and we're starting right now with Flat Earth Test. Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours for your opening statement, Flat Earth Test. You can seriously catch just had a debate with flat soil and he spoke of 10 minutes about honesty. So I wanted to stress the honesty so they say we don't bring evidence. Man, that's playing super high speed, man. Can I pause that for a second? Let's pause. That was about one fourth of my show. Is it playing it right on your screen? Sorry about this, y'all. It should be about six minutes and 30 seconds long. Okay, so anyway, I wanna bring some evidence because I hear a lot when we debate that we... Yeah, it's just blast and do. But anyway, I could never keep up with that. Why is it doing that, man? Hey, check your Discord, Austin. I sent it through there. I don't know why. It's playing like in fast motion. It's got six minutes. It's got six minutes on there, bro. Okay, okay, my fault, my fault. Okay, anyway, so I wanna make sure we bring evidence so I just don't wanna hear that we didn't present any evidence. So there's a laser and that's obviously a direct hit. You see when it's not a direct hit, that's 16 miles away. So you're talking about 100 foot of a curve that's supposed to be blocking that laser. So we're gonna, here's a mirror test. So you have all kinds of long range lasers, mirror flashes, which should not be seen if we're on a globe. There's a geometric horizon supposed to be blocking it. So we see compression here. This is 16.8 miles away. And you see the horizon behind it and there's another boat even beyond that. And so you do have days with maybe some structure to be honest. And you have Loran's, the Loran system, Nicobine, we're talking signals from thousands of miles away using VHF, which is not the kind that curves around balls. Look at this, this is seven inches above the water. Okay, it takes a nice clear day and nice calm conditions to get these effects but they are out there and we are recording. So people are going through a lot of efforts to show the truth to people, to show the truth. Used to, we'd argue that against them that the horizon was geometric, earth curved, the edge and that's what was hiding boats, but that's not. They've updated their argument lately because they know that it's refracted. We've showed them that the horizon moves up and down. We preached it for a couple of years. Finally, we showed them the black swan and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Okay, this here is the weatherman. This is how they explained us seeing the skyline of Chicago across Lake Michigan. They say the atmosphere acts like a lens. So they always ask us how could the sun set on a flat earth? Well, just with a little lens on a flat surface just backing it away. And another thing you'll notice that the sun is setting, it's also not shrinking in size. So if y'all please don't ask that question, there's a perfectly reasonable demonstration with the experts backing us up. So there's lensing and here's what happens when you zoom out, when you zoom out then you get obstruction, you get obstruction and with the lensing comes magnification. So the angular sides of the sun, it wouldn't play much of a part and it sets just fine. So this is the laser and sugar water. This is how they said the atmosphere work. They say the light refracts downward to the denser medium. So yeah, I don't argue that, whatever's happened, look. Look what happens when he lowers the camera. You see that obstruction? So their only demonstration of how refraction works literally shows how it would work on a flat earth. This is, you see that compression, it's not things disappearance, literally compression. There's the local oil rig and look at the ones in the distance. It's compression and it took years of, we would have never knew the one up top, we would have thought half the boat was missing if the stent line wasn't written on the side of it. Thanks, Ranchie. But it's literally compression. And look, so the horizon is beyond this boat. Earth curve is not blocking this boat, but with the shoaling and the conditions, you know, people might, I've seen where people came to that conclusion. So for the sake of being honest, you know, but see there's more examples of compression. Look toward the bottom floors. So next I wanted to squeeze in the star trails. It sounds like, look at Stellarium shows separation. I've talked about this with Mr. Sensible. There is literal separation in a, we asked from one position, how can the stars simultaneously go in three directions? If I'm spinning and the stars are stationary, why are they deviating away from each other on the horizon? That doesn't make sense. That can't possibly happen on a ball. It can't, and so I heard excuses about fish island. So this is straight from the astronomical society. If you want to go back and read that or if you have time that the star trails do indeed take three separate paths. And if you want to use an equatorial mount to use that as proof against a flat earth, look, this is what you get. If you're at the equator, looking at stars to the north, you get a frown.   And if you look straight overhead, you get a straight line. This is the eclipse. This is a selenilium eclipse. I personally recorded this last week. There's the moon well above the horizon, fully eclipsed. And look that even that side of the sky is daylight by that time. But there's the moon fully eclipsed. They say it's the earth causing the shadow. But look, I go to see, and look what I see east. The sun, it's already made it over the horizon and over the cloud deck. Here's the trick. So if the sun is only half a degree above the horizon, it's 800,000 miles above your feet. And that can't work. You see that sun above the horizon? That can't be tested as shadow up on the clouds and down on the ground simultaneously if the rays are coming in parallel. And now look at these shadows, they're divergent. Look at the sun shining on the bottom of that cloud. That's impossible if the rays are coming in parallel. They want to use, so sunrise at equinox. So it would work perfect on a cylinder. Would work perfect. The sun would be following the latitude lines. But as soon as you change your orientation from the equator, the lines converge toward the equator. Anywhere, go to Google Earth and draw a due east and you will wind up at the equator. So we're in fact not looking parallel. And that's only 6,000 miles. That's not enough to bend you over backwards. And I don't have much time, but celestial navigation. Look, if I'm right by cancer, going to Sudan, I start off north. Just traveling to Sudan right by the equator. But if the same meridian south, I still have to go north. Why would I have to go north from South America to get to Sudan and north from North America to get to Sudan? That's just a head scratcher. So to me, it's all retrofitted to work with reality, but I'm gonna pass it over to Austin. Thanks, man. Sorry about the beginning. No worries. All right, I'm gonna share this screen here. All right, cool. So I got here, heliocentrism has never been proven. It's a religion. That's what it's called when things aren't proven, but blindly believed based on the doctrine of men and then the pill to what other people think. Here is a depiction of a magnetic field. You have what's called a blocked domain wall in the middle of a magnetic field. It's also called an inertial plane. This can not work on a globe, hence why Harvard, Stanford, and yeah, I will tell you that still in 2022, they literally don't have a working dynamo model of a magnetic field on the globe. But of course, it works perfectly on a flat earth. That's we are on the dielectric plane to the middle. Here's a picture of it using magnetic film over the magnetic field. You see the inertial plane of blocked domain wall right there. Here's a ferrel cell image of it. There is literally no explanation nor has everyone even been proposed with a millions of dollars and all the universities that people love to appeal to constantly, which is of course fallacious. They do not have an explanation. I can offer all kinds of documentation addressing the over a century of failures and attempting to explain this on a globe, but it works perfectly on a flat earth. Of course, here's again, a ferro cell image of magnetic fields. You look at the top left, you will see this flower of life depiction. You have constructive and destructive lines of interference. And then again, you have the inertial plane depicted right there. I do find it funny that this is similar to the black hole picture we give space course. Everything must be electromagnetic, but anyway, I digress. So if you look at the picture of the ferro cell and you look at the magnetic flux over top of a flat projection, it matches perfectly. This is of no coincidence. Again, it can't even be explained on a globe. So here's a video. I'm going to kind of go through it some. This is a ferro cell image and you see you have those lines of interference right there. And this is like a perfect flower of life depiction.  And they picture a disc in space. Dude, this is the flat earth model. You want a flat earth model? You live inside that right there. And that's the only way that the magnetic field could possibly exist. And you can chuckle and you can laugh, but I promise you can't actually debate it. You can't actually even offer a working magnetic model for the globe. I've actually looked at all the top levels of academic sources. They don't know the answer. So here's another depiction of that. So just keep that in mind as we move forward. And also here is a motion depiction of visualization of the toroid in the movement within it. So here's another depiction. So just so you can visualize the patterns that happen within a toroid of a magnetic field. And what do you know? What a coincidence that from a geocentric position all the planets happen to move in this exact same model. Here's Mercury and Venus and Saturn and Uranus all fitting perfectly within that exact same pattern in the magnetic field. It's probably just a coincidence that all the planets over their cycles happen to fit perfectly within the geometric expression of a magnetic field examined in a ferrocell. The geocentric model has no explanation for this other than it's a coincidence or it doesn't match. So we'll see if maybe we actually get an explanation here. I have to close it up. I'll point out this hilarious part of the globe debacle. This guy invented special relativity to counter experiments that revealed the earth was motionless in space. This special relativity in response to Nicholas Morley this eventually led him to general relativity which ironically forced him to accept a motionless earth in the center of the universe as a viable cosmological system. That's pretty awkward. And this is objective. It'll be disputed, but we'll get into it. Here's a quote from Einstein. I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment. And they will have to say that this is cherry picked and out of context. And actually at the end he says all though the earth moves around the sun. Well, we're not invoking this to say Einstein thought the earth didn't move around the sun. We're pointing out he said you can't use optical experiments in the context of interferometry. So when you bring up ring laser gyros you're disagreeing with relativity and Einstein. Most people just hand wave dismiss this with the misrepresentation of the argument. Here's another quote of Einstein. To the question whether or not the motion of the earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. Of course the word terrestrial means on the earth of the earth. Anything to do with the earth in relation to the earth meaning you can't do an experiment on the earth. We have already marked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result. That's Albert Einstein. And then here is your famous physicist Stephen Hawking. So which is real the Ptolemaic or Copernican system Ptolemy being a geoscientific stationary earth. Copernicus of course being the idea that we're in significant space moving around the sun. Although it's not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong. That is not true. One can use either picture as a model of the universe for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. And here is him in 2007 citing that same exact quote from Albert Einstein and a stubbornly persistent illusion explaining you cannot prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth. And that's what the stubbornly persistent illusion is is that the universe tricks us to make us think that the earth is always stationary no matter what we do to detect it. This is the Mickelson morally that led into this whole debacle and the change in physics. They did not get the expected friendship or difference if the laser was moving against the earth and it had to catch up to the earth and it should have been a separate difference when it received to the detector but that's not what we observed. So they said time physically slowed down and the measuring apparatus physically shrinks. So it looked like it was the same time and distance even though it was actually a greater distance and a greater time. And this is still to this day the exact model that people defend. And here's Mickelson to go ahead and get ahead of this to wrap this up. This is Mickelson himself talking about the observation saying this conclusion directly contradicts the explanation which presupposed that the earth moves. So to basically the globe and that's spinning and revolving around the sun you have to say everything's an illusion the universe is a wizard waving its wand constantly deceiving you into believing that the earth is actually stationary and we'll get into the intricacies of this but of course to believe the current model you have to believe that you could never prove the earth is actually moving around the sun and it just always looks like it's stationary. So there's that. Bravo, Magnifico. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening and we are going to switch it over to our globe earth team. But first wanna let you know folks if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and you didn't know modern day debates. Second debate conference is this Saturday, November 19th in Plano, Texas. You don't wanna miss it. If you're in Texas, I have linked the tickets for this conference at the top of the chat and it's in the description box. Highly encourage you folks. It's gonna be a blast. We've got monstrous debates going down there. For example, as you can see on the bottom right of your screen this one's gonna be a juicy one to be sure in particular for the first time ever Aaron Raw and Daniel Hukikachu collide the unstoppable force versus the immovable object. You don't wanna miss it. With that, we're gonna jump into the globe position side. Thank you very much. Conspiracy culture in Mr. Sensible. We're thrilled to have you here. I'll kick it over to you, Mr. Sensible for your opening statement. Thank you. Let me just try sharing my screen first. Hopefully you can see an image. Yep. Let me just move this other window out the way. Right, let's say thanks, MDG for hosting. Thank you, Austin for debating. Big thanks to Brian for stepping in last minute. Massive thanks to Katz for being excellent as always as you will see and big props to NASA for all the funds. Thank you. Now, it's quite interesting that straight away in his opening, Austin had his quote from Einstein Oh, Einstein. Because the full quote is while I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Mickelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect. If we admit Mickelson's no result as a fact, this was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the earth is revolving around the sun. I'm pleased that Austin tacked that bit on the end because usually that's not added, but he's talking about the sun, sorry, the earth moving through the ether. But going back to my pre-prepped intro, this is an image of the sun. Wonderful, isn't it? Well, you might not think so until you find out that that image of the sun was built up taken from around a kilometer underground using neutrinos. This is the super camea candae neutron detector. It contains around 50,000 tons of ultrapure water with 11,000 light detectors detecting the little flashes of light as neutrinos collide with atoms of water. Neutrinos pass through virtually everything. The 60 billion go through an area the size of your fingernail every single second. They're really hard to detect, which is why there's so much water, so many detectors because of the chance of a collision of one in 10 million trillion. So that explains why it's so big. There are three flavors of neutrinos, electron, muon, and tau, and they can flip between the flavors. Now, this happens more as electrons pass through material. Now, as I said, this detector is around a kilometer underground, but you get more flipping when the neutrons pass all the way through the earth. So there's Austin in his neutron detector, rather disappointed that the direction the neutrons are coming from, sorry, neutrinos are coming from the sun is coming from below his feet. That cannot happen on a flat earth. Next thing I'd like to look at is tow tanks. This is the Boulderwood tow tank in Southampton. Towed tanks are long tanks of water that are used for testing models of boats and ships to see how they behave in various conditions in the water. They can generate waves of different patterns, so they can test the effects on the different hull shapes if I just skip it on a bit. So here's one being tested. Now that gantry moving along with the model must be kept absolutely level above the surface of the water. Otherwise it's pushing the boat down or lifting it out, thus nullifying the test. It's got to be kept within 0.1 millimeters level of the surface. Now, that gantry moves along around 10 meters per second, I think, along these rails. Now these rails in this tank, which is 138 meters long and about six meters wide, these rails are held in place with these little red sole plates, this 440 of them. In fact, if I just let it zoom into them, each one had to be adjusted to make sure the rail is absolutely level above the surface of the water. These are microscope to detect how a pin just breaks the surface tension of the water. One guy had to adjust all of these so that there was no difference in people's eyesight. It took him two weeks. Now the length of that tank, 130 meters level above the surface of the water actually has a curve. The bend, the hump, is 0.6 millimeters over 138 meters because the rails are following the surface of the water. The water is following the gravitational equipotential of the earth. Water being level is not flat. And the next thing I'd like to move on to is this thing. This was a package that someone sent up under a weather balloon with three cameras in. You can see at the top of it, at the bottom of the screen has a circular hole. There was an upward facing camera pointing at the balloon. In the back, the narrow end to the right, there was a camera, a wide angle camera that was just there for the view and nothing else. And to the left, under that little white plastic thing, was a forward facing, non-distorting rectilinear lens camera. And to the extreme left, you can see the framework holds two taught strings. They're held taught by springs to be used as reference lines. Now, I've just got, just bear with me one second. I have the actual points to jump to in the video. Do apologize. Right, so one minute in. Where are we? Oh, it's not showing me the timestamps, is it? Yes it is. One minute in. This is Mage as it was flying. You can see that the reference line strings held taught at all times. Top left, you've got an upward facing balloon camera. That is a wide angle. It's only there to show the balloon. And next to it, you've got the wide angle camera that's just for the view. The main view with the strings is non-distorting. And if I jump to two minutes 26, I'm sorry about that. You can see the balloon grows in size as the weather balloon goes up due to the lower pressure around it. And around here, we can just see the last few seconds when it's reaching its maximum altitude. I'll jump before a tiny bit. And the balloon burst, just count down there five, four, three, two, one. And you'll see the balloon burst. It shreds at the speed of sound as the hydrogen within the balloon disperses as the latex balloon can no longer maintain the pressure differential between the gas inside and outside the balloon. Absolutely beautiful. The important thing about this is this was a shot that was taken at almost maximum altitude. The reason this shot was taken, sorry, I didn't pause it there. The reason this shot was taken is because the horizon is across the middle of the screen where even with a rectilinear lens, there is some distortion towards the edges. But by being across the center of the screen, it rules out that distortion. If you compress it left to right, you can see that curve against that straight line. And in fact, what I've got here, there's that same full picture again, an engineer in Chile, André Palma, actually calculated the prediction of the curve. We should see it the predicted target height of 39 kilometers. This is only 35, but we overlaid the prediction on it.  The curve you see is virtually the predicted curve. And I'd like to finish with a quote. Only two things are infinite in this universe, the universe itself and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the format. You'll like that quote, Austin, it was from Albert Einstein. And at that point, I shall hand over to conspiracy cats and stop sharing. Thank you. Right, can I show my screen, James? Is that okay? All right, go on, let's do that. So, and how do I do the slideshow on this? Oh, what am I doing? Okay. So basically, like this is gonna be a debate like you've never seen before on modern day debates because for those people who didn't know, I am genuinely a time traveler. I know Whitsitt likes that kind of like funky sci-fi stuff. Genuinely, I'm a time traveler and I've seen this debate already. So what I've done is I've decided to come back in time for my opening statement and just tell you how good it was. And then it's up to you whether you watch it or not, but this is what happens, okay? So in this debate, basically Whitsitt is gonna speak really, really fast. He's gonna say a lot of stuff, but then when he's asked to explain stuff in like a really coherent way and in detail, he's gonna get really angry and then he's gonna refuse to do that. For example, there's a bit in this debate where we discuss Coulomb's law. You're gonna really like that bit. Whitsitt doesn't like that bit at all. He gets a bit angry that I bring that up and it gets a bit tense during that bit. James steps in, but it's all good. It's all good after that. Brian, on the other hand, Brian's gonna be really nice. He's gonna be really friendly, but he's not really gonna bring any evidence for flat earth. Now we've already seen this first bit other than the odd picture that he thinks shows we can see too far. He's put that in his own statement. Of course, we've seen that already. But within that, we're not gonna see any hard data like observer heights or any kind of coordinates. But other than that, he is gonna ask for a lot of questions about the globe. Some of them are gonna be silly and we'll answer them politely. However, only open to a point where he thinks we're being like a bit too oversimplified with our answers and he's gonna feel a bit consented and upset, but it'll be all good because he's a nice guy. We'll apologize and we'll move on. That'll be something you can look forward to. We're gonna see lots of childish experiments being shown such as moving torches or lenses back and forth. I believe you've already seen the bit where we see the lens back and forth in Brian's, don't know. You've already seen that bit. And this is genius. But eventually they'll kind of ignore the fact that what they've had to do is take that lens or torch and move it specifically into that exact point to get the exact effect that they're looking for and then they ignore anything other than that exact position it's got being to get that exact effect. They kind of ignore that and just pretend that it is actually an explanation of what's going on in the real world. That bit's quite funny. And they'll also accompany that phrase with stuff like, it works perfectly on a flat earth. And I think which it has already done, you've seen that bit and you'll see it again, where they say, well, this works perfectly well on a flat earth, without explaining how it works on a flat earth whatsoever. So some of that you've seen already, some of it you haven't. This is my favorite bit of the debate though, which it didn't like this bit, but what he does is he tries to bring science into doubt by using evidence from NASA space probes. And as a flat earth, he doesn't understand the irony that using data from space probes, doesn't really support the flat earth. It makes me laugh. He doesn't find it amusing, but everyone in the chat, you can have a laugh about that. That'll be good. It's gonna be a good bit of this debate. I'm also gonna bring up at some point that which it believes in the lost city of Atlantis and Brian believes that the ISS is an Egyptian God. And I'm gonna bring that up just to show that we're dealing with nice people, but people that just wanna believe whatever they wanna believe. And that's fine. And flat earth is just one of those beliefs. Neither of them really appreciate that. They're not really tickled by it, but I'm gonna bring it up. Now, at some point during this debate as well, what happened was, it was quite good, which it brought up some evidence that he thought was really, really clever. But myself and Mr. Sensible ask him, well, why is that evidence for the earth being flat? And which it really won't be able to explain. One example we've seen already is which it claiming that the earth is stationary. And that really doesn't explain how the earth is flat because this is a debate about the shape of the earth. And then when we press him on that, he kind of doesn't wanna answer, so he gish gallops and yeah, you've seen it before, haven't you? I literally have seen it. I've just traveled back in time. Anyway, at the end of the debate, the audience are gonna post loads of comments in the chat saying that the two flat earthers yet again actually brought zero evidence for a flat earth and eventually just tried to poke holes unsuccessfully in the globe over and over again. And that's pretty much how this debate went, but it was good and it was fun and I'm glad I did it. So thank you very much. You got it, thank you very much for that opening. And before we jump into the open dialogue, wanna say folks, if you didn't know, our guests are linked in the description. We highly encourage you. You can check out their links right now. That includes if you're listening via the podcast, which has thousands of downloads. We don't have any ads on the podcast as 100% free of ads. We don't make a dime off of it. We hope you find it useful and that's available at every single podcast app out there where you can find Austin's flat earth tests, conspiracy culture, and Mr. Sensible's links in the description box there as well. With that, we're gonna jump into open dialogue. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. If it gets too rowdy, I'm gonna break it into two minute segments. That way there isn't too much interrupting. Floor is all yours. Well, that was very exhilarating. Conspiracy cat's entire presentation was ad hominem fallacies. This dude is crushing. And so let's just skip that since that's an admissible and intellectual forum and holds no value. Mr. Sensible, you brought up a lot of begging the questions fallacies. Then you said, wreck 10 linear lens that doesn't post curvature, but will ignore it because it doesn't match the global prediction, but it's kind of close and blah, blah, blah, blah. But I just wanna, before we get started, I'm wondering, can you help me out here? I got covered what you were gonna say about the Einstein quote. I literally covered it and said they always love to say that they leave the end of the quote off. I explained how that's not a rebuttal to the actual point. Would you like to start there? Well, yes, they do normally leave that out. I have seen you leave out many times, Austin, although today you didn't, I'll give you that, but it was not in context. It was with regard to the earth moving through the luminiferous ether, but I'd like to see some actual evidence from you that the earth is flat. Right, well, the conversation is, is the earth a spinning ball or is it a stationary plane? And so there's two aspects to it. It's the geometry of the earth and then of course the motion. So we're gonna start with motion because it seems that most globe proponents don't comprehend relativity. This is what I've discovered over the years and I'm quite sure that neither one of you guys do. So maybe you guys can prove me wrong, but it has nothing, it doesn't matter if it's through the ether or not. Okay, it's talking about Michelson-Morley, he proposed a special relativity and it did not show a friendship between the lasers. So he had to say that time slowed down and the matter contracted. So it looked like it was the same. This is with or without ether. This is what relativity to this day says. You can't use measuring rods or clocks to detect the motion of the earth around the sun because time slows down and matter shrinks. So this is in the context of an optical interferometer. So that means you can't use a ring laser gyro either, but can you address that part? Can you address the actual relativity part? We do know that time is variable. It flows a varying rate depending on the speed of the observer. That is known, that is measured. So you agree that you can't prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth because of that? Well, Kat, she was just taking a jump in there. Can I just screen share it? If anyone can answer my question, that'd be pretty cool. Can you guys admit that relativity claims you can't prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth? No, that's completely wrong. We can use all sorts of techniques to prove that, but when you were talking about two things, when you were talking about not being able to use ring laser gyroscopes, I mean, you can live in that world where ring laser gyroscopes don't work, but all this list here is... Nobody said they don't work, bro. ...is real-life applications of... Are you diverting? Just hold on, let's be sure that he's... I haven't finished yet. Go ahead. Diversion, red herring fallacy. Hold on, hold on. All these are examples of how the ring laser gyroscope is actually used. So I'm glad you said it does work. And when we're talking about time, you know, traveling at variable rates, the Havili Keaton experiment where we use atomic clocks and we move on at high speed, we kept, you know, we compared them afterwards, fell in line perfectly with what we predict with relativity. So I don't understand the scientific evidence is there. So what is the problem with it? Can you say what the problem is with these experiments? Hey, look me in the eye while you're talking, bro.  I brought up, can you guys admit that relativity says you can't prove the earth is moving from the earth? I cited Einstein saying no terrestrial experiment. I cited Stephen Hawking in 2007, citing Einstein from his writings on general and special relativity and a basic elementary understanding of relativity would necessitate you say yes, you have then shifted to rotation. That's called a red. What you're using, what you're using is Max Principle. Would you like to explain to everyone what Max Principle? We're not talking about that yet. We're actually talking about it now. No, no, no, no, you are. You are. So would you like to explain to everyone about it? You just brought up Ernest Mock. If you're gonna bring up Ernest Mock, don't ask him to explain Max Principle. Wait, no. You're explaining Max Principle. Wait, wait, wait. Let me explain for the audience. You're saying to Max Principle. No, I'm not. Max Principle has to do with rotation. So you're using what's called a red herring fallacy. It has the illusion that it's relevant to the subject, but it's actually not, and it's an attempt to divert, okay? So we're actually talking about revolution around the sun right now. That has nothing to do with Max Principle, right? So would you like to concede that relativity says you cannot prove the earth is revolving around the sun from the earth? No. So can you tell me how you can prove it? Would you like to tell us why it doesn't? Sure, because when you're in motion, according to relativity, time slows down and matter physically contracts. So any attempt to use any mechanism regarding matter or a clock measuring time will be a futile pursuits and it will look like the earth is stationary. That's why that both Einstein and Hawking say, along with every other astrophysicist that actually understands relativity, you can't prove it with terrestrial experiment or observation. So if you're claiming that you can prove it, I guess you need to replace relativity for us real quick and please tell us how you did that. So you're telling us that we cannot prove that the earth is moving around the sun via observation? Or terrestrial experiment. No, Einstein said that. Yeah, Einstein and relativity says that and Stephen Hawking said that. Right, no, actually none of them said that. All those, before we started this debate, I was actually sent a list of the quotes that you were gonna use. I can show you, Kosho sent them in Discord, all of the quotes that you showed at the beginning you were gonna use. And he explained that he's seen these before and how they're all taken out of context, right? And we can go into that. But essentially, let's just talk about parallax. Let's just talk about parallax. Okay, okay, first, so you say that you can't prove it from the earth. And so Stephen Hawking is wrong in his book, because I know you haven't read it, but there's a book called Stubbornly Persistent Illusion by Stephen Hawking. And the whole book is about the stubbornly persistent illusion that the earth is stationary and geocentric, even though it's actually not stationary and it's in a heliocentric one. That's what the whole book is about. That's what relativity says. You obviously took that out of context, Austin. We have a heliocentric solar system, but it's not a heliocentric universe. Of course, yeah, that's a non sequitur to my point. Yeah, well, so many people can sort of say geocentric or heliocentric with the geocentric, that's requiring an entire universe to rotate around us. I said model, I said model. I didn't say universe. Yeah, but if it's geocentric, you're talking about you would have to be talking about everything rotating around us. But Austin, we're still waiting for some evidence for the earth being flat. We would have got right into that if you guys had have showed some intellectual honesty and actually understood your own model and said, that's correct, Austin. We can't prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth according to relativity. If you could just be honest and concede it, we'd move right on to the next subject. Let's give one sec.  Let's give two minutes to the other side, whether it be culture cats or Mr. Sensible. Can I just have 30 seconds and I'll pass on to Mr. Sensible? I only want 30 seconds, and then I'll pass on to Mr. Sensible if I can share my screen. Sure. Thank you. So like I said in the opening statement, I don't know if my screen is sharing yet. Yep. OK, am I sharing? Yep. OK, so this is the bit of the debate that we're at, the bit of the debate that I said you would see. This is Whitsitt trying to be clever with evidence about relativity or whatever, without offering any evidence that the earth is flat, trying to switch the topic of the debate from flat versus globe, which is obviously what the debate has all been about. So try and be clever about something that in no way, shape or form, shows that the earth is flat. So I did say that I'd seen this and this is that bit. So I'm going to pass that on to Mr. Sensible now, but that bit's done, so well done Whitsitt for that bit. I'll pass on to Mr. Sensible. I had a harm in him, bro. Now, with regard to the earth moving, we can look at nearby stars in January and then look at those same nearby stars in July when we're halfway round our orbit around the sun, there is parallax that shows that we have moved with respect to the stars around the sun. Why can't the stars just be moving? Well, the nearest star is 4.2 light years away. How much do you think it's going to move in six months? I don't believe you're claiming that it's 4.2 light years away. I'm not worried about what you believe, that's measured. You can measure the nearest stars using parallax, there are other methods for measuring the distance to further stars. Well, first of all, you assume the medium, you assume that we're moving and then you try to measure a difference. But if the stars were just moving, which I can cite many astrophysics will tell you, a neotyconic system will explain retrograde and parallax is very easy. Just for the audience, if you don't understand, parallax is the movement of stars throughout the course of the year. They're claiming that that happens because the earth is moving and the stars are not moving. Well, in reality, of course, the earth, if it's stationary and the stars move around the earth, if they were to change how they move, that would give us the same observation they're calling parallax. So why is that not possible? Sorry, the stars moving around the earth. Well, the nearest star is 4.2 light years, which means for the stars to rotate around the earth once in 24 hours, that nearest star will travel 26.39 light years in 24 hours. And something like the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2.2 million light years, would travel 1.38 times 10 to the 7 light years in 24 hours. It's not possible. I just rebutted that and said, you are assuming a medium in making assumptions. Why'd you skip that? Sorry, I missed that. What medium are you talking about? Yeah, you're assuming a near-perfect vacuum. Well, it is a near-perfect vacuum. We've been up there.  You used a plural noun. Have you pronouned?  Can I just share my screen again in seconds? Sure. Is this where you show the gas pressure that needed a container? And then because of the disequilibrium and actually expanding to the available space, which actually debunks your model, would you like to address that you just appealed to the authority of NASA or some space agency? And you did assume the medium, and that's the only way you can make the claim about the distance of the stars and that parallax doesn't prove a geosynthetic earth wrong? I think, am I sharing now? Yep. Okay. Here's that balloon as it's about to be launched. That's me launching it. Okay. That balloon was mine. And in a second, you can see, as I turn around to the main experimental camera, there is me launching the balloon. It went up to...  It went up. Please, Brian, please, Brian. I'm Brian. No, no. You can't just jump in on that, Brian. Yeah. So here it is. Sorry. At 38 and three-quarter kilometers, the atmospheric pressure has dropped from over 101,000 pascals to 256, 0.002% of the atmosphere. That's a pretty damn good vacuum. So my mage, which is sat right behind me, I can't show you because I'm sharing the screen, mage went up to that height down to that absolutely minuscule amount of atmospheric pressure. What, like 100,000 feet? It went, it's 38 and three-quarter kilometers. I forget what that is. Is it 24 miles? So you went 24 miles and that per star is 4.2 light years away. Yes, and... That's very interesting. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Jaren isn't here. Why are you saying interesting? Wait, let me get my word in real quick. Mr.  I showed Blue Horizons with lens correction, and it's 62 miles, and it's perfectly straight line across compared to your 20 miles. Bro, not big... And also, hold on, hold on. Hold on, I gave you time now. Now, also, I showed a 25-mile laser flash directly in the lens. You showed a 130-meter laser test. And conspiracy cats are custodies I also made a prediction that you were gonna claim that we're not gonna bring evidence. I wanted to give y'all a more advanced presentation, but just so you didn't claim we didn't bring evidence, I showed mirror flash test. I showed VHF waves traveling 1,000 miles. I showed long-distance laser tests. I mean, so we've made it. You still haven't answered Austin's first question. So where's the script? Answer his first question. Brian, you did bring lots of things, and that blue origin thing, I actually wrote down, that video has been debunked because it is stretched and compressed and the tops and bottoms are cut off. It is not original footage that has been edited by someone dishonest. Well, I just got one even higher than that from NASA. I got one even higher than that from NASA that I didn't have time to include. So each time you're high, I just showed you pictures. I just showed you a picture from 38 and three-quarter kilometers. In fact, video showing the curve of the Earth. It was only 200 meters short of Felix Baumgartner's jump, which drove me crazy. And what did he say when he was up there? He said he could see the curve. I know that you're gonna say that NDT says you can't see the curve, but he's wrong.  And I actually know someone that talked to Felix Baumgartner in person, asked him point blank, and he said, now that he started thinking about it, he actually didn't see the curvature of the Earth. I know someone that personally talked to him and the person that's gone out into the whole world to represent the globe, scientific communicator for the whole world as you would never see the curvature. You'd be two millimeters off a big beach ball. You'd never see the curve. Well, you say we would. And this is all a diversion, so the audience keeps up, right? They can't be intellectually honest about anything. They can't even admit that relativity says it can't prove the Earth is moving around the sun from the Earth. Now we've diverted to, oh, the stars this far away. How'd you know I went 100,000 feet in the air? That looks like a vacuum. We're supposed to be talking about the shape of the Earth, the shape of the Earth, Austin. The globe Earth model versus a flat stationary plane model. And with regard to that, you saw in my footage, you can see curve, it's only slight. And that's at 38 kilometers. It's hard to see.  It's easy to see in that because I can freeze the image. I can compress it to actually accentuate the curve. It doesn't change straight lines.  You literally say that it is. You said that it doesn't, it actually adds curvature to the edges. And then you said, look, but it matches it. And it literally didn't match. Everyone in the audience saw it, literally didn't match at all. It wasn't. I did say, I did say, Austin, that that predicts. That's your problem. That's right. But I did say that the prediction graphic provided by Andre Palma, thanks Andre, was for 39 kilometers. That image was taken at 35. So you wouldn't expect an exact match, but there is a very close correlation. And the fact is, what you're talking about with the distortion is barrel lens distortion, which means that anything across the middle in any direction remains undistorted. What gets distorted is straight lines above, below, to left or right. They get pushed out and up and down. That's why there's those reference line strings. And between those two strings, which are straight, that horizon, if it was flat, could not end up being more curved than the strings. Okay, if you show that again, I can't believe, you probably will recruit more flat earthers than me and Austin with that image. But can you show it again, please? Because I thought the horizon was equidistant in all directions from the observer. Yeah, let me just call it up again. There's so much wrong with this in every way. Welcome to flat earth. Yeah, sorry. Which bit, do you want Brian a bit? With the, sorry, not that one. That, is that what you wanted? Welcome to flat earth, sir. But you can see a curve there and you can see the atmosphere as well. Yeah, if you pan to the right, it's gonna start over, right?  Or what you're gonna have, man? No, no. Do you not understand how a horizon works? It's equidistant around you. Here you go, then here is moving footage of it as you're rotating. Yeah, that's not halfway in the screen. You said it'd be distorted if it wasn't halfway in the middle. Yeah, but it... So why are you lying to everyone? Why are you showing things that you know are distorted? Austin, any distortion in the bottom of the screen would be downwards. It wouldn't be making it look concave. It depends on the angle of the camera. No, no, no, no. Yes. Let me show you. Here is, that is barrel distortion on the left. As you can see, towards the bottom, it would be bowed down. Towards the top, it'd be bowed up. Across the middle, it will be straight. If I tilted it up and down with a change, if I tilted the angle up and down with a change. If you tilt it down, you will be pulling it towards there. And so when I say, like, if you take, anyone can do this themselves just to prove that you're not telling the truth. You can take a camera outside and you can look at a sidewalk. And if you tilt it down, it'll impose curvature. So based on the angle of the view, all lenses, including rectilinear lenses, impose a curvature on the edges. And based on the movement of the lens, it will impose curvature. And it doesn't even match your prediction. There, the curvature will be, if it was across the top or the bottom, not across the middle. That is barrel distortion on the left. If you look across the middle, it's a straight line. It's not across the middle. If it's toward, that is pretty much down across the middle. Really, there's more earth than sky. Well, I mean, that, okay. So if you're saying that's straight, if you're saying that's a straight line that's being distorted by the lens, why isn't the straight string, which is above it, distorted more? Because that is further up the screen. Because when it's further away from you and you're looking at an angle, it's going to change what you view proportionate to. Yes. In addition to this, in addition to this, yeah, actually you would actually get the optical appearance of curvature or convexity based on like actual radius of light. So a circumference of light on the ground, like a circular circumference of light, and our eyes see in a circle and you're imposing curvature with your lenses admittedly, and it's not in the middle of the screen. So this is terrible. This is awful. This is no such thing. You obviously don't understand. Who cares about the left or right curvature there? Obviously, can I just step in for a second? Can I just step in for a second? Sorry, if I can just finish off. Okay, sorry, go to this. That's okay. That is not how optics work. Light is traveling to you or to the camera lens from the string. The light is traveling to the camera lens from that horizon. It hits the lens and then any distortion takes place. So the fact it's come from further away does not make it more distorted. And your example of pointing down to the pavement, yes, I know what you mean, towards the edges of a picture, any straight lines would have a certain amount of distortion. But across the middle, it won't. Thanks, Cass. Would the angle change based on distance? Yes or no? So, we'll say, and Brian, both of you. So easy. This is so easy. Sorry, which I was, I'm sorry that... It's okay, Mr. Adham, go ahead. Introduce you there. So we, basically, this is why these debates really aren't debates, they're more entertainment, which is fine, I'm happy to be part of entertainment because you're clearly being shown the curvature of the earth, which is being referenced against two taut, very straight strings. And obviously it doesn't show, when you look at that image, it doesn't show what you wanted to show. So we enter the flat earth world then of just making up as much bullshit as we possibly can by saying, well, there must be some amazing coincidental effect on that taut bit of string, which is making it look straight. It must just be in the perfect position to be made to look straight. Self-history. Again, not finished yet. Against that curved horizon. It just must be. And yet you've applied absolutely zero reason for why I would say that, zero evidence for why you'd say that, zero mass for why you'd say that, zero understanding of why you'd say that. You've literally just said, it must be. And this is like summing up all flat earth arguments in one go.  Things this way cause they're out, or there must be some ether band. Or that you have an internet band. You have an internet band. Give me 10 more seconds. I'm not finished yet, Brian. Give me 10 more seconds. This is just pure selfish. Give me another 30 seconds. Give me another 30 seconds. Does it debating now? I'm finished yet.  I wanna give another 30 seconds. I'll start again. Yeah, I'm gonna keep starting with it. So essentially the point is this, if we're gonna actually have an adult debate, what you've actually got to is bring adult arguments. And the arguments you're bringing literally are at the level of a child who's saying, no, it's not my bedtime yet. No, no, it's not. Cause I've won my clock back five minutes. So I've got another five minutes. That is a level of argument. So up your game a little bit. What's your problem, dude? Brian, I had you on mute. Hi, Brian. Oh, seriously, all right. Sadly, I can't believe I have to do this, but once in a while I actually have to change the settings so that people can't unmute themselves. So I gotta do this, Brian, cause you just unmuted yourself. So seriously, come on. Work with me here. Okay, that setting is different. So any, looks like that was about all you needed. And then with it, we'll kick it back to you. Sounds like you wanted to speak. And I'm asking you to unmute.  All conspiracy cats has is ad-homs and sophistry. The whole audience can see it.  And that's all he's catering to. But this is just incredibly distasteful.  Now what I actually said, when you said I had no arguments, I explained many arguments that went directly over Mr. Sensible's head, including that something further in the distance would have a different angle to view based on some of the strings close to the view. This is objective. Secondly, he claimed if it's right in the middle of the screen, it would be flat. And then he showed multiple examples of it not being in the middle of the screen. And thirdly, everyone can check rectilinear lenses impose curvature. That's not the same as oh, whatever you said. All you're doing is being a sophist and using ad-homs and constant fallacies. This is why it's hard to sit here and listen to baseless chanting and insults insistently since the debate has started. That's why you got interrupted and that's what you're gonna respond with. I think what we've got to do- And you can't even admit and agree with Einstein and Stephen Hawking right out of the gate. I mean, that's weird. So I think what we've got to do, thanks for that, Brian. I think what we've got to do is establish some kind of a minimum standard for the arguments we're gonna present. Mr. Sensible has put a weather balloon in the earth. He's shown you the curve of the earth. He's referenced it against taught straight strings. And you've looked at that and then straight off the back of your head, you've said, well, there must be some sort of distortion which is happening to the curve of the earth but not the string. And I don't really know what it is but it must be there because the earth must be flat. So I'm just gonna say there is. Now you can have a go at me and say that's ad-hom all you want. But that is exactly what you're doing. I'm not gonna pretend that you've offered anything that's anything like a scientific argument there. What you've literally done is look at it and go, no, I'm not accepting that. So I'm just gonna say that, you know, the fairies did it. That's literally what you've just done. Is that what I said? Hold on, he put up a balloon, hold on. He put up a balloon. I surveyed down the coast a mile and a half and nothing was changing at all. So I just gave up. I do level for a living. I've worked in auto level for over 30 years. He put up a balloon. This is what I do for a living, bro. Okay, wait, wait, wait. I gotta respond. Okay, you just did the same exact thing after being called up. You have no shame. You just strawmen me and said that I said fairies did it. You probably, if I could give you 10 grand right now, you probably couldn't even say what I actually said and I said it three times. I know you don't know what it is because you can't debate this. You're projecting right now. Wait, wait, I'm gonna repeat it again. The angle of view changes relative to distance. The strings are closer than the horizon. Now actually rebut it. Actually rebut it. Yeah, well saying the angle of view changes with distance makes absolutely no impacts on your argument whatsoever because if your claim of the earth is flat and then that horizon is literally gonna be almost infinitely far away, isn't it? In all directions. Why are we getting that curved horizon? It makes you don't understand it. You don't understand the rebuttal. So just admit you don't understand the rebuttal. Because you don't make any sense. Okay, let me help you out here. Let me help you out here. Wait, it doesn't make sense. If you took one of those strings and took a shot with horizon where it's near the strings, those light rays are both hitting the lens at the same point. They would be bent or refracted to the same degree. That doesn't happen. Dude, view of view will change what looks like curvature. Everyone in the audience can prove you guys wrong by taking a camera out and just looking at a sidewalk. And as you tilt it up and down, the curvature rate changes. If you tilt it more down, it becomes more in motion. Hold on, don't interrupt. It becomes more exaggerated. The angle of view becomes more exaggerated. I just wanna make sure the audience understands. It becomes more exaggerated as you tilt to different angles. So you're going lower and lower in the distance looking at the optical appearance of a horizon. So it has a different angle. So thus it's not going to in any way be comparable to strings right in front of it with a different angle. And you're just saying, uh-uh, and using ad-hons and soapistry. That's all you have. Okay, okay. Forget the camera. Wait, are y'all trying to read the claim for GMAG? No, no, no, Austin. That's the bone that will come right over to you, Brian. Yeah, Austin, I disagree with you 100% on that, but forget the camera, right? That mage was fitted with two GPS trackers and broadcast its position. When we were launching, the only site that could pick up that signal, which was only a couple of watts was us. As it went higher, it was picked up by tracking stations because people who are in the high-altitude balloon community track them and then send all the data back to a central server. As it went higher, then sites further and further and further away had line of sight on the balloon. At 38 kilometers, the radio horizon it could reach was approximately 400 miles. When it was on the ground, it was within a mile. Now, there is no reason that that should happen apart from things like hills. And as far as I'm aware, in the middle of England, there are no hills 38 kilometers tall blocking the signal from getting any further. So you have a growing horizon, depending on your height, evidence by radio signals. So forget the camera. That still shows it's a globe Earth. You got it exactly backwards, hold on real quick. From that distance, you should have got seven and a half degrees. Forget the left and right curvature. From the ground to where the atmosphere runs out, you should have been 45 miles. Now, from that distance, the horizon is a function of distance. Are y'all trying to reclaim the geometric horizon? Because every globe I've talked to has admitted that it's refraction and not geometric. Y'all trying to reclaim that? Brian, can I ask you a question? At the beginning of the debate, you brought up me bringing up honesty with flat soil. You didn't answer mine, sir. It's opistry. More sophistry. Are we trying to reclaim?  So I know reclaim, like reclaim a geometric horizon. I mean, we all know what goes on with the horizon. There is a horizon. We see it, refraction can happen. Just like refraction happens when light travels through your eyes. You're looking at your phone now. The light from your phone is refracting through your cornea, refracting through your lens. Every time you look at something, there's a refraction there. So are we gonna claim if you've got a geometric phone and a non-geometric phone, are we gonna take it to that childish level? You know, it's a silly argument. But at the beginning of the debate, you said to me that you were gonna talk about honesty. You wanted to talk about honesty. I'm just gonna ask you a question. Wait, was that a yes or no? Was that a yes or no? Just 30 seconds, we'll come right back. I'll take 10 seconds. That's all it is. Do you think the video that Mr. Sensible has shown you about mage is what we would expect to see on a flat earth? Simple yes or no? Welcome to Flat Earth. Indeed so. Flat Earth, indeed so. So, okay. So Mr. Sensible, you can show that again, obviously, and we'll have a look at the flat earth, I suppose. I think we should leave it up on screen. I'll say we leave it up on screen. So you've never answered yes or no? Sorry, who are you talking to? Both of y'all, y'all trying to reclaim is the horizon you're observing. Is it geometrical? Have y'all reclaimed the geometry? Of course there is a geometric horizon, but you see an apparent horizon because of the refraction. But this was not optical. I'm talking about radio signals. The fact was, as it went higher, the line of sight, that's not visual, the line of sight, the radio waves could hit stations further and further away up to about 400 miles away when mage was at its higher height. Had mage been able to go higher, it could have reached even further. But why not talk about something different? Why don't you guys do something? Why don't you go to the South Pole and film the midnight sun in midwinter? Or rather, according to you, it wouldn't be the case. Why don't you go and do something like that? Okay, well, I wanted to... All right, first off, so the height of the balloon, you say you're roughly about 20 miles. 24. In the distance with your earth curvature, forget the left and right curve, you should be 45, it should be 45 miles from the ground to the edge of the atmosphere because of the 25 miles of earth curvature over 400 miles distance. But I'm still wondering, Austin, did they ever answer your opening question? Did they ever give you an honest answer? Because they're throwing, I don't get it, man. What you say, Austin, did they ever give you an answer, an actual answer to the first question you asked? Austin? Oh, Austin, we can't hear you if you can hear me. I don't think I muted you, but I just... Yeah, I just naturally, I naturally muted myself back, so I didn't... Gotcha. Yeah, like this is the thing, so just everyone's seen it. So from the beginning, everything that's happened is as you guys get destroyed, you never can see it, you just divert away to a different fallacy and different begging the question, diversion, ad hominem, sophistry, blah, blah, blah. But we started off with, you actually can't prove that the earth is moving around the sun. This is objective based on relativity. I brought this up to show the audience that our opponents are not capable of being intellectually honest. They can only chant and use scripts and then like use sophistry and blah, blah, blah. So if you guys, I'll give you another opportunity because then we talked about the camera, you thought I'd prove the curvature, then we got real quick to when we had to throw that out real quick. So we destroyed you on both those points. Brian just destroyed you again, but the first point is can you guys admit that relativity says you cannot prove the earth is moving around the sun from the earth because time expands and slows down and matter contracts? Can you please admit that? That's what relativity says. Absolutely, honesty, Austin, I can either confirm or deny it because I don't know enough about that. Can I ask you a follow up? Don't you think that if you want to have- Sorry, just one second, Austin. I failed to see Brian why it's funny if someone says I don't know about something. Because that's the most important question because if you don't know about something, you can learn about something. Anybody who wants to come debate us, go to Earth Awakening's Discord if you want to debate any of our points, but it's a litmus test in there. We asked, because many of Glober's come in and the ones who are perfectly honest, maybe you could plead the fifth on this one. I have nothing against you, but a lot of them will be honest and say, and admit that yeah, there's no way to know for sure. Go on with your follow up, please, they'll agree with Einstein. Okay, okay, can we chill, Brian, please? So this is the point, okay? The reason I bring it up is because you could have said that from the jump, right? As soon as I asked you, you could have said it. But I appreciate you saying it now, but this is my follow up. It's like, if that's the case, right? Then how is it that you can be so incredibly sure about your belief system? Because it's kind of like someone telling me the Bible's real. And then I tell them, did you know Genesis 6 says there were giants and that angels came and had sex with women and made giants? And you're like, the Bible doesn't say that? I'm like, really? You want to go look at it? Well, I've never read Genesis, but I know it's real and I know you're wrong. It's weird. I don't have a belief system. Relativity is required for the globe Earth model. It is required, okay? It is the fundamental glue. So you shouldn't understand it if you're going to believe it. I know it's to a layman's level, but why is relativity required for the Earth to be a globe? Well, if you want to pretend that it's a stationary globe, then we can throw movement out.  Why can't it move and be a globe? Well, that's what the debate's about. But if you think- I think you need to show some evidence. If I can't do it, what? Why can't it be a globe that moves? Why do you have to invoke relativity? Okay, let me tell you. But actually, relativity has been shown because it was- You're not submitted, you don't know what it is. No, I didn't say I don't know what relativity is, but I am not a subject matter expert in it. But what I do know is that Einstein made predictions and Sir Arthur Eddington in 1916 or 17 tested the- Sorry? 1990. Was it? Okay. It took images of the stars, which were or should have been apparently behind the sun, but they could be seen beside the sun because the light had been bent due to the warping of space-time. Yeah, that's the idea. It's called a begging the question fallacy, though. But this is the point. No, no, no, that was- Exactly backwards, you're backwards, bro. Arthur Eddington. That was an observation. Arthur Eddington. That was an observation that fulfilled a prediction made by Einstein. Okay, you're asking a bunch of questions, right? So first of all, it's well-known and it's been proven. They actually threw out, so that the prediction was like 1.98 arc seconds. They got observations that were 0.83 arc seconds or 0.97 arc seconds closer to the 0.83 arc seconds predicted by Newtonian dynamics and they threw those out and it's actually been proven. But whatever, none of that matters. Arthur Eddington himself said what I'm saying right now, which is it appears that the velocity of the earth might happen to have been nil in response to Mickelson Morley, which is what made Einstein come up with special relativity in the first place, which you put as the first slide in your thing, which was him explaining that he came up with relativity to explain away Mickelson Morley. That was the whole point. There's the quote, there was just one alternative. The earth's true velocity through space might have happened to have been nil. This was ruled out, this is the bit you don't say, this was ruled out by repeating experiments six months later since the earth's motion could not be nil on both occasions. So what does that mean? Well, how was it, what was it ruled out doing what? You know? Oh, do you not know what it's it? I do, but I know that you don't know. Well, explain it. I know you don't know. Explain it. You've been saying over and over again that relativity says that the earth can't be moving around the sun. You've said that over and over again. Now, Mr. Sensible is showing you the full quote. You've been pretending to be an expert on this. No, no, no, no. Just for one second, for one, no, Brian, I haven't finished yet. Just for 10 seconds, can I screen show? Then I'll take it off. Just for 10 seconds. Wait, wait, wait. Neither one of you know what that means. Neither one of you guys know what it means. I haven't finished yet. I haven't finished yet. It means you cherry picked. But what does it mean then? For 10 seconds, I haven't finished yet, which is it? I haven't finished yet. Because I'm coming straight to you for an answer. So we're going to allow him to continue to ad-harm me the whole entire debate. For those 10 seconds, sorry, for these 10 seconds, I'm just going to remind everybody about this prediction at the beginning. Because you've been talking about relativity as if you were an absolute master of it and you knew all about it and you know why it proves the earth can't, why we can't use it to prove the earth is moving around the sun. This is exactly what I said.  This is the bit of the debate where you refuse to explain to Mr. Sensible why relativity says the earth can't be moving. So everyone in the chat can see you now.  Everyone in the chat now can listen to you, refuse to answer Mr. Sensible's question. Go ahead, I'll stop for you in two minutes. This is of course what actually happened.  Let's be honest, you can never debate me. It's very- We're still waiting for the answer, mate. We're still waiting for the answer. No, no, no, no, you get the ad-hom me uninterrupted. So this is the point. Yeah, I explained, I understand relativity, you don't comprehend it. Now I asked you since you act like that- We're still waiting for the answer. The answer is that relativity claims that because I've already told you the answer five times, maybe you should- We're still waiting for the answer. Maybe you should- You haven't answered any of his questions. Just let him expose himself as the clown that he is, okay? So this is the problem because we're just cats. Say something again. You can't help yourself, you're getting destroyed. So I told you the answer already five times, which is relativity says that time physically expands and slows down. So any attempt to use a clock to measure the velocity of the earth around the sun would be a futile pursuit. In addition to that, matter contracts when in motion. So you can't use a physical apparatus to measure the distance. Do you understand that? So what you've done is you've read out that same statement a couple of times. What I'm asking you is why does that mean that we cannot be on an earth move? So you've said, well, it's something to do with matter contracting and time, but you haven't explained, and this is where we're gonna push you on now and it's gonna fall apart and you'll get angry. You haven't explained why that means we can't measure the movement of the earth around the sun. That was their only explanation to keep the earth in motion around the sun. I got it, I got it. So the truth is we all, everyone can tell you don't understand this, okay? But the point is that during Mickelson Morley, so the audience understands, they shot two lasers, okay? Using interferometry, one went with the motion, the alleged motion of the earth, going 20 miles a second around the sun, really like 18.97 or whatever. And then another laser going against the motion of the earth that was assumed, okay? So they were perpendicular to each other. The laser going against the motion of the earth would have had to catch up to the earth, right? To get to the receiver. So the other one would have had to go with the earth and the other one had to fight against the motion of the earth and catch up to the earth to get the receiver. Now what, so there should have been a separation between the two lasers because one would have been behind the other having to catch up to the earth. What it actually showed was that the laser got to the receiver at the same time, damn near, like pretty much the same. And then Einstein said the reason it wasn't exactly the same was instrumental error, okay? He was trying to prove the existence of luminiferous. It took him 22 years to come up with that explanation. And he was trying to prove the existence of luminiferous ether and he failed. No, so you don't understand it, but it's okay. So actually- Well, let's move on to something else, are we? Yeah, let's move on because I'm almost done. I'm gonna, he said, I don't understand why that you're self-projecting your own intellectual inefficiency. Well, you don't understand why. So maybe you need to be exposed. So actually- The fact that a ring-glazed gyroscope works. The fact that it actually works. You're freaking out. Would you like to concede- The fact that it actually works. The fact that it actually works. The fact that it actually works. I'll give you, I'll give you, I'll give you, let's give Wits at 30 seconds and then we'll kick it right over to you. Baldi gets. So in conclusion, Einstein had to propose relativity to say even though it actually took longer for that laser to get there, because it had to travel a further distance, time slowed down and the apparatus measuring the distance shrink. So it just magically looked like it was the same and that it didn't take longer to travel a further distance. And that is still needed to this day. It's completely independent of ether. Einstein threw the ether out, but still kept Lorentz contraction, which he got from Lorentz who thought it was ether. So that's the answer and that's why it's still the same theory it is today because without that, you have no way to tell if the earth is moving or not. You have to claim that you can never prove it. Cool. Can I have my, I'll just stop 30 seconds, just screen share and then bounce back on. So basically what you're saying is all Lorentz contraction means that we can never measure if the earth is moving or not. And then you said, so therefore we can't use a ring laser gyroscope, which Brian has already admitted earlier in the debate that ring laser gyroscores actually work. Essentially ring laser gyroscores like we've got here, we have two beams alike. One will take the clockwise path, one will take the anti-clockwise path. And if there's no movement, there's no rotation of that ring. Both of them will hit the end point at the same time and produce a particular diffraction pattern. However, if it's starting to rotate, so here it's starting to rotate clockwise, what we can see is the one on the right moving anti-clockwise is going to hit that screen earlier. The one on the left is going to hit it a little bit later. We get a change in that diffraction pattern because this, and we use, you know, because there is rotation going on and we can use it to put it on the earth. Like Bob Nadelle says, thanks, Bob, 15 degrees, Bob. We can use these to measure the rotation of the earth. So you can say that it can't be measured, but we have devices here that Brian, thank you, Brian, said that it works. And so thank you for saying it works, Brian, that has actually measured the rotation of the earth. So you can say over and over again that because you've heard about Luen's contraction, and you know some fancy words, that there's no rotation of the earth. So you're gonna bring up the same device that Michelson literally invented. Michelson invented this, then perfected it, and you're gonna bring it up to try and do both. No, no, no, no, no, no. It's a red herring phallus that we're talking about. Revolution around the sun, not rotation. I've already told you that. Please try to keep up. So do you accept that the earth rotates then? Do you accept that the earth rotates? No, no, no. I accept that we detects ideal rotation because it actually was originally done in Michelson-Gell-Pearson with a 98% prediction of sidereal rotation. I know this is not just words. That makes sense, because you don't know things. Okay? So yeah. There's a sidereal rotation. There's a sidereal rotation, but it's actually a ring-lace and a sharp-scratch. A ring-lace and sharp-scratch. Just to be a little in-changer, I want you to hold on a second, gentlemen. We can't hear anybody if people are speaking over each other. So we do have to give it a two minutes, and then we'll come right back to you. Okay, I'm gonna unmute. Who was it? I think it was Austin, not Brian, right? Okay, go ahead, Austin. All right, so Michelson-Gell-Pearson, which performed many years like in 1935, that's many years after 87, it did match the sidereal rotation prediction with a 98%. But using that same methodology, interferometry, to try to detect the motion of the earth around the sun, it didn't detect it, okay? So the only viable alternative is there is a sidereal rotation, which everyone observes it, okay? Everyone knows that the sun moves in the sky every day. Everyone knows that. The question is, is the sun moving in the sky, or is the earth actually moving the sun sitting still? It just looks like that. So yes, we don't deny a sidereal rotation, all right? We deny you're begging the question fallacy where you reify that it's the earth moving, and it just looks like the stuff in the sky is moving. Okay, so the fact that you detect motion means nothing. Sagnac effect is what ring laser gyros utilize. Sagnac said it was a vortex in the ether. We took it to different altitudes at the same latitude, and that showed a variation in the degrees, which is impossible on a globe. It has to stay the same latitude, and this is all diversion away from the revolution. Diversion. They still haven't answered your first, second, or third question.  And then I meant to click on mute on everybody, so in case it doesn't bring up a window. Otherwise, Mr. Sensible. Okay, I'll say that ring laser gyroscopes, yes, as Kat said, shows 15 degrees per hour rotation. Thanks again, Bob. But it also detects the orbit of the earth as well. Really? We are not listening. Can I just say that I just want to summarize just what's happened so far, just so we all know. What's happened so far, just two things. Mr. Sensible has shown the mage going up into the earth, and he's shown that curve of the horizon against that fixed-tort string. And the only way that can be possible clearly, according to the Flat Earth proponents here, is that there's just the perfect amount of distortion to make it look that way. There's just the perfect amount that can't be explained. It's just so coincidental. It's the perfect amount. We then talked about the ring laser gyroscope, and again, both Whitsitt and Brian have admitted that we detect rotation with the ring laser gyroscope. But again, even though we detect it, it can't be rotation. Certainly it can't be. It must be something else. So we've seen the horizon of the earth. We've seen it against tort string, and you've got some sort of, well, whatever reason for it. And you've got some sort of whatever reason for the rotation of the earth. And this is why I said before that these debates are for entertainment, they're getting destroyed. Thank you. Oh, my God. So why are you bragging about winning? You just got destroyed for the first 30 seconds. I think that's a really good one, mate. Austin, you watch it. Let's kick it over to Mr. Sensible. Mr. Sensible is trying to speak. Thank you. Austin, why don't you go to Antarctica and either find the edge or find the dome or film the sun not being a midnight sun in the middle of winter? Okay, so it's illegal to privately and freely explore Antarctica unless you get prior approval and the United States where I'm from, you actually have to give them a three months heads up and it has to be approved and you have to give them a specific route and they have to approve where you're going.  You guys, this is the reason that these are debates are only valuable on the internet where the audience can see. Because you guys see, if we were to talk about the one point we talked for five hours before they conceded, you're now diverting away again. You could just say, yes, we can't prove the earth's moving around the sun. We can move on. We detect rotation and we can question is it the sky moving or is it the earth moving? But we don't have honest conversation. So I just explained why I haven't been to Antarctica and that's a ridiculous question if anyone actually reads the- Hold on real quick, Mr. Sensible, real quick. I'm actually responding to it. Responding to it. Let me just add something real quick. I've been pretty quiet. He put it way too easily. Really, you have to do an environmental report which at a minimum is gonna cost you around 200 grand. And also it's gotta run through not one country but multiple countries.  You can't bring gasoline. You can't bring dogs.   So it's way easier than he even said. So drop that argument, please. I have, don't drop the argument. I've heard Austin say on countless debates you cannot go beyond the 60th parallel. It's illegal. There is Article 6 of the Antarctic Treaty. The provisions of the present treaty shall apply to the area south of 60 degrees south of the latitude including all ice shells but nothing in the present treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights or exercise of the rights of any state under international law with regard to the high seas within that area. You can read the Antarctic Treaty. It's about four pages of A4. It's 16 articles. It'll take you about 10 minutes. I checked with the UK government requirements for visiting Antarctica. And it says at the bottom the Antarctic Treaty does not prevent tourists, military personnel or scientific researchers from being present. But they do require an appropriate permit from a treaty party. So yes, you have to receive, you have, if I can finish, you have to receive a permission much like a visa for certain countries. Yes, you're not allowed to or you need to inform them about certain things you may do like storing fuel.  You perfectly, it is perfectly legal for anyone to go there. Yes, you have to jump through certain hoops. Yes, it'll cost you a lot of money because you're going to need a hell of a lot of insurance because if you get into trouble because it's a very dangerous place, you're going to need rescuing and it's not like just calling for a pickup, you know, a recovery truck. So I wish I'll just finish off. So I expect, because I've heard Austin told countless times that the treaty does not say you can't go beyond the 60th. I have now just shown treaty article six which confirms, yeah, please let me finish Brian, which confirms that. So I expect to never, ever, ever see Austin ever say again that you can't go to Antarctica. Okay, now I'm going to respond.  So I said it very specifically and you know what I said. You know what I said. I said, you cannot freely and privately explore past the 60th South latitude. You then bring up a piece of legislation that literally says what I said it says, which is you can't freely and privately explore that area. It says that if you want to go into the water around that area, it doesn't necessarily prohibit as much as when you get to the land, you have to give three months advance to the United States. You can't bring external fuel supply, external water supply, and you have to give them your route. They have to look at your route and approve it. And guess what? As it pertains to this conversation, it would be north to south circle navigation that would prove there's a globe. You go over Antarctica, you pop back up on the other side of a globe. Okay, as it pertains to that route, directly over the center of Antarctica, it's already let known to everyone that's off limits. That route will not be approved as too dangerous. They don't have the infrastructure to rescue you if something happens to you. So when I say you cannot freely and privately explore past the 60th South latitude, that is objective. You need to freely go to 14 countries to take that route. You can't freely travel to North Korea. You have to jump through an awful lot of hoops, many countries like that. The reason these, the articles are in place is in order to protect the environment and to prevent exploitation and military using the continent. Anybody can go there, but you have to follow the agreed rules. So I see you have to get past me.  I haven't skipped past anything, Austin. I'll just show you. You should get past what I said. As it pertains to this conversation, you would actually be needing to go over the middle of Antarctica and come back up on the other side of North Korea. So you're doing North South from navigation. That's illegal. Have you ever heard of one more orbit? Yeah, I'm not believing you're clean. Someone did it. All right, so it's illegal unless someone's done it in which case it's a fairytale. Oh, do you have proof of conspiracy cats? Cause I actually researched it. You don't even know what it is. Have you actually researched it? Oh, what have I? Why are you talking? What Mr. Sensible has. Oh, so you don't actually know what you're talking about. This is coming from the man who says there's the perfect amount of distortion to keep that string tore and the horizon curved. This is coming from the man who agrees that a ring laser gyroscope proves rotation, but there has to be some other reason for it being other than the earth moving. This is coming from the man who claims that relativity, that we can't move the earth around the sun, but when asked to explain it, you simply just say matter contracts and something to do with time so we can't use a clock, but you won't actually articulately explain it in detail as I merely did in the debate. And this is the same, 10 more seconds, Brian, 10 more seconds. And this is coming from the man who also, we've been at this debate now for an hour, neither one of you actually have brought any evidence whatsoever. As I predicted at the beginning of this debate, neither one of you brought any evidence whatsoever that the earth is any shape other than a globe. What you've tried to do is pick holes and try and pick complex areas where, oh, I might be able to catch him out on this and catch him out on that. But again, you've offered nothing to show. You talked about honesty. You talked about honesty. Did Austin say that the ring laser gyro detected earth rotation? And I'm so glad that you both have made the, you just said the answer to the question. Let's give him a chance to respond, Brian.  Thank you. The most dishonest person I've ever debated. And James, you know I've been on here dozens of times. This guy has hands down.   How convenient. The ironic part is it's the globe that claims that. When we see the horizons too far, illusion. Whenever we see that there's things way too far or distance not obstructed. Illusion. When we shot the interferometry lasers and it was didn't match the globe prediction going around the sun. Illusion. Oh, the cell and million eclipse just happened and the sun and the moon were both above the horizon in the sky at the same time, which is impossible on a globe. It's an illusion. Everything that happens is a magical illusion. And this is literally what Stephen Hawking is writing about in stubbornly persistent illusion. So the irony of you to claim we claim perfect distortion. And no, it doesn't have to be perfect because Mr. Sensible's prediction didn't even match what's in the picture. And we explained why it isn't true. So Mr. Sensible couldn't actually address the angles changing base relative to distance. So then he had to just throw it out. You've been destroying every point. And then he asked you, did I say that this ideal rotation detected is the earth rotation? And you couldn't answer because you know that I didn't say that. Brian said it was. Brian said it was. Thanks, Brian. No, he didn't. No, he literally said that. Did he literally say that? No one could wind back and he literally said that. This is bad, bro. This is probably the worst I've ever said. When he talked about magical, magical. Magical is in believing in Atlantis though that the ISS is an Egyptian God. Is that what you mean? Which is why I'm never trying to discredit his character.  I have never debated a more dishonest man in my life. Why are you trying to discredit him personally because you can't actually go into actually dispute the arguments? If I can share my screen just for 10 seconds. Bro, you're not. You're not just trying to do more ad-homs, dude. I thought you used to be a teacher. You don't know what ad-homs are. Am I showing my screen? I can't see. You know what ad-homs and fallacies are? Is my screen on? Nope, not yet. Conspiracy guys, can you help me out here? Do you know what an ad-hom fallacy is? He's going to show my screen. We are now. No, there's on the bottom in the middle. He's going to punch below the belt right now. There's using it. He's going to show the bottom. Hold on, Brian, is either in the middle, in the middle on the bottom or the middle at the top, there's a screen share button that should show. Oh, I haven't hit the screen share. That's what I'm doing. And what it's just so you can just say, Austin, please stop saying the prediction didn't match that image. I told you the prediction was what it would be at 39 kilometers. I could only match it up against 35 kilometers for a shot that was applicable. So it was not expected to be an exact match, but that was showing how close it was, even though it was four kilometers short of the prediction height. Why wouldn't you just change the math to match it? Because it was an image that an independent party had provided me. So you can't do the math? No, I'm not a mathematician. So there you go. I'm honest. Okay. I'll give you that. I'll give him that. At least he's being honest. Well, yeah, but there's no evidence. There's no evidence it matches the curvature. If you lay it over, it doesn't even match. And even if it did, it doesn't matter. And this is actually the diversion. Look, look, look. Your teammate is about to ad-hom us again. Do you understand how bad it looks that all he has is logical fallacies? I told you at the beginning of the debate exactly what was going to happen and what has happened has happened so far. You're incompetent. You've tried to pick. You've tried to pick holes in the globe by talking about complex things. But when you actually pressed on it, you really couldn't explain why. When you were pressed on relativity and why that means that we can't prove the earth moves around the sun, you literally just said, and anyone can wind back and listen to this. You literally talked about matter contracting and a clock and you couldn't go any deeper. And I will give you the floor after this. So you can go deeper, but you won't go deeper into it. If I do it now, go deeper into it, Austin. Go deeper into it, Austin. Okay, I explained, I did already go deeper into it. I explained to Mickelson morally, which is actually the very observation experiment that motivated him to come up with relativity, which claims matter contracts and time to expand. And I've explained it four times and you're going to pretend it didn't happen. So no worry in what you just said there. Have you explained why that means the earth can't move around the sun? What we want is a link between, what we want is a link between what you're saying and the conclusion you've made. The conclusion you've made is that relativity means that the earth can't move around the sun or we can't prove, we can't prove sorry that it goes on the sun. And then you're saying, Mickelson morally, matter contracts, time, but you're not linking the two. Just like I said at the very beginning, you're not going to be articulate and explaining detail. I'm going to hold you, tell us to the point. And you're going to get really wound up, but really explain, and I want you at the end of your answer to be, this is why we cannot prove the earth goes down the sun. Can you say anything, Austin? Can you? Brian, chill, dude. Let's go to Austin. So I already did that. I said that based on Mickelson morally, the intersection of the perpendicular light rays, the one going against the motion of the earth would have to be behind the other laser, but that's not what happened. So in order to explain Mickelson morally, which showed that the earth wasn't moving and the laser wasn't catching up to the earth, they had to say that the measuring apparatus was physically contracting and time was expanding because of the interferometry not measuring the alleged 20 mile a second orbit of the earth. Your entire argument, your entire argument, because you started off by saying relativity says, we can't determine that the earth is moving around the sun. But actually what it turns out is your entire argument is limited to that one inframeter that Mr. Sensible is already showing the quote about saying that it was repeated six months later and it ruled out a stationary. It's not linked to any observation. It's not linked to anything other than that one little piece of kit in that one of experiment. Are you wanna see enough to admit that? The same exact principle. Are you wanna see enough to admit that? The same principle still applies. If you replicate Mickelson morally today, the same thing happened. Well, they did it six months later and it disagreed. No, six months later it's still so.  I can't hear either of you. Sorry. Six months later it still showed that it did not match the predicted. The only reason it brings up six months that's in a different part of the elliptical orbit. He doesn't know that. He just added to it and thinks it contradicts me. Keep reading the next paragraph, Mr. Sensible. Then you'll start to understand it's about the elliptical orbit of the sun. What the point is that Mickelson morally is the same today. The Air Force did it in 87. So this is why it's called the greatest failed experiment in history by any physicist that knows what they're talking about which you clearly do not. And that is that that has to be happening if the earth is moving around the sun. Time has to be expanding. Matter has to be contracting. It's not just Mickelson morally. It's anytime you use a clock, anytime you measure time, anytime you use any type of matter, anytime you use any type of measurement device, okay? That's why you can't do it. That's what relativity says. So what you're saying essentially is your entire argument is based on that one piece of kit. You're ruling out all of the observations that anyone can make ever because they don't apply. And again, will you be honest enough? Yes or, all you've got to do is say yes or no. Will you be honest enough to say that your entire argument though is based on that one piece of kit being done. That's a straw man because unless you can come on. No, it's not. It's a yes or no. Are you honest enough? No, it is a straw man. The whole chat listening now, waiting for that yes or no. I'll waste it now. That's called a loaded question, okay? It's called a lot of, it's like saying. So for the chat, that's a yes. That's a yes.  Have you got experience in wife beating? Do you understand that? Do you understand that? Why would you be like, is that something that your mind goes to? You don't understand? You see that your mind always, you're asking a loaded question. You said, are you honest enough to admit and then went on to say a straw man? You're not even supposed to logically competent. Well, let's move on to something else guys. Let's move on. Let's move on. Let's move on. Let's move on. Did I ever see evidence for a flat earth in my opener? Did I present evidence? No, please let's have a look. Did I not predict you'd say that I didn't? I just wasted half of my presentation showing you evidence you've seen where an empire state building is supposed to be in between me and the laser. I'm showing it shine into the camera and you're still denying that is even evidence. Right, refraction is the thing. You guys have mentioned geometric horizon and so on and refraction. I can show you right now seeing beyond a geometric horizon, just using refraction. I can show you. I showed. This will take a few seconds if I just quickly share this. Is it this one? Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude to you Mr. Sensible. What we've got is a ball with a tack on it and you can see the top of the base of the tack is perfectly in line with the geometric horizon. In the top right corner, we've got a second camera watching over the entire experiment. So you've got my phone camera, the ball with the tack on and in the far distance on the bottom of the window ledge, you can just see a little bit of white. That's another tack with a bit of white paper. Now what happens is I introduce refraction. I introduce a lens between the ball and the camera and we'll see it come down and you can see the tack. You can see the geometric horizon and as I change the refraction you can see way beyond and in fact you can see the white paper behind it. That's the equivalent of the sun or the moon being lifted up by refraction. That is the equivalent of your black swan seeing past the towers because of refraction. I have not changed the position of the camera. I've not changed the settings of the camera. I've introduced refraction. It's a real thing. And that also debunks your whole black swan thing if you were going to bring that up. So don't bother. I thought I showed that your most famous experiment, the laser and sugar water. I didn't do that. That wasn't mine. That wasn't mine. No, it was in my opening presentation. Yes, I know. It was nothing to do with me. You said about me doing a laser experiment. I haven't done one. That's someone else. Yeah, yeah, okay. But my point is, is I showed y'all's best evidence. I'll even put this at second best but you put a little city skyline at the back of the fish tank and put sugar in the fish tank, in the water and let it dissolve to pretty much mock a density gradient. You say the light's curving down but with line of sight, we watched half the city disappear. With direct flat line of sight, we watched the top come down and the bottom go up. It almost looked like the bottom of the city disappeared. So all these mountains in the background and I mean, it's explained by y'all's example of how the atmosphere works and it's backed up by experts of how the sun sets. It's all explained, man. What we're looking at, the light rays travel through the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a medium. It refracts. I have just shown, because I don't think anyone would dispute that there is a physical ball there. Therefore it has a geometrical edge. We can now see further around that ball because of the refraction.  Now, someone in the chat just mentioned, oh, you've introduced a lens. Yeah, a lens uses refraction. That's crazy. So basically you just begged the question. No, I didn't. I just showed that you can bend light using refraction, which is what the atmosphere does, which enables you to see further than the geometry. You never lost light of sight to that. You can use the actual conditions of the at most, of course. So it's literally, unfortunately, I don't have a planet-sized ball in my office that I can use to demonstrate it. That is a demonstration. Make sure you censor me, and then you can win the debate. Make sure you censor me. Sorry? Make sure you censor me. What are you talking about? Do you want to hear their battle now? So you didn't use actual atmospheric conditions. And secondly, all you're doing is begging the question by thinking that applies to the earth and assuming there's a geometric horizon there. Basically your argument is there is a curved curvature there, but we can never see it. We can only assume it's there. That's called a begging the question policy. That's what you're doing. I'm begging no question. Well, with something like the black swan and other C2FAR claims by flat earthers, they say it's ridiculous. How could you see beyond the curve if there is a curve? I'm just showing you with refraction, you can see beyond that curve. That lens is between the camera and the ball. So how can we see beyond the edge of the ball? You still have my sight. It bends the rays of light round to the camera, to your eyes. That is a demonstration of refraction. It's not saying that that is an exact replica of what happens on earth. But we know there's refraction because we know that something like is it the Chicago skyline? Once in however often you can see Chicago across the lake. But most times you can't. That's a wrong. I went to that very low case. Would you agree that the lens still have line of sight, Mr. Sensible? Would you agree that the lens still had line of sight? How can it have line of sight around a curve? I'm asking you. You say that the lens didn't have line of sight, but in two feet, we showed you just in a garage, a hundred feet, we have opened a garage door and showed you atmospheric effects with actual atmosphere. You showed us a lens where the top has line of sight. Let me address that. Let me address that. James, can I screen share, please? Thank you. By the way, I went to Chicago at that very place and I asked all the locals and they said you see it three or four times a week. So why would you say no? But not all the time. Not all the time. You said you barely ever see it. Well, I don't share your Austin. Austin, I'll say it. I've been there.  Austin, our hands up say I could be wrong about the frequency, but the point is you don't always see the same because the atmosphere changes. Yeah, Vladimir doesn't deny that. So a cool story. So what we've got here, again, what we've got here, again, from the beginning of the debate, am I, yeah, there we go. So we're coming up on the screen now. I said at the beginning of the debate that the evidence for you will be silly, silly examples of taking things like a torch or a lens and moving it into that specific position to get the exact effect that you wanted and this is now what you're using as your actual evidence. I paraded it at the beginning as a joke and you're using it now. Yet Mr. Sensible, who actually made his effect through the actual error without needing to put a lens of any kind in between to show his refraction, you're doing the exact thing here. You're doing exactly what I said you were doing. You've taken a lens. You've put it in the exact position you want to get the effect you want. Mr. Sensible's shown the curve on the ball. Sorry, when he's taken the lens, he's not been fiddling around with it to get it in the exact position he wants. He's moved it. We can see the exact refraction that we want. Wow. You just said that he did the same thing you're accusing him of because if you changed the lens, it would change the way refraction looks and he had to use exactly the right conditions to make it look like what he needed it to do. You literally just refuted it. So he'll just say the atmosphere is a lens. No, we didn't say the atmosphere is a lens. Sorry, I'm finished. I'm finished all yet. I think I got a slight ahead of myself, so let's do that again. When you took your lens there in that beginning example there, you took it and you maneuvered it. You maneuvered it specifically into the position that you needed it to be to get that exact view that you needed. When you're using that as evidence of things disappearing bottom up. Like Mr. Sensible just did. No, Mr. Sensible didn't do anything of the sort to show that things to be finished bottom up. He literally just did, dude. I've not finished, but Mr. Sensible had his ball out, he had his nail on the balloon and he's taken just a lens and he's just wafted it in any opposition. He's not deliberately manipulated it to get the exact view he's wanted. He's put down and he's shown something ever so slightly different. He's shown that refraction can cause a big effect. He's shown that he can do exactly what you're doing over the other side of a ball. Only when it's in the perfect position though, right? However, what Mr. Sensible isn't doing with that. I don't know. However, Mr. Sensible is not doing with that. He's claiming that we can use a lens here to make things disappear from the bottom up. Which is what you're doing with your lens. That was. Yeah, well there are different things, man. Like I don't see, how do you not understand that he's literally doing the same thing if he moves his lens the effect changes and he does the experiment or the demonstration non-experiment exactly like he needs to show the possibility of something happening. He did the same thing. So you're refuting your own teammate. Well, he literally just repeated my evidence, Austin. Yeah, thanks. So what you've done, what you've done though, let's just, let's just get this right.   So then you've maneuvered it specifically in position to get exactly what you want to see and said, oh, there you go. That comports to what the atmosphere is. That's what you've done. But look at what Mr. Sensible is doing here. Using a magnifying glass, which is literally what Brian was showing the same effect and then you're trying to show that it can. How is that the same effect? How is that the same effect is what you showed? Did you not watch it? How is this the same effect? The magnification explains why the sun can disappear from the bottom of the ladder. Is that nail vanishing bottom up? How can I magnify something? Is that nail vanishing bottom up? Hey, Mr. Sensible, if you move that around, would it change or would it stay exactly the same? If you move the magnifying glass around. I'll just play that bit again. But how could I magnify something that's hidden behind the ball? How could I magnify that white piece of paper that is not in view? It's not in view. I put the lens in between. The light is, which would have passed over the camera, at the wrong angle, is now bent down. So I can see that white bit of paper right behind. I can see past the tack, which I couldn't see before. Okay, that's all it's showing. I'll stop sharing again. And also, of course, you need to show an outside angle of what you're doing with the camera because I don't trust ballers. But it doesn't matter. The point is that. It's there on screen, Austin. Yeah, but what caused that refraction, man? What caused us to see around your ball? I believe you. It doesn't matter. Oh yeah, there it is. In the top right corner, the whole time it's filmed constantly, so you can see it, okay? So then you admit that using magnification can explain phenomena on both a flat plane and a globe. How does the lens work, Austin? Oh, answer my question. Answer my question, Brian. Yeah. But if it's permissible to use the magnification then it's permissible for Brian to do it as well, right? I'm not commenting on Brian's thing. I'm showing that refraction can show you beyond the rounder curve. It's not the fact it's magnified, the fact it's larger. It's the fact that light rays have been bent. So now they enter the camera's lens. The different medium. It's a different medium. Snail's Law, which is refraction, which is where you get the giant change in the light, is a different medium. Tell me about Snail's Law. Tell me about Snail's Law. Okay, make sure you divert to the math because there's like five different ways to explain it. It doesn't matter. It's a different medium. No, please tell me about Snail's Law. Snail's Law, Brian. You want to divert, you want to divert. Please tell me about Snail's Law. Address that it's a different medium, please. Well actually, no, it can be different density gradients within the same medium. Is that a different medium in his observation, yes or no? There is in my observation. Okay, thank you. Yeah, okay, cool. Is there two different lines in the atmosphere? Hold on, hold on. Katz, what's the density gradient over 10 miles of atmosphere on a 70 degree temperature day? What is the density gradient over 10 miles on 70 degrees? What are you talking about? What's the refractive index? What's the refractive index of 10 miles of atmosphere? Just explain to me what you think refractive index is. If you change mediums, okay, you're referring to Snail's Law and trying to quiz somebody. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so let's do that. If we're gonna change mediums, hold on, if we're gonna change mediums, then we're gonna get refraction, right? So is it the atmosphere doing what Mr. Sensible's showing or is it that magnifying glass? So the question was, you brought up refractive index and I asked you what it was and then you diverted because you didn't answer it. I asked you a question, bro. What's the refractive index for 10 miles of atmosphere? So you tell me what refractive index is.  No, refractive index isn't a change in medium. How about water is tied, right? Refractive index isn't a change in medium. Bro, you're not gonna win a Simpleton quiz, bro. Water as refractive index of one and a vacuum has a refractive index of zero. Sorry, water doesn't have a refractive index of one. Water doesn't have a refractive index of one. Okay, what does sugar water have a refractive index of? Do you not stand behind the sugar water experiment? It depends on the concentration of the sugar. It depends on the concentration of sugar. What do you think refractive index is? It's not what you think it is. It's not Snowslaw, what do you think it is? Bro, you can't answer one question, bro. I literally can't answer one question. Wait, I'm curious. You think this is gonna make it normal what you think refractive index is because you know what you're doing. I gotta cover this. And then, okay, let's see if Vostin can answer what he thinks. I'm gonna expose you if I'm gonna do it. So every single time conspiracy cat is in a debate, he uses sophistry and at home, which is all you've seen the whole time. Now, what he's trying to do is he's come in with these little gotcha math questions where he thinks he can get someone to get math wrong. And then all of a sudden, the whole hour and a half that he was intellectually eviscerated with every single subject somehow evaporates and goes away because he's asking gotcha questions. And it doesn't, it literally doesn't. And your refractive index is nothing more than a fluctuation of a parent radius of 15%. And you call that standard refraction. You beg the question of the R value, fluctuate that R value, and then claim somehow that proof that's the actual R value. So let's talk about what refractive index is because you've gone off on word there. Refractive index, Brian. What's the refractive index of water, Kat? It depends on the purity of the water. You quizzed me. What's the refractive index of water? It depends on the purity of the water. Would you like to give me a concentration of water? So you can't answer any question at all. It helps. Let's talk about the index of the water, Brian. I'll give you a lesson. I'll give you a lesson, Brian, on refractive index. What's the refractive index? Refractive index is a ratio of the speed of light through a medium compared to the speed of light through a vacuum. It is a ratio. So for example, with glass, we tend to get around about 1.5, but it depends on the type of glass. It depends. If we're gonna look at water, well, you know, it's gonna be a little bit above one, but then again, it depends on the concentration of the solutes in the water. All refractive indexes is a ratio of the speed of light through that medium compared to the speed of light through a vacuum. So when you're saying, what is the refractive index over 10 miles?  It's because that's what we're looking through, and you can't answer that. And thank you for verifying that the report comes in. Brian, your question makes no sense. One at a time. Excuse me, cats. Excuse me, cats. That was the whole point. Is it for a look at the question, I know you can't make a prediction off Snell's law. And thanks for verifying. So what's the refractive index of a vacuum? Is it not? One. Brian, what's the vacuum? No, it's not a vacuum. It's one. Brian, what's the vacuum? Brian, what's the average speed of blue? Look, here's the deal, man. It makes no sense.  Can I say something now? You guys are doing everything you can to scatter gun diversions and red herring fallacies because when we've had actual pointed arguments at every stage in turn of this debate, you guys have had to concede and you don't know it. And if I could share my screen, I'd give you another one that you definitely can't rebut. You guys will not address the fact that I pointed out that a magnetic field has to have a blocked domain wall and a inertial plane in the middle of it. And of course, on a flat earth, that's the dielectric plane that we reside on, which our military documents showing the only way to make ground weapon systems using electromagnetic propagation is a treat the earth like a dielectric plane. So where's the dielectric plane or the inertial plane or blocked domain wall in the magnetic field on a globe?  Seriously, get your thing up, get your thing up and say that again. You not know what it is? So you've just said, you've literally, literally said because we're talking about refractive index and I'm pointing out that neither of you know what refractive index is. And you've said this is some kind of trick he's gonna try and pick on a lack of understanding of science. Just like you did with relativity, waffled about something you didn't understand. You're gonna waffle about something you didn't understand now and pretend that you understand it. So let's hear what you're gonna say, but what I want you to do, what I want you to do, we aren't finished yet. What I want you to do is explain why this is evidence for the earth being flat. If you don't incorporate into this, why this is evidence for the earth to be flat. Well, good. You are articulately. Go ahead and do it articulately. I already did. Right, well, everybody missed that, including everyone in the chat. No, just you. Do that's always behind. Go on to it again. I'll explain it again. Now I'm sharing it. So here's a block wall of a magnet. Okay, it's an inertial plane, a blocked domain wall. It's in every magnetic field that exists. It's a plane through the middle of a magnetic field. On a flat earth, of course, we would reside right here in the middle where the inertial plane is, right? And we would observe the top half of the toroid, which I then went on to show you why that actually matches what we see. You see the toroid here with the black on the middle. Of course, the inertial planes do that. I showed you the magnetic flux data and matches that on a flat projection. Did you even watch the actual presentation? I showed you that all the planets match that exact same projection. Can you pull it? Can you pull it? Can you pull it? It's perfect on a flat earth. So if you would like to explain to me where the inertial plane is in the magnetic field on a globe, I would appreciate it. Thank you. So when you say, can you leave that image up there? I'll let cats respond, but can you just leave that image up there a minute? Sure. Okay. Okay. So what are we doing? Maybe another five minutes or so of open dialogue and then we'll give each person a two minute closing or so, is that work well for you guys? You're talking here about magnetic fields and you're throwing inertial plane and I've mapped it against the planets and it works. But yet again, like I said at the beginning, you have done literally, you've not explained though, in any way, shape or form, why this works on a flat earth always proof. Let me just talk about magnetic fields for a second. Can you tell me the difference between a radial magnetic field and a uniform magnetic field? Can you address the actual points at a divergent- But you haven't made a point. It's like Brian asking about the refractive index over 10 miles without knowing what refractive index is. Here is the actual argument. There's an inertial plane in the magnetic field. It works on a flat earth because it would be the inertial plane. How does it work on a globe? Now you want to come quiz me about different types of magnetic fields when you don't even know what comprises a magnetic field in your paradigm to this virtual photons. Don't try me, bro. Answer the question. Why don't you just honestly answer the question for once? Say you don't know. Which non-think that you are saying is making sense. Can you tell me how this is evidence for a flat earth? You're saying magnetic field, inertial plane, answer the question. None of what you're saying is making any sense. So maybe it's your communication skills. So I'm going to give you time to break it down. I said at the very beginning of this debate, you try and throw in bits of science that you think were clever. But when pressed on it, yet again, you wouldn't be able to explain when it's proof of the flat earth. I just did. I'm going to give you all the time. No, you didn't. Just like you did with the relativity thing, all you said was matter contracting, time dilation, therefore clocks don't work. And then when pressed on it, you just wouldn't explain it just like you're doing with this. So I'm going to give you the chance, but everyone in the chat is waiting for you to specifically and articulately explain why this somehow is evidence for the earth being flat. Please articulate it properly. Okay. So every magnetic field has what's called a block domain wall or an inertial plane. It's a plane of inertia that cuts through the middle of the magnets, the middle of the toroid. This exists in all magnetic fields ever. Okay. Now on a flat earth, we can look at the magnetic field we have on the earth and it works perfectly with the earth being inside the dielectric plane. And we match the magnetic flux data on the flat projection, which shows the top half of the toroid perfectly. But your model, according to Harvard, still cannot explain the magnetic field on the globe. So can you please explain where the inertial plane is on the globe? Right, let me show you an image.  Well, Austin has his image up there. That bottom picture, Austin, with the vertical, I think I'm a bit colorblind, like blue line. So you're saying that that would be where your, it's turned 90 degrees. That would be where your flat earth is. Yeah, yeah. So that means your north is in the center and up. South is below. That doesn't quite, yeah, that doesn't quite work. That does it, no. Yeah, it literally does. Actually, if there's something in the center, this would be what's in the center. Now you can't explain it, your model can't explain it. Your model literally get now. The north pole is in the sky is what you're saying. Yeah, no pole is in the sky in the middle and the south pole is somewhere below in the middle. Yeah, there's a vortex that extends all the way up throughout the magnetic field, right? So do you see the pictures right here? Do you see the top right of the ferrocell images? Now look at the top right. Now look at the actual earth's data over top of flat projection. You want to skate past it, but Harvard says that we do not have a working model for the magnetic. No, so where's the black inertial plane on the globe though? Where's this on the globe? Can I just show that on the screen here then? And where's that same data? He's going to show a cartoon with the magnetic field. It does not answer. What's up? Where's that same data you just showed that those lines moving? Where's that same data? So you see the pattern of that data on a globe. It goes every which way. You can go to bobbwins.com and you can look at yourself. I don't have anything to show us the difference. I don't have a presentation. You haven't brought any evidence at all to show that the earth is flat. This is your question. Yeah, literally I'm showing it. I'm showing that the magnetic field data doesn't work on the globe. You can't answer it. And this is it. And this is it. You can't answer it. This is it. We're two hours into the debate and what you're doing is you're trying to show magnetic fields claiming that the north pole is in the sky somewhere. The south pole is beneath the ground somewhere. You can't explain the difference between a uniform and a radial magnetic field, although you think it's some kind of expert on magnetic fields. Brian is asking questions about what is the refractive index over 10 miles. I mean, that's what I said. What happens to a banana on it over? You're just sophist.  Are you? I'll show you my screen. I've brought evidence. I've brought examples. You've brought a picture of a magnetic field. That's it. No, we actually showed mirror flashes which require a line of sight over large bodies. Why do you guys consider that? Refraction. How do refraction answer direct line of sight requirement? Sorry, second. Direct line of sight does not get explained away with refraction. Direct line of sight requirement. So there's no refraction on a flat earth. Is that what you're saying? See what I'm saying? Straw man found. That's not a straw man. If you were talking about direct line of sight and you're using it as some kind of flat earth proof, then you have to deny that there's refraction on a flat earth. Mirror flashes require a direct line of sight so you can't say it's refraction. Are you denying that if the earth was flat, refraction wouldn't exist? Straw man found. No, it's not. It's exactly what I was saying.  You've got these quotes that you throw out. I didn't say there was no such thing as refraction on it. I said that's not a set of quotes that you throw out but then you can't back them up with anything. This whole magnetic field thing, they're way more about all the quotes than you do, dude. You're taking some kind of weird pictures of magnetic fields that you don't understand that you can't explain. You're saying, there you go, debunk that. Well, look, I've got a snotty tissue here, debunk that. This is exactly what you're doing. This is the magnetic data of the earth that matches the ferrocell images and your model can't explain it today. Harvard, Stanford, Yale all agree. Well, you haven't shown that data on a globe. Where's your paper? It's chaotic all over the place and they can't explain the central source. Okay, yeah, I'll pull them up. You want them? Do you want the papers too? Yes. If you ever researched it, are you claiming there is a- Yes, I want to do it now. So wait, are you claiming there is a working magnetic model for the globe earth? I'm saying, when you say working model, I mean, do you mean how we know how the magnetic field exists or how we can map it on the surface? We can map it over the surface. Yes, we know how it works. Really? How does it work at the center of the earth? What's the source of the magnetism? It's a dynamo effect. Really, where's it at? What, where's the dynamo effect? Mainly in the liquid outer core. And now, is there any problems with that or does it work or does it work? No, there's no problems with that, unless you're gonna suggest the Curie effect. No, no, that's why you move it to the outer core because of the Curie point. It's not why we move it to the outer core. Oh my God, I'm trying to help you. It's because the dynamo, no, no, listen here. The dynamo effect requires moving charge to generate an electric field. You're not gonna get moving charge within a solid core, but however, however, because just like an electromagnet, when you've got that wire wrapped around an iron nail like we do with kids at school, the iron core then becomes an induced magnet inside the magnetic field that's caused by the dynamo effect in the liquid outer core. And then we can map it, we, sorry, go on. To sum that up, let's go to say to sum it up. To sum it up, the core is not magnetic. It's the movements in the core. It's the movements within the core, which as Kat said induces magnetism. But even that doesn't work, according to Harvard, it's still off by 20% distribution. So you don't know what we're talking about. What distribution of the magnetic field? Explain. Distribution of the magnetic field. In what way? Explain. On the surface, all the way out to the surface, it doesn't match the surface measurements by 20%. The actual magnetic data, the magnetic flux and density and inclination and declination data of the earth doesn't match the model, the dynamo model. Explain. And sustainability of a near, and sustainability of a near, and sustainability of a near perfect magnetic field doesn't work either. I'm dropping the PDF from Harvard, which will show you that they have six different models. They're trying to figure out what's the best one. Explain your understanding. Explain. Here's the explanation. Your side hasn't even come up with a model that works yet. And I explained to you, and the whole audience has seen it and you can't address it, which is there's an inertial. Explain. I'm trying to explain what this control is to you. You said 20%, we're off 20%. And I've said, what 20%? He's gone, the distribution. You don't understand. I didn't say that. I said that inclination. Explain that. Now's your chance to explain. You have a problem. I said the inclination. Now's your chance to explain. There you go again. Basis chanting in silvers. Another minute and then we've got to go into these two minute closings. It's so bad. It's so bad. Inclination data, magnetic inclination, magnetic declination data, magnetic flux data, the density flux, the data doesn't match the distribution prediction of the most, oh my God, the most popular Dynamo model does not match the actual data. And they can't explain the sustainability of the magnetic field. Dude, I just told you. Sustainability, because the core is constantly moving. But you have the burden of proof to show that the earth is flat. You have not made that burden in any way. I just explained, let me say that one more time, James, can I say it one more time? It is very simple. Magnetic fields have a plane through the middle of them. And that is where the earth would be if it's a plane, but the globe has to have a plane through it somewhere. And you guys can't answer and you're trying to dive right away. Thanks for playing. Cool. If the earth was flat, where the hell is that magnetic field coming from? Boom. I said center. Government of the closing. Center. This one coming in from. In what way? First, we had getting us started at the very start. Brian, AKA Flatter Test, will let you go first two minutes, then we'll go to Austin for two minutes, then we'll go to Mr. Sensible and then Conspiracy Culture and then the Q and A. Two minutes to set for you, Brian. Oh, I can't hear you yet if you're speaking. Oh, he has to be asked to be unmuted. I'm virtually certain I already unmuted him. Go ahead, Brian. I just clicked it. Unmute. I just keep clicking it, asked to unmute it size and I keep clicking it. Are you not seeing it? Can you shake your head, Brian? Are you not seeing a window? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got it. Sorry about that. Yeah, I mean Austin's literally wearing them out by itself and he's asked to explain. And as he explains, I got a guy in the background with some grudge just saying explain, explain, explain. It's like unbelievable. This guy, I predicted right off the bat, I wasted half my presentation again, showing evidence is that he's seen 100 times. So apparently they're gonna try and claim Superman refraction going over Empire State Building. They invoked seven over six R, which basically just expands to 39, 59 radius by 18%. And even when we show them black swans are in my presentation at a 16.8 mile observation from seven inches, seven over six R is a joke. What I failed to put in my introduction that I didn't have time to was a globe Earth anti-platter if you could say a surveyor who repeated the Albaruni test and he was off by 20 million feet, which doesn't sound like a lot in feet. But even after adding refraction, he was well off. It's like they have to invoke refraction to prove the globe. They have to use radius to prove the radius. It's a circular argument. This whole thing is a joke. And I told you that after all the evidence I presented, he's still gonna say, y'all didn't present any evidence. This guy is dishonest. I've never, I'm sorry, James, and I'm sorry for interrupting but I've never debated a more dishonest person ever in my life. And that's all I got. I'm gonna pass it on to Austin. You don't need me. He whipped him by himself. Go ahead, Austin. I didn't know. I thought the question was directed to Brian. What was the question? Oh, it was just two minutes for your closing. Oh yeah, my bad. Oh yeah, so basically, I'm sorry. Just a real quick summary. We talked about motion. They couldn't rebut it. But objectively, relatively, he says you can't prove the Earth's moving around the Sun. That was just an inflection honesty test.  Use ad homes. Use strawman fallacies. Use red herring fallacies. And constantly insult, interrupt, and attack different people constantly. That doesn't make any sense. And of course, I explained that mirror flash required direct line of sight in an inertial plane of a magnetic field. It only happens if you have a plane. There's many other things, of course, radio transmissions, all kinds of things, but I just, I think we showed pretty clearly to the audience that they were being intellectually dishonest.  So we'll let the audience decide. Okay, get over to Mr. Sensible. Thank you. Well, as I said, there's a burden of proof here. You guys are claiming the Earth is flat. Now, you could, you always turn it around and say, you don'