Awesome. Welcome everybody to modern day debate. Tonight. We're going to be debating flat earth versus globe and to get us started Ross, you have 10 minutes on the floor. They're all yours and welcome everybody All right, if I could just set a timer really quick if you don't mind Yeah, I got one for you here, too Are you got one for me? Okay. Yeah, well if you could just tell me when I when I'm at two minutes That'll be great two minutes. All right. You got it. I just want to make sure my audio Yeah, you are coming in a little low. So if you want to bring it up. All right. All right Just let me know if I'm good. I'm good. You're good. All right all right, so Hello everybody Unlike my last debate this debate is purely about science. So I'm gonna go ahead and get right to the experiments if you don't mind Can I show my screen? Yeah Sure, I'm sure screen Awesome, everybody can see that Yeah, we have that on our screen now All right, so on my last debate I got a lot of complaints that I didn't have any points or whatever Although I did I wanted to make sure that that is not a complaint this time So I want to quickly outline what my points are And I'm going to specify which points can be proven scientifically Which points cannot be proven scientifically and at the end of the day is just our philosophical speculations And then we can go from there. So my first main point is the earth is not moving All right, so You know what? Let me let me just go on and get right to the to the experiments. So evidence number one now You know for the for the purpose of this conversation because sometimes the people who watch this channel They get they get confused on what the scientific method actually actually is so I just want to keep the scientific method as Clean as simple as possible observations and experiments if we're not talking about something that we've observed or if we're not talking about Experiments that we've done then we're actually not talking about scientific We're not talking about the scientific method at all. We're talking about philosophy and while philosophy is great I'm you know, I consider myself to be somewhat of a philosopher. This is a scientific debate So I want to just especially if we're talking about things that can be proven scientifically Let's just focus on what the experiments tell us. Let's just focus on what the observations tell us Okay, so I have two experiments that basically prove that the earth is not moving The first one obviously is Mikkelton to Morley, but I'm gonna do that one second because I think everybody does that one, right? So let's talk about Aries failure. This is the second one I don't know if I want to play this whole video, but The gist of the video, right? I don't like this guy's voice. Oh basic light. What you okay, so you're two minutes Okay, I got two minutes left. No, oh, sorry. You've been talking for two minutes. I thought you meant two minutes in Alright, so right, okay This is Aries failure right here This is an experiment that you can do at home that proves that the earth is not moving Alright, so just to be clear, right? If you're gonna if you if you want to assert that the earth is moving You have to provide experiments that go against this and then we can maybe have a discussion But if you don't have experiments let alone observations, then this is already a cook turkey You know what I mean? This is literally all of scientific consensus actually agrees on this that based upon all Observation and experiment the earth is not moving I want to say that one more time so people don't get confused all of scientific consensus agrees That based on all observation and experiment the earth is not moving if you're starting that it is moving It's not based on any experiment that we have done terrestrially and we can't leave the earth So it's not based on any experiment. We've done anywhere else either. Alright, so this is the experiment I'm gonna break it down really quickly is this is something you can do at home So this is not like oh, it's too complicated for us to understand So we have to appeal to authority and believe in what the scientists say if you take a telescope, right? And you're looking at a light that's directly above the telescope if neither the light or the telescope is moving Then you don't have to shift the telescope to receive the light Okay If if one of them is moving then you'll have to put it out a slight tilt to receive the light directly on the telescope All right, so this is the truth if you go outside you look at stars You have to tilt the telescope slightly to get the star right in the pocket And that's because either the telescope is moving or the sky is moving now all Observation would tell us that the sky is moving, but that's not enough right if we're gonna make a scientific inquiry We should have some experiment to go with that. All right, so Every ran this experiment to see which one is it the way that that that he devised to be able to tell the difference Is he put water in his telescope right very genius idea that means that because the water will slow down the light If the earth is actually moving when the water hits the light the earth will still be moving So you'll need to tilt the telescope about five degrees more to match the the new angle because the earth is still moving All right If the earth isn't moving and the sky is moving and the lights are just coming off at a five degree tilt Then even when you put water in the telescope, right? You won't need to tilt it anymore because it'll still be the same angle coming off because the earth is stationary You understand so this experiment has been done many times That was the original document that they just that's the original document from the experiment right there I also have that down here somewhere right there. This is the original document from that experiment So this this goes along with the Nicholson and Morley experiments I don't think I need to beat into the ground anymore You guys have seen that experiment done on here multiple times the whole theory of relative of relativity was made to combat the results of the Nicholson and Morley experiments and Nicholson Gail Pearson That's right. These experiments have been done over and over and over the result is the earth is not moving So unless you're going to provide some some evidence that proves that the earth is moving that is a cook turkey already All right, that's my first point. All right, the earth is not moving based on all observation and experiment Number two the earth is the center of the cosmos. Okay, this cannot be proven scientifically All right, I want you guys to understand this this cannot be proven scientifically We cannot do experiments that prove that the earth is the center of the cosmos So all we have to rely on is our observations. All right, so I'm gonna I'm gonna try to speed through these cuz So look this is this is Lawrence Krause, right? The the the head atheists himself one of my favorite people to listen to This is him admitting that because of the C and B right because of the the the flatness problem and the Hubble tension All right, this I have a video on this of a professor of physics from from the University College of London explaining how Based upon what we think we know about physics. We really don't know anything I'm gonna I want to keep it as simple as possible the bottom line is scientifically We don't really know right now So we have to go based upon what the observations tell us and it tells us that we're in the center Okay, so this is a another description of the Michelson and Morley this is Okay, this is this is the from the from the C and B came from the planning probe All right, so these are the comments on it This is Edwin Hubble himself right quote if the red ships are a Doppler shift Which they always are the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe Curiously small and dense and it may be added. It's suspiciously young. This is Edwin Hubble himself, right? Letting you know that based on all observation the earth is in the center of the universe All right, so if you have some observations that tell us something different I know you don't have experiments because we cannot experiment on the earth and its position to the whole cosmos All right, so my third point is that the surface is not curved. All right, at least the surface that we live on All right now you can make let's see All right So you can make a kick like this is this is this is my problem with the people who go against Flat Earth, right? If you just deal with the scientific evidence Then you can actually make a good case for the globe But the minute you start denying what the sock with the scientific method is telling us then you start looking crazy You know you start making the flat earth just look like they're geniuses and they're really not like I'm not a genius I'm just a guy that reads a lot and and so even before I heard about Flat Earth I thought it was dumb, but once I once they started telling me what it was I'm like, oh, this is the stuff that I already believe in because I listen to Lawrence Krauss Lawrence Krauss has said all this already They're just interpreting it different. All right, so you guys have already seen this. All right when you bounce Radio waves, right? Allegedly allegedly right when you send out radio waves, right? They can bounce off the ionosphere up to 30 or 40 megahertz. All right, so this is their excuse When we do experiment and observation to see how how far the earth is how far can we send radio waves, right? We can send it infinitely far their excuse is that it bounces off the ionosphere. That's their excuse Okay, but the ionosphere only blocks only only stops Radio waves from 30 to 40 megahertz. All right, so right here is a list of every not every but A good list of all the experiments that have been done Using radio waves, right? And I don't even buy the ionosphere Reason but sure, let's give you that anyways, right? Okay fine up to 30 and 40 megahertz They can bounce off the ionosphere here the hero the megahertz on the left, right? Here's the city that they're in right on right here on the right as you go It lets you know the person that did it what city they sent it from what city they caught it Do you understand their excuse is that up to 30 megahertz to bounce off the ionosphere? Okay, well, this is 90 megahertz. This is 90, right? Let's go higher. You see this These are all the experiments that have been done that prove that Matter of fact, if you look at this this data, you only have two options either the earth is flat Either we're living on a flat plane, right or the earth is so big, right that it could still be a globe But you're only you're only is the only thing you could do to combat this evidence one minute Go ahead one minute left Okay, the only thing you can do to combat this evidence that the earth is so big, right that we just can't tell All right, so these experiments have been done that many times and they've been done by the military All right. I want to hurry up. It's only have one minute left Okay point number four everything is dielectric all right everything what you think gravity is you me the sun Everything all right. The sun is not fire. It's dielectricity It's electricity if we're being a hundred percent honest and all the proof all the proof of that right is right here So I know you guys worship paper. I know you guys worship I bet I bet Einstein could come back in in a Time a time machine shake you in the hand you could see it and you would ask him for a peer review paper So here are all the peer review papers that prove through experimentation I took a picture of a few of them because you can't click on the links because you need subscriptions to look at These peer review papers. All right. These are all the peer review papers proving that everything is dielectricity All right.  Well, why right? Why are they doing this?  All right, so, you know, we really shouldn't be talking about that I know you're gonna ask me that at some point, you know, I mean, so I wanted to end it right there But if we could just let's just focus on the observations Let's focus on the scientific experiment and let's really find out what's going on here You feel me and not you know, anyways, that's it. All right, let's end the screen share and thank you so much Ross for your introductory statement there So just want to remind everybody hanging out in the live chat We are going to be doing a Q&A at the end of this discussion Once again, welcome to modern day debate if you haven't already to hit the like button We are a neutral debate platform. We're hosting debates on science politics and religion See all you guys hanging out in the live chat and hope you feel welcome Leo. You got 10 minutes on the floor Welcome and you want to take yourself off mute there Yeah, so These debates to me and I always preface with this, you know I don't do these debates because I take the bladder seriously I do enjoy the back and forth in the discussions But I do them because I find them fun and I find them entertaining and I would suspect that's probably why most people are here Watching regardless of which side they find themselves on they're convinced of their side and they're just here for the entertainment When it comes to the shape of the earth, it's it's a globe, but this has been known for at least 3500 years We see different stars in the sky versus the northern and the summer southern hemisphere That's one of the first things that you tell you, you know, huh never not flat I believe that it also looks like the stars the sky rotates in different directions versus the northern hemisphere versus the southern hemisphere Because of the way that you would be positioned on the earth as it rotates, which is an indication that the earth is in fact rotating I mean we can even look at gravity gravity is the reason that things like planets and stars are spheres in the first place It's something called hydrostatic equilibrium. So naturally gravity pulls inward from every point on the surface of an object And the internal pressure of the material which constitutes that object sort of pushes back And what this results in is an equilibrium between the force of gravity and the internal pressure of the material and this results in Spheroidal objects in in space. This is why even Objects like our moon are spheroidal and smaller Asteroid bodies are our spheroidal it this has to do with with gravity So this wouldn't explain why just the earth would be a sphere It explains why all planets and we have seen planets and other solar systems hint their spheroidal But also why objects like stars and neutron stars and things like that would be spheres as well So when it comes to the science one of the most fundamental theories of physics that we currently have with respect to understanding things at The cosmological level pretty much. I would say puts the nail in the coffin in the debate You know Planetary bodies are spheroidal But again simple observations like seeing different stars in the hemisphere seeing objects disappear bottom first over the horizon They don't just get smaller. They disappear bottom first these simple intuitive things Easily lead one who's just you know, not trying to be biased or contrarian and just using reason to think that wow The earth has some sort of curvature to it and quite frankly, I think that's honestly enough We don't really need more to to kind of into it or um Figure out that the earth in the earth is curved the earth is a sphere Not only that but we've taken pictures of it because we have been the space because we're humans We've done great things. We've made great strides and we can see that the earth is in fact a sphere which Well, effectively confirms the shape of the earth and again, I really think that's about where where the honest debate Depends and this is where a lot of the fun begins All right, well, thank you so much for your introductory statement there Leo We are gonna kick it into an open discussion So if you haven't already hit the like button share this out in those spaces You'd like to have these discussions as well and also hey if your big podcast listener We do have all of these podcasts all these debates I should say uploaded to our podcast within 24 hours So if you like what you're hearing from either of our speakers, they'll also be tagged in our podcast link along with our YouTube link So you can find more there I'm gonna hand it over to you Ross to respond to some of what you just heard and we'll get into the open discussion Thanks everybody again for being here. Yes. Yes, you guys can hear me. Okay, excellent. All right Leo if I may um One of the things that we have to really be aware of when we're trying to figure out what's going on, right? Is whether or not we're being logical and maybe that doesn't matter to you because like you said you're just here for entertainment Right, and I get that right these things are somebody entertaining, right? But I'm not gonna lie especially with these kind of conversations I'm part of a small group of people that honestly wants to figure out what's really going on, right? And so when we have debates about stuff, right? We always have to make sure that our arguments are logical, right?  All right, so this is where fallacies come in I know you guys hate those words here, right? But literally when I went to school in 2010 the very first classes they had me take were linguistics classes and Logic 101 so that way we could learn how to make logical arguments that were also sound, right? And then not only that we could learn how to use words properly So I think that those two things are very very key when we're having debates And I just want to let you know that your whole opening was just completely fallacious You literally you just appealed the consensus, right? Everybody knows this, right? And think about it when I started I immediately said, you know what? Let's get right to the experiments. Let's get right to the observations because this is a scientific debate This is not about philosophy if you want to debate philosophy I could debate philosophy with you But we're gonna have to transition out of that and you're gonna have to concede all the scientific points that I made So if you want to concede all the scientific points that I made that all the Observations and experiments show what I said and then we can go on to the philosophy of what might be going on because of what other people Think and that's fine. You also said gravity Like I said gravity has already been proven to be electoral statics I pulled up a whole list of articles that prove that there is no such thing as what we call quote-unquote gravity And they discovered this in the 50s when they look at the galaxy clusters and realize that there was not enough Gravity to keep the galaxies from escaping.  So that's when they actually had to change gravity Feel free to jump in any time there Leo Yeah, I'm my bad is one and then and then like you know You assume asteroid like all of these like you you look at stuff in this in the stars, right? You say look we can tell by looking at it, right? I can look at it and see that the everything is fear auto all right fine But let's use your reasoning if I look in the stars and everything is a sphere So I must assume the earth is a sphere if we're going by observation, right? What I see is I see everything in the stars move, but I don't see the earth move So when do we trust our eyes? Do we trust our eyes when we look far away or do we trust when we look close? Which one is it because you want us to trust that what we see in the eyes? What we see in the sky is true But you don't want us to trust that the earth is not moving when all experiment shows that it's not moving I Guess I'll start with I the fact that I didn't appeal to a consensus in my in my opening statement But something that you brought up that I want to point out because it this is often This is never completed is people who refer to Whatever his name was George airy or whatever it was and then the Michelson-Morley experiment that these men showed that the earth is not moving Yes, that's only half of the statement But these experiments show is that the earth is not moving through an ether That's not that's what that's what these experiments were designed to do airy's experiment He put water in it to see if there was a difference in stellar aberration as a result of the refraction of water Which is something that would happen if there were an ether and he did not detect that They went to figure out okay If there's an ether and the earth is moving the earth will be moving through that ether and so we can detect a Drag on the earth from the ether as a result of the earth's motion through it and the Michelson-Morley Detected no such drag. Now. This does not mean that the earth is not moving Simplicit it means that the earth is not moving through the ether and I'll just I'll just start with that one Can you hear me okay? okay, so so That's a that's a misrepresentation because What is true is that it was it was a scientific consensus back then that there was an ether and and let's be honest It's scientific consensus now that there is an ether and I hear you guys say this all the time that so many of the things that we Do today depend on the earth being a globe no no no no the only thing that that what we are way of life depends on is the fact that There is an ether Nikola Tesla literally said I had to assume that there was an ether and that it acted like this in order to Invent all of our modern inventions that we have today. They all depend on the fact there was an ether So that's why the experiment was called that to detect the motion of the earth through the ether So what they did was instead of going with the the result of the experiment, which was the earth isn't moving They decided to throw all of known science out and completely change the laws of physics And this is not scientific because they didn't do that based on an experiment They didn't run an experiment that showed that there wasn't an ether They ran an experiment that showed that the earth wasn't moving through it So that's that's that's the answer to that don't misrepresent it by saying they didn't that they Discovered that there wasn't an ether because no no no no there is an ether They never and even even Einstein himself said that he never should have in in general relativity and skew me in special relativity He never should have claimed that there wasn't an ether He should have claimed that there was that there was an ether but that there was no resistance basically And that's why we couldn't detect ourselves moving through it. All right What I'm gonna do there is I'm gonna set a minute and a half timer I'll just let you know when you got 10 seconds go ahead there Leo So there there is no ether no physicist today thinks that there's an ether at least not one actually doing anything an experimental physics We've we've disproved the ether and the reason that it would have been a consensus over a hundred years ago That there was an ether was because at the time physicists didn't know that there were such things as non Mechanical waves where mechanical waves would be things like acoustic waves through the atmosphere or seismic waves through the earth or Water waves through the ocean these are mechanical waves and if light is a wave Well, then it must to have some sort of mechanical medium that carries that and then we discovered quantum mechanics And we realized well no we don't need to have strictly and only mechanical waves There are such things as non mechanical waves and light is one of them So it doesn't move through any medium like an ether at all and that is why physicists a bit first assumed There was an ether and then later abandoned the notion on top of the experiments that showed that there there was no ether There is the electromagnetic field, but that's not an ether that doesn't have the same properties that the ether was claimed to have Okay, so all right So how do you know any of that all right because everything that I said I start off by showing Observations and experiments that I pulled that from you pulled up that sounded great But where did you pull that from you said no physicists and miss it like that's a complete lie I literally have over a hundred quotes right here of Physicists saying things Related to that and a few of them or physicists saying it directly directly that there is an ether so that's a lie I'm not sure if you're just uninformed on the subject or if you're intentionally trying to misrepresent Yourself so that way other people think that that that that globe people don't know what they're talking about I'm not sure if that's your goal here But but this is this is like you're not you're not informed on what the the modern scientific consensus is if you think that's true Well, what did my my business don't work with either real quick You said that you said that we disprove the ether then we discovered mechanical waves I want to know how we already knew about mechanical waves. That's why physicists But how do we know how did we know about mechanical waves because sir, that's how that's how we hear What the acoustic waves that move through earth's atmosphere are Mechanical waves Pond How I'm explaining how if you wanted to see mechanical waves you could go Rock in the pond and the waves that will be made are mechanical waves on that pond And that's what mechanical waves are and you're saying that I don't know what mechanical waves are but you're claiming I don't understand the physics. I'm done Yeah, I know myself. I know myself. I'm a lot but I didn't like I get what you're saying, right? But my my this is my problem, right? Is that you have bought in right to a one big appeal to authority You're like, yeah, yeah, somebody told me this right You're just and I don't want to get into my last debate because it's gonna sound redundant But you guys are religious zealots, right? You're just like my dad, right? You believe stuff because you saw it in a piece of paper, right? You worship paper, right? And I get that that's fine that you want to do that, right? You can be a philosopher that believes in pain Didn't you say you read? Of course I read. Yes, but I don't Oh, but when I read wrong and I'm worshiping and okay, so there's a double standard there I I could see that confusion, but it's not it's not right because me I don't believe stuff just because I saw it on the paper, right? Even the stuff that I show today is actually not the evidence I'm just showing you where to find the evidence. The evidence is real life experimentation and observation, right? So another paper, right? I respect it right look you were taught that your whole life, right? And so that's what you believe in right and it's difficult to Accept that maybe I was believing in somebody that either didn't know what they were talking about or they blatantly lied to me But it was you got to know right like I said, I did my degree in political science Everything that comes from the government is a lie every time that the government is involved in something Listen, listen, I literally call my degree the history of lying.  Like if you I don't know if you have a girlfriend, but how many times is your girl have to lie to you before you like She's a liar, right? Sorry No, no, it's it's all good. Sometimes we go over time there's nothing wrong with that but um It in all gentleness. I'm not here to debate the government or liars So and I don't just like read a book and then everything the book says must be true Humans have done the experiments time and again And I know that they've done those experiments and I can read the results of these experiments and then tie that with my Understanding of the field for a broad picture of how the physical world works and the methods that we use for figuring all of that out And I do trust it and I don't think that there's a reason not to particularly when the reason that we have the technological Advancements we do is because of the physicists and the chemists and the biologists and the Computer engineers and all of these people who rely on all of this mathematics and all of this physics that you're claiming is wrong every day For our technology to function properly So I mean I don't either want to get bogged down into a discussion about appeals to consensus And oh we you worship paper So I think that if we both just take each other in in good faith and in you know with this idea that we're getting our Information from distant sources and from reliable places. I think it'll the discussion will probably move forward more easily Right, right. Well, so and my my concern is not It's not thinking that you're not arguing in good faith, right? My concern is logical fallacies, right? Because if we don't do that then we can't establish a train of thought that leads to progress, right? Think about it like if a scientist does the greatest scientific experiments ever and nobody sees it What good is it for the world? You know what I mean? There's no good in these scientific discussions if we can't gain or learn something from it, right? So that's what that's where logic comes in we have to make sure that if we're saying something, right? That that there's actually basis behind it. So you said the words so you said the words Experiments right you said I know that these people can do the experiments. I know the experiments have been done But but you have to show those experiment That's why I started off right away. These are the experiments that have been done This is how you can do it right and guess what if we don't have experiments Then we have to rely on observation and we have to admit that we can't solve something Scientifically if we can't do an experiment on it, right? Then you use the word trust specifically see there's no trust in science You're not supposed to trust or believe anything You're not supposed to have preconceived notions when you go into an experiment You're supposed especially not an observation if we're observing like the CMB, right when they observe the CMB, right?  That's not scientific. You're not supposed to be yummy Prejudice about what the outcome you want is to be you're supposed to look at the data and then go with that And then okay my last thing you said you said techno You said our technology in our math depends on on Something isn't real. It's not that it's not real. It's just that you have a misunderstanding of it All right, Nikola Tesla is the one that invented all the technology that we have today in a nutshell And did that using an ether period he did that using an ether so you're you're disagreeing with physics You're disagreeing with with with the math that works that gives us our technological advances If you say there's not an ether and everything's not electric. That's just a fact up to two minutes So Nikola, I mean you hear this a lot I don't know why he's such a big figure within the flat earth community But you hear it a lot that will Nikola Tesla effectively invented all of our modern technology. No, he didn't Cloud Shannon was the one that like developed the theory of computation Nikola Tesla had nothing to do with that And there's a variety of experiments that I could go down the line that he had nothing to do with now He makes him cool stuff. Yeah, he invented a lot of cool stuff But he's not like the grandfather of all modern technology also in science What was the word you used I don't I'm gonna say presuppositions, but I don't know if that was the word you used He said we don't have presuppositions. That's explicitly false. Science is very this is sort of a philosophy of science term But science is theory-laden and what this means is that when we develop Excuse me when we develop new hypotheses, they're laden by our previous theories And so we're always making certain presuppositions in science based off of what we currently know based off of Certain predictions that may be made by models all sorts of things that we might not know yet are actually true So the idea that we don't have any presuppositions in science that that is that is not true I don't know any philosopher of science would agree with that and You said you want to see the experiments Yeah Well, if you can get the funding to reproduce them then that would be what you would have to do because this stuff requires Extremely expensive equipment and usually a lot of people working together for an extended period of time And that's why results are published. So I just go look at the published results. All right You just they yeah I go look at the published results as we do in science because trust is actually very important science We need to trust that our instruments are working properly and we need to trust that the methods that we have will deliver accurate results And we need to trust our compatriots in science as we work together to figure out the world around us. All right, right? Okay, so Number one, that's extremely convenient, right? Like oh, yeah, well the experiments we would need to do is just too expensive Okay, listen like that's what I like to just keep things very very simple because that is literally just a barrier Right of entry that people use to be able to gatekeep science Like this is a government thing as well get the funding when you say get the funding you're talking about Lobbying the government organizations like I said, don't get me into political shit because but I want to I want to Let's talk with Nicola test. All right, so I'm not gonna ask you these questions because I already know the answer Hat is there an invention that we use today that is basically not a combination of light and sound No, there's not one that we have that's basically not a combination of some form of light and sound Both of these things were invented and perfected by Nicola Tesla both of them. That's correct The person that first sent a radio wave over the Atlantic Ocean pretty much got that whole thing from Nicola Tesla But he was working on on his AC on his AC on the light at that time. It really wasn't that big a deal You understand what I'm saying every what I want I want you to really think about this What new emerging technology that has have we invented that isn't a product of those two things, right? That's that's the first thing, right? And then you keep saying no philosopher I want you to understand the words that you're using linguistics. You're using the proper word philosopher of science not Scientist, okay, philosopher. You keep switching back and forth between philosophy and science. All right science is data collecting Observe right come up with a hypothesis Last thing you keep saying we have new theories and new This is my last question to you. I asked you a few more questions, but this is my other question Can you have a scientific theory without an experiment? Is that even possible? Well scientific experiments are usually done within the context of a theory to figure out if predictions it makes are observed in reality So I mean experiments are I well, I don't know if I would use the word necessary But if experiments are requisite for for So we can't have a theory without an experiment for the most part, you know theories are developed and Carried further by experiments. So, yeah I brought up philosophers of science because I was talking about the concept of theory ladenness and that's a that's a Philosophical concept, but when we talk about science philosophy of science is actually quite important to that because that's where we're laying out The framework for science what it is how we do it and and those kinds of things And that's why I think that it's gonna be very difficult to talk about science without philosophy of science Anyway, yeah, I know that Nikola Tesla did some stuff in like, you know radio technology and all that but It's some stuff the fact that we use things like electromagnetic radiation in modern technology doesn't mean that all modern technology goes back to Tesla I mean Tesla didn't even really help develop anything within the theory of the electromagnetism Which is what more we're going to rely on with respect to like developing modern technology than Then like Nikola Tesla's work. Okay. That's a once again I don't really want to talk about him the whole time just to clarify I'll put a button on that like because like we are arguing like I could say philosophy and history You know me and this is kind of like my area So I just want to let you know that yes every modern invention we have today Comes basically back to something that was started right or even perfected by Tesla But wasn't allowed to be put out into the public until recently Tesla had a wireless Not just wireless charging but wireless transfer of energy fields where he was basically Creating energy a free city energies right around the time that he was killed and and guess what all the people that were funding him Just happened to be on the titanic as well Right. So these are these are things that have billions of dollars of implications Right. So like let's not pretend like people don't murder people for bill for millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars every day Things that have billions of dollars of implications They would gladly gladly take out one or two people when they're sending our kids into meat grinders right now overseas They have no problem sending kids in the meat grinders to die for oil and all this other all this other commerce related business And you think that they won't they won't you know, I mean they won't suppress technology that has the ability to give the whole world free energy 100 percent Oh, no, I think governments around the world do suppress technologies that I but again, that's not really so I look I'm just willing to grant that Yeah, all of our technology routes back to nicolatesana. That's not a hill. I really want to die on To get more back into the topic. So you had mentioned something about gravity being dielectric My main question then is given that there are Two manifestations of electric charge in the electromagnetism positive and negative Why is gravity only attractive and not also repulsive as it should be That's a misconception. There is there's actually no such thing as negative charge. It's it's charged and yes, there is We can measure it. So well technically we're being semactical, right? But what they're measuring is they're measuring charge and discharge. It's pressure mediation. That's really all it is So I don't know what that like it's just a second law of trouble. That never does all it is pressure I don't know how what that has to do with this. Huh? I don't know what that has to do with this. I mean Well, I have that's why I'm confused here So no, we do we there is such a thing as negative negative Charge that's strange. There's no such thing as negative. Of course. There is there's positive and negative We've measured both and since the electromagnetism has both If gravity were somehow electromagnetic or electrostatic in some way or another Then it would be both attractive and repulsive, but we only ever observe it being attractive How come its level of attraction is directly mathematically tied to the amount of mass in an object? And it has nothing to do with the electric charge. It's it's not leo. It's not. Okay, so uh number one Give me a quick second to pull up this this citation quick second quick The reality is that Everything comes down to pressure mediation. All right. This is a very very technical subject. What do you mean by that term? Huh? What do you mean by the term pressure mediation? Genuinely, I don't I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. Okay, so basically like like Okay, so like like you can use magnets, right? Oh, man, I say it's it's okay. So basically what magnets are right is you're creating electrical fields, right? And then the fields have have either coherent or not coherent reactions to each other, right? And then that basically pulls energy from the ether. I was like, it's like, oh man It's such a complicated subject, but basically that that's what's going on. It's everything is dielectric and so It was we create fields that that basically charge up the electricity from the ether and then it releases it as matter, if you will Oh Well, because I thought the electromagnetism was mediated by the exchange of photons as is described in quantum electrodynamics Which has been confirmed to the 18th decimal place has not been confirmed because it's built about a bunch of It's built on reifications that people have actually Uh identified as a particle No, no, no just reifications of what? Uh that that the photon is a particle, right? So we've already No, the atom isn't a particle. Yeah Is the atoms are particles atoms can be called particles. They're just not elementary particles So, how do we know the photon is a particle then? Because we've measured it how Uh by disturbing the electromagnetic field which we can do using things like electricity There you go. We disturbed the field and electron is the the diametric end of a terminal electric field So there's an electric field then there's a gap in the field. That's what an electron is. It's not a particle Yeah, it would be it would be a perturb an electron would be a perturbation in the electron field not the electromagnetic field However, just one the electron since the electron carries electric charge the electron field can couple to The electromagnetic field through some complex gauge couplings as it's called like this Because I've like watched lectures on quantum field theory. No, no, no, I'm just I'm I'm curious how anyone could think that The gravity has anything to do with the electromagnetism. It's just silly Because it's literally the exact same thing the same the same way that right the same way that out the pressure There's a downward electric current on on the earth right the same way that that the the pressure of Our electric field mediates on the on the earth as grounding out is the same way that that certain metals when they're next to each other Their their fields either attract or repulse each other. I'm saying it's it's a complicated subject But I want to make it so that way the average person understand that why is gravity stronger on the sun How do you how do you know that the gravity is stronger on the sun? Because the grad the sun is more massive much much more massive than the earth And we we are within the the sort of the throes of the sun's gravity. That's why we orbit So so are you not aware that gravity is not mass attracting mass? You're not aware of that, right? Well I would describe gravity that way. I think that's quite simple Okay, well only only every physicist on the planet that exists right now describes gravity as the bending and warping of spacetime So Which is how I would describe gravity is but you said it But you said it was tied But you said it was tied to the to the the mass of an object which is not true because The geometry of spacetime is stressed by mass energy as according to Einstein Okay, but mass isn't the same thing as high well mass You know, you're correct. The sun isn't just larger in size than the earth. There's also more You could say per square inch That's just the size that doesn't say anything about the mass Well, the mass is there is what causes that the mass stresses the geometry of spacetime. We can measure that as curvature All right. So so also. So this is the theory right that you're giving me. It's not backed up by experiment It's not backed up by this the observation It was confirmed by by Einstein. Well, Einstein. I can't remember But and then Arthur Eddington because according to general relativity, there were two stars positioned behind the sun I don't have to put you guys back on timers if we just try to mitigate the interruptions just a little bit back and forth Not just you ross. I mean, it's just you guys are having a really lively discussion. It's a lot of fun I enjoy it But just a little bit of the back and forth if we could mitigate the interruptions Yeah, I'm just trying to explain Go ahead. I'm sorry What the first observation that confirmed general relativity was general relativity made predictions about the position of stars that were That exist way way far away behind the sun um On the other side of the sun and that in fact Where they're positioned we wouldn't be able to see them But because their light is lensed by the gravity of the sun we can actually see them They appear outward more than what they actually are as a result of that lensing light and general relativity predicted the amount by which that light would lens and during the next solar eclipse Eddington used a telescope and observed those stars and observed that they were Lensed when he did the calculations by the exact amount the general relativity had predicted Not only that but I mean we've we can see even in the jane's web space telescope photos the ultra deep field that it took We can see the lensing of the gravitational lensing of light from distant galaxies So gravitational lensing is well observed and used by cosmologists daily because it effectively magnifies You know what what the the object that the light that's being lensed is coming from it So that gives us a bit more of a finer detail into those objects, which helps us better understand them I mean there's there's more predictions black holes Gravitational waves the perihelion procession of mercury. There's a lot But yeah general relativity is used every single day by cosmologists final statement In fact, it is the single most important tool in the toolbox of cosmology There is no more tool more important to a cosmologist in general relativity. All right, okay, so All right, I want to ask you a quick question before I get into your responses All right, how many times does somebody have to be wrong before you start assuming that they're probably not that intelligent How many times I have no idea I let's give the percentage if somebody's wrong 50 of the time Is that somebody you should trust 50 percent? I don't know most people are probably wrong I don't know what the average amount of being wrong I'm not you personally. I want to know Oh, no, you personally you personally if somebody was wrong 99 percent of the time, would you still trust him after that? If I'm like measured I'm just wrong 99 percent of the time.  And the problem with nice guys like us right is that we look at the world Like other people are us. We think like if I was in that position, I wouldn't lie So why the hell would they lie, right? They must just be wrong, right? You know what finally let's give them the benefit of the doubt right and say that they don't lie There's just wrong all the time, right? Okay, so you said that general relativity makes predictions It's the most important tool that we use in cosmology in the 1933 19 this is almost 100 years ago now in 1933 fritz wiki Right observations the galaxy clusters. There was not enough mass for gravity to hold the clusters there It was 99 99 off leo 99 off and that's not all guess what they read observation in ninth, huh? We still observe that today in galaxy rotations and there's other anomalies we observed in galactic clusters That would go along the lines of what you're describing You give you my point though my point is that the the the theory of general relativity which did not have experiments behind it It was wrong It was 99 off and then when they did it again in 1955. It was also 99 percent off again You understand what i'm saying I just want to make something clear for everybody in the audience listening right now, right You're saying that that gravity right is the only thing that that's keeping our cosmology together or whatever, right? dog for for the amount I said it's the most important tool to a But the tool is off by 97 percent. All right. It wasn't off No, no, no, no, no is not was it is off right because 97 percent of all of all Matter is dark matter. You know what that means leo that means we can't see it or detect it That means it's not scientific. You understand. We can detect it through gravity Yes, we can it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum that we can detect that we can't see The electromagnetic spectrum we can detect it through gravity. Huh? No, they're not we can measure it We detect it through gravity. We need to make a space for each other. That's where so In god, was it Vera Rubin that noticed differences or didn't notice as much of the differences was expected In the rotation curves of galaxies. I'm pretty sure it was her. That's another thing. That's another anomaly. Um Galaxies lends light more than they should as if there's more mass there than what we can see that that's another anomaly These don't disperse general relativity because general relativity still works just fine These are just anomalies because our theories in describing reality are not complete But the this is just dark matter which we can detect and we can detect it through The collisions of galactic clusters because what happens is all of the normal matter that we can see and that we're made out of Will shock and slow as it interacts and you get friction But most of the mass of these galaxy clusters when they collide passes right through it does not interact That's dark matter. That's how we can detect it through its gravitational interactions Leo you sounded very compelling.  I wish I was as nice as you and I could just believe stuff Right that other people tell me and just go on with my life You know what it doesn't seem like they're right But I want to believe it and not think about this anyway, so let me just check out of the conversation But I can't do that. Leo. I can't check out of the conversation. All right Like I said for the sake of this conversation The scientific experiment the scientific method is only two things It's observations and experiments if you don't have observations and experiments Then all these theories you're giving me are just philosophy from some people that you expect and I respect that You respect them. Don't get me wrong. I respect that you respect them, but I don't have any any respect for anybody I don't believe anything anybody says so when somebody says something I got to see the evidence I got to see the experiments and I'll be honest, Leo. I had like you haven't shown them Like I just want to be clear like Like just on the four points that I have right before we get too lost in the weed, right? Number one all experimentation and all observation shows that the earth isn't moving All right, so you can still be a globe earther and accept the truth The truth is that every scientist on the planet accepts That all observation and experiment shows that the earth isn't moving So like let's accept that and then we can move on to all right now Is the earth the center of the cosmos? All right every scientist accepts that will never be able to tell We won't be able to tell and guess what all observation shows it looks like we're in the center That's why they say we we can't tell because they don't want to accept that we're in the center So they don't want to accept what it looks like, but they're like, you know what it could be either way That's where we are on that. All right, if you don't accept that that you're not familiar with scientific consensus number three my bad is that uh Is that the surface is not curved and you have some leeway there But you're either gonna have to accept that that that the the surface that we live on I'm not saying that the earth is not a globe I'm saying that the surface that we live on is flat based upon experiment All right, so you can either say that we live in a globe But there's a flat plane in the middle of the globe or you can say we live on a big ass globe That's so big that we can't detect the curve. Those are literally your only two options So if you have some experiments or some observations that can like leave me in the right direction I would really like to learn. I want to learn from you. I want to I want to leave this conversation Having gained more information not feeling like somebody won or lost so with respect to the earth's motion, uh The physicists acknowledge that it is moving that it is rotating because um, well number one We have the seasons We have the differences in the angle of the sun and the sky as a result of the tilt of the earth and its position And its orbit all of those are explained by the earth moving as is the fact that during certain solar flares Some parts of the earth won't be as affected because it's nighttime on those sides. It's facing away from the sun Also stellar aberration would be something that would be entirely unexplained if the earth weren't moving As with the fact that you can literally see like people have done time lapses of it that the sky rotates And that's because the earth is rotating about its axis. So that that that's to address point one Just The second thing you said about Um the center of the universe there is no center of the universe It would look like the center from every from any point into any observer anywhere in the universe It's going to look like the center because of the expansion of space Which is a metric expansion of its scale and so from any one point it's going to look like it's that point Out from which the universe is expanded because again the expansion is metric It's an expansion of the scale and space measured over sufficient distances So that there is no center of the universe the universe isn't an object that could have a defined center like that So those were the the two big things that I just wanted to address. Okay, so I just I just want to That uh, congratulations. I want to congratulate you on graduating from an appeal to consensus Uh, uh, logical fallacy to a false cause logical fallacy. I don't I don't know if you know what that is I'm explaining to you right now. All right, so you That this is an example of a false cause, right? You said like well, we have four seasons So that must mean that the earth is is moving. You understand how that's a false. That's what I said That's essentially what you said, Leo. I have it right now No, I said I said that the fact that we have seasons is best explained by the rotation of or are the um the orbit of the earth around the sun as a result Even if you know and they're my positioning Of the Hemispheres. All right. He still has another minute. I didn't say it must be that's that's not what I said Just try to hold you thought they're just for another minute and 10. Sorry, correct I stand corrected. It's still a false cause though, right? Because just because like I mean like let's say they are correlated Correlation is not causation. So you're saying that oh, that's you know, that doesn't mean following the logical Uh, a logical like syllogism of analysis, right? I don't know if you know what a syllogism is, right? But if you if you follow logical syllogisms, right, that's not a logical syllogism We can't do anything with that piece of information doesn't give us the Arguments don't have to be given as syllogisms to be arguments Excuse me Arguments don't have to be given as syllogisms to be arguments Well, well, yes, but but in order to be logical arguments, they do No, they don't Really the yeah to be valid. It just needs to be that the conclusion logically draws from the premises Whether the argument is laid out formally like Is it relevant to whether or not the conclusion logically draws from the premises? That's all it means for an argument to be valid. Okay. Well, I just want to be clear. Okay. So a syllogism is just a an argument I know what a syllogism is, right? Okay.  It has to follow Right, true statements. Like if I say all of these kids in here are mine soundness Not validity Soundness is if those if those statements are true. I'm gonna explain the difference right now. All right So this is I know what the difference between validity I want to explain it for the people listening. All right So a logical argument would be like look all of these kids in here are mine I'm a black person. So all of these kids are black people, right? So that that would be logical that doesn't mean that it sounds Because if it's not sound that means like these kids might not be mine or I might not be black If one of the premises aren't true that determines whether or not it's sound or not logic can be logic without it being sound Well, an argument can be valid, but not sound. Yes Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, but I don't know what this has to do with anything that I had Oh, I'm gonna explain right now because your arguments aren't valid They might be why not I'm explaining to you false cause before it was appeal to consensus Now it's just I don't know where I committed a false cause you've claimed that I've committed But you haven't shown how I committed it I'm I'm I'm repeating your words back to you. All right. You said that well the reason why We can confirm the earth is moving is because we have seasons and the best thing that explains seasons Is the earth moving now that may be true even though it's not true But let's say it is even if it is true that they false cause if I create like like no, it's not Because if it's true then that is the cause so within how would it be a false cause if that is the cause I'm gonna try to break this down for you. All right, and I want everybody who's listening right now Like if you can't understand this then maybe this conversation This might just be out of your depth, but I learned this in my first year of college It's not that complicated. All right. This is the reality. Let's say the earth is flat leo leo Think about it think about or no, let's say the earth is a globe right? Let's say it's it's for sure global We don't know but it is and let's say I create a successful model like the gleason's map Right the gleason's map is a successful model. Let's say I create a model right of the earth that works Flat does that mean that the earth is flat? No, it doesn't mean that even though I create a good model Right, it doesn't mean that that's a false cause leo So models are not evidence evidence is observation and experiment. That's why I had to do that I still don't know how that's showing how I've committed a fault. Well, it might just be out of your depth then leo Because like I said, well, it's not out of my depth. It's the problem is that I didn't commit that fallacy. That's the problem I didn't commit that fallacy. So you don't think that saying we have seasons as evidence for the earth moving is a false cause No, that's not because that is an explanation for why we have seasons that because it's it is why we have seasons The earth has seasons because it's it's orbiting around the earth. How do you know that on its axis? How do you know that that's Because if that weren't the case, we wouldn't we wouldn't have seasons That's that's the definitely you just repeated to me the definition of a false cause like I could put your words In the false cars when you Do something else to give you a lot of time to talk there ross. We're gonna hand it off to leo Did you have any other thoughts earlier? I just had to do the floor No, not not on that not on that specific point Yeah, yeah, leo like you have to show for sure that that correlation is also causation You have to show that all right So I don't want to get too deep into that But like everybody who's listening go look this up later Watch that part again and see if that's a false cause it is you have to come up with Observations and experiments and the only way you know that that your experiment is successful is you have to have a control variable There's no control variable or experiment at all and what you're talking about. You're just making a statement Hey, are you saying in the third? So you're saying that the differences in the seasons isn't the result of the amount of direct sunlight That either of the hemispheres is receiving Uh, uh, yeah, I do agree that the sun is the number one contributing factor to the seasons. Yes I don't think that's anything to do. Okay. Yeah, so it's yeah It's the sun in relation to earth's position around the sun as a result of it being tilted on its axis Which affects the amount of direct sunlight that each of the hemispheres gets and that's why we have seasons Well, so we're we're in accordance there. You know, no, think about it We believe the same thing. We just believe the inverse right I believe in what we can verify and you believe in what they told you but it's the same process Right. We have seasons because of the sun But it's because the sun is moving around top of us. We see the sun move around top of us That's what we see Observationally, so that's why we have seasons because the sun is closer or farther based upon how it moves And by the way, if we're moving around the sun funding the vacuum of space Why is the sun in the same spot every single year for thousands of years? How we randomly find through space and the sun and the moon and the stars never really move off their axis Because they're moving too Like the whole solar are they moving randomly as a single? No, of course not. They're moving in accordance with you guessed it gravity Well, well, gravity's already been disproven. So you're basically saying an act You're basically saying an act of god makes something that we can't even conceive happen Something that we're not seeing is not happening. But the fusion is happening and it doesn't make any sense But god is making it happen. That's basically your story No, my story is well the reason that the earth is moving around its orbit And the reason the sun is moving is all due to gravity It's all due to gravity. So That's your evidence your evidence is oh, well, I said the word. Well, no, that's the explanation The explanation is gravity. I've already given you evidence for gravitation. So not even close though You didn't give me one experiment or observation. I told you about gravitational lensing And then there's also the perihelion procession of mercury which general relativity predicts Others black holes which general relativity predicted. There's gravitational waves Which general relativity predicts you to all of which has been observed. So we've observed black holes No, no, we have we've seen them because we know what we know what they're like because we have general relativity to tell us Well, I've seen it too. Don't get me wrong. Like Lawrence Cross is my favorite guy to listen to you So I've seen it. I'm not a fan Well, I'm a big fan, right? But the difference is that I think for myself, right? When I look at something I don't I don't just take this other person's opinion on the data I want to see the data for myself and come up with my own opinion, right? So basically I understand like, yeah, we do see stuff up there But that's all we do all we know is that it's stuff up there. We've never been there We don't know what it is. You're just claiming that it's that oh, yeah We can figure that out based off of it's electric, you know It's emission spectra. Like that's how we can figure out what stars are made of very far away Is we can just look at there are stars made of lines What are stars? They're made of plasma, which is super ionized gas It's what you get when the electrons and atomic nuclear But how do we know Just one second ross because stars are extremely energetic as a result of their pressures from gravity in the core Which creates temperatures hot enough to result in the nuclear reactions that release all of that energy Okay, that forces that material into a plasmatic state But can you show me an experiment that replicates that process? Replicates what the process like that's going on in the star be making a star We're talking science science debate making a star. I'm confused what process you want evidence for The process that occurs created How a star could create what? It could be created. You said that that's how stars gravitation Can you show an experiment that shows that happened? We've watched it happen. We've watched stars form Well, when and where? I don't know specific dates if you just google stars forming like sure that this is really Like I said, leo one day watch one day I hope to be able to be a religious man like you where I can just believe what my pastor says I'm not religious. I'm a natural church I go to church and let my pastor tell me, you know what? We saw the quasars and the asteroids and the stars and we know what they're made of plasma I know that for sure. I hope one day I get to the point where I could just let all this go I could like I could I could let down my my hunger for truth and just accept that Whatever somebody who might know more than me tells me. I just gotta believe I admire you for that. I'm not gonna. I admire you for that. It takes a lot Well, I don't think that way you don't you've said multiple times that I think that way, but I don't think that way I mean, but all of your evidence is is is is appeal to authority No, it's not I'll pull the consent in any way There's a difference between appeal to authority and argument from authority Only one of them is fallacious and that's argument from authority If you don't give any sort of argument at all and all you do is appeal to some authority on something That's fallacious But if you give an argument and then appeal to the fact that legitimate authorities in the area agree with the conclusions of the argument That bolsters the argument because these people Are authorities so appealing to them has non authorities and non experts Is is what we have to do This is the reason why if there was something wrong with your muffler You're probably gonna go to your mechanic and not your dentist Right, right. Okay. So two things number one. These people are not authorities not over me anyway No governmental figure has any moral right to tell you academics no government figures They're hired by private institutions. All these authorities that you're talking about are government figures or the government No, all the authorities. I'm talking about our physicists employed in like universities No, they're not like We're not the physicists the physicists that work at the harvard smithsonian senator raster That's a private that's a private institution. The government might fund projects, which it does a lot That's kind of why we have the military that we do with the technology that we do is because the government funds Really cool.  Like, yeah, there's nothing wrong with the government You're lost in the software programs Okay, let me let me let me tell you something about your government deal Since you're gonna talk about that. All right, and don't get don't Listen, listen, listen just because you think uh, uh, um, um tesla, right or or space x is a private organization They're not a private organization any company that receives government funds is a government company. All right I don't want to get into the ins and out of how that works. That's just straight forward. Yes, it is No, it's not because what defines a private All right, we are both on mute fellas. We can't be talking over each other Uh, all right, we're gonna I'm gonna take you off mute. Um, gee I I almost feel like doing an any mini money mo because you guys are both Interrupting each other a fair amount. Uh, just going to remind everybody in the audience We are going to be doing q&a, uh in a little bit here So get your super chats in uh, they'll be red first And if we have time for some extra ones in the chat, we'll get to them Uh, and definitely hit the like button if you haven't already, um Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna put you guys back on timers. I'm so sorry Uh, I'm gonna do a minute and I'm gonna hand it back over to you leo and uh, we'll see if we can get back into it Any mini money mo here we go That's strange. That's I do really want to say quickly though that I I actually think there's been less Interrupting in this debate than a lot of other ones that I've been in. Um I mean, we both kind of interrupted each other here and there But I I think this has been a pretty amicable discussion so far. Anyway, uh, the only thing I was saying Is that uh The fact that a company like say general motors or rather Lockheed martin might receive billions of dollars in government contracts doesn't make it a government corporation It's privately owned by stakeholders that make decisions that have a board of executives that run the company That like that they all work together in making this that this is capitalism. This is how it works These are privately owned firms the fact that the government happens to also pay them for stuff Doesn't make them government firms. That's not how economics works in the modern age. All right. All right, great So you're right. That's not how economics works, right? But that is how this country works, right? Let me let me enlighten you, right? For real, like if you listen, you'll learn something right now. All right Let me enlighten you and everybody that's listening right now about what's really going on here in america. All right America is not a cut. Let me keep this on topic honey, but I don't want to be that guy So nicely and wrote my notes. All right. We'll have 40 seconds for you ross I got the timer. I'll pause it for a second while you do that Listen, listen america, right is a company, right? It's a big corporation that makes weapons That's what it is. They weapons manufacturing company. All right. That's what america is They don't take technology and try to make us safe around the world What they do is they create fake wars around the world so they can take the resources from the indigenous people that live in those areas Colonize those areas just like they did in america, right? So that way the companies like lockheed martin that own this Country that's funny. You said lockheed martin's not a government country. This country is owned by lockheed martin Lockheed martin owns this country's best things to do the bidding for lockheed martin We go to war so that way lockheed martin can take money from the taxpayers and use it to kill people That's what's actually going on. There is that's not even up for debate. All right. Please don't go All right over to you leo I'm not really sure what My position's on the government and I have I have some opinions on on the notion of the state I'm just Not sure what it has to do with this particular debate Honestly, I'm gonna be honest leo Other than the experiments that I brought up in the very beginning of the debate nothing that you've been talking about at all Have been scientific We've been talking about the philosophy and appealing to authority and who thinks what and why we should believe these people that you think Are authority over that's what we've been talking about because you don't have any observations or experiments to back up What you're saying and all I have is observations and experiments But you don't want to deal with any of my observations or experiments I gave you an opportunity we quickly got off of that because you realize that there's nothing there My points are ironclad. Yeah. No, there wasn't there wasn't anything there with your Observations and experiments and I kind of addressed them like with respect to the ether That I showed that that does not show that the earth isn't moving It shows that the earth isn't moving through an ether which is reason to believe that there isn't an ether Then we developed quantum electrodynamics and now we know there's no ether There is an electromagnetic field however So yeah, I mean I've addressed all of that I pointed out how electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity because it's dielectric Then that means that it repulses as much as it attracts but gravity is only attractive Not only that but you can do electromagnetism on gravitational field. So they can't be the same thing A gravitational field is usually a particular representation held in the spacetime that is defined by the metric tensor. Yes Okay, okay, listen for that for the average person listening I want I want the average person listening to know that what you said right there was basically nothing The gravitational field It's a made-up thing. It's a made-up place that we can't confirm. That's what it is But that's not scientific. Well, that's that's not what I said. I said it's a representation of spacetime Represented by the metric tensor made up No, space time Well, no space times physical we've I mean we've measured that so space and time is physical Space time space time is physical. Okay.  No, it's not and how do we how do we measure because we can measure differences in the flow of time As a result of either extremely high velocity or extreme gravitation. So for instance, what control variable do you Make sure that the call that the correlation is causation. What's the control variable in that experiment? clocks Resting on the earth at sea level one minute versus clocks like that are say on our gps satellites Which is why they have to be consistently readjusted It's because the clocks on our gps satellites literally tick faster And we can measure that and we have to account for it in order for our technology to function properly That's how we know space time is real if it wasn't then where do you if space isn't real? Where do you exist? Time isn't real Time isn't real if time isn't real when do you exist? We can do it. Where would you put things if there was no space time? That's philosophical now. Let's let's not leave experiment. You're the one saying they don't exist, which is itself a philosophical claim Well, I'm saying that we can't measure. I'm saying anything that I can't observe or or measure through experimentation Then I'm not gonna assume that it exists. No, so I just want to let you know I want to let you know that that what you're talking about about measuring the difference between clocks and whatnot That also is false cause that's that's a textbook false cause fallacy, right? Because you have to have a control variable You have to have a control variable that you can manipulate in an experiment so that you can So that way you can prove that the effect that you're claiming comes from a certain phenomena Is that effect you need a control variable? You didn't describe a control variable. For example in my experiment the control variable is What? That's not how long about that. Yeah, you are. Um, We know that time dilation and length contraction are things not because we physically observe them in reality Um, but because they're not they're they're inherent. They're inherent in the space time diagram We have to use when we represent things when we do physics more diagrams more made up things Yes. Yes. That's right. That's real. There's a lot you use a lot of diagrams. Yes Nothing real. No experiments. No observations. All right, if we haven't observed it, it's not real time dilation is not real You understand what I'm saying? You know why? Because there this by definition It can't be real because time dilation is in a nutshell. I'm making it simple. I know it's more complicated I'm making it simple time dilation is because we're moving Right, our measurements are off because the the ruler shrinking the car is shrinking and guess what even your shrinking Your eye is shrinking so we can never tell if we can never tell Scientifically, that means we can't observe it. It doesn't exist. Listen. I get it.  Up to a minute. I mean both length and traction and time dilation have been observed We also observed them in the mule right my definition Yes, that's what that atmosphere and by definition they're there because they're intrinsic in the spacetime diagrams You have to have if you're doing physics That's a rule if you try to you if you were trying to understand things moving at relativistic speeds Um, and you didn't use like the Lorentz transformations You wouldn't get the right answers. So what that tells us is this is this is a feature of reality This isn't just about how we measure it And length and traction and time dilation actually come from how the structure of your spacetime diagram changes So as you accelerate instead of the your axes being at a right angle to each other They actually begin to contract upon each other as you that that's what you're um, so if I Being on the earth sort of Lorentz boosted into a Reference frame of a particle moving at very close to the speed of light I I would see it's spacetime diagram diagram like that or as I would see my own at 90 degree angle So it's about the structure of spacetime itself when things move or when we observe things moving at very very high speeds Right. So so everything we're talking about right now is completely theoretical. It's completely philosophical and none of it is science So you're literally talking about math Right, you're talking about math and how certain things fit in your math equations So that way they can properly explain what they think they're seeing on the earth Like I know you said a lot of words But essentially what you said is they came up with with a math equation that was supposed to explain what was going on It didn't work So they had to come up with something called time dilation to fix why what they were predicting did not match reality Essentially, that's what you said. So you're saying that you know what they were wrong So they made this up which we can't detect to cover the fact that they were wrong Listen, this is the bottom line We almost don't know anything in the grand scheme of what's really going on in the universe Our knowledge is close to zero and it isn't knowing anything We pretty much know nothing and I'm gonna tell you right now They want you to think that they know everything so that way you rely on them for everything It literally is that simple. That's where the rubber meets the road And you say we we haven't observed these things but we have to correct for them in order for our technology to function properly So I Yeah, our gps satellites Our gps satellites if we didn't correct for the time dilation in 24 hours The gps on your phone or in your car would be off by seven miles We get to consistently read read just the clocks on our gps satellites Because of the time dilation effects because they're 14,500 miles above sea level. So yeah, um I I'm just I'm not sure where you got your physics education, but I don't think that it was for me It's 25 seconds If you all right, I think you see you did it. All right, go ahead Well, I don't I don't have any physics Education all right everything I'm reading right right to you right now come from the physicists that built the world that we live in today You just don't want to agree with scientific consensus I'll let you go I'll let you go just let me finish because you're in the church of scientism, right? And by the way, why I want when you said that right it actually reminded me of something I didn't bring up in my in my presentation, right? So if you want to talk about right like navigating right and gps and all that Did you know that on the Gleason's map, right? If you if we navigate using the group the Gleason's map airplanes and ships Then we don't need to use any form of magnetic declination. The compass works perfectly But if you use it on a globe there's a whole magnetic declination chart that you basically have to adjust Where you're where you're going right based upon what the gps says you're doing right based upon what the flat What the what the globe map say you're doing you basically have to correct so that way you're trapped along the Gleason's map That's another that's literally just like another point for the fact that whatever whatever Plane we're on is the flat plane. It doesn't say anything about the overall world But the area that we're navigating it's obviously flat and matches the Gleason's map Magnetic declination proves this No, I don't really know anything about that But I did want to say you keep saying that like you're quoting what the physicists are saying But everything that you're claiming they're saying is not in their textbooks. It's not in their lecture series. It's not in the research You've never read so i'm just I'm just confused As to why you would think the physicists are saying these things that they're clearly not saying I don't There was something else you said. Oh, yeah, I'm not a I don't hold the scientism You see a lot of people like creationists and flat earthers throw out the words scientism But I don't think that they understand what this is and that this is a particular View within the philosophy of science more specifically But within philosophy or you could say metaphysics more broadly where one believes that the scientific methodologies that we have For understanding the world are the best methods for understanding literally anything about the world Including things like morality or aesthetics or things like that more abstract concepts I don't hold to that view. I'm i'm not a scientist. So I would appreciate if you didn't refer to me as one Well, I mean I I can respect that you think that but i'm gonna break it down for you I mean word for word like I said like linguistics What was one of the first things that I I studied when I went to school? You feel me the reality is you believe in things without evidence right without confirming the evidence. That's not true Yeah, I mean you haven't given me evidence or anything any of the things that you have I mean you you say that but it's not real evidence That's why I keep bringing it is that's why it's contained in the research that the professional physicists do I just want to read some do you chosen to reject that standard because obviously if you I'm rejecting the scientific method a very interesting predicament That's the standard. All right. I'm rejecting the scientific method Yeah, I think you are well, you might not be rejecting it, but you're certainly not really You don't seem to care about my whole presentation started off with experiments and observations I I don't really think the scientific method is all that relevant to the discussion. Oh now it's not relevant. I always want to bring it up No, I don't think specifically going over the scientific method is relevant.    That's that's hilarious, but Scientist is the term my bad. Yeah, but I've already explained what scientism is and why I don't hold to it So I'm not a scientistic. Well, I don't know, but you might think that you don't hold to it But your actions. No, I don't hold to it Like I know what the view is and I'm not that I don't hold to that I mean that but but you also said that no physicists, right a region is stuff that I'm saying and I'm about to quote some Right now. Here's nicola tesla the person who is the father of all That we that we use today All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance or ten continuity beyond conception filling all space The akasha or the loom loomereferis ether, which is wrong the life giving prana Or creative force calling into existence and never ending cycles. See, this is what an argument and phenomena Unquote this is somebody that actually invent stuff right our our modern inventions depend on what he knew On what he believed not the random people that you subscribe name is incited I just want people to know what just happened and that's what a real argument from authority looks like I mean, nicola tesla was obviously wrong in that quote. We know that's wrong There's multiple matter fields that exist. So it's not one thing It's funny that you tried to specify the difference between a fallacy And an argument from authority because I'm the only one that's giving arguments And then when you appeal to authority and tell me that nobody agrees with me I correct your appeal to authority by I didn't say nobody agrees with you. Let me finish. Let me finish Listen what I'm saying closely. You know what I'm about to say. So you want to interrupt it. No, listen, let this go All right, you you appeal to authority when I start giving experiments So I have to combat your appeal to authority by bringing authority on my own But it's not what you're doing because you're you're yours is an argument from authority because you don't have Who's authority on my appeal? But I'm not done. I'm not done. You don't have experiments. You don't have observations I started off my whole presentation my whole presentation with experiments with observations So when I bring up authority, that's not me appealing. I mean, excuse me, that's not an argument from authority I might be appealing to it to add to my observations and experiments my scientific evidence But you who brought no scientific evidence when you bring up your authority, which you're not even quoting anybody You're just saying it. You're like, oh, yeah, well physicists random So how am I committing? They did that they that proves that what I'm saying is wrong All right. Well, I did I mean Arthur Eddington and you know the experiment he did confirming general relativity Which is why the consensus very quickly changed after that thing I did doesn't mean you actually did Well, I didn't do the experiment Arthur Eddington did I don't know you said you brought up experiments and observations and you did Yeah, I I just did. Yeah, I did the one that Arthur Eddington did Well, okay, I'll explain it again. Um So Arthur Eddington during a solar eclipse was capable of of actually observing the lensing of the two stars And the amount by which they were lens was exactly as general relativity would have predicted So that's an experiment and that that's an observation. That's an observation not an experiment Observations come from experiments. That's the observation from the experiment of looking at these two stars The observation was that they are lensed and that they are lensed by the exact amount that was predicted by general relativity Which then serves as confirmation for the theory. I know. I know. I know. I know That's just one that I listed No, let's stick on that one. You know, no, no, let's stick on that one. We're not done one minute on the clock Okay, okay, so number one, all right the scientific This is why I said I want to just keep it simple because so many people on this channel have a hard time with the scientific method You guys need to go back to elementary school and learn that natural science comes from observing a naturally occurring phenomenon a naturally occurring phenomenon after that you come up with the hypothesis After that you design an experiment, right? You also there's also a lot that goes in to testing the parameters of the experiment to make sure it's proper And then you come up with the theory. All right, Leo, you don't know what you're talking about All right, I think you're out of your depth when it comes to this You just hear people say stuff and you're able to remember stuff and retain it and and repeat it I'm just gonna pause your timer for one second there, ross Just for the last 20 seconds here on your timer Just to take that thought and wrap it back into the the flat earth versus globe debate topic So we can get steered back in. Okay So 20 seconds All right, I forgot what I was saying, but but the reality look again my point since let's bring it back. All right This is a scientific debate. The scientific method is observation Experiment let's just leave it at that. Don't make it more complicated. All right If you want to to come up with a good scientific argument show me observations Show me experiments like I did in the beginning. All right Now you gave me just one over one why you gave me some observations But then again like those are just observations that that doesn't necessarily mean And you showed me observations, but those are just observations because I can show you Victory observations. I can show you contradictory observations. Yes. Like what? What would contradict the observation? In 1953 they did the experiment. Excuse me. They 1933 they this is when the theory of gravity was changed to From mass attracting mass because they realized that there wasn't enough mass in the galaxy to keep them from escaping So Like yeah, but that doesn't mean the theory is wrong. We well it doesn't mean But it does mean that we go back to the drawing board. It's not wrong But we do have to go back to the drawing board until we figure out what's what physicists That's what physicists did and they're still working on it. But most of them most of them think Yeah, it is what they did. Most of them think it's dark matter. Some of them think it's modified gravity The vast majority of cosmologists are on the site of dark matter. We've made significantly more measurements with respect to dark matter We like I said most cosmologists are going to think that it probably is some form of tangible matter That does not interact with the electromagnetic radiation Which is really not that far-fetched of a thing But it does interact with gravity and it's that extra gravity coming from that dark matter That is responsible for the anomalies we see and the funny thing is All of this fits very very well within the framework of general relativity without pretty much any modification to it And that's why it's so favored because it's simple It fits the observations and it explains what we see and that's what good science is all about Interesting that was great. Leo. I hope one day I get to be just like you and just say Whatever people tell me without having to think about it myself. All right, but let me let me you know You've said that a lot. I just want you to know it's not an objection to anything Okay, I know but so for for the for everybody listening I want to give a summary of what you just said you said, yeah, they looked at it Their predictions were wrong. We have all these theories Which means we don't know yet and then at the end of that you said and so now we know we know we know we know Like that's a huge You started off with we don't know this we don't know this but we do know this dog if somebody is wrong one time I'm already you don't have a weird if they're wrong twice. I'm like, all right That's it These are people that have been wrong at every step every step of the way. They're wrong. They're wrong So I'm supposed to assume that they're right now. No, no, they don't know they don't know and you don't know You don't you don't think that we know much more than we did in 1933. I do think we know a lot more than that. Yeah Yeah That's what I was explaining. Yeah, we know that everything is Everything is static. You know, everything is electrostatics. We know the surface is not curved We know the earth of the center of the cosmos and we know the earth is not moving. That's what we've discovered Repeating those planes. All right. We're gonna give you a minute there, leo Just because you did put up a lot of stuff there ross. So We'll give you a minute there I just wanted to say there's actually three elementary forces in reality. Um, there's strong interactions There's weak interactions radioactive decays result of weak interactions atomic nuclei are held together as a result of strong interactions So it's not all electric. Um, these are extremely well-defined effective field theories that have made predictions to the umpteenth decimal place That that are so well confirmed that they will never be overturned like We will learn a lot. We we don't know all we like we know actually a hell of a lot about our universe But we don't know everything But what will be true in a thousand years is that this phone is still made of atoms and that the nuclei of those atoms are held Together as a result of strong interactions. That will be true in five thousand years That will be true in 35 35 thousand years because that is an objective feature of how the world works It's not all electric the electromagnetism is one very specified very well-defined theory that we have gravity is another Might not be a fundamental force But it's not really even a force, but we can treat us but it's different from the electron You sound so sure leo and I respect that but just know that there's no surety or belief in science So what you're doing is you're telling me about your philosophy, which is fine I'm a philosopher myself But the problem is once you start once the arrogance comes in right you can have a philosophy It's different than mine, but once you start saying that people who don't agree with your philosophy Aren't aren't this or they can't whatever it is now you start getting to the to the to the realm of religion That's why I say that you're you're you're in the in the religion You just believe you just believe what all these people tell you right and then and and it would be if you didn't think that You were on the side of science But you for some people You're on the side of science when you don't even look at experiments and that's that's that's your religion You're you're in a religion now What what people You say the you just listen to what these people tell you who are these people Whoever it is that you listen to that tells you that the nigglesson and moorley experiment That would that would be just an ether lecture series So if I wanted to learn about like geology you're saying that watching like Like say a university recorded an intro to geology course and put it on youtube I should not watch that to learn about geology Where should I go if not two professional geologists and the courses they teach and the books they write I just did the same with physics Well, let me ask you a question Let me ask you a question Let me ask you a question You've been playing the legitimacy of of the academic level physicists and what have you because you hold to such a thoroughly disproven um pseudoscientific theory and that you have to reject the legitimacy of academic physics In order to maintain some semblance of seriousness to you Don't call me pseudoscience because I am being stringent to francis bacon. I'm sorry. This has been this has existed for hundreds of years now. All right We have a scientific method Huh? Oh, I'm saying just one second Leo. We're we're giving you the floor Yeah, look we have the scientific method. I'm being stringent to that I am for sure downplaying the validity and the authority of the academic community. It's all government ran That's right. It's all government ran and it's basically just commerce base. All right So like say no, let's not even get in that but for sure. I'm downplaying them. You should not be appealing to their authority I'm sticking to to to what can we observe and and what can we test to experiment? Guess what? You can believe what you want outside of that, but you can't call it Science or you can but then you're gonna have people like me Reporting to you that you're a pseudoscience You can't call me pseudoscience because I'm following the scientific method If you think that science is anything other than the scientific method You're a pseudoscientist or you're in the religion of of scientism Linguistically linguistically Being I don't know what religion of scientists again again for the third time. Scientism is just a philosophical view The scientific method has changed since Francis Bacon because the methods we use have changed particularly as we've gained better technology And what what's more important Than just like the methods of science which are important But what's very important is how science progresses and how the methods that it uses progress as science itself Progresses and there's a variety of Variety philosophers of science That have spoken on this Speaking of Ross What is your like? Are you a pauparian? Akunian a Lakatosian like what framework do you use? understanding Well, I'm referring to like three popular views 10 seconds in the philosophy of science Like myself, I hold the like what how Imera Lakatos laid out what science is and how science Progresses with you know research methodologies scientific research programs and you know the core theories and auxiliary Hypotheses and things of that nature. I was just curious if you held that any of the three and if so, no one No, no, no, I just I just As close as you can get to a real list if you will not quite a material list, right? But if you consider the the dye, you know electric plane of the ether a different form of material then sure You can call me a materialist as well. I like to believe in things that I can see and verify for myself All right, so I appreciate the scientific method because of what I believe about it Right what I believe in the I don't believe in the scientific method because somebody said this is the best way to do it I believe in an observation But I also believe that our eyes can deceive us and so we have to do experiments so that way we can test What we're seeing with our eyes so so that way we can know what's really going on That's literally the like the edge of it right there anything else on that I have to take with a grain of sand okay and and I also believe just for the record that Every single thing that is that is government ran or funded is completely destructive and Been politicized to lie to you science is the latest of that It started off with with religion, right? And then it went to like social action and now it's it's Scientism right they act science and and and get people to appeal to authority So that what you just believe what they say and then when they say hey put this in your arm Hey, don't go to work. You just believe them because you're like well my doctor told me Think about think about how sure we were that our doctors were right five years ago And now everybody's like I would never listen to my doctor again. You understand this is what we're dealing with We're dealing with liars that have financial reason to lie about all this stuff And so it makes sense in that context and like I said if you look at all evidence It it shows that that they're lying Yeah, I mean at this point it's just Well, they're wrong because conspiracism. It's it's all government conspiracy for control and money and power And that's why we can't trust science that you know delivers technology every single day We drive our cars.  It's all the conspiracy guys says all of this And this I mean let's all let's not all act like we didn't know that this is where flat earth always goes It goes. Oh, well, they're all wrong because now it's a government conspiracy money power control Well, but this doesn't have anything to do with the earth being fly It really has to do with the electromagnetic nature of the earth and how there's free energy everywhere It's not really about that and and I hate the word conspiracy coming from the sun But but listen, listen, I hate the word conspiracy because what we're doing right now is a conspiracy You know that right? Would you know the definition of conspiracy? And as I was using it. Yes, I do. No. No. No. Do you know the definition of the word conspiracy linguistically not in your made-up head? Yeah, but there isn't like a the definition the word No, we have the web See All right, this is 40 seconds for Ross right now This is what this is why I brought up Right logical reasoning right valid arguments and linguistics We can't change the the the definitions of words in the middle of sentences because then we'll never get anything done Leo, this is not about us arguing and trying to make the other person look wrong or right Leo, I want to find out what's going on for real I want to find out the truth So in order to do that we have to agree on the definitions of words, right? And then we can use that to create a framework right so that way we can know what we're talking about in real life Okay, when you use the word conspiracy, right? That just means Uh, one or more person getting together to make something happen. All right Conspiracy theories like we're like what are you guys even talking about? Like you literally sound like a sheet that just that bases everything that you believe on google And I don't take you as that type of person that you that you base everything that you believe about the world on google You know what I mean? So just because google says something is a conspiracy theory That doesn't mean that it's not true Tons of things that used to be conspiracy theories have been proven to be true already So I don't know why you would even play that Are you you really think that it's far fetched that the government is trying to take advantage of you? Are you really that and like I said, maybe you're really so naive that you think that oh if I'm nice other people can't be Evil you we don't think that there are people in the world that want to do evil things to you leo Wait, you think that I think that I'm asking Well, I mean my How I think about political economy I just don't think it's really relevant to this It's exactly relevant because the people that would do that to you they consolidate where the power is right?  I went to school for political science, right? The minute that I found out what was going on in government.  They're gonna go to places where power is consolidated so that way they can exercise their evil on people 100% leo All right, floor is yours The fact that you think that the problem and all the powers consolidated in the government pretty much Tells me everything I need to know Well, I'm gonna let you know right now leo I can I can map it out for you without even researching right? I did a lot of research for this for this I wouldn't have to do a minute of research Every single issue that's going on on the earth right now Every single one comes from government intervention period. Everyone leo test me on that. I dare you No Time right now so sorry I don't know why I'm entertaining this. Um, I mean I'm at this point. I am ready to move into q&a I don't know for us is but I I just got to ask these governments are intervening on whose behalf Uh, these governments act on lockheed martin and lockheed martin is owned by Uh, there's people Capitalists Yeah, colonizers, buddy. Yeah colonizers Not even close You do realize that colonialism has could like capitalism was like built out of the colonialism of europeans, right? Like the dutch and the english Starting out as mercantilism You're you're confusing two different things. All right in america. This is not a capitalist country. This is a fascist country This is not a capitalist we can we can move into the q&a. I can't do this right now I know you can't I know you can't you have no I don't you're out of your depth right now No, you're out of your depth My dad this has been quite lively All right, a march system out of my death. All right. All right. All right. Y'all trying to get the last word here before we Hold on. Hold on. All right. So thank you Both of our speakers.  Super lively if you're enjoying the debate Uh, hit the like button right now. Uh, you know, if you're hanging out in the live chat Uh, I see lots of people with all kinds of questions here So we are going to jump into the q&a in just a moment. Um, I will also remind you guys once again That within 24 hours all of these are going to be uploaded to our podcasts So share them out from your favorite podcast links and let your friends know So, uh, as per usual courtesy, I'll just ask ross leo. Uh, did you guys need to take a moment to, uh, Step out for a second for any reason we won't say No, all right, everybody's feeling good. Let's go into q&a everybody So keep those super chats coming in and we'll keep the conversation rolling along If you feel like we didn't get to touch on something during the debate now is the time to get that in as a super chat And uh, maybe we'll get to expound on it in a way that we didn't uh Over the course of the last hour and 40 minutes here.  What you're saying right now has absolutely no basis in reality Find one thing that is not electrostatic in nature Even if you even if you accept atomism, right? Which leo already admitted that the atom is not a particle, right? But just for the sake of this conversation, let's say atoms are particles. What holds the atoms together? It's electoral statics or die electricity, right? So that's basically the opposite end of charge And strong interactions That's just another way of saying electricity is movement. No, it's not Three entirely different charges Negative. No, there's no three different charges. There's charging Oh, so you you don't know anything about like quantum electrode or quantum Chromodynamics you haven't you haven't done any q and i know that people that i know that people that study quantum physics Know that they're that their field is completely theoretical and has no basis in reality. There's no observation experiments. Yeah, it does Huh? Yeah, it does the experiments are done every single day at CERN So we discovered some of this stuff. Let me guess in the large particle collider in the collider, right? Yeah, they do it in the collider. Get out of here. Yeah, we have multiple Show me pictures from the collider. Get out of here, isn't it? You literally just go to google and type in large hadron collider and you'll get pictures of the detector. Yeah Like I said, you can look up cms detector and you'll get pictures of the cms detector Like just go google. I said people have taken pictures of these things You're the type of kind of the earth and it's brown You're the type of person that bases everything you believe on stuff you read on google and that's fine But don't don't don't know that's not right.  Okay. All right. All right. Let's get moving on everybody Uh, yeah, and if you're just tuning in right now, you might be wondering what this is all about pun intended We are And it kicks back sometimes so I gotta be careful because it gets an air pocket down there Yeah, it kicks back pun intended. All right. We are debating tonight flat earth versus globe Um, we've gotten into a couple other avenues here as well. So I hope everybody's enjoying the discussion Let's keep going with the q&a and keep those uh questions coming in everybody. We super appreciate it Uh, let's see stupid horror energy strikes again, uh, and uh, biden harris 2024 Explain the gravitational lensing effect like light bending around the sun and in experience experiments such as pound repka and Gravity probe a which confirms einstein's predictions of general relativity Sorry if I put your the names I mean that like that just has to be a complete misrepresentation because einstein's theory of relativity has been debunked already By what? Um, I can say it was debunked in 1933 and in 1955 by basic observations of the galaxy clusters How did they debunk it? By observing the galaxy clusters and calculating the amount of mass that should have been there in order to keep them from escaping The mass versus the gravity the number was off by 99 percent. There was 99 percent mass needed for the amount of gravity that was there So they changed there's more there's more mass there because they are held together So we know that there's less mass. There was less mass than they needed. There's less observed mass If it's not observed, how do you know because we can detect it? How? gravity No, no, no, no, no, see gravity is what's in question. There's circular reasoning. No, no Leo, Leo, Leo, Leo, Leo, you're having that's why no cosmologists Listen, what I'm saying is I'm trying to help you dog I help you dog. All right We're asking how do you know gravity is there right and I'm telling you It's not there because we observe this and you said no, no, no It is there because gravity That's literally what you said. Yeah gravity is in question. So your reasoning Also be gravity these experiments don't call gravity in the question That's why no cosmologists thinks that they've called gravity into question That's why general relativity is still thought at the graduate level for those getting a phd in astrophysics or cosmology They wouldn't teach it if it was refuted shadow all the sheet It's taught in every accredited university on Yes, they would shadow all the sheet but I just want to let everybody know All right that just because mother fuckers teach you something in school. That doesn't mean it's true I know that's crazy for you guys to imagine. All right, but guess what your teacher might teach you something It might turn out to be a lie. All right. Just just you know, why you're going on in life Don't believe everything you see on tv.  Don't That might not be true. It might not even be true. Don't listen to those mechanics. That might not even be true They're lying to you. They're all paid off by the big government and everything like that They're they're trying to you know sell more cars by you not taking care of yours You don't think they're trying to sell more cars, Leo? You don't think they're trying to sell more cars? Because they're bad and they're real. Do you think they want to sell more cars or no? Do they want to sell more cars? I just think it's funny that he literally is saying that because a professional level course is taught at every accredited university On the face of the planet. That doesn't mean that what they're teaching in the course Well, what they're teaching an abstract algebra course.  It's that same No, no that They're not No, okay. Listen. Listen. This is what we have to accept in the world, right? The reality is like there's probably like 10 of the world that can understand Complex concepts like these all right the average person This just might be over your head. All right, because this is a very simple thing that mean not a genius I'm not a genius leo, but I can understand what I'm saying very very easily and for some reason you're having a hard time Understanding how basic logical fallacies work. All right, so this just might know your head. You're just missing out of your depth, leo Can I ask you a quick question ross? I would I would love you to ask me a question. Can you tell me what the material conditional is? The material conditional Yeah, what's the material condition? I just heard that one for the first time. I just heard those two So you don't know what the material conditional is in logic, but you're telling me I'm the one in over my head Well, just for those that don't know the material conditional is if and only if also referred to as material implication Oh, man Let's try to move on to the next super chat there.  You're not supposed to change your oil every 3,000 miles Yeah, no, I was driving a car home one time and I don't think the oil had ever been changed in that car Because it just started smoking and then pow and she died I was like, oh my what did I meet this guy halfway? I am a real quick shout out somebody in the comments They just said that the glow that the earth is a globe and stationary leo if you were smart That's the position that you would have took in in this debate If you really knew what the information was you would have said the earth is it's not moving all right I agree on that we can't argue that but it's still a globe if you were smart you would have did that shout out Whoever said that in the comments But if it wasn't moving then seasons become inexplicable and so distiller. That's not true. That's a false call The day a little logical fallacy leo a little logical fallacy. No, it's not you haven't shown the false calls and a slippery slope all right We need to move on to our next question. We have lots of them here and We're gonna stir the pot on this conversation for a while because this is not the end folks Let's see Lj our honorary Always here to ask questions related to flat earth even when we're not having a flat earth debate So love seeing you in the live chat having fun, but uh, what's the proof of jupiter's mass size and gravity? That's for leo. Yep What's the proof? Well, I I don't understand the question. How do we know what jupiter's size and mass are? I imagine that is what he's I I don't know. I don't I don't do planets stuff I don't measure planets. I have no idea how we measure the mass of a planet I can google it for you though I do more cosmology stuff. How do we measure the mass of a planet? All right, well you get it that up. I'm gonna remind everybody once again smash the like button Oh, so we do it by basing it off of the sun's mass and once we have the sun's mass We can just determine the planet's orbital radius and period and calculated the required centripetal force and equating that force And the force predicted by the law of universal gravitation all using the sun's math So yeah, again, it's complicated math because that's what physics usually is but yeah, so we have ways Actually, is this wait? No, that's something different. Okay Shout out google Oh, no, this is actually from scientific american google is just a site that I used to get there Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that All right, let's carry on uh lj. Thank you for that is going to strike again Why doesn't earth spin under a hovering helicopter? Leo Because the helicopter already has the momentum of the earth The same reason why when you raise your hand in a car it doesn't go flying back Or if you like sit up off the seat really quick to grab your wallet out You don't go flying back in a car because you're already moving with it Next time you're in a car just put a quarter on your knee and ask yourself why the quarter isn't moving See with that already moving. It's already moving with the car Doesn't that observation necessitate and even if you were to bounce in the quarter bounced with your knee It's not gonna all of a sudden start moving because it's already got the momentum of the car So it's the same basic principle the helicopter already had the momentum of the earth because it took off from the earth But what about if there's no covering if you're in a convertible that has nothing to do Certainly gonna go back But it's nothing to do with moment. Yeah, that's air resistance Okay, so this is what we're talking about if the earth is moving Right Air resistance, so there's like a roof on the earth and you're saying there's a roof No, the earth doesn't have a roof I mean, it's that's the example you gave you said if you're in a car a car. No, it's not all right I'm I just wanted to click you think the car having a roof was the point of my example That's what that's what you got factor in it. Yes, because if you change the roof, okay I'm gonna show you how convertible it changes the example Bow because of air resistance I swear How funny it was that when they ask you how do we know the size and all that stuff about jupiter you're like What I don't understand the question. He's like leo. He just asked you how do we know and then I reframe How meaning how Huh, well he didn't ask how do he said prove this that you know, how can we prove it? Yeah, we don't prove it proof is for math So we don't know them Well, you don't need proof to not have knowledge Oh Is that your final answer? Final answer for what we don't need proof to have knowledge That that's just a fact. That's an episode. Well, that's a fact. Oh, that's a fact. Yes, it is. Okay. Okay Well, that's not what a fact is but it is true that you don't need proof to have knowledge. You just need justified true belief Because that's what I would I would say knowledge without proof is closer to intuition or or like a guess No proof doesn't have anything to do with knowledge proof is a particular method of deriving conclusions from changing linguistics This is nothing to do with linguistics and everything to do with Is words and how are you buddy linguistics? Epistemology is the study of knowledge Yeah, you are talking about knowledge because you seem to be claiming that you need proof to have knowledge. No, you don't Okay, that's epistemology, but you said you said that proof doesn't have anything to do with knowledge That's linguistics. That's correct. That's also epistemology because I'm making claims about knowledge very much link No, not really. I mean philosophy of language has ties to epistemology And through philosophy of language we get to linguistics, but it's not really relevant to epistemology as a subject I thought you said you did the philosophy. You don't know anything about epistemology what I thought you said you did philosophy. You don't seem to have a strong grasp on You don't understand how that you don't understand how it's What is the basic I know you're getting excited because I'm cooking but relax. All right, listen It's not that I don't understand it. You just don't understand how epistemology and linguistics are intimately intimately linked They're essentially the same thing. You cannot have epistemology without proper linguistics. Are you insane? Well, yeah, you can Because he meant epistemology studies different things. It's over over your head. Over your head You don't even know what knowledge is any epistemology. I don't know what it is Yeah, tell me what knowledge is according to epistemology I don't know what knowledge is according to epistemology. Do you know what it? Do you know what it's getting? Do you know what it get of your cases? Do you tell me what are getting your cases? Is this a spelling? No, you keep acting like you know more about these things than me, but You didn't know what the material conditional was and it doesn't seem you understand epistemology because you don't know what a get of your cases Let me explain the difference to you between Memorizing and reading comprehension. All right. There's a difference between reading something and being able to repeat it And reading something and knowing what is actually being said, all right So when I say when we're talking about linguistics and epistemology and how I'm not talking about, you don't understand You don't understand right what we're actually talking about past what the words mean. I understand what I'm talking about Just repeating what you see what you hear on google. All right work linguistics Actually, no, I read a book on epistemology by a pretty prominent. I agree with you Is You don't have epistemology without linguistics. I don't see how you don't understand that Well, that's because it's not true Well, lean you have to know what words mean In order to track the history of knowledge, which is carried out through words You have to know what the words mean. That's linguistics. I can't really have to explain First year linguistics information to you. It's like, yeah, that's you can't have Without us agreeing on what the words mean linguistics Well, that's a part of linguistics, but that's not like the whole subject Let's move on here. Uh, yes, thanks for the uh, super chats there. Keep them coming everybody. Uh, as you can see We got all kinds of stuff left unpack Taking back edin fe says neo if this is the matrix. Are you anderson? I don't know who that question was for. I'm not sure because I never watched the movies. Oh, yeah, you can hate me I don't know anything about the matrix either because I didn't watch it or them I don't I don't even know how many there are. Did you watch the matrix ross? Uh, yeah, I did uh, and I'm coming on that I just want to comment on something I've seen in the comments Somebody said that I'm the physical embodiment of ignorance is bliss, right dude I literally pretty much said that exactly to leo throughout this whole that's literally been my whole point I'm like leo. I hope I get to the point one day where I could be like you and I could just believe something You know, I don't know it for sure.  I live a happy life I don't know for sure like I don't I'm confused. You know, I mean like that's literally the exact thing I've been accusing leo of in this whole debate and just on the matrix thing I mean look like I don't like getting into all like the Conspiracy theories or whatever But we can talk about the facts of what's really going on and all of this comes down to sucking energy out of people Making people pay for energy, right? Because energy is the basis of what runs our society if we had free energy We wouldn't hot we would not have to be slaves You everybody listening to me right now if we had free energy You would not have to do any of the any of the things that you're doing right now that you don't want to do You would be able to work on your passions and all that and not be a talk in the system So it's not so much metaphorical Then it is literal right could we literally have to pay for energy and you literally have to pay taxes or else You're basically a slave you will get thrown in a cage if you don't work for your slave masters You understand so like that's literally what the matrix is It's just you going to work and doing what you don't want to do So that way you can buy energy to power your home and work on your passions and feed your family Okay, all right. Well, I haven't seen it. So, uh, yeah, thanks for the thoughts there ross Ozy and dox says 24 months is it? Yes membership for 24 months. Thank you so much for your membership says also after show on matters now So there's going to be an after show everybody and I think everybody's invited Lj says for dollar 99. How do we have a pressurized system within a vacuum? That's for you leo Uh gravity gravity holds earth's atmosphere to the earth because the atmosphere is gas and gas has mass and mass Is what you need for gravity and since the earth is much more massive than the atmosphere It holds the atmosphere there That's why there's a gradient in the pressure from sea level moving upward that thins out as you move further away from the source of gravity All right, I just want to be known that leo does not agree with scientific consensus That gravity is not the mass of two bodies pulling each other toward one another leo is going to get I never said that He's in the religion I never said that. I don't know what you're talking about. Why are you mischaracterizing what I've said? Mass specifically has nothing to do with mass Yeah, it does it's not even real and the fake one that you subscribe to doesn't have anything to do with mass Gravity isn't real. How come things drop when I let go of them electrostatics So how come there's no repulsion of things? What do you mean repulsion?  We only observe We only observe things being attracted to the earth All right, all right, I'm gonna share my screen one more time because I didn't I didn't um, I didn't show one of my examples I got you right here. I got you right here Here you go. You want it? You want to show repulsion right? All right, you're welcome to share your screen All you have to do is is a is a fact Am I sharing that? Okay all you have to do Is is change the electromagnetic frequency of the item or of the field and gravity will change This is them doing that with not gravity changing. It's Yes, it is You're right gravity is not changing This isn't he like this is just using sound to levitate things. Yeah, this is Sound is electromagnetic everything is electrostatics dog Sound is not electromagnetic sound is a result of acoustic waves Listen, listen, listen. Don't take my word for it. Don't take leo's word for it. All right Go research yourself and see if sound is the electromagnetic frequency.   Why are you the only one now? I'm a physicist don't agree with this Just don't agree with this at all I'm not no physicist agrees with any of this because it's not true Yes, they do. Yes, they do. No, they don't the how come it's not many of their textbooks or their lectures Because it will give us free energy and that will destroy the trillion dollar. We already get free energy We get a lot of free energy from the sun What the energy we get from the sun is free energy. So why do we still call? What do you mean people that has to do with the structure of our social systems? That has to do with the structure of our social systems. Okay, nothing about What reality is or how it behaves? All right. Okay, so this that's your answer to the textbook leo Why don't they teach it in textbooks? There you go.  Why would they give up trillions of dollars to teach you how to get the millions of dollars off of physics? That's not at all the case. They make trillions of dollars off of off of us not getting free energy. Yes, they do Yeah, you're right because we live under a capitalist mode of course. I'm right But that doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the earth. So I don't understand why That's a different conversation number one. You're right. But we were talking about everything being electrostatic That's what that has to do with don't change it. We can go on to the shape of the earth again But I was talking about the electrostatics.  Just nothing to do with the electromagnetic. Yes, it is. Everything is dielectric no electrostatic and Wait, so I have a question.  I don't hear with my eyes. I don't know anybody that Let me let me explain to you what's going on my eyes and I hear with my ears. Let me help the eardrum vibrates as Give me a fist here hit up against it. We agree on that Right, right. We're on that electrostatics. Right. Okay. I got you. Here you go. All right seconds there. Okay.  You call it seeing because it takes place in your eyes It's the same thing frequencies are hitting your ears.   Yes You're not seeing anything. You're not hearing anything. It's all electromagnetic frequency That comes when it comes to your ear. Some of it comes to your eye. It's the same thing, but no No, because the eye picks up electromagnetic radiation But the ear doesn't have the same kinds of receptors so the ear can't pick up Electromagnetic radiation because it doesn't have any physically biologically possible way to do so But what it does do is it's differences in the pressure in earth's atmosphere, which is what sound is Allegedly, you're just saying that Well, no, that's what it is. No, no, that's what medicine is based on. That's what everything is based on It's nothing to do with your ears. That's all it is. It's just electromagnetic frequency being interpreted through the ears I feel like this was happening earlier. We're going to move on to the next question But uh, my mother was visiting earlier. I bought a house recently I think a couple people in the chat know that uh in our discord So that's why I was kind of absent for a while.  How is the great CLRL solar? I don't know what you mean. How is the great circle sailing possible on a flat earth model? Is that what he? Is that what he means? Right, right. Yeah. Yeah, it's it's like it's it's like you you can navigate around a plate, right? Like think about the Gleason's map is the most accurate map. We have magnetic Declination proves this there's no magnetic magnetic declination on the Gleason's map. All right So the map is like like it's it's it could be flat and circular, right? You know, it's funny when I posted I was going to do this debate Somebody one of my friends from high school comedy and was like the earth the earth is a triangle, right? As he said the earth is a triangle. I might bro think about it a triangle has a flat has flat sides All right, so that's why I specifically Uh, speci