Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth, and we're starting right now. With Flat Earth Aussie's opening statement, thanks for being with us, Flat Earth Aussie, the floor is all yours. Pleasure to be here again, James, and thanks very much for coming, for having me, and you know, Daffodino. I've written out a little bit of an introduction, which I'm going to try and read as much of as I possibly can. So without further ado, I'll just jump straight into it. I'm going to take a different tack from the usual globe debunk, such as easily dismissing the multiple, wild, unproven claims and assertions that the globe believers rely upon to support their heavily indoctrinated beliefs. I mean, I could concentrate on the absurdity of the lack of detectable motion of the globe itself and how no flying vehicle of any kind need ever take into consideration, let alone careful calculation, the thousand mile per hour speed of the ground rotating beneath them. Of course, they'll defend this with well-rehearsed terms, such as inertia, the equivalent of saying that if you jump off a moving train, you'll continue moving with the speed of the train, plus the extra thrust from your jump, whereas in reality, we know the train continues speeding away, leaving you far behind in an instant, and there's no way that the train is moving anything like a thousand miles per hour before you even begin to consider the 10 times more absurd, oh, wait, 64 times more absurd speed attributed to the orbital rate of going around the sun. I could focus in great detail upon this massive problem, which alone entirely debunks the absurd spinning spaceball, but I'll move on with one, oh, sorry, many final words on the related problem, the atmosphere. According to the average helioist who defends their ancient superstitious sun worshipping cold beliefs, they'll declare the greatest reason we feel none of the fantastic speeds of the spinning spaceball is because they'll say the atmosphere is moving with us, as though a field of gaseous vapours can somehow magically velcro itself to a ball withing and spinning through a vacuum to attain the magical attributes of sometimes appearing to be perfectly still. When such a devout believer is questioned, well, what is wind? You watch as oils of the unused machinery of their minds loosen the cognitive dissonance inside to manufacture the only logical conclusion to assert, well, that's just independent motion of the atmosphere. So this magically velcroed atmosphere dragging aeroplanes, helicopters, hot air balloons and even clouds around with it at a thousand miles per hour is similarly at liberty to waft around that will, often in different directions in the same location. And the only aberration any flying vehicle need ever taking into consideration is this somewhat mild exception to the normal thousand miles per hour. Should said aberration reach as much as one-fifth of the normal magically velcroed on speed, that is, as much as 200 miles per hour either way, the forces are great enough to wipe out entire plantations, flatten entire fields and annihilate entire villages. On the spinning space ball, however, this can only mean that an east of the wind is actually on backwards 200 miles per hour, which translates as an 800 mile per hour motion. Yes. And that the west of the wind is actually adding to the Earth's rotation, so it is effectively moving 1200 miles per hour. A perfectly calm still day, however, insists that not only is the air that harbors to the wind moving at a perfect one thousand and forty miles per hour at the equator and adjusting accordingly for every latitude in order to allow for the perfectly flat, mirror-finished surface of small and great standing bodies of water alike, set droplets. But this perfectly calm air, hurtling along five times the speed of massively destructive atmospheric independent nation must be adjusting at speed automatically the higher it is in order to maintain the illusion of being perfectly calm and still everywhere at once. So to reiterate, in order to appear calm and still on the heliocentric belief, the atmosphere itself must be accelerating as it gets further from the surface, must either accelerate some more or decelerate somehow in order to produce winds. It must either decelerate or accelerate by a magnitude of one fifth, the perfectly calm stationary motion, in order to produce devastating and destructive winds, and it must use imaginary and visible pulling forces in every loosened molecule of its being attributed solely to the massive attributes of the Earth's earth alone to overcome the universal vacuum whizzes and winds through at unimaginable speeds, some 65 times greater than the supersonic speeds it must assume to appear perfectly calm and still. So with a simple hand-waved dismissal of such ludicrosity, without so much as a hint of a mention of the sun itself, yes, the great big fiery ball, Giver of Light and Life, jetters in through the empty realms of space at well over half a million of miles per hour, all whilst dragging along our very own moon at its own constant distance, whether in front, behind, or alongside our daily 1.6 million mile daily journey around this great Giver of Life. And now to devote the rest of my time to the history behind today's most prolific interpretation of ancient superstitious sun worshiping cult beliefs, that of heliocentrism. The topic is far bigger than any of us could imagine in order to make sense of the world around us, we always appeal to authority figures, our elders, those who've gone before us, to impart their wisdom, their knowledge, the long-explored scientific deductions from antiquity, so that we may either burrow or improve upon to make better sense of the world, the universe, the arena upon which we find ourselves currently dwelling. In days gone by, the ancestors of the modern human were not privy to rapid travel, to flight, to telescopic lenses, to sensitive scientific measuring and detecting apparatus, digital enhancement or detailed computer analysis. Even in my lifetime alone, I remember as a nine-year-old child, being the second only in my class to be the proud owner of a digital watch. With the press of a button, I could tell you the number of seconds past the minute, with another press the day and month of the year. Yet another button could be pressed to see all these amazing features in the dark of night. Not long after, we had digital calculators that could fit in the pocket, capable of amazing mathematical abilities at the mere press of buttons to summarize complex calculations up to as much as nine digits. Yet still, we found a way to turn upside down so that we can press one another with a way to spell B-O-O-S-707. But back in the day, they had no digital watches with nightlight features to know the time and date. The sky was the clock. The sun told time with shadows cast from sticks. And if you poked your head down a well in the proximity of the equator and saw there was no shadow, it was in... Cast on any wall. You'd eventually come to conclude that the particular day of the solar year was the equinox, or day of equal length, day and night. With careful observation, you'd also notice a possession of the stars, which makes such familiar patterns in the sky that the imagination could begin to personify some of those patterns into various constellations. They moved in repeating patterns year after year so that the 12 most prominent of these constant constellations were given names and placed on a chart divided into 12 equal segments, which became known as the houses of the zodiac. As the year progressed, it was noted that the stars moved as a singular body around the one fixed star, that which we call Polaris. Astrolabe drew invented, astrology was noted, and the annual seasons progressed. The sun was seen to move from one house to another, almost synchronous with the moon from one full phase to the next. Since the seasons were ruled by the sun, it was clearly seen to be the one and only giver of light and life. So it's no great surprise that it became regarded as the creator of all that is. Thus it became known as the sun of God. While lesser deities were attributed to the wandering stars, those which we still call by their various ancient Greek or Roman names today, the sun itself has gone through various names, the most obvious being Helios, who lends his name to today's term of heliocentrism, which translates as going around the central sun. But there's plenty of others such as the Egyptian Ra, killed by his brother Set, reincarnated by his loving wife Isis to produce the sun of the sun god Horus, from which the term horizon originates. To this day, we still say the sun sets, which is dyes by the hand of Set, only to rise on the eastern horizon each morning. The morning star Lucifer the Light Bearer, Apollo the Great. And thus every ancient religious cult was born upon the pagan observations of the natural celestial cycles in the sky by which we learned to plant and harvest and survive through harsh and abundant times alike. So in the far north, there dwelt a race of fair-skinned people whose seasonal dependence was very much reliant upon the seasonal active peaks of the sun and stars. It's such a short summer season, it was imperative that they observed the celestials religiously. They duly noted the cycles of the 12 faithful apostles devoted to their father, the sun of God. When finally the sun got so low towards the horizon in the darkest of winter, with little tidings to bear, the long-bitted elders would gather the last remaining fungi they could find, which as it turns out, was the fly agaric mushroom, cloaked in the traditional red and white Santa Claus colours. Under the snow-covered boughs of great evergreen pine trees, these fungi would be strung up to dry out from the light and heat of tallow candles and such. In the drab dreary perpetual twilight of the frozen vista, such a sight would be a welcoming beacon to any weary traveller. There they might meet and share what precious gifts they had, warming spiders in wine and dining on precious preserves, cakes and minced pies. On the final evening of the solstice, when the sun dipped lowest beyond the horizon and could be seen no more, the elders would imbibe upon the dried remains of the red and white mushrooms and go on a trip. During this travel through the stars, or astral travel, as they sought the giver of life, the sun of God, they would see that it had set far in the south, where the stars had revealed a completely different constellation appearing in the form of a cross. The brilliant sun rays formed a halo around their one and only true God, and the rays spread out like the thorns of a thistle. Thus the sun of God had died on the cross, wearing his crown of thorns, and descended into the underworld for three days and nights. But on the third day it rose again in accordance with the scriptures. Thus the origins of Heliosentrism began, celebrating the rebirth of the eternal giver of life three days after the northern winter solstice on the December 25th. This tradition still holds to this day, to decorate the pine tree with pretty lights and hanging baubles, to exchange gifts and drink spiced wine, and to remember the long bearded travellers through the stars, who bring the hope and joy of future good tidings and prosperity to come in the spring of the new season, after the festival of Ishtar got a supertility and new life, the time to plant new seed. So in summary, we see the origins of virtually every ancient stupefious, sun-worshipping cult from indigenous people totally reliant upon the seasons and the blessings of the weather gods for their literal survival. Just as all ancient astral travellers of the stars did, so too did navigators of the seas rely upon the fixed star atop the tree to find their way home. Thus the belief spread that one should go on so far that Polaris was no longer visible beyond the equator, you'd descend it into the underworld, where the cross takes over as the night-time navigational wade. To even further perpetuate the ancient superstitions, in the late 1600s, one particular religious occultist devised a scientific means by which to paraphrase, they could finally put the sun at the centre of their model. The centre, of course, signifying the royal seat or place of worship. Although he personally tried to recant on his model, the Pernicus was placed under house arrest until his final demise, where upon a full two years later, his works were published as the origins of the heliocentric model. To this day, the descendants of those raised upon this deceptive model still believe their son of God is crucified on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns surrounded by his faithful 12 devotees, descends into the underworld for three days and nights and is born again every December 25th. If you disagree with their cult, they will mock and ridicule you. What's more, because they claim to be the authority of the scientific method, they have taken their ancient superstitious beliefs from the sublime to the ridiculous. Instead of being geocentric, as we observe, the heliocentric model has to swallow lie after lie, much like the little old lady swallowed the fly.  Each one more absurd than the birds followed to catch the spider that wriggled and giggled and jiggled inside. Eventually, the heliocentric superstitious cult belief accumulated in people genuinely believing that a perfectly calm day revealing mirror perfect surfaces in large standing bodies of water was in fact the result of every star of every constellation, every molecule of air and every suspension of the laws of physics and mortal man's belief was in fact dancing in perfect harmony at supersonic, hypersonic beyond the limits of imagination speeds all in order to create delusion of being perfectly calm and still. Just like the little old lady, by the time you actually swallow that horse shh after the couch, the heliocentric model is dead, of course. I don't need to imagine, I know already that my long extinct fictitious cartoon caricature of an opponent will have a rebuttal no greater than the hollow eggs the rabbit is capable of producing, but I handed over to him to present his basket case. Thank you very much, Flat Earth Aussie for that opening statement, and if it's your first time here, ladies and gentlemen, want to let you know that Modern Day Debate is a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics, and we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from. Also, big news, folks, as we have reconfirmed the date as Christian scholar and apologist, Dr. Kenny Rose will be taking on Matt Dillahunty that's coming up this Saturday, so folks, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button and that notification bell so you don't miss out on that epic debate and whether or not there is good evidence for God, and so with that, we're gonna kick it over to Dapper Dino for his opening as well. Thanks for being with us, Dapper. The floor is all yours. Thank you, James, and I want to say thank you to Ross for being here, and I understand it actually requesting me as his opponent in this discussion, but I also want to say that I'm sorry to the audience and to James because I know that everyone here is waiting for me to defend the globe. Unfortunately, I'm not gonna be able to do that today because the fact is that we do sit around on a apparently stationary motionless earth, observing things in the sky go above our heads, and the wind occasionally just standing still and I'm not going to sit here and talk about things like the conservation of momentum or weather patterns and things like high pressure and barometric pressures and things like that in the atmosphere, it doesn't matter. The fact is we all experience a flat stationary earth, but what I am gonna do is question the common model of it because I've noticed an odd inconsistency, and this is an odd inconsistency that Ross should have to deal with every day, or at least every night because the thing is according to the standard flat earth model that we're given, the sun travels counterclockwise around the supposed North Pole as the Globers might call it, which is why according to them, when you look up in the sky, the sun will move counterclockwise as will the background stars, but there's a curious phenomenon. You see, as Ross here would know, as well as anyone in places like, you know, Tierra del Fuego or any of the research areas around the Arctic, sorry, Antarctic, or in places like Indonesia or Southern Africa, the sun doesn't go counterclockwise to the sky, nor do the stars, they go clockwise and people in places like Australia and Southern Africa and Southern South America all see the same stars at the same time, whereas on the standard North centered flat earth, they should be looking in different directions. So I want to posit to Flat Earth Aussie here that he in fact has the flat earth backwards and that the sun rotating around Antarctica counterclockwise revealing a clockwise rotation in the sky is in fact the proper model of the flat earth. And so I have no plans on defending crazy spinning space ball. Instead, I would like to defend the idea that in fact, Antarctica is the center of the world which is flat and the Northern ice cap is in fact the ice wall around the flat earth. This makes sense of all of the observations that occur south of the equator, much better than the ridiculous North globe centered version which of course, Flat Earth Aussie here has to deal with every night when he looks up at the stars if he bothers to track them, but he might, I don't know. Not everyone does, it's not something you have to do but we have many, many recordings from south of the equator of this fact that the stars rotate around a fixed point in the south and they do it clockwise. And really that's all I want to say is I'm not here to defend the globe. I know it says flat versus globe but that's not me anymore. I've had a change of heart. I've realized how ridiculous all these spinning motions are but we do have to figure out which flat earth model is right and why flat earth Aussie picks a model that flatly contradicts what he can see with his own two eyes. And with that, I think I'm done. I think I finished a little early for you. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening statement as well. Debra Dino, want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description. We really do appreciate them and so you can check out their links right now. And with that, we are going to jump into open conversation and want to mention as well, forgot to mention this, our guests are also linked in the modern data bait podcast episode for this debate as all of our debates get uploaded to the modern data bait podcast where you can also find our guest links in the description box for that episode. And with that, thanks so much gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Well, I just went, so Ross, what do you think? Well, Debra, I'm extremely disappointed, mate. I thought you were going to present some sort of argument to defend the heliocentric belief since that was... It's indefensible, like you said. Why bother? Well, okay, so you admit it. Okay, well then the flat earth has already won. So now you've made the model of the flat earth. And once again, you've just sort of made some ridiculous claim, which is obviously false because what we see, I don't know how you determine if you'd let me speak. How you determine what is clockwise and what is counterclockwise since are you looking at it from beneath or from above? Either way, that's going to be reversed. But what we always see, whether you're in the inner side of the equator or the outer side, either the northern bit or the southern side, you're still going to see the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, which means it's still going the same direction. Now, I see the stars also tracking across the sky from east towards the west, which makes perfect sense because the whole star's system works pretty much the same way as the sun and then we see them at night. And so, and they take actually four minutes less time than the sun to go around us once, which is what we call a sidereal day, which is why everybody in the south still sees the same stars at their particular night just as we see the same sun during our day. So just to claim that they're going opposite directions is completely false. And shows that you've done very little research even to debunk the model which you don't even believe in. All right, well, I think the first thing I'd like to address is how we determine clockwise versus counterclockwise. And you're absolutely correct. It does matter where we're looking at it from. So from above the flat earth, looking down, you will see the sun going counterclockwise, just as if you were to look at the hands of a clock from above the surface of the clock. Now, this is in fact the direction that makes it travel. Hold on one second. Hold on one second. Let me finish. Thomas, we'll give you a chance to respond fire to the Aussie. Right, so perhaps I might have just misspoken. So it is going to go counter the direction the clock would, but we're imagining looking at it like we're looking at the surface of a clock from above the clock, except now it's going the other direction because that's the direction the sun goes because that's the way that you can get east to west as you can clearly see in my webcam, which is in fact a model of the true flat earth with the sun going from east to west. And then if you're on the surface looking up, you're now looking at it from the opposite direction, which means that it will go clockwise the same way as the sun, which also explains things like why it is that in the southern hemisphere, sun dials go counterclockwise because you have to flip that direction again. Also it explains why it is that during the summer, the days keep getting longer and longer because the sun is closer to the center, which is where the south is. Whereas in the winter, where the days are shorter in the south, they're also going to have to be shorter in the north because the sun is farther away from most parts of the north when it's at a large radius. So this explains the extreme length of days that you can get in the far southern latitudes. Give you a chance to respond, Flat Earth Aussie, a couple of minutes. Yeah, no worries. Well, that's blatantly false because the very term clockwise is determined by the fact that the hour hand goes, the way it's always gone since antiquity. And that matches the expectations of if we were looking down from above towards the flat earth is the sun is actually the hour hand on the face of what would be a 24 hour clock. So wherever it's directly above is the local midday. And every sundial reflects that by casting a shadow. So when the shadow is straight, that's 12 midday local. And eventually that got divided into 24 hour different time zones, which basically average out to suit political reasons more than anything else. Geographically, a whole section or state would be given one time zone and then another section, another time zone, which more or less makes it so that the sun is pretty much overhead at midday every day of the year. So how you can claim that it's going counterclockwise in any sense of form makes no sense whatsoever. Well, if anybody's trying to argue that. It's very simple. If you look at a clock face on, it'll go clockwise. But let's say you had a transparent clock and only the hands were visible, or the, you know, only the hands were opaque, right? So if you turn the clock around, you can see the hands, but now they look like they're going the other direction. That's how you can say that the sun is going counterclockwise from a particular perspective. And that's the perspective if you come up off the flat earth and look down. And that's why the sun, if you look in the sky, the sun in the stars from Australia will turn clockwise, which is the exact opposite of what the ridiculous north center flat earth view says, which says that if you look up at the sky, the sun should go counterclockwise, which is what you see in those fake Northern hemispheres. Well, hemisphere, right? The outer ring star trails, those are obviously fake because they show the stars going the wrong direction, the opposite direction from what you see, in fact, in this global south, in places like Australia, where when you look up at the sky, they go clockwise. You keep swapping your point of view. If you say that from in the south, we look downwards from above, but then you say from the north, we're looking upwards at it. So of course it will appear to go opposite directions, but if you look at it all from the same point of view from above, that's all going clockwise. Everything rotates that direction around center, Polaris, which aligns perfectly with- Oh no, no, no, Polaris is definitely not the center.  It's interesting that you say that this is a ridiculous model. I would like to know what about my model vanishes to do a worse job at what people will see outside in Australia than your model does. Why is my model ridiculous when my model predicts the actual rotation of the stars and the sun in the sky as viewed from where you live? Well, because reality has always been based around, we've drawn all our maps around the northern center point, the places where all magnetic compasses point towards. And so we've moved in ever increasing circles outside of the northern center. And you're just trying to reverse that by looking at the stars in the sky for whatever reason, rather than looking at the reality of the world which we live upon, which is the subject of this debate. We know for a fact that the further outwards we go, the larger it gets. The equator is only some 25,000 odd miles in circumference, whereas certain explorers over the years have charted over 60,000 miles trying following the ice wall of Antarctica, looking for a breach through the ice wall barrier. So we know for a fact that the earth just gets bigger and bigger and bigger the further outwards we go, which is exactly what we'd expect. You know, we better describe this as a darkboard model and you cannot reverse that just by looking at the globe and reprojecting it around Antarctica as though Antarctica is a tiny point. It's not the further outwards you go on anything like spokes on a wheel gets further and further away from the center, doesn't create its own center that you're trying to claim that somehow there's a South Pole or some point which you're trying to project the world to go around. It's just not how it is. It's never been observed that way. So it's an absurd argument and I'm very disappointed that that was the best you could bring to this debate. So it seems curious to me because all of the phenomena that you describe seem to be where you live at least, better explained by my model because the thing is you're right, the earth does get bigger the farther out we go, but that's why you can do things like have direct flights from Sydney to Johannesburg that get there in less than two days and don't have to stop in the middle of the ocean for fuel. It's because those areas are actually close to each other. That's why you can even do road trips. Well, hundreds of people go on that flight. Are you saying that they're all bought off? I've never heard of anybody ever flying directly to Johannesburg. Really? I've heard of a few going to Santiago and Chile as a direct flight, but the return trip goes way out of that direction. So it goes way up through the US somewhere and often on this massive triangular flight system but whereas you look at that on the flat earth map and it is actually the straightest route between two places. So for you to speak about where I live as though you're speaking from first hand experience is really rather extremely disappointing again because you're speaking from, what, conjecture, something you heard, something you're imagining. It doesn't... These are reports from people who live in Australia. Same direction as the sun, as the moon, all the places go from the east to the west. Yeah, exactly. They do it on the northern side of the equator as well. So... I agree with all of this. These aren't differences between our models across. See, in my correct model of the flat earth, the sun goes from east to west. I mean, you can see it right here. You can see that on the left of your screen is the eastern part of Australia. You can see, you've got the islands of Indonesia up to the north of that, closer to you because Australia's front and center. And then it goes to the west and it's rotating in the opposite direction of what the ridiculous north centered flat earth model says. Which is why when you, if you were to do say a long exposure at night or you would attract the sun through the sky, you would find that they go clockwise, which is exactly what my model's predicting here. If you were to look up at these stars from on the ground that you see around me, no granted, these aren't the real stars of the southern sky because I was too lazy for that, I'll be honest with you. Those are just random points. But if you were to look up at them, you would find them rotating clockwise, just as if you took an exposure pointing south from Australia. I don't know if you can see your own model, but I'm looking at it here and it's going counterclockwise, mate. Counterclockwise. Right, it's going counterclockwise from above because we're looking at it from above. But you'd be on the ground. You're actually looking at it from a ground point of view. But we're higher than the sun. I am sure we were higher than the sun. Well, why aren't we looking down at the sun? You're looking at it from a... Well, because I wanted you to see my beautiful face. Hold on one sec. Just to let the flat earth Aussie finish. Oh, sorry. Yeah, if we were looking down at it, then we wouldn't be seeing any stars at all. You'd just be looking at Earth only and seeing the sun going around in a circle that way, but you've got it sort of going around this way. So we're not looking at it from above whatsoever. We're looking at it from a side-on point of view and it is going anti-clockwise or counterclockwise as you guys like to call it. It's... It's your way of an American model. And you're just basically trying to poke fun at the reality of the world as we know it. And I don't find it amusing at all. Well, it's not supposed to be amusing. It's a model of reality. And the reason that I'm saying that we're looking down from above is because... Now, I'm going to admit this is not real footage, right? This is in fact CGI. I did do this in my computer, okay? So I'm going to explain why I'm saying that we're looking down from above. That's because when I set the height of my camera for this animation, I set it higher than the sun and I had to tilt it down towards the plane of the earth. And the reason that you can see stars is because what you're looking at is actually the edge of the firmament rotating around the earth. And I have the stars coming down across the whole firmament. Now, do I know that that's definitely the way the firmament works? Not really. That's a bit of conjecture on my part. But that's why they're there. And if you were to be on the ground, say on Australia right there, and looking up at the sun, you would see it go clockwise just like you do in Australia. And that's really what I want to push home on this. From where you live in the real world, you experience a world where when you look up, things rotate around the southern celestial pole clockwise. And that's what my Flight Earth model has. But you call it ridiculous, even though my model does a better job of explaining your lived experience than the North-centered Flight Earth model does. Why is that? Because you were showing it going counterclockwise with the most absurd sense of ridiculous that I could imagine. It's got nothing to do with the model as we view it as it exists in reality. I'm not doing a reason. In reality, the sun is perpetually going around the equator. But because we have this thing called a firmament between us and the celestials above, it's the equivalent, for example, of say, like a frozen sheet of ice above us. Now imagine it will scale it down a little bit to bring it into perspective. Or maybe so a globe believer can understand it. Let's say it's within a frozen lake and you've got a fish somewhere in this lake underneath the frozen surface and he looks up through the ice and he sees a hotspot apparition of the sun in his particular location. And for all intents and purposes to him, that is the sun. It's the giver of light which spreads out through the water. That's the only source of heat. And for him, that is the sun. Now they've got a fish on the other side of the lake 500 meters away and he's looking up through the ice and he sees his own personal hotspot apparition of the sun through a completely different part of the ice. But for him, for all intents and purposes, that is the sun. He is seeing his personal hotspot apparition in two entirely different places. So when we're looking up at the sun on Earth from this very, very low point of view, six foot high up to however many feet we can go and probably no more than about 15,000 feet. I think that's the highest that people generally live. We're looking from a very low point of view up to this firmament with a sun which maybe any infinite number of miles high above that. We don't know because we can't go above this firmament. It's at a fixed height which is estimated somewhere between 60 and 70 miles high. So when we're looking at this apparition which goes around the equator every day, the sun itself is actually spiraling upwards throughout the year to create the seasons and it's nearly at its peak at the moment. Peaks on there, our winter solstice, your guys' summer. And so as it's furthest away, the circuit that it takes, even though it's the same size circuit all the time, never has to speed up or slow down, it appears to be much smaller. And that's what we describe as the topic of cancer. That's why the sun is actually going into cancer on that day, on the day of the solstice. And that's its furthest point promise before it begins to spiral back down again. And as it spirals back down, it appears to go in a bigger circle in our individual point of view seeing the hotspot apparition in the firmament. It's got nothing to do with the actual sun, any arbitrary height above it, but it's still going the exact same size circle the whole time which we can map with the ennelemma which shows how when the sun is closest to it, the bottom part of that figure eight of the ennelemma appears much bigger than the smaller top section simply because it's much closer. When things are closer, it appears bigger. But the sun itself never appears bigger or smaller because the firmament itself, where we see our hotspot apparition remains a constant height. So the apparition that we see as the sun is always the same size. Meanwhile, the ennelemma shows that when it's nearer to us, it's moving in what appears to be a bigger circle all the way out to the top of Capricorn. Hence why in the outer side or the southern side of the equator, we have longer, hotter summers which endure much longer. And even you can see this in the native skin colors of people throughout the thousands of years where we naturally originate from. The pale skin people come from the far north because the sun is furthest from us. The pale skin... Do you have a chance to respond? Creating vitamin D. I'm nearly finished. Okay. Whereas as we go towards the equator, we notice natural skin colors are darker and darker. But as we go further outwards from the equator, you'd expect the reverse to happen if we're living on a globe where seasons are balanced because of tilt. Instead, what we find is the natural skin tones tend to get even darker still. All the way down to places as far south as Tasmania where Australian aboriginals were some of the darker skin colors you can imagine simply because it's a survival trait to be able to resist the radiation of the sun with more protection naturally developed through thousands of generations that we've inherited. So nothing of the globe model is reflected in the way we actually see reality. Go ahead. Well, of course, I'm not really going to contest the idea that perhaps what is actually happening is that the firmament is lower than the sun and that we're seeing some kind of apparition of it. But the fact remains that it has to be rotating in the way that I have it listed here in order to explain why both the stars and the firmament, as well as the apparition of the sun, as you put it, in fact, go the way that we observably see them going every day in our daily lives in places like Australia or New Zealand. Hey, let me finish. Let me finish. You spoke for quite a while. Let me finish. So in order for us to see what we actually can see when we do things like take star trails of the sky or track the sun as it moves across the sky from east to west during the changing of seasons and tracking, as you said, the anilema, the fact remains that whether or not that's because of some kind of refraction through the firmament, the firmament and the stars themselves have to be rotating the way that I have them here with the entire world centered on the southern hemisphere. Because when we look up, that's what we see. We see it all going around clockwise, which means if we look from above, it will be going counterclockwise as I have it here. And I still haven't heard a reason why this isn't the more reasonable option. Given the fact that when you look up, you see the stars going the way that I have them going. Now, granted, like I said, there might be changes in exactly where the firmament goes, where the sun goes. Does it go up and down or out and in? I haven't figured all that out. I'm new to being a Flat Earther. I will admit that. But I do know that everyday observations from the global south absolutely comport better with my model than they do with the ridiculous model of people like Eric Dubey or Mark Sargent or those other Northern Hemisphere types. And I say hemisphere because it's the common province. I know it's really the outer edge of the Flat Earth. But it's easier, I think, for me to say hemisphere because it's the common use of that word for North or South of the equator. So I really want to know that. And whatever causes dark skin color, that doesn't really help me know why my model, which is what we experience when we look up, where you live, isn't the model that you prefer to go with? Is it because these priests or the Flat Earth have convinced you? You're clearly insane. You're not a Flat Earth, huh? All right, Flat Earth honestly, we gotta keep it within the realm of respectful. So calling it insane is kind of going a little beyond that. So let's keep it. We see it a mock the Flat Earth and declare himself a Flat Earther while telling outright lies and showing ridiculous models, showing the things going the opposite direction for how we actually see them and claiming that that's the way we see them. No, it's not, though. And I want to know why. I thought I was gonna be here to defend the globe and here he is trying to impersonate a Flat Earther saying that he's converted, but he's found a better model, which better explains reality, which looks nothing at all like how we actually see it.  It looks nothing at all like what we actually see. And I actually expected better of you, Daffodino. I thought you might have presented something to defend your heliocentric belief, which is what we're out to debunk with this whole debate in the first place. Well, look, I did start off with an apology and I will reiterate that apology. I know that I did not come here with what anyone was expecting to see. And I do apologize for that because it is a little bit, it's a little bit unkind of me to allow James to market this as a flat versus globe debate while I come here and debate the better Flat Earth model, at least the better Flat Earth model for you because this is the one that matches the reality that you see out there. And all I hear is you saying, well, you got the details of exactly how the sun moves, whether it's up and down versus in and out or where the firmament is above or below the sunroof. That's fair enough, I may have, but I still haven't heard a reason other than of course you calling me insane or this model ridiculous, which maybe it is. But again, I haven't heard a reason why it better predicts what we see in places like Australia and New Zealand and Indonesia and South Africa and the southern parts of Brazil and Chile and other places like that. When the Gauchos of the Pampas look up, they see my model of the Flat Earth. You know about me rather than trying to talk about things which you don't know about places you've never been or if you have been with such a short period of time you've never really taken it into consideration. Like I live here in Australia. I know what our model looks like because I go out and view it all the time. Like I'm not looking at the stars. And they do not do what you are suggesting. Like we look up at them from the surface of the Earth and we see them going from the east to the west. I agree. That's how it happens in my model here. This is the sun going from east to west. Not how it works because where's the equator on this model? Oh, the equator is directly under the sun. It's a little hard to see because of the angle but it's a bit behind the camera in the forward direction. Look, I didn't mark it out very clearly. That's not on me. I don't know if I still have the files. That's why I'm declaring your model is absolutely insane and not representative of the reality of the world as we view it. The sun goes clockwise. It goes from the east to the west.  That's not how it works at all. He's standing off the coast of Antarctica. Off the coast, is he? Yeah, well it's just a model so I didn't feel like I need to be careful to be on land. I figured wherever I put him will probably be just good. It's not representative of the Flat Earth model whatsoever. No, it's not representative of your Flat Earth model. Mark the truth, the model that we've been working on for many years just because you think that making it anti-acentric is a valid way of looking at the world. I think it is because it explains the star trail that you see.   Whereas I came here to have a serious debate of the Flat Earth versus the globe model and all you've done is made a false model of the Flat Earth thinking that that's a better way of viewing things which is clearly isn't because the sun is going counterclockwise as we can all see the stars are going counterclockwise and that is not how it works in reality. So you can scrap your model and start again and maybe we can do a proper debate some other time but this one is ridiculous. Well, we do want to have that debate tonight. And to be fair, we are big on... So Dapper, if you want to run it as some sort of like reductio where you're saying like, look, if you take the Flat Earth it leads to these ridiculous outcomes. That kind of argument I'm okay with but like devil's advocate debates we've always been kind of like, eh, we're not... Like we made a decision a long time ago that we were looking for like people defending the true position that they hold. And so to be fair to Flat Earth Aussie that's also kind of like a channel rule even if Flat Earth Aussie wasn't triggered by your style of argument tonight. I'm just teasing Flat Earth Aussie. Does that make sense? Well, I mean, I suppose I could try to defend the globe model but before I do, I just want to point out that when presented with a model that contradicts Flat Earth Aussie's version of in fact the Flat Earth but that actually better predicts the observations that are made from South of the equator he thinks that the entire thing is ridiculous. I don't think it's ridiculous but he does and it's interesting that he has fewer arguments against a variation on Flat Earth than he does against the globe. We'll give you the last word on the Flat Earth Aussie and then we're gonna give, we're gonna, after that we're gonna give Dapper a chance to jumpstart into the globe versus Flat Earth debate. But this has got to be a pithy one Flat Earth Aussie. No worries. I've debunked everything that you've just said with saying how ridiculous your model is. It looks nothing like how we view reality at all. So first of all, you've bought a false model to know what you're trying to do, make a point but I've debunked it, it doesn't go that way. It's nothing like what we see whatsoever. And I've described many things that do debunk the globe model such as the pattern that the sun moves in, the anilema which if we were to view that on a globe we would not see it go in a perpetual figure eight thing. On the globe model, if you were taking a picture of the sun at the same time every day of the year and put them together in a composite you'd see a sine wave going continuously around and around and around because that's the way the pattern would be moving for a globe Earth. And we can also easily dismiss the globe and anything else you have to present to defend it simply by the fact that the sun is overhead at midday in each time zone every day of the year. If the Earth itself was going to have done that. Before we jump too far into that, let's give Dapper a chance to launch into the globe position and then we'll give you a chance to respond to it, Flat Earth Aussie. Right, yeah. Well, of course, I agree with Flat Earth Aussie that this is in fact a ridiculous model but the problem is, like I said he can't tell me why it's more ridiculous. So let's take a look at what similar data tells us about the actual globe that we in fact do live on. And one of the things that we will notice is in fact that the directional spin of the sky depends on where you are and which way you look. If you're on the equator, you'll be able to see the sun spin, well, sorry, not the sun, the stars we'll focus on the stars for now. If you look towards the north, you'll be able to see the stars rotating counterclockwise with the northern celestial pole right on the equator. And this is assuming that we're standing roughly on at sea level on the equator. So I'm idealizing slightly. If you're very high up, you can see a little bit farther beyond that but bear with me. And if you turn around 180 degrees you will see the southern celestial pole. Now, it doesn't have an easily visible pole star but that doesn't matter. If you take a long-term exposure of the stars you will see that they all rotate around a point and it is a point directly opposed to the northern celestial pole and around that southern point all the stars will rotate clockwise as you look at them from the surface of the earth. Now, as you go farther and farther south more and more of the northern stars will fall below your horizon and the southern pole will start to rise up one degree for every one degree of latitude that you go south. It's very consistent. And that shape only works on its globe looking up at what we call the celestial sphere which isn't a real object. It's a mathematical simplification that allows us to find points in the sky easily. And this is how navigators have navigated north and south for thousands of years is by knowing that as they go south the north pole's celestial pole drops to one degree per degree of latitude and the southern celestial pole rises and the reverse is true as you go backwards. This can only work on a globe because Aussie is right. This model that I'm presenting to you with my webcam is in fact ridiculous. It kind of works a little bit if you squint really hard from Australia or Southern Africa or Southern South America or Indonesia or New Zealand in places like that. But of course it falls apart north of the equator. Just like the flat earth falls apart south of the equator very, very hard and very, very rapidly. Whereas if you're in someplace like Canada or Alaska it's not that far off from what you're seeing. It's still off.  And so my question remains as it was how is it that someone in the southern hemisphere who can see the southern celestial pole who sees everything in the sky going clockwise as he looks towards the south. How is it that you can sit there and defend a flat earth north centered everything moving the opposite direction from what you visibly see you can go out and do this tonight. I know it's early morning for you. So I think you'll have to wait a fair few hours but you could go out tonight and take a long exposure photograph of the stars going clockwise. And it still boggles my mind that despite the fact that both this flat earth model that I presented as well as the actual globe model actually predict exactly what you're seeing or as a northern hemisphere centered globe model completely falls apart. People looking in different directions from Australia and South Africa and South America shouldn't be all be able to see a pole. But they do flat earth Aussie. Alrighty. Well, once again you're jumping to absurd conclusions because you say that this is only possible from a globe which basically just shows you have zero understanding of how perspective actually works. That we can see simple examples of perspective everywhere we go in the room you're in right now you can look into a far corner and you can see the ceiling is appearing to slant downwards towards that corner while the floor appears to rent upwards towards a corner yet you know that both those lines are perfectly parallel to one another they equidistant from each other but the way perspective works is the further away a point gets the lower it appears if it's above you and the higher it will appear until the convergence point which is always at the horizon. So when you're looking at the stars of course as you're traveling away from them when you're in the north the further away you get the lower it will appear to your point of view even though it has remained the same height the whole time. So this is the error in calculations and observations obviously because you say that for every degree it drops you've moved a degree of latitude well yeah that's just how maps were drawn because you're looking at something get further away and get lower and so that way you know you've traveled a certain distance which matches the charts that you've been using for centuries until you reach this point called the equator which is the equidistant point around Polaris at which it disappears into the convergence point it does not mean that you have gone over a lump of curvature in order to make it vanish that you've descended into the underworld as I've already described you are still on the same plane it is just so far away you can no longer see it and what do you know? You turn around and you look the other direction and you can see a whole different set of stars it's the same wherever you travel everything changes with view you can stand at the foot of a very tall building look up you have to crane your neck backwards to see the top of it then you just walk a block away oh you can just see it right there it appears much lower only because you're further away from it the building is still the same height you haven't gone over any curve because you can see the block is flat and level the entire distance you've traveled and the further away you get the lower and lower it appears the same thing happens with stars everything is subject to the same laws of perspective that we see so to claim that this is only possible because the earth is curved and that water magically curves with it and somehow still clings because of magical invisible pulling forces is yet another absurdity which the globe defenders really have nothing else except to fill with the God of the Gap gravity well gravity does it all for us because why not you know it can allow tiny insects to fly and birds to fly and a hot air balloon to just waft in the air without the earth moving underneath it the whole time because gravity is somehow magically clinging everything to it and these fantastic speeds that you're attributing to the motion of the earth and nonexistent because gravity just cancels everything so to say that these things are only possible on a globe just means you've got no really simple understanding I have to jump in for a second because I haven't talked about gravity I haven't talked about heliocentrism I haven't talked to well but the thing is I'm not arguing those things well you're arguing perspective and as a result of that then let's keep it to expect gravity just cancels with it because as part of perspective you have to understand that you are saying that the globe is curving which therefore then invokes gravity into the equation anyway not necessarily because you can't have curving water without gravity so why not which is what your claim is why the stars are disappearing as we get further away from them because you say we're going to have a curve people believed in the globe earth long before they believed in gravity that the two don't depend on each other now the entire modern consensus of science regarding heliocentric universe or solar system and the galaxy and all these relative motions they do rely on gravity but the globe doesn't in fact for most of human history since basically the first millennium BC most people have accepted a globe and not gravity and geocentrism and I'm not arguing for those necessarily but what I am saying is you don't get to bring in new arguments that I haven't argued against in order to counter me now you can say gravity I'm just not going to argue against it if you want to hold on let me finish hold on hold on hold on I'm happy to say I'm not going to defend gravity you can attack it all you want but here's the thing about perspective perspective does not follow a linear diminution I can't really talk today diminution that's the word I think anyway things don't reduce an angular size in a linear ratio as you move away from them if you move half as far if you move 20 feet from something and then another 20 feet the second 20 feet will result in a smaller shrink a less pronounced shrink in the angular size of the object you're looking at which means that if the result of so on a flat earth polaris would indeed sink towards the horizon if you moved away from it but it would not do so at a one-to-one ratio no matter how far you keep going nor could you have a southern celestial pole start rising at the same rate because as you face south from different points on a flat earth centered around the north you're looking in diametrically opposed directions so you can't end up having the same field of view perspective does not warp things around from behind you to put them in front of you that's not a thing that happens that's not perspective so perspective does not explain this and like I said both the globe and the south centered flat earth model are the only ones that actually explain the existence of a southern celestial pole in the first place well you're confusing two different factors of perspective there you're trying to induce distance diminution which is a thing where things appear to shrink but that's not what we're talking about when we're looking at very very high objects in the first place such as the stars which by the time they do vanish from view because you've traveled so far is really insignificant to the actual distance they still are away from you in the first place so you don't see Polaris actually getting smaller and smaller as you get further and further away from you you just see it getting lower because lights don't tend to shrink in the same fashion that physical objects will shrink from you like an actual building for example but if you put say like one of those aeroplane beacons a red light on top of the building and you move further and further away from it the further away you've got that red light still doesn't actually appear to diminish in the same fashion that the building itself does because light itself does not diminish with distance so that's another factor of perspective which you're completely ignoring and trying to invoke and before I finish you know I'm saying that if you are invoking curvature of the earth to suggest that this is why that things appear to get lower as you get further away from them then you must be invoking gravity at the same time like I know you don't want to argue gravity that's fair enough we don't have to go there but you are invoking that to say why water that remains flat and level is magically curving at the same time so you don't want to go there I don't blame you because it's obviously not how water ever works it fills its container and it remains flat and level between higher edges no matter where you go and how far you go so is that it? okay thank you so there are a few problems here one is that light actually does diminish with distance it follows the inverse square log so if you double your distance the light brightness will actually reduce by 4 which in itself is actually an interesting argument that the stars are extremely far away because no matter where you go on earth they're always very similar in brightness essentially the same as long as weather is permanent you know if it's clear relatively dry night obviously if it's overcast that's interrupting the starlight but on clear you know clear relatively dry days the stars have fairly constant brightness in fact they don't vary based on where you are instead they actually vary based on intrinsic factors because some stars actually naturally vary in their brightness so that right there is indication that we're not very close to the stars which means that they're shrinking due to or their change in location due to perspective has to be minimal because if we were actually close to them we would notice significant differences in their brightness as we move towards or away from them that's one big point the other one is that in fact stars don't seem to change in size because they are already far below the angular resolution of even the best telescopes even the most our most advanced telescopes resolve stars that you see in the sky as singular points that are below the resolution limit of that particular device which is more so for your eyes but the thing that does happen with lights below the angular resolution of the optical instrument you're using is they will grow closer to each other just like any other two objects when viewed with perspective so if you imagine a say stick between two lights the stick will shrink as you move away even after the lights go beyond the angular resolution limit of your optical instrument including your eye the stick will still shrink and the lights will get closer together but that is not what we see when we move south or when we move north looking away from looking you know back towards the southern celestial pole the stars will maintain the exact same angular distance from each other which means that we're not significantly changing our distance to them because if we were they would be violating the laws of perspective not following the laws of perspective I agree with you there that because the stars are already so particularly far away and they just like the sun creating their own tiny little hot spot apparition for one of a better word in the actual family like my personal belief I don't know if any other flat earthers agree with this one but I believe that light doesn't even exist in the way that we perceive light to be until that energy form the vibrational frequency hits that particular firmament and then by what the nature of the way the gases and luminosity itself works it creates this charge in that which then presents as physical light to our eyeballs and as we can see with high altitude but low in footage if we go above a certain height above the atmosphere we don't see any stars they vanish the only thing that we do see is this bright luminescent spot of the sun itself where everything else is no longer visible to us because the way that light renders has something very particular to do with the noble gases of our atmosphere so we need to see through those gases in order to make light visible so those distant spots will not change because our point of view from the ground looking up at them is so insignificant to how actually far away they are so to try and bring perspective into something that's of great height to compare it to something that's on the surface that's no comparison it's two different ballgames all together perspective works very well for things on the surface or near the surface for why they disappear or vanish get smaller get closer together the gaps between them also get smaller as we get further away from them that's just the normal part of perspective but when it comes to things already sufficiently so far away that all we're seeing is a tiny little apparition of them in something much newer than what they actually are then that's not really under change how they appear to us as we move hence why there is never ever any detectable change in the parallax of stars yet a tiny change between two objects in the distance from one side to the other you'll see parallax change it's a normal part of perspective but it won't happen with the stars simply because they are above the firmament they're in their particular seat in heaven as I call it as they rotate as a singular body around Polaris the only things which don't are the wandering stars which when they attract and you look at their motions over the particular over the years you'll see that they move in sacred geometric patterns but they still keep following sacred geometric patterns it's not as if we're hurling and whirling through space for this to happen it's happening because that's how they move as we see them above us around the stationary fixed star which obviously by the way you're probably well familiar with the Georgia guide stones I mean I've never been there myself but there was a hole drilled right through there for any day or night of the year you can look directly through this great hole and you will always see Polaris proving just how fixed the earth must be in relation to the fixed pole star so this motion of hurling and whirling through space it's just it's crazy it's insane it's just not how reality works once you've really finally put all the pieces together and you realize that we must be living on a stationary earth with the stars circling around above us ready okay so there's a few things one is I guess I'm kind of a little bit work backwards I'm a little bit curious because you're making claims about observations from Georgia a place you haven't been but earlier in what seems like a bit of a double standard you had objections to the fact that according to you at least I had never been I'm not sure exactly maybe it was never been to the southern hemisphere that's false but never been to Australia that's true so I'm not sure why it is that there's a double standard where you can make claims about observations from the northern hemisphere and I can't that other people have made that you haven't but I can't do the same with the southern hemisphere it's a it's a little curious there but it's not a huge deal but the other thing is earlier when describing why it is that we should expect on a flat earth that Polaris would sink lower in the horizon you use perspective as your answer but then when I show that that couldn't possibly actually be the problem instead you then said the perspective didn't apply to the stars and that's why the angular distance between to any two stars in the sky doesn't change night overnight or based on your location on earth so we now have another contradiction perspective is the reason why Polaris seems to go down even though that breaks the law's perspective but that's okay because the laws of perspective don't apply to the sky you can't that that isn't a coherent thought you have to actually have something that is self internally consistent perspective can't be the reason the sky looks different and also the reason it looks the same would you like me to address that well in a second but further the fact is that the reason that balloon footage tends not to show stars is the same reason that you can't see stars during the day even when you're not looking at the sun the stars are still shining in fact if you have a good enough telescope you can see quite a few stars during the day when the sky is blue you just need a particularly large telescope to see it and they're going to be hard to see what's actually happening is that both the cameras and your eyes have something called exposure for human eyes this is controlled by your iris when it's bright out your iris contracts to limit the amount of light coming in this is to help prevent damage to your optic nerves and your retina and all the nice little organic bits right but what it means is that certain light sources will go below your ability to perceive them because your retina isn't collecting enough light from them to actually register on your brain similarly cameras have a certain range of sensitivity and they can only sense light within that range light above that range will just simply register as full white or clipping which in some software will actually show up as black but that's a software not a camera issue I can stop you right there because as you said the word exposure I was actually writing down the word exposure I would like to finish my exposure I would like to finish I'd like to finish now when you go below that level on a camera the camera simply registers as black that's clipping low but that doesn't mean there's no light there so if you want to have a picture in which you can see the surface of the earth during the day without it being washed out you have to set your exposure to view that but that exposure is going to be too low for you to see the very very faint stars now during the night when you don't have to have that low exposure you can have a higher exposure and then if you send up a balloon at night you in fact will see the stars but it's not because the stars aren't there in the day or because they're lower than the balloon it's because your camera literally can't see the earth from the stars at the same time because they're too different in brightness which is a fact even for your own eyes so I don't know why we're expecting cameras which have known physical limitations both based both on software and hardware to be better than our eyes which also have similar no limits based on the hardware of the physical components of your eye and the software of how your brain interprets it which you know it's not technically software in the same way but I think it's a fair analogy and that's where I would like to end it for the sex segment we know exposure is is quite simple to understand and I accept that that's one of the reasons why we don't see stars in the daytime that's quite an obvious thing but we shoot with a balloon apparently well when the balloon goes up at night time then why wouldn't we you know we see them only to a certain height but once we go above a certain height which is I've actually invented a new term which I do call firmament B simply because I think it's where the blue sky stops and it moves from blue into black so it's not actually a firmament as such but it is a layer of density of various noble gases from where the blue daylight sky ceases to exist and if we go above that into the black you still do not see the stars at that point you don't see the moon but you only see the sun and the sun is nearly always depending where you you know how much the balloon is springing around and whatnot the sun is pretty much always visible and very not that much higher above the line of sight of the actual camera so yeah it's great at night time when you're seeing from low earth orbit you do see the stars this isn't low earth orbit this is a balloon this is a balloon showing exactly what you said you wouldn't see in a balloon I don't know what to tell you this is this is one of the first hits that popped up when I said high altitude balloon at night this is what you're saying you don't see here are stars so when you say high altitude are you talking about 12 miles all the clouds are low below us there's cities on the horizon I mean no definition of how high that actually is I mean I will check the video to check but the fact is that it's very trivial to find footage of balloons going up obviously extremely high higher than you would normally be able to go and still see stars during the day and then seeing stars so yeah that's what I'm saying there's a place called what I call firmament B which is the limits of where daylight exists and that's where the high altitude pilots say that they've gone into space because they've gone to where the sky is no longer blue it is now black and that is only about 12 miles high to the best of my knowledge and what I can discover in my research and so this balloon if it's still capable of seeing the stars I would say it's well below that point maybe aeroplanes cruising high quite high you know the 30 to 40 000 feet range is six or seven miles it's not particularly high compared to when we say high altitude balloon footage we're talking about about you know 120 000 feet 130 000 feet that's about the maximum these balloons can reach and at that point you never see any stars whatsoever you see a bright pot spot apparition of the sun now there was one thing I forgot to address previously I was trying to answer the other thing about perspective but he didn't allow me to judge in so I sort of forgot where my train of thought was going with that but basically I was saying that of course the laws of perspective still affect distance to make things appear to get smaller but it won't affect things that are already equidistant away such as stars from one another to appear for them to get nearer to one another which I'd already explained as a lack of parallax anyway but you mentioned the thing then and I notice a lot of flat-out is bringing up as well and I would like to debunk that which is what you call the inverse square law of light because that in itself is a ridiculous claim because the inverse square law says that if you double the distance away from a light source it gets half as bright now that might be true to a certain specific extent but it will not be true to say like okay here's say I had a light in my hand or a little candle and I move one millimeter away from it if I move two millimeters away from it it's going to be half as bright if I move four millimeters away from it it's going to be half as bright again that is ridiculous because by the time I'm only 20 millimeters away from it it should be completely invisible which is completely wrong the inverse square law is completely wrong it is not double no it's not you need to have it at the standard you know if you moved away say 500 meters it might be half as bright and you moved a thousand meters then yeah it'll be a quarter as bright but to say there's a few there's a few problems that you're running into you go ahead oh so now we'll take this we'll take the candle example right a candle is not a point source of light right it's a it's an object with well it's a phenomenon with a specific volume so if you're right against it you're actually right against certain parts of it and as you move back one millimeter say you're not actually double it and then two millimeters after that you're not actually doubling your distance from every part of the candle so you have to take it you are you're absolutely doubling the distance you're not though because that's not how distance works you have to actually do the trigonometry to find out your distance from the top and the bottom and the far side it doesn't work by doubling your distance there not if you're trying to not if you're doubling your distance from a single point and then trying to measure the distance and change from other points that you weren't using as your original distance point so for instance if let's say I have a barnyard wall in front of me it's gigantic right and I put a point I'm standing with my nose against the wall right and I decide that I'm going to move back one foot from that now there's one foot between me and the wall but the distance between say me and the far end of the wall has not changed by a foot it has changed by considerably less than a foot yeah but the point where your nose was you've moved a foot away that has moved a foot away now if I move another foot away I've now doubled my distance from that point but the far end of the wall again I have not doubled my distance from it not even close which is why if you were hold on hold on hold on hold on which is why if you hold on hold on which is why hold on hold on hold on we'll come right back you flat earth we'll give you plenty of time to respond I promise which is why if you move back from a non-point source of light your inverse square law has to factor in the fact that you are not necessarily doubling your distance from all points that are emitting that light now if you did in fact have a true white source this would hold sorry a true point source this would hold true so the inverse square law assumes point sources as a simplification when that's not the case you do in fact in fact have to use things like calculus to actually calculate out the multiple essentially infinite point sources that are adding up to give you the light however it still remains the case that the problem we're having here isn't with close diffuse light sources we're having them with distant point sources in the case of stars so no matter how much trouble you have with the fact that calculus exists and that not all light sources are point sources no matter how much trouble you have with that fact it doesn't change the fact that what we're actually talking about is distant point sources for which the inverse square law is specifically designed to work that's the exact best case scenario for the inverse square law let's give flat earth we'll give you several minutes here at the timer set no idea yeah well again that's ridiculous to say point source because the candle is the point source of light and so you know one meter away is half the distance then two meters away so therefore it should be half as dim but you've also said that according to inverse square law that one millimeter is also half the distance of two millimeters away and so it should be half as bright at two millimeters as it is from two meters you've got no arbitrary definition of distance when it comes to this inverse square law you have to set a standard measurement where each individual part of the measurement is there's no standard set to it you know and so if you could say technically you're saying that it's half as bright one mile away I mean it's twice as bright one mile away then it is from two miles away or it's twice as bright 20 miles away it is from 40 miles away and the candle light is pretty much a standard for what we use for um for lux or you know the yeah the candle is a standard use for brightness and so to say that's a non point source I really don't get where you're going with that all's I'm saying is that to say this you know double the distance half the the brightness is just wrong because you need to set a standard and each light source itself would have its own standard it's just the same as with distance diminution by the time something gets a certain distance away from you that appears half as big as it did when you're right next to it it doesn't mean when you got twice that distance away that it's then half that size again that's not how it works in size diminution and it's not how it works in light diminution so this inverse square law stuff I think is absolute baloney well there's a few problems with that one is that the inverse square law has been experimentally verified the other one is that if we actually just look at it from the standpoint of logic if light is coming off from a point in a 3d sphere which it would generally have to be or it's not a point source some kind of cone or some other weird thing maybe a laser but it's not that the kind of thing we're talking about then as it doubles the distance from the source it actually quadruples the surface area of that sphere so unless light actually just creates more of itself as it propagates it has to as just a consequence of logic follow the inverse square law from a point source but I think the problem here is that you're not actually clear on what a point is so a point is a actual it's a construct it's not a real thing that you can find in the universe it is a thing with a location but no size it doesn't have a length or a height or a width in reality we don't actually have point sources of light however when light sources are sufficiently far away that their angular size is no longer significant and we can't reliably measure it they can be treated as point sources for the purposes of calculations because you're well within your instrument error in terms of their actual angular size that's the case for all stars it is not always the case for candles if you're particularly close to a candle then its angular size is a significant factor and you can no longer treat it as a dimensionless object but you can treat all stars in the sky as dimensionless objects because no matter how close we zoom in on any of them except the sun they all remain below the angular resolution of our optical instruments meaning that they function like points as much as we can measure them so okay well if they're close yeah we're sort of really going off on a tangent once again talking about stars okay we can agree and agree to disagree on certain factors regarding them I say perspective makes them appear to get lower you say perspective shouldn't make them appear to get lower even though and you say perspective doesn't work on the stars you also said that that's something we should I think the perspective between the stars doesn't work the way perspective works between objects on the surface why not say because things on the surface are much closer whereas the stars are already so far sufficiently distant that all they do appear to be is get closer and closer towards the horizon as we get further from them but not further and further away from each other so at what distance does does perspective stop making things get smaller just to hear the rest from Flyer-Dawsey well something that we can all agree on is that there is no parallax change in the stars whichever model you adhere to doesn't matter how far away you get from them the parallax between them never changes but they do still appear to get lower and lower towards the horizon and that is where perspective kicks in because perspective means everything always goes towards that that convergence point in the distance which is horizontal to the eyes that's how horizon gets its word it's on the horizontal to our eyes that is why the Flat Earthers do correctly always claim that the horizon always rises to our level because the horizon is created by eye level and it will change as you change elevation looking out towards it so I think we've gone off on this huge divergence talking about the stars when once again we should be arguing about the nature of the ground and water beneath our feet which is how we prove what we are living on not what we are living under we're looking out at other stuff we're talking about the earth here so we can use perspective to understand how on a flat level plane the higher you get the further you will see because there is no physical curvature getting in your way to block what's in front of you to see over curvature you actually have to go forwards and over it to see what's on the other side just getting higher I had a ball handy there it is just give me one second here's a representation of a ball if we're getting higher anywhere higher on the ball is going away from the centre point of the earth so if something's gone over the curve over here if you're going higher you're going over here you're not going up and over to see over this curve you're actually going backwards away from the curvature so gaining height is going away from something which you have said has vanished from the curvature but on a flat level surface going up will in fact allow you to see further and that is something that's only possible on a flat plane earth and totally debunks the fact that you're able to see curvature by going backwards away from it just by getting higher so the claim was just made that you can't see over the curve by changing your distance from the surface so this is an effect called a dolly zoom and it's going to explain why as we get closer to this globe on the desk here we're going to see less of it while it stays similar in angular size through the dolly zoom so we're now about to start the dolly zoom right here the camera moves in towards the globe and we end up seeing less of it so you can see things are shrinking around back behind the earth well let me get back there so oh come on stop being silly youtube by the way james this is my own video so i promise not to copyright strike you for it you got it so we can see that as we get closer let's zoom out to keep the globe at the same angular size by changing our depth of field or our angular or our yeah we'll just go with depth of field field of view is another term as we get closer we can see less and less of the surface which means that as we get farther back and we zoom in a bit you can see more of the earth simply because you're changing your distance so it's just a flat out false hood that moving away from things a curved surface doesn't allow you to see more of the curved surface you can also see this if you just hold any ball in your hand if you hold say a football or a basketball or something and you bring it really close you can look up and around to the edges and then as you pull it back you'll see that you can actually see a larger percentage of the total sphere in fact in reality where you always have to be some finite distance away from any sphere you can never actually see an entire hemisphere you actually have to be infinitely far away from a sphere in order to see the entire sphere and the farther away you pull from it the more you will see so it is in fact actually a simple fact of both perspective and geometry that getting closer to a sphere means you see a smaller percentage of a surface within your field of view I'm sorry that I'm sorry I was going to say I'm sorry that basic reality disagrees with one of your counters for the globe but that's simply how it is the dolly zoom which is a common film making technique relies on this fact a very very basic reality because it's not at all anything to do with reality whatsoever because as we know if we do anything according to actual scale that anything on that globe is never ever going to match anything that we could possibly see from any of our perspectives but they say even the height of the atmosphere itself which goes up from you know like we say 24 or 25 miles or up to as much even a 60 or 70 miles even that is not even as thick as the lack up on your globe so you zooming in on in and out on that is probably the equivalent of you know being as far away as Mars or Jupiter in your heliocentric model and looking at the uh oh no it's much much closer than Mars or Jupiter it's closer than the moon in fact I'd highly doubt that you know the man is said to be about 285,000 miles away or some ridiculous like that and you know that that amount of zoom is obviously clearly not anything that we could possibly ever see from being on the surface of the earth so I give you a chance to respond a fraction of the thickness of the apple peel of an apple less than a fraction of the wax even on the apple is not going to show a greater advantage over curve if you were saying that it is curvature hiding things in the distance that you can't see beyond that curve I give you a chance to respond Dapper I want to let you both know we are about to jump into the Q&A shortly and so Flat Earth Aussie if you want to finish up that sentence or so and then we want to give Dapper a chance to respond yeah thanks I would like to finish on that thought saying that if it was actually physical curvature and you're going up and away from it you will not gain greater advantage to see further beyond that actual curve but because the earth is flat every little bit of increment in height gaining height gain that you achieve you will actually see further because you have increased the angle of view which is always horizontal to the eye it's increased incrementally with your gain in height on a curve that isn't going to happen it's just not how it would work but then you show something on a scale of seeing thousands and thousands of miles difference within this tiny little video because you cannot grasp scale scale is the most important thing to understand when trying to comprehend when reviewing things in perspective and the globe is simply cannot do it because they're so used to looking at toy models like the ones suspended above their crib when they were a baby keeping it that they still think the whole of universe works like that Dapper will give you a pithy response and then we're going to jump into Q&A in just a moment All right so this has mostly just been a repeat of what we've heard starting with addressing claims that I didn't make as if that countered my claim so for instance pointing out that a particular example of why perspective on a curve in fact does allow you to see more of the curve in your farther away doesn't match the thing that we would precisely see on the earth because of its scale doesn't actually change the fact that you're simply flat out wrong that distance from a curved object increase the percentage of that object that you can see when you're looking at it This is the same thing as when we had things where you don't actually have a reason why the south pole centered flat earth is a worse model your only reason is because well it's not what you believe it's the same thing over and over we've had dodging away from the actual question addressing points that were never made going off into tangents about gravity or parallax of the stars which don't actually have anything to do with the shape of the earth because again people believed in the globe long before stellar parallax was ever discovered which by the way has been measured but I'm not really making that argument so the whole thing while Ross was disappointed in my opening I've been disappointed in this entire rest of this because I have yet to actually have any counter to anything I've said that both addressed the question I asked and was indicative of Ross's position Want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description so that if you want to hear more of Flat Earth Aussie or Dapper Dino you certainly can and that includes if you're listening via the podcast as these on the bottom right of your screen are just some of the podcast apps that we are available on highly encourage you check out the podcast for modern day debate as we are excited as I mentioned that our guests are linked there in the podcast episode description box as well now jumping into your questions do appreciate all of them and so starting off with the very first one Tim Pryor says does this supposed supposed I think they're saying is this supposed to be evidence of something namely they were asking you Flat Earth Aussie regarding I think you were talking about Egyptian gods could you give the summary of what your kind of coverage of the Egyptian gods was for regarding it's in the context of Flat Earth versus Globerth pretty much I was saying that Ra is the Egyptian sun god and in the the famous story that the Egyptians tell is that he's murdered by his brother set and basically that just describes that at the end of every day the sun appears to die because it sets and so the name set basically becomes synonymous with the killer of sun god and on the winter solstice from the north which is happening this coming June 21st 22nd that's basically when the sun is hang on no so I'm glad I was wrong it's our winter solstice on the winter solstice in the north it's December 22nd and that's when the sun appears lowest in the northern sky because it's closest to the earth which makes it appear to be further outwards and so that's why they say the sun of god dies on that winter solstice and so when it is born again it's considered then to be the sun of god returning which is the sun basically of Ra is Horus they're all sun gods basically and he keeps returning perpetually every year to be the giver of light and light juicy this one coming in from wait James could I do less than 30 seconds if it is less than 28 seconds I'll do to less than 20 all right this is what's called solar theology and if ross or anyone else is open to having a discussion where you're going to take the solar theology position on things like christianity and other religions I am interested in that debate and I am willing to have a debate on that topic boom I mean the after the after yeah maybe the after show we I do have an after show coming up juicy this one from Alan Bupri says flat earth Aussie what specific evidence would ever change your mind love the beard by the way well thank you very much for that thank you like I used to believe the globe fully I was a full believer in the globe like my whole philosophy of life was it revolved around being on this very specific special little blue ball in this Goldilocks zone hurtling around the sun once a year and I fully believed it so if anything once you it's a bit like being say somebody that was a chronic smoker their whole life who gives up smoking once that person has given up smoking if you try to convince them to go back to smoking again that just ain't gonna happen if anything they become more against smoking than they ever were in the first place like a non smoker isn't really that much against smoking just wishes people didn't do it but they don't care as much but a devoted non ex smoker usually goes out of the way to tell people you got to cut that shit out so basically for me as an ex-glober there's probably nothing you could do to convince me to go back to becoming a global believer again juicy this one coming in from vendalia 1998 says has anyone made a flat earth heliocentric model I don't know who that's for but I have never heard of it it's a crazy thought because the heliocentric model is fully debunked by the flatter the flatter is not a frisbee or a disc or you know a pizza or pancake or any of these things whirling through space in the flatter model we understand that the physical plane is at the bottom of the known universe and it's fixed in place and it's pretty much the only physical plane in existence all else is not terra firma it's just lights in the sky and perhaps that extends infinitely beyond the Antarctica we don't know because we can't go but to say that the flat earth would be heliocentric just is never going to happen gotcha and this question coming in from Brandon Connell says how tall of a pole would I need to see the entire planet regardless of whether on the south or north pole well again there are limits to human vision we can only see so far things shrink in the distance to the convergence point so there's no actual height you could actually go to be able to see things visibly like they're assuming you've got as high as Polaris for example above the north pole you're still only going to see as far as the equator so if you got as high as Polaris above the equator you're still not going to see with enough resolution because the atmosphere itself is still going to obscure what is visible and things naturally shrink in the distance anyway so it's just never going to happen that's really once you understand how perspective diminution and atmospheric lensing or blocking works um yeah you might be able to see 500 miles at the absolute maximum if you like gotcha and bubblegum gun thanks for your questions this is our flat earthers CIA secret plants making noise to distract the population from real conspiracy that would cause civil uproar and anti-government revolution given that this is a common objection from the flat earthers namely that for example Dapper Dino secretly works for NASA or CIA flat earth Aussie what would be your response of someone challenges saying that you are allegedly a CIA secret undercover plant well I'm still waiting for my check and you know comments on there I wouldn't surprise me in the least if there are some because in every truth movement throughout history you always get infiltration from under coverations putting out disinformation and misinformation with enough truth to seem legitimate but um I think when it comes down to it most flat earthers are pretty genuine about all they're really searching for is the truth and if we were working with the CIA again where's my bloody check next up Tim Pryor says oh man just when I thought there was a huge dinosaur on earth you had to say it was CGI Dapper look I know I'm sorry but um when I do grow big enough to tower over Australia I will let you know and uh Ross look up because if that ever happens I'll be right there looking down at you but I do also want to say real quick I'm not a employee of the CIA or NASA it's in fact the USGS that I work at my shill checks from that's because I do a lot of shilling for big dino and that has a lot more to do with geology than it does with space so it's the USGS sending me the shill money juicy and I have thought says dino if the northern hemisphere has the ice wall then our polar bears actually angels blocking us from the Garden of Eden I can't say for sure but I am gonna say definitely yes juicy Daniel Baker says both why do you think your opponent holds their worldview and isn't open to changing it beyond quote unquote they don't know the science or quote unquote they're indoctrinated okay well I think my opponent holds his worldview for the same reason we all did because when we're brought up to be told a certain thing and say whatever you you're brought up to believe in then that's what you're going to defend and as they say it's much easier to fool a person than it is to convince them they've been fooled so to try and convert people from this purely eccentric point of view to the natural point of view where we live on a stationary planar out is very difficult to do so that's why I'd say my opponent holds his point of view all right well since it was for both I guess I'll go ahead and first I'll say that towards the end it said the people wouldn't be changing their minds I'm very open to changing my mind in fact I've done so in considerable ways for instance as people who view my channel regularly might know I used to be a young earth creationist that has changed so it's definitely not the case that I'm not open to changing my views but as regards to why I think Ross here holds the positions that he does it kind of goes back to psychological research on the ideas around conspiracy theories and I'm not a psychologist or psychology research or anything so please double check this on your own check for sources don't take my word for it but my understanding from the things I've read about the psychology of why people accept conspiracy theories and other things like this is that it a lot in a lot of cases stems from a desire to know that there is some kind of control in the world and a rejection of the idea that the world is as chaotic as it seems to be and that there's really no one at the wheel and so I think and the psychology research that I've seen seems to back me up on this that some people would rather there be a nefarious hand on the wheel than no hand on the wheel and so they're willing to accept things like horrible sun worshiping conspiracies to trick everyone into the wrong shape of the earth because it means at least someone knows what's going on Juicy this one coming in from I don't think there's anything particularly horrible about being a sun worshiper yeah that's fine if that's what you want to do yeah so when you say it's a conspiracy sorry about this to say yeah that it's a conspiracy you know that sort of indicates that somebody I don't know is contrived to formulate a method to to what make you believe a certain thing that is false and I think basically we've accidentally fallen into the heliocentric model and if not then really it is a conspiracy and it's probably the mother of all conspiracies and it's not because we want to think there's a nefarious hand controlling us we'd rather think there's no hand controlling us that we do have the god given free will to make up our own minds to believe whatever we want rather than whatever you just said which makes no sense to me completely goes opposite to what I do we do have to keep moving do want to mention folks we have 378 people watching on youtube right now folks we only have 142 likes if you want to see flat earth Aussie pull at least one secret object from his beard who knows how much stuff is in there hit that like button just so we can see flat earth what do you might have hidden in there and thank you very much for this question from Daniel Baker says oh we got that one kango24 thanks for your question says I live in New Zealand and believed that the earth was a globe until dapper presented his model makes total sense it's what I observe well I'm glad that I could enlighten some of my global self brethren out there and by the way what I used to keep in my beard when it was big and bushy was paint brushes so I'm curious to see what Rasta has in his beard anything hiding in there any on fingers crossed that's disappointing you don't want to disturb the baby birds they might not come back that's true hazi and thanks for your question says I have two videos on my youtube channel that proves that lake Huron curves and debunks the flat earth Aussie Aussie yes well sorry mate you're deluded or you're just outright telling lies there's no proof ever of water standing bodies exhibiting curvature what you're probably interpreting is perspective and saying like for example when we look at the any letter on a screen like the the figure O for example if we zoom right in on that letter O we will see that it is not actually curved it is composed of a whole sequence of small square blocks which are completely flattened level in their own right but when you zoom out from them it creates the illusion of curvature so what you've done is you zoomed in on something similar to the pixelation of lots of things close together to create the illusion of curvature but you have not shown curvature guaranteed juicy we'll see what Aussie has to say about that as well as this one coming in from Daniel Baker strikes again says flat earth Aussie having a beer at 11 45 a.m respect my friend good for you flat earth Aussie starting early I appreciate that that this is a true Aussie ha ha do you brew your own or buy them I do brew my own at the moment I'm I've been in the process of moving I'm sort of getting myself off grid a bit more and as such the brewing process has been a little bit slower to get up and running like you know I need running water eventually which is one of those things still currently lacking as an off-grider but you know I get by so I am buying it and when I do brew it I brew this brand anyway Cooper's sparkling ale and but yes a bit of both you know back in history nearly 1 p.m so it's okay back in history people people used to say that until the first bit of alcohol had been brewed in a place you hadn't really permanently settled in settled into that place so until you finish your first brew you haven't really moved I'd be boggling it right now actually if I wasn't here Oh nice awesome well then you have moved congratulations thank you based and flat pilled next up Holy Smalls thanks for your questions as Flat Earth Ozzy love you man so glad you are back in the debate world been watching you since back when you were on with Fight the Flat Earth geez who was that from that was from Holy Smalls Holy Smalls that's right Paulie Paulie or Holy Holy Holy Holy Smalls well thank you very much yes um I do remember debating against that particular special case so cheers man thank you for editing filtering whatever you were gonna say we sometimes get in trouble because sometimes debaters like to talk about other debaters when they're not here but you did it in a respectful way appreciate that and then Beowulf says question for Flat Earth Ozzy just how far away do you reckon the stars are how far away do you have to be from a star before it disappears from view that's a really good question and I couldn't really tell you the truth I believe as I said during the debate or discussion that the firmament is roughly 62 perhaps up to 72 miles high and that is where the apparition of these lights appear but their actual true height could be any arbitrary distance much higher than that so I really don't know the distance but basically the distance from the North Pole to the equator which I believe equates to roughly 6000 miles that would be about the distance you would have to travel across the earth for any particular star give or take you know minus its own particular motion that's why Polaris is so good because it's fixed so about 6000 miles is about the distance you would travel where it disappears from view gosh and also have a super chat thanks Ozzy and strikes back the battle is on he says nope I didn't zoom in on anything flat earth Ozzy this is the gentleman who had mentioned he had said he had demonstrated that there was curvature on Lake Huron and said nope I didn't zoom in on anything I sent a drone straight up and you can see the water curving it's simple to test on a flat body of water and also says and counter your next argument it doesn't show the horizon curving just that the water curves down and away so he just readily admitted that you can see it on flat water yes like is that what he just said you can see the curve on flat water I mean let's see let me reread it yeah I don't I don't know if you use let's see he said I sent drone straight up and you can see the water curving it's simple to test on a flat body of water I see what you're saying the water you can see it curving now look I've done many experiments myself on flat bodies of water where you can see a particular object which the easiest one for me to go to is down at the easternmost point the Australian mainland there's a rocky outcrop there called Julian rocks now when you're standing at sea level you look out and Julian rocks is entirely above the horizon so to a globe defender or believer they will believe that this is the point where curvature is dropping away on the other side but all you need to do then is walk up to the lighthouse which stands a little under 100 meters above sea level and you will see Julian rocks is completely surrounded by flat and level water as far as the eye can see so what you've mistaken as curvature is merely convergence due to your viewing height you gain your viewing go up in your viewing height and you'll see it was never curvature because if you do see real and actual curvature whether it be a mountain a hill a little pictures mound whatever it might be if you do gain an elevation that curve doesn't disappear but when you see it across water as you gain an elevation it completely disappears so that means it was never curvature in the first place because it wouldn't just vanish the way your lap does when you stand up juicy and I missed thank you Daniel Baker for pointing this out I did miss the last part of your question earlier asked Dapper Dino why do you think flat earth debate still exists? Oh it's fun it's the same reason that this series it's fun and there's still people who believe it it's the same thing as young earth creationism it's there's not a real debate it's just you know play pretensi with people who don't realize how badly wrong they are but yeah it's entertaining Juicy Tim Pryor says why is it I can see Jupiter's moons casting shadows on it if planets are just lights in the sky flat earth ozzy Really? Oh I'd like to see that I've never seen that but um if that's what they like to believe and help some sleep well at night then good luck to them perhaps I have pictures Ross you you should visit um where I live we have a very very big telescope at a public observatory that you can go well the observatory itself isn't public but the telescope in particular is sometimes open to the public you could actually if you go on the right day see it I thought you were gonna invite me to jupe it out to see the moons myself no but what I'm saying is that there are things you could do yourself to go and actually see whether or not the shadows on Jupiter ever exist but it's a consistent thing with flat earthers that they never do the things that would show them to be either right or wrong and I suspect it's because they actually know that they would be shown to be wrong well that's that's really sweet but you know but give you a quick response maybe there's another explanation as well see that we gotta go to the next one yeah well I'd just like to think maybe there is another explanation and maybe these things that we think terra firma physical bodies such as the moons of Jupiter are something else entirely and that is quite entirely possible that the sun itself still casts a shadow from these things onto the other thing who knows juicy and this one coming in from the crowd daddy zero two nine says so weird that anyone outside the U.S. is flat earth I thought we were the only ones with so awful or such awful education standards in a developed country flat earth Ozzy is it that you're ahead of the curve no pun intended or is it that do you guys have lousy education there what I mean let's engage with this super chat that craw daddy zero two nine sent in well no worries I can tell you for a fact that when I was 16 years old I was an exchange student and went to the United States I was pretty high in most of my classes but I was about a year younger than everybody in my class I had this year up my sleeve so I went over to the United States because that's what we seen on our television and our movies thinking that that's the epicenter of the world and everything and I was very disappointed the education standards over there you guys are really you know no offense to those who actually do well because some do but you said bloody dumb and the fact is there are many Australians who are actually discovering the earth is flat you know I run into them all the time these days so we're gaining in popularity everywhere and in fact if you go apparently I think Brazil is one of the world's capitals of flat earth is where there's over 10 million people who confess to believing we live on a flat stationary plainer earth so it's not just designated towards you Americans the ones who are actually smart enough to realise they've been duped their whole lives it's actually all over the globe couldn't help myself based in flat hill so can I have a quick thing yes go ahead okay so I actually don't think it's to do with a level of education or intelligence level of people who believe in the flat earth I actually do think that there are psychological not problems but psychological frames of mind so I really do think it's more of a psychological than an education thing there are flat earthers who are quite smart and in fact it's actually even easy to recognise when some of them end up leaving flat earth and they stop saying the absurd nonsense that is required for you to actually preach the flat earth and instead they actually in many cases turn into pretty good people at doing flat earth debate you can look at like seek truth speak truth or ranty who recently left the flat earth in fact ranty has been doing some excellent debates against flat earthers because he's a smart guy it's not education that's not how these kind of kooky pseudoscience beliefs work same thing with young earth creationism young earth creationists aren't particularly dumb gotcha and we do appreciate your question this one coming in from band for life appreciate your super sticker and then says keep it up by the way also Resolute of Gores says James would make a cool lighthouse keeper in the children's book thank you that's the nicest thing I've ever heard Ozzie and thank you for your super chat says and finally I measured the cargo ships getting taller as the drone goes up and further away from the ship Ozzie yes yes because the convergence point tends to compress everything towards that point so as everything gets further away from that point it will actually appear to get taller that is one of the parts of the law of perspective which means that the more everything gets into that point or is lower towards it it actually does compress more so than the parts higher above it so yeah of course as you raise in the elevation then the compression point or convergence points are actually it's further and further away so therefore those higher parts of the boat will fill more of your field of view and appear taller do appreciate that and do appreciate this question coming in from Sahi Luke says for Ozzie for what reasons are there no reliable clear undeniable photographic evidence of an ice wall and then they said keep in mind planes traveling at 30 to 36,000 feet would be able to shoot this wouldn't they no no a plane at about 36,000 feet if you're using infrared photography as one famous flat earth that his name escapes me the moment has done you can see about a thousand miles the earth is really really really really big now all you have to do if you want to see images of the ice wall go to google and type in ice wall images of Antarctica or ice wall Antarctic images either way you want to see images so you go to the images part and you'll find hundreds of different pictures of the ice wall of Antarctica that people have taken lengthy videos from helicopters showing the ice wall the ice wall is a real phenomenon it exists but no once you're more than I would think more than a couple of hundred miles away from it you're never going to see it and Antarctica is a really really long way away because yeah it's really massive it's huge so you're not going to see it from a mere 30 to 36,000 feet this one just in appreciate your super chat Lockbeard says Ozzy needed elevation to see the rocks over the curve observe Sigma Octantis with your telescope take all the time you need flat earth debunked no not at all Sigma Octantis isn't actually visible even with your average backyard telescope it's a given point but it's a dark spot the Southern Cross on the other hand is completely visible to the naked eye and I see it all year round every night in the same direction when I go outside and look in the same direction now it's angle of you know might be upright or on its side or something may change throughout the year and by the morning time you know if it starts off like this by the morning it is over like this that is true so it would appear as if it's perhaps rotating around a center point but the fact is if we are going around the sun in a year you know if at six months say at this time of year in June I look out and I see the Southern Cross there then in six months time I'm on the other side of the sun and nighttime is looking in the completely opposite direction I should not be looking at the Southern Cross at all but the fact I say it all year round year after year proves that we are not going around the sun the stars are revolving around above us Juicy this one coming in from the Crawdeddy 029 says James you're on camera who else who else works now I don't understand who else works now what does that mean is that some sort of hip slang that people are using nowadays Flat Earth Ozzie of no idea I don't at least he slings the zero then bubblegum gone just coming in came in with Flat Earth Ozzie look up the optical illusions of the Parthenon that is pretty cool actually I second that everyone should do that really oh yeah there's a lot of Can't remember if it's in Rome or Greece it's in Athens Greece it sounds great but yeah I I mean I I haven't actually seen these optical illusions of the Parthenon but I understand optical illusions quite well they're they're very interesting phenomenon and that is usually what creates all causes people believe they're looking at curvature in the first place because the horizon is an optical illusion because it's created by the eyes and it does change as you change elevation and most of all does the opposite what they change as you change your point be looking the Parthenon uses curvature to make you think you're looking at something that's a straight line interesting right next the crowdhead he zero two nine says who else helps you run things while you're on camera oh I see what you're saying I run everything in terms of the tech and I have to give a huge thanks to the moderators great opportunity to say moderators do a fantastic job of keeping track of the chat just to make sure it doesn't get too rowdy in there and so huge thanks to the moderators and this next question coming in from Alan H says can you ask Latterth Ozzy for a photo of the flat earth that's not CGI well in actual fact every photo that isn't CGI is a photo of the flat earth so that's easily done juicy and this one coming in from David P and F says question for Flatterth Ozzy what evidence would convince you the earth is round well put me in a space suit put me in a vacuum chamber and prove that I can still believe still breathe so inside that that would start then I could trust that to be sent out into the vacuum of space so put me in a rocket and then let me see the spinning around the sun but my only problem with that is I don't believe any rocket is capable of going fast enough to catch back up to the earth because the earth is traveling 66,600 miles an hour around this great fireball Hurtland through space at over half a million miles an hour and if a rocket can go that fast and return back to earth then I'm on it gosh Joan big thing Bruce Wayne says Flatterth Ozzy if the earth is flat why can't I see Mount Everest from my doorstep it's too far away gotcha next up James Downert says for Ozzy what would what exploration have you done to investigate the edges of the Flat Earth and did you take any pictures while you were there that's a nonsensical question because we Flat Earthers do not believe there is an edge we believe that we come across a an ice wall of which I've already explained there's thousands of pictures of this said ice wall but we believe that the earth continues beyond that potentially perhaps infinitely and the whole concept of an edge is something that only an absolute amateur would ask because there's no such thing in the Flat Earth belief gotcha and then last one folks want to get our guests out of here and I am also shot so Beowulf thanks for your question says question for Ozzy how far away are the stars it's kind of asked before but yeah um tell them the truth Ozzy they appear they there as far as they appear like we can only see a certain limited distance when we're looking through the atmosphere but because we're looking up there's actually we're looking through the least amount of atmosphere and so I believe that we're seeing them at a distance of I'll go out on the limb here and say that they appear to us to our naked eye 12 miles away because that's where I call Firmament B where the limits of light reach that's where sunlight reaches which we call daylight and when the daylight isn't there the stars themselves make an appearance in this particular location and I believe that once we go above that particular height you can't see stars at all so technically they're much higher than that but where we see them is that 12 mile limit the common line bubblegum gun thanks for your last minute super chat says feu why can't I use a telescope to see Mount Everest because it's a bit like when you're looking underwater you're only going to see so far through even like a normal Olympic-sized swimming pool for example if you go underwater you're not going to see the far end through all that water now the atmosphere is similar only we can see much much further but even with infrared the best optics you can get from a great height you can only see about a thousand miles and I'm pretty sure that you won't even see the coast from the far side of your from the other side of your continent looking across just your continent alone let alone see all the way to Everest plus then you've also got that factor distance diminution which makes things shrink in the distance so unless you are within viewing distance of Everest you're not going to see it outside of those limitations gotcha Josie the crowd at E029 strikes again says so we are at the center of this never ending flat earth I believe so but as far as we're concerned we're at our center of it like there might be plenty of other centers I mean just because you're at one shopping center doesn't mean other shopping centers don't exist but while you're at that shopping center that's the center of your existence so for us this realm the earth we live on is our center with the northern pole being the absolute center of it juicy and with that folks want to remind you this debate that you are seeing on the bottom right of your screen it has been rescheduled for Saturday June 19th so that's six days away folks this is the big one the gigantoid epic debate that we are thrilled for and had done that crowdfund for and so we're excited about that and folks I'm working on the crowdfund fulfillment thank you everybody who helps contribute to that but I am excited about this debate folks you don't want to miss it so do hit that subscribe button and that notification bell as well as you don't want to miss out on this one folks it's going to be juicy I want to give a huge thank you to Flat Earth Aussie as well as Dapper Dino we really do appreciate you guys and folks again they're linked in the description so if you want to hear more from them well hey what are you waiting for and bubblegumgun with the last minute super chat says we can see the moon but not Mount Everest Flat Earth Aussie yeah because the moon projects an apparition this is a whole another topic which I could go on and on for ages so I won't but I'll just say that basically what I believe the moon is it's both a physical tangible object which is suspended above the earth the same by the same forces that cause the tides but it actually projects that sunlight into this permanent bead level the where light exists which creates a much nearer looking and larger moon than what that real moon actually is so we're still seeing the moon only this 10 to 12 miles away and rather than 285,000 miles away plus we're also seeing it as a game because when you look up you're looking through the least amount of atmosphere and you can see these objects when they get closer to the horizon when you see them through more and more of the atmosphere they do appear a lot duller than they appear when they're directly overhead sun and moon being perfect examples you've got it and Ozzie in with the last minute one as well as has an infinite plane has no center Aussie that's a fair point but what we have is a magnetic center and because all our compasses point towards this magnetic north that is what gives us our personal center of the so-called infinite plane we don't know that's infinite that might not be you might actually reach a wall and we're actually inside a giant cosmic egg or something that much we don't know at this stage but what we do know is that water does not curve around a ball and that people clean to the upside of it as we spin and hurdle through a vacuum that sort of claim is nonsense the claim of having a center a magnetic center is quite logical and obvious juicy and with that folks want to give a huge thank you to Dapper dino and flat earth ozzie we really do appreciate you guys it's been a true pleasure to get to host you tonight thank you thank you thank you thank you and do you stop by to the aftershow I will be giving flat earth ozzie the link I don't know if we'll show much appreciated and I haven't slightly as I say disappointed the fact that I'm I didn't come up against the actual somebody seriously trying to argue in defense of the globe and that's because that's how every debate goes I wanted to change yeah but um the thing is I love debunking the globe because that I know that's why I didn't want to do it well that's for the aftershow that's the aftershow because the more we debunk what isn't the more we see what is and that's what is left after we've debunked or the nonsense is the stationary planar earth so maybe you know I know that this is meant to be one of our final flat earth debates for some time James and I do appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to represent our side but hopefully some time down the track you might have a serious defender of the globe who might like to take this a little bit more seriously if I can come back again another time well to be fair though Dappartino did jump into like globe earth mode during the you know he still did jump into it when I asked him if he would and so we did still this was still like what was intended it was just a little bit of extra stuff at the start but want to let you know couple of things folks flat earth Aussie is not lying when it comes to the fact that this is going to be our last flat earth debate not forever I titled this the final chapter it's not that it's going to be the last one ever we're probably maybe we'll do it like once a month or something but it is true that we've done a lot of flat earth debates we do have a lot of new topics that we want to try out and so it is true that we don't worry we're gonna have another one at some point but we will probably be greater lengths of time in between such as in the last one I think we had one like two weeks ago and so next one will probably be at least three weeks or four maybe more and so we will have more but you'll have to just keep an eye on you'll have to keep an eye on when that is and so could I throw in two cents there James um I noticed in the moderators chat yesterday somebody suggested that you're gonna have a lot more bigger names coming on to the channel which is great and I was thinking that perhaps um you could use as a prelude to their debate for the warm up tourties maybe get some lesser known names to come in and have you know an hour's debate or something beforehand until the main event and that might allow a lot more newcomers who would love to debate about it but have no um no standing or whatever in the debate circles an opportunity to express their point of view and see if they can get some footage into the debate circles I'm open to it although there are a lot of different factors that I have to balance behind the scenes and so thank you for that feedback though and the cry daddy zero two nine with a final super chat says thank you James we don't need let's see well that's the trick folks we I know a lot of people and I know that cry daddy you actually don't mind it but once in a while people will cry about us platforming controversial topics or people and we can't help it but that just makes us want to do it more so I will be back in a moment to let you know about what other juicy controversial topics are coming up soon folks in that post credit scene so I will be back in just a moment to tell you about upcoming debates as well just to get to hang out with you guys for just a bit before I have to run but one last thank you to our guests as it's been a true pleasure to have you guys we really do appreciate you flat earth Aussie and dapper dyno phenomenal amazing so fun and so thank you guys for all of your support we do appreciate you and want to let you know about all the upcoming juicy debates as at modern day debate we have a vision folks to provide a level playing field for everybody to have a chance to make their case to the world in the most fair way possible and so no matter what walk of life you are from believe me we really do appreciate you being here whether you be flat earth globe earth Christian atheist republican democrat you name it we are glad you are here folks we are excited about the future and we are fulfilling that vision almost every day with our debates as we are excited folks I am honestly so excited that just yesterday folks we are getting close to 50,000 subscribers thanks to you thank you so much for all that you do to support this channel whether it be even clicking that like button that helps us in the algorithm no joke that helps us grow as well as sharing content I can see the amount of shares on videos and I am like blown away at the amount of shares in terms of hey if you have a friend who enjoys these topics you can share this video and say hey you know I know you enjoy this topic in these debates like hey you might enjoy this one that helps us we really do appreciate that as well as I mean there's a billion different ways that the debaters themselves who are the lifeblood of the channel we appreciate them they have helped us as we have just yesterday we crossed over 48,000 which is so exciting and so thank you guys so much for making this absolutely epic as we are approaching 50,000 quite quickly I think it's possible by the let's see I don't know if it would be by the I don't think it would be by the end of the month but maybe it is going that fast especially with I mean you guys I'm just really excited about that and I'm confident by July which we'll have to think of maybe a way we could celebrate that that's going to be a lot of fun and so I really do want to celebrate together as like I said the more the merrier and you guys for real you have no idea how much you've helped this channel how much you have made it as epic as it is I mean you guys are fun just hanging out in the chat it's a fun time and we do appreciate you hanging out here no matter what walk of life you're from we appreciate that it's an eclectic kind of mix of different people and so thank you so much for all of your support for everything folks Reservoir of Gores has an interesting one tonight don't burn the candle at both ends that's true I do and I need to get some rest but I'm going to have two nights off in the next couple of nights and then we'll be back on Tuesday with a controversial one maybe Wednesday we do have one for next Friday so let me tell you what these are one Tuesday Tom Jump and Jengles are going to debate whether or not it is transphobic to say I don't want to well let's just say this highly encourage you to check out that debate as that debate is already up on the main channel page so I don't