Hey everyone tonight.  We have mark read Arguing for the globe earth tonight. So mark read if you want to kick it off. We'll get right to it Yeah, hi, my name's mark rate. I'm taking the negative position on is the earth's flat I'll just share my screen so I can sort of get my presentation up. Thank you so much, Ryan Just tell me when it's up and running mate. Yeah, you should be good now Okay, fantastic. So flat earth now We've only got 10 minutes. So I'll go through this fairly quickly. So I do apologize if sort of I'm leaving anyone behind I'm sure Austin can keep up. So first off, you may have seen this before It's a question that I've asked Austin in our 2v2 debate, which he never gave good answer for and I really want to sort of Touch on this again. The circumpolar stars So basically for those who don't know the circumpolar stars are those which rotate around the poles or the center of the the globe model now Basically, they they go anti-clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere In the southern hemisphere, however, they go in a clockwise direction now This was taken in Australia. The other one was taken in the northern hemisphere. I believe it was UK So notice that there there's no Central star in the south and it's a lot closer to the horizon because it's a lot further south in latitude Now, let's have a look. This is what it looks like comparatively side-by-side clockwise and then Sorry counterclockwise in the normal hemisphere straight in the equator and south they go clockwise Now what's interesting about this and this is a photo from Alaska and notice how they're much higher in the sky at a More northern latitude. This is because as you go towards the poles They get higher and higher and higher until this is Antarctica and that's a LiDAR They are perfectly above the poles. So this is taken at the South Pole This doesn't work on a flat plane as there is no real South Pole and What what's interesting about it? This is how it works on a on a globe. Basically, you're looking either south or north on the globe The stars which are let me get my marker These round here, they never set. Whoops They never set and and these are the south ones never set This is a model of how it works and I'll just let this run for one second So they're going counterclockwise in the north any clockwork clockwise in the south Now the problem with the flat earth is where is the southern Circumpolar stars because when you look south from Australia and south from South Africa and south from South America You see exactly the same stars and indeed because South Africa say someone in Cape Town and somebody in Perth It's nighttime at the same time. They're seeing the same stars by looking south So is that south? Why is that south and then what happens to the people in South America? Seeing the same stars So what I want to want to do is explain that when we don't see the stars travel this way at all We see no lateral movement of the stars whatsoever. How do they get round to the south of the other other place? Now this is flight times. This is Perth to Johannesburg That's 11 hours and 30 minutes and Boston to Honolulu 11 hours and 15 minutes Now they're roughly the same amount of time. Now, that's how it's displayed on a flat earth map Why is this the same flight time?  This is the same flight time and Apparently one is a lot further than the other on any flat earth map You want to look because when you extend the southern hemisphere out on a flat earth it automatically takes that long now This is a video of a ship Oops I have to start this how do I start this give me sorry, I do apologize just one second Yeah, so this is the Golden Princess. It's a massive cruise ship. It's got a length of 290 meters 17 floors high It's ways over a hundred thousand tons now as it goes out. I really want you to see this This is ships going beyond the horizon Oops But I'll just oh god. All right. Sorry. I'm having technical difficulties So keep an eye on those lower decks as it goes out further and further and further So as it goes out it basically will vanish below the horizon Okay, so the lower decks are almost obstructed now And then when you go to a higher elevation and zoom back in the lower decks back Why does this happen if that's perfectly flat? Why does that happen that they were obstructed? The guy gets a higher elevation and suddenly like magic their back and that's all one continuous shot And as it continues to go out it vanishes again. How is that happening on a flat plane? That's what I'd like the Austin tour answer. These are lunar eclipses around the world I think Austin seen this one before why is it always circular no matter what angle it's seen from no matter what position? It's always circular the only thing that's circular from any position any orientation is a globe What are lunar eclipses on a flat earth because on a flat earth the the Earth can't come between the Sun and the moon. So what what is a lunar eclipse on a flat earth? What what is causing this on a flat earth? This is a diagram of how the lunar eclipse works. So on a flat earth this scenario would never happen So how does it happen on a flat earth and I do want specificity of how that is occurring? So those are the questions circumpolar stars. Why do they rotate in different directions? Why they directly above the north and south pole wider ships vanish from the bottom up when moving far away and why does Elevation bring them back into view. Why does the shadow from a lunar eclipse always appear around no matter what location? Orientation it's viewed in and how do lunar eclipses happen at all on a flat earth Thank you. All right, that's everything there Stop the screen share there Yeah, sorry my bad And I did hear the in the live chat that I had you Now so with that there, I think you might be open. Thank you The video presentation day just let everybody know a modern-day debate is a neutral debate platform I am your host this evening. My name is Ryan. We are hosting debates on science religion And we do hope you feel welcome no matter what force of life you're from And especially when we're talking about our controversial subjects. So We're not opening their mark. We're going to kick it over to Austin Defending the flat earth this evening Awesome for all yours. Oh, all right. Just one second here. You moved it. That's my bad Well, I'm gonna also share screen if that's cool. Yeah, that's cool. All right, there we go Are we good? Yeah, I think we're good. Okay. I just moved it. Okay. All right, so I Ask me why the southern star trails Turn the other way in the southern quote-unquote hemisphere is like a flat earth 101 question But anyway, when you look in different directions, it changes orientation Just like a six and a nine just like the only other side of a road when cars pass you they'll look like they're going the other way This is just an objective characteristic of perspective in addition We have something called the azimuthal grid of vision. So thanks Walter for the Model here. You can see that we have an azimuthal grid of vision. It's called an arc of vision That's how we see things so we have a limit to our perspective and in fact it converges down and curves into that Limit of perspective. It's gonna be proven with railroad tracks. Of course, they are tangibly parallel But our perspective shows the optical convergence because we have curved visual space now What normally happens is blow proponents will deny that we have an azimuthal grid of vision But unfortunately for them, they cannot because we have something called anti-croposcular rays that we can actually see a hundred and eighty degrees behind us during let me actually just type that in right now and It's directly behind the Sun So this this will be seen 180 degrees behind us when the Sun's in front of us Okay, so the globe Earth's explanation for this is that we have a circular Limit of view and there's an optical bending of light causing the illusion that these parallel rays are actually behind us Bending up. So the globe Earth requires an azimuthal grid of vision to explain anti-croposcular rays Well, that's convenient because once you have the acknowledgement of the azimuthal grid of vision as you can see here It explains everything on the plane literally all observations So right here like he's explaining we're in the south well You see how it looks when you see the motion of the stars in the south see right here I don't know if you can see my cursor But it shows you the optical convergence around a singular point right here now You pointed out that it's higher in the north and the south. In fact, it should be symmetrical on the globe That's actually a debunk of the globe, but it makes perfect sense on a flat earth because as you go further out That's where it drops down So this is an azimuthal grid of vision Of course he pretended that you could see the stars from each continent as if you could see him at the same time Well, it's nighttime at different times for those places and they don't see the stars at the same location or angle in their sky So it's just a blatant straw man This also explains the optical appearance of Eclipses equinoxes the direction the Sun and Moon rise and what direction those stars are observed in the south all of it is Perfectly explained irrefutably with the azimuthal grid of vision, which is provable another thing that mark likes to bring up is lake Poncha train now here's an actual picture of Lake Poncha train one of the longest bridges in the United States The longest bridge United States I believe I've driven on it incredibly flat basically in the water I drove all across the whole thing multiple times And then they show this picture and claim that it's curving and this proves a curvature of the earth now Of course hilariously if this proved the curvature of the earth the earth would have to be like one Fifth of the size they claim the earth is and this is the actual picture of it But they claim that this looking through the atmosphere having optical compression proves the earth's a ball But it would actually prove the earth is a ball with like Really way less radius than one fifth of the claimed radius of the globe Never get a rebuttal to the fact that if this shows earth curvature then the earth has to be way smaller It's always ignored It brought up boats disappearing and how you can go higher and see the bow and that should be impossible here is of course time lapse of Horizon you can see the horizon goes up and down due to something called refraction atmospheric conditions And of course if you go higher on a flat earth while you're going higher above the ground You're gonna have a horizon on the flat earth despite some people claiming you wouldn't for whatever reason Because you have both the sky and the ground and you would never see either all the sky or all the ground So you would have to have the location where it appears that the sky meets the ground Which is the definition of the horizon we can see right here This is not earth curvature because the earth is not breathing in and out This is not a physical tangible geometric horizon This is an optical appearance of what is called a horizon an apparent horizon That's what horizons are the earth is not doing yoga stretching breathing in and out right here It's just optics as I go higher I go higher in to a less dense corridor a corridor of vision So that I'm not being obstructed or occluded by the atmosphere anymore So I can begin to see the boat again, and I'm higher above what causes the optical convergence of the ground Now for a flat earth evidence that will be almost assuredly ignored There's nothing called ground wave radio transmission ground wave propagation So you have skate skyway propagation and ground wave propagation So they say that skyway propagation bounces off the ionosphere and comes back down to the earth because Marconi shot at 2,200 miles and the curvature of the earth predicts to be blocked at 200 miles He shot at 2,200 miles first time success perfectly all the tractor said he couldn't do it It get blocked at 200 miles. So that's when they quote-unquote discovered the ionosphere was because they needed it or the globe earth was Immediately refuted because he used horizontal line of sight propagation over the earth over bodies of water 2,200 miles successfully he since after that he actually shot one 10,000 miles We do that frequently nowadays, so they say the skyway propagation bounce off the ionosphere Unfortunately for them. They cannot claim that for ground wave propagation They claim that that cannot bounce off the ionosphere Here's a military document showing that they actually shoot ground wave high frequency propagation on the earth and that right here If you look at about 800 kilometers They will actually a pick up the signal a few percent of the time. Well, how high are they up? They are three meters up so three meters up three meter and ten and that's just about 10 feet They will pick up the ground wave horizontal line of sight propagation over 800 kilometers away Which is 497 miles which would have 32 miles of vertical earth curvature blocking the horizontal transmission yet They actually can pick it up over 500 miles away. It's completely debunks the globe. There is no explanation So there you go. Hopefully someone will actually address while we have ground wave propagation They won't bring up the ionosphere because I just explained why they cannot and they'll try to explain to me how Radio transmission can horizontally go through 32 miles of vertical earth curvature and just go through the earth and be received 800 kilometers away. I Think that's oh, and he asked about eclipses like yeah, like I said the azimuthal grid of vision explains the location We use the serocycle for many years now to even know how they work and the base foundation of prediction for NASA Is the serocycle they also use at ECF an earth centered earth fix coordinate system to actually even figure out when the eclipses will happen or where they will happen and There is see let me close with this there seems to be this misnomer that if someone could come up with any question They think that can't be explained on flat earth or someone doesn't know the answer to that automatically flat earth becomes wrong and globe Earth becomes true Well, if that's the case then if I can ask any question the globe can't explain the globe earth is no longer true and flat earth becomes true That's a very illogical way to go about it Can you explain how the magnetic field of the globe is not symmetrical what sustains the magnetic field of the globe? You explain how the core is going slower than the outside of the earth's surface like I can ask 500 questions at the globe admittedly has no answer to it isn't how logic works if you ask a question about the sky that you think we Can't come with an answer that doesn't somehow prove your fantastical deep disprove claim So that's my conclusion. Hopefully someone can explain how horizontal wave propagation over a globe earth could possibly exist And thank you Maybe you can hear me now Oh I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Oh, I thought that was a rebuttal period that I didn't didn't get that wasn't really an introduction That's okay kind of dishonest it's fine. It's fine So, yeah, all these debates that you're seeing here on the channel. They are uploaded to And also we do have a Q&A that's going to be happening at the end So if you want to ask any of our speakers a question, I just don't know the name So Over to Mark here to ask ask me some questions Yep, Austin, could you provide the Deviance of the azimuthal grid of vision that shows that you can see the Circumpolar southern stars from Perth and from say Cape Town where a friend of mine lives Actually, can I provide the what? The variation in angle for the azimuthal field of vision because I mean the Angles that you're showing there would not reach from one to the other What way what is based on each could you provide your calculations and angles? South Africa and Australia, you're gonna drop it in the chat They're coming out if you want no, I'll drop I'll drop the model in the chat You can't answer that you can't answer. Okay.  No, but the angles that you're that you're sort of saying that that the southern hemisphere Places should see that the stars at the same time are way larger than any provided by that field like that grid of vision Way larger. Wait, what are the angles? Angles you just said that you knew the angles were way larger. So what are they? Yeah, yeah So the angles are easily above 60 degrees or so Hmm Azimuthal grid of vision, do you know what that is? Yes. What is it? It's the way that the appearance of the angle that we're seeing something Various depending on the perspective that we're seeing it in and you agree. It's a real thing Yeah, but you can't just say azimuthal field of vision expect that to hand wave magically explain everything You've got to show with calculations how the azimuthal grid of vision actually gives you that that Deviation that you're expecting because just saying azimuthal field of vision would mean like me saying well nuclear nuclear Decay of atoms that doesn't mean anything without you actually backing it up with some substance Right, right. That's why I said thanks Walter every single calculation every position Every angle of the stars are built into the model into the azimuthal grid every single model shows definitively that that azimuthal field of vision will cover both Australia and It's Africa. Yeah, because they see the stars in different places in the sky And they don't see them at all three places at the same time. I'm sorry I'm at the same time What they're different places in the sky you didn't know that So they're saying two different sets of circumpolar stars. Is that right? That's a straw man fallacy Do you think they're saying different stars in different places? What are you talking about? Who said different stars? You said they were in different places. Yeah, do you think they're at the exact same angle of observation from each location? No, okay, so they're in different places in the sky Yes, but that would mean that as a muscle field of vision would have to deviate by about 60 to 90 degrees How does that happen? Where are your calculations for that? I'll drop you the entire model Have you ever looked at Walter business model? Okay? I can look at it But from what you showed on the screen that model didn't cover Australia and South Africa at the same time Well, someone can't see stars from those two places at the same time only one observer can make an observation at one time So no that grid is not individual observer You know that South Africa and Australia can both be nighttime at the same time I can call up somebody in Cape Town a buddy in Cape Town and we can see the circumpolar stars at the same time And it's weird that you said oh they have different times for different places because yeah That's how our system works. You realize that we're in different times, right Austin, but we're talking to one another I had to tell you that you seem to think that there was nighttime at all three positions because you looked at it I didn't say all three interrupting every time I talk mark Well, you're representing me get a little impulse control man So like okay, you brought up the three positions as if they could see them at the same time That's a 2015 easily debunked anti-flat earth meme But that's the only reason I pointed out it's nighttime different time for those people That's how the earth works and the point that I made about them not it's not without they can see the stars Sure Two of those people can see the stars around the same time because it begins to get dark at one of the places at the same time Sure, but they see the stars in different positions in the sky the azimuthal grid represents each observer looking in the southern direction Seeing the stars and when you map it out it all matches perfectly with that azimuthal grid Okay, so that's hilarious because you misrepresented me. I never said all three at the same time So you're just lying about that. I said I specifically kept saying Australia and Cape Town because both of them You can be nighttime at the same time one is early morning. One is late night Or early night. Sorry. One is one is early morning basically that The thing that you showed did not have that azimuthal grid of vision show is showing over both South Africa and Australia so your own model the Bunks you Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm still addressing your points now I never said that it basically how you never told me how time zones work Austin I'm aware that it's different times that here and where you are and it is the same time So I don't know why you're sort of covering trying to say oh, well, I never said Oh, I told you it was different time. No, come on You just said it's different times for each of those places if I am talking directly to a person there It doesn't matter. It's the same time regardless of what your clock says and that's a basic You know, I don't know why you don't understand that and have to go. Well, I explained that to you You want me to share this you're going to share the screen again since you don't seem to go Yeah, no share it share it go for it. Is that cool if I share the screening because he doesn't seem to understand it Sure, we can definitely do that Just give me one second here Once again, I've changed my mic. So let me know if my audio is coming through now Yeah, all right. So everybody just let me get your screen share up there And there you guys are welcome to go through that as you please just let me know when you're ready to stop sharing Okay, cool mark. You see how this is one single observer This would be another observer. This would be another around to Australia. Yeah So it would be another of south Yeah, so when you're looking south on that, right? So south Right, you're seeing the circumpolar stars at both locations. So you're trying to say that hey if the australia looks west and Cape town say looks east you see the same stars. Yeah, that's true But they're looking south. So how does that work? It doesn't cover both the model mark I see the model Like I don't I don't the azimuthal field of vision has looked look at the angle that that field of vision is going into It's almost a a what? 270 degree angle that that is that is apparently Perspective is changing you have to demonstrate that it will actually do that with calculations You can't just say hey, here's a model where our vision flips round 270 degrees in order to Make my flat earth dream a reality Yeah, you don't provide some calculations that it does actually do this. It's the same exact visual curved space Or both observers you see if you look to the left from here, you have the same curve as if you look to the right from here It's the same degree of visual Curved space if that was the case I'll send you that was the case Excuse me if that was the case then I should be able to see the stars in the northern hemisphere Including Polaris and I don't why is that?  Look that one you can see the stars in the northern. Oh, yeah Okay, get rid of it real quick.  No go for it. Okay. Okay. No problem So you can see with this the 270 degree angle that these are bending in you can see the stars in the higher portions of the northern hemisphere But in australia in the southern hemisphere, I can't see those stars Right those stars I will never be able to see and if this model was true I should be able to see the circumpolar stars in the northern hemisphere too Which I will never see from the position. I am in in the southern hemisphere. This model doesn't work This is all explain that I'm going to I can This is hilarious. Okay, so just so you understand this is using Stellarium data This is using actual Stellarium data based on the different locations It factors in what stars are observable from the actual locations on the earth Using the same data you use to map out your Earth model That's why it doesn't show all the northern stars. It just shows the further ones out And yes, believe it or not in the southern hemisphere You can see stars from the north which actually debunks your belief system But you guys claim it's Refraction and we can actually see Polaris below the equator and you guys claim that it's Refraction so as I move this forward towards the north pole. Oh look, I'm starting to see more of the northern stars mark This is Stellarium data So if you're disagreeing with that then you're disagreeing with Stellarium data. So obviously I'm going to stop sharing now I'll drop you the link Okay, so so why can't you see the circumpolar stars from the northern hemisphere then Okay, so we're that's why I stopped sharing it wasn't to run away No, no, I'm not changing the subject It's that that model doesn't work because at the angles if if as a muscle Field of view was was actually happening the grid of vision was happening You should be able to see the northern circumpolar stars from that that model When you're looking south of all things like the way that it bends 270 degrees And what's really telling is you can't give any kind of Fixational points or any kind of calculation under the azimuthal grid of vision in order to calculate that that 270 degree angle of deviance from Straight line would actually happen Yes, we can it's all built into the model and I even I even explained to you that within your own model We have a hundred and eighty degree anti-cropuscular rays That your model has to explain So if the sun goes under the horizon of the earth and as it's going under the horizon I see anti-cropuscular rays 180 degrees the other way. How does that work on the globe mark? Well, we do don't see anti like anti-cropuscular ways coming in the other direction So that's why because it's not a 270 degree field of view. It's not What it is is you're seeing the rays come where does the rays come from? They go from all over and at times When you put when you put the sun behind you and the rays are coming up Where are the rays are they coming from in front of you? You see how you just didn't ask the question now you're asking me questions So I on your model the sun goes below the horizon Okay, and if I'm looking at the sun go below the horizon because it looks like it's moving But it's not and we're falling backwards and it makes the sun look like it's moving And then it goes behind the curve of the earth like you believe Then how why do I see the anti-cropuscular rays directly behind me? That's the question you don't we do So you're just saying uh No, it's just you see them coming from under like where the sun has gone behind behind the horizon Yes, you do Austin. Okay, you're wrong and you need to research it. So if I'm right So you're not is your response No, you said not everyone can google it right now and they're gonna know live time I'm right So are you saying that if anti-cropuscular rays show up somewhere other than the location of the sun it debunks the globe? No, I did not say that I did how would it work on a globe what I'm saying is that when when the sun goes behind the horizon You do not see the rays Originating from the other direction Austin It gets dark over there You thought you were slick by saying originating but we see anti-cropuscular rays Without seeing the originating source We see the rays that appear to diverge from a singular point all in the sky different places and sometimes We see them directly 180 degrees. How would that work on the globe? That is so dishonest because what we are talking about is the location of the star Which is the origin point of the light. So when you're saying anti-cropuscular rays We can see them behind you you are saying in trying to be analogous with those stars That they are originating from behind you which they don't You are basically making a false analogy and trying to say because rays travel and diffuse all over the place as anti-cropuscular rays that They originate from where the light is No, they don't do it or something you're like lifetime good doing it I just got to check is this my question time or is this his question time like seriously You're clearly googling it. What seems to have happened is it Austin you you are so dishonest anti-cropuscular rays do not originate these stars their origin point of the light Isn't that in the southern circumpolar stars that origin of their light is around that pole and around the north pole You are absolutely not giving any information about it and hand waving it away with a oh, will anti-cropuscular rays? No, the two things are not even similar. You're making excuses Well, if you would have been able to articulate a coherent answer in response to the question Then it would have connected but you did it calculations Provide your calculations Okay, I dropped the model and that I dropped the model in the chat. I'm pretty sure let me double check Okay, here's the model on the chat. I thought you're an expert Here's the model. I thought you were you were an expert I don't know the numbers off the top of my head and it changes for every It's celerium data Okay But the point is that if you if you could answer the question you understand the relevance Which is that even on the globe earth model right in order to explain things like anti-cropuscular rays We have to invoke a circular Limits of vision that causes the optical illusion of anti-cropuscular rays Now if we have an azimuthal grid of vision that causes the illusion of anti-cropuscular rays Even for the globe earth to be able to explain them Then you cannot hand wave dismiss and deny azimuthal grid of vision now You didn't but what you don't seem to realize is if you accept that which you have to Then we have an azimuthal grid of vision on a plane earth as well And now it explains all celestial phenomena including the equinox the direction of the sun and the moon rise and set And all the positions of the stars and the southern star trails. It explains all of it No, it doesn't because you can't even create a a you can't even give any kind of calculations or any kind of Evidence that this would actually happen that you would look one direction you would look south and this is this is ladies and gentlemen This is what austin is saying that you look south Your vision goes 270 degrees behind you and you see stars From a different direction while you're looking in one direction. I mean how gullible does austin think you are Like this is ridiculous and then he's trying to say oh, but if you look that way You'll see the stars up there But you won't see the specific stars that you're not supposed to see and the way that this is bending things is just Incredible he's got no evidence for this at all It's all just claims and doing a model which is as bent and crooked as he is And this is what's so funny. That's called Ad homonyms because you didn't make a substantive argument, but you can't it's okay, but you said that I was lying You said I was lying by claiming do here is Where we've gone into a bit of open discussion But it's been mainly mark seeming past few questions about your model. We can shift ears here and Kind of keep the reins and ask the questions about your opening Arguments there and you're more than looking to share your Your screen again and whatever Grants you might want to specifically address All right, I got I got to address this that so like I it's not me lying or thinking people are gullible to say that The light can be perceived to be optically bending through to vision and curb space because even on the globe earth if the sun is going down away from me straight ahead What I can see anti-corpuscular rays behind me then that means you have to invoke the same thing I've said that five times. So the only person pretending the eye is as gullible as if you Convincingly enough gas like the other person somehow your point becomes true. Okay, so we can See the sun behind you if you're basically arguing that you look one direction and see the sun behind you when it's setting over the other side It's ridiculous ever said that. Well, that's what you're implying Okay, you'll get them into some focus questions here. So, uh, I don't know if you could ask him a question about his model there And then we'll give him to a minute to explain what What he feels about your question. Okay, cool So if we have a three meter tall antenna So roughly 10 feet and I shoot a horizontal line of sight High frequency ground wave propagation radio. That's not about my opening Ryan. That's not about my my opening at all Well, if um If he just wants to ask random questions about right, you know radio waves, I can so all right Well, we'll see If it can come full circle, that's that's fine. Sure as long as it is relating to Okay, sure Oh, yeah, in mark's opening he claimed the earth was a globe And what that means is that the earth is curving And so i'm asking how that's the case if I have a 10 foot tall antenna and I shoot a radio transmission 500 miles that can't bounce off the ionosphere and it's a horizontal line of sight There should be 30 miles of earth curvature blocking the horizontal transmission How am I able to receive it from 500 miles wet? Yes, so it's it's because of long wave radiation. Um, do you know how long wave radiation works? Well, I know you just googled it. So please enlighten me I didn't just google it. I was just checking on something like, you know, I want to make sure i'm giving the right information Unlike you austin. So that's called a ad hominem. You might recognize that austin So basically long wave radiation diffuses as it goes so it broadens as it goes basically This is how long wave radiation works. And if you knew anything about radio transmission, you would know this So as it travels it broadens and therefore can hit a much larger spectrum than the short wave radiation Which is very tight bandwidth Do you understand? Uh, do you that doesn't actually explain how the horizontal transmission can go physically through physical obstruction It diffusing and widening out doesn't explain how it would Horizontally propagate through 30 miles of vertical obstruction It doesn't propagate through it. It travels and then it broadens out. So when the earth curves it travels and broadens out Do you understand? I understand that you don't comprehend that doesn't actually fix the problem because if it broadens out the earth's Curvature still blocks the bottom part of the waves So the top part of the waves are just going to keep going going to keep going up You have 30 miles blocking the horizontal propagation. It cannot be received on the ground 800 kilometers away You don't understand how communications in long wave radio transmissions works. Do you well? I actually know the globe earth answer. You haven't said it If part of the wave is blocked does it make it untransmissible? It makes it unreceivable from 800 kilometers away on the ground Yeah, I know the globe earth answer and that is not it That is not it Yeah, it doesn't it doesn't actually make it untransmissible austin. I didn't say that it doesn't I didn't say that you just said that if it's partially blocked that makes it untransmissible Isn't that what you just said? No, really. Oh just everybody mishirred for some reason. No, just you No Oh, really, you mean repeat what I said if it's partially blocked is it untransmissible and you said yes wrong. Is that Okay, so what did you say? I'll say it word for word. I said it's not receivable on the ground from 800 kilometers away. Yes, it is That's how wave propagation works. Really? You want me to tell you how that the globe earth's official answer is? No, not really. I don't care You just want a straw man. That's all you're trying to do. You're just you're just straw manning is what you're doing That's all you're doing now.  You didn't answer the question debunks. I answered the question. I answered the question You just don't like the answer. What is your next question? How does dispersal explain it if there's 30 miles of earth curvature blocking the horizontal propagation? That's what long way of radiation does Radiation sorry like seriously mark. We could just let him ask his question there and once he's finished asking If we could give mark a couple a minute to answer that would be good just Just without any interruptions if you could ask your question there Austin and then we'll let you answer it and fold them Okay Yeah, so if it's dispersing out right like the idea is that it's widening now all radio wave propagation works like that It all widens Okay, but if you have 30 miles of earth curvature blocking the horizontal propagation Well, you have 30 miles of that transmission blocked. Okay, so yes, it's going to widen out from the second It leaves its antenna. That's how radio waves work But you have 30 miles that's going to obstruct the radio transmission So if I come over here on the other side of that 30 vertical miles, right? There's going to be 30 miles. Is this a question or is this a statement because he's not answer asking question Well, we're just trying to censor me basically Okay That's what I'm saying so like like okay, so it would still be blocking 30 miles of it You would be on the other side this 30 vertical miles of obstruction So how would it dispersing and widening somehow answer how on the ground we can receive the radio transmission 800 kilometers away So for a start it's not on the ground It's a tower and you gave the example of a tower yourself So it does have some elevation as it travels it disperses and you acknowledge this so the curvature is not a problem Um, you know, there is no problem with that and that's how ground wave radiation works a radio waves work um The the whole idea that this is a problem Really the problem is for flat earth because There is a limit to ground wave transmission as though there isn't really one for well There is one for bouncing it off the ionosphere, but that is a much larger distance So why the question you should be asking yourself is why does it end at all? Why is our distance ending at all if this is just a flat plane with nothing in the way? And we know the attenuation rates and we know how far it takes for radio waves to drop off Why does it end at all and which it doesn't want to address this? But it's just because of how long wave radiation works in its dispersal That the earth's curvature is not a problem for it because it does take that into account and you know What it was to wants to hand wave it away and you know get fought up on this, but that's essentially how it works Okay, all right, so basically I was gonna say if you want to ask another question there I just want to I just want to I just want to I just want to kind of address that like it's So like he basically just said he's insinuating that Well, why would it ever stop on a flatter? There should be nothing stopping it which means he's insinuating that well Since the earth's a globe it stops the radio waves and that's why they can't go But then he turns around and says that the ground earth doesn't stop the radio waves from going super far So he just blatantly contradicted himself But the answer is not that it spreads out that isn't the globe earth answer Okay, so if we send the radio wave, right and then you ask why would it go forever on a flatter But then you brought up attenuation So we have attenuation of radio waves attenuation is the absorption rate of the atmos Okay, so signals get absorbed into the atmos topographical obstruction and atmos and uh Attenuation is why we can't shoot radio waves infinitely relative to their frequency how high or low they are Okay, and the higher frequencies don't go as far as the lower frequencies typically speaking and uh The attenuation is going to stop it. So we have something called a radio horizon That's how far it at average on an average it goes and it's actually further than the geometric earth horizon of the globe the radio horizons further than that and we know that Often i'm almost done. Oftentimes it goes much further than the radio horizon. This is well known Yeah, so the reason why it goes much further than radio horizon is because we've got to go off the on sphere With it at the moment is basically You know, he's he's meshing up sky wave with ground wave and just sort of meshing up the two to try and get away from it So radio waves once it actually passes a certain amount of degrees of curvature It cannot diffuse any more like there is a blockage as of that point that Austin desperately wants to ignore So I didn't contradict myself at all What i'm saying is that it kind of diffused to a certain angle around the earth and then it can't because it cannot Go back on itself like austin's weird vision of seeing stars that are in the opposite direction um Yeah attenuation is a thing But there's nothing under the calculations of attenuation and maybe you can give those calculations attenuation calculations that are very well established and decibels. Yes That shows that it would pass Like it would attenuate before hitting like, you know, 8,000 I think it was 8,000 miles as you said was ground wave. Maybe you could give those calculations in decibels Maybe give the attenuation rates over how strong the signal shall be Over different distances to show that it wouldn't travel over flat earth. Can you give those Austin? Radio wave attenuation Do you think I have the equation memorized on the top of my head as you frantically google to respond to everything I say off the top of my head. No, I don't know you radio wave attenuation. I don't know the radio wave I don't know the radio wave attenuation rate equation off the top of my head nor do you and if you know it right now It's because you're looking down on a piece of paper continually So I don't need to know what it is. It's a well known fact Well known fact attenuation rate of you didn't answer the question It doesn't matter the reason that things don't go infinitely far which is an ignorant idea is because radio waves attenuate Right, we have an attenuation rate and topographical obstruction. It's called the skip zones We have attenuation rate and topographical obstruction far beyond the curvature of the earth Which is called the geometric horizon We have something called the radio horizon and it goes way further than the radio horizon off We have beat this to death anyone that wants to actually research it can you know So if you want me to move move on to another question Well, I agree. I agree. We bait it to death. I agree with that. We bait it to death You didn't answer it's okay. I'd never said infinitely far. That is a straw man Austin I never said infinitely far and in fact, I was the one that brought up attenuation. So that's just a straw man Why does it stop it off? The reason why I'm looking at the reason why I'm looking at a piece of paper is because I'm taking notes Maybe you should as well don't know because you keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I'm saying So maybe you should be a bit more accurate and clarifying what did the opponents actually say But I do agree that we've beaten this to death. So maybe you can explain the boat going over the horizon Maybe you can explain that one. Did you hear my answer? What was my answer? I did yeah Can you repeat it? You still man it? Still man your answer. Yeah, the attenuation drops off over a distance and it cannot go infinitely far Which is a straw man of my position. No, no Well, you said like you should ask yourself on a flat earth why it would ever stop at all Okay, but I'm actually talking about the radio the boat you change the subject to the boat Which is cool. We can move on right up the boat. I said, I think we should this is this is going Okay, I asked was you're for your calculations of the attenuation rates, which you've been doing this for years Austin you should like you have been doing this for ages It is is a chance to be mainly asking questions. I don't mind a little bit here, but it is mainly his chance to ask you questions for you Almost 16 minutes of Grilling them on the his models there. So sure. Sure. Yeah, my apologies. Go for it. Keep keep addressing your model there So uh With that, uh, Austin, we'll take it back to you Okay So, yeah, like, uh, I think the ground wave and sky wave difference is very interesting people should look into that Um, because uh, ground wave doesn't bounce off the atmosphere. Another question is how come on the globe earth? Which which uh claims that the magnetic field called the geomagnetic field it comes from something called the geodynamo model Which originates around the core specifically the outer core um Why does it predict symmetry of the magnetic field? But on the earth we see that the Earth's magnetic field actually is not symmetrical to such an extent that in the south We have the magnetic field being up to 35 percent weaker So how does that work if on a sphere it should be entirely symmetrical? Yeah, so this is sort of just, um Basically changing the topic topic is flat earth. Do you think you could stick to the topic? Please this is sort of um, electro dynamics on a on a globe earth, which you know, I mean kudos for coming up with a random um vague and and sort of Um, not associated with the topic at all, but do you think you could stick to the topic? Well, I was asking about your model. That is the topic. It's is the earth a globe or is it flat? Dynamo model? Yeah, that's the globe earth model. Yeah. Yeah, so I'm aware that it's dynamo model It's a iron core and that is the best available model at the time for how it works. Um, I know that there's fluctuations within the um magnetic Magnetosphere of the earth and that will like lead to reversal upon occasion Um, but you know, you've brought up some random topic not even to do with flat earth So could you stick to flat earth? Well, this does have to do with the no no no stick to flat earth stick to flat earth go What's your question? I'm just gonna inject here. Um, we are getting near to the end of what we would have to across the damn nation We are good to maybe just wrap up this one last question here Where it is a question related to the gold model And then we'll we'll move into the uh, the q&a here So we're gonna try to if we can focus on the model that you presented in your opening Versus what he's presented and let them The last question there if that's okay. I'm sorry if I feel like I'm picking on you there mark. Yeah, we just had a long time No, no, it's it's just like the the the model for that the dynamo model is the prevalent model among physicists at the moment Now I'm not a physicist, right? So this is what Austin does He brings up topics that are so niche that you don't know how they work kind of thing Now I'm aware that there is a solid iron core surrounded by a Like a a magma That creates by the spinning of the rotation of the earth that creates a dynamo effect. Um now scientists Unsure of exactly how this works because scientists unlike Austin Don't just grab a name call it something and call it a day They actually actually have to have calculations about what they're doing So it's a tentative model based upon our understanding of what's beneath the surface of the earth And perhaps Austin can show me his calculations of what is causing this on a flat earth maybe he can share with us all of the calculations and all of the um Equations that he is doing to show that the electric field of the earth is being produced by something else Can you show that Austin? This is what's called a reversal of the burden of proof Valicy, so I am simply critiquing the positive claim that the earth is a sphere that has a core He he said that it's a iron nickel That uh creates the magnetic field it is not it is actually not the core that creates the magnetic field It's the outer core because the core didn't work because of something called the curry point and those metals lose their magnetic Uh capabilities at a certain temperature the core has to be hotter than that temperature So they moved it to the outer core I was bringing it up because like we can compare the plane earth to the globe earth very efficiently with this specific topic because On a flat earth you would have the center of the magnetic field in the north pole region And then as you move out towards the south it would be expected that the magnetic field would get weaker Because then you would get to the edge Right and then you would get back to where the magnetic field should get stronger And of course we perceive the top half of the toroid live on the block domain While are the inertial plane in the middle and then the bottom half would be underneath us So the data matches a plane earth significantly better than the dynamo model, which admittedly can't explain what sustains it Can't explain why it's not symmetrical can't explain what the core is made of can't explain exactly what the Why the convection currents would be considered perfect when they cannot be cannot explain why it's a 50,000 Uh or 50,000 times difference with the strength of the magnetic field between the core and the surface Can't explain the variance can't explain the reversal periods all kinds of stuff It's it's crazy their magnetic field model doesn't work At all and for me to question the can you give me the calculations on your model, please for the The magnetic field can you give me the calculations and equations for it, please Just drop me a check. I could probably make one. Yeah, but I'm just all you're making all kinds of claims Give me a link or something to them I would have to make the model myself, but you're relying on oh So you don't have a model at all for this You're criticising the model that we have when all of the equations have been done But you don't have a model at all. You don't have any calculations at all.  That's your trick. That's what you do Give me the equations. Give me your predictions. Give me how your model shows Mathematically how these Um anomalies and these things that you're saying are such a massive problem Actually fit your model and your model can't be anything goes Okay, very easily done. We uh have bob wins dot com for example Which takes the magnetic flux data the actual readings from all over the earth the true verifiable magnetic flux data Puts it on an azimuthal projection on a plane and you can actually see it mapped out You can see the prediction matches perfectly with what we see on the plane You can then change it to the globe and it doesn't work Uh and the point is not not equations the point is equations not mathematical equations They're literally built upon all the mathematical data That is obtained from the magnetic flux readings the magnetic variants and flux readings of the magnetic field on the earth Yeah, if you make out magic anything will work. No, it's magic. It's magic ladies and gentlemen. It's magic So what causes it? If I was so wrong, you probably wouldn't know Don't run away from the question. What causes it? What causes the magnetic field? Yeah, so yeah, well, you would have to understand what magnetism is which I can assure you don't and this would be an entire another Okay, I'll answer you and listen. Listen. I'll answer you It'll be over your head and then you'll say its words out. Okay So actually what magnetism is is a conjugate That's not a word. So that's a word that has a meaning conjugate geometric expression of centrifugal divergence and centripetal convergence Okay, and this is actually the geometry of the universe is outward outward force of a rotating body All right, well, it doesn't technically have to be rotating. But yes, it's moving out from the center That's what centrifugal from and what causes that force moving the vortex in the center Which is actually the background medium or the ether under torsion This is certainly over here.  I'm interested. I'm interested in in this aether and and you know your your evidence that an Aether vortex if that's what you're describing actually exists Where's your evidence for that? Well, if we look at all the quantum physicists and all the physicists in the entire world and what they say happens with magnetism They admit there's a vortex in the center of it and that causes all of it They admit they can't explain magnetism and that we have something called virtual photons We had to use to make who you say miss all quantum physicists that exist in the entire world that know anything about magnetism And they say there's an aether vortex. No, that's a strong magnetic strong strong Well, this is the reason why you said you said no, no, no, you said that there was an aether vortex and all physicists admit There is not say that vortex Well, what did you say then what I said was all physicists will tell you That our current particle physics model doesn't work because there's something called virtual photons and they all know There is a vortex in the center of the magnetic field Is that they all admit that it's an aether I didn't say either they say that it's an aether vortex They differ on that there are some that say oh, oh, so it's not do that's not evidence of an aether vortex I didn't claim it to be evidence of the aether vortex. What are you telling me when I asked for evidence What is the evidence for an aether vortex an aether vortex? This is the exact question I asked with it. What is the evidence for an aether vortex in the center of your disc? Okay, so Calm down, man. I get you. I have emotional no I ask a question and you basically go off to physicists. Don't answer the question Try to smuggle in aether vortex when if they say a vortex Well, I can smuggle in my aether vortex into there. You are being dishonest What's the evidence not for a vortex not for any photons not for anything else your aether vortex So if you listen closely, that's exactly what I asked Okay, so Uh, if you interrupt me again, I'm gonna just demand that we move to q&a because you're emotional and you have impulse control issues I think you're interrupting me mark really to stop You're not going to get any more than I'm wrong by interrupting me just excuse me gentlemen. So, uh, Add hominine. Oh, I have a place without any discussion as to what we think America I'll just lay out the question again and then Austin. I'll give you opportunity to answer it and then we'll go into some closing statements for five minutes Up to five minutes if you'd like and then we'll get rid of the q&a if you uh, if you guys are good Okay, so the question is what is your evidence and I provide Calculations for this this, you know or field equations or whatever you want What is your evidence for the aether vortex? Not any vortex anywhere the aether vortex that is at the center of the planet as you've described Yeah, quick google. There you go. I'm literally typing in the chat about how you're scared to hear let me answer Anyway, quick google go for it. I'm literally look there. I just went press entered halfway through the comment debunked again So easy to debunk you okay So the point is the point is that I if this is a I explained that this is a conversation that would be very in depth It would take more time and that you're going to not be capable of having it you prove that to be true But I'm you would have to first establish what the aether is what's the evidence of the aether? Okay, and that would be zero point energy the cashmere effect quantum phone We know that whenever we have a dielectric and magnetic constant of free space impedance We know that they're all quantum physicists will tell you that we know it is not just emptiness in a vacuum It's not newtonian emphasis and not just space and time. There's something else there Okay, that's why there are quantum field theories being proposed with an aetheric framework a substantive background Now we know actually that energy manifests as a vortex. Okay. It's actually the motion under torsion Or twisting a vortex. Okay, we know this is consistent We know that all magnetism actually has a vortex through the center of the toroid It has a blocked domain wall or an inertial plane through the middle And then it has the two geometries of the hyperboloid and the toroid which is centrifugal divergence to torpedo convergence This is what magnetism is it all has vortex is on the globe earth If it's real and there's a magnetic field There's a vortex through the middle of its magnetic field all magnetic fields have it Okay when it comes into what is magnetism I only brought up quantum physicists to point out that they all would acknowledge We don't really know what magnetism is according to the standard particle physics model They claim they had to come up with virtual photons to make the equations work because the predictions did not work And they don't fully understand what magnetism itself is So you'd have to define magnetism, which I did you would have to actually substantiate aether which I just did And then you would have to understand that the magnetic field geometry always has a vortex And then you would be in the right direction understanding that the south being weaker works And now on the globe because the globe predicts a symmetry of the magnetic field, which is not observed Yeah, so all of this is just basically you are claiming that you've solved it knows that no physicist He hasn't provided any evidence. All he's done is basically given line after line about how The centripetal convergence of the blocker domains and things no no physicist agrees with him Everybody tells him he's wrong and yet he still continues on to say no, I have evidence No, you you just have your claims with it. That's just you claiming it. You haven't provided anything You haven't provided any equations. You haven't provided any actual studies into this thing All you've provided is word salad. That's it and some of this might be true in relation to magnetism Not being fully understood. I totally agree But that doesn't make you right and attacking the globe model doesn't make the flat earth right Have you seen the dodge that he's doing? He's basically saying, oh, well, I want to attack the the the globe model He's not talking about flat earth at all. He's avoiding why ships going over the horizon just vanish He's avoiding all of this stuff because he can't address it He can't address why flights take the same amount of time Take sorry a longer amount of time from Perth Johannesburg as opposed to Boston to Honolulu. He can't address that. So instead he's just attacking the flat earth A globe earth as he always does when he doesn't want to talk about his own model All right with that we'll move into our closing statements Where you just finished speaking there mark we'll we'll kick it over to Austin for this closing statement And then we'll let you close out the the show there mark So Austin closing statements.  So like Yeah, I'm not scared to answer any of the questions. I'll just do it right now. So there we go. Sorry. Okay um The differences in times are easy to explain because in fact whenever you look at the trajectories They go over the water So you you would understand that they're going over the water They go over jet streams in that with those southern flights actually very rare flights, by the way Those southern flights they they have up to three or four hour differences from one direction based on the return flight And the original flight It's because they catch jet streams and we have documented ground speed in the north the jet streams are slower Plains going over 800 miles per hour Yes, that's right at ground speed of over 800 miles per hour Um, so pretty simple They go much faster in the south and admit they catch that streams and that's the globe earth's explanation Or why they are drastically different times on the original flight and the return flight Literally, that's the globe earth's explanation as well is that they catch jet streams or go against them And then as to the boat I actually asked him could you articulate my response to still man it and then he went back to the previous thing But I was trying to address when he changed the subject because I did answer the boats very specifically I explained that the horizon is just apparent that there's optical Convergence where the sky appears to meet the ground when we go higher above the earth, right? We're always going to have sky and earth So there has to be a horizon even on a flatter contrary to the ignorant claim that it wouldn't exist on a flatter And as you go higher you see the boat again because you're getting above the visual corridor That has a greater density That's a greater atmospheric occlusion or obstruction So when you get higher you can see further you're looking to do less obstruction and very simple stuff And of course you can see further when you get higher on a flatter to basic geometry Okay, uh for for the rest of the conclusion Basically, uh, there was no true explanation or response to the radio transmission Uh, he brought up the ionosphere again because all the globe scripts is just like ionosphere ionosphere But they don't they don't know that I've already preemptively rebutted that by eliminating it as an answer Okay, sky wave propagation allegedly bounce off the ionosphere now that was made up to save the globe But it still doesn't work. Okay, ground wave propagation is what we're talking about and if I have something He's like it was it was uh admittedly an antenna. It wasn't on the ground. Yeah It was 10 feet off the ground and we're talking about 30 miles of earth curvature blocking a horizontal transmission And the military document doesn't care what anti-flat earthers or whatever that I got to say on the internet They are out in the world doing real Documentation of technology and writing down the results That's all they're doing because they have to use it and they're like a few percent of the time We can receive these transmissions from 800 kilometers away from an antenna. That's just three meters tall Which is 10 feet 497 miles 32 miles of earth curvature should be blocking it. There is no true answer for that I explain that if you have to invoke an azimuthal grid of vision even for anti corpuscular rays and uh That actually explains all celestial objects on the plane earth good understanding that we don't see forever We have circular eyes. We don't see in perfectly straight orthographic lines We see a non euclidian hyperbolic visual curved space I know that these are very descriptive phrases that I'm saying I'm not trying to woo the audience or anything I want you guys some of you guys in the audience are actually interested in the truth And what you guys should do is listen to the words I'm saying and go research understand what exactly is being said and go look into the veracity of the claim Don't have like an emotional visual reaction where you just like oh this guy's using words to sound smart No, I say them specifically to make the most out of each point. Okay. We have hyperbolic non euclidian visual space It's curved. Okay, so we see in curved visual space and this is well known That's why we can't see forever And that's why we see the sun and the moon relative to each observer explains the eclipses everything So you can look at walter bizlin's model and thanks walter now He hates the flat earth and he says oh this would require light to bend in an In unrealistic way, but that's just a claim he makes not understanding actually the light's just optically Appearing to bend through the visual space So basically he admits that all observations do work on the flat earth and the final thing I'll say Is them as the magnetic field also does work perfectly on the Flat earth look up a magnetic field ferro cell image You'll see there's a plane to the middle of every magnetic field that exists And that's where you live live in a toroid. It's a beautiful toroid is stationary topographical plane It's the center of all existence and you can go measure it yourself I know that it sounds crazy when you first hear it But sometimes you just have to you have to step outside of consensus Don't let people gaslight you and mock you and ridicule you Shaming you away from looking into truth because we find that people always do that Uh, and yeah, just looking to it. You'll find out that maybe it's not as crazy as you originally thought. Thank you All right, excellent. That was pretty much a long time. So we'll kick it over to mark for his closing And then we'll get right into our open discussion. Oh, sorry our Q&A. Sorry All right. So what do you mark? Oh, you're muted mark You don't have to ask him Yeah, he's muted now. So I'll just Yeah, I can't unmute myself I can't unmute myself. So yeah, no worries. Um, so the whole idea of this this this planes in jet streams Like one's gonna fly faster in one direction than the other the jet stream that you would have to have To carry one plane twice the distance twice the speed as the other one over twice the speed On that on on his ridiculous model would mean that that plane would crash out of the air The leaps that he is going to and isn't it telling it's it's so telling that after he uses this model Uses this model of vision Basically says well the guy that created it says it's completely unrealistic and wouldn't work But that's just a claim. Yeah, and he's using he's basically showing how ridiculous it is for light to bend 270 degrees into your eyes to come in the opposite direction And Austin says oh well when you said, you know, you see crepuscular rays you see them in the opposite direction Yeah, but the sun doesn't move around and come from a different direction Like this is what he's trying to claim. Why does no other body do this? Why don't we see the sun do this? Why don't we see the moon do this? It's it's the most ridiculous idea Um, the the boat going over the horizon. This boat is 17 stories high According to perspective it should be looking taller as perspective works But instead the bottom is vanishing the just the bottom the other The size of the boat as far as perspective is concerned is not changing But he does not explain why it's only the bottom and not the top Don't forget this boat isn't smaller than you. It's quite a bit larger So it should look distorted to be higher not vanishing from the bottom up So he didn't explain that at all. It was a non-explanation. He addressed a point that didn't come up It says the military uses ground wave Communications. Yeah, sure they do because they do work and you know ground wave diffuses It also goes through solid objects like short wave does not Um, the military says that Austin's wrong. They say that there is a horizon They say they have to shoot artillery behind the horizon They have to make calculations using the globe model Which you know, so Austin's basically quoting people that think he's wrong Just like he quotes physicists that think he's wrong. Everybody thinks he's wrong and he'll say they you know this person No, they don't they think you're wrong Austin.  It's hyperbole. I get that. I really do Um, you know, there's sort of unrealistic way that he evaluates How light works and notice that he's not giving any calculations of how this light is bending He's sort of saying hey this guy that did the model is wrong But i'm not going to provide anything to show that his claim All i'm going to do is make up some words say that's how it works and leave it there He isn't providing anything his model is empty The reason why his model can fit anything that comes up is because there is no Solid or concrete thing to actually look at of course magic can explain everything Because that's what he's using. He just says magic because he's not providing evidence of any vortex He's not providing evidence of any aether. He's not providing evidence of anything All he's saying is hey this thing fits my model. Therefore, it's true Nobody cares unless you can actually provide some evidence some calculations Some predictive power which he he will not do he's been doing this for years And he has not come up with a single equation single mathematical function any predictions whatsoever just said my magic works And that's all he's done and he's been doing this for years You would think he would do one experiment. You think he would take a flight from perth johannesburg They do run quite frequently actually you think he would do something to actually get evidence But no, he doesn't all he says is magic and just expects it to explain Everything All right, but yeah, someone's sending a message saying I've said I've tried a couple things here to try to change my audio So, uh, so sorry to everybody in the live chat if you can't hear me that well Um, so sorry, uh, I don't know what I can. It's not really that bad It's not there. You always have people like that super extra audio in the chat, bro They act like they're hollywood directors Oh, no, no, it's one of the people I really trust sending me a message I wouldn't they wouldn't just you know, sort of make it up. They will lead me astray like this Would you live chat? Would you do that? No, no, he runs the modern day discord. He wouldn't make that up Right wins. There we go. I like this. They like it because I had my mic muted for most of that earlier discussion there So we'll continue on here into our q&a. Thank you guys for coming out of this discussion Fantastic conversation fellas. Uh, we're gonna move into our conversations here So Everybody. Oh sounds better. Some people are saying Awesome. I'd like to hear it. So, uh, we got our first question here is for $1.99 Sauce me down globe sun doesn't work on flat sun Mark try again. So they're saying that the globe sun doesn't work on flat Sun So globe sun doesn't work on flat sun Well, I'll admit there's things that we see that won't work on a flat earth like for instance the shadow the the light showing like a Shadow of a mountain cast upon a cloud Like there's no way that can work on on a flat earth You can't get that the sun lower than than the mountains on a flat earth But you can on a globe earth and you know, there's we've seen pictures of that all the time There's things that the the the you know sun basically going around in circles above the the Flat earth why is it shorter over the arctic? And travels longer over the the southern hemisphere, which it needs to on a flat earth because you've got to have, you know Things like two different continents in light So, you know, I'll just say that the sun what we observe doesn't work on a flat earth as far as the sun is concerned There we go. Sorry not shaking my head at you. I just was getting rid of that terrible chord I think it was causing me all you want Ryan. Oh, no, I was gonna say I was just getting rid of the chord I think that was causing me all my problems communicating to the live chat here. So We'll continue on here Five dollars coming in from better truth austin. How deep Earth is or how deep is the earth I think is what they mean Where does earth's gravity come from? And then they say how deep earth is so they said the same thing twice So how deep is the earth and where does gravity come from? Yeah, so Yeah, like when you say like, where does the earth's gravity come from like, what are you even like? What are you talking about like we have things that fall down 9.8 meters per second squared and actually they're intrinsically electrostatic And we have a measurable downward electric current on the earth. It's measurable It's provably there because you can go outside and measure that there's a downward current on the earth If you wanted to really get into what it is according to nicole tesla, which People seem to think they're smarter than what he would fold your guys's brain in like a card table But whatever he said there's a life giving force inside of the ether It comes down from above us and actually puts the ether under strain Which that's what electrostatic says the ether under stress or strain Which gives you the material world held together intrinsically by all electrostatic bonds everything's electrostatic Technically everything's electromagnetic and it tries to ground and find equilibrium at the air That's where the quote-unquote gravity the only thing that can even be references that comes from and of course the current theory is a joke And I don't remember the other question Uh Yeah, so uh the two-part question here how deep is it how deep is it?  So I I don't know You know, like I think that according to you know the magnetic field you'd get to a point where pressure would be So strongly mediated that you couldn't actually materially access that area If you were able to get to the other side Then in fact you would have the invert inversion of the top half of the magnetic field So there would be something below us Seemingly as as far down as is above us and we maybe live inside of a sphere and they said we lived on one But you can't go further than eight miles So claims beyond that is speculative as to exact distances I try to stick with what can be verified instead of make it up fairy tale stories like the globe All right, excellent. So we'll continue on here Uh bitter truth strikes again for five dollars Uh austin is flat earth means earth has limits and we can't fly over their limit and water should be Falling explain it, please uh, so yeah, what I think they mean is uh If the earth is flat that means earth has limits and we can't fly over that limit And the water should be falling off the edge of the earth is what I think they're implying here So they're asking for you to explain that Yeah, that's crazy because that's like what they show you in second grade You know cartoons or something when they tell you people used to think the earth was flat But if uh, if I walk to the edge of the lake, do I fall off the lake? Does the water fall off the edge of a lake? So what if we're just in effectively a giant lake and uh, when you get to the edge you walk a little further You'd find another lake. Uh, we actually don't know because it's crazy as this sounds Every major country in the world hasn't agreed to an Antarctic tree that says it's illegal to privately And freely explore the Antarctic region. So we don't know what's beyond there Water typically does need to be contained. I think that we're surrounded by water But as to the dimensions no one knows and if there's a container maybe it touches down Which would prevent anything from falling off anyway But again, you can't fall off the edge of a lake.  How are you guys doing for time? I'm chilling. I think you're gonna have to ask him How you doing oh he I think you're on mute again there mark. Sorry here Is sometimes a habit to mute yourself and then you forget that yeah That's all right. So sorry about that. So, uh, are you doing for time there mark? I'm all right. I'm fine. All right, excellent so Yeah, as we move through a q&a there there is opportunity for you guys to have back and forth if you guys want to engage in Some rebuttal there in the questions here It just depends on how long you guys want to go because I know we have ran for a little bit so far Um, so we'll continue on for now and you guys just let me know if anything changes So, uh, mz for five dollars. What's it? If gravity is electromagnetic like you claim that everything is electromagnetic under what spectrum? Is it infrared or ultraviolet? That doesn't that's not even a coherent question. Is gravity, uh Ultraviolet like what what does that mean? Electromagnetic is what they said. Yeah. Yeah, everything's and everything is intrinsically electromagnetic. That's a fact You can't find one thing in the world. That's not electric Literally nothing that exists in the entire world Which is why to explain the discrepancies with the quantum field or the quantum realm of physics and the uh theory of relativity They're actually proposing a new, uh, like a modified Newtonian dynamic theory They're they're proposing unified field theories that actually unify everything under electromagnetism This is one of the most popular solutions to the relativistic problem of the quantum scale But you'll never hear that from people that push the globe as if it's perfect here But you can just go read the papers But uh, yeah everything's intrinsically electrostatic and more specifically if you understood electromagnetism the way it's properly defined Everything is electromagnetic and it seeks its equilibrium at the ground as to what the spectrum is you're talking about light Which is a specific effect or phenomena of really the ether and it's a perturbation or excitation of the ether So we'd have to properly define these terms and that would take a while Well, I think they're just asking you what what the frequency is for the effect If you're saying everything's electromagnetic and gravity is a result of electromagnetic force What is the you know frequency of that electromagnetic force like kilohertz or you know megahertz or what what is it? There's an entire variance of the electromagnetic spectrum So either wouldn't be a specific frequency Does it make sense? So what range is it? All electromagnetic frequencies So it's all electromagnetic frequencies. Yes, everything is emf. Yes Including that visible light Visible light is also electromagnetic. That's right. Yes. I know but I asked what frequency is the gravitational force That's electromagnetic according to you and if you're including visible light, then we should see it You're just lost mark. I'm sorry. No, what frequency is the electromagnetic effect? Of your gravitational force. What what range is it in? Okay, I don't have to believe in what you call gravity gravity is the effect of everything being Okay, well, whatever is pulling us down then whatever force is, you know, whatever is drawing us down What is the frequency range of that electromagnetic effect? You said it was electromagnetic, right?  That's a strawman fallacy I explained that everything is intrinsically electromagnetic that has a huge spectrum because everything is a huge spectrum of emf And the effect of things falling down and seeking their equilibrium is intrinsically electromagnetic because everything that exists is There isn't some new deified force called gravity that's separate from all the other Emfs that exist. It's just the effect overall of everything being intrinsically electromagnetic And finding its equilibrium at the ground and there's a downward electric bias on the earth. This is just very well known So so what's the what's cause so is electromagnetic fields causing the downward bias this bias on the ground But we'd have a downward electric currents on the earth Okay, so what what frequency range if you need to is that current? Oh, this the current it's actually very very small Current it's like millie millie volts very very small We have a hundred volts per meter that goes up and we have a current potential I was still talking Yeah You don't understand any of this. Why pretend you're teaching me Why why are you quoting voltage? We're asking for the frequency. I'm trying to explain to you that it isn't some phenomena called Gravity that people like you bow and worship to it is an overall effect of the fact that all objects seek equilibrium via pressure Mediation, it's the entire emf range the entire emf range is why we have What people falsely call? Gravity you're gonna repeat your question though.  Yeah, do you think that the electromagnetic range is is voltage? I said that we have a hundred volts per meter and then we have a current that goes down You all you do is straw man. All you can do is straw man gas light at home Excuse me fellas.  So, uh, you have a frequency for a respect to the audience's questions. Yeah, keep googling google it I'm not good This is sorry. I'm gonna interact here if we can keep moving forward with our questions here from the live chat Um, yeah, it does look like uh, we do want to respect the audience's time and their questions here So we do have a lot to go through and there'll be lots of chance for discussion I think as we move through So, uh, we're gonna move on here. So bitter truth for five dollars says Light of sun strong enough to lighten the earth if earth is flat There should be day and night at same time Austin explain mark brief on it So they want you to explain If the light the light of the sun is strong enough to lighten the earth if the earth is flat There should be day and night at the same time So that's for you Austin and then they want mark to expand That is it. What what is day and night at the same time even mean, you know Usually people try to say that the whole earth should be lit up or whatever Day and night at the same time doesn't make sense But of course we actually do have observations on the earth where you can see like day over there or night over there Like I don't know every single day you have day and night at the same time that it's ever existed in the history of mankind But uh, typically what glovers say is that the whole earth should be lit up by the sun Which is just incredibly ignorant and that is ridiculous And you have something called attenuation and the lights the lights in the sky are local So you would never have it light up the entire earth And there are there are probably a thousand demonstrations online that show the exact mapping out and again, thanks, walter You can go to walter bislin's motto and it'll show you the exact distribution Of day and night based on every day of the year All right, excellent. And they they did actually ask in that question if mark could expand or rebut What do you say? Yeah, sure Sure, so so the whole idea of the the the sun like providing light and basically this this, you know mythical attenuation that that Austin wants to have happen is that if it was strong enough to reach the earth You would still see the sun at nighttime because the attenuation of the light is not that much That you wouldn't be able to see the source. There is no way that would happen So anywhere on the earth whether you know and usually the the example they give us like oh, it's like a flashlight It only like sort of shines on one part of the time as it goes around Well, the problem with that is if you hold a flashlight over a flat disc From anywhere on the disc you can still see the light. It's a problem and and so flat earth has have to sort of Change attenuation rates for light the diffusal of light through the atmosphere in such a way So it works with their model that that for some reason the the light hits the atmosphere and diffuses Really fast in one direction, but still keeps like shining over the rest to keep it in daytime So I think what they're trying to say and do do excuse me if i'm wrong But I think what they're trying to say is that you'd even even at nighttime You should still should be able to see the sun. That's how attenuation rates work for light We know this we we use it for communications We use the attenuation of light through glass for fiber optics we know the attenuation rates for light and Yeah, austin's model is just wrong because he basically invents attenuation rates at his convenience All right, we'll move on from there. Just bear with me here while I go through my list of questions Yes, we do have quite a few Let's see that one's Not really a question. Sorry. Let me just continue on here austin Flat earth Why is their day in usa but night in other countries? Same answer. So mark is a great actor that you asked right after mark said you have to make things up I guess his whole goal is that you'll just believe him And not go research anything. That's his whole goal. He's just trying to pull the goalable Okay, no one has to change the attenuation rate of light. That's literally something he just made up He just made it up. We just use the same attenuation rate for light That's always been used and it's always known and it's verifiable Based on the density of the the atmosphere You just made this idea up that we had to make a new one because it's easy to make fighters sound so stupid You have to make things up that aren't real.  So the answer is the same that light attenuates. It doesn't travel forever We have a small local light source It can be easily explained with the equal distribution over top of the surface of the earth on a plane Where it only lights up a certain portion of it In fact, if there's some type of container you can actually get 24 hour light around the outside You can get perfect distribution if you use the azimuthal grid of vision explains the exact day and night distribution Of uh, of the of the earth on a plane and what a coincidence, you know, it matches everything perfectly So there you go. It's it's not it's an ignorant position to think flat earth can't be true Because the whole sun the whole earth would be lit up that is 100 not true and frankly very ignorant All right, excellent And I have a question here mark. You're creating flat earthers. Why do you tell the audience? What they should think about what austin says you see that appears deceitful No, I'm basically saying where austin is is a hundred percent wrong. That's all um Austin there are certain things and certain techniques that that are used in debate that are You know blatantly dishonest austin's misrepresentation of what what people have said He's basically his his gish gallop of bring up multiple subjects hoping that you know, you can't address all of them That is what I am addressing not not sort of You know, I mean i'm providing evidence and and what what's telling is that um austin isn't providing any evidence. He's just making claims That's the whole point and every time I ask for evidence. It's just look at this guy's model that disagrees with me or or You know, this is this is how it works and and no actual evidence for it at all Um, that's that's not you know telling people what to think it's pointing out that hey It's it's you know, there's nothing here to look at at all And that's my job during the debate. So yeah, but you're you're entitled to your opinion, you know right for it All right, thank you so much for that and uh, we'll continue on here Just gotta scroll back up because we have a long list. I'll say it again all right, so Uh, what's it? Why does the paper you brought up say that the transitions are occasionally received at 500 miles? Where with flat earth? uh, where with flat would Always be received Oh, okay. I think I understand what they're saying. So I think they're saying that on the flat earth It would always be received and the transitions are Occasionally received at 500 miles. It's not perfectly worded here, but I hope you understand what they mean Yeah, yeah, basically like uh, why is it only received a few percent of the time on a flat earth? It should always be received But that's incorrect because we have something called attenuation based on weather conditions the density the Turbidity of the air and topographical obstruction. We can't send the radio waves the same distance every single time Uh, but it should never be received to ever ever Ever on a globe earth from that far away. That's the point If we don't expect to always receive it at the same distance on a flat earth because there's turbidity And attenuation in the atmos and there's topographical obstruction. So pretty simple Awesome. All right. Thank you guys for being Great sports here where you got uh, lots more questions, but I actually just got a message from uh, james So everybody james is here in in spear Uh, so I have a message from him. He wants to remind you all That we have uh on april 22 27 22 Oh my goodness. Won't you just rip me aside thunder for that So on april 22nd fort worth to check the links in the descriptions for debate con Uh, so that's going to be happening. Uh, yeah on april 22nd. So, uh, Yeah, that's going to be a fun one to watch later and be like, oh I said that so let's continue on with our q&a guys. Uh, this has been great. So Uh, let's see here austin explain what Is radio wave and how it works Why would you want a flat earth to explain stuff to you?  I like what is what's the thing about this? What's awesome thing about this?  He doesn't know basic things What do you think about this? Um, yeah, so what are radio waves their emf their electromagnetic frequencies? They're a non-visible spectrum of light. You'd have to get into what is electromagnetic frequency? What is light the non-visible spectrum of light is actually the same thing as the visible spectrum of light It's nothing more than a perturbation of the background an excitation of vibration A displacement of the background. It's already there. It's just illuminated or not illuminated relative to the spectrum Of vibration. So radio waves are the same thing as light, of course They're both light ones visible ones not we call visible light light when in fact, it's just illumination And uh, it's the same thing as a radio wave and it's a perturbation of the background medium electromagnetic Uh manifestation in the material world is because of a disturbance in the background medium Um, I know some of the concepts may be foreign to people But that doesn't make it word-style. Uh word-style would mean that it's incoherent and doesn't actually make sense Put together, which it clearly does. So that that's the answer radio waves are um You know, there's nothing more than the perturbation or excitation of the background Same thing is light. It's just non-visible all right, excellent and Uh, Ozzy and the gamer five dollars. Thank you so much. We have ground wave propagation goes over mountains Along the ground. So if earth was flat It travels over mountains a curve is no problem Okay, so this shows that you guys don't understand it But so whenever we know that there's topographical obstructions such as mountains We always shoot the radio transmissions from higher elevations Okay, we shoot them from much higher elevations Yes, we do because we know that topographical obstruction topographical obstruction will drastically decrease the efficacy of propagation And it will limit how far you can send it topographical obstruction is one of the main things accounted for in radio transmission Now logically speaking, uh 10 meters up Or 10 feet 10 feet up. Where do you shoot that where there's nothing on the ground? Well, they intentionally shoot these long range where there's not much topographical obstruction or elevational change Yes, they do and it's a 10 foot meter But or it's a 10 foot antenna, but it can be at a higher elevation So we that's why when you see towers in your real life You always see them at higher elevations typically because that's when they're able to reach further So yes, mountains do in fact obstruct which goes to support my point The mountains can obstruct the radio transmissions if they're at too low of elevation because radio transmissions do not just travel through earth Okay, so they get blocked and yes, they keep spreading out But when you have 31 miles, you can't go 500 miles because it's not going to spread out And then just magically continue to gain in amplitude. So there's the answer Yeah, of course, it gets blocked by that the earth that was my point that the earth blocks radio it Can't travel over mountains though It doesn't no it gets blocked by the mountain Does it get blocked by the mountain? No, not necessarily no sighted Made it up We can move on Basically makeup if you want to move on I I didn't know if mark wanted to expand the way he was saying there But we can if he wants to but he made it up No, that's fine Okay, you're good. All right. I'm just uh getting under their Super chat copy and pasted here So we'll just continue on here. Hey mark. Why don't you just concede that Jesus made the earth flat by magic So that we can end these debates Wow I thought that one was funny. I think I think that says it all really Well, I think no, I actually I actually do think it is a faith-based position I I I sort of sort of when I started out I sort of went well not all flat earths You know, I have a have a theistic be or whatever But the more that I'm I'm sort of talking to people I realize that really its foundation is a a religious belief essentially Layton straw man mark knows that he's straw manning but his entire tactic is not religious Is the personal belittle personally belittle other people because that's the only religious That's the only argument he has is also to interrupt But uh, the reason that so many people that are flat earthers believe in a creator Is because if you had two brain cells that work simultaneously You'd understand that if the earth is a stationary topographical plane that would mean it's geocentric Which means that it had to be placed there So they find out that if the earth is in fact the center of everything that exists Something had to put it there and there's a huge range of beliefs as to who did or what it is No one thinks the earth is flat because they're religious Many people find out there has to be a creator because the earth is stationary But they'll keep running with the gaslighting narrative that everyone believes flat earth is a is because of their religion So they can discredit them personally and avoid the true situation is that people come to a creator by recognizing the truth Not the other way around Yeah, so I'll just finish because the question was for me. Yeah, this isn't just a straw man or anything It's just a correlation between the the religious minded and the people that believe in a flat earth So highly credulous people like austin here will sort of make it an article of faith that that the earth has to be flat And so he is basing And you know, his his excuses will I base my belief on the flat earth? You know, not the other way round will great. You're still it's still an article of faith So congratulations for proving my claim Wow, you'll get it one day. Watch it back. Maybe watch this stream. Yeah, you'll get it one day austin Like just take some flights, mate.  What are you talking about?  Have you just take that flight? Yeah, I live in purse Wow, you've taken that exact flight Yeah, why are you gonna sit in line camera like that, bro? I got I got a kid. What are you talking about?  Oh, wow. So yeah, yeah, so austin who's never have you ever left? Maybe you went maybe you went From here fellas Yeah, so he doesn't want to answer Why don't I get the last word if the question was for me? Yeah, why does austin got to interrupt all the time? What why do you have to do this man? Well last word, man It's not yeah, if I could it's it's more about like I do feel like you probably did answer the question there mark But if you didn't want to finish up what you were saying there like the question specifically I know that austin injected a little bit there, but if you wanted to Wrap up there within like a 30 second window. Yeah So a company used to work for um, they had offices in Cape Town so You know the only flight that you can't go direct to Cape Town you have to go through johannesburg So austin is just you know doing what austin does and that's just being a church, you know, so I'll land leave with that All right, uh, so we we'll move on here For witsett. What is saturn? This is from dr. Chris Thompson for five dollars for witsett. What is saturn? Also, how do you explain its apparent spherical shape and the shadow it casts onto its rings? Hmm saturn Okay. Yeah, so I've looked there's I've looked through telescopes and digital cameras at saturn It's not nearly as resolved as the cgi 1000 layered resolved and corrected rgb filter apple applied Images that we see or the admitted visualization lab nasa images which are computer generated Uh, so when you actually look through a telescope, you don't see like incredibly high definitions Shadows and clouds and all this crazy pseudoscience that come from cgi made up nonsense Yes, it does appear to have like a ring around it So the all energetic expression is a double torway with the vortex to the middle where you could draw a sphere around So that doesn't surprise me the light in the sky is clearly energetic Uh, and of course regardless of what it is It does improve that the earth is a tilted wobbling spinning and revolving ball in a vacuum It's insane to me that people think that it does so All right, got you. Thank you so much for that. Um, let me see here Yeah, we got a lot of we've got to keep scrolling up here Uh, $5 retro raster gaming mark. Why are you so angry? It's okay. The earth isn't a ball Don't make this awkward. Uh, I don't think you need to answer that one if you don't want to No, no, no, I'm not I'm not really angry. It's just um, you know It's it's baffling why people hold this archaic, you know Thinking that's been outdated for for centuries and centuries and you know seem to live in the medieval era where they're Safe and secure and the knowledge that some deity is watching over them. I have no idea But you know, you want to do that? That's fine. Go for it.  Please please keep hold of yourself So if you want to debate on evolution, I'm more than happy to in fact I would love a debate on evolution challenge goes out debate me on evolution We could never debate you again after your behavior in this debate.  So so yeah, you just don't what you want to just throw that out But don't actually want to debate on it. Beat me on atheism versus creationism Sure Yeah, well, I'll consider it because I have to reexamine your behavior, which was incredibly Unprofessional No, no, no, I'll do that debate when we when we're doing it Austin. I'm saying I'll have to decide if I agree to debate you again Because your behavior was so professional if you want to send an email to James. I'm sure he would arrange it for you Yeah, I'll send that email. No problem at all. That's that's not going to be a problem I don't think to get you guys back on and doing a debate on the topic Um, but if you guys feel like we should change the format, uh, that's fine by us We have no problem, uh, giving you a different format. Uh, if you want to have a muted discussion Um Specifically, that's fine. Uh, we can get both parties to consent to that before we proceed with doing a different debate But moving on for our super chats for now All right, uh, alex williams for five dollars says ask professor dave once asked As professor dave once asked Do you have a model that can show day slash night and the seasons Yes, it's super easy if you even research flat earth for a couple minutes you would know this I actually explained to you that you can use azimuthal grid of vision to explain everything day and night Uh distribution the seasons the uh different positions of the stars the different rotation of the stars The equinox positions of the sun and moon set and rise the directions in which they come Uh, you can explain all of it azimuthal declination readings all of it All of it's perfectly explained with azimuthal grid of vision even without it Yeah, it's very simple seasons are very easy to explain the sun is closer to the north in the And their summer and closer to the south and theirs and that's what the anilima shows us and time lapse of the sun Actually shows us throughout the year with the pinhole camera. So it's very easy to explain. Yeah, I mean, yeah Speaking of professor david's hilarious. He's afraid to debate me on a fair and uh, non-bias moderated platform So yeah, these are very easy questions to answer and if you're still hung up on it Because you're listening to people on the internet that will until they die repeat the same easily disproven talking points regardless You're never going to get to the truth.  Uh, so to answer your question, uh, re the earth Magnetic field the core and mantle are not uniform This creates abnormalities in the magnetic field. We have seen this with ground penetrating radar And I know that you think that was a good answer like to basically assert the radar thing like oh, no one's gonna know that No, actually, I've read through dozens of papers that are very, uh, complex regarding the discrepancies within the Asymmetrical distribution of the geomagnetic field and the geo dynamo procession And then 100% is not explained based on the difference in the layers of the earth Okay, we're trying to explain why the outer core would have to have an asymmetrical distribution We're trying to explain the variance relative to the outer core And there is no direct mass distribution or change in layers that directly explain the variance and the lack of strength For example, that's why we have something called the south Atlantic anomaly It's called an anomaly because they cannot explain it They do not know what causes it the geomagnetic field should be symmetrical based on the geo dynamo model So basically asserting that it's because of the layers and then saying radar Doesn't actually work on me. Maybe other people that's actually not true Harvard, Stanford, and Yale all agree They do not have in any way a viable explanation for this anomaly or for this discrepancy of asymmetry All right, and we'll continue on from there. Thank you so much for that answer there. What's it? Jag hard grave for ten dollars mark Can you explain why we see entirely different sets of stars in the southern portion of the s hemisphere? Compared to the northern part of the n hemisphere and how this is impossible on a flat earth Yeah, so so basically it's because of the curvature of the earth will eventually lead you To not be able to see the stars on the other side of it. It's all easily explained on a globe model It's it's a reason why Polaris for instance will never be seen but below a certain latitude of the southern hemisphere Mostly they can be like if you're at the equator you can see at some point in the night all all stars because All of them are available to you as the earth spins and you can see that bit the star trails that go from side to side Which wouldn't work on on a flat earth model that that austin's presented at the equator You should see all kinds of weird stuff but Once you get past a certain latitude The curvature of the earth blocks your sight to those stars and we even see them get get lower and lower in Elevation as we travel You know north or south we see them get lower and lower in elevation as we follow the curvature of the earth With with austin's model you have to have magical bending light that sort of you know bends in all kinds of directions in order for you to have that dip going down but on a Globe earth. It's very easily explained You don't need magically bending light just so the audience understands It's how the light appears in your azimuthal grid of vision to bend towards you relative to the observer He's saying that it has to bend a lot Because he's just reading the description of the anti flat earth or who made the model Who actually tried for months to make it his proof that earth found out he couldn't So just released it and said oh, I don't think light could bend this way What it isn't about light physically bending It's about how the lights observe and the guy was asking you about seeing Polaris below the equator where the curve of the earth should block polaris And we shouldn't be able to see it Yeah, light light doesn't bend in the way that that describes that has to happen And it doesn't and as this one grid of vision doesn't explain it either It's just sort of a a corruption which to sort of say hey This this light sort of coming from the opposite direction it should do and that's what it appears to do But the only way that light can bend in the way that it's showing it and even the creator of it said that that's a bends in an unrealistic way Is if if you have an incredibly large mass and you know Obviously, we don't have a black hole to bend the light like that. So it just can't happen What Austin's trying to say is sort of don't believe your eyes kind of thing Like just just believe that that what you're seeing is somehow Walked by perspective around so my model makes sense It doesn't make sense and then don't don't believe that you know It's just sort of unrealistic as the designer of his model has said And it's fascinating that he can't come up with his own Has to use one from somebody that sort of doesn't believe it's real Oh So pretentious i've never debated someone so pretentious ever what are you so angry about Your pretentious condescending intentional deception and strawman It's not deception. It's not specifically just said it's not the light physically bending And then you repeated that the light has to physically bend over and over That's what the creator of the model said right but like has to bend in an unrealistic way The creator of gravity the creator of gravity said that god had to be doing it So you must believe that god exists.  Thank you That's ridiculous like why don't you present your own model then where light isn't bending unrealistically Austin Why don't you present your own model where light isn't bending unrealistically? So do I get the final word or is Austin just going to continue to talk? Well, I will say this if it's going to be four minutes of him personally insulting me really pretentiously Then I'm not as he gets an unimpeded attack Austin personally I would ask just excuse me both of you. I would just ask that for the duration of the q&a um, if you guys want to respond to each other's claims or Answers to the questions. That's fine Just in your answers if you can avoid, you know attacking the other person I think that would be fruitful for our discussion So we'll move on from here um We had a whole bunch more come on and so we'll see here Both interlock but interlock winners explain each model's studies Meteorology and how both create predictions on the weather Mention the Doppler radio as well. So, uh, I'm going to kick this one over to mark To answer and we'll give you a minute mark to Outlay your answer for that. So explain how each model studies meteorology And how both create predictions on the weather mention the Doppler radio as well So I'm going to give you two minutes there Mark and I'll be right back, okay? Yeah, so so with with the globe model it basically most of the weather patterns are based upon the Corollus effect. It's why that Typhoons in the southern hemisphere rotate one way and and hurricanes in the northern hemisphere or tornadoes in the northern hemisphere Rotate the other way because of that Corollus effect that that effect we can sort of Generate patterns and from these patterns, of course the the Doppler radio is I believe it's basically radio waves that see where the Low and high pressure systems are in order to predict weather patterns in the future um That's as far as I understand how meteorology works, but um on the the Globe earth that that corollus effect is very easily explained. It's very definitively explained Why? Weather systems rotate and different corrections is perfectly explained Over to you wits it Yeah, so people love to say that that's like the hurricanes go the opposite way in the north and the south What they probably all don't do that They probably don't all do that. It's just a talking point. It's always a talking point but of course you have a vortex if you actually look at the Ocean currents the magnetic flux and the wind patterns over a plane projection It all does perfect circles concentric circles out from the center. You look at it on the globe It's all over the place. It's inconsistent. There's all kinds of anomalies. It's very anomalous Of course the tides fit within this Of course, you have tidal nodes which don't make sense of the tidal theory of the globe Ono and we actually use for majority of our weather data We have high altitude balloons that are sent up daily that gather our data using horizontal propagation Assuming a plane underneath it to gather the data It mapped out over small segments of a plane and stitched together to try to make cartoons to convince people that it's actually on a ball So actually all the weather data makes more sense On a plane projection as can easily be seen by just examining the data projected onto both models Oh, they actually do spin in different directions And or usually spin in different directions in the northern southern hemisphere depending on how close they are to the equator Shouldn't they always do that Well, it depends on how close they are to the equator as I said, so if it's further below the equator than it always does it Wrong Does not It does just look it up. I know you're just googling it right now. Look it up Yeah, just did it. I'm right So if I show you Okay, we can move on from there fellas if you'd like we've got some more chats here. Um Yeah, I was gonna say if I ask you a question to Either one of you if If either one of you like if I ask a question for austin if you have anything you want to grab mark or if you use the washroom Feel free to I know you just woke up there. So, uh, you know that that coffee can sometimes Sometimes do some stuff. So Yeah, well, I'm pretty tired, but it's just the start of my day. So I could I could go all day at this Absolutely. Okay. Excellent. Well, I'm glad so and you're doing good austin Uh, yeah, yeah, all right. Excellent Uh, so we have here. What does falsifiability mean? Thank you mark. So that's for you mark Okay, so falsifiability means that there are Things that can be falsified about that that if the model that basically if the observations prove That that they're wrong a hypothesis is presented if that hypothesis isn't Is is comes true Then it proves the model wrong This has been done all the time with globe earth and the the whole point about it is that you've got to Do experimentation and show you're working on that hypothesis You can't just say if the globe model is wrong then x x then it's wrong You have to actually demonstrate that the the model has been falsified So, you know, there's a there's a lot of things that can be done like this Like the falsification of the flat earth model if we can, you know, bounce radio signals off of the moon Then that's falsification of the data if boats vanish bottom up. That's falsification of it Sort of these things are put in in scientific terms into a hypothesis. It's an observation Questioning hypothesis and the falsification of that that hypothesis is the important part All right, and No response there on your end there, Austin. I was just so long I'd rather just go next Yeah, that's all right So we have Right here We'll skip that one. Oh, that's just kind of a coming at you mark. So we'll go up to Thank you for your two dollars read it out. I'm interested read it out read it out. I'm I'm interested Well, I'm not sure it says mark. Oh on ether vortex sym let me look up what sym means because I don't shake my Shake your I am I don't know Yeah, you can you can tell us in the live chat because we we are not gonna google that We are not those types of people. I don't think we know a whole lot of internet lingo over here So That's all right. If we want to move on from there. We thank you so much for your two dollar donation. They're normally there um vmz For five dollars says wood set. Why do you refer to physics when it's geologists that work with magnetism? Wow, what a question. So again The geomagnetic field is a known problem for the current globe earth model. It is a fact It is a huge problem. Okay. It doesn't it has a symmetry It has the south atlantic anomaly It has a greater variance in the magnetic field than predicted Based on the movement with the predictions of geology and when the poles are supposed to shift It doesn't match at all. It's off by thousands of percents based on using supercomputers At prestigious universities and labs for the last decade They have not been able to get a model to even mathematically work to be able to explain the convection currents coming from the core To be able to explain any of it the density distribution relative to the magnetic properties with a variance in the magnetic field And I could go on and on just a fact Geology and the geo dynamo model with the geomagnetic model do not mesh together at all So that's ironic part is uh, I bring up physics because physics Debunks the globe consistently. So you have a dynamo model on a sphere. You have a symmetrical magnetic field You can prove this a hundred different ways. That's not what we have on the earth Yeah, just I point out that physics is bastardized because of a religious bias that comes from the Copernican principle Which was literally brought to us by sorcerers and sun worshipers Admittedly, I think it's weird that people think that science somehow that people worship the sun So they made up a story All right Uh, so we'll move on nick for two dollars mark. You're telling us what to think stop, dude Uh, I'm just presenting the fact of reality. Um, the reality is that the globe isn't You know, the earth is a globe Um, that the fact of the matter is that it does spin And the fact of the matter is that we do see the effects of this all the time The fact of the matter is there is a horizon and it's caused by the curvature of the earth Um, there's there's no like there's no conspiracy There's no sort of people trying to make you think to what to believe or whatever people are just presenting the facts This is what scientists do they go out to try and find facts and and sort of With everything that we've been sort of sciences accomplished and discovered and achieved kind of thing You'd rely on it for modern medicine. You're lying at all kinds of things, you know We just present facts and the fact is that the earth is a globe I mean, I could say the same thing, you know The the flat earth does want me to think that it's a it's a it's a flat earth Like I get that you believe that it's just it's not a fact. I'm sorry You believe a story that was crafted to you and it's uh a pseudo scientific cult of Scientism where you just believe that other people think for you and you hand your thinking over That's what the globe earth model does it convinces people to hand their thinking over to the idea of science and scientists and Physicists, but when we get into the specifics Austin just looks for random things that no one knows about No, we're actually taking the claim with specificity again Let me just make this point. This is a fact you guys should go watch this documentary helio sorcery Or you should go to the summit True earth equinox summit You'll learn some of this which is the way the current model was come up with is all philosophy and religion Literally the perfect shapes of sphere philosophy. Oh, everything must be empty around us privation philosophy Oh, we must go around the sun because we worship the sun because it represents illumination of oneself Philosophy and religion and the people the go read Copernicus's writings or listen to mark misrepresent where it came from Go watch helio sorcery the documentary and you will find out alchemists sorcerers and sun worshipers Objectively made the model and if you think it's reality Then you have to think that they just happen to get lucky with their religion Truth is all evidence shows the earth's not moving and you think everything's an illusion and actually the earth is moving And their religion's true. It's weird. It's a religion that hates a creator And you should look into it using the word science over and over doesn't change the fact that it's a religion Okay, so just to just to sort of get away from the magic of sorcerers and you know, Whatever it is that that osmond's talking about maybe there's dragons in this on who knows So there's no sorcerers in science. There's no religious bias in science a lot of people that do science Christian and buddhist and You know all it really doesn't favor any religion over and over what they focus on what we can demonstrate to be evidentially true The the whole idea that it's just one massive conspiracy of the bunch of magicians or sorcerers or something like that It's just one of the more wacky things i've ever heard There's institutions that focus on certain things of astronomy geology all all around the globe from different countries different religions People that that you know are absolutely religious still do science and that their contribution is really good There's nothing wrong with that, but sort of wits it wants you to believe there's a big conspiracy. Well, it's just not true Um, there's no conspiracy. There's no sorcerers. There's no, you know, sort of sun worship Excuse me, excuse me. I can't sit here. There's no sun You just did that wits it because you went then I went now you have another 10 minutes and then I You just did that You just did that so many questions so we don't have a whole lot of sermon every time It's fine. Well, then why do you do it wits it because you went once and then I went once But then you want to do another sermon at the end of it every time as look the way this works Is the person that was asked the question gets the last word if you don't it works. I have stuff to do so Yeah, can we come try to respect each other and come to an agreement that we'll both try to keep it more concise So Excellent, I appreciate you guys being so coarse with one another I think that's that's why when you guys suggested having another debate I thought, you know, why not, you know, you guys really do seem to communicate Just fine as far as expressing your ideas to one another, you know, despite some interruptions. This has been great so What we have here is we'll continue on with our discussions Uh, we have tea baggins for five dollars Um, it's more of a thank you to you tea baggins. Uh, if you want me to read it out, but it's uh, it's not really a question It looks it's more like an attack. So we can move on from that ZN talks 10 dollars wit You don't have to answer for all things. So I am right in quotation marks So, oh, sorry, I read that wrong wit You don't have to answer for all things. So I am right It's a giant argument from ignorance using his logic I should reject all flat earth claims that have no explanatory power, right witsett Uh, sure and we should apply the same logic to all globe earth claims that have no explanatory power But that's the point you guys keep missing and you just want to say if I can come up with one question I think I can't work out on the flatter. Wilberth becomes real again Incorrect. Okay. We can't explain tons of stuff on the globe I just told you the core model the geomagnetic model the geo dynamo model the actual rotation and procession matching with the core model The fact that you can't actually explain the michelson-morley without just presupposing that there's a whole new dimension in changing all physics You can't explain mercury's uh perihelion shift And you extend that to the rest of the universe and you have a discrepancy of 95 86 or 83 of the matter has to be something that's unidentified undetected blah blah blah Oh, you're changing the subject. No the globe earth model makes all these claims And if you can't explain all that then someone like mark would say that's how science works We don't know everything But if a flat earth earth doesn't know literally everything about all of existence then the earth becomes a ball again That's a very ignorant way of going about it It just shows that you have confirmation by incognito dissonance and just to reiterate the last part Objectively no matter how many people say gas like me and say dragons and stuff It was come up with by sun worshipers. You can go research it. That's a fact Okay, no matter what anyone says in the chat about me lying go research who came up with the heliocentric model Oh, this is hilarious wits it goes Can we agree to be concise and then goes on for minutes and minutes on end bring up multiple topics after Maybe one minute Oh, sure. Yeah. No, that's time dilation. We don't want to spend too much time commenting on it Yeah, yeah, it's okay. So so this is the whole problem that like flat earth has huge problems in it And you can point them out. You can point them out You can point them out They can't really give a model to explain what how they're overcome that they want us to provide a model that covers Absolutely any question they've got to cover and this is what oseans trying to say that if if they don't provide a model It can cover everything and they don't have to provide answers to anything Because what they're doing and notice that most of witness what what evidence has wits it presented for a flat earth Not against a globe earth, but against bore a flat earth Almost nothing. In fact, nothing at all. He has not actually provided any evidence for Flat earth only just trying to pick apart things that aren't really a problem on the globe earth But you can pick up tons of stuff on a flat earth. But you know, oh, that was 30 seconds wits it a minute Yeah, let's continue on from there. That's fine. So Excuse me. Uh, yeah, we're gonna try to avoid that weekend. Uh, so, uh, we'll continue I'm five dollars from mish Michael loin. There we go Based on the assumption of a non rotating flat earth Uh, that's in quotation marks and the quotation is to nasa The earth is flat 100 I'm I don't What's the question? I'm not sure. I think they've made a declaration so we can move on if that doesn't seem fruitful for They're talking maybe about like in one of the nasa training manual somewhere says we assume a flat plane for this exercise and it's sort of Some flutters have taken it to mean, um, you know, the earth is flat. So says It's just to simplify the calculations Okay, we can move on. We don't we don't need to hear you repeat the script The well, I was just trying to well You were reading into the question to repeat a script with strawman's fallacies built in boring Look, they asked a question austin. I was trying to get find out what you know We're about to go on a minute explanation of the documents from nasa. I summarized it in three words. Okay. I'm just trying to help us out Well, that's all right. It depends on whether you guys are uh pressed for time I know we've been going for a little bit here. There's a lot fine, but you know when someone sends in a super chat I address it. It's just been polite. I know you're not cool with that It's at the earth flat. You didn't address that at all. So we we will move along, uh, since uh, austin It's just pressing that he's Sure, uh, please mark give us three things we can do to prove flat earth to you Three things you can do. Um, I'm not sure. I mean you could basically Demonstrate it by maybe showing a photo of it, you know, we've got tons of photos of a of a, you know, round earth um, you could do it by, um Um, you know, presenting equations, um in a proper, you know Way that that shows that light can bend or our perspective changes in this way, you know Correct equations with mathematical proofs to show that this is happening. Um, or you could produce some sort of Written paper that has been, you know reviewed by physicists and people that know exactly what they're talking about That show you that the earth is flat easy All right Um, we'll continue on for there. Siggy Sigwald 666 666 this the angular size of the sun doesn't change Which should ha definitely happen if the earth was flat That alone should be enough for any reasonable person. I'm so sorry. I was trying to read that question and instantly I like a year. Oh, you're fine iron maiden on my head So the angular size of the sun doesn't change which should definitely happen if the earth was flat That alone should be enough for any reasonable person and up to you Yeah, if you don't actually understand it and you can show that focal points don't change You can show all charted different conditions We have like 10 different demonstrations that show the angular size of a light wouldn't change in addition to that It would depend on the medium that it's in and what's between you and it and of course the most important part is actually We have an azimuthal grid of vision which explains all of that perfectly including the position the declination and the actual apparent size So no, that's just a false claim that people make and of course it does change angular size throughout the year As the moon also changes angular size as if it was local In you guys hijacked that claimant's proof of your model when you made your model from the fact it changes Then claim it should change every day because you don't understand that it actually shouldn't because it's more like a focal point We have an azimuthal grid of vision All right, and continuing on kurt hanneman says for five dollars Why are our heads shaped the way they are? current I'm not sure if this conversation is uh completely pertaining Maybe if we have an argument as to how gravity shaped our heads the way they are I don't know if that's what they're implying here or if there's something the flat earth or globe earth is Going to entail there, but if you know you gentlemen want to comment Why are our heads are shaped the way they are? Yeah, yeah, sure.  It's all quiet You heard it. You heard it here folks. We came from the same ancestors as strawberries and rats Oh, like so long ago. Sure. Yeah You want to believe your ancestors the same as a rat go for brother. Well, we'll get to that debate from the sounds of things Yeah, it's another day that debate would be good. I think it would be too. Uh, so, uh, kango 44 Uh, $22 wits it. I have watched you in many debates.  I think you're just fundamentally dishonest $22 Yeah, you think people did it thousands of years ago because you read a google result And it said they put sticks in the ground and measured the size of the earth Dude, okay I actually have gone out and made observations on the earth many times and we've done laser tests mirror flashes long distance Observations and all of these things far extend past the curvature of the earth The reality is you for sure and all the people that come mock the flat earth There's haven't gone out into the world and tested anything They've never taken a mirror and shown it 22 miles across the lake from the beach They've never shot a laser across the lake. They've never good long distance observations from six inches above the earth Using the globe earth prediction seeing it way too far They've never went and examined even the evidence other people compiled Like kanagu being seen just on specific days where the sun goes beneath it nothing to do with refraction being, you know Supposedly obstructed by miles, but we can still see it. So I did test the earth I'm not being dishonest the people being dishonest are the people that just try to gaslight the other people Thinking outside the box to pretend they're smart by conforming to the consensus Yeah, so we still do experiments on on the you'd never know what we still do these experiments and we still do like folk or pendulum We still do Um, you know Cavendish experiment We still do all of these experiments and you know, what's funny is that the gerenism did the light experiment came up the earth Is it flat? So it was closer to flat thing globe and you've already in slip. Thank you Uh, no, that's not qui