versus globe earth and we're starting right big debate if this is your first time here at morm hosting debates on Science religion and politics and want to let you know as well no matter what walk of life you were from folks We really do hope you feel welcome. We're glad you're here and it's gonna be a fun one tonight you guys I am thrilled so what we are going to do is I'll let you know the format first We're going to have a flexible roughly 10 minute opening statement from each speaker and again That's flexible to meet the speaker's needs then after that which by the way We'll have Paul going first and then wits it doing his opening as well Followed by open conversation So kind of a civil discourse followed by Q&A at the end So if you happen to have a question and feel free to fire it into the old live chat And you can tag me with at modern-day debate That makes it easier for me to see every question so I can put it in that Q&A list And what we're going to do is introduce our guests We're thrilled to have them with us and we also want to give them a chance to share about their links Which I have put in the description folks So if you want to hear more from our guests You certainly can by clicking on those links and that includes if you're listening via podcast which by the way folks I have to tell you we are thrilled people have apparently found the podcast useful We see a lot of downloads which is encouraging that it's useful and so want to encourage you folks If you haven't checked us out on podcast yet Well, hey, pull out your favorite podcast app on your phone and find us on there But with that we're going to introduce our guests first rule to have them and so first Paul We're thrilled to have you here folks want to let you know Paul is a Experienced pilot. He's got a how many years is it Paul if I can ask I Started flying in 1999 I started flying gliders and then I progressed on to power their craft I wouldn't trust myself as an experienced pilot. I am I'm not I'm not a commercial pilot I just I just have me national private pilot a slice and supply small aircraft You got it. Well, thanks so much for your humble spirit. I appreciate that is so what we're gonna do is what I say Actually, Paul if you can share what people can expect to find it your link in the description. Thanks again for being here Yeah, if you have a look on the on my link, you'll find some videos of flying I don't have a great deal of contacts contacts out there Let's say there's some flying videos as little bits and bobs. I'm hoping to build the channel up a little bit more Hopefully this will encourage them to maybe take part in a few more debates and and things like that You got it. Thanks so much Paul and kicking it over to wits. It gets it good to have you back He's been here a number of times and here he is again with his link in the description What can people expect to find at that link with it? Well, we do talk about the earth here and there and of course upload videos where I go out and I You know tell people the truth in real life and show people It's not really as intimidating as it may seem you just have to go do it because we're being censored and on the internet So might as well go do it and then you know, basically anything under the Sun man Anything that needs to be questioned that we've been taught that seems to be lacking in empirical evidence We think for ourselves and that's that's pretty much it and they're censoring me So, you know stay up to date and I'll let you know where we go from there You got it Well worth thrilled to have you back as well Austin And so what we were going to do is as mentioned jump into those opening statements So Paul the floor is all yours for your opening statement Actually, it was it was Austin that was gonna go first because mine is gonna basically follow on with with what Austin has to say That's right. Thank you very much for that. So we'll start with Austin. The floor is all yours and Thanks so much again, both of you Yeah Okay I'm on tour telling people everyone around the nation that they've been lied to about the earth It's called the clown world tour. So, you know, I don't have a presentation for a save for you But of course being a pilot is Really of no value when it comes to or pertinent to this discussion This is one for of course, you cannot see the curvature admittedly from one of the main scientific communicators Neil deGrasse Tyson from over 128,000 feet where Felix Bumgarner jumped commercial flight flies A fourth of that altitude you admitted you weren't a commercial flight.  I used to work at an airport a private airport No hundreds of pilots on a first name basis every single time I asked them do they account for curvature? They chuckle say of course not and the horizon's always horizontal and that's how you actually acclimate your flight. Um Nothing about a plane or flying one Has anything to do with a presuppose convexity of terra firma? Of course, it's literally called a plane because it flies over a plane and assumes a flat non-rotating surface As in every single patent of a plane ever assumes that Pilots are trained on a target generation or generation facility which assumes A flat non-rotating service and in the gates the gravity vector. So really Bluntly Being a pilot in no way does anything What gives firsthand testimony to physical evidence of the earth being flat? This is because the efficacy of the use case of flying a plane is actually physical evidence Whenever it is successful because it assumes a flat non-rotating surface You have to count for convexity and terra firma. You have to count for movement You'd have to count for this mystical choreolus. That's pseudo scientific nonsense. And none of that's the case Uh So yeah, it's pretty much Like I always say the globe earth actually has the burden of proof, right? So they're making a positive claim of where we live Contrary to all empirical evidence. So when I say the earth station area, I have literally all empirical evidence to back that up Um, you actually claim something antithetical to all empirical evidence as that we're moving So you have the evidence or you have the burden of proof, right? Because you're making the claim Antithetical to empirical evidence. It's the same thing with the movement. It's the same thing with the convexity rate It's the same thing with space being a vacuum that we can go to So objectively in an intellectual form, you know, the globe earth proponent has the burden of proof And there is no physical empirical evidence of even the potentiality of any of these things Water bending convexly around the exterior of a spinning object in a vacuum with pressure adjacent to an air perfectly vacuum Void of physical containment Water bending convexly in and of itself is an impossibility because of fluid statics so Where the debate goes from here will be kind of, you know, it'll be on the globe proponent because Again, they have the burden of proof. So that's pretty much it. I guess in conclusion, I will say Presuppositions and reifications don't mean anything. Tell me a creative fairytale as to how it could work or how you think it works Uh, doesn't mean anything. So like, oh, we don't feel it even but this is why Well, that's just a pseudo scientific presupposition of begging the question fallacy Reification fallacies are insufficient when to discussing something as as big as a, you know, definitive natural claims You're making definitive claims about the natural world with natural empirical evidence Um, so yeah, that's about it the earth provably geosynthetics stationary plane until proven otherwise You got it. Thank you very much. Whitsett gets it. We'll kick it over to paul for his opening as well Thanks so much paul. The floor is all yours Yeah, thanks austin for that. I do agree with you that um flying a plane um Making a difference to the to the globe Um, it will all work on a flat surface and it'll work on A globe surface as well. I just need to put my headset in because I just want to do a little Presentation and sometimes when I share my screen, I'll lose the volume.  Can you hear me still? Right. Lovely. Right. I just need to go to share screen Right. Can you see that? I think, uh, let's see the window that we're seeing Is the zoom window. I think you might have, uh, clicked on the auxiliary zoom window Instead of the power point or it might be your browser actually So I think let me try this really quick what I'll do is pop you out of Screen share and then I think if you try the same method you did I think it might just be a different window that you were trying to show us Right. So I click on the share screen. Yes. Mm-hmm. Yep. That's uh, I think that's still just like the zoom Yeah, just a minute. Let's see if I can What's that like now? It should be a power point window quite yet. All right. Just a minute We closed that So I clicked on share screen What's that like? It's the power point I'm trying to share Yeah, I think that uh, what you'd want to do is So like once you click on the old green screen share button Then you just kind of look like zoom will give you like an option to choose from all the different windows that you have on your computer And you it's not giving me the unfortunately. It's not giving me the power point window Is it and the power point windows for sure up? No, it's not come up I wonder if I Open the power point and then go to share so that now should come up with The power point here. Yes, absolutely. All right, brilliant We got there eventually. Yep Right. So as uh, as Austin said in his opening statement, he doesn't feel that he holds the burden of proof And I actually agree with him. He doesn't hold the burden of proof because he's not claiming the shape of the earth What he's doing is uh, he doesn't accept the globe earth and I've also noticed in a few of his um Debates he said that um, he would like one single piece of evidence That follows the scientific method So what is the scientific method you start off by asking the question do some background background research constructs an hypothesis Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment Analyze your data and draw a conclusion report your results was your hypothesis correct So we're going to shoot back in time a couple of thousand years and I know you've heard this one before which is it Ask a question our Austin is whilst working as a librarian learned that during the summer solstice The sun cast no shadow in serene but in in the outside alexandra at the same time the sun did cast a shadow why Do background research Our studies knew the distance from alexandra to serene to be 500 miles or 800 kilometers Our studies measured the difference in the angles of the and the shadows You know alexandra and serene Constructs an hypothesis with the information he had collected our studies using simple geometry Hypothesize the earth was a globe Test the hypothesis Let's shoot forward now a thousand plus years At this time in europe shipbuilding had come a long way Navigation needed to improve a ship's travel further away from land You could never cross the ocean unless you have the courage to lose the sight of the shore said the italian explorer christopher columbus latitude and longitude By the by using latitude and longitude lines on a globe We can split the globe into sections that can give positions on any part of that globe latitude lines go from the equator north and south In degrees the equator is zero degrees latitude. So this is the equator. You can see my mouth And the latitude lines run south and north in degrees Longitude move west to east from the prime meridian, which is in Greenwich, England And that is the zero degrees latitude. So you got zero degrees latitude and The from the equator moving upwards These degrees can be brought them down even further so we can have degrees minutes and seconds for example Fort to one degrees north 24 minutes and 12 seconds east two degrees 10 minutes 26 seconds will put you in Barcelona finding latitude and longitude Sailors find find their latitude by using celestial objects such as such as a north star Finding longitude was more difficult To find longitude. You need to know the time in Greenwich And the time where you are We know the sun moves across the sky at 15 degrees per hour If it's midday in Greenwich And only 100 hours at your location. You are 30 degrees west of Greenwich If it's 1400 hours at your location, you are 30 degrees east of Greenwich This was a problem for sailors as they didn't have an accurate way of telling the time Along came John Harrison who invented the moon parameter solving this problem of finding longitude And just for the the UK Viewers if you look at the picture to the right and you remember watching Only fools and horses. This was the watch that they found which made the millionaires analyse the data Modern navigation charts used by sailors and pilots use charts with latitude and longitude We know these charts work as they are used successfully by thousands of people every day These charts only work on a globe earth as the longitude lines get closer together the further north or south you grow from the equator Navigation charts don't fit on a flat earth All the latitude and longitude lines need to all join up and remain the correct distance if you look at the Flat earth map on the right, which is quite often used by flat earthers You've got the longitude lines running from north to south And the equator would be around about here So they fit going north because the longitude lines get shorter the further you go up, but if you look The further south they go the more they get wider apart That does not fit with the navigational charts all navigational charts Correspond with the globe. So this model would not work Can the globe be falsified? Fundamental to science is the concept of hypotheses being falsified. How can my hypothesis I've just presented be falsified number one Show how navigation charts fit on the flat earth without any alterations to the charts number two Show how the navigational charts don't work in the real world and number three Show how navigation charts don't fit the globe And if you look at the picture on the right This is what I've drawn out myself So we've got the equator here and this is the northern hemisphere and as you can see All the longitudinal lines from the equator going up get narrower Going south of the equator the longitudinal lines also need to get narrower and this is the only way I could make it work And as you can see If you were to follow that model you've got gaps here and gaps here which will not Fit with the natural world if you remove these and look at that shape and then fold these backwards Just what you've got a globe that's demonstrating that the navigational charts used by sailors and pilots with the longitudinal and latitude lines Would not fit on a flat earth and would only fit on the globe Report the results then after looking at all the data. The only conclusion is the earth is a globe And it stops sharing that bit Thank you very much and also want to remind you folks forgot to mention it earlier We are pumped as in the next month. We are scheduling it for some time in febru- in march Matt de la Hunte will be returning to debate samuel nasan on whether or not jesus fulfilled prophecy You don't want to miss that folks hit that subscribe button if you haven't already and be sure to hit that notification bell So you get all notifications because you won't want to miss that one live and that's coming up in march as mentioned So with that gentlemen, thanks very much for your openings and what we are going to do is open it up to open conversation The floor is all yours All right, so I'll just go ahead and start so your first PowerPoint slide You said austin likes to talk about science and I'd like to see one piece of scientific evidence for the globe And yeah, that's correct I do say that and science is not some subjective thing that you can type it on a power point and change the definition of it Right. It's called the Socratic method. We have agreed upon defined terms so that we actually are, you know, productive And science is it has a very, uh, you know, definable Uh, parameter to it, right? So you have your naturally occurring observable phenomena. That's your first step So if you don't have that You're not even in the ballpark of science, bro Austin, I'm not here to actually debate you on science I've basically done the power point putting out a presentation to why I think that the earth is a globe Okay, I've demonstrated. I believe Why I believe that it's a globe Can you debunk what I've just said? Can you make the navigational charts fit on a flat surface? Sure. Well for one, I was going to go through your power points one by one But we can skip around and you you just basically conceded You believe the earth's a globe. Yeah, well, I did too, bro I was taught the earth's a globe. This isn't a belief. It's about empirical verifiability and falsifiability you touched on that Something must be falsifiable in order to even be considered to be viable Right, but if you want to talk about the navigation chart, sure Whatever they use Cartesian coordinate systems in every map that exists is flat and they all go based off of Polaris And then the sky in fact launch to a latitude or derivative of the motion the cyclical nature of the sky The sky moves and the earth doesn't move You just say that the sky doesn't move the earth is moving and that it's a ball Then you take the Cartesian coordinates at a z-axis with the presupposition of sphericity and then you map it out And so in addition to that there is no such thing as like You know land layout in a globe projection that isn't disproportionate So, you know basically implicit in your claim is that Like traveling using a globe is real efficient and that's patently false And there is no such thing as a globe projection that isn't disproportionate And whenever they actually navigate they assume Cartesian coordinates with x and y coordinates to their local positioning system So, you know, that's just once again I I preface by saying just presupposing the earth's a ball and then telling me look we traveled and we mapped down a theoretical ball Doesn't actually do anything but beg the question Well, no because if you look at any navigational charts Like I explained before when you look at the longitudinal and lines on these charts, they correspond Exactly with the globe because the globe sir was the globe was designed based on that Right, of course it does. Yeah, so They follow exactly what's on the globe these these do if you lay all these charts if you lay all these charts out Flat if you had a big enough space to lay all these charts out That is the shape that they will follow Is that where we live? Did we live on that? Well, that's what that's well if it's flat. Yes, that's what we'd have to live on That's inaccurate. There's no such thing as an accurate map because But if you put these together you'll get a globe Which we know we all follow exactly What is on the globe and the gloves behind it? They all follow exactly speaking of these We're getting people to sign these and we're selling them But you know what's on the bottom of all of them not for educational purposes This is not an accurate representation of reality whatsoever and it's actually admitted by the people that produced them Manufacturing you wouldn't use these for navigation. No, they wouldn't But because because the detail is too small. I mean you look at this this here You've got the UK there. How the hell could you use that for navigation? No, no, no, sir. That's not why they're not good They're not accurate. They're admittedly disproportionate When I look at this and I look at the longitudinal lines on here. They match up. Do you know why? Well Okay, well, I'll tell you why they match up because again longitude and latitude are derivative of meaning derived From the sky's movement So they took the movement then the sky Locations relative to the positioning throughout different times of the year with the sky And then they reverse engineered a model assuming the globe earth and then mapped out the longitude and latitude aligns with and assumes The axis so then to take the model mapped around it and say this is it works Of course, it works. It was made after the fact reverse engineering the derivative of the sky cyclical nature So this is a presupposition. This is a beggin the question fallacy But if all navigational charts like I said like like this one for instance, I can't open it up It's massive but all these navigational charts Correspond to what is on this globe and like I've just said if you let all these charts out on the ground And you correspond all along the toodle and latitude lines together. So they are all touching You will get that shape That shape is the flat shape of a globe because like I said, if you fold these these back in Guess what you've got you've got yourself The globe is bending that piece of paper somehow giving me empirical evidence at the earth's the balsa because they say 70% of its water and water find This level we feather the earth. It's not a globe. This is accurate and you could successfully navigate Around the round the globe with this that's flat bro. Yes. I know it is And that's what it looked like if you join them all together Which corresponds to this and that's because there's no such thing as a completely If you lay them all flat They will all join up when you get to the southern hemisphere. They will look it will look like that Is there is the globe map accurate? Is the what? map accurate The globe you mean or the navigation is the globe accurate is the is the land layout on the globe accurate It's an accurate representation of the earth, but you wouldn't use that navigation No, no, no, but I'm asking you a point of question, right? Is the land layout on a globe accurate? Yes It's objectively not sir. It's not even close to being accurate You can go to actual size.com. It will show you the true size of the continents as you drag them over So there's a disproportionate nature of land layout inherent with any map in the world Yes, there is errors. There is errors in all in all maps, but the errors isn't isn't that bad that you can't navigate by it That's what I'm saying. There is errors, but it's still there's still perfectly where it's fine for navigation And a map doesn't work. Is that what you're saying? No, the flat map does work. That's what it does work Okay, so this proves nothing this goes in the basket of oh works on both models So it doesn't come both model because on the flat model the earth must look like that It must do it can only look one over two Wait, do you know it must look like that? Wait, do you know where the earth ends? Where does the earth end? We're not even allowed to go past the 60th south latitude How can I accurately lay out of proportionate land masses if I don't know the actual proximity of the earth? How do you mean we can't go past? It's illegal to privately and freely explore past the 60th south latitude because all the world's major nations got together and said that it is sir Yes, it is No, it's not Okay, well in 2014 You'll come book a trip to um to Antarctica now That is not what I said I said freely and privately explore it bro not not like going a tour because I called and got approved and paid $20,000 to go See one section they tell me that's a joke Yeah, I mean for start off. It's very cold It's it would be a very dangerous place just to turn up on on a whim and start wondering about Bro, I can climb down Everest about It's also one of the last places on the earth that has been virtually untouched by a man by a man So no, they don't want thousands of people just mocking turning up there, but you can go past The 60th hour for start off each year. I think it's done each year. They do a race around the Around the Antarctica sailboats. Yeah, I know all about I've done the math on all of them That's so good. So where are they going the route? So where I've seen I've seen the route. Yeah, the route doesn't go around an ice cap, bro It comes down and comes back up north. So that's non sequitur to prove near it's a ball So we can try again. It's illegal to privately and freely explore Past the 60th South latitude. It's called the Antarctic Treaty and subsequent legislation has been What? That if you look at the picture that is the route that they take Okay, have you seen it mapped out on a flat projection with the northern continent above it the actual Route mapped out. Have you seen it? It comes down and pops back up north. So We can't verify that little ice cap, bro. You're asking me to believe stories, dude I don't I don't believe stories, man. I want empirical evidence I thought this was where we were getting evidence for the first time We haven't gotten any we've gotten stories of how that the route actually goes My argument basically is and the evidence I've got is that if navigational charts work, which they do we all know navigational charts work People use they use thousands of times each day for thousands and thousands of years Right Okay The navigational chart that I'm talking about hasn't been used for thousands and thousands of years Is it more accurate than the old ones? I'm talking about navigational charts which have longitude and latitude lines on them So do the old ones they correspond with what the globe model is But the old ones If these work and they're proven to work and if you laid them all out flat That is what it would look like now Why do you keep saying that because that would look like if you laid them all out flat So all the longitude and latitude lines join up that is the only shape that you you are going to get If you don't know the true proximity of the land masses, bro. We can't privately explore the earth Basically I've just said if if you lay all these maps out that is the shape that you will get and that Why do you just keep saying that bro? You're just saying that I don't understand that we cannot see that that that is correct It's a baseless assertion. You can buy all these navigational maps You can look and you can go and buy get all these navigational maps and join them up and find out yourself They all join up and they all marry up with this So how did okay for one are you saying that we know for 100 proportionate land layout and the proximity of the Entire earth so that we can make some type of depiction of it from an orthopedographic view Are you just making baseless assertions skating past the fact that I can't privately explore that area, bro So you have to know the whole earth to be able to just privately Explore Antarctica I don't see how that's relevant I don't blindly believe the government part on the earth that is undisturbed by man And they would like to keep it that way Yeah, so for thousands of years for all recordable histories humans have fought over every square inch of land Every resource they can get their hands on every village They can rape and pillage for every single type of power motive in the world But when it comes to a huge land landmass with tons of resources that are completely untapped Not one of the world's superpowers decides to go try to take it over They've all agreed to put all their sides are all their differences aside Even though they hate each other and are supposedly geopolitical adversaries and then agree to not let any of us little peasants Go privately explore because well, they can tell us what the earth is we shouldn't be able to verify for ourselves I don't blindly believe the government, bro. They set up wars and admit that they fake false flag attacks I don't I don't trust the government, bro. We need empirical evidence No, okay. Do you want to move on to some else in the park from the uh, the the Navigational charts because Navigational charts have been used for thousands of years, sir And everyone near the earth was flat and it uses the north star to stay in the center for all recordable history And you brought it That's the shape you get which okay It stands out to be a global Okay. No, it doesn't that glum means nothing.  No, I mean some people don't actually Believe that Aristophanes did it. I just used that as an example As in the asking of a question So whether he asked the question or somebody else asked that question It doesn't matter the question was was asked So you agree Aristophanes just some fairytale people made up to push the suit of scientific jesuit religion that says that we're spinning in a vacuum Who who actually did it? I think is irrelevant. The question was asked Of why do you get shadows in one area? He didn't he didn't even do it Well, if he didn't do it somebody else did it the question who did it ask the question is is why At a certain time of time of the year Do you get shadows in one place and you don't get shadows in another place or if you're in one part of the The globe or the earth and you move to another point at the same time shadows will be different between them two different points It would be different on a flat earth too, sir That's what they would be different on a flat earth too Yeah, I know what you're gonna say if the sun is closer Yeah, so I said in my preface if you just presuppose the earth's magic spinning cartoon ball that defies physics that doesn't evidence of it The hypothesis that I mentioned was Is that he assumed that the earth was a globe and then he put it to the test? By going through what I've just said by having longitude like two lines mapping out the the globe putting it onto navigational charts then navigational charts fit with the globe The navigational charts are successful. They work Therefore the shape of the earth must be the globe or it's a starship Bro, what in the world kind of logic was that bro? You just ran off the railroad tracks there Aristotheny's wasn't even a real person for all I know. There's no primary documentation of this at all There's not even primary documented You're telling me a fairytale, sir And then you keep on saying but he did this and it proved it was a globe But it's literally a fairytale then when I press It doesn't matter if he did it someone else did it. He assumed a distance It doesn't matter who did it. It's whether the question was asked and the question has been asked We all asked that question. We've then built up a model On the globe we've mapped it out. We've developed navigational charts which follow the globe and the work The work Navigational charts were here already bro. Don't worry. I love your guys's enthusiasm But just to get to hear the the rest from Paul I think Paul was maybe mid thought if you had any more you were adding to that Paul No, it's just it's the same thing I think we might as well move on to something else because he's not gonna accept the the navigational charts Like I said, I'll just end it by saying if navigational charts work If you lay them navigational charts out under the ground and join them all together That is the shape that you've got Which is a which is basically a two two dimensional representation of a 3d object, which is the globe join them That way It ends up being the globe again Sir, sir, I'm trying not I'm really trying not to be disrespectful But I don't care about your origami bro. Like it means nothing. So we need empirical evidence Dude navigation using the celestial alignment of the cyclical nature of the stars has been going on for thousands of years Polaris has been in the center the whole time you claim we're spinning and revolving shooting 500 miles per hour with Around the Sun through space while the galaxy shoots 1.3 billion miles an hour I was actually I came on here basically to argue about the shape of the earth not what the earth's doing or whether it's rotating But if we want to go down that route you can do so Well, you keep saying earth and glow Okay, we're rotating So yeah for you to have gravity it has to be spinning So you can't have your globe Earth fairy tale that defies physics without it spinning because it creates the centripetal or centrifugal Which they changed their mind because they're pseudoscientific psychopaths Based on the attraction of mass particles relative to the center of mass and its movement is what causes the gravitational resultant of the bending and warping of fabric to Concepts, which is a reification policy. So you have to be spinning my man. If that's what your model says That's why the stars look like they move. So that's it There's no pick and choose here But we can get right to the heart of the issue if you want to the earth isn't curving dude I mean, I've been testing it all over the coast for like the last three weeks We there's no curvature anywhere. So why do you think you would see curvature from actually with you being stood on the earth? Why would you see curvature because it's because of you to the size of the earth? You're not going to see curvature. That's inaccurate bro because it's geometry, right? So they didn't just claim the Earth's magic spinning cartoon ball that defies physics and that you came from nothing They actually claimed a specific size. They claimed dimensions. They claimed the radius value They claimed the circumference value. Do you know what the claimed radius is? About three thousand nine hundred miles something. Yeah, 39 59 So based on that, which of course distance from the center to the edge, right? The circumference of the circle or a ball, right center to edge So that's the maximum extension of the earth's dimensions So it has to curve at a certain rate and that's 1.225 times the square root of the observer's height in feet So that means at one foot the square root of one is one I should see the earth curving from one foot off the ground at 1.2 miles away Well, we have an observation off the coast of Cali one foot off the ground the horizon's over 10 miles away So the radius value would have to be over a quarter million miles. They claimed it's under four thousand It's not because on the earth you you are you obviously are aware that we do have a thing called refraction So things can be refracted back up into view So you're saying that that was a result of refraction? Yes, okay, and I take it you will do not agree that refraction takes place No, refraction obviously takes place. That's the only reason that we have the phenomena So then I wouldn't use that as an argument for the globe because depending on the globe or whether the earth is actually flat because Refraction occurs so some days you might only see four five miles some days you might see nine miles some days You might see less than that. It's going to vary each day depending on the conditions of the weather So welcome to flat earth, bro. So you can't use that as an argument for the flat earth argument You just made a flat earth argument. See, this is the difference. I know that I wouldn't use that as an argument for either But you're wrong because I know that the horizon is just an apparent location where the sky appears to meet the ground It's an optical effect based on observer height atmosphere conditions, etc It's not a real place. It constantly moves. It's an optical effect But in your globe earth religion, it has to be a real place It's a tangible physical obstruction of convexity of terra firma or earth curvature. Totally different You have a physical tangible place that has to stay there based on the radius value I know that the horizon constantly moves throughout the day Yeah, so what you're saying is there must be there must be a geometric horizon Yes, I will agree. There must be a geometric horizon. Where's it at, bro? It's well, it's sort of the horizon but the distance Is going to change depending on on um the atmospheric conditions only on a flat earth only on a flat earth though Why would that change only on a flat earth? I'm not on a globe because on a globe earth There's a physical tangible location a convexity rate of terra firma that does not change right so based on atmospheric conditions Right, you can have terrestrial refraction that brings it closer to you It cannot extend it and it cannot lift it up and bring it behind oil rigs 10 miles away Because looming an optical effect that's resulting of refraction that we do know about and have quantified quite thoroughly Is actually relative to the horizon. It's an object relative to the horizon The horizon cannot loom relative to the horizon that is retarded So like the the main problem here is you're saying, yeah, there has to be a geometric horizon We just never see it. Is that we do we ever see the geometric horizon? Because if not, how do we know it's there, bro? If we if we got rid of the atmosphere Yes, you will be able to with it if we lived on a On the planet with no atmosphere. Yes, you'll be able to see it. Okay, but you're very refraction It moves Okay, and if I if we were able to go fly at 3000 meters without any intervention from a plane superman would come visit us Like it doesn't dude. You're just telling me a story if we had no atmosphere You mean if we died so we live on earth with atmosphere, bro And so you're just Because we live on the earth with an atmosphere we do experience atmospheric refraction So the apparent horizon that you're looking at is going to change depending on what the refraction rate is for that day Okay, it's called terrestrial refraction. If you're saying that the geometric horizon optically moves Over 10 times too far The geometric horizon doesn't move the apparent horizon that you're looking at moves Well, apparent horizons were done and that's all we ever see you're claiming geometric horizon But we never see it so we're just supposed to believe you and you're making your claim unfossifiable But you said in your own power point that science and any type of empirical claims must be falsifiable But you just made your claim unfossifiable Oh, I've made it unfossifiable. You said if there's no atmosphere on earth, you'd see it Yes, you would do but that's making you claim because we live on the earth with an atmosphere You're always going to experience no matter what time of day it is Some sort of atmospheric refraction. Welcome to flat earth, bro That's my point. We know that but you claim there's a physical curve that we're spinning on So like we're trying to get to that point. Where is the curve, dude? Like is the horizon physical or is it just apparent? So you was the observer it will be apparent because depending on refraction Okay, so do you agree that if you're claiming that the horizon was extended back 10 times too far optically Then that would be terrestrial refraction, right? Yeah, it's it's isn't going to be a lot of refraction because um, one degree on the earth is 960 nautical miles or 69 miles So one degree of curvature is only 69 miles away So to refract something up over the horizon of of nine miles is only a very small percentage of curvature It's it's it's not even half a degree of curvature that you're looking over degree. What does it matter? It's uh, Like plenty of feet that should be blocking your view It doesn't matter About the distance it matters about how many degrees of that curvature is being brought How do you how do you determine degree? How do you determine one degree? Oh, you have to know the earth's dimension So you're presupposing what you're claiming to prove right now once again. I'm telling you that's all this is bro Every single quote-unquote evidence is a presupposition of the globe all of it. I've been researching it for five years, bro Yes, I'm obviously my argument is always going to presuppose that the globe is this yes Well, that's stupid man because like if the if that means you could be wrong I mean if the globe does exist if we do if we do live on the globe Then one degree of refraction would actually which isn't a lot would Be 69 miles now you're talking about this refraction that you've you've seen which is nine miles away This oil rig that's nine miles away that that has been refracted back over Above the horizon so that you can see it nine miles in degrees if we live on a globe earth is a fraction of a degree Of It was reiterate your presupposition bro like What does that mean man like really be honest you're just presupposing the model telling me theoretically how it would work And how somehow we don't ever observe any physical empirical evidence of your physical empirical claims You're claiming to empirically know and to physically know that the earth's a ball with certain dimensions and a certain speed And then within a certain type of fabric yet you can't even substantiate that it's it's a curving surface Like I don't see how I'm on the unfounded position here. The only thing you have to rely on is NASA the the governments of the world like that's all you have to rely on when you fly your plane you fly over a flat earth bro We believe that the the earth was a globe well before nasa came on the on the scene. That's not true actually Uh a few decades before that was the first time it was even taught in the u.s So it's like a hundred year deception whenever you fly your plane. Do you ever account for a curvature? No Do you ever account for coriolis or earth spin? No, do you ever see the earth curving? No, so you see you see why we need some empirical evidence, man I can't believe nasa and they brought not I don't know why you think we would we would actually see Or why I would see curvature when i'm flying i'm only flying at roughly about 4 000 feet. That's i'm up That's all i'm flying above this this globe here 4 000 feet above that above that globe is literally gonna be virtually touching it So i'm not going to see curvature I'm going to be literally like down down here if you look at the the it's out of the International spaces and I think it's something like about 240 miles is 252 to what 252 Right, so it's 252 252 miles up that is going to be about that high If it was flying around the equator, that's how high is off the equator. That's super high, bro That's not super high Yeah, it is yeah, it is because if I go up off of a surface That's curving in any and all directions around me omnidirectional. Yeah, it's going down and away from me as I go up I would see it go down and away from me and physically obstruct my views can be replicated a thousand different ways But when it comes to this globe earth that defies physics brought to you by just the whip priest Apparently everything changes and we don't see the earth curving as we go up above a ball that bends down away from us That makes no sense. We would objectively see A lot further away than that to see a distinct heavier I mean, I've never been open to the International Space Station. You might be able to see no one else does either, bro. You're not alone No one's been there, haven't they? No, not at all. They have glitches and BRs and What like you know how many people have even claimed to go past low earth orbit in the history of mankind 24 people do you think that 24 people could lie? Yes Of course, especially when they're compartmentalized on a need to know basis in the military, right? That's what the military does. It's called need to know so yeah people could lie And you're right these people could be lying but to get the rest of the world to lie along with them There's not just the nasa as a space station. There's all these other space agencies. You've got russia They must know they've sent people into space. So they must know what the shape of the earth is Is it possible russia's government lies? Yes, but are they going to cooperate with with the the usa? What about china? They've got a space agency. They're all lying as well. So all these governments don't get along For some reason they're all decided to lie over the ship. Yeah Well, you they told you they didn't get along and that they all live on this magic spinning paw that defies physics But they seem to all get along enough to say that we can't privately explore plasticixia south latitude They seem to offer the differences aside from that. You can go past there You just you just can't turn up willy-nilly and just decide to turn up there. You can Arrange a trip to go there. You can't bring mechanical equipment water supply fuel supply If you can be arrested without due process, they can search and seize any vessel I'll send you the 2014 legislation from the us. You literally you don't get due process They can search and seize anything if you try to warn someone that they're going to seize them you can get arrested I've got that from 1950s. Yeah No, that is from 2016 Well, okay Okay, not the original in our treaty. What about it? I'm just saying I've got the copy of it. Oh well 2014 the us Legislation tells you that you can't go bro that they'll seize you And my question is dude why because you do agree that if there's a ball it'd be really easy to prove it, right? We just come up over the other end of the ball Is that actually written in the treaty then is it? No, no, no what I said in a 2014 subsequent legislation So it's like the us just adds rules to it on throughout the years and I can send it to you But the nrt treaty says yes This adheres to all land or water beyond 60th south latitude including the ice shelves and you can be intercepted And then they come with all kinds of nonsense reasons to save the penguins because no humans touched it We could melt the ice because of global warming which is enough to save the penguins It's to basically like I've said Antarctica is one of the last untouched Places on earth and we want to keep it that way So you think it's just a coincidence that the one thing that could definitively prove the earth was a ball Was circumnavigated north to south over a south pole, but we're not allowed to do it You think it's just a coincidence that all of the world's nations Collins They do Go around it. No, they're allowed to go on a predetermined approved route where they come down south and go back north I know their route photographically. I've had had this conversation so many times They do not go over an ice ice cap on the bottom of the water to go around it They say they go around it and they go down south and go back up north and you can see the literal route projected Based relative to South America right above it So that's what you have to see the full map and where they go Not just a picture of an ice cap presupposing the earth's a ball with a circle drawn around it That means nothing they go down south and they come back up north. It's very provable. They release their route openly So their own website shows you that they go south and back up north so Dude the thing is man The earth has to be curving bro. They say they are 70 water. How is the water bending? All over the earth, but we never see it anywhere, bro. I don't get it That's gravity, but you don't agree with gravity. You know, do you know why?  Why you don't agree with gravity? No, I don't know why you don't Yeah, well the theory of relativity, which is what superseded 1915 newtonian physics, right? It's just a reification fallacy. It's pseudoscience. It claims that Space and time have physical properties of bending and warping and dilating, right? Those are physical properties, but space is a concept conceptual privation It's the idea of an area void of material And then we attribute dimensions Descriptives dimensions to it, which is also conceptual. And then we have time the conceptual Quantification of passing derivative of the sky and its motion and in the sun and the moon and their motions So we've come up with numbers to quantify passing. Those are all concepts Literally, those are both concepts literally So how can concepts have physical properties of bending and warping and dilating? They cannot that's called a reification fallacy So it's it's inadmissible on its face. So yeah, I don't I don't I don't believe in pseudoscience, bro Do you do you agree that if you drop something it falls down? Yeah, absolutely. That's what I mean by gravity. What if I drop a helium balloon? So what about when I drop a helium balloon? Yeah, that will go up. So then it's lighter than air Okay, so there's still there's still gravity affected it the gravity will slow its will slow its ascent Because of gravity, but it will slope up How can you say slowest ascent unless you have a parameter or standard to compare it to its original speed? But you do not this is just another baseless assertion. So not everything goes down But yeah, I think sequel every other inherently electrostatic and density is the primary causal agent has nothing to do with the magic fabric That bends and warps of concepts. So yeah, things go down. They seek equilibrium. It's natural law pressure mediation So if things things go down because they're just seeking equal well, I mean if that's what you want to call Why things go down? You call it that I'll just call it gravity Why do things always with both experience the same experience? That's all that matters. What you call it is irrelevant Well, no, but see gravity claims all this nonsense relative to the center of the pseudoscientific fairy tale ball Where people think that now they came from rocks and then they don't know the creator's real So it's not just like whatever. We know we got to figure this out. So It's not adding up. Are you not seeing my point? Not at all. No Okay Let's do this So if the earth is actually A ball that spins around in a vacuum and we have 14.7 psi at the surface. Do you agree that There would have to be something that contains that pressure So to some extent Yes, something is holding up pressure there. Yes, right and you would say that's gravity, correct? Yes, okay I'm gonna Point out one of the millions of things wrong with gravity. I already told you Very specifically it was wrong with its reification policy. It doesn't even hold intellectual viability But so if I take gas out of a container and take off the top of it on the surface level Which is closest to the center of mass, which means gravity is the strongest there And gas will seek equilibrium instantaneously omnidirectional infinite vectors. Bam everywhere where gravity's the strongest Am I supposed to believe that if I go hundreds of miles above the surface of the earth Where gravity is way weaker because it's much further away from the center of mass All of a sudden it's going to be able to prevent the natural law of seeking equilibrium with those gas particles Even though it's weaker and didn't do it where it was stronger So I would so I would you explain the fact that the higher you go the less pressure we have Well, there is a plethora of potential answers there, but Really what you just did is non sequitur, right? So that's a red herring because you're asking about delta x and we're asking about x the antecedent relationship of gas pressure Not like the quality of it or more so the quantitative nature of it, right? But it doesn't matter. I can answer you So the necessary antecedent to gas pressure is physical containment So we have a physical container that has pressure and then we have a dissipation of gas relative to many things One of the primary things is that gas is constantly being cycled predominantly at the surface level because we have almost Really all vegetation on the surface and humans and animals inhabit the surface And so there's a cycle of gas and it's constantly going at the surface level You can you can actually replicate this with the vacuum chamber putting it in Gats at the bottom. They'll have them higher concentration. In addition, there's electrostatics We'd have to actually know the nature of the the firmament and it's electromagnetic nature And then we have the sun and the moon which would play a factor then we have temperature changes So heat transfer heat transfer would actually affect the dissipation of gas as well So really there's a variance and and really I can get more technical, right? Like what people spiral about this stuff But there's an ether and it has a vortexual movement around it and every single thing that we perceive in the material world Is relative to that and the pressure mediated from the center So really falsification is independent of replacement, but I gave you plenty of speculations there But I don't claim those definitively. That's what the globe earth does just makes up fairy tales and claims to reality I don't know sir, but I do know that what they claimed is impossible Right, I'll try and address that if Based on what you're saying is to have gas pressure. It must be in a container, correct? Correct especially against all sides That's container So the pressure in that is pushing on all all the sides agreed and that's what's giving that pressure That's great. If I was to release this obviously this pressure would then show out into the atmosphere When we look at the globe or let's say the flat earth if there's a dome over the top of it, we like you said we experience Atmospheric pressure on the earth if we live on a flat plane And we've got a dome over it Then the pressure at the bottom should be the same as the pressure on the top just as the same as it is It's on here. Why would we have a pressure gradient and also within that system? You must agree that we've got low pressure and high pressure weather systems So you can have low pressure and high pressure alongside each other Yeah, yeah, okay, and what happens the low pressure system migrates to the high pressure system or the high pressure system Every single time every single time High pressure then go up And because it's relative to the positioning of the low pressure system So it's directionalities relative to the low pressure system where it has because if you're arguing to have gas pressure It must be in a container So the gas pressure is pushing on all sides of that container causing the pressure That is the definition. How does that work? If you've got a pressure gradient where if you go higher and higher and higher You get to almost zero pressure at the top and you still haven't touched the the dome yet So effectively what you get to do is not answer on your model Even on your model the pressure we've got at the surface must be coming from somewhere now At the top of that pressure. It's not pushing against anything because it's There's virtually nothing there by time you've got to this dome if there is a dome there. What is causing that pressure? Gradient or the pressure Because the only way you can have pressure is with a container. We just covered that man It's the definition of it. Um, and you just went so basically what you're doing right now Yes, but the higher you go you've got less pressure Your hand weight is still got less pressure the higher you go you've still got less pressure But it's almost pressure is still pressure It's still you still have pressure the question is how do you have the pressure? What's the antecedent's relationship of pressure? You're trying to skip over that hand. We've dismissed your own burden of proof and then ask me a non sequitur about the gradients Right, which is a qualitative like relationship of the gas But we're asking how do you even have the gas pressure if I do your perfect vacuum? You always Try and match up the um the atmospheric pressure to the same of pressure That's inside a container, but the both the models don't both the same if you've got gas pressure in a container You've got equal pressure throughout the whole of got that container But in the what we experience on the earth within the atmosphere We've got different pressures depending on altitude and also depending on weather conditions That doesn't match the container pressure that you originally talked about The two don't match Okay, so basically what you're trying to say is that it would all equalize if the earth was contained Once again, and and and I think this may be the dead end here I'll reiterate it your hand. We've just missing your burden of proof Which is the necessary antecedent to gas pressure you claim that there's you claim You claim this there's a gas pressure system adjacent to a near perfect vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 tour Of course, we can't even replicate that on you No, it's a gradient. It's not it's not it's not a pressure system next to a vacuum What you've got is a pressure gradient Which gets less and less and less that ie to go you go until you get to almost a perfect vacuum What gradient high pressure next to a vacuum a what gradient what type of gradient? A pressure gradient. Where'd you get the pressure man? What's the antecedent surprise less and less Unless as you go up until you get to almost a perfect vacuum and you still haven't reached that dome yet So what is that pressure below that pushing on you're saying to have gas pressure It must be in a container which is pushing on all the sides We do not experience that on earth even if there is a dome Let's let's say there is a dome over the top of us There is top part of that dome is not creating the pressure below us because the ie you go that pressure gets less and left So that dome's not doing anything at the top. You could release open the the dome at the top and that Gas pressure atmospheric pressure would not rush out. How do you know what's going on at the top man? You're just saying things we can't we can't go that high Do you believe that? Am I supposed to believe NASA for your point again, bro? Like we we can't go 252 miles where they claim all these readings of damn near no pressure But it doesn't really matter because there's still pressure You must have seen the merge uh flight that was done by mr. sensible where we sent up a weather balloon with the cameras on And which was also reading barometric pressure which got to almost zero pressure Almost yes, well that doesn't help you if even space isn't zero If they don't claim that space is a perfect vacuum So there's still some pressure in space. There's no such thing as a perfect bad news conceptual because there's at least a few hydrogen atoms per Year in your very top, but that means nothing. That's not my point All it is. It's just a pressure gradient just going further and further The differential is drastic sir. It's called entropy entropy will increase. It's a natural law You're making a claim Antithetical to natural law You can't even provide an empirical practical demonstration on the earth that I can go verify it could even possibly happen And then you're telling me no I don't have to answer how we have the pressure because we have a gradient And if you can't answer exactly how we have it even though we won't let you go up there and try to figure out What's up there for yourself because we control you I've answered why you just will accept it what the reason the container is gravity Okay, and then I asked you gravity and with your model Right, you're saying that we we have a A container over the top of us You've still got the same problem that you've got Different pressures next to each other. You've got high pressure at the bottom and at the top of Mount Everest You've got less pressure. Why isn't the high pressure at the bottom rushing to the top of Mount Everest? Well, once again, there's a plethora of reasons predominantly electromagnetic phenomena within the vortexual movement of Which basically that's just your words of gravity. You're just that is just No, I don't claim that concept. I call it gravity. You call it whatever you've just said No, because gravity claims that everything's relative to the center of mass of a magic pseudoscientific fairy tale ball that defies physics. I don't claim any of that nonsense I don't have relative to center of mass. There's no polling phenomena. It's none of that nonsense Everything's a handling electrostatic establishes equilibrium Density is the primary causal agent and if you don't have empirical evidence outside of that You're just making claims. And so I asked you a question about What you've just said you've got no evidence for that I have yeah, I have all empirical evidence that everything that exists is electrostatic until you can provide one thing that cannot transfer electrostatic charge So what you're saying is is due to the fact that everything is as electrostatic It's attracted to each other them to know no electrostatics don't don't like solely attract So you can have to educate me on this one because I've not heard this one before How does the electrostatic model that you've just said work? Yeah, it's just simple like the earth's the dielectric plane which is an electromagnetic field which is the toroid and The dielectric plane is where we live right and that's the only place that could sustain life Everything's inherently electrostatic more specifically dielectric if you take a balloon rubbing on your head stick it to the wall sticks there, right So gravity is nowhere to be found just like when butterflies fly away and bees fly through 50 mile per hour crossmen Then eventually the balloon loses its charge it finds the equilibrium back on the dielectric plane So this is what we can empirically validate you're making additional claims But you can't negate for electrostatic which is known to be 10 to the 39th power stronger than even the claim of grabbing So you can't even What you've just said there then is is if I was to get electrostatically charged then would I would I wear less? Would you weigh less? So if you you just said if you rub a balloon on your head It becomes electrostatically charged so it will stick to something So if I become electrostatically charged will I start sticking to some well, you'd have to define weight And yeah, you could effectively levitate using magnetic levitation or quantum locking which is inherently electrostatics And this is provable also magnetic levitation. Yeah, but you have to define weight They say weight's mass time gravity which is just mass is a reification of gravity quantifying matter and gravity is a Genetic reification fallacy, but weight's actually relative to vector medium coherency. It's not just a distance It's not relative to just two masses which is a fairy tale reifying gravity So you have to define these terms and weight is misdefined But like my question still remains bro Like am am I missing something if I take open a container of gas dude It's going to fill the available space at the surface where gravity is the strongest because it's closest to center of mass How can that not happen where it's weaker? You just said the gravity I'm not I'm not from your worldview like from your worldview gravity is the strongest closest to center of mass Because gravity is relative to center of mass, right? Actually, there's a gravity well that bends and warps and dilates relative to the center of mass that spins around And then it creates a gravity well and then everything basically falls down into wars the center of mass free falling around it That's what your religion says And so if gravity is the strongest closest to center of mass and I let gas out at the surface closest to the center of mass That is attainable or accessible and gravity or doesn't do anything to the gas It goes everywhere immediately like it always does How could it stop it from doing that where it's way weaker way higher above the earth? That makes no sense I didn't follow any of that to be perfectly honest Fair enough the gravity strongest at the surface. It doesn't stop gas from filling available space It couldn't do it way higher where it's weaker. It's a pseudo scientific fairy tale in violation of a second law of thermodynamics So this is what it is. I need empirical evidence, bro. I don't believe the government.  They don't care about me. You asked me Why would everyone lie why like all these people have to lie almost no one's lying, bro Like the teachers don't believe they believe the lie. They're not lying to children, bro Like I don't have any beef with those people But I don't have to Like just blindly believe nasa because everyone else does like everyone used to think slavery was cool, bro Like a bill the majority is stupid, right? We need empirical evidence. The government sucks They lie all the time people are wearing masks scared of air right so we know we need to regain a little bit of intellectual responsibility as people I think before it's too late Yeah, the problem is is the hook you you don't actually have a flat earth model You're right, right and because it would be intellectually Flat earth model once you start believing in the flat earth If you can go down all the different rabbit holes that you basically said they then stop believing in In gravity gravity doesn't exist. You don't believe that we went to Space that's that's that's all I lie. You don't believe I don't know how you're going to make navigational work because you've got no navigational aid because On the navigating navigating with the charts that we've got now They do not fit with them a flat model. They only again back to the same point They only fit with the glove. They only fit with a glove. You keep saying that you make that fit your model But sir, if you rewatch the debate, I told you how so navigation using celestial charts has happened for thousands of years They use cartesian coordinates x and z axis relative to the origination in the center You add a z axis assuming sphericity And you take the points of launch during latitude derivative of the cyclical nature of the sky Which they've been using for thousands of years before assuming the earth was a ball And then you reverse engineer a theoretical model with the z axis based on the movement of the sky Then you know touting the efficacy of the reverse engineered model is luminosity You could design a navigational charts that would work On that model that you've just said I totally agree But there would have to be different charts to what we've got now because like I've just explained to you The longitudinal lines get narrower the further south you go and they get narrower the further north you go And that would not work on a flat plane. It will not work. You'll get oh Wait So you would have to go all the way to the south to verify your claim you just made right or all the way to the north Oh too bad. You can't legally do either of those so bro I don't it's simple man. Like you're you're telling me the right story You're saying we can't but I've already researched the stories. They're not true. Sir. They're dumb.  They lie. I've not heard that one before though. So so we can't go north now as well Well, yeah, I mean, it's not very easy to go to the north pole. You can't fly within 500 miles of each direction You can't just fly over the north pole. You can't just go there I was I'm actually the kind of person who wants to know the truth, right? So I was wanting to go But you you've already looking into greenland, bro It's not like you can just waltz up in greenland That's not how it works at all and you can't get to the north pole, bro You can't just show up there But now you can go google and see some positive bodies of water and that must mean there's nothing there and it's too dangerous We want to send them out with my Mount Everest, bro I can climb Mount Everest. You think the government's trying to save me I can climb Mount Everest, bro But they won't let me go explore the world world that you know, they're not lying about that makes no sense I defend that went to greenland two years ago Yeah, but did he go all the way through greenland all the way up to the north and then head to the north pole Of course. No, no one does I mean, we've been lied to about the earth sir. Like I didn't lie. You didn't lie, right? Like we're on the same team So i'm just going out there. I mean, I had to lose a good job offer just to tell people deers flap, bro Like trust me. I have no motivation to do this. It's just the truth And it changes everything man. The earth is the center of everything So it had to be put here, which means you were put here, which means you're special and there's a creator So that's why I do this and I need empirical evidence. I need empirical evidence to throw out All observable phenomena accessible to mankind because To have any evidence to back up What what you're saying you just have all evidence that is presented to you. You just will not accept any of it No, okay. How about this does water find its level? Yes, does it always find its level? Yes. Okay, so water always finds this level. Does water conform to its container? Yes, okay, so water always conforms to its container and finds its level But yet level means curved in this one scenario that is the earth being a ball 70% of the surface is covered in water It bends convexly adhering to the exterior of a spinning object in a vacuum Which shows you that it can happen, but I promise that Water conforms to the shape of the earth and its level to the earth. Wait, how is this level? Level doesn't necessarily mean straight. So level doesn't mean level No, it doesn't necessarily mean straight. It can be level Right If you've got some height around this floor, it can be level all the way around. No, that's wrong. Okay level means equal height Form the surface. Yes. Yeah level level It would be equal height around So the globe has its own definition of level you see a reoccurring theme here. We have to keep making exceptions for the globe earth That's weird Because we're not built a house whenever I was working construction and building decks and helping with construction and we used a level We didn't bend it dude We didn't say oh well if it's curved it's still level because the house wouldn't work bro We wouldn't have elevations without assuming that the earth Is flat because we use sea level assuming a horizontal level And then we take the distance above and the altitude above the sea level to get elevation We wouldn't even have elevation So literally all evidence says the earth's flat. I have all the evidence all of it all of it So I need some empirical evidence to suggest antithetical claims. You're not just saying like oh, yeah I know it doesn't feel like it's moving, but here's here's how it is No, you're just making Like we're moving the only the only time you experience Movement is um, they open down left to right to or acceleration or dates Day acceleration inside a vehicle if you've got a completely smooth ride and you are traveling at a constant velocity. Why would you feel movement? Hmm. Uh, is that in a closed system? Yeah, so if you're in a closed system in a car, that's cool.  Also, you have something called semi circular canals in your vestibular system Which is in your ears which help you establish equilibrium and spatial awareness and reasoning, right? And that these detect the most minute change in angular motion So if you tilt your head that way that your semi circular canals that detects emotion They're very very sensitive and literally you would die without your ability to utilize your vestibular system You would have no spatial awareness.  They don't they wouldn't sense Um a constant velocity No angular when you're sat in a in a train or in a car or in an aeroplane You don't get the sense of moving forward Especially in an airplane if you're traveling at 300 400 miles an hour that's a close system of moving at that speed That's a closed system. If you ever play in other vehicle, you're in changes direction slows down or accelerates That's what you will feel you mean like an elliptical orbit They claim that the earth's on because the changes direction you'd feel the bank But that's not analogous when you bring up a plane. That's a close system. It's it's it's a gradual bank It's not something that happens Changes direction goes round and round about in a in a car. What's gradual about bank? Traveling uh orbit in the sun that takes a year to make that journey. It's a year to do that journey It doesn't take a journey a year to change direction though No, but that direction changes within that year It changed. No, it happens instantly. There's an elliptical orbit. The the direction changes Instantly, no, as soon as you turn on the elliptical orbit your direction has changed It's not doing, you know, it's not turning 90 degrees to the left No, I know it's turning That right there you would feel it And do you do you understand you agree that a plane is an analogous because it's a closed system and they claim that the earth in a vacuum Right, so yeah, the airplane is a closed system So you don't feel it those on the earth everything on the earth is all moving at the same speed So you're still not going to feel it Okay, so you're just Into space you've got nothing out there. It's not like there's wind in space. It's going to be blowing Into the earth as it's traveling along. There's nothing out there. So it's moving through. There's nothing out there What kind of what is that even there's nothing out there?  You don't have that But we're on earth. I'm talking about feeling movement on earth So if we're spinning and revolving and shooting through space and we're the galaxy shooting, right? We would feel it they say that there's a near-perfect vacuum of 10 to 17 We're in an open system He's traveling at a constant speed. So you aren't going to feel the movement. I thought the speed occasionally changed Sorry, I don't know nasa changed their pseudoscience. You should keep up Apparently there's a differential in speed over over the time, but it doesn't really matter. It's just made up pseudoscience Yes, yes Yeah, the earth's all bit around the sun is something like 67,000 miles, but at certain points it's something like 64,000 miles. There's a three or four thousand mile difference Which is they gave themselves a window of error because they're making Which is done over a year that change of velocity is over a period of a year It's not like you're going to change velocity three thousand miles in a 24 hour period. No, I said change of direction You would feel the bank Dude, dude pilots gotta be careful on earth. It's constantly in that bank. It's orbiting all the time. All right. It's elliptical so there's a slight elliptic It's an elliptic orbit, but it's still a constant Journey you're traveling on over it over a year. You are changing over a year. You have a change of direction, sir so Anyway, I'm just saying dude. We don't feel any motion. You claim that we do we don't deserve any curvature Motion I said no, no, no, I'm sorry. You're right here. We don't feel any motion, but you claim it's there We don't observe any curvature But you claim it's there. We just never see it so Do you see how that that I Am not really inclined to just blindly believe you because your worldview is literally coming from The authoritative figures that have already lied to us about pretty much everything else I need empirical evidence Dude, when I open a soda, I debunked the heliocentric model literally as soon as I open it and it goes Bye bye heliocentric model the pressure always mediates always bro So if you can't answer the antecedent It's set in the atmosphere, which you've already agreed to the globe earth makes all the Is less than is at the top You know that natural laws don't have exceptions, right? So There is no except but except for when we're talking about natural law. That's why it's a natural law, bro So You know natural law the second law debunks the heliocentric model man Like I don't know exactly what the earth is I don't claim a model a lot of people that are talking crazy in the chat like always Oh, there's stupid flat earth here. We go with no model. Yeah, it's called being intellectually honest I don't know what the earth is we can't privately explore it We can't even privately explore the atlas highest altitudes to see where the firmament is or what the dome is or what that The true land masses are That is irrelevant Falsifications independent of replacement They're lying to us taking 60 million dollars a day in lying to children And they're telling everyone that air is going to kill them and the government's trying to take over So it's time that we wake up and and realize that there's a creator and that the earth was made for you And you know, maybe people don't want to accept it. I don't care but This is just getting kind of ridiculous Like the only evidence is that the globe earth makes exceptions to every natural law and nasa proved it And we have to trust them like you got to be honest. That's kind of preposterous that I would ever do that And To be honest, I don't think you would accept any evidence that was given to you It would have to be empirical and verifiable So you would accept any evidence for this. I would accept it. Oh, dude I'd be able to go get a six-figure job, bro. I would love to know a lot about this Earth that we live on That you don't know the shape of it You seem to know a lot about that earth I know what shape it isn't. Um, it's not a globe with a convexity rate consistent with the radius value of 3959 I know that for a fact. It's not it's literally not at the bay. We debunked the fault the radius value literally so Basically what you're now saying is I have a model that was made for me through thousands of years of Updating it with reverse engineering and presuppositions. It was made for me. It was given to me with all these fake answers So until you can replace all my answers somehow my answers are still true even though you falsified them That's lunacy like falsifications independent of replacement, man I got to be intellectually honest here because if I'm not and if we are not moving forward from here on out We're going to get in the same mess that got us here blindly believing things Not trying to test them or verify them and standing upon empirical means so we I honestly I'm trapped here If I want to be intellectually honest, I'm not going to make up stories. It doesn't matter falsifications independent of replacement Yeah, but your denial of the the globe earth actually opens up more questions to you I'm sending you down more rabbit holes that you've got to believe if you believe that the earth is flat You've got to believe that gravity isn't real if you believe the earth is flat You've got to believe we didn't go to space if you believe the earth is flat You've got to believe that the space station Wait, can I pause you real fast? No, no sir.  Why would you fall off it? I don't know. That's what I'm saying The fact that you believe in a globe is the only reason that gravity is a thing to explain Omnidirectionality around the globe or else you would fall off So gravity was proposed to explain the theoretical postulation of the globe There's not actual empirical evidence. Someone didn't go find gravity and bottle it up, bro No one manipulated gravity and verified it You can't even negate electrostatics, but just 10 to 39th power stronger than that How could you how could you isolate gravity if electrostatics is way stronger and still there? But they said gravity's there because the earth couldn't be a ball without gravity So what you just said was the opposite of the truth. It's not if i'm a flat earther I can't believe in gravity. It's since you're a globe earther You have to believe in gravity with no empirical evidence and helium balloons debunk it So you see the issue here. We're not we're not on the same wavelength like no Our position takes blind faith, sir. I don't No, I don't it doesn't take blind faith I mean like I said one of my main points for it is the navigational charts which work and They model what the globe is and I think that's a problem for you and you haven't really addressed it Yeah, well, I have a navigational charts use Cartesian coordinates x and y you please Because z with sphere of rarity assumption what I will say You're just coming out with a lot of word salad there if Word salad means that what I said does it navigational charts Have a longitude and latitude lines on them and then lines Are exactly what is on the globe and you lay them all flat And it gives you a star shape but that star shape can be formed into a globe Surely the only conclusion you can have is that is the shape of the earth that we're on Oh, so I should throw out the thousands of observations where we see way too far And we have over a mile of missing curvature at the top of a mountain and we have a radius value That would be over a quarter of a million but you've already agreed that refraction exists So that that distance will change all the time. You've already admitted No, no, I admitted that refraction exists and that's the only way that we have the phenomenon called the horizon I never in any way admitted that terrestrial fraction could lift and extend a horizon because it literally can't and the subject matter expert agrees with me But you agree that refraction will alter the The distance you can see You agree but not on a globe earth Why wouldn't it work on a globe earth because there would be a physical obstruction That is resulting in you not being able to understand that something can be refracted over that So you're saying that basically the curve gets bent down Straight from with refraction and then gets lifted up and brought back over there So it's simultaneously in two locations via refraction and it flattens out then lifts up and then goes back But this can't happen according to the subject matter expert. So I don't see where you're getting this information It's called terrestrial refraction right you have to use 7 over 6 r which begs the question of the art like that You're showing me a cartoon What is that That's the best we have to prove the earth's a globe is a literal cartoon. No, it's just just explaining how refraction works Okay, sorry It's just it's just it's you've already agreed that refraction happens Yeah, welcome to flat earth man like refraction happens refraction proves the earth is flat the horizon debunks the globe earth So yeah refraction. That's welcome to flat earth When you say refraction back you can see to the argument because you're invoking terrestrial fraction which uses 7 over 6 r 7 over 6 r which is a begging the question fallacy, which is the very dimensions, right? They will rate our value That's in contention. I'm contending the r value. Then you beg terrestrial Refraction begging the r value. That's insane. It's the category error.  So if you're if you're looking at something that is I don't know 10 miles away And the next day you you cannot see that distance What has happened to bring that object close or interview? What has happened to bring that object into into interview? Uh, when you can see further the next day like you just had more it's really simple when it's clear outside you can see further But the globe earthers want you to think that when it's clear outside, you can't see as far Everything's backwards.  What's they hate us? So I mean we covered the three basics, man I've gotten no new evidence So if we don't have evidence of the earth actually curving that we consistently measure to provably verify and or falsify The r value then it's not even a real postulation But we did falsify it So I'm still waiting on the glober to come bring some verifiable information that there's a curvature anywhere Can I just share my screen again james? Right, can you see the folder that I've just brought up? Right, right, that's the picture that you're talking about are you with the um Platform. Yep. Yep. Yep If you look at the platform on the left, obviously you can see all this Curvits that was going on with the trends. They're not straight The bend that's caused by refraction. Yeah Yeah, but the argument is nothing to do with the oil rigs. So It's what? The argument has nothing to do with the oil rigs. No, but what I'm saying is is this this Imager is showing that refraction is taking place. Yeah, no one ever disputed that refraction was taking place though Right, so that picture there if I uh I'll close that one That is the same oil rig Okay Yeah, because refraction changes the optical appearance Which is redundant of the apparent location of the horizon. Welcome to flatter. So how does this prove the erasable? so Is that oil rig now not behind that? The horizon Uh, yeah, these are different atmospheric conditions and the horizon appears to be closer in this which is why you can't use These as arguments for it being flat or unfortunately we can because that's why you're wrong for the globe then That's where you're wrong. We're not claiming a physical location with the horizon. We're claiming the opposite of that We know that it isn't a physical location. We we when it moves That's what we're claiming it does like every time it moves That just adds to our argument our claim is that it is not a physical location It's just apparent just optical and it just changes based on the atmosphere, bro And that's provable. We've been looking at it every day for weeks now But whenever we ask for where the curvature is there's nowhere to be found But it has to be there as the physical location. So when you told me that the horizon moved Welcome to flat earth again, bro. Like that's that's my argument the explanation for the horizon moving is due to atmospheric conditions So you're talking about the actual physical horizon that is that is there, but we never see Which we're going to see because every day you're going to have different atmospheric conditions Which will bring that horizon either closer or further away depending on what the atmospheric conditions are Okay, so bro, it's going to move So you're never going to experience the actual actual geometric curve. Sorry horizon You're not going to experience that due to atmospheric conditions It's going to change on a daily basis and depending on weather conditions. Can I ask you a question? Hmm, if we never see it Then how do we know it's there? Because it's where it would be if you could take away the atmospheric Refraction that's where it would be. It's where it would be. How do you know that if you've never seen it? Obviously on the globe model they can predict where it would be But how can they predict that if they've never seen it? Because they know the size of the earth and they could work out where it would be How do they know the size of the earth if they've never seen the curvature to reverse engineer the size claim? You don't need to see the curve to know that you're living on the globe Okay, do you know how your globe earth model got its radius value to see the curve? Do you know how your model that's on the surface of the earth?  I don't We're just But it fits exactly with navigational charts exactly. No, it doesn't it's disproportionate and admitted to all these lines Mario with that Okay, so I mean, I think we might be out of standstill here. You're not you're not addressing Any of the questions man, you're you're you're literally not so The horizon is not an actual location. It's an apparent location that constantly fluctuates based on atmosphere conditions and observer height But the globe earth claims a physical obstruction that would be necessitated geometrically based on the radius value claim We have debunked that we empirical evidence. It doesn't exist a lot about the earth It's no big deal of 2021. We have a lot of stuff going on.  Not a big deal So unless you've got something else you want to talk about bro, I'm pretty ready to wrap I mean, no, basically, I I don't the only thing I originally came to talk about was the navigational charts That's that's my my my main bit Our bottle is cartesian coordinates Is what sorry Cartesian coordinates within so the difference we have the same exact thing only your version has a z-axis down the middle of it Assuming the earth's a ball. So that's all there is to it, bro juicy But these these work Yeah, yeah Flat maps are the only type that exists. I'm the fit on the fit with the globe the correspond with the globe Hey, bro, the earth actually was flat. Would you want to know? If it was actually flat, would I want to want to know? Yeah castle Check it out, man. Look into it without bias. And if you actually want to know because it's provably flat So very juicy Yeah We are going to jump into the q&a. We appreciate your questions folks I also want to say I had reached out to somebody recently a person who used to host a fellow debate channel and I said Has anyone seen debbie diran? We are looking for debbie if anybody can help us connect with debbie via email Let me know we are at modern day debate at gmail.com And so we've been trying to track her down And hopefully to get her on for a debate So please let us know if you happen to have a connection with her and these questions. We appreciate all of your questions And uh, I don't know what austin's doing, but thank you very much for your questions So two seconds just loading it up here. Chris gammon. Appreciate your question. Chris says I asked this before but I have seen video and photos of around earth Lots of them. How many hundreds or thousands of people does it take to produce all this media? Come on, man Well as early as like the 70s the ciad class finally admitted that they actually infiltrated and run the media It's called operation mockingbird and six corporations own all of the media And uh nasa admits that the most infamous picture of the globe earth ever the blue marble was just a cartoon so There's really not much there to answer pictures mean nothing and the earth shows us a very different story Very juicy and thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from And i want to say thanks everybody for your questions this one From evan stein says if flat earth is true the christian god is fake No omnipotent deity would allow his handy work to be so readily hidden and misrepresented for so long Well, that's crazy that some dude on youtube seems to have better Understanding than the creator of all things that made him and his cognitive ability Which is very limited to anything outside of time and physical confinement. So there you go. Yeah, things happen because there's free will There are people with evil intentions Typically derivative of a nihilistic materialistic worldview and I think they have a bunch of power and juice on the earth But little little do they know they lose in the end and they're on the wrong end of things So yeah, the creator is very real and this is a deception that's only taken really a strong cold over the last hundred years Gotcha And thanks so much for your question this one coming in from our dearest friend truth nerds who says coordinate transforms Still don't move a point Or coordinate transforms still don't move a point Uh, I'm not sure even what she's trying to convey there, but Cartesian coordinates Cartesian coordinates have been around for thousands of years, man So you just assume a z axis and map it out on a theoretical ball means nothing The use case is the same. In fact, it only works on a flat map projection So I don't know what she's talking about gotcha and this one coming in from mcgelan says navigators work by latitude Longitude coordinates not x y coordinates That's reality widths it Yeah, well, Cartesian coordinates utilizing x and y is where you get longitude and latitude derivative within that and derivative of the sky So that's reality it comes from the cycle of the sky. That's what longitude latitude is Gotcha, and elijah freeman says here to support widths it proponent invoked Reification and affirming the consequent formal logical logical fallacies fallacies in his beginning statement I'm confused Just because they say they're here to support you with and they're yeah, I think he's he's calling out He's saying that that he did that maybe right like that. His opening had fallacies in it, which Oh, I see there's I think they meant opponent instead of proponent. So I think yes, I think they're coming at you paul They didn't name specifically what the fallacies were though. So we will go to the next one. Magellan says all flat maps are projections Whits it and therefore will be Distorted the globe itself is not distorted Yeah, that's patently false the globe distortions Yeah, the globe is distorted Sorry, you spent money to say that mike Eroio appreciate your question said question for widths it if the world is flat Why do planes not fly in straight lines going from any direction on the planet from point a to point b Well, first one, there's no planet and yeah planes literally do fly from point a to point b all the time They assume a flat non rotating surface with the horizontal Uh horizon in front of them to keep their level relative to their artificial horizon. So If you're asking about plane Trajectories, yeah, I don't know why they go way out of their way all the time on the globe earth But then you look at it on a flat projection and it goes in a perfectly straight line So to try to claim the flight paths prove the earth's a globe mean you're just being disingenuous or you haven't researched it Gotcha Yeah, I might be able to uh hopefully answer that when I think I know what the question was what they're saying is when you look on the uh on a map Instead of going from point a to point b in a straight line on the map. It will have a curve on it That's when you're doing long distance flights. You use I believe I don't need to use this because I don't fly that distance I think it's the have a sign Method and what that does that gives you the curvature. So on a flat map It will look like you are traveling in an arch to get from A to B But when you look at that arch and you actually put if you married that back to the globe It would be straight on the globe Yeah, because the curve is derivative of the presupposition of the globe. So that's it. Yeah, gotcha This one coming in from appreciate your question Magellan asks brain snip Stop it with the big words. You are using them all wrong and sound like a wannabe You aren't intellectual.   How do you know that they're who they're referring to? I don't know what that means Uh, that's just yeah, they're saying that I use two bigger words word salad that I'm not saying Yeah, they're You do use a lot of words salad that makes it almost impossible to understand what you're saying That's not true. I talk to people that are very bright with all kinds of credentials all the time They understand everything that I say in order for I'm sure that in a normal conversation that you're having on day-to-day basis with somebody who don't talk to them like No, but I make my point very I hate to interrupt But somebody I'm guessing you have talked to recently with it the rumor is that you are traveling in a flat earth team around the united states right now with Someone that we happen to know of at this channel I don't know if he's there, but uh We uh, I'll get him to come in here Jay mixon, thanks for your question said witsit What would be your response to an astronaut who has been on a space exploration mission and confirms the earth is spherical I would ask him. What are the mental side effects long term of mk ultra? Gotcha And p barn says wits it if polaris has never moved Why does half the world never see it? Do you have a credible citation that it has never moved? Yeah, the megalithic structures all around the world still line up with larce still lines up with the door to guide Sounds like debunked the model other day. There's the homie. Love you guys, dude Support what you like or goes away james. You're doing a great job. My goodness. There he is okay Thank you very much for your question this one coming in from p barn says Oh, we have that one titanicus andro nickus andronicus. Thank you for your question said What does witsit think about the velociraptor earth model? I don't know dinosaur is a pseudo science Although I will say it does appear that maybe things were bigger and lived longer and suffer from atrophy And they told you evolution which is inverse which they always do but I don't even know what that means Obviously, I don't know if that's a troll question juicy and be ball for life. Thanks for your question said wits it exactly How have you measured the non curvature you claimed in the last two weeks? What tools and methods did you use? Yeah, you just make long distance observations like we have a p1000 So the you know the strongest uh zoom commercially available to people That would probably be a good start. We make long distance observations all the time that debunked the globe earth I don't don't know what's confusing about that We also made a time lapse around centralize the plurus and the georgia guide stones and the advocacy of the georgia guide stones Debunked the heliocentric model. So we do all kinds of things. It's just about if you want to go test it for yourself You can go look at a long body of water to yourself too, bro Gotcha and this question coming in from b-ball for life appreciate it said wits it Actually got that one chris gammon appreciate yours said wits it I wish I could afford to launch you into space safely And if you personally witnessed the globe from space, would you change your mind? Yeah, as long as I didn't have to eat or drink anything that they gave me for like a week beforehand or something You know because they tried to drug me and tell me I went there But yeah, I'm not scared of death because the creator's realness named john not god.  We did see the spacex launch though james I don't know if you knew that but we watched the spacex launch the other day And it was pretty funny. We flashbacked the whole crowd live as it launched the worst spiral That is very juicy and we also Let's see appreciate your question Mike billard says wits it how does an equatorial mount telescope work on a flat earth? Don't hurt yourself trying to think through it. Okay. Well, good thing. It's super easy to understand that So I won't have to worry about any pain here but uh It follows the stars through the sky and it tracks it to the horizon then with the presupposition in the engineering of the Mount it assumes it's a ball So what it does is just continue to go down towards the ground until it falls back up to where the star is visible Above the horizon again that doesn't prove the earth's a ball It just proves your engineer with the presupposition of sphericity It's stupid you're tracking the star to the horizon where it's no longer visible because it reached its perception limit Gotcha. And this one coming in from andy m says austin. Do you think that if you repeat enough times? two seconds guys Boomer problems here. They said do you think that if you repeat enough times that the globe earth defies physics? It will magically become true I just think it's hilarious to say that and uh, it objectively does defy all physics that we can replicate on earth So, you know fluid statics it claims water bins convex zero extra ever spinning object in a vacuum to find the second law of thermal dynamics So, yeah defy physics Gotcha. And next up elijah freeman says paul larson planetarium director explains that mathematically You wouldn't see curvature From the international space station But that's what the international space station feed shows Hmm I think that's because the space station space station feed. It'll be using a wide angle lens So that would give you a distinct curve Why would they do that? Why do you give a better field of view? Oh to make it look like it's curving even though it's not to give you a better view The same as you use a wide angle lens yourself We we've got we I do want to give i want to give paul the last word because the question was challenging him And then there's another one for you paul This one says for the claim of scientific evidence for gravity Can we have the hypothesis from either newton or einstein's papers as they are the original claimants? No one ever took Gotcha, and truth nerd says the formula for buoyancy containing g or local gravity And a b science absolutely destroyed Flat earth alternatives mathematically and by experiment. I think that's for you paul That one was for me. I think so they uh They said uh, so the formula for buoyancy contains g in parentheses local gravity, which yeah, and then they say and a b science Absolutely destroyed flat earth alternatives Mathematically and by experiment Yeah, so that's what the flat earth and it destroyed flat earth. They said oh, but they said it destroyed flat earth alternatives I think they're saying like alternatives to flat earth Like such as anything other than a flat earth idea like We're destroyed Right. I don't know. I don't quite understand the question. Gotcha. It is i'm i'm a little bit confused by myself and elisha freeman says Vacuum also requires a container. I think that's for you paul On earth it would require a container. Yes Thank you. And then p barns appreciate your question said just so we can hear him Let's see. Well, wait until there. He has just so you see just so we can hear him not answer again Withs it how does the dome covered flat earth explain the observable testable pressure gradient? Yeah, uh, there's a vortex wall Ether on the earth don't care if you spiral there's no other way But it doesn't really matter again gas is constantly cycling at the surface level where there's vegetation and animals and humans Which is where the prominence of the gas cycle takes place Then we have temperature changes within weather patterns We have electrostatic and electromagnetic phenomena including the dielectric nature of the sun of the moon And whatever the ferment itself is made up of and the electromagnetic nature of that relative to what's below that Some of these are capped off into speculation because we cannot verify them So again, that's a non sequitur red hairs in policy to talk about the gradient when we're asking about the antecedent relationship of pressure And if you understood any of that good luck because I didn't Next I've shown it all made sense my man. It did it really Sheho Knowles, thank you for your question says wits it lots of words to strain together And he can say them rather quickly if only he knew what any of them mean sad little fella Wow, dude. That was really creative man. You're gonna have to work on your delivery, bro Next up truth nerd says entropy is a quantity ever quantified it wits it Sorry, say it again. What I said entropy is a quantity ever quantified it wits it Uh, no, I see quantification Doesn't really mean much to me if it's just built upon presupposition. So the point is that entropy will increase It's the increasing bit that is the crux of the argument So to try to divert into if I've personally quantified entropy is literally irrelevant to the fact that entropy will increase So the high pressure system will migrate to the low pressure system every time it's natural wall Thanks, mike bill arse for your question said wits.  I got you. Yeah, I can send you all kinds of links Um, so just email me a wits it a prototype mail if you're some gamma mail Just just save the time. We don't care. Don't even gamma mail. Is that the new term? Yeah, like every time I give my email out to someone I'm like if you really want to know I'll tell you I get like 10 messages from like gamma mills that just talk crazy. So just guys No one cares I've heard of beta mills, but what are gamma mills? Pretty much the same thing bro. I just think it's hilarious and basically secret kings. They think they got all the juice, you know That is fascinating. So appreciate this coming in from fair and salas. Thanks for your support says thanks for all You do moderate debate crushing it with non-stop debates fist bump. Thanks for your kind words and all credit to the debaters We are thankful for them. They make this fun. And so uh, by the way, they're linked in the description folks Want to let you know that and majelin. Thanks for your question said wits it You don't have enough money to pay for your own place to live let alone a trip out of the country Oh getting personal Well for one, we're staying in the country right now and for two I've literally lived on my own so that was 18 and i'm paying bills back at my house while we're on the road So you're the gamma that we were just talking about next Oh my it's standing for truth Jump sin says great work is always Moderate debate and again all credit to our speakers. We are thrilled to have them and they say global flood debate channel Right after this debate come join us So standing for truth apparently is having a global flood debate on his channel after this And rob kin thanks for your question said my questions for the globe Is non euclidean geometry practically used in reality or euclidean geometry? No idea Gotcha, frankly me neither and like bill ours. Thanks for your question said wits Do you think images of galaxies are baloney? If so, have you tried? photographing andromeda I can give you a really good how-to on youtube Wow, you can tell me how to take pictures of the sky and the makeup fairy tales about them being millions of light years away Oh my gosh, I could figure out that on myself. I could just drop some acid and make up stories So, yeah, you can see what we see in the sky from the earth bro It does not mean that it's millions and trillions of light years away. It's retarded So yeah, we observe what we observe in the sky, but not what they say it is Gotcha Let's see this question coming in from rob kin says my question for the globe Got that mike billar says Generally shady. Thanks for your question said witless Your sister is calling go back to I'm sorry for laughing. They say go back to bed. Okay. I think they're they're trying to insinuate that you have an incestuous relationship with Wow, that's pretty funny.  It wasn't what well written, you know, you added the context So that's kind of funny. I guess next up. Let's see. Oh boy. We've got so many juicy questions here Let's see. Thank you for your question from mike bill ours says Wits what causes you okay? This is just weird Some of these are like too personal, but they say the buoyancy equation is only a scalar value It doesn't have a vector associated Okay, but it results in a vector it results in directionality. So Gotcha and mike bill ours. Thanks for your other question This is for paul. Thanks for your patience paul. He said paul when you're flying Do you ever see the sunset at a measurable angle below your altitude? If so, please ask witsit to explain why Yes, I do see that and yes witsit why What do you see? When you when you fly in you see sunset at an angle as in it goes behind the horizon Yeah asking why Okay, well the sun sets because the sun moves away from you and you can't see it anymore If the sun's I've heard this before if the sun sets because it moves away from you. Why doesn't its size get smaller as it moves further and further Oh, and your size does change throughout the year, but again, we'd actually have to know what medium it's in Only a very small amount, but If an object the size of the sun or That we see this the sun getting further and further away. Surely that light would Would get smaller and smaller and smaller rather than just disappear over the horizon It doesn't make that is a cool assumption that you're making But we would need to know the medium that the sun's in is that the actual or the apparent location Literally, you would have to know both all three of those things if you didn't you would just be making a very low low IQ Stupid stories, but simply we know that there actually is a change Just like with the moon and it moves away from us and when I go out to the beach and I look at the sun sets The sun moves away from me in the sky and it sets.  It's smaller and local and it Seizes to be visible at one point it reaches the perception limit And you're just making claims about what it should do on something you don't even think is the truth. So it's quite relevant to be honest Next up. Thank you very much for your question. This one Two moments all loads a little slow over here. Mike bill are said on one axis witsit I don't know what that means on one axis I don't I don't believe in fairy tales of us being on an axis that wobbles at the devil's number of 66.6 You know, that's just stupid Elijah Freeman says in both black swan images the horizon is still beyond 1.2 miles I think that's for paul though. I don't fully Yeah, in both in both images. There's still refraction taking place. Yes Gotcha and just on one of them that they're called the black swan um, it is More refraction taking place in that. He's just saying the other one debunks the globe too anyway So it doesn't really matter pick whichever one. I'm not saying it debunks the globe What I'm saying is is that um due to the fact that The distance changes you can't use it as I was saying that the super chat the super chat was trying to say that even the other one that you brought up Also debunks the globe because the horizon's too far in that picture too. That's what you see All right. Yeah, got you got you and this one coming in from John hymes says wits it keep it up. You're doing great kid Thanks, bro much love And truth nerd says spaces are about points and their distances coordinate systems describe the location of points Cartesian coordinates and spheres work fine together. Yeah, once you add a z-axis, we've covered it numerous times, so next neo Egypt says how does a helium balloon debunk gravity helium which has a mass of four grams per molecule? Has a density of 0.164 grams per liter thus a one liter Balloon of helium can lift a mass of 1.18 Basically 1.02 grams Yeah, well mass is a conceptual reification of gravity to try to quantify matter And basically all you just did was make the flat earth argument by bringing up density So yeah, again, the primary causal agent is the density relationship of the object relative to the medium Next up think outside the box appreciate your question said great job wits it as always at this point I'm sure even james is a secret flat earth there. Okay Well, I uh must remain neutral. Magellan. Thanks for your question says what's it meaning Uh, they're saying what's it wits it? What does it mean when you say quote morphing of fabrics and concepts? Which is a reunification fallacy for more textural vestibular system Reasoning omni directionality The pressure always mediates That's pretty funny They just combined like all of the words that had a few extra syllables from all my arguments So I don't I'm not gonna really entertain that way. There was an incoherent like like attack So whatever juicy this one coming in from anthony dickinson says for paul Will you please read the day before the day for creation? In genesis and then tell us what the earth was revolving around the first three days Uh, don't read the bible Gotcha and this question mic bill arse says one on one. Oh, we got that one lack of unis appreciate your question says doesn't the natural curvature In genitals of animals and humans and especially in males prove the effect of gravity and the curve of the earth Since it occurs naturally. Is this a serious question? I'll be honest james. I seriously am not surprised that a glow birther would say something like that, you know, it seems to be a reoccurring theme, but Uh, no actually because well, they're more dense than the air and they stick to equilibrium That is interesting, but thanks for your question ox says flat earth.  Well, if you want to respond with any substance of specificity to any of the actual empirical evidence We've been compiling and that would be cool Next up. Thanks for your question truth nerd says ab science destroyed flat earth explanations of buoyancy ab Atonio brown, I don't know I don't know what ab science is. I don't know what that is P. S. You were right before paul earlier. There was a question that I thought was for you But you were right. It was actually for witsett. So now it cleared it up for me. Sorry about that And thanks for your question. This one coming in from truth nerds. Oh, we got that. Mike biller says witsett The sun is setting quote unquote below paul Why is that? Because we live on a globe Got jen daniel knight says witsett. How can you know the sun is moving away from you when setting How are you measuring the distance? I never claimed to measure the distance because if you try to use triangulation you need an actual location It would be pretty foolish and unfounded for me to assume that the apparent perceivable location of the sun is the actual location So I don't claim a distance. I claim that the sun Moves away from me in the sky and then it sets when it's not visible anymore But you claim that the sun didn't move at all and i'm just falling backwards and it looks like that So juicy. Thank you for your question This one coming in from Daniel knight says witsett. How can you know the sun is moving away from you when setting? How are you measuring the distance? Just answer that one you have to have the actual locations next up michael lee michael lion says witsett What's up homie? It's sad that people can't understand your cognitive explanations lol Yep, what's up bro? Michael lion's a legend and yeah, you just got to keep it pushing dude plant the seeds and let the Dead bury the dead. Yeah Next up mark reed. Thanks for your question says if the earth is not spinning How come there's a 15 degree drift on a ring laser gyroscope? Thanks, bob I'm glad you asked well because that's called a sagnac effect the actual person that has suffered it Sagnac said that it was a vortex shul movement the vortex that moves within the ether that he was measuring The person that discovered the sagnac effect that the gyro still utilized So basically you just presuppose that the deviation is derivative of the earth spinning as it Creates for our establishes rigidity in space But of course that's not what happens We've actually gone out and then we've tested the same latitude which on the earth That means that the deviation should be the same the procession should be the same relative to latitude We went to the same latitude it changed altitude and we got over a degree invariance at the same latitude debunking The fact that people claim or debunking the claim that it's actually the procession deriving from earth rotation So there you go. Gotcha. And thanks for your question from mid gellin says wits it you didn't get it What does all that gibberish mean? What does quote morphing of fabrics and concepts? Which is a reunification fallacy mean Okay, yeah, so morphing of fabrics and concepts I I don't think I said that but you know It is taking conceptual abstractions concepts that human constructs that humans have come up with like time Quantification of passing based on the sky space the idea of emptiness Taking those concepts and giving them physical properties like when you bend something physically or it warps physically or your eyes Dilate physically you cannot give concepts physical properties. It's called a Reification fallacy that is where you give a concept misplaced concreteness Very juicy and this question coming in from appreciate it Joe Knowles says wits it I have something dense. That's naturally curved and defies gravity that you might Just not gonna read it next up. You guys are nasty nasty guys All right, and thank you for your question. Magellan says wits it a lot of what you speak is actually Incoherent gibberish your misuse and misunderstanding of words is olympic. You sound like a fool The funny part is that all they can ever do is give some vague little gamer recollection of how what I say doesn't make sense But they can never specify it because typically it actually goes over their cognitive grasp in the moment They can't retain what I say. So it's pretty hilarious yourself projecting ground intellectual insecurity Gotcha this one coming in from estaban Ilobaca appreciate your super chat says wits it about the sun from a plane looking down Considering perspective and geometry. How can an object that's above your eye level ever go below it? Shouldn't it just get smaller towards eye level? Shouldn't just get smaller Above eye level what what dude the sun's small and local and it moves Away from you and then you can't see it anymore But if you go to the top of a building you can see it a little bit longer because you increase your angle of view So the globe earth is just this unfounded additional claim of terra firma bending confecsly blocking and physically obstructing your view of the sun Which doesn't happen the sun moves. We don't fall backwards We need evidence for claims antithetical to observation very simple Gotcha this question from mike billar says He's he's uh, he's like a dog with a bone. He says i'm going to need an answer to my question wits it Why did the sun set below? Paul when he was flying is the sun only 4 000 feet up It's a perceptive Optical effect relative to the atmospheric conditions your location and the distance of the sun away from you during the day This isn't complicated the sun sets it's an optical effect because it reaches The vanishing point of your limit of perception Gotcha and this one from truth nerds appreciate it said ab science is a youtube channel worth watching thank you dad and anthony dickinson says as a pilot paul if you traveled in your plane in a straight line at 1001 mile per hour will you eventually be above the sun if you followed it? No Gotcha and thanks for your question trevor michler Another one of your buddies wits it right it says wits it You're awesome. Do you have any special plans to celebrate your debate victory tonight? Oh snap? Well, you got a fan out there apparently Yeah, sure. He's our boy, man. He kicks it with us. He's on the tour clown world tour What's it gets it? But they're gonna kick me off of there. I'm sure because stupid flat earthers have to get censored forcibly But yeah, that's my homie and probably just kick it with the base flat earthers that came to kick it here So that's what we'll do tonight a lot of kicking and thanks for your question Magellan says wits it quote vestibular system which affects reasoning It doesn't you clown it affects balance Omni directionality is also not a real word Okay, it literally is a real world.  Can you read read the first part? Yes, he said This quote vestibular system which affects reasoning. He said okay. Yeah, it doesn't Yeah, I said spatial reasoning Don't don't don't You got it and yes, thank you. Let's see what we've got here. Want to make sure I don't miss Have that one last one this one from Esteban illa baka. Thank you for your question And then we uh, I do want to wrap up pretty quick here Just because we are super thankful that paul is with us paul is actually in england He what time was it? What time is it there right now paul? multiple three, okay, holy moly So we do want to let paul get to sleep by a decent time. So we uh, it's like Esteban illa baka says please ask wits it to answer my last question Why does the sun go below eye level from a plane if it's refraction there should be a temp inversion Really really so refraction is not even a fully understood phenomena Actually snails law is the one that tells you how to quantify and understand Refraction and that's about to change between two media right from one medium to another So the atmosphere of the course is singular medium that is a homogenous There's changes within so you have to use a differential of snails law equations So if you're trying to invoke refraction and claim that you have some type of full Bulletproof understanding of the phenomena when you literally cannot according to subject matter experts I don't know what to say But please stop super chat in the same question over and over man The sun moves away from you and it reaches its vanishing point You can't see it anymore until you haven't proof of evidence otherwise It's just a fairy tale story. You're trying to tell me man next up question the answers Got a last one and says wits it ever look into veins and also the inverse square law Barbecues the moon mainstream narrative. Hope everyone has an excellent Saturday Yeah, pendulous veins is the little thing they say that supposedly helps them to establish a rigidity in space and use gyros Around this magic spinning cartoon ball where Coriolis is here, but not here and you can't see it in all this other nonsense Uh and the inverse square law barbecues the moon's mainstream narrative Yeah, they claim it's 338 thousand miles away Of course the inverse square law debunks the entire claim about the vast distances of the Of the stars that we see for thousands of years and they claim that we see them But they're not there but yeah the inverse square law necessitates them be much more local Gotcha very interesting. So folks I'm going to be right back with a post credit scene where I will be telling you the upcoming debates You will want to stick around for that. It's going to be exciting But want to remind you before we go to the break where I say goodbye to our guests They're linked in the description If you want to hear more folks now is a great opportunity to click on their links at the very top of our description box And so thanks everybody And thank you so much most of all to our guests. We appreciate you guys You guys make this channel fun. And so paul. Thanks so much and wits it. Thanks so much for being with us tonight Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for letting me on brilliant. We enjoyed it our pleasure. Thanks guys And as mentioned, I'll be back with that post credit scene in just a moment folks stay put super fun So thanks everybody for all of your questions. Sorry. We did not get to all of the questions But do want to say thanks everybody for hanging out with us. We're pumped you guys First I want to say hi just get to hang out with you guys say hello. I love getting to say hello So thanks so much for being with us robert page. Good to see you estaban illa baka. Thanks for being with us, buddy Hope you are having a great time and raisins Day trays rodney. Thanks for being with us mark reed. Good to see you again. He's shield. Glad you're here. Lenny cash Rob montgomery. Thanks for hanging out with us and Also good old melanie maran is back. Thanks for being with us. Mathias vesturgard. Thanks for being here Flatplane, oregon new world abnormal. Thanks for being with us and thanks for your positivity says great debate Thanks for that. I can't yes, right if you have not hit that like button yet And if you want to show some support if you found this was a fun friday night activity hit that like button as we do appreciate that support and Angie s glad you are here. Thanks for hanging out with us along with get real and flat earth 2017 consciousness Thanks for being with us and love wisdom harmony as well. But yeah, we are pumped you guys Thanks so much louis barnett for your kind words says hey james glad to watch you live again. Thanks man We're stoked. You're here. This is it's always fun here in the live show. It's always like I always see I tell the debaters right before we go live every time i'm like this is just so much fun for me Thank you guys for being with us and it is you guys. It's a blast So we're thankful for our guests. They rock. They are linked in the description And also want to let you know though See that poster the one i'm pointing to right now That is going to be happening in the next several weeks. It's there's no exact date We're planning that out with matt and sam So that's coming up though folks. You don't want to miss it is going to be epic But let me tell you about some of the other ones. Hold baby. We've got some cool ones you guys Let me tell you that Some of you love him. Some of you hate him Fight the flat earth will be back in a couple of weeks He will be taking on Iger television so that should be a juicy one if you love this topic folks, which you must if you're here You won't want to miss that one Either so hit that subscribe button in that notification bell if you don't want to miss that next flat earth Debate coming up, especially if you want to tune in for it live you guys Be sure to hit that notification bell so you get every notification for when we go live Also, though you guys we are pumped. I mean honestly, we will be back tomorrow night It is a surprise in terms of what it will be though Then next tuesday brenton and ben burgess will be debating a political debate. I can't remember the exact title but also Next friday, we are planning on another debate in the religion realm That featuring randolph richardson so that should be a juicy one He is president of canadian atheist and so you don't want to miss that one as well But yeah, you guys we've got a ton of epic ones coming up And so want to be sure that you don't miss them. It's going to be fun But thanks so much for your kind words in the chat Squatch talk. I appreciate that really do appreciate your kindness and positivity and skeptic 7 7 Thanks for being with us. Albert bitcoin, of course Megan satanus and rob no, and thanks for being with us test beat box. I got your email. Thanks for letting me know about that I did not know about that you guys If anybody got blocked by gaven last night, I'm sorry gaven should never have a wrench here We don't trust him. So What I think might have happened is I will Believe me. I will talk to praise. I get I'm guessing that when praise moderates, he wrenches up his buddies Not happening anymore. So Yeah, sorry that gaven apparently hid some people Yesterday were not not cool. So Thanks for letting me know about that and so we want everybody to have their chance to say what they want here The only thing we say is that we don't allow hate speech But I mean anything else goes and so it is it's sometimes a little bit rocky in the chat Sometimes the chat can be a little bit, you know fighty. That's one way to put it But nonetheless, we do want everybody to have their chance to say whatever they want To an extent within reason roi airs your roi airs 3% glad you're here flat plain Oregon glad you're here and let's see Lenny cash. Good to see you buddy Question the answers. Thanks for being with us and Matthias Vestergaard. Thanks for your kind words says thanks Your name is great debate. Thank you, Matthias. We appreciate you hanging out with us. It's always fun and brittle Sorry, we did not get your question or questions I'm like, so I hope paul stays up this late usually because I'm what was it? You think paul said it was 3 a.m. Before he left, but yeah general ballsack. Thanks for being with us as that's cgi And yes, thank you guys though for hanging out with us Stephane good to see you again And am I pronouncing it right? Let me know but also Stephanie Tretton. Thanks for being with us and angie s Glad you're here lewis barnett But yeah, you guys this is always fun j s a seto or a sito. We're glad you're here fpv berry Thanks for dropping by. Hope you feel welcome friend And yeah, we are pumped though lack of unis. Thanks for being with us. Appreciate it, buddy King crew glad you're here. Thanks for all your support of the channel. That means a lot And yes, you guys We are pumped though want to let you know check this out. You guys were pumped We if you have amazon prime You can use that to help su