn't work in your model. Thank you so much. What's it? Icy Tawa says, always, always, always use NASA's worldview to view your satellite images. It's all there for you, just for your future debates. I think they're being cheeky. And Icy Tawa, thank you. I've read your super chat. Did you have thoughts, Ocean? I didn't think we'd have to watch that. Yeah, NASA's not a worldview. Okay. Any other thoughts? No.  I didn't know it had a sexuality, but that's okay. Well, now you do.  It rags about it. I watched your video. They are accepting of people of multiple lifestyles. It just says NASA.  So I'm going to...   NASA says to accept people of multiple lifestyles.  All right. Let's carry on with it. This is nothing to do with geocentrism. I watched your video.  I watched your video.  Let NASA be gay, bro. All right. What is it? 2024, man. All right. Before I mute you guys, this is nothing to do with what we've been talking about.  We've had a lot of fun. Joshua Jamie says, BBC Earth has extensive HD aerial video journalism of Antarctica landscape and wildlife thoughts. Cool. Awesome. Antarctica wildlife? Thoughts over there? Well, they did a... Isn't there a series of that you can go watch at Antarctica wildlife? You also go watch BBs. You can also watch Mr. Beast. Oh, it's dude. Like seriously? You think that proves something? Yeah. 24 hours sun. And it doesn't show the sun for 24 hours. There's other videos to do. I accept this testimony. It's all fake. Okay. He didn't even say... He didn't even claim... He said it was daylight. He didn't claim he saw the sun itself. Let's move on. I don't think testimony... Sorry, I asked. You don't think testimony evidence is evidence? He didn't claim to see the sun itself for 24 hours. He didn't in his friend did. Let's carry on. No, just daylight, not sun itself. Anyway. All right. I was gonna say let's carry on, I suppose. But yeah, let's... I should start wrapping my answers. Oh, you want to start wrapping your answers? I was playing D&D as a bard earlier and every time I gave bardic inspiration, I was trying to come up with some rhymes. As right knows, I can't sing. I'm gonna rhyme all my answers if I can. I was gonna say you can rap probably better than I can. I only sing. I can't rap. I just sing hardcore. So Mr. E-man and I try not to. I can't sing very good. Every time somebody asks me to sing back up, I'm always just like right at the front. And I'm like, I'm sorry, I'm trying to hang back, but I'm a lead singer. I can't help it. Mr. E-man asks, why does Whitsitt not agree to debate McToon on celestial navigation? I didn't know about this. Is that something that's happening or...  Fake news. Fake news. Who runs the world? Hey, I'm not gonna rhyme yet, but check this out, man. Check this out. So McToon is lying. We've fully exposed him. He then reached out to James and claimed I was asking him to do the debate and just waiting for James to set it up. Well, okay. Well, he shouldn't be lying. This person's not. This person's just saying something about McToon. He's saying it because he's heard McToon say it. Yeah, that's why. I never challenged him to debate. The debate amount of principally talked about my daughter and how I should have her taken away and supported comments like that. So out of principle, I do not talk to him, including FTFE. So let's just drop it. Please stop asking about it. All right. I think the record's been made clear and I understand that. What's it? So let's carry on.  Earth is seriously in the center of the whole universe. I wasn't expecting that. I don't know if there's any commentary we can have on that free free Palestine except for maybe a couple laughs in the live stream.  Earth is seriously the center of the whole universe. Well, thank you, free free Palestine. If anybody wants to jump in on the panel, you can. I can. I always had to look this up. The axis of evil. It's a cosmic background radiation. Anisotropic distribution where it intersects. It should be should have no preferred direction, which is isotropic. It should be homogenous evenly distributed. But we saw that it wasn't completely evenly distributed. There was an area that was like basically uneven distribution and it had a preferred direction. It was an isotropic and that preferred direction was straight towards the earth and then it intersected on the earth. So it was called the axis of evil because it was like contrary to the cosmological prediction that it should have been random without a preferred direction and evenly distributed. And then that 23.4 degrees that people claim is the tilt of the earth. That was that was observed. Right. Way out deep in space. This anisotropic energy was at that angle way out past, you know, anywhere it should be if it was just the earth tilted. It should only be on the local solar system scale. So yeah, I falsified the heliostrict model. They called it evil because, you know, that's how science works. She called observation and evidence evil really scientific. It just changed the paradigm from the heliocentric model to a more universe concept of the model expansionary model and stuff like that. Right. So well, well, you agree that if the earth is tilted, it's a ball that's tilted, right? And then it makes things look like it's tilted. That's why they say that the sun is on its plane, right? Because the earth is actually tilted. So it makes the sun look like it's tilted. Right. But what I'm saying is they saw that tilt. They saw that tilt. Way out into space. It should only be on the local solar system scale. It refutes it. It shows at the earth in the center with the anisotropic inhomogeneous distribution centered on the earth. Wait, wait. Somebody in chat, live chat, before the debate started said, said that you lose the debate if you say bro or dude. So just so I can lose the debate, I'm going to say, hey, bro, how you doing, dude? But yeah, yeah. They can't pick. They can't make up their mind.  And I see you do all the time. One thing I've learned with is that there's no pleasing people. Either Ryan shouldn't inject as much as he does or Ryan should inject more. There's no healthy balance for the people and that want to complain. So if there's somebody who wants to complain, they'll have at it. But understand, we see you and we understand exactly what you are whiners. All right. Cole Wilman says, at Whitsitt, what is a meteor? Already answered that. Yeah, I feel like I wait, wait, wait. Same question. I feel like I answered it, but you didn't listen. But they are not real. They were predicted or it was a prediction in a book that science fiction. There you go. Let's continue on. Darth Jar Jar says, Whitsitt, have you come up with a testable accurate model of the shape of the earth if it is not a globe off topic? But let's give Whitsitt an isolated one minute. Not sure why they got a hate, but I just know they lied about this place. And I would have to know the entire rabbit to claim a shape. So I'm pretty cool just knowing that the earth is not a ball with the radius value of 3,900. And what is it? Eight, something eight. Okay, I tried. Anyway, like, I don't know what the shape of the earth is, man, because I don't know what the entirety is, what the dimensions are, whatever. Flats of general description, right? There are many plain shapes. It could be a plain triangle, plain circle, plain square, plain rectangle, right? Those are all plain shapes. So no, I don't, I don't know what the shape is, why you hate it. Okay, let's go. All right, Robin Webster says Ozean is correct. So he wins. Did you have anything you want to say to Robin Webster? I'll give you a, it's just a fan chat, so I'll give you 15 seconds if you want to say something to Robin. She's biased. Thank you, Robin. 39, 59. Yeah, I think it's 30. Oh, I could have made it rhyme. 39, 58.8, I think is what it is. Dang it. That's why I stutter because I wanted to get the, whatever. Sorry, I interrupted. Yeah, you're trying to be all of that, but you ain't it. No, I'm sorry. I'm not, man. I forgot. I choked on the 39, 58.8. Do you believe in the Outer Lands aliens, like some of the other Earthers do? I don't, there may, there may be more land. I mean, it would certainly make sense to hide it from people if there is, or it could be more land in the Southern Ocean. So I don't know. I don't, I don't know. I don't believe in aliens at all. It's just sort of weird. Maybe they exist somewhere. I don't believe in stuff. I don't, I don't really think I believe in aliens either, my brother. Let's carry on there, guys. And don't mind what I just said in the live chat. I, you know, me and Whitsitt, we get along famously and I was just wrapped up for just one, one brief second. It was fine. It was fun. Matt Bures says, Whitsitt, I love you so much, bro. Don't take your foot off this guy's neck. You've got way more support than you think, buddy. Word solid is yummy for us. Flat Earthers. I'm not sure what they're trying to say there, but it's for you. Thank you so much. Damn, I just did. Fifteen seconds for Whitsitt. He's got a fan chat. If it's sincere, then thank you, man.  That are kind of complex. And you use very specifically technical terminology like, I don't know why, but you can never learn something from a Flat Earther, right?  Like they're the stupidest people ever. So in order to avoid that, maybe you didn't know something or don't know how to answer something, they just try to dismiss it as word solid. But it's all good, man. You know, who cares? I've understand all these concepts you talk about, because I spend a lot of time listening to what you talk about. So I don't say you say word solid because you use unconventional language, but it's not language that's not understandable. Thank you, man. Yeah. Last super chat before we move into closing our Q&A question there, and then we will move into our closing statements. Anthony Sikant says, does a witsit ever lose a poll on modern data bait? I can't remember the last time you did, but generally our audience has big hankering for witsit. So we appreciate you coming out and having the discussion witsit. I can answer that. Go ahead. William Harris. You lost William Harris's poll. I think that was the only one I saw. You mean William Harris, the guy that won the after showing he said, oh, well, yeah, I don't think the audience is smart enough to understand logic. So I intentionally used fallacies in a pill to a motion to try to trick them into thinking that I didn't that I won. Well, he won that poll. So it worked. Was the question like who won the debate?  People don't win or lose to be.  It should be about learning. Remember the other guy just said in his super he said, Ozean is correct. That means he won. Like that's not how that works either, right? Like it doesn't. You can be correct and debate it terribly and use fallacies and your argument is trash and you could still be correct. So then I guess if I'm going to close out this poll and in any case, you have won that extra minute. We will say I put up the poll as who was your favorite speaker. You know, if you interpret that as who is the most palatable speaker. That's probably a good way to that's probably a good way. Yeah, because at the end of the day, no matter whether you agree or disagree with people, there's not going to be an end of people that you agree or disagree with on any number of things, whether that's your favorite Star Wars character or these topics that we talk about here. So the main thing that we want to try to establish is that we learn how to talk with people that we disagree with. So Whitsett, you did win the poll. 67% voted Whitsett as the favorite speaker and 33% for Ozean. So Ozean, we will give you a minute here to close your thoughts on the debate here. Just one second. Yeah, one minute. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have any other questions. One minute on the floor for you, Ozean. I'm much to say I'm posting an after show on Matters Down. Anybody here is welcome. We're going to have 10 people on our panel. So if you want to come hang out on a panel, please do. Whitsett, you're invited unless you're hosting your own after show. I know you do that too. With that, I think the idea of centeredness has more to do with our value in the cosmos. I think we talked about that often about what's special about us. And I don't think it matters about our physical location in the universe to give ourselves value and purpose and meaning. And I think this is what the debate is really about. And I expected Whitsett to win because he's a great public speaker and I'm just a midget. So anyways, thank you so much. That's it. All right. Thank you so much, Ozean, for being here. And yeah, no need to be hard on yourself. We appreciate you here at Modern Data Bait. And I appreciate you, buddy. No matter what indifference is, we may have had in the past. I still enjoy you quite a bit when we get to hang out here. Over to you, Whitsett. You got two minutes on the floor. All right. Cool. So it's pretty simple, man. You know, obviously you don't feel like you're moving or anything, right? Like the default is that everything is moving around us. Look at the sun, the moon, the stars, whatever. They claim that we are actually moving and it's just an illusion. But what they didn't tell you is that the people that came up with the belief that the earth is not in the center right so that we're going around the sun, they literally worship the sun. Literally. So like watch the documentary Heliosaurus tree as well as the principle and you'll find out though and Heliosaurus tree breaks it down. You can research it yourself. They worship the sun. They thought it was symbolic of enlightenment and illumination. And so they were like, well, we must all be going around the sun since it's like the most powerful, most important thing. That is weird. That is creepy. That is not science whatsoever. And they track their religion all the way back to the mystery schools, all the way back to Horace, etc. So that's the inception of it. Then what happens? Well, we have a Pernicus, Kepler, Newton. You can actually get Kepler's laws from Newton. So it's not even important. That's not even a cause claim. Doesn't work. It's refuted, blah, blah, long story short. I'm like the last minute. This is basically what's happened is that the evidence, it was one thing to say, well, we worship the sun and we believe the sun's so special. Let's claim we go around it to moving to the point where we actually directly refuted it. Okay. And we've made precise measurements that have falsified the claim that the earth is moving. It's shown that a stationary. So what happens is consistently the geocentric prediction is met. And then the heliocentric model changes it model to say, oh, well now our new model is what the geocentric model predicts. Trust me, that's how it works. And so everything is an illusion. 30 seconds. That doesn't work. So we made precise measurements that have falsified the claim motion of the earth to stationary. It's in the center. That's why everything in the universe looks like it's in the center. Last thing, that explains why we don't need dark matter, dark energy or all these other crazy problems with cosmology because if the earth's in the center, you don't have that problem. So why don't we just accept it for what it is? Maybe you are significant. It'll be okay. That is time. Well, thank you so much, Ozean. And thank you so much, Whitsett, for your closing statements. A big round of virtual applause for both of our speakers. If you guys are having aftershows, I encourage our audience to check the links to our speakers in the live chat. Ozean has already stated that he will be having a live show afterwards. And Whitsett, maybe as well. So check out. Ether Cosmology, Ether Cosmology, Alan Space Audits. I think that they may have an aftershow. All right. Well, thank you so much, Whitsett. So you know where to find the other side of our argument tonight. If you want to hear more, so thank you to everybody who is hanging out at Modern Day Debate. I'm going to close at the show and we will be back for more juicy debates going forward. In the meantime, you can enjoy my lovely demo of me screaming at you. This is Greed and this is my band, Light and Shade. Because this is all I get to do at Modern Day Debate. It's just a little bit of this. So enjoy everybody and thanks, Whitsett. Thanks, Ozean. It's been a pleasure. Love. Yeah, Ryan. Geocentrism with Ozean and Whitsett. I hope you guys enjoyed what we were able to provide out of the debate and make sure you hit the like button and subscribe. I'm just checking into the live chat right now because I don't want to forget to thank some of our regulars that come out here like Maximiliano Villa who has a membership. Kent Speak, Flat Sabbath. Thank you guys so much for your membership and also keeping the live chat. We appreciate you guys especially when we have these debates and a big shout out to our mods and also MXXD. Once again, you guys hanging out in the live chat very consistently. I can rely on you guys to make sure that we're keeping things friendly and keeping things civil. So I appreciate you guys. Catherine MC, the name of the band's light and shade. If you just check out my YouTube link you'll see the music that most of it was from my musical partner who has a Juno Award which is a big thing in Canada and not so much in America. So he does all the guitar playing and the drum organizing and stuff. I don't think he plays drums. I think he just programs them. But still it's a lot better than what we were doing before with just the electronic drum kit and live recordings for Modern Database. So yeah, I am glad that some of the people do enjoy that but honestly that's just my little side thing that I have fun with. Ultimately it's about the speakers. We have great speakers at Modern Database as far as I'm concerned. There's a lot of things that are getting discussed that are either important or if you don't think they're important the most important thing that you can get out of this is maybe a way to have these discussions or if these discussions get out of whack and you're like you know what I wouldn't want to have a discussion the way that this is breaking down on Modern Database. Once again take away from that what you will. You know there's all kinds of fun and things that you can learn from engaging in spaces like this whether you're hitting the after show or you're watching the speakers in their spaces that they're hanging out in you're going to have I think a great time navigating the sea of ideas and that's what we're trying to provide to you guys at Modern Database is an avenue in which you can navigate these sea of ideas and also people that will provide those ideas and then you can kind of chew on them as you will. So yeah I'm going to try to keep on rocking their flat Sabbath that's all I know how to do. So once again everybody if you're still hanging out in the live chat hit the like button you know I do see we past 500 quite a bit it goes and I figured we would and we gave that extra minute to our speaker which I personally think was fun maybe we'll keep on trying to do that going forward and yeah I do have another song that I'm working on that's maybe a little less dark to intro our debates you know I heard a couple more fun theme songs earlier and I was thinking man you know doing a song like Greed is really dark to open up a stream where we're trying to debate and like I say potentially teach people how to have better conversations so we started out with a really dark and kind of evil sounding song maybe that won't translate so well so you know I'm glad that you know for whoever's been enjoying it is enjoying it but I'm going to try to get something that's a little bit more lighthearted potentially going forward so that we can like I said maybe maybe not turn people off in the the sense of how dark it sounds I am trying to read these as as we go along I'll just I'll just at you there you go I'm just gonna at you Carolina there you go and thank you as well Dean appreciate you guys coming out and once again big big shout out to our mods you guys don't know how much they mitigate in the chat of course I can see you know this has been you know mitigated by xyz and I appreciate you guys so yeah I'm gonna close it out I'm tired it's 220 here in Nova Scotia I don't mind dark music says Batman of course you don't mind dark music Batman you're Batman Batman likes dark stuff all right before I get down into into impression lane thank you everybody I really appreciate it we're gonna be back in a few days and once again if you guys want to participate in these debates if you're looking at speakers and you're thinking oh my god I could have brought up this argument this argument I could have held that person's feet to the fire email me or James so you email James at moderndaydebate at gmail.com or you can email me at bc.adtatoutlook.com both ways are a great way to get into this sphere and we can get you guys debating against people that you might think that like I said you can hold your hold their feet to the fire so you know don't feel don't feel too daunted by this space so it's very friendly as far as you know when I'm hosting I try to keep things to what our speakers ask so sometimes people will say oh you know Ryan's not injecting when this person says this crazy thing that I don't like but a little do they know that we may have agreed beforehand that we're going to let certain things slide so yeah once again Catherine MC it's just through the my YouTube there I think if you look it up on YouTube itself agreed by light and shade you can find it but I'm not here just to self promote as much as I want to provide you guys with good theme music to get jazzed for the debates so let's try to keep it friendly everybody let's hit the notifications for any upcoming debate debates that you see on modern day debate I'd love to see you guys and once again email me or James if you want to participate and in the meantime I'm just going to switch it back over here because I have to go to bed and we're nearing on 230 now on my time so good night Ken speak Michael punn Sean Chattney Catherine MC Hawkeaux Sean Chattney again see you you're just active there so good night and we'll see you next time Cheers