Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth versus Glowbirth, and we are starting right now with the Glowbirth side. Thanks so much for being with us, PlannerWalk. The floor is all yours. Thank you. Would you just get around to sharing my screen? Hold on, Zoom is being weird. It sure is. Not a problem. There's a share screen button that's green on the bottom, usually sometimes at the top, and it's in the middle. Oh, there we go. Are you able to see that? Yep. Okay, so the earth is flat, and here's why. So when it comes to earth, it isn't flat, but it isn't a perfect sphere. This is going to be important. I promise that I'm going to get to why later. But mountains disprove that the earth is flat. It also disproves that it's a perfect sphere. These two things, to say that earth is a perfect sphere, would be wrong. To say that it's flat would be wrong. But these aren't equally wrong. And it would be absurd to say that, well, because the earth is neither flat nor a perfect sphere, it must be a donut.   It's about alternative ideas to absolutely everything. Flat Earth for a long time hasn't really been about any sort of evidence, even though it has tried in the past to be about evidence. Instead, it's about misunderstanding the globe model. You'll hear a lot of people will say if the earth was spinning at 5,000 miles an hour, then it would all fly off, which is not actually what would happen. And if you were to try and present that as evidence for the earth being flat, then that would not be evidence that the earth was flat. Even if you're correct about the people flying off, that doesn't mean that the earth is flat. That might just mean that the earth is a globe and stationary. It used to be that people thought that the earth was a stationary globe back in, I think it was 500 years ago, people thought that the earth was a stationary globe. Now, if you do try and get to the sort of evidence, I think that Flat Earth is a pseudoscience because it isn't really about trying to prove that the earth is flat, trying to give reasons that the earth is a flat. It's more about trying to debunk the earth as a globe. Now, let's say you did debunk the earth as a globe. Is it then reasonable to say that it's then flat? No, because it would be like saying that the earth is a doughnut because it's neither flat nor a perfect sphere. There's a lot of ad hoc justifications. So when you try and ask, okay, why does this happen on a Flat Earth? There will be an ad hoc justification that will be put into it. Quite often, I don't know if Jiren or Witsa used this, but quite often when you say, why do things disappear bottom first over the horizon? Some Flat Earths will say, well, perspective as an ad hoc justification. There's a few other ones that I can't quite remember at this point in time. There is no falsifiability to Flat Earth. If you want to be science, you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis. So this means that there is a way to test what you are saying. And then if we were to test what you're saying under reasonable conditions, then we can say, okay, well, this is what the results say, and your thing could be false. There have been multiple times when I've seen Flat Earths do experiments, but then their experiment fails or whatever, and they do not accept the result of that experiment. Another really good thing is when you try to provide things like calculations. Calculations are very important. If you can say, okay, this is why things fall at this rate, give calculations for why they fall, and all that kind of stuff, then that is really good. That actually leans to falsifiability. If your calculations are accurate, then testing it should be able to prove whether your calculations work or not. I haven't seen any sort of calculations that Flat Earths say, okay, this is the calculation for things like relative density. Okay, so let's get to the evidence. I want to make this debate more about evidence rather than trying to say, okay, this is something that Einstein said or whatever. I want this to be about evidence. So this is a thing that a lot of Flat Earths bring up, and it's called the black swan. And it is an image that shows the horizon being behind two platforms. Now, one thing that I find that a lot of Flat Earths do is they ignore other images of the same platforms, which show the platforms being hidden by the horizon. And you can look, and there is very clearly something going on, especially in the first image, you can tell that there is refraction, very heavy refraction here on both the platforms. Why is that? Well, I would say that it's because it's very heavily refracted. There could be some refraction going on here, but again, no Flat Earth has ever tried to give any kind of calculations or something to try and explain why this would happen on a Flat Earth. Then there is also this image here, one of my favorites. This was taken by a Flat Earth using an infrared camera. And we can see that, so initially they thought that this shouldn't be what you would see on a globe. But in fact, it's exactly what you should see on a globe. This is an image of what we'd expect to see versus what we actually see, and it lines up absolutely perfectly. I'd like to have someone try to explain why we see this on a Flat Earth, if the Earth is flat. Why do we see something that we would expect to see on a globe on a Flat Earth? Lastly, I want to thank Jiren for putting this video up. I'm not going to show the whole video. This is a screenshot from it, and we can see that there is a curved horizon there. And a lot of Flat Earths will say, well, it's because of a fisheye lens. Well, if it were from a fisheye lens, then why is it that when the horizon is below the center of the camera, that it's curved in a way that wouldn't be possible if this were a fisheye lens? Whether it's above or below the camera, it still curves in the same way. Why is that? And my last bit of evidence is just James. So David, if you want to take over. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, guys, thanks for having me on. So the Earth is a globe, and let's just cut to it. Some of what Planet Walk has stated is clear. Mountains can certainly be used. The measurement of the height of mountains relative to another person's elevation can clarify that you're seeing mountains that are at a distance are angled away from the person's line of sight. And the height of that mountain does not match the elevation. The height of that mountain, as it's seen from the observer from such a far distance, does not match the elevation. That's because the mountain is at an angle that is on a curved surface. But more than that, we have a lot of things that can justify and prove that the Earth is a sphere, and when used in tandem, they are irrefutable. But what flat Earth is, what you do is misuse the concept of perspective. To simply say the perspective is a way to prove that something that is further away looks like it's larger than it is, or that something is higher than it is, and lower than it is, there is nothing measurable behind that explanation. The lack of a measurable way of explaining one's position means that you do not understand the concept and that you are simply ad-hoc'ing it. A big problem is that flat Earth is ignoring the effect of gravity, but then try to explain the effect without acknowledging the fullness of that effect. Things fall, they fall downward, there's a reason that those objects fall downward, and outside of declaring that it is because it is, which means nothing, they will try to redefine the concept of gravity, essentially make it into a game of semantics, speaking about relative density, or localized gravity, or something else which can be easily clarified and therefore debunking their position. I've heard some very logical, sorry, illogical fallacies, basically using a concept of logical fallacies, but incorrectly. There's the sense of a necessary antecedent to say that there has to be something to cover up the atmosphere so that the air around us has a container. That is not necessary. Assuming that it is necessary is a logical fallacy. The aspect of personifying things, to say that water finds its own level, or the horizon finds its own level, or something to that effect, that's also a logical fallacy, the concept of water finding anything, water doesn't find anything. The analogy is to say that water settles into a position and that we assume that a position is infinitely on the same plane, on the surface is wrong. There is no flat earth that has ever shown water along a plane, the surface of the water along the plane, and you can see that beyond a certain distance, and that distance is always less than what it would take to easily discern the surface of the earth at 24,000 miles of circumference. Sometimes I hear some flat earthers use the concept of reification to say that, oh, we're speaking about concepts that are not really anchored in reality or physically tangible. That's not true. The issue is that we are comparing the scale of the earth, which is 24,000 miles of circumference, and we're using measurements that are not, the flat earthers are using measurements and then trying to compare those measurements for shorter distances and then extrapolating those shorter distances to say, oh, hey, it's flat from here to here. You don't see a measurement. You don't see a measurable curve, so you can't see a measurable curve further along the distance. That's absurd. For me, one thing I noticed that is quite funny is how flat earthers will use a definition. They'll show a definition and the word has four definitions, but they'll point to the definition of the four that justifies their position and say, oh, yeah, what does the word level mean? Well, it means this. See, definition number one says it does, but definition number two does not. Definition number two speaks of something else which applies to debunking their position. And then there are other things. I don't know if I've done over my time, but I'll just thank you very much for that opening from the globe side. We are going to kick it over to the flat earth side. I want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Moderate Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from, globe earth, flat earth, you name it. Thrilled to have you here. And if you haven't seen it, as you can see at the bottom right of your screen are in raw and perfect. Dawa face off on whether or not there is evidence for Islam next weekend. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it. And with that, thank you very much for being with us. You wits it and jarenism. The floor is all yours, jarenism. Thank you. Happy to be here, James. Say forever me. Awesome to finally get to debate here. Although I want to see Alec Stein here. So is he coming back soon? I hope so. I don't like debates a lot because I don't think that they're really fair when you're going against somebody who gets to use the entire body of science and call that fact. So you won't hear us really using that. We've got to actually battle uphill, which I think is a lot more difficult. And also pointing out that we are what scientific defines, which is being skeptical. So people who simply repeat what they're told, read out of a book, copy it, regurgitate it, those people are not being scientific. They're not being skeptical. What they're being is religious. So I find it hilarious that it seems that you have a lot of projection from the other side where if they were truly skeptical, they would look into things like we do. They would question Artemis and wonder if that's real. They would question the pictures of the earth that take 25 minutes to upload on Himawari. They would be skeptical and not just say, no, if it's coming from our government or it's coming from NASA, it must be true. That is the complete opposite of being skeptical and therefore not scientific at all. When we say it's flat, we certainly never mean it's 2D. So if you hear that, you're taking it the wrong way. When we say flat, we just mean it's a level plane. And then when we say level, yes, there's mountains, there's valleys, there's ridges, there's oceans, but everybody is standing upright. There is nobody antipodal to me. There is nobody antipodal to you. There's nobody underneath you standing upside down. That is simply a fabrication told by men who think very little of you. Somebody at the beginning called us, said what we do is pseudoscience when most of the theories that come out of cosmology, they come from theoretical physicists like Michikaku, who's been on record saying that nobody that he knows of in his field uses the so-called scientific method. Well, if you don't use the scientific method, but you are selling your product as science, that is the very definition of pseudoscience. So again, who's doing the pseudoscience here? Certainly not our side. That is the theoretical physics side. As far as you said, if we can debunk the globe, it doesn't mean that it's flat. Well, the thing about that is again, the problem that we have is that when we bring you evidence that the earth is not as we've been taught, your immediate question is always, well, how does the entire universe work then? As if that is an equal standing. We're not claiming that we know how everything works. We don't claim to know how the sun operates and what temperature it is when it comes out of the center and how long it takes to get to the coronal. We don't make those claims. It's you guys who have made those claims and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So when you're going to tell people when they're six years old and seven years old that they're spinning on a gigantic ball and that it's flying through space at ridiculous speeds and that it's never got no impunity, nothing's getting in its way, nothing's causing it to deviate. It's just everything's just so perfect. And then you hear these speeds and they're ludicrous speeds like we're traveling right now. If you just close your eyes, you can feel at 1.2 million miles per hour as we fly through the vacuum of space. Again, we've got an atmosphere attached, which seems quite strange in the fact that that atmosphere should have been gone long ago. It is adjacent to a vacuum and the vacuum should equalize that pressure over time. However, that's not happening. They like to claim that it's gravity, but we've given a thought project and actually somebody's working on it right now to actually do it, which clearly just debunks that. If you take a vacuum chamber and let's say it's as big as the room that we're in and we evacuate all the air, but in the center of the room we have a box like a shoebox size and in that shoebox is air and it's also sealed. So we evacuate the big room, all that's left is the box with the air in the middle. We electronically open that lid. What's going to happen to the air in that box? Of course, it's going to immediately fill the space, it's going to immediately disperse into that vacuum. If the globe theory was correct, then the gravity would clearly be strong enough to hold that small bit of air in that box because it's closest to the earth. So that disproves that whole idea right there. It is clear that we can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. As far as ad hoc justifications, we can go back and start with where I did with Edmund Hubble and understanding that he looked out into the cosmos and saw everything moving away from us and then said that it does make it seem like we are the center of the universe, that we are central. However, he says that must be avoided at all costs. Anybody who is going to talk about philosophy, science is a philosophy. It is the philosophy that there is no god, there is no creator, that the smartest people here are the men who are here who can rewind sky clocks. The giant ball earth that we're told that we're just like little fleas on this gigantic rock and we would never see curve. Well, if that's the case, but then you also believe that these same men, these same little fleas on the earth, they also learned to polish up their little glass lenses and they put them in a tube and they can magically now see back in time. They can see just by looking through the tube, 25 trillion miles, which of course is simply ludicrous. You believe it not based on any evidence other than men have told you. Men that you believe in, men that you trust, it's man worship. Why would you ever believe anybody who told you you could see 25 trillion miles? That is the closest star to the earth, if you don't count the sun. 25 trillion miles, they tell us. So I'm skeptical of that and we get yelled at and shouted at and called names and made fun of because we're skeptical of a crazy claim that has really no evidence. What'd you say? Is that my six? Yeah. Go ahead. All right. Nice. All right. I'm going to share a screen real fast thing. All right. We're good. So work here. So the debate is, is the earth a spinning tilted wobbling ball in a vacuum or is this stationary topographical plane? This guy straw manned a 2D earth in mountains debunk it or whatever flat the description of a surface not a shape. But anyway, this all started with Mickelson Morley. It was supposed to show what's on the right here where there was a difference in the light. But instead it actually showed that they were together. And so it showed that the earth was not orbiting. This changed all of physics and this is when relativity came in to play basically saying that you could never prove that the earth is orbiting. Just trust us. I promise it does matter contracts in the direction of motion. Time slows down. Just don't worry about it. You can't prove it, but we know it's the case. This is where you have this quote from Einstein explaining that Mickelson Morley led him to relativity. He said, since then I've come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment though the earth is revolving around the sun. People get triggered and act like the fact he says though the earth is revolving around the sun debunks our point and makes it stronger. We're saying he's admitting that even though he believes that you can actually detect it with optical experiment. Here's his quote saying you can't do it with terrestrial experiment. Every attempt to ever do that is negative. That's why relativity says you could never prove it. Here is the Mickelson Morley type experiments being done many other times with much more precision since then, even in this century in the last couple of decades, much more precision never detecting the orbit of the earth. Here you go with the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean. And this is from history channel.com. You can see right here. It says that his disproving detractors told Marconi that he could not send the transmission 200 miles or more because it would be limited by the curvature of the earth. He successfully sent it first attempt using line of sight 2000 miles. After that, he ended up doing as far as 10,000 miles. Then they ad hoc came up with the idea of the ionosphere bouncing it down perfectly and making it land. The irony of a globe earth or to say the word ad hoc is crazy. He brought this up and said, I don't know why he talks. They talk about the black swan but they don't talk about how there are other pictures of it closer.  If you say all swans are white, but then you find one black swan and nullifies the claim that they're all black or that they're all white. That's the whole point. This only has to happen one time. The atmosphere constantly moves. He says, you can tell there's a lot of refraction in this one and not that one. Yeah, because it's not a zoomed in. And as you zoom in the distance, you'll get more refraction. Anyone that actually tests the earth and does observations set a blind leaving it knows this, this debunks the globe. The horizon's over 10 miles away should be no further than 1.2 miles. And it's actually still doesn't even work in the picture he brought up. So ironically, they're cherry picking antithetical to the actual question, which is, does the horizon extend too far? Here's another observation 163 miles away from a thousand foot observer height. There should be 10,296 foot hidden height. You can notice he did not include any actual data. Whenever he made this claim, he just put a cartoon on there and said it's perfect. Here's the, here's the depiction right here. You should not be able to see these as the silhouette from the mountains way too far away. This is the Chicago skyline during the sunset from almost almost 70 or just over 70 miles away. They should be entirely blocked. The curvature of the earth should be over the tallest building in Chicago yet you can see it. You can see it at the sunset with the silhouette and they want us to believe that actually that's not there. The sun's not there either. That's an entire illusion. The sun's already gone and the buildings are thousands of feet underneath the curvature of the earth. They just happen to lift up in the silhouette refracts and makes us think that it's actually there. I talked to locals. You can see it four to five days a week is a very current, a very frequent occurrence. Moving on. We have a whole bunch of different other observations here. Here's a laser test. So we shoot laser at very low height over the top of flat water. Fluid dynamics is constantly in motion, attempting to seek its equilibrium. Just saying level means curved around the ball is called begging the question. It's not reality. This is from 16.42 miles away and we see it too far away. I hear our mirror flashes. We also take mirrors, put them on the surface over large bodies of water and we reflect the light back and forth coming from the sun, which is impossible on a globe, but they'll just say the words refraction and gravity over and over and over. Talk about ad hoc explanations. And then here we go with one of the big quote unquote debunks of flat earth is the sunset. The sunset. Well, we have water vapor in the air. We know that here you're on side emitting that X as a lens of magnification. And then we show right here a depiction of the sun and people say it should change an angular size. But as you can see, when it has magnification, it doesn't change an angular size and it goes down and it disappears from the bottom up even though it's up above a flat surface. I want everyone to pay attention here. They don't seem to understand it. He said there's no way they just say perspective. You see the sun disappearing from the bottom up. But if you look at where it's at, it's actually still up above the table. Here's a depiction of our, here's an actual observation of the sun, which is beautiful. This is by Raki a live shot to him and watch what the sun does here. Now they claim that the sun is going actually the sun sitting still and we're falling back away from it in the curve of the earth is blocking it. Of course, as you see right here, the sun is disappearing into the vanishing point of the sky up above the horizon. This proves to you the sun can disappear from the bottom up completely void of physical obstruction. No Glover has ever rebutted it. They can't, they just freak out.  I'll pull them up as they're used because it's important to understand you can't use fallacies constantly. A bill to authority, credentials fallacy saying that since I don't have credentials, my argument can't be true. Poisoning the well, which they did that just discrediting us before we go. At hominin fallacies, which is personal insults as opposed to the attack, Texas sharp shooter fallacy, which is what they do with geodetic surveying where they say, oh, look, we'll put the circle around where we shot on the wall and claim it was perfect and throw out everything that doesn't match our assumption. False dilemma fallacy or false dichotomy fallacy where they say it has to be this way or nothing appealed to emotion. You will see a lot of that shifting the burden of proof because they're making the positive claim that everything's antithetical to observation, but they shift the burden on to us. You have an appeal from incredulity. They can't understand how the sunset would work on a flat earth. Therefore it can't be the case. You have argument at a populum. Everyone thinks that the earth is a ball, so it has to be. Then they strawman our position. They divert away from our position with red herrings. Then you have affirming the consequent, begging the question. And of course, this is the most important sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. So hopefully we'll have a discussion today that will be fruitful void of those fallacies because they seem to be very popular in this discussion and looking forward to it. Thank you very much for that opening as well. We're going to jump into open conversation and want to let you know, folks, if you haven't had a question, you can feel free to fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with at modern day debate, that's one way to ask a question as well as if you do a super chat, we push those at the top of the list as we start reading them during the Q&A. With that gentlemen, thank you very much. The floor is all yours. I'll just say real quick, sir. I'll just say plainer, but Austin and I are both open to having conversations with people who believe in the globe.  They don't really want to have the conversation. It's kind of strange. I'm sure that there are a lot of people that want to have the conversation. Then let's have the conversation right now. So you guys brought your response. I want to address one of the things in a conversational manner so that we can put it into that. Extraordinary claims have been met with extraordinary evidence. And the issue here is whether or not you recognize the evidence as being sufficient. When the evidence has been shown to you, you dismiss it or try to re-explain it, and that creates the very problem that you are saying we do. You're creating the very issue of having an honest conversation because you try to re-explain what is clearly evident. Okay. Can we get specific here? One of your extraordinary claims is that the one of your extraordinary claims is that the earth revolves around the sun. So do you have any extraordinary evidence? After I give you my example, then I will address you. So for example, you spoke about the sun receding back into the distance and retaining the same size. Well, the thing that contradicts that is that when I look at those tall buildings in the distance and I get further away from those tall buildings, they get smaller. I don't see other objects anywhere around me, anywhere on earth, where I go further away from them and they retain the same size. So there is no reason for me to look at that concept of the sun or the moon for that matter and say, oh, well, this has happened because of some lens effect, which quite literally contradicts your concept of refraction, being a globe earth debunked. So refraction works in a way to make the sun retain the same shape and size, no matter how far you walk. But it doesn't, that's not the straw man though. That's a fallacy fallacy. Just address how what I'm saying is wrong. Okay. You don't. Okay. Can I talk now? I'm done. You actually don't know what fallacy fallacy means. I would encourage you don't use it if you don't know what it means. I know what it means and I stand to define it. Define it. It means that you're trying to use a fallacy and an argument of a fallacy to say that the person has a fallacy as a reason to say that their argument is weak. Just because just because I may even engage in a fallacy does not mean that the argument itself is weak. So that is a waste of time. So address the issue. Okay. That's wrong. So if you use a fallacy for our argument, then your argument is logically fallacious and invalid. What fallacy means, what fallacy fallacy means is the assumption that just because someone says something fallacious as their argument that their conclusion, that their conclusion is incorrect. So you can say fallacious things in your conclusion be wrong, but your argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong if it's fallacious. So you didn't understand it. I didn't understand and you and I are just going to disagree, but let's get to the sun. I don't know. Do I need to pull it out? I refuse. Listen, I refuse to yield on that. So we're not going to waste a whole hour doing this. So you're going to laugh right along with you. Well, yeah, you're wrong. That's how the sun. No, you're wrong. Let's go ahead and address how the sun itself out of all of the other objects that we have access to on earth can retain the same size, no matter what the distance is for anyone on earth. But, but everything else diminishes with size as you, you get further away. Please. Okay. So actually, the sun does change angular size throughout the year in your own model even. And angular size does change throughout the day just very slightly. And it is because it's through view through a greater distance of at most. And we also don't know the medium that the sun is in. You guys claim it's impossible for the sun to disappear bottom up if the earth is flat. I debunked that showing a lensing effect would actually make it disappear from the bottom up. Okay. So you did not address my, you did not address my point. I literally know you literally did not. I'm just over your head. Sorry, brother. No, you're not over my head. You're just being presumptuous. You want to keep going? I'm over your head. No, you're presumptuous. You want me to repeat it? Nope. I want you to listen. You want to listen? Okay, cool. So what you did was you gave an example of how the sun changes angular distance over a period of time from days to weeks to months over the course of a year, which you know was not my argument. I even said very clearly, everyone all over the world sees the sun as the same size no matter how far away they are from it. That only speaks about distance. So I didn't, I didn't specify a time frame. Yes. The sun will change by what? 5% size from August to January. Because of distance. Because of distance alone. Thank you for your concession. No, but that doesn't address what I said. You said it wasn't because of distance. Nope. I did not. Listen again. I said that my argument had nothing to do with looking at the changes of the sun over time. I'm looking at the changes of the sun over distance from one observer to another. You've got to have the one observer to the other partner else you're not getting my point. You didn't hear my rebuttal. Let me repeat it. This guy's unbearable. I said it changes throughout the year and even throughout the day in your own model. That wasn't my original point though. So you're just going to interrupt me the whole time. I do need to hold on one sec just so there's not too much speaking over each other. Let's give it to Austin for maybe another minute and then maybe even a minute and a half and then we'll kick it back over to Dave or Planner Walk. Okay. So I explained that in your own model even. It changes angular size throughout the year and throughout the day based on even Stellarium data. So you can say no, but you can just go look at Stellarium. It changes. And then I explained that the reason we don't see it the same as we see more local objects is the sun would be significantly farther away. And in addition, we do not know the medium that the sun itself is encompassed within or if there's a containment that would give us that lensing effect to a greater extent. What it shows is that it disproves your claim it's impossible for the sun to maintain angular size and disappear from the bottom up over a flat surface. It objectively can with the lensing effects. Okay. So what I stated had to do with the size of the sun being seen by different observers at the same time period. You knew this and you're trying to redirect my argument and that's a waste of our time. I'm not going to call the fallacy because we'll argue about what the fallacy is. So getting back to my original point, which is that the sun is the same size in the sky for all observers at any point in time. You know this. Now you bring up some scientific measurement. Hold on some scientific measurement that can be used to determine the angular size of the sun and I wonder what is the level of precision of that? It's certainly not optical because if I'm twice as far away from one object than from another, there'll be about half the size that it is when I originally saw it. Your sun on your flat earth models can be three, four and five times away from one observer to another. Whatever other measuring standards that you're trying to use does not have nothing to do with my argument and you can't address my argument. If I'm in Chile and I see the sun rise over my head and it sinks back down to the ground like you say, right? That sun from your own arguments can't be more than four or five thousand miles away, right? Then someone on the other side of the world sees the sun rising while I'm seeing it setting and that person on your flat earth model is twenty to thirty thousand miles away. There is absolutely no difference in angular size between those two observers. So I have debunked your argument. So you clearly didn't listen to me and I'm not going to go in circles with you again. I'm going to say it one more time and then we're going to let the audience hear that you can't rebut it. So what I said was it actually disproves the claim that it's impossible for the sun to maintain angular size and disappear from the bottom up over a flat surface. You can get that very effect with the lensing effects and I explained that we don't know the medium the sun is within or if there is containment that would contribute to the lensing effects. And in addition to that, it is further away than something that you see on the ground like buildings. Those three things objectively refute your position. You've skated past it three times and the actual reason it's shown is because you guys claim that it's impossible when it literally is not impossible. Now I get to ask a question. You said extraordinary claims, extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence and that we deny the extraordinary evidence. You claim that the earth is a ball that revolves around the sun in orbit. That's an extraordinary claim. Can you provide us with the evidence for that, please? Sure.  I also want to jump in about I'm sorry. I want to jump in because there's something I wanted to say about the sun setting thing. Have you done any kind of calculations because when it comes to having that lens that you showed in the video, we can do calculations. Now's law does exist to be able to do that kind of stuff. So have you done any kind of calculation so that we can say, okay, this is what we would expect to see if the earth were flat. And this is what we would expect to see if the earth is a globe so that we can compare the two to work out which one comports most with reality. Have you done that? Your calculations came from making the observations and then making the model after you saw what happens. You have the all that and then you keep saying we, you didn't do anything, right? So just like Jared said and his opener, you just think you're so you have this confidence over here like we have this amazing model. You have to explain how everything in the universe works and you can't even do the math for your own model. So the answer is that you made the calculations out of the facts and we don't have to that we see the observations, we have the same observations. We it just moves away in this actually if you use magnetic calligraphy mapping out the earth or mapping out the sun over the course of a year, we have a model that explains the position of the sun everywhere maintaining exact angular size and it's not in any way refutable. It's called it's a magnetic calligraphy projection of the earth. We mapped it out with tons of data. So yeah, we did do the calculations. We showed exactly where the sun would be exactly what it'll look like and exactly how it works on a flat earth and it can't be refuted. So can anyone answer my question now though? Can instead of your guys in factuation with your inability to understand how the sun can work on a flat earth, can you guys explain to us before we just grant you that we're flying around the sun? Can you show us how you know that? Do you have any evidence that we're actually going in space around the sun? Are we just supposed to believe it? So firstly, I have actually done calculations and I've actually tried to do calculations to make a flat earth work and to make a flat earth work there was something that I didn't include in my presentation called the white swan and to make that image possible on a flat earth you would need air to be getting really, really cold colder than what has ever been measured for it to work. This is going off of the white swan. This is the white swan. It was the image that turned ranty from being a flat earth into a globe earth. Oh, the fake flat earth. That's so bad. So and I did calculations on that and the only way that it would work on a flat earth is if the air was like extremely cold, colder than what I've even measured. That's the only way that you can see something in the distance. It's lower than something that's closer to you and taller. That's what you're saying? Well, that's the only way that that image could actually be taken on a flat earth. Well, do you have an I think something with a straw man fallacy doesn't mean anything. Yeah. Well, what he's saying is he's building his argument upon a straw man version. He wants to pin upon us with his own version of a way to do his misunderstanding. No, he's not. You're trying to declare things. Are you trying to deny your emotional man? How are you trying to do? What's up later? This was just based on how light works, how light is refracted through air. Are you trying to deny the light works? Can I can I light and light bends downward as hot air rises through cold air? Am I right? Or sorry, through less dense air rises through denser air? Is that correct or is that incorrect? The light can bend towards the more dense medium. Light bend down. I'm helping you out. I know your religion more than you. Here's the thing. You're trying. That's called stalling for time. Your sarcasm is a way to stall. It's a way of stalling and running out the clock. No, just do the correction then. Just say no, what's wrong. This is how it works. I did. No, you didn't. You made some comments that were unnecessary. You're saying that light bends towards the more dense medium and some no, I'm saying the only way that planar walk was to assume a refractive rate. Didn't say that. I said light bends downward. Not towards the more dense medium or not towards the less I said light bends downward and I could be wrong, but I believe that as the hot air rises or the less dense air rises over the more dense air, it causes the light to bend downward. Okay. Now, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but we know that the density, which is often caused by how hot air is, can affect how light travels. That's the bottom line. Wow. So profound. That was good evidence. sarcasm means nothing. Yeah, I was saying that's good evidence.  You're fine. I'd like to hear your point of view. Planar walk, I want to get you to go on mute. Planar walk, I have a question. I thought that that was one of the bigger jokes I've ever seen was Ranty leaving for that image because I guess I don't fully understand your guys' position. Is your position that because the mountain is taller than the tower, that there's no way that you can ever get the tower to look taller than the mountain even with perspective? Yeah, perspective alone cannot account for that. Okay. So like see this metal box on the side of my house here, the sprinkler box on the left with my finger here in a second. So to get that item, that little box there, so to get that item above the back fence, which clearly the height of the fence behind there is a lot taller, right? But you just need to lower the camera and all of a sudden that box now goes above that back fence. So how is that possible if the back fence is clearly taller than that box? How did that fall behind there? So we know the observer height, right? So this is just asking about observer height. We know the observer height. I believe the observer height was something like six feet in Ranty's image. Correct. So if we account for observer height, we know the observer height, we account for a perspective, you still need something like refraction in order to explain how the thing further back is lower than the he asked you, why did it do it in this video? That's what he asked you. He changed the observer height. Okay. So why explain how that makes it happen? Perspective. Oh, it does. It is perspective. That's crazy. No, you're generalizing perspective too much. You're not you're not explaining how it works in those different scenarios. When he changed the observer height, when he changed the observer height, his line of sight is no longer on the same elevation as the object that he was looking at. So either is the elevation in the observation we're talking about. Ranty. No, no, no, no. What Ranty did was he gave you a clear observer height from where he is and he compared it to okay, it doesn't matter. See, here's how it doesn't matter because he gives the observer height of the object that he is measuring or observing. And it's higher than him. And you just said if it was lower, you said if the observer height is lower than what you're observing. No, I'm saying in this example, see how you did the same thing earlier. You're trying to you're trying to switch things from what I'm saying to apply to something else I'm not speaking of. My example is given because it's very simple for anyone who's not a globe zealot to see that things in the distance get smaller. They lower down, right? And so no, no, that's not true. That is not always true. Things see things that are higher than your elevation, things like let's say I'm six feet tall. And let's say I'm looking at something that is 20 feet taller than right. As I get further away, it does appear to get lower, but it doesn't go lower than my line of sight. My line of sight is still parallel to the horizon, still parallel to like the gravitational force that's keeping me balanced. My line of sight will still be lower. The problem is, is that the object is so far away that you can't see that distance. You can't see that distance as if it was up close. So you have to zoom in. And if you zoom in, you will still see that it is taller than you. It's still higher than you. It's just, it appears to be angrily shorter. So there's a, there's something about the magnification that you have to take into account. I also want to, I just want to say, when it comes to things like perspective, we do take into account, observe a height, right? And that is one of the first things that I made sure to take into account. Because if you do, if you don't take into account, observe a height, then where are you starting from, right? Okay, but as far as, let me explain this real quick, see if this makes sense to you. I'm facing east right now, and the Sierra Nevada mountains are right there, okay? They're about 80 miles from me. And right now, if I were to stand up tall, the mountains would be higher than my computer screen. But by just lowering down like this, now my monitor would be above, my line of sight would be above those mountains. Nothing happened. They didn't fall behind any curve. I just changed my viewer height by a foot. So how can the foot cause a mountain to drop behind my computer monitor, and you not understand that that's simply what Randy was showing in his photograph? Because the scale of distance is important. You're very, very close to the monitor. And so that, the distance from you to the monitor is a few feet. The distance from the monitor to the mountains is a whole bunch of miles. So there's a proportion here that you have to take into account. And observe a height is only relevant when you're looking at the line of sight that is parallel to the horizon. You can have a line of sight in any direction, but when you're trying to compare objects that are anchored to the ground, like a mountain, you're comparing your observer height to something. If you could see something that was 60 feet tall near that mountain, then you would have a line of sight that is consistently level with the surface of the earth. Yeah, but that mountain's 50 miles away, right? Yeah, but you're not 60 feet tall. You're missing the point. Whenever I do any kind of calculations, one of the first things that I make sure to take into account is observe a height. And you can do this essentially by minusing the observer height from the things that you are looking at. So if the observer height is six feet, and you take off six feet from the tower and from the mountains, well, then you have accounted for observer height. It's very easy to do. Are you using like Geogebra and drawing straight line observations to see if they're... Yeah, they use Euclidean geometry. Yeah, what are you using for perspective? What if there was just another person that was 60 tall at the mountain? They won't answer. Do you use Euclidean geometry, yes or no? So I use trigonometry. Euclidean geometry. And the eyes actually use spherical geometry as do lenses. So why do you use Euclidean geometry? Because you can use... Because when it comes to lenses, that is literally using trigonometry. Like, do you know what snail's law is? Yeah, that's a total non sequitur. So do you... Hold on, do you know what snail's law uses? Do you know that snail's law uses... Hey, why are you changing the subject, man? We're talking about the eyes use spherical geometry to see, yet you're using Euclidean geometry. Your eyes do not use spherical geometry. Do you know the... I need to ask, do you know what the calculation for snail's law is? Snail's law is to calculate refraction. Do you know what that is? Why are you talking about refraction? They were talking about perspective. Because the eyes... The reason why the eyes work is because of refraction. The reason... If you want to talk about, you know, spherical geometry, you need to know, and you want to say that the eyes work because of spherical geometry or whatever, you need to know what snail's law is. Can you please tell me what snail's law is? He's diverting to refraction. If you want to talk about lenses... Karen was talking about perspective, and then you started telling us what would or wouldn't happen due to perspective and that you did the math. So then he asked you what type of math you're using, and now you're diverting to snail's law and refraction, which of course you have to use a differential equation for the atmosphere. Anyway, we're talking about perspective. When you calculated the perspective, did you use Euclidean geometry or spherical geometry? I used trigonometry. Do you know... And you want to say that, oh, if you're using lenses, you need to use spherical geometry. Well, lenses use snail's law. Can you please tell me snail's law? Refraction is a red herring fallacy. You know what I'm saying? If you're going to talk about lenses, if you're going to tell me... If you're going to tell me that I need to know spherical geometry in order to account for lenses or whatever, please tell me snail's law. Lenses operate off of snail's law. Hey, what shape is the eye in the lens? It has a lens in it. Yeah, what shape is it? It doesn't matter. It's a circle, buddy. It's a circle, my guy. It doesn't matter what shape it is. It literally matters. That's how you do the geometry. It doesn't matter that our eyes are filled. Snail's law will still apply regardless of whether it's banana-shaped, whether it's spear-shaped, whether it's flat. Snail's law still applies. Is included in the ranty observation? Okay, okay. Let me just jump in for like 30 seconds. Those laws are red herring fallacy. Wait, let me just tell you, if refraction did not take into account, then the light would be always parallel, even if it went into your eye. You wouldn't be able to focus on anything. That's the point.  That's the trigonometry, I believe, that Planar Walk is referring to, and that's something you have to understand. The light would just continue to be parallel, and you wouldn't have anything to focus on. You guys don't understand. I actually just want to make the point that Snail's law literally is just trigonometry. It's something like sine of... Sine one over sine two. Yeah, you use a differential equation for atmospheric refraction. You have to use a differential equation, which is calculus. Doesn't matter, man. Okay, so you use differential equation to account for what? Unknown functions and variables, right? No, for light coming in at different angles.   Here's the problem. When you're looking at something that is six feet away, I mean, you're six feet tall. Yeah, you need up my length, so I don't care. You got something... You guys are boring. That's six feet tall from far away. Your line of sight is on the same level. So if you raise your elevation, yes, that person is going to appear to be lower than you, but if you lower your elevation, that person is going to appear to be above you. But the further away you go, the less of an effect, the less clear that is, because of the distance. And I wanted to address that because you ignore that when you talk about your son. You use a lens to make your point about the son retaining the same, I guess... So you guys are never going to answer my question. We're going to serve for an hour. Hold on, I'm just doing my thing. So you got your son with that lens, right? You only let that lens go like five feet away. Make that lens go a thousand feet away. That thing is basically going to get too small. If you went a thousand feet away from Jared's monitor, it still blocked the mountains. You don't understand anything. No, it doesn't. You said every time you interrupt, you have impulse control issues. He's just lying, man. You have impulse control issues. I don't like liars, so don't lie. Just so we can hear one percent at a time. Okay, so first he said that Jared was wrong about him showing the observation outside of his house, which showed that as he goes lower, then what's taller in the distance will be below what's closer to him. And then he ended up admitting that that's what happens. And then they're just saying, well, it's just different in this other scenario. And then they're going, dragging us through the weeds about how they think they understand perspective and then conflating it to Snell's law, which is about refraction, which is lights path from one medium to another, which is completely non sequitur to perspective math. Okay, so you guys don't understand how it works. We gave you our answer. Can we move to another subject? You don't understand how it works. When it comes to the thing that I'm talking about, so I have done the calculations, if you just try to use perspective alone, which is a simple trigonometry function, then it is the tangent of distant over height or the arc tangent of distance over height. That is the trigonometry function for perspective. Okay. Where's Snell's law on that? Well, you are trying to bring up how lens work. That's why I brought up Snell's law. If you didn't bring up, lens itself would not have brought up Snell's law. No, I'm bringing up that you're using the wrong type of math for the eye and for lenses. You're using... It doesn't matter. If you do a geograba and do a side view of this whole scene, you realize that that's not real. Draw a straight line from the side. It doesn't matter if you use what the shape of the eye is. Perspective still works regardless of what the shape of the eye is. You're wrong. No, because as long as you can focus, that's what makes the difference. No, I'll drop some sources for you guys to read. There's a bunch of different applications and PhDs will explain to you. But anyway, can we move on now? Let me ask you a question. I want to hear what Tiaran is on this. You're so scared. I want to hear what Tiaran is on this. I can go ahead and edit like 10 more minutes and then I want to step in. I want to hear what Tiaran is on this.  Will any of those roofs ever eventually go below your eyesight? If I get high enough? No, no, no. Sitting right where you're sitting right now. Sit up straight, look off in the distance, and think of the roof of the house next to you, and think of the roof of the house after that, and the roof of the house after that, and tell me if there was just nothing but houses all the way down. Would the roofs eventually drop below your eyesight? If on a flat surface? No. No, they wouldn't. If they're smaller and smaller and higher, and they would never get smaller than your eyeline, so you're saying. No, because to be able to get lower than my eyeline, I would have to be at the same height as them. What makes you think that? That is literally one of the things that comes up when you look into trigonometry, the trigonometry for perspective. So rather than your eyesight, rather than actually just going out and testing it and looking at things and taking pictures, you just we're going to defer to what the math says. Unless you have a different calculation for perspective, I don't know if you don't need a calculation. I can just do that in my head and realize that, yes, if I look this way, I can even picture the house next to me and I could picture the house down the end of the street and I can realize that those houses will eventually fall towards the horizon line, which is below my eye level. No, it's not below your eye level. It's not. That's the thing. If you were to zoom in, you would see that they're still above your eye level until it gets to the part to where they're starting to curve over the horizon. But when you look at the roofs of those houses, you can't see the bottom of those roofs. You'll never see the bottoms of those roofs. You're looking at the tops of the roofs and maybe the mid part of the roofs as you're looking towards them as they get further away and you're presuming that you're looking over them. Do they drop? Do they drop as they go away from you? Yeah, they do, but not on a flat plane. This is they just want to talk about this for three hours. They're scared to defend the actual. They drop as they get further away from you, but they will not drop below your eye level. For them to drop below your eye level, they would have to be physically lower than your eye level. Or they would have to be some kind of reflection taking place. Or the curvature of the earth itself. Oh, cool. If we baselessly assert what's in question, it becomes reality. So can we actually go on to the next point? Because you can look at the angles. Because you can look at the angles. You're on there. I know, but look, there's that bridge in, I forget where it is. It's somewhere in Louisiana. And that bridge was demonstrating the curvature as each one of those elements of the bridge were, you know, we know more about it than you do, man. I just can't remember the name and I can't show my computer because it's called Pontchartrain. Yeah. Yeah. I know, like, there's that have went and done it themselves. Have you ever done it? Okay, that doesn't matter. It changes all the time. And sometimes you can see the curvature. It's not consistent. No, thanks for playing. Nope. That's you declaring it. That's not I have the observations. I have the observations. I'm not convinced that your interpretation is deficient. So do you think it always looks exactly the same? Yes or no? It doesn't matter if it looks exactly the same. No one's arguing that it looks exactly the same. No, it's not physical curvature. Gotcha. Remember where arguing is is that the elements of that bridge shows the curvature into the distance. It's not. Can we, uh... So I'll ask one final question because I just want to make sure this is your guys position for my own knowledge. So if I walk up to a fence that's six foot three or six foot two, so my eyes are right in line with the fence line and I start walking back away from it, you're saying that that line of that fence will stay with my eyes no matter how far back I go. Until the curvature of the earth takes an effect, yes. Okay, thank you. I don't think you're correct, by the way, but I think it can be shown. You'd have to have evidence for that position being incorrect if you want to. Okay, how about this? So here's the reality of the situation. David wants to do anything but let him talk. He's scared of me exposing their religion. Okay, David, we've got on that one. Thank you for your... I wanted your opinion on that and we will... Okay, so all physical measurements we take, our planar, we do all kinds of technology, assuming planar, the horizon's horizontal, water's level. We actually get our elevations of city using a horizontal baseline then we measure above that. We do the same thing to get the depths of the ocean. So we have all these horizontal baselines and we assume them constantly to do anything productive with technology. So then the question is, you guys are claiming something opposite of that. You have the burden of the proof. So you claim the ursa ball that spins in a vacuum. So we want you to support it. You said, he said very smugly that, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you guys just deny all the extraordinary evidence we have. So okay, let's start with the first one. You say the earth moves around the sun. Can you please provide extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim? Yeah, sure. You want to look at all the photographs? You want to call those fraudulent CGI? You have a photograph of the earth going around the sun? A photograph of something moving? No. A video of something over time? Yes. You want a video of the earth going around the sun? Sure. You're going to have a hard time getting a video of something that is 26,000 miles in circumference, 97 million miles and seeing it on the video. So you don't have any evidence? But your request is that sir, so watch this. Do you have a picture or a video of the flat plane of earth showing China, Africa, and North America all visible? No, you don't.  I didn't ask for a picture or for a video. I asked for direct extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that the earth is orbiting the sun. Then you brought up a picture.  So do you have any evidence that the earth orbits the sun? I have some evidence that the earth is spinning. No, orbiting the sun. Just say no, then we can move on. Anything that I bring up, you're going to claim is false.  This is called poisoning the well. So preemptively, you're discrediting my position preemptively without specificity, because you can't actually argue it. So if you would like to actually respond, Hold on one sec, just hear the rest from Austin. Hold on one sec, just hear from Austin. Do you have any actual empirical evidence that the earth is orbiting the sun? Or is it just a blind belief that you expect us to believe? We have evidence. Like what? Photographs, videos, math, physics. We have all sorts of things. Now, I wish I could do that. Man, this is, right. I have to go to the list. So what got your sarcasm done? Okay. Now what would be sufficient for evidence? Because you won't accept photographs. You won't accept videos. You won't accept the science. And you won't accept the math. So what's left? Well, relativity says that you wouldn't be able to. Well, you wouldn't be able to determine which one was going around which. So I thought that you guys would accept that. Would you accept? No, I wouldn't accept that. Okay. So then, so then why are we having that conversation? No, I'm asking you guys to waste our time.  I interrupt. I interrupt. But you guys had plain or walk try to explain the math and you refused to respect what he presented.  No, but you don't get to dictate the subject. You don't get to dictate that. That's not your show. So you don't know. So he's tapping out. I don't know, I want to address something. And I've waited. Patient is you did not acknowledge your lens effect or change the subject. No, I'm not following your dictates. So stop dictating terms. Interwalk. Do you have an answer? No, I'm not done. So I want to address something that you guys have refused. Talked about it for 35 minutes. Did no, you ignored it and you do this. You keep dictating what happens instead of you pick the first discussion. Dude, I'm sorry. I want to know what happens. I do just to be sure that planner walk gets to have some talking time. Two days first time of feet and miles away pretending not to hear me. I got it. I just want to be sure that planner walk gets some time to talk to. I did, but I apologize. I'll go again. So I do want there is some evidence, but you're probably not going to accept it, but we'll see. So there is things like the planet. So to explain the planets going around the to explain the path of the planets through the sky, you would call them wandering stars. I know to explain them in any kind of geocentric way, you have to have, I can't remember the exact term. Maybe someone else here remembers it. They go, you're retrograde. That's the term that I was looking for. You need retrograde. If they're going around the sun, then that is far simpler there. That just lines up way better. That is how people figured out that we were going around the sun and that the earth is not the center of the universe. So you just conceded the reason people think that the earth was around the sun is because it was easier to do the math. So I can actually quote you. Many astrophysics that will tell you on a surface, the math is a little easier, but actually the geocentric model is more elegant and adaptable. So the actual question is, do you have any direct evidence? Like, can you like, okay, if I want to decide if my car is moving, I can measure it moving, right? Like I can prove that the car is moving. You're claiming that we're shooting through space around the sun 30 kilometers a seconds. Okay, 30 kilometers every second. Do you have any actual evidence of that? Yes, there is. I was just saying that Rockham's razor. Rockham's razor is hilarious to me when we're actually saying the sun is close. It's local and things that just makes sense. And you're saying that it's 867,000 miles wide. Rockham's razor doesn't have to do with whatever makes sense to people. It has to do with whatever requires the least amount of assumptions. When it comes to flat earth, there are a lot of assumptions that you need to make. There are, when it comes to things like a lens effect on the sun, whereas on earth, we just have to go off of it. Still though, doesn't it seem like we're not moving? So that takes the least amount of assumptions. That's when we ignore everything around you, moving around you. Sure. That's what we see, bro. Yeah, we see that. No, you're doing that. No, that's what we visually see. That's the observation.  But we know we're moving in the car. We can measure us moving in the car. Right. So you know that you're moving in the car. So you say to yourself, okay, that's happening. But that's not explaining. Oh, Timmy said you can't do that with the earth. What do you use to measure yourself moving in the car? They actually measure the rotational speed of a gear and then it's translated through an electronic input sent to the computer and it tells you your speed and then it changes the gear rate, rotational rate to give you acceleration and deceleration. Well, when it comes to that gear, it could just be some CGI, right? Is there anything that you can use to check? You got some phone apart, man. This is bad. Hey, it could just be that the speed that shows up on your dashboard, how do you know that that speed that's coming up on your dashboard is correct? Because there's a physical rotational rate of a gear. So the what relativity says is when we're in the car. Measure that gear yourself. Don't worry, I'll teach you guys what you believe. So the analogy of the car, then the earth is the car, right? Well, relativity says when you're in the car or on the earth, you can't actually get that rotational rate of the gear. You can't detect that motion because matter contracts in the direction of motion and time slows down. So you couldn't use a measuring apparatus to detect it. So the answer is that you cannot detect that the earth is orbiting. Here's Einstein right here. He says the struggle so violent in the early days of science between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus, which is geocentrism or heliocentrism, would be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, the sun is at rest and the earth moves, or the sun moves and the earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems. Okay, this is just basic globe earth model 101. As long as you exclude a lot of other information, yes, sure. Name one. But retrograde motion of the stars was just mentioned. I mean, Geo-Titanic system explains it perfectly. But it doesn't align with your first point. They don't, they don't align. You can use them in tandem. It literally does, yeah. If retrograde motion can easily be explained. If the earth is not moving, if the earth is not moving and the stuff in the sky is moving, why can't we have retrograde? No, no. You have two, you have two, you have Mercury and Venus that experience retrograde. Right? Why does that debunk the stationary earth? Because, because you can't explain, you cannot explain that in a way that works consistently. You can't, you have to use those called epicycles and that doesn't work. They do work. No, they don't because they are offset. There's offsets over time, which means that they don't work. Those are, those are approximations that are simply based upon the optical, the optical way to view it. So you don't have a calculation that you can rely on over time. So that's, that's acceptable. Okay. Hey, everyone, he said you do. So we're all done here. You want me to sign it for you? You want the, you want the astrophysicist showing you he mapped it out for the next 300 years? I want the math itself. Wait, he, hold on. He mapped it out for the next 300 years. Yeah. Right. No, he did. Did he map it out any further? No, I don't know. I think he just said 300 years. He said, I don't know if we're done. Because you guys are getting destroyed. Do you guys have any empirical evidence? Okay, how about this? Let's put it like this. Hold on. When it comes to the heliocentric model, can't measure the earth we're bidding. Hold on. When it comes to the heliocentric model, that can be mapped out for many, many millennia in advance. That's irrelevant. Thank you for your totally irrelevant comment. No, no, that's irrelevant. So that's irrelevant. He didn't say he could only do 300 years. He just did a few hundred to show it was possible to shut down people like you. Don't understand what you're talking about. He was a neotyconic system. He was a neotyconic system. And you can explain retrograde. You can explain stellar aberration, galaxy rotational speeds. And they would take elliptical orbits and reset every year. This is your own paradigm. Hey, can you guys admit that? Hold on, because we can just move right on. If you guys are just. Hold on, hold on, hold on. This little one, no. You guys are freaking out. One question. Galaxy rotation speeds. Like, is that a galaxy rotation? Anything I can do to run away from this object. Is that a thing in the flat earth model? And just quiz. Just wondering. No, I don't believe in flat earth model, as you say it, because you strawman us. And I don't believe in the fairy tales about the stars or the stars. But we do see stuff in the sky. But here's the point, dude. Here's the point. Do you admit that according to your model, you cannot actually directly measure and prove the earth is orbiting the sun? Yes or no? That is not the point. Quiz. Question. Can I look out? Can I look out the window of a car and see that I'm moving? Yes or no. Can I look out the window of a car and see that I'm moving? He's asking you the question. I'm asking you if we can do, if we can directly measure and prove the earth is orbiting the sun? Yes or no? Yes. And I want to ask if we can look out the window of a car and see that we are moving. Why can't you just answer yes or no? Because my answer is literally whatever answer you're going to give. If we can look out the window of a car and see that we're moving, then yeah. We can see that we're moving on a globe. If for some reason that we can't, we'll have to have that discussion. We actually can directly measure the car moving. Yeah, we actually get into it and then it actually goes somewhere else and we get out. We don't really do that on the earth. Can I look out the window of a car, see that the trees are going past and all that and see that tell that because of that, the car must be moving. No, we have other inputs that we take. We directly measure it. That's one of them. Well, you're not directly measuring it. It's some system that someone else has built. We could put a wheel out the car and run it along the street and see that we're moving. There's a lot of ways to do that. Can you just admit it's not an analogy because I just tied it to you. I want to know, can you look out the window of a car? I don't care what others say. Let's say that the car has no systems. You don't have anything else in the car. Can you look out the window of a car and go, oh, the trees are going past, so therefore the car must be moving. All you're trying to say is that it could be either or, according to relativity. That's why I said we directly can measure that movement though. So can you do that with the earth, yes or no? But can we look out the window of a car and tell that the car is moving? Not if we wake up in the car and die in the car. That's the only place we live. Then no, you wouldn't be able to tell which one's moving. Can I make a small little point here? He can't answer it. It's just soft. So the concept of movement is based upon measuring the change in distance from some object, from some distant object. You declare that you're moving based upon whether or not the distance from an object that you are comparing your location to has changed. So out in the depths of space, you have the sun and you have these planets. You have the stars as a reference point because your position relative to the sun and to the stars and to the other planets changes. You are thus moving. Oh my gosh. Okay, so yeah. All you did was beg the question because I assume that the earth is moving.  Why don't you just make up? Why don't you make a bullet point stop? I got it. Well, let's give Austin a chance to respond. Okay, so basically you said, since I believe that the earth is orbiting the sun, when I look out in the sky and the stuff in the sky that's moving changes how it moves, that proves that I'm moving. That's called a begging the question fallacy. You can't look into the sky and see the stuff in the sky moving and then say, oh, wow, that means that we're moving. The answer, see, this should be like a five second thing and we can move on. Your model says you cannot prove the earth is orbiting the sun. Just say it. But that's not what I said. I said relative to the backdrop of the stars, the sun, and the planets, you are moving. If everything moved exactly the same, be quiet, please. Don't say nothing. If everything was exactly the same, no matter what day, month, or year it was, then I wouldn't be able to make the point that I make. But throughout the year, month from month, okay, year to year, you see the other objects in the sky moving in a pattern that is very consistent. That consistency shows a constant rate of motion or a variable rate of motion that follows a tried and true pattern that has been measured. And those measurements, you cannot lie about. So you're just going to keep baselessly a certain kind of thing. Jared, do you hear what's going on right here, this guy? I asked for the measurements and he looks back. Every time, dude. This is why globes are unfearable. Are you saying that there's no chance? Because here's where we struggle.  Like, are you saying that there's... I just did. Okay, so you're saying that there's... Even though we would see the same thing on a flat earth, you're saying that that is impossible. You could never see things around you. Yes, it is impossible on a flat earth to see it like that. It is impossible. What do you mean? It is impossible. You need to learn what relativity means. No, it's not about relativity. It's about... Relativity says you can't determine which one's happening. You just determine it. No, relativity saying is that not one perspective is more valuable than the other. But I just... As you can't prove it. Excuse me, there is still motion between the two objects. You're saying you're confusing the concept of relativity to the concept of motion itself. Okay, tell me, is the sun moving space? Yes, it does. Relative to whatever other objects you want to compare it to. Because space is space. There's nothing in the depths of space that you can see outside of the stars in the planets and maybe some asteroids. So what are you going to compare your motion to? It's just like with the car. If you didn't know that the car was moving... Hold on, if you were on the sun, if you were on top of the sun, would you... Let me take off light because I know I interrupt so much. You do. So if you were in... Right, so if you were in the car, right, and let's say you were asleep, and let's say it's an electric car with really good suspension, right, and you're sitting in that car and the car has already accelerated to 60 miles an hour, and then you wake up. You don't know the car is moving. The only thing you might feel is a little bit of a vibration. You have no idea that the car is moving one mile an hour for 60. We already corrected that and said that we have actual physical measurement of the car moving. According to relativity, you can't ever get that actual measurement of the earth moving. The reason relativity matters is because the mainstream model is that the earth's a spinning ball going around a vacuum in space, and it's all because of relativity. And the reason that this has to be what you believe is because it was the response to Michelson-Morley, which was over 10 times more precise than it needed to be and showed that the earth wasn't orbiting. Well, Michelson-Morley was about 8th and not about whether the earth was moving. But when it comes to... You guys say that, but you're wrong. You're just repeating it from other people. It's a script. Well, do you know anything about Maxwell's equations? Do you know what Maxwell's equations are? Do you know what Maxwell's equations were supposed to imply? Yes. What did they imply? Yeah, he used the luminiferous ether as the background and then the whole first two-thirds of relativity is him transforming it via relativity. That's a non-sequitur. Why? Okay, that's a non-sequitur. Okay, question. Why did Maxwell's equations need an ether? It just wasn't the framework that he chose. No, you do not know this question. You have no idea what you're talking about here. Look how excited he is.  You're so emotional, man.  It doesn't matter if you're emotional. People can get emotional when they're really wired. Hold on. What's it?  Stop projecting. Can you please... I'm actually... No, I want to ask what's it? Okay, why did he choose the ether? It wasn't because he decided, oh, I'm just going to go with this framework. There was something about his calculations that meant that there had to be, or that at the time they thought that they needed an ether. Yeah, he treated electricity and electricity, magnetism and light in waves and it had to be some type of medium to sustain the wave propagation, the wave function. No. Objectively, yes. There is a different reason. There is a different reason.  What I just said describes the actual reason. I've actually read what he said. And in addition, we did the test... No, you haven't. ...test, Michael Simoralee. We did the test. Michael Simoralee had nothing to do with testing the ether. And what it was was the relative motion of the earth and the luminephorous ether, and they were attempting to determine if the velocity of light was constant in all directions. And then they predicted the value based on the assumed motion of the orbit and they didn't get it. One of the options was that the earth was stationary. Then Einstein came in and saved the day to explain why the actual measurement didn't show the orbital trajectory. You have no idea what you're talking about right now. When it came to Maxwell's equations, the reason why they needed an ether was actually simply because there was this little value in there called C. And C meant that there was some reference frame in which these would be true. And so when it came to the Michael Simoralee, they're like, okay, well, if we do it this way and then this way, there's obviously we're going to be traveling through the objective reference frame at different speeds and so we'll get different values. It could have been that the reference frame was moving along with the earth or something, but it's not likely that that will be happening the entire year round. So that's what they did. They checked it and the reference frame... It was about light, bro. You don't even know what you're talking about. Yeah, and that was the speed of light. It was a test to see if there was a constant velocity of light. Okay. And then they shot them perpendicular, not this way, then this way. And they shot it perpendicular to each other. The light beam that was going against the assumed orbital motion of the earth would have been behind the other beam. So you shot two beams and they reconnected the middle in a silver mirror and then they both go to the receiver on the other side. The one going against the motion of the earth should have been behind the other light beam moving with the motion of the mirror. How far behind? Okay, an interference. One five thousandth the width of a human hair. Okay, and you think that then they were able to measure that? Yes, literally. Yes, I'll read Einstein telling you that. You've never done any study of it. Einstein came about some decades later. Einstein was there when he did Mikkelson-Morley. He said that's what made him come up with special relativity in the first place. No, his experiment was 1885, 1887. Okay, great. Good job. Thank you. So yeah, Einstein's theory of relativity came some decades later. I'm sorry, dude. I know that, dude. The reason that he came up with special relativity, you don't know anything about this problem. The reason why he came up with special relativity, the reason why he came up with relativity was because Mikkelson-Morley experiment showed that the Mikkelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is constant regardless of any type of motion. And when it came to, but the thing that you didn't realize is that the Maxwell's equations assumed that there would be some constant reference frame. And that is why the Mikkelson-Morley experiment was trying to test for the ether. It was not testing for ether plane or watt. I just told you that's not true. It's called the relative motion of the earth and the luminous ether. And then Edwin-Morley and Albert Mikkelson explained it was to see. Relative motion to what? You see that? Yeah, to the ether. So that's what I just said. That was testing for the ether. No, it's your loss, my guy. It's testing for the difference in the friend shift of the light based on the assumption the earth is orbiting through an ether. They were assuming both the motion and the ether. They got it a perplexing result where they got no friend shifts, okay? They did not get what was predicted. So then Einstein came in after Lorentz proposed a way to fix it. And Einstein took the Lorentz contraction but throughout the ether, okay? They still had to explain it with or without the ether. They had to explain why it didn't show a friend shift if the earth was orbiting. It was over 10 times more sensitive than it needed to be detected, by the way. Yeah, and I was looking for... Basically, I was looking for the ether. I was checking for earth's motion relative to the ether. And essentially, the reason for this was because of Maxwell's calculation, said that there had to be an... Well, they assumed that it meant that there had to be an objective reference frame that they assumed would have been the ether. That's why they thought that it was the ether. Do you think that the ether exists? Yeah, they thought there was an absolute frame of reference which was the ether which sustained the propagation of electricity, magnetism, and light. Okay? But then they went to go test that assumption which all electrical field theory assumed it. It was what sustains the energy and then it showed the earth's not orbiting in the Mickelson Moorley. It didn't give us what would have happened if the earth was orbiting through space. No, I'm putting an error up. I'm not done with that. That's not what happened. So let's stop here. You guys have gone around in circles five times trying to equate the test for the ether to something else and you've wasted our time and that's why I interrupt. Partic note, so it's a test of the ether, right? Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please teach us. So in any event, in any event, we've spent 15 minutes talking about this experiment and you guys have misrepresented the point of... No, you don't understand it. Misrepresented? No, I do understand it because it's summarized, okay? Oh, can I share my screen? You can't perform the experiment.  Can I share my screen? You can describe it ready for you.  No one listening is going to be swayed by all of this. No one can read that text on the screen and process it in five, 10 minutes. So this is a great exercise and you know it and that's part of what I'm trying to get across about flat earth. You cannot have an honest argument. You cannot make an honest conversation with you guys because this is how you guys operate. At Homs and Sopper Street, okay. So the second class at Homs... He spoke very eloquently about the fact that the way that the eye works requires refraction. You've been just dismissed it. You ignored it, okay?  Well, the question is, is the earth a sphere that spins and revolves around the sun? Or is it a stationary top or graphic point? So you love your fallacy so much, man.  What's it? You love your fallacy. So you did make a black and white fallacy there. So it could be that also because even if let's say that you disprove that the earth was spinning, it could still be a geocentric ball. Really? So the earth can just rotate sitting still geocentric? How do you explain the observations of the motion in the sky? Then how do you explain the difference in sidereal and solar rotation?  Didn't you explain the difference in sidereal and solar rotation then? Yeah. Oh, so are you saying that we need it to be spinning? You need it to be spinning and revolving or it has to be stationary? Or it could be stationary and aglowed. So it could be stationary. Like let's say that it wasn't spinning. It could be stationary and flat or it could be stationary and aglowed. Okay, so you can see that you can't prove that it's orbiting around the sun and we can move on. No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that you've loved your fallacy. So I'm just pointing out that you made a black and white fallacy. No, I didn't. No, you're trying to pigeonhole the guy. Okay. It's actually called it's what you're talking like a false dilemma or false binary, false dichotomy fallacy. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's not. False dichotomy. Oh, false dichotomy. Yeah, false dichotomy. Yeah, yes, David. You're lost every single time you see me. No, no. I'm off your mic. Okay, first of all, when he makes his argument, how are you going to ignore the fact that the stars are present and rotating? How are you going to ignore the fact that the stars have, there's two axes of rotation from the point of view of the observer on Earth, the North Pole and the South Pole, right? And you're going to ignore that and talk about how, well, how is your sidereal day? How is, how is there, you know, all that other stuff going on? And you're going to ignore, no, it's not. Listen closely and think about it. You're comparing the motion of the stars over periods of time, compared to the motion of the sun, compared to the motion of the planets, but then you're going to ignore the fact that on a stationary flat plane, you've got two axes of rotation of those same stars. Okay, can I, can I talk? Go ahead and make a sarcastic comment, please. I need to be understanding. I'm going to let, I'm going to let, I think Jaren's not going to talk much. And I'm just going to point out the reason it's important. The only reason I bring that up is it always does turn into like a whole debate thing. It's wild. It's just an intellectual honesty, litmus test for the ball Earthers, right? It's like, if they understood their model and actually were honest, they would say, yeah, relativity says you can't prove the earth is going around the sun from the earth and that a geocentric coordinate system and a heliocentric coordinate system are interchangeable and we can't prove it. And then we would move on past that. But you guys will fight it too. But relativity is not necessary to settle the mass. Sorry, go ahead. If you guys would just admit that that's what relativity says. I just pulled up the paper from relativity. You know what I'm saying? Like just say, yeah, that we can't prove that the earth orbits around the sun from the earth. It's assumption that we make. It's philosophical, whatever. And then we can move on to, is it flat or not? But you guys fight every single part of the way. And I'm just telling you, I'm describing you don't understand it because you don't understand it. And you don't mean you don't understand that relativity is not necessary to settle the matter at home. So substantive specificity, please. I mean, if I were to say that, you know, the earth, like I gave the example at the start of the debate, if I were to say that the earth is not flat because there are mountains, right? You would rightly call me out on that, right? You'd say, well, that's not what we mean by flat earth. But if I were to just continue and say, yeah, well, there are mountains, so therefore it's not flat and you're wrong, then we'd be having a pointless discussion because I'd be under, I'd be operating on false knowledge. Right. I'm not doing that. You agree with that? Yeah, we'd be like- Well, this is what you're doing with relativity. You don't fully understand relativity and you're using bits that you've cherry picked from it to try and say, well, relativity says this. You're projecting because you don't understand it and I bet you money, you can't name one thing I cherry picked. Weston, why didn't you just did that? You just did it. You gave an eloquent response and you're not addressing it. I am literally specifically addressing it. No, you're not. You are saying about optical results when it comes to relativity. And that's more in reference to things like the Michaelson Moley experiment. Now, if you were to take the solar system and take all the planets in the solar system and map out their motion, we can see that it works far more eloquently if we are in a heliocentric solar system compared to if we were in a geocentric solar system. That's incorrect. Actually, it's more adaptable and more elegant if it's geocentric just on the surface map, the simpler or the heliocentric model It's not just the optical experiment. I just showed you in the actual presentation, bro. He also says experiments. Well, why would you just do that? Because you guys never see anything. I just want the audience to see that you guys constantly have to lie. Why would planets revolve back and forward in that and around the sun in the heliocentric one? They simply just go around the sun. That's a very simple motion. You do the same thing in a geocentric model. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Hold on, hold on. You said they go around the sun in the geocentric model, yes? That is one version of a geocentric model, yeah. Okay, that's one version of a geocentric model. But your version of your version of a geocentric model requires the Earth to be flat, yes? Okay. Okay. So then we're left with a very simple question for you. What is the range of the distance that the sun is from the Earth? Just give me a range. I didn't say you have to. I asked you a question. We don't know. Yeah. It doesn't even claim its material. No, no. Listen to the question and don't do your routine. Is it 93 million miles away or you're not sure? No, stop it. Is it, right, right. So you know it's not 93 million miles away. So do you have a range that you use? So what is the upper and lower limit? If it was a physical item, it'd probably be about the radius of the Earth, 39, 59 miles. So okay, so then you're going to, so then that's what it measures. We're not even claiming it is a physical material object. I don't think it is. Okay, that's fine. The moon, the moon is also not a physical material object. That doesn't make any sense. There are certain features on the moon that fit the definition of a physical spiritual object. A video of someone seeing Mars through the moon. So if Mars and all that are going around the sun and it's not a physical object, how are they going around the sun? It just seems like a holographic light show. And it could also be sci-matic patterns like sonal luminescence. You know, vibrational resonance and sonal luminescence. That's not how sonal luminescence works. Do you have any evidence of any of the stuff that you believe or do you just want to critique? Well, do you have any evidence of physical object than it's being a holographic projection? I'm going to say one more thing. The difference is we're saying we don't make claims about that. We're not making claims that we can't actually verify and we would say, well, what do you think it is? So then we speculate and then you're like, prove it, which is dishonest. And then you guys make definitive claims about it and then can't prove any of it and don't even want to actually address what your claim is. So I think that we should let James go. Okay, so you're left with an I don't know and we're left with here's what works. That's the difference. Your models don't know what 96% of the difference is. So if they lie to us and gave us something that works, but it's a lie, you're okay with that. That's all you need. Lies don't work like that. Yeah, they can. That's not how a lie works.  That's why it's a lie. Like dark matter and dark energy? Right. No, we're not talking, but we're not having a conversation about dark matter or dark energy. That means that your claim to the inverse of a lie doesn't work with the fats. No, that has nothing to do with our conversation. So you got high. And wave dismissal. You got high. No, you're trying to change the subject and I'm changing it back. You got high. If I told you every day to go into the Q and A.  I just wouldn't be filling it with milk. But milk doesn't allow cars to run everything. That's the point. But this is car run, even though I say it, even though I told that lie. No, you don't understand. You don't understand. So we know what milk is. Milk comes from cows and from goats. Where is this coming from? Right. So what are you talking about? What's going on? I'm talking about an absurdity. I said lies don't work. You said lies don't work. Lies can work for... No, they don't, dude. No, they don't.  But the thing about lies is that, the thing about lies is if I were to take milk and drink it, I would die. It's so dumb. So it doesn't work. I'm missing the point. If Planarwalk's name was Henry, he could be lying this whole time and we would just never know that's his real name. But still, he still can operate. Still go through things. Right. But if you were... But if you... You don't actually know my real name, either. Hey, well, there you go. That's a relevant though. You see his point. You're missing the point, though. You're trying not to see the point. He's a contrarian. No, what you're doing is you're ignoring how to make it work. It's the concept of it working that you measure, that you're looking at, that you're comparing stuff to, and you're simply declaring something to be something different. You're saying, oh, well, this is like this, or I don't know what this is, but I know it's not that. And we're saying, well, but it works if we look at it like that. So where's the lie? Where is the lie of a field that's about where's the lie part? It doesn't mean it's true when you say something works, right? The burden of proof, therefore, is on you. It doesn't work, dude. When they made the claim that it's a leo-centric model. For what? When they clicked it, I annoy you. You annoy me.  As early as the 30s, your model didn't work. Okay. So it's like the galaxy mass distribution was off like 97 percent. Work for 13 billion years. Here is a funny thing about Doc Madov. Let me give you an example. You have something that bends. You call it space time. Dark matter. Here we go. You say something about space time. I just said that you have a physical thing that you think bends and adjust with that. No. There's something that we can measure that scientists can measure that can declare what the, not declare, that can, that can show the rate of curvature. The rate of curvature follows a workable scientific model that you can't dispute. But there's nothing there. What you're saying is you can't physically see it yourself right now in this debate. So no one can. This is a lie. Some people can. It would be like, this would be like asking what is, what is magnetism? And as someone were to describe it as, you know, a moving charge, it's like, okay, well, what is actually moving there to move the objects? That is one way you could describe it, whether that's actually what is happening or not. It's a little bit unsure. That's totally different. You can physically manipulate a magnet and the magnetic field can have physical interactions. There's nothing to do with space and time, two conceptual abstractions, bending and warping. That's totally non sequitur, dude. That has nothing to do with it. False. False. I'm saying is, I'm saying is that your, your notion that magnetism has nothing to do with space and time? It's not an analogous, guys. If we talk about space time, if we talk about, if we talk about space time, right, the bending of space time, we could talk about magnetism as the bending of the magnetic field, right? That would be one way to describe it, whether that's actually what is going on when you get really deep down to it. It's, you don't really know, but it's a good way to describe it. But I did want to, I did want to point out something when it comes to dark matter, because there's something actually very interesting that I find when they're, because they are searching to see if they can find any kind of dark matter. One of the best possible, well, one of the best hypothesis is hypotheses at the moment is we do these things where we measure like really use really sensitive equipment. Now in one place in the northern hemisphere, there's this underground lab that's being built. And for half a year, they actually have, have detections running high. And for the other half of the year, they have it running low. They're not sure whether this is a seasonal thing, right? But it could, if it turns out that it's not a seasonal thing, if they, because they're doing something in Australia, doing the same experiment, then that would be a measurement of dark matter. This would prove that the earth is going around the sun. What? Wow, dude. What is dark matter if you're measuring it? What is it? Any reading on your detector would be dark matter. It's a seasonal, it's, I'm not sure. I think it's something to do with neutrinos. Is one of the, is one of the possible explanations. Something to do with neutrinos. That's incorrect. Dark energy. What does this have to do with the shape of the earth? Well, this is a direct rebuttal to your claim that lies don't work because then the facts will show that they're not true. And that's what happens to the heliocentric model constantly. Demonstrate that about dark matter at least. Having a clip that happens with a summoner above the earth and then you say, Oh, the fax debunk it. But no, there must be an explanation. I'll give you some more. I asked you to demonstrate what is dark matter. Let's hear that. I've lost him. The observations of the sky show that the math doesn't work out with your assumption of relativity in the universe. And you're like, Oh, that must mean something else is happening. So the truth is all kinds of evidence constantly contradicts your model. And in science, you have an hypothesis. And if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, you throw it out. But what you guys do is you take your hypothesis and then start adding to it little band-aids. I don't know. Well, here's the thing. We went strictly up of that. Evidence contradicts what you're saying. So therefore we throw it out. We must throw out the entirety of flat earth because the evidence contradicts it. What it is is we use what works best, right? We know that there are some errors with certain things. Like there are errors or there are some things that don't work with relativity. I'll freely admit that. But it is what works best. It is the best way to currently explain the universe. Well, then to call what the thing you're talking about to be true would be a problem, right? If it's just what works best at the time, that's not really true. It's not really a fact. It's just kind of right. But it works far better than the earth. So just like you saying this is not a sphere. This is flat because of relativity. And relativity doesn't work. That's the logic you're using. You've had three or four hundred years to build your religion. Good for you. And we've succeeded. You didn't do anything. Stop using the pronoun we. You didn't do anything. We. And don't say you. Don't say you had four hundred years. Yeah. You are your religion. Then we then we have succeeded. So then you're absorbing your religion. That's a good step. That's fine. It works. It works. Great. It works. It's all the matters. It works. We don't want to go too long. We're going to get these guys out of here. So we're going to jump into the Q&A, folks. These guys have got busy nights. So we're going to jump right into it. Thank you very much for your first question. Want to remind you all of our guests are linked in the description. So if you haven't already, check out those links. You can open a second tab. Well, you're still watching this debate so you can hear the questions. And then you can see their content immediately after. KO44 says, dialectic plain domain block wall, Gaussian surfaces, electric gradients, relativity, quantum, Lorentz, contraction, electric potential. All right, I'm reading here, David, please. Says electric potential. That's orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Witsett, please use the above to explain a sunset. Ding. That's what they say. Why would I use all that to explain the sunset? I already explained it to you. And I showed you a video earlier explaining it. I mean, I guess I can share the screen super fast and show it. I don't want to take too long in this. But just give me this. Give me this like 10 seconds to show them. This is this is the sunset. This is a beautiful sunset. My boy, Rakiya took on the ocean. And as you see here, right, the sun is disappearing. Right here. And it's not disappearing behind the horizon. It's disappearing above the horizon. OK, that means there's a vanishing point in the atmos. And the sun will disappear into that vanishing point. This officially debunks the claim that it can only be disappearing. Look at that. That's crazy. So the sun disappears because of the atmospheric vanishing point. Can someone rebuttal that? Or no. Can someone respond to that nonsense? In Pithy 1, we've got to tell you that we've got a ton of questions. So it's got to be Pithy. Give me 30 seconds. Planner walks out something, too. I just wanted to say if you can come up with calculations for what we should expect to see, that would be great. OK, and if I could just say, why do I see in the atmos in the distance, near the horizon, ships floating in air? I see that from time to time as well. That's a good question. Forgive you, Jeff. That's a good question. And I believe we have an answer that works. And the answer is that is an atmospheric refracting effect. Most of the sun was disappearing. Most of that sun over that 45-minute period was disappearing bottom. OK. Then you get to the very near top of the sun and then you're saying, oh, hey, now it's not doing it. What are you talking about? That's absurdity. I'm done. Go ahead, Jaren or Austin. Jaren's got it. I've been talking to him. Yeah, I didn't even know. I thought we were answering questions. What? Yeah, just explain to him why the boat is above the water. If you want, you don't have to respond. We can go to the next question. Well, I think it's a good thing, because I actually had Andrew Young, who's a refraction specialist. I was emailing him this week and finally got him to concede that those boats are all sitting on water. So just so you know. Of course they're sitting on water. All right. No, no, no, we're not going to go into a conversation, David. We've got to move on to the next question. People want to have their questions read. This one coming in from, thank you very much. Magellan says, hi, James, appreciate that. Carney Karn says, Witsit will misuse Einstein a lot in this debate. Can you ask him what shape Einstein thought the earth was and why that's not a problem for him? Because that's called an all or nothing fallacy, right? So if I can invoke a hostile witness to have to correct the globes, because they don't understand their own belief, I have to show them what relativity says. Didn't they say, no, that's not what it means. But then I have to go pull up Einstein, pull up his quotes, pull him up in context. I didn't take him out of context. It's completely in context. I have to show them what it means so that we can actually begin to have a discussion about their belief. The vast majority of people don't actually understand the heliocentric model and the idea that you could never prove the earth orbits is what they believe. So I have to teach it. I just wanted to ask, do you know why the shape of the earth being round wasn't a problem for Einstein? What was his reasoning? I don't care. Seems like you weren't listening to what I just did and said seems like you just brought up a non sequitur. So we're going to move on now. This one from the Batman says, time for a major flat smack of the Globes again. Okay, got you. This one from Magellan says, Whitsitt will cherry pick and misunderstand Einstein. I just read that. This one from- I never cherry picked. They just keep saying it. Did I read that? Yeah, you did. It was like almost duplicated. Just a script. They just repeat scripts. I can tell you what all the superchats are going to say. I misused Einstein. This one was a different one. They said, and focus on minutia, while falsely claiming endless fallacies from the other side. If the other side is using endless fallacies, then it's not really my fault if I have to call them out. I mean, you can misuse fallacies. I did it once. Name one time I did. Name one time I did. You misused Truman so many times. No, I didn't. You kept strawmaning a flat earth. And you claimed that a fallacy is sufficient to debunk the argument. I literally said it. I said it debunks the argument. Not the conclusion. Right. And sometimes it's not because you're misusing them. The argument's fallacious. That's 22. Debunks the validity of the argument, but not necessarily the conclusion. That's what fallacy-fallacy means. Hey, host, I know I can't respond, so let me not waste our time. Don't worry. You don't get it. I don't remember. No, I get it. Appreciate your question. Carney-Carn says, if Whitsitt said, quote, all or nothing fallacy, what he is doing is selecting the parts that work for him and ignoring the rest. That is cherry-picking fallacy. Dude, you know what's funny? No, I'm not ignoring anything. It means the same. Cherry-picking's like, if you write it in context, it would mean something different. They act like I can't use citations. This is the level of 2022 Glovers.  That's not how citations work. In context, it means exactly what I said that it means. It's not cherry-picking or quote mining. Try again. This one coming in front of me. I don't see this big parse error. I don't see this big parse error. Channel 044 says, question four, the flat folk. Can you please explain how the super camea candy detector in Japan took a photo of the sun through the earth or is it part of the conspiracy? They claim that some detector underneath the surface of the earth looked at neutrinos all the way down their feet through from the other side and made an image. And these people actually believe it's like proof the earth's a ball and that the sun's on the other side of the ball. I believe it. This one. Totally did. Coming in from Shrik says, earth rotates centrifugal centripetal forces act on you. If you weighed 200 pounds at a pole, you'd be 199 pounds at the equator. Flat earthers explain this. First of all, there's that could be centrifugal effects. But can you even prove that? You just guys just say things. Thanks for that. Pretty much what you do, just say things. You can just say things and it becomes you. You haven't been to either pole. What are you talking about? I mean, you can also, I actually have seen, I think it was Wolfie, measured the weight of certain objects at different, I forget whether it's latitudes or longitudes. But it came up as different weights that was consistent with what you'd expect to see if there's centrifugal force acting. You have to be latitude, right? Like you guys don't understand your model. I just get confused between different words sometimes. Okay. Coming in from Tim Pryor says, you proved curvature and track that international space station.  Yes, he's talking to me because these guys believe that they asked for every bit of evidence, right? They asked for the humidity, the temperature, what's the refraction unless you're in a movie, it's a hit piece, clearly. And you say the words interesting. That is sufficient evidence for these guys to run around saying that I proved globe. So that's funny. But what's the other thing you said? Oh, I saw the ISS. Yes. If anybody can go do that, you can pull up ISS transit finder and you can watch the little tie fighter go by the moon or sun. At the time it says it will go by the moon or sun. I just want to ask, this is not a jab at you, Jiren. But isn't your catchphrase interesting? From watching some of your shows, I'm pretty sure your catchphrase has always been, yeah. Yes, but most people are using that in terms of the proving of the curve. Even though they just paid attention to the movie, they would see that the difference in heights would be six feet and the person held it above his head, which is about two feet. And it's not, the evidence is actually leaning towards flat then curve. But I wouldn't claim that because the evidence was right in the middle. The observation showed us the middle result. Closer to flat. And then he said, interesting. And now they say he proved the curve.  Yeah, especially because the movie didn't show you that we tried to see it at 23 feet and didn't see it. They cut that out of the movie and they cut everything that happened after that. So, I mean, people should be asking the question like, wait a second, if Jiren proved globe right there and there was 25 people there, the great scene would have been what happens next? What's the scene after that? Where I say interesting that everybody comes over and says, what happened? Oh, man, we just saw the globe. It's globe proof.  And at the end of that night, everybody said, no, nothing was proven here. So, how does that work on a flatter? What does? We're done. All right. Next question. Want to remind you, folks, if you haven't hit like, it's a way to support our neutral platform. We appreciate that. And this one coming in from Kango, 4-4. Question for the flats. Flat earths, flat earthers always say that water is flat. So, the quote unquote swell of the century in Nazir 2020 produced massive curved waves showing forces can curve water. So, can they explain that? Yes, forces can curve water temporarily. And then what happens after the water is done curving? It goes back to its level. Yeah. Like the density of the oceans bending around, convexing the exterior of a sphere spinning in a vacuum is insane. You can't show that ever happening. So, that's not even really relevant to adhering to the exterior of a surface of a sphere that spins. You're monologuing. That was less than 10 seconds. Shrik says, Jaren, those quotes were cherry-picked. It's dishonest. What quotes? I don't know. That's all they say. No, we don't actually cherry-pick. That globers just use scripts. They just have scripts. They're like, it's like a cult. So, you can go look into the quote from Edwin Hubble. You can look into the quote from George Ellis, who says that a lot of cosmology is trying to hide that. What are they trying to hide? The fact that they choose their models based on philosophical criteria and that he could construct a universe for you with the Earth at its center and you could not disprove him. And he's a mainstream physicist. So, what is the quote where he says the Earth is flat? That's called an all-or-nothing fallacy. Try to write it down. I want to know where the quote is that he says the Earth is flat. When you keep on using fallacies, you look dumb. Whatever. Where's the quote where any of them say the Earth is flat? They don't have to. We don't care. We're done. Next question. That's our point is that they don't think that. It's called a hostile witness. So, we need men in high positions to tell you that they believe it and so that you can believe it. All right. But you use those same men in high positions to solve the seas of doubt into this debate. Yes, because those are your prescriptives. But they're using the... But they're warning you of doing what you're doing. Here are they. It's funny how you guys never get superchats but think it's your opportunity to just talk the whole time. I don't think it's weird. So, like, we just answered it. We just answered it. It's a hostile witness. You're defending a model. David, no one superchatted you the whole time. So, calm down. He answered your question, man. Lady Firebrand says, what is your model of a flat earth? Well, we've had seven years to put something together so we don't have a perfect working model. There's a lot of people who have different, I don't know, concoctions and ideas and we just have to test them. But we don't have money like you guys had from governments, from kings and queens, expeditions, map.  So, we have had zero dollars from the government in case anybody was wondering. That's not true. All right. What do we have? There are things that I have done, which I didn't need money to do, which... What did you do? I'm talking about nature. Even if we talk about just components of a model, like how we can see the white swan, right? How we can get that image. I managed to work out what you'd need to do that on a flat earth. I didn't need any money. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the model. If you're talking about a model, your model... You've had hundreds of years for that model. You didn't contribute anything to it. What you can do is you can work out at least work out components, like that should be the first step. How does this work? How does this part work? How does this part work? Yeah, we can do that first. You would have done that with the earth. If we would have given you the earth with a blank slate, you would have been able to start to figure out what the temperature of the sun was and how it works and how you would do all that. No, they did nothing. They've done nothing. We actually do do stuff. That's the ironic part. And ironically, the most ironic part is there isn't a working globe model. So like you said, you've had royal families doing expeditions for you, millions of dollars, or billions of dollars, millions of people, decades, all of science, all universities. And you still don't have a working model from the core to the layers to the mechanism of gravity to the atmosphere to super rotation at the top of the atmosphere to distribution of mass and expansion rate. And it goes on and on. You don't have a working model and you have everything on your side. It's hilarious. How about you self-reflect? Well, there are unknowns. There are unknowns. That's why I say, take it one step at a time. Work out, okay, how does this work? Then once you figure out how that works, how does this work? How does this work? How about you come up with your own belief system instead of just believing people in lab coats and being in a cult? This one from Tim Pryor. I mean, I've done my own calculations. Yeah, your calculations based on presuppositions. Tim Pryor says, my favorite was when journalism proved curvature and tracked the International Space Station. So this is funny to me because it really shows how pathetic believers are that they're so desperate for proof that their proof has to come from me in a movie, which is a hit piece where they misrepresented me and put me at the end of their movie. That's how desperate these people are. It's pretty funny. It was closer to flat earth. Why do they keep saying that? Because they just are reading off a script. Whatever Simon Dan says, they'll just repeat it. And C2 says that we got to repeat it. This one from... I'm still trying to figure out why when you stood up and that light went through that hole. Why did that happen? Sorry. Are you incapable of understanding things? Am I? Next point. You don't get... Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm going to say something at the end of our super chat and then say... I have no respect for you. That's not how it works. I'm sorry. Well, the whole audience doesn't have respect for you, even though you're saying that you're like a terrible representation for the globe. David, I have to admit, you interrupt an awful lot. I did. And I appreciate to the point where it's like chill out for a little bit. But I appreciate that you've got passion because it's better than if you were boring. But it is a lot. Shricks says 8 billion people and every single scientist on earth versus a couple of pseudo-intellectuals, the burden of proof will always be on flat earth. Yeah, I covered that in my freaking opener. It's called the appeal to majority or argument from ad-populum.   Like, you don't have the credentials needed. So you guys are inter-religion. It's like someone saying, you can't talk about the blame on my preacher said this. I think there's people outside of that because if it wasn't for us and the conspiracy theorists that were actually calling these things out and then they end up being true and then you guys just adopt them as being true because we're not your force at that point. But if it wasn't for us, you would just be hoodwinked the rest of your life. What is the really good, flat earth position that has been proven through? I do want to humor the globe side just because they don't get much action during the Q and A. So, Planner-Walk, if you have a quick pithy point or question, I want to give you a chance and then we'll give you a chance to respond with Sid and Jared and then we got to go to the next question. How long do you think it's going to take for everyone to become a flat earther or for the majority of people to become a flat earther? Just a question. We probably have to stop censoring us and let it actually be fair for a little bit, huh? I bet it would be like incredibly fast if they stopped censoring us and misrepresenting the actual flat earth position. So, you guys seem to be pro-censorship. I think some people would rather be lied to. So, I think it'll be a while. I think for you, for Dave here, I think you guys would rather be a part of the lie because the lie works than to actually work towards the truth. Or not be part of the majority. This one from Displaced Gamer says, what is your position on the shape and status of the earth? I know that you haven't listed your position but just humor me. The stationary topographical plane has some form of containment and yeah, just look at the interference patterns of a magnetic field. I think we live inside of a torus. King 044 says, so the sun appears to set because the atmosphere is a massive lens but a lens that does do affect anything else. Or the sun is in a medium that acts like a lens. Or maybe it's magnetic holography. Maybe the sunset because of a strawman fallacy. Maybe, the only like, I don't want to speak ugly. Remedial people like find stuff like that humorous. You know what I'm saying? Where is that, where is that? This one from Magellan says, we're going to move to the next one. Magellan says, Whitz it doesn't know what fallacies are. I literally do. Every single time I set a fallacy, if you go look it up, I literally listed them. I knew I should have just covered that, Jaren.  They're just like, no, you don't know. Dude, every time I said it, it was a fallacy and I probably called out about 10% of them, right? So yeah, I do know what they are. Hits me not using them and hits me having to correct their fallacies constantly. Hey Whitz, I will say, I do appreciate that you didn't just do that because one of the things that I was wondering is if you're going to bring evidence, right? And I wanted this discussion to be more evidence-based. So I do appreciate the attempted evidence in your opening. I brought way more evidence than both of you guys. What evidence did you bring? Did you not see my presentation? Was my presentation just over your head? And you explained the sunset in a way that was inconsistent. So how did that happen? I showed you long distance observations, laser, mirror flashes, radio transmissions over 10,000 miles. You just hand wave dismissed. No, you did not. Keep on saying I bring no president. You keep saying I'm interrupting. You keep saying I brought no evidence because that's the global earth. When you talk about a model- That's super chat. Well, it's real quick. When you guys talk about a model that's not debunkable or it's what do you call it, not falsifiable, wouldn't that be the case of the globe earth? Because if we're seeing mirror flashes that are going over 30, 40 foot humps of water and you're just able to say that's a fraction happening, do you understand that it's actually not our model that's not undebunkable? Well, when it comes to that, you'd have to take more measurements than just these observations. Like temperature readings would be a good start and then compare it to what you'd expect to see on a flat earth, compared to what you'd expect to see on a globe earth. Account for refraction, that's a really good start to make. Well, we do that plan your walk and then what happens is when the temperature relationship doesn't match the refracted value that's needed for the globe, the globe says, oh, well, there are other variables that could be there that's unaccounted for. So yeah, you guys like to pretend, oh, all you have to do is look at the temperature and do the refraction equation we know perfectly. Well, Andrew Thomas Young will tell you, we actually don't know tons of variables. All you do is do the math and assume it. Your model is unfalsifiable to such an extent, you will say that something can refract all the way around the globe back to you. Well, that is why you need a model because if you don't have a model of how things would work if the earth were flat, then it's hard to say, well, what are we comparing this to? Why do I need a model if I'm going to do my observation as the canal? I just know what will happen on a flat earth, right? So that's enough of the model. Yeah, well, you need to know things like refraction. You need to know things like refraction as well. If the refraction is going to be an issue, right, then we need to know, okay, what refraction will we expect to see on both flat earth and the globe earth? And then we'd take measurements like temperature readings and all that kind of stuff. And then we work it out. And then we'll work out, okay, which is this observation? You need all those things when things prove flat, but if I say interesting, do you think that's sufficient evidence of proving curve? Oh yeah, I think that there should be things like, things like the temperature things there as well. Can I ask a question? When you ignore refraction and you recognize when refraction works, and I'm talking to you flat earthers, why do you then ignore the effects? Like, we know the refraction will fall. Quick chance, then we got to go back to questions. Refractive predictions? I just answered it. No, we got to go to the next one. Sorry, guys. Refraction. Well, you asked your question. We got to go to the next one. Dave, don't be like that, really. I don't think it's working. This is his shell, man. You're going to interrupt me now. Geez, Dave. Really, seriously. I don't think this is working for you. But I do want to give a chance. You did ask your question. Did you not ask them a question, Dave? It sounded like you ended with a question there. Yeah. Okay, then it makes sense we give them a chance to respond, and then we go to go to the next question from the people that have asked questions in the chat. Very simple. The refraction predictions actually don't always match what we see with the globe. Like, if you look at the temperatures and the humidity and something you factor it in, it still doesn't work for the globe. So they have this get out of jail car where they say, oh, well, refraction is not fully understood, and there could be other variables that are there that we don't know. And they always just assume it is bending around the globe no matter what. That it's not applicable above water, which would be the only thing. That wasn't my question. That wasn't my question, though. So let's just keep going, guys. It's fine. That wasn't my question. Let's go. Do you remember what your question was? My question is, when you ignore how refraction works, on us, you ignore it.  This is just telling them what they're doing. Would you remember what you actually ended with in terms of the actual question? I'm just going to move on to the next one. All right. Displaced gamer. So I think modern day debate needs to phrase the question next time. Is the Earth flat? We need a positive defense on the other side. Maybe we should do that. Magellan says, Whitsett is a poster child for Dunning Kruger. And the gap between Whitsett's actual IQ and his perception of his IQ could not be greater. I think I should have an IQ contest with Whitsett, I think. Yeah. Perception. You're going to make those bad claims. Perception of IQ. It's whatever. I admit what I don't know. The irony is that I point out, I don't know a lot about what goes on on the Earth. And me and Jaren are obviously significantly more humble and honest regarding what we do and do not know about the Earth. While you guys don't even understand your own model as much as we do. And then you claim that your model is a fact while we have to teach you about it. So it seems like you may be projecting a bit. This is coming in from... I do have... I just wanted to say, there is one thing that I do want to say. Keep on forgetting his name. The guy that did magnetism. In Willer. No, no, no, no. Different person. In magnetism. Never mind. I forgot the name. It doesn't matter. Oh, Maxwell? Yeah, Maxwell's equations. That's what I want to say. Maxwell's equations. Okay, cool. That doesn't help you. Shrik says space tourism will be cheap and available to everyone in the next 10 or 20 years. Take a 20-minute trip. See the curve. Come back and rethink your life choices. Magellan says... Got that one, actually. Mr. Monster. Okay, Jaren. You answered the ones that are more like open and into flat Earth. Thanks. I do this all the time. I didn't know. I just saw today that Tim Dodd is going to be sent to the moon in 2023. I'll be willing to bet anybody that doesn't happen. But no glober there will bet that because they understand that it's a ridiculous bet anyway. This one coming in from... Do appreciate it. Mr. Monster says... So a ship disappears beyond the horizon, starting with the whole of the ship and ending with the mast. Wouldn't this be a good example of flat Earth curvature? Flat Earth curvature? When you can't see the mast, but you can still see the horizon behind it? He probably mistyped it. He probably just means curvature. No, we do see boats that are said to be going over the curve, but there's water behind it. Yeah, like they say that the mast is disappearing because it's like going behind the curve of the Earth. And then when you look at it, the horizon's behind the boat. So they're claiming that the curvature of the Earth is blocking the boat. You can literally see the horizon behind the boat. They put that on what? Like National Geographic? It's just... Your rise is clearly sinking. The boat is clearly sinking. We have to help those people. Do you think that the National Geographic was right when they said the curvature was blocking the front of the boat, but the horizon was behind the boat? It's clearly refractive from refractive artifact. Why would the boat be under the water and just look at the same time? You don't get it. I do get it. And what you're not understanding is that just like with your sun example, you're seeing a refractive artifact. So for instance, if you were to let the boat continue to go off into the distance, eventually it'll go under the horizon completely. You'll see it either go under the refractive artifact. I've seen one video of that happen. Well, just like I showed you, I just showed you... Let's see the boat disappear before it goes on the horizon. Let's see it disappear even with the level of magnification that you guys are reliant on. That happens all the time. What are you talking about? Let's see it. Okay. Even your own model claims, it happens. I've never s