Hey everybody, tonight we're debating Flat Earth versus Globerth and we are starting right now with Ozean's opening statement Thanks so much for being with us Ozean. The floor is all yours Hey everyone, thanks James. Welcome to the debate. It's And the earth ain't flat bro, I'm Ozean and today we're diving into a heated topic the shape of our planet Hold on a second there Shape of our planet. This is a nod to my last debate Now you've probably heard a ton of scientific evidence pointing towards the globe earth That's there's an angle you might not have considered the incredible Contributions of scientists through history who had a face great adversity their work done against all odds has been pivotal in shaping our cosmic understanding First up. Let's talk about Albert Einstein Einstein wasn't just a genius physicist his heritage was a big part of who he was His general relativity theory a total game changer It reshaped how we see gravity space and time and it's not just a theory We've got concrete evidence backing it up like how light bends around massive objects like the Sun This is key guys. It's a big point for a spherical earth Now onto Stephen Weinberg another brilliant mind his work in particle physics Especially with the standard model fits perfectly with his spherical earth cruising through a vast universe And we can talk about the big bang theory George Gamal a scientist was crucial in developing this This theory backed up by cosmic background radiation and galaxy distribution literally requires his spherical earth And we got Jacob Beckensteins another name you should know his work on black home thermal dynamics as deep implications for gravitational theory What does this mean for us? It backs up the idea of a spherical earth Alan Gooth physicists introduced us to cosmic inflation theory giving us a peek into the universe's earliest moments This theory fitting right into the big bang framework supports the idea of spherical planets And let's not forget Andre Lyndon His work in inflationary cosmology further supports of spherical earth through theoretical physics to sum as up these thinkers facing the challenges of hate and Racism didn't just advance our understanding of the university solidified the fact of our planet shape Now we should why should we trust these scientific sources? It boils down to the scientific method observation experimentation and repeatability the works of Einstein Weinberg Gamal Beckenstein youth and Lynn Have all been through this rigorous process proving themselves time and time again science and proof work differently and science we use induction drawing general conclusions from specific observations As Carl Popper pointed out Science assumes an orderly universe consistent laws of nature Things we can't prove but need to accept to make any sense of our world So when we talk about the earth being spherical, we're not just throwing out a wild claim We're talking about a well-tested consistently observed body of knowledge It's underpinned by logic and mathematics In short, the spherical nature of the earth isn't just a fact It's a testament to human inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge driven by these incredible scientists Now let's address those flat earth claims These often fall into realm of fringe science ideas stray far from the scientific consensus And lack solid evidence or adherence to the scientific method check these theories often cherry-pick data and don't stand up to serious testing Here's the deal with scientific integrity It's all about following the scientific method the theories about a spherical earth have been through this Tested and refined and they align with what we've observed. This is what separates solid science from fringe theories In any rational debate, especially in science, the burden of proof is key If you're making a claim like the flat earth theory, you've got to back it up with solid evidence Scientifically sound evidence. It's not enough to question established science. You need to bring something substantial to the table Established scientific theories about earth shape have passed rigorous testing flat earth theories Not so much. They lack solid evidence and often shift the burden of proof onto others Remember it's great to ask questions and challenge ideas That's how science moves forward But it has to be based on the scientific method and solid evidence. So The flat earth proponents have a huge task ahead They need to provide evidence that stands up to the same rigorous testing as the theories they're challenging until then We're justified in our belief in the spherical earth a belief grounded in thoroughly validated scientific knowledge and pictures of the earth from the moon Let's get practical for a moment Take the simple observation of ships on the horizon when a ship sails away It doesn't just shrink out of sight. It appears to sink with the whole vanishing first and the mass blast This is something you can see for yourself and it directly contradicts the idea of a flat level earth It's a clear demonstration of the earth's curvature If we were dealing with the flat surface ships would simply get smaller and smaller until they're not visible But they wouldn't appear to sink below the horizon and that requires testing and predictions measurements And what about the full coast pendulum back in 1851? Leanne Foucault hung a massive pendulum in Paris that showed the world something amazing as his pendulum swung its plane of swing Which is um its inertial plane of reference rotated throughout the day Because the earth was rotating around it proving that the earth itself is rotating This effect changes with latitude as fast as at the poles and doesn't happen at all at the equator And it reverses in the southern hemisphere This is hard evidence observable by anyone and it just doesn't work in a stationary earth model Now let's talk about high altitude balloons. These are not sci-fi gadgets They are real and used regularly for atmospheric research and the ascend They measure pressure and temperature changes showing a clear gradient from the earth's surface to the edge of space This gradient is gradual transition Not a sudden drop off as you'd expect in a world where gravity holds an atmosphere Next to the vacuum of space this aligns perfectly with the laws of thermodynamics and entropy And it's yet another piece of real world evidence contradicting the flat earth model So here's the deal in this debate and in science in general We need to base our beliefs and arguments on evidence Not just what feels right or what seems to make sense on the surface The evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming Consistent and observable by anyone willing to look To clad calib. Sorry my opponent and to everyone watching I encourage you to consider the evidence the real hard evidence From centuries in scientific inquiry and exploration The shape of our planet isn't just a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact with pictures Demonstrated by relentless pursuit of truth by scientists across history including those who faced unimaginable adversity In this debate is not just about proving a point It's about respecting the legacy of scientific discovery And acknowledging the hard work the genius and the perseverance of those who have dedicated their lives To understanding and expanding our knowledge of the universe To disregard this is to turn away from a rich history of human achievement In favor of unproven unsupported fringe theories So as we move forward in this discussion today Let's keep our focus on the evidence on the science and on the remarkable human journey of discovery That has brought us to our current understanding of this incredible Spherical world we call home now. I have a short clip I got permission from mc2 to post a beast trip to an artica How did mr. Beast destroy flat earth? Mr. Beast went to Antarctica to destroy flat earth We're literally at the bottom of the globe at the oldest place on earth There's actually a ring around us that's containing the water They even think the sun moves between the smaller Tropic of cancer and the larger tropic of capricorn then moves back to the tropic of cancer Every year let me and you go to Antarctica spend a week there in the summer And let's see if the sun does a 360 degree circle all the way around us. If so, it's a ball But what about the sun? Did it ever set the hard part about Antarctica is the sun never goes down? You don't know when it's night or not. They're probably asleep because it's 4 a.m The sun literally never goes down in Antarctica. So night one was rough It's the next morning I don't know if I'm supposed to get out of bed or not because the sun's just always up 223 a.m. And the sun is as bright as ever. That's because here in Antarctica the sun never sits just goes like this The sun does a 360 degree circle all the way around us. If so, it's a ball So let's have a look where the sun would have to be on pancake world at 230 in the morning They were at Union Glacier, which is the same time zone as southern Chile GMT minus three hours at 230 a.m On the territory the sun would be directly over the south indian ocean That's as far away as possible from where mr. Beast was if we use the flat earth map But the sun was up At the exact same time all of north america was enjoying a dark dark night Even though north america is much closer to where the sun is on the dirt pizza Thanks james for hosting this debate and thank you everyone for tuning in Let's keep the conversation grounded in science and respect for the work of bright minds in a shared pursuit of truth You very much for that opening and folks have it your first time here at modern day debate I want to let you know modern day debate is a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics I'm your host james Our goal our vision is to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can everybody can make their case on a level playing field Also, I want to let you know if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button. We have plenty more debates coming up And with that we're going to jump over to Caleb's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us Caleb the floor is all yours Thanks for having me james. Uh, can you share my screen? Is it sharing now? Okay, perfect, so We are debating modern cosmology or the globular earth claim versus flat earth claim and no, I will not be reading from a script Uh, we'll be going over a presentation that I made literally yesterday So is the earth a ball or is it flat? Let's talk The earth is not an oblate steroid. Is it moved now? Did it move? Okay, there we go. Okay. I'll have to pay attention There is no accurate empirical way to substantiate the radius and circumference claimed by modern day academia It is purely just an assumption usually baked into math equations and then reified into reality Into the minds of very religious zealots that just follow scientism without any question Basically people just take scientists word as if it's just a straight up fact They don't need to know the details. They can't regurgitate the evidence or the academic Literature they literally have no idea what's going on with it. They just You know fully kind of like a religion Anyway, if the scientific method which ozion happily talked about I think we'll be talking about that plane If the scientific method is demanded to be followed the globe earth proponents typically cry and claim insane things like the scientific method Can be changed based on the field you are discussing. I've seen multiple people do this It's becoming very normal recently a lot of globe earth proponents are saying that oh, no No, no, no those the scientific method is relative You can change the steps based on what kind of science you're doing that is not how the scientific method works It's very strict and we'll talk about it further in this Presentation so the globe earth proponents cannot substantiate one Motion of the earth in the form of axial rotation orbit around the sun or motion of the solar system to physical convexity to the surface of the earth Specifically the ocean surface to assume That the the ocean surface is convexing at a rate of eight inches per mile squared And yes globers eight inches per mile squared is an accurate approximation Which lines up with every other mathematical model of the curvature of the earth up to like 3000 miles So we're definitely not seeing past 3000 miles or anywhere near 3000 miles. So very accurate approximation They cannot substantiate the existence of a vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 tour adjacent to the earth's atmosphere Gravity definitely a lot of people are entertaining this newtonian gravity argument. I will not be entertaining them We're not going back to the archaic model of 1666 400 years ago to the stupid idea of mass attracting mass that's top chill We will not be doing that We will be discussing relativity and the bending and warping of a fourth dimensional fabric called spacetime, which has never been Approved through science through the scientific method. You cannot manipulate it. You can't feel it You can't show it therefore you can't follow the scientific method. It's just a pure thought experiment Um, and they cannot solve the fine-tuning problems that exist within their model. I had a space there. Sorry about that There's a lot of fine-tuning problems that plague all of cosmology All of the claims about evolution, which we'll not be getting into anyway Either way, uh, there's lots of evidence for creation to the earth and flat earth is one of them As well as distances to quote-unquote planets or the moon or the sun None of that can be substantiated through the scientific method. I would love to hear an argument for why it can Things that suggest the earth to be a level plane. I agree positive evidence or a positive plane requires evidence To assume the earth as a plane is to back it up with plane surveying which assumes the earth is flat and the flat for 100 square miles All long distance observations may pass the radius and circumference claim All prove and suggest that the earth is flat fluid statics and dynamics meaning when water is static and when it's moving All suggest that the surface of the water is level always The simplest way to prove the earth is flat is the oceans Uh, the oceans are not holding convexity at agencies per mile square That's like the most illogical thing anyone can assume and there's absolutely nothing to back it up And all the pictures had literally admitted to be both job other than a couple Which they could be using trickery with models and things like that taking outside of a out of a freaking aircraft on the surface of the earth It's secondary evidence you can't just suggest. Oh, nasa has a picture of the globe.  Nobody knows who took the picture They can't even decide who took the picture So even the ones that are claimed to be real could literally be them Making a model and on the surface of the earth taking a picture of that model on the earth surface No evidence otherwise Again long distance laser observations, which fe core has done plenty Lasers shoot and they do not curve around the curvature of the earth and whenever we shoot them over body's water Guess what they show it's flat because water is always level at the surface proving the earth to be a level plane Long distance mirror flashes mirror flash observations. We have observations of mirror flashes like over 20 miles from a zero foot observe Globes that just they're literally there. You can just move on knowing the earth's not a ball And I would also argue common sense suggests that you're this flat the amount of like mental gymnastics and Just ad hoc assumptions you have to make to believe in this religion of globular earth Is astounding to me sometimes it actually blows my mind that people just blindly believe this crap I want to talk about math because I don't entertain math conversations when talking to Glover there's a lot of people think math is a definitive way of deducing something existing or not existing in reality Math is descriptive science Explained you have to use English to suggest something exists in reality You can't just do a math equation of m1 m2 over r squared Oh, there we go. Gravity's real law of gravitation. No, it's a mathematical model describing the downward acceleration that we observe in mass You have to describe with English how that works in mass attracting mass is not going to be entertained And bendy spacetime makes absolutely no sense and goes against all logic So math can describe patterns in relationship It is not inherently It is inherently descriptive and does not necessarily imply the existence or cars corresponding entities in the external world So simply math doesn't prove any you can use it. You can use it to be accurate But at the end of the day it proves absolutely enough. We have to use science specifically the rigorous scientific method Let's talk logic I like to ozine went over this The positive claim does have the burden of proof the negative claim does not flat is just a description of a surface You can have a flat triangle. You can have a flat square. We're not specifically making a positive claim We're just saying overall the earth's surface seems to be flat So the globe is is specifying a very specific dimensions to the earth's surface The radius being 3959 miles. There's circumference being 24901 miles We need extraordinary evidence for that claim. I have been doing this for three years There is none We will not hear anything today that logically substantiates that the earth is convex that the surface specifically over the oceans Is what I wanted If I say I don't believe the earth to be apparel blaze spheroid It is now the burden of the burden of the opposition to substantiate their extra Nordic claim that the earth is bald like I just went Let's talk the scientific method I like to go over these steps because none of the globers know the steps of the scientific method observation question hypothesis Experiment experiment is necessary data collection analysis of the data and then conclusion And you have to have controls Sorry glovers. I'm so sorry. This is never followed when giving globe earth evidence They never mentioned dependent variables independent for the variables and controls A dependent variable is a variable that you measure in experiment It depends on the changes you make to the independent variable So it's it's static the dependent the dependent variable the independent variable is the variable that you manipulate I will need independent variables described I will need dependent variables described And I will need controls described in all of the evidence that is claimed to be evidence for a glow I'm sure we will get none of that More evidence of modern cosmology being wrong Emergency flight path landings When we're flying from Auckland to Peru, we're flying on the bottom side of the ball if we assume the earth's an oblade spheroid and Enough they cross the equator Thousands and thousands of miles during an emergency flight path landing to land in Los Angeles And then as you see here if you map it over a flutter right on course Right here vacuum next to non-back high pressure systems seek low pressure system Every single time you cannot show me gas pressure in the form And without a container the way that we measure gas pressure is the exhortation on the container I can't just tell you you know what? Um, go grab me a handful of nitrogen. Please just go grab me a handful of No, you have to have a container So proving that the atmosphere has some sort of container I wouldn't make any positive claims of what it is what the shape of is the distance to it But the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of fluid mechanics Necessitate that we have a container to our atmosphere just common sense if you understand A lot of globers seem to think that the uh southern pole star and the northern pole star proved the earth is a ball Guys wake up You can't have a stationary star in the north and the south if we're on a spinning wobbling pair Shooting through a vacuum at 500,000 miles per hour as well as an expanding universe That all the stars supposed to be doing their independent movements independent of one another But yet they stay the exact same for thousands of years like they're fixed in a medium or something I don't know. It's kind of weird. Anyway, uh, here's the sun destroying the globular earth You can see over 80 miles. The sun is backlighting The the skyline of a city Completely doesn't work on a ball. You can scream refraction and cry refraction all day I will need controls in the form of independent independent variables to approve that refraction is casting the image up into the horizon Like a superior mirage. That's nonsense Another longer uh, uh longer range observation was made. Um, I can't remember the specific name of the guy But he made an observation from palestine to crete Over 616 miles There would need to be 40 miles of physical curvature between the two points Suggesting again the earth is Overwater specific obviously there's topography, right? Isn't but water is what every time that we observe a new reality That's just common sense. There's the evidence for you can fill a large body of water in the form of a pool And guess what unless a force is acted upon the surface of the water it will be level and last but not least Globers they always cry uh Lunar eclipses man Good if we're on the dirt pizza as mctoon would say if we're on the dirt pizza We should see a flat shadow We see a cell in nillion eclipse where not only the shadow cast onto the moon comes from the top to the bottom Debunking the globe can't work as well as we're seeing the sun and the moon at the same time And it's an often eclipse that is observed in reality so Most of the evidence that I really want to make some laws of blurts Like like the kundas because most the evidence that is purported to prove the earth is a ball Most of it completely destroys it. So when actually analyzed honestly, uh, other than that, I think that's my last slide And uh, that's the end of my presentation. I guess let's get on to the open conversation. I'll stop sharing For that opening statement as well We are gonna jump into the open dialogue a couple of quick housekeeping things folks In particular if you can hit that like button Not for me, but for you so that youtube's algorithm knows what to recommend to you more So you can get the absolute best stuff you enjoy, but also we're gonna have open dialogue. I gotta tell you gentlemen It's imperative that you guys get equal time and that there are not interruptions I can a little bit go but it's gonna be pretty quick if there's a lot of interruptions I'm gonna switch us into two minute intervals I'm gonna rule with an iron fist on this just so it doesn't get out of control The other thing is folks who have to let you know There is a q&a at the very end So if you happen to have any questions feel free to fire them into the old live chat There are two ways you can do that You can either tag me with at modern day debate in the live chat or you can also Use a super chat as those go to the top of the list and with that Thanks so much for being with us gentlemen. The floor is all yours for open dialogue I don't understand like you just to point out like you say math is descriptive Okay, that's fine. Math describes what a thing is and then we use explanations to explain what we're describing And why that thing is the way it is So when you explain things you use both the description of what it is and an explanation for why it is There's no problem in that when you're given a narrative For why something is so we can use math as part of our narrative So I don't know why you're dismissing math entirely from these type of discussions Not that I want to go into the math, but it seems like you ad hoc decided You're going to presuppose math was useless I mean, yeah, you said it yourself you need the explanation, right? You need the science you need to use the scientific method as well as the math A lot of people just think they can throw out math and prove something So I'd like to hear what is your best evidence? Hold on. Hold on. What is your best evidence for the earth being a ball? Please go So you need both you need both the math and the explanation Well, we weren't done with that you respond on whenever but what you just said So you need both the math to describe what this thing is and an explanation So you don't need the math at all just an explanation. So you don't need to say That is five miles away and if we're going 60 miles an hour How long it's going to take to get there? You don't that's not an explanation To describe how long it takes to get there. You're just going to like oh, it just took me a period of time I'd like to discuss the actual topic instead of math. Do you have any proof of your example? Well, that's just part of your opening argument part of your opening argument was that we should ignore math I want to get passed out. We're not going to ignore math if it comes up during the argument. Is that correct? Do you have any proof of your it's a ball? Can we discuss the topic at hand? Yeah, I just showed a video of it. So What about that prove it's a ball? Well, Dean Otto specifically said if you're at the south pole Am I am if you're Dean Otto specifically said if well, let me ask this if you're at the south pole Should you see the sun go all the way around you in a great circle? I didn't see a time lapse of them showing it 24 I asked you a question. Can you answer the question? I didn't see a time lapse of them showing so you can't answer the question I'm not asking you about the results of their test. I asked you a question Yeah, that's never a dirt if you're at the south pole and you see the sun go all the way around you in a great circle Would that mean the earth is a globe? No, it wouldn't necessitate that here. It's a ball. It would be it would be interesting It would be counter evidence And I finished my point. Yeah, I shut up You seem to be talking anyway So if there were a 24 hour sun which has never ever ever been observed never There's not a time lapse out there of a 24 hour sun Mr. Beast didn't show it. He showed multiple clips and he said oh guys believe us It's two in the morning. You didn't show a clock or anything That wasn't evidence that the earth's a ball or that there's a 24 hour sun simple as that so It's called testimonial. They testified the earth was uh that the sun was up the entire 24 hours They were there which is just fine. I have no reason to doubt mr. Beast is lying why would mr. Beast lie about the the Sun going around in a great circle around them all 24 hours a day 50 hours actually they were there for 50 hours You're genuinely asking me what my what mr.  So please explain why he's lying No, yeah, I have the negative claim you have no positive claim You just made a positive claim that he's being deceptive That's your positive claim. You have a burden to prove to prove to me that mr. Beast is lying Otherwise you have to say I just don't know maybe he's telling the truth So let me explain logic to you if I am explaining logic to you Can I talk to you sure let's give all right. We'll give you about a minute Caleb Yep, thank you So I'm have the negative claim in this conversation It's specifically about mr. Beast Proving and again, that's hilarious that you're using somebody else's evidence to give your claim Like you took a video from mctoon Knowing this conversation wouldn't happen and played it in your intro after reading a script either way I have the negative claim. I'm saying I don't believe mr. Beast. I think he could be being deceptive You're saying oh, I think mr. Beast is right I have the pot you have the positive claim so your lack of positive and negative claim is not my problem Okay, so you have to substantiate that mr. Beast saw a 24 hour sun You cannot with the little 20 minute video that he provided. He did not provide a time lapse He did not show any compass readings. He did not show any it clocks none of that So anyway onto you. Let's hear what you have to say Oh very clearly to be sure though just to back up if it is the case and it might not be But if oseans write Caleb that if you did say that mr. Beast is lying And it's oseans you could say piece of evidence that namely mr. Beast reasoning Is it seems fair that he can ask you in what way or but maybe I'm wrong Maybe you're like, wait, I didn't say that mr. Beast was lying I just want to be sure all on the same page because I'm not sure if people know where you stand on this So I'm saying I have the negative claim with mr. Beast's evidence I'm saying he did not ask if you said he was lying Um Sure, why not? Okay, so I think it's saying like hey, this was my piece of evidence Namely that this case or argument that mr. Beast is putting forth and then oseans saying, okay But can you explain to me? How Is mr. Beast lying it makes you know, it seems like it's reasonable to ask That would be asking me to go against logic. I have the negative thing so I don't have to provide the burden of proof That's as simple as well Well, that's just not the case you're making a box to claim that he's lying So it's so if I if I tell you osean, you know what man? I can jump 100 miles into the air Is it your burden of proof that I can't or my burden of proof? I can't if you're providing that mr. Beast Brought claims and evidence that the Antarctic Sun actually exists in the form of 24 hours You have the burden of proof. Not me. This is extremely simple. I actually went over this in my actual introduction. I don't know how we're doing No, you're make a positive claim that he's being accepted. I don't want to get bogged down. Forgive me, but it sounds like This might be a good opportunity where we jump to something else. It is it is pretty clear that I think we're all on the same page. We recognize that Caleb doesn't want to explain why mr. Beast is lying. He just wants to say it So well, it's impossible. I think we're settled there Yeah, it's impossible for me to prove why he's lying. Caleb if you want to try to challenge Something from osean. I think he just did he just challenged me asking for some evidence that the earth I want to get on something new because you guys can change the topic over and over. I have the neg I don't have that because I don't have the positive or the negative It's just if you guys just say it over and over People in the chat will give me how they'll say James. This is freaking boring. They just keep repeating themselves Let's go to something new I do want to but I want to push back against another claim Because he's arguing that he doesn't have a positive claim. This is globe versus flat So we both have a positive claim that we have to support about the Geometry of the earth So I want to ask you related to the second law of thermodynamics Which states that an isolated system entropy tends to increase I have a question for that claim that's if you're claiming The space is not real and the earth exists and closed an isolated system How do you explain the regulation of earth's temperature? The sun clearly provides heat anybody inside the experience the heat from sun I if intelligence was measured in sarcasm, I think you just won a Nobel Prize Congratulations, Caleb So the sun clearly provides heat. That's your facial expressions anyways playing a crucial role in our planet's energy Without it earth would rapidly rapidly cool Similarly human activities release heat in a closed system as you would have to have If if you don't believe space exists How does the earth not overheat from these internal sources? Or freeze to a lack of eternal external heat from the sun How does the flat earth model account for this apparent contradiction? Contradiction on my ad with the second law of thermodynamics does that do the shape of the earth? Yes How It's a what's what's the earth to you? What is it? No, we're talking you were literally just went on a script. You just read a script about the sun I read a question I had so I could be clear on my question. Did you understand it? I could repeat it I answered nobody wants you to repeat your question. That's a relative to the conversation at hand We're talking about the shape of the earth. Yes, not the sun This question had nothing to do with the sun has to do with the second law of thermodynamics to explain How we don't die from overheating if we're in a flat plane with a dome enclosed over us How do we not overheat? I'm half expecting to judge the pop out and so for a debate like an Olympic event One for argumentation vote of perfect 20 per theatrical facial expressions Don't do that again, bro.  All right. I'm sure people are face-palving right now All right, just because you've already heard much of this I do want to say all right Ozy and so just for anybody who's new the topic because you guys Are much more familiar with these topics is Ozy and if you just want to explain to the audience in terms of how it relates to the Flat versus globe earth will give you a chance to do that Yeah, so second law of thermodynamics and a pressure gradient and are the earth not overheating from the sun Is perfectly explained by space existing the earth being not a closed system And they we get heat during the day from the sun and that heat dissipates during the Night and like if you get a cloud layer it helps actually trap heat in like that's what is all like perfectly explained by globe model and the math and the science and the testable predictable predictions that we make from that matter of fact just the fact that we can predict lightning select Lightning strikes on the earth if we use a slightly opalate spheroid model versus a Spheroid model. So my question to you Caleb. I hope you can answer it now On your flat earth model. How do you explain? The second law of thermodynamics and why we don't die from overheating Do you have gas pressure you have to have a container or the do you even know what entropy means? What's entropy? It's not my question. Can you answer the question? Are you avoiding the question? Is this a debate or like just straight sophistry like monologue? No, I I am you asked me a question. I answered it with the Okay, prove the vacuum of space exists. I know the vacuum of space. Yeah, you do. So you have a positive claim I ask you to be sure there's not too much interrupting Is that okay? So Caleb it sounds like are we on the same page where you'd say like, okay? I do now understand We've gotten to the point where you're saying like I see how osean's case about the law of thermodynamics in particular Passive with the flat versus glober. So it sounds like you can is it fair that you're we're on the same page there No, no, no, we're not because he's not understanding positive claim He's claiming that entropy in the form of gas pressure It proves somehow that the space vacuum exists. No, you need evidence Do you have any evidence that there's a vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 tour co-existing adjacent to the atmosphere? Please any evidence go wait. I think I asked you a question. Why are you asking me a question in response? Why can't you answer the question? You can say I don't know I don't know why we don't die from like a thermal runaway Because we're in a frigging container like a pot on a stove with no heat coming out and The water will eventually boil and will eventually all you want to answer I want you to explain how that's explained on a flutter. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Do you know what attenuation is? Explain it. What's attenuation? Explain it. I admit you can't define it I can explain it. I I understand communications theory very well. Let's hear. I don't need to it's your argument present your argument No, let's hear it. You should understand my argument if you understand it. Okay. I know what attenuation I know what attenuation means. What is it your argument? I don't need it. That's is that about you? Okay, we'll just go on without you with with just assuming you have no idea what attenuation is Explain it with the word don't interrupt me. Oh, you need to bug and sarcastic. Just present your argument. Don't interrupt me, buddy All right, we've got it. All right. I've got uh gotta jump in and ask me a question that would be responding But can we split it up into times? Well, apparently you need that. Well, we're gonna do it because you won't stop talking. All right gentlemen, please I'm being sorry James. Just relax. So what we'll do is We'll go into one minute segments I think Ozy and just if you can briefly ask the question that you originally asked Then we'll give Caleb Need you to control yourself then we'll give Caleb a chance to respond Go ahead Ozy and if you can ask it very quickly and succinctly and then we'll give 60 seconds to Caleb Caleb, how do you explain the regulation of first temperature? All right, 60 seconds. Go ahead Caleb It's not relevant to the conversation But there is dissipation to EMR and emf over distance So the sun goes around the earth and that signal gets weaker that heat signature gets weaker as it gets further away Not relevant at all the flatter first global just so we know but i'll entertain it just for the conversation Okay, get over to Ozy and go ahead Ozy in for 60 seconds Yeah, so you're seeing um that we release light like emf and that cools down the earth Is that what I said you said emf There's dissipation to emr and emf and heat signatures over distance. Yes or no So light Yes, light will like dissipate. Yes, but where does it go? Oh my gosh, what does the emf dissipation mean? I don't think it's possible to have a conversation I genuinely don't Where does it go? Where does it dissipate to? It dissipates in the atmosphere So it just vanishes Yeah, it gets weaker over distance. Do you have any evidence why that doesn't happen? Yeah, because power is not first law of thermodynamics, right power and energy cannot be created or destroyed So where does it go? How do you prove that? Well, you don't accept the law. This is thermodynamics. That's okay. You don't accept that it dissipates over distance It expands, but it doesn't vanish. Well, this isn't gonna be destroyed So as you get for it can energy be destroyed Holy cow. You're like you're much more unbearable than usual. Everything okay Well, that would be the person I'm debating with then what we're gonna do is We'll give Both Caleb a chance to answer ozion's last question and then Caleb if you have any questions for yes, I do Yes, I Okay, so over distance the heat signatures get weaker You can prove this in your car if you're in the front seat and you're closer to the heat source It's hotter as you get further away. It gets weaker. It gets colder This is like extremely basic again I'm pretty sure he's using a tactic to just like not talk about the entire argument at hand Which is globe earth first flatter the shape of the earth not the sun so I don't know how we're here Yes, I agree heat dissipates, but it doesn't vanish because heat cannot be created or destroyed It can only change form Heat energy and matter cannot be Yeah, so ask me a question Can you prove the vacuum of space exists? Yes how We go up with weather balloons We see that the pressure goes down to a tour that we consider to be a vacuum especially when we send aircraft to space Such like the moon like we know there's a vacuum in space Like we have some people that were there humans. Who's we Experts in the field people. I trust People that were veterans in the u.s. Navy like Neil Armstrong who went through the moon who was a fellow shipmate I mean I didn't serve with with them who had been a great honor To actually serve with Neil Armstrong It would be a wonderful to meet him as a person but people like him Yes, I trust his word in his testimony that he actually did go to space. What's wrong with that Do you have any primary documentation of the vacuum of space existing from yourself? I know you just believe other people Primary documentation. Did I measure the vacuum of space myself personally? Did you measure the creation of the earth from god personally? Because you know you claimed in your opening argument in your opening argument You said the flat earth was evidence that the earth was created So it is not a non sequitur non sequitur the debate because you brought it up in your opening argument Caleb no, it's a red herring fallacy It's not a red herring fallacy. Otherwise, you wouldn't have I'm not mad.  All right. Let's let's jump in. Let me jump in We're going to are there any topics we haven't covered that you guys would like to discuss the shape of the earth God would want love to get evidence the earth is flat uh plane survey Plane surveying it's about close in um situations You want to actually read about how they do plane surveying? I mean, I got it all written up if you want to talk about it specifically No, I don't want to hear you read a script. I'd rather you try to not read a script and have a dialogue So, okay. Tell me why do they not use eight inches per mile squared for longer distances? Why is that? Do you think they make long this long distance observations and surveying? Yeah, they use eight inches per mile squared and surveying for a lot when the um surveyors Okay, do you have any evidence of that? Yes Show it From surveyors. Oh, you tell me not you told me not to No, show your evidence. I don't want to hear a monologue. I want to see your evidence. No show. No, it's it's it's a What I wrote up where did I put it? Folks want to say while you're out there watching we do appreciate you being here If you haven't yet hit that like button as it lets youtube know what you want more of If you're like me, go ahead. Wasian. Sorry That for a larger area is um Specifically with geodesic surveying is used which takes the earth curvature into account Plane surveying is just a matter of practicality and scale not a statement about the earth Sure, so when they do you don't When they do geodesic surveying They have to take the shape of the globe into account such like with me and my work that i've done as a commission engineer For substations we have a line that goes from california. It's like Up towards canada is like 830 miles long When they had to calculate the ground fault returns for that tc line to make sure it trips off correctly They had to take the earth curvature of the earth Into account for the calculations or the line would misoperate. That's just a fact if you want to deny it That's fine. You can call the people I work with liars, too So where do we get our information for geodesic surveying? Where do they get their survey information to create a geodesic? Uh from the shape of the earth. What do you mean? Nope wrong. Want to try again? Sure. Why don't you tell me calib? I'm not an expert in geodesic Surveying I can tell they get it from plane surveyors Smugness is not an argument calib but go ahead I'll try to derail buddy.  It's how you engage in debate, but go ahead calib They get it from plane surveyors that assume the earth is flat No, they don't geodesic surveying does not deserve the earth is flat because geodesic service You know, what was it geodesic? It's a it's a not a flat surface No, yes, you don't even know what a geodesic is. It's a curved path.  I didn't say it was a sphere Did I? Okay, where did where did geodesic surveyors get their evidence then do you have any evidence for where they get their survey data? Where did they get it? They take the measurements and it max matches the predictions of a curved earth I don't know. We probably shouldn't make claims like this Do you have no idea what you're talking about because it's going to be very apparent to anybody that looks into this that You're wrong. Yeah, anybody can look into geodesic surveying.  Let's give let's give Caleb a chance to promise. We can write back to you What was Ian?  You're committing the reification fallacy Caleb Not me saying somebody's wrong is not a reification fallacy. Can you define a reification fallacy? Yeah, I have it written up to you want me to go over it?  I'd like to be precise So you yeah, so now I think I can ask you a question. Would that be fair? Uh, no, I asked you to define a reification fallacy because you're using your own you've been asking me tons and tons of questions We want to talk about fallacies. I thought this was a bit debate about the shape of the earth Okay, prove the earth's a ball. Okay, let's go over your your um debate Debate, what are you talking about? You mean introduction? You okay?  You're pretty good at doing that so far. You asked me a question I answered it if I wanted evidence the earth is a ball Not to go over my introduction. Please evidence here to ball No, you have to know if my question Is it not you've asked a question. I answered your question Can you answer my question? You read her way off because you don't like Caleb will give you a chance to ask your question But first the question that Louisiana had asked I want to give him a shot if you can reiterate that question Just we say it and then we'll give 60 seconds to Caleb who answer your question Okay, so I have a question new one. So how does the flat earth model Explain the observed reversal of the focals pendulum swinging in direction when crossing the equator Can you show me evidence that that happens? Are you denying it happens if you don't know this happens, that's fine Do you know how positive we went over positive claims ozian you got to show me show me a video Please show me ozian show me a video Spud condensation is not an argument anybody can go look up focals pendulum test in the southern hemisphere and they can see that the It changes um direction to show your latitude on the earth You can do the math to verify your latitude. So do you have an explanation for why Focals pendulum changes direction when you cross the equator and why it doesn't well It might be a little procession one way or the other at the equator But if you're perfectly at the equator it shouldn't process at all So can you explain why it changes direction in the southern hemisphere? If not, that's okay It depends on your cardinal orientation of the apparatus So again, you would need to like show some evidence my friend You'd need to show some videos of both sides before you make a claim like that just ask for an explanation So if you got the videos i'm very willing to watch that If you don't understand the observation you can just say you don't understand it we can move on I'm not going to show a video. Caleb. This is a debate This isn't a show smug condensation is still not an argument And i'm not going to continue this discussion if you're going to continue to behave in this cool quick then Show evidence or quick It would be you driving the quitting. Caleb. That'd be your choice Smug condensation is not an argument. All right. Let's go to the next question if you want to Go this is your great opportunity. Caleb you can ask a question and then we'll give you ozian 60 seconds to answer just like we did for Caleb Can you show me any measurements of curvature over the ocean? Yeah, I could show a video of that like I did a video of a drone footage going up 150 feet in elevation That showed that the where the ship was exposed more of the bottom of the ship was exposed as you went up in elevation with the drone Which is only explained by the water blocking that am I speaking like you're just making hystera making noises just to say Oh, look at this stupid guy talking Anyways, I know this is your tactic, but so my drone fragmentation in particular if you've watched my debates You've seen it specifically shows that water curves Do we see a new glidian geometry or hyperbolic geometry? Do you have a response to my conclusion or not? This is very pertinent to the conversation. So yeah, then respond to it. I don't need another follow-up question Do you know what you glidian geometry is? Yes, like I understand geometry very well, but you said you don't want to talk about math Why are you bringing up math, Caleb? It's not math Euclidean geometry is math, Caleb It's it's straight lines versus hyperbolic. You could just say you don't understand and I'll explain it Do you understand it or no? Hyperboles geometry is math, Caleb. You said you don't value math. Why are you bringing up math?  No answer the question, Caleb Or respond to my response I'm trying to respond. I'm making sure you can follow. I don't think you can follow You shouldn't require questions. I understand math Yeah, it's going to require questions because I actually require questions, buddy. I actually value mathematics No, you're not playing your your simple question. I really I need a response from ozine here. You're already asking a question I'm talking. I'm talking. All right. I already asked what I'd like to do. Let's split it up If I remember right the last question was asked by Was it ozine? Caleb Okay, Caleb. So no, it was ozine talking. Well, no, it was I was looking for evidence that the earth is black I mean a ball yet I asked the question and he's saying that he has a video that he's not showing and it's pertinent to the conversation If you want me to I'm in the middle of talking bro. Are you good? They don't talk about me in the middle. Why is your face twitching, bro? Why is your face twitching? So what we're gonna do is make fun of my threats, Caleb. What we're gonna do is let's give them 60 seconds and then namely let's ozine you have 60 seconds And then we'll have ozine ask a question to Caleb Go ahead ozine. You got that 60 seconds If you felt like you needed any more time to answer Caleb's question No, I have drone footage to show curvature of water. It wasn't part of my opening debate I don't know why I would be talking about it within this debate So it's not prepared to automatically show it on screen. Caleb says he's watched my debates He can go watch where I've shown drone footage a lot of the audience members have already seen my drone footage He shows water curves. I measured it. I showed the measurements Can I reply? All right, if you have a question Well, what we're gonna do is have ozine ask a question to you But if you want to as long as Once we give you guys more time to talk about this particular subject Then we'll give the next question to ozine to ask you so go ahead if you would like to reply Caleb So we see in hyperbolic geometry The horizon is an apparent location Created by us seeing in hyperbolic geometry This is why railroad tracks converge when we're looking down them towards the horizon So we don't see them perfectly straight lines the ground ramps up the sky ramps down creating a vanishing point So that boat had gone past the vanishing point Hence why if I were to show one video of the boat not being visible on the horizon And then us zooming in on it that would show that it didn't go past the physical geometric curve of the earth That's assumed it's just an artifact of visual space being curved and the limit to our perspective So ozine grabbing a drone and then going to a higher altitude to increase that limit of perspective to see the boat In no way shape or form substantiates that there's curvature to the ocean So What wasn't at the horizon or over there rising it was way way way closer than that So it has nothing to do with the apparent horizon the the drone footage that you've seen obviously So it that that would be a red herring to discuss the horizon And if you're talking about in your previous debate you talk about the reason why we had that problem with perspective I I don't know how this is a debate But anyways that your eyes are curved my drone doesn't have curved eyes, dude So the drone footage is seeing what it sees and we can see that image up close and personal not from distance away Anybody can see that the The water is curved No My question Yep That's right We'll give you a chance to answer your question and what I need you to do is We'll give 60 seconds Caleb once you finish your question. I have to go to the bathroom. I had too much coffee So what I'm going to let you do is ask your question and this is by the honor code gentleman doing a favor Let's let Ozzie ask his question and then we'll give 60 seconds to Caleb and I'll be back by the end of that 60 seconds Cool. Thank you, james So and the flat earth model How do you account for the specific rate of 15 degrees per hour drift when we're talking about a laser ring Gyroscope inside of ability that shielded Um, that doesn't that doesn't allow for ether winds according to miller if you're going to appeal to miller He says you don't experience ether winds if it's grounded and shielded Which is which these measurements on the northern and southern hemisphere Aligns perfectly with spherical earth rotating every 24 hours. How do you explain that on the flat earth? Okay, I'm setting it back So the laser ring the ring laser gyroscope that bob nodel used where they said then they misrepresented him saying Oh, I measured 15 degrees per hour drift He took that ring laser gyroscope to a higher altitude and measured more of a drift at the same latitude line You wouldn't get a higher form of drift if it were uniform in relation to the rotation of the earth Suggesting that they're probably picking up something rather than the assumed rotation of the earth So you guys don't even have an explanation for the sagnax effect If you say that it's actually creating a longer distance in the time of the rotation But in reference to the two lasers going across the entire concentric apparatus You literally are going against special relativity which assumes that you cannot add v velocity to see the speed of light Therefore you have no argument your argument just debunk what you say the only Yeah, the only thing that we've refute is the theory of relativity which it doesn't do and that's that's sort of a What's that called? That's called a Fringe science fallacy you're appealing to fringe authorities and you're actually appealing to bob nodel as a fringe authority This isn't a published paper for his test. I asked you a question You said we shouldn't accept testimony, but you're accepting testimony of bob nodel I think that's his last name and his claims for his test with the lathe or ring Dyer's because I asked you nothing about him. So why should I accept? Why is it okay for you to accept bob nodel's testimony and for me not accept Scientists testimony whose claims are verified and validated through this peer reviewed method No, show me the peer reviewed method that they verified it. Yeah, let's go Let's see it. No, you're seeing I cannot accept the claims of scientists, but you're accepting the claim of bob That was weird. I didn't show the evidence. That was odd. Um, anyway You can't can you explain the sagnac effect within a relativistic paradigm? Yes, because um, you got Let's give him a chance. You want to let me answer? Oh Yes So as this light's going this way, right? The earth is spinning. So this is so as the lights come and this comes closer That explains the sagnac effect And so when it goes the other way when you're shooting the light this way and it's spinning this way This one's cause goes further away.  It's rotating around the axis perfectly explained by a theory relativity No, no, you're literally contradicting the special theory relativity. What are the two postulates of the special theory relativity? This is not a grill. I maybe I should be able to ask a question First of all, you don't know. All right, specifically. No. No, that's not why he said but I specifically answered your question, Caleb You just admitted that you don't know the two postulates of special don't google it. I can see you googling right now I'm not googling anything. You're in credit. What are the two postulates there incredibly start an argument I'm not answering a red herring question in a field that neither of us understand perfectly You don't say that you ask me how the how the what we get what we measure can be Aligned with theory relativity. I explained it Do you know the two postulates of the special theory of relativity? Can you name them for me? It's my turn for questions, right? Okay, well, let's take that as a no Well, is he we'll give you a chance to ask your question and it'll go 60 seconds to Caleb He did just ask a question. Yeah, I think it's funny asked questions. Oh, yeah, thank you um, so Oh man, um I mean every question I've asked has never been substantiators never really been entertained Let's talk about uh, how do we prove that the earth is revolving around the sun? parallax How do we know it's not parallax that the stars are just what is parallax? What is parents? The difference in the angle as it moves Yes, so what if the stars are just moving? It could be So yeah, there you go. It's not exclusive proof for revolving around the sun, right? It's the law of parsimony the law part So if you want to go on some taiko module where all the planets doing this wiggly wiggly wiggly dance Around the earth you can believe that I don't believe that it's much more parsimony is to say That the sun is the center of the solar system and tell all the planets go around In a great orbit around the sun it looks More parsimony is it's more easily explained by what's parsimony is? um, awkm's razor Parsimonious is awkm's razor. Yes Okay, so It's to assume that the earth is rotating around the sun We don't feel that with our senses it requires more assumptions. Therefore it doesn't abide by awkm's razor. Yes I'm here asking more questions, but that's okay. You don't feel this is a debate. You're gonna get asked questions, buddy What are you doing?  You just want to make a game out of this, but I will answer your question. What was well? What was the question really quick? I can't I'm old remember the question.  I forgot Yeah, how did you forget it was a topic? What's the topic the earth revolving around the sun? Okay, thank you. Um, but no it wasn't specifically to do with that I hope it was about parallax So we see parallax anyways, we see parallax Go on Yeah, the stars move. Yeah, it's very simple. So even in relativity you realize Can I finish? Yeah, I do realize Okay, you can say that you do realize that the kinematic assumption of us revolving around the sun or sun revolving around us Are equal due to relative both relative It's more parsimonious to view conceptualize the movement with the sun is the frame of reference inertial Frame of reference for the solar system. It was a yes or no question Uh, the answer would be yes, okay But it's more parsimonious octums razor To assume that the sun is a frame of reference inertial frame of reference for a solar system explained By gravity causing the motion the orbits of the sun the planets Around the sun. Yes, that would be the law. Well, let me explain why Let me explain why that comes razor says that the more logical assumption is the one with the least amount of assumption So when we go out in reality me and you sitting on my porch, we're drinking some coffee and we're watching the sky We observe the earth to be stationed. That's how we feel it and then we see the sun move across the sky So due to octums razor you would require more assumptions to assume that the sun is not moving And we are evolving around it. Therefore it's destroying No, actually, that's not the case because retrograde motions of the planets are more Best explained by them actually going in circles. So you would have to have some weird explanation for why So a circle is a more geometrical shape It's best explained by orbits around the sun That would be octums razor being explained by one force or quasi force depending on your Frame or reference there talking about Newtonian or Einsteinian Gravity is best explained by one force where you have to appeal to why we see retrograde motion of planets Yeah, they just slow down in reference to the background medium. So they're not actually going like this They're just slowing down in reference to the fixed stars possibly, you know So you have to appeal to two assumptions where i'm only appealing to one No, and first of all, we were talking about the sun bro. Why are you talking about plants? Because I can appeal to one thing Gravity that explains the sun and the gravity I can appeal to one thing gravity that explains the sun and the planets You have to appeal to two different things to explain the sun and the planets So my worldview fits octums razor that has the least amount of elements Limit the least amount of elements you have to assume is true for the worldview is one of the most likely true You appeal to two I appeal to one Can you prove grab what is grab cozy? What is gravity?  What is gravity? Gravity is the bending the spacetime How do we prove Um, lensing of light around the sun the um, let's go one at a time mercury So lensing of light around the sun Do you have any pictures or videos of that? Um, I don't need pictures or videos of that. We have papers that describe the test that you performed You don't need pictures for testimonial. Otherwise, you wouldn't believe the bible was true Do you have I don't believe the bible is true I'm not religious way to assume my religion though Then you wouldn't believe that the earth was created because you haven't seen it you have pictures No, like you you like you presented in your opening argument So you can accept you can accept testimonial evidence as being accurate. You don't have to have pictures I know you can't just accept secondary documentation being the opinions and writings of others as proof So if I ask you hey, you know what oz in I love that theory, you know the banging warp in a spacetime That's incredible. You can't just say that exists without providing evidence. You have to show like pictures Uh, you have to show evidence and none of that is being done here as well as are you like are you talking about the Observation of 1919 is that what you're trying to say without saying it? I want to correct something you said about primary secondary evidence of paper. Let's have a dialogue Let's follow the conversation. You made a mistake. So when we're talking about primary sources We're talking about the person that wrote it the person that did the thing So those papers are primary sources secondary sources would be people that wrote papers based upon those papers Can you clarify that? No, that's not anecdotal. That's primary versus secondary sources. What is anecdotal? Anecdotal is personal opinion personal view of something. Yeah, so you can art So personal testimony is anecdotal testimony. Anecdotal testimony doesn't mean false testimony Secondly, it just means you shouldn't take the testimony on its own It should be established by other things which would be a test that they show you how you can perform it That test has been repeated many many many many many times. That's the tell me one. Yeah, let's go tell me It wasn't part of my opening debate. So that would be a red herring fallacy If you're going to argue for my worldview It should be based on my opening arguments if you're going to argue for your worldview Then it should be based on your opening arguments. That's how a debate works You can't just gish gallop from topic to topic and expect me to respond to every single one Your gish galloping from topic to topic But you're just gonna like so history through the entire debate. Okay, so let's close. Okay. I was yeah, you just open So try to not do that again. I was responding to your insults Just to be sure Was it Caleb that asked the last question or I'm asking for I'm essentially asking what gravity is and I'm asking for Gravity and he's going off on red herrings talking about logic. So it's very simple It's very very simple If you're claiming that the lensing of light around the sun proves the bending and warping of spacetime Can you provide me the independent variable of that observation the dependent variable of the observation work? You can provide like maybe any evidence that that actually happens in reality that that would be wonderful Please now I'm going to point out your hypocrisy first because you made a False claim about primary secondary sources saying that it was the secondary sources I shouldn't accept it Then you accused me of doing the exact same thing that you did just moments prior to that Independent dependent variable.  Oh, first of all, I'm not a scientist I could explain what it is You won't accept the time itself could be a variable because you don't understand science at all or the scientific method Your first dry man in their original opening argument If you've ever read carl popper, you would have a clue about the scientific method You would study the philosophy of science seems actually jewish philosophy is really cool guy You should check into him But uh, carl popper a famous If you're about this this might be a good science Yeah, if you're still answering pardon my interruption for that original question But I do want to make sure that we give you a chance to ask a question back to Caleb as well But go ahead. What was the end I didn't know No, when you talk about the scientific method, it's not just a method. It's whatever Predictive model you can create to explain the observations. So there could be different scenarios. So in Physical science or specific type of methodology they use and other type of sciences There's they do surveys you do and more inductive work when it comes to stuff like that to say there's one method for science would just be false Caleb And I was kind enough to respond to your own red hair Questioning Caleb. It was not about my opening debate. That's not how debates work. You just gish gallop around I think it's time for my question, right? Yes Okay, thank you If satellites aren't okay, go ahead. Sorry my it's just that we I'm streaming from a new location We just had the internet cut. I think that the stream will continue on the same link But in case it doesn't folks will just patch it together later, but I think we're good. So yep, we're good Okay, keep going Ozzy and part of my interruption Sorry If satellites aren't orbiting a spherical earth, how does the flat earth model explain the precision and reliability Of worldwide GPS services that I can use to synchronize two clocks over a hundred miles away That are not anywhere near any Cell powers not anywhere near anything like that only have a view of the sky Explain that to me. No balloons Uh, you would have to substantiate the claim that they're falling into geodesic pattern around the earth So you haven't substantiated your claim and then you're asking me to explain it Yep, I'm asking you to explain how gps work under a flat earth model the gp. You agree gps works Is gps close source and or open GPS is open source technology Show me the open source. Oh, that'd be awesome bro. You'd be changing everybody You'd be changing the whole argument around the globe or flatter. Show me the open source code, please It's math. What are you talking about? Can you show the open source code of gps? Here tracking software free and open source. You want me to share a screen so you can see Open source information about yeah, show me the assumptions. They're making and explain assumptions now you're just not now you're just changing but for So I can show because his original question was show me the source for open source gps tracking plus car Here's one right here Caleb if you can just run You ask for evidence of open source Information about gps technology here it is right here done moving on my question Show the cool show the code. Well, yeah, you actually never answered my question I asked you to demonstrate how gps works on a flat earth Okay, so I'm not denying that satellites exist They could be propelling things in the sky through the electromagnetic field or the electrostatic field So they could be using advanced technology to levitate things up into the sky that catch ether drift Similar to what they're doing with the ISS probably as well as it could be explained with thousands of balloons that they launch every single day for weather data and literally the The way that we transmit information from nation to nation is done through under sea cable All of them would all Okay, good. So like we talked about Occam's razor earlier. I just appealed with gravity now You have to appeal to all these other forces to explain But I only have to appeal to gravity. I'll have to substantiate it grab the explains the observations we have You have to appeal to all these other special things even to explain gps Where I only have to appeal to theory of relativity. So Occam's razor wins again Go ahead with your question. You wanted to ask me about electrostatics No, I know I just want to point out to the audience that you're just assuming the The reality of general relativity, but you haven't provided absolutely any evidence of it. You just said Light lenses around the sun. Wow incredible With no evidence Is it my turn? Yes, your question Um I don't I'm gonna need a second to like actually think of something because everything that I've brought up has just been completely avoided Uh, like not a general answer to anything. I've answered every question I want to give you a chance to come up with a question. Caleb Ozean obviously disagrees with what you last said. I don't want to cut you off Ozean I know that you're wanting to defend yourself But we'll give Caleb a chance to come up with a new question in the meantime Both Ozean and Caleb are linked in the description as you can see at the bottom right of your screen right now folks Says want to hear more from our guests? Check out their links below and that includes at the podcast So all of our debates at modern-day debate are not only live on youtube. That's how we do them They're live. It's always live. It's like monday night raw. So Afterwards we upload them onto the podcast so you can find modern-day debate available on fine podcasts everywhere Including Spotify, apple, you name it if you've heard of this podcast app, whatever you have in mind We're on it. So check us out on your favorite podcast app. Caleb looks like you're ready Yeah, I'd like to stick up to the actual topic rather than going on a budget apparently So other than assuming when you create a drone and you raise its altitude seeing the boat again Do you have any other like better evidence that the earth's curved anything anything better than that? Yeah, I also showed drone footage of the sun being re-shown over the horizon I've also shown how you can redirect satellites or redirect satellite antennas to a satellite and it would The trigonometry would only work if the earth was curved. You can check out that footage too If you want to I'm not going to show it here. But yeah, I have other evidence now. It's time for my question, right? No, no, no, we're going to keep going because we usually go back and forth on a question Do you have any measurements of the curvature of your thing measurements or anything like that? Yeah, I just told you I trigonometry videos are No, no, no you Measurement thing I'm talking. I'm talking just calm down. It's okay. Just so you have a thing. That's not okay I'll I'll let you respond. You don't have to insult me in your responses, Caleb You get it.   You good. You good. You look like you're broken there.  Go ahead So you hypothetically assuming that we're connecting to satellites In no way shape or form suggests the earth is curved at the surface my friend. How does it do that? It's my question You were asking about my drone footage. Now you changed it to satellites. It's my question. Why you why you just Okay, I'm just I'm just gonna expect you not to answer anything. You just ask your question. We're good to move on I guess like you're not just gonna address just Orbit the worth is best explained by theory of relativity. I don't know how hard that can be Do you think do you think you're offering something of substance by saying what you're saying? Seriously Yeah, you're talking about topics. I didn't bring up in my opening discussion Just I don't have to stick to your freaking topics and you're in you should Production dude general for your positive claim, which is the earth is flat I know you like avoiding the burning fruit because nowhere in this debate We're able to see if stands to answer any of my questions You just reversed it around and asked me a question, but I do have a question. How do you explain that things fall down? buoyancy relative density and electrostatics Can you explain it? Yeah, so if a helium balloon is not an anti gravity machine It's simply less dense relative to the medium that is encompassing it seeking equilibrium up A tennis ball is more dense So if I add energy to it and bring it at a higher altitude and drop it it seeks equilibrium down The downward bias is set by the positive of the electrostatics in the atmosphere Seeking equilibrium with the negative of the earth and no the surface of the earth probably mctoon coached it a little bit mctoons wrong Thousand coulombs so the electrostatic sets the downward bias buoyancy and density can override that being less dense than the relative medium And seek equilibrium up This can be proven by the experiment that david wise did with the balloon That was completely neutrally buoyant with the atmosphere staying in one singular spot And him adding a negative and a positive charge and it going up and down The balloon up Yeah, cool. So I I agree the atmosphere has around a 400 kilovolt difference the surface of the earth No, oh no a voltage is always in reference to something else. You're completely wrong. So just see this Okay, so I I understand electricity very well So if the surface of the earth is negative 400 kilovolt, it has to be in reference to some other thing Has to be and you know what we you know what cool up? You know what a coulom is kaleb a coulom is 6.24 times 10 to the 18th Electrons that's what one coulom is so Electron flow Electron flow is from negative to positive So when you see the earth is negative 400 kilovolts That's the atmospheric voltage in reference to the atmosphere if you continued instead of just googling everything Click the link it tells you that's the atmospheric voltage from the top of the atmosphere to the ground So the ground you treat is negative 400 kilovolts. The earth you treat is Of zero volts in this thing. So you would treat or not the earth, but the atmosphere you treated zero electrons flow up Caleb electrons flow up from negative to positive So if there was any bias due to do the current flow it would cause things to go up not come down Dude, you are dude.  So I'm not mine. Oh, I left you off What you're seeing stuff this you're seeing stuff. You don't know let's go over move here Show this story. So the pictures kaleb show the picture. Let's go over to kaleb for 60 seconds Yeah, please 60 seconds uninterrupted So in electrostatic field theory the positive flows to the negative So you rewriting oh my gosh, this is going to get clipped I'm still talking still got 60 seconds. Um either way So positive flows to negative not by subversa. I just had a conversation with matt rife last night Which is literally an engineer and he explained this very well So uh, you're going against all electrical field theory and I just want to note that ozian He's not attacking my argument of how I explained why mass accelerates down You're really good at just like completely avoiding talking about the topic. It's actually really interesting. It's kind of an arc We'll go electric 60 yeah, so You are correct electrical engineers. Um when the analyze circuit see assumed power flows from positive to negative But under physics we understand so this was based on ben franklitz test with the Kite so ben franklitz presumed what's called whole flow theory, which they're seeing the Holes flow so the holes would be positive flowing to the negative source So that's what you're describing is whole flow theory when you analyze circuits based on Electron flow theory, which is what the physics is even though the electrons may actually not be flowing Like that's some theoretical stuff. I'm not as good about Electron theory electron flow, which is actually what's flowing would be from negative to positive kaleb not real Relying electrical theory. It is electrical theory. It's just describing the difference between how engineers and physicists Analyze circuits engineers do it wrong, but it works because it's close enough And we talk about your question Can you poke holes in my theory of why mass falls down? Yeah, because electron flow would cause an upward bias on a downward bias So you think just because I say Make it more coherent, please more perfect more specific You you're the one that peeled electrostatics. You're one that appealed to the earth who had the negative 400 kilovolt Um voltage that would have to be in reference to something else because you can't measure a voltage Unless you're referencing it to a someone something else. What about density? Why are you just ignoring buoyancy and buoyancy? But buoyancy you have to use g which is gravity you can replace it with a acceleration Um, you can make up whatever you want, but acceleration doesn't describe any acceleration What is g describing in that doesn't say what it is. What is g describing in the buoyancy equation?  Okay. He's googling. Wow I'm looking at the I'll just tell the audience so g It's good. You can google I'll actually explain it.  You're just gonna keep interrupting. Let's give 60 seconds to kehlub and then we'll give 60 seconds to osian so g in the buoyancy equation is is Describing an acceleration rate of mass, which is an average of 9.83 meters per second So you can replace g the assumption of the archaic model of mass attracting mass with a an acceleration rate And the the equation works perfectly fine Absolutely beautiful Yeah, you can substitute whatever letter you want in there, but you're describing gravity. So we use g So if here i'll show you here's so it's actually looking up the Einstein field equations because i'm not uh I don't know with your relativity that well, but this is Derivation of newton's law of gravity. These are the formulas So when you appeal to notonia, can you read the formulas to me and describe the symbols?  I'm ready for a super chat because all he complains every time I he thinks i'm interrupting him, but I only interrupt him when he's insulting me But all he does is interrupt to ask further questions because asks his debate tactic. That's his style Anybody's watching kehlub. This is just the truth Gotta ask questions to have a debate guys We'll give you a chance if you'd like to ask questions osian or I should say a question It sounds like he's quitting and wanted to go to super chat. Let's give him a chance Is there anything that you'd like to if you need a moment just like kehlub did earlier I can ask if I got a question Um, how come you can't see the southern crux Cross from the northern hemisphere kehlub Because we see in hyperbolic geometry the sky really big the earth Really big there's a limit to perspective. This is why we don't see the sun forever And its size relatively changed very slowly. It's already far away So the sun moves out of our limit of perspective extremely quick before it would get very small The sky as far as the fixed stars is really big We have a hemispheric dome that we see it Which is a limit to our perspective hence us having to go north to see the north star and south to see the southern star very simple So you appeal to mathematics again if you notice that you appeal to geometry, which is mathematics Why are you interrupting me kehlub? Because you're wrong Why are you interrupting me kehlub? We do have to give him a chance go ahead 60 seconds for you as well osian If you notice that he he said we should never appeal to mathematics when he's appealing to Geodesic geometry. He is appealing to mathematics. He is appealing to mathematical axioms Actually, he does not value those so I don't know how he substantiates Any of these claims he's making and also smug Condensation is not an argument kehlub.  It's not an argument kehlub Um, okay, I guess I'll reply to that somehow Um, so I in my opening I said that mathematics alone cannot prove Cannot definitively suggest something exists in reality. I didn't say it's not useful at all So you're straw manning me first off second of all, I'm just describing how we see I didn't say math or anything We see in a hemispheric dome necessitated by solarium and anybody that lives in reality There's a limit to that view as far as that hemispheric dome. That's the thought I I didn't really hear an explanation. I wanted the math is why I really wanted to explain Why we I'm not going to write an equation for you for how we see in reality. That's absolutely ridiculous Well, because you don't have a model that explains our observations. It doesn't that Definitely doesn't meet Occam's razor a law of parsing the parsimony at all But go ahead with your question um How do we see over 616 miles from Palestine degree? How do we do that? How do we view the mountains from where they're supposed to be 40 miles of curvature in between? How do we see that far? Um, I would have to look at your specific example, but the I showed in the opening The explanation would be well here.  Yeah Um, but anyways the explanation would be I'm not going to pull it up Doesn't matter the explanation would be there'd be three things to explain it the elevation of the observer I'd have to know that Oh, so you just did you take the picture? You just accepting somebody else's testimony. That's true Okay, so we can't provide anything that somebody else uses.  Um, the laser ring gyroscope But i'm not as supposed to appeal to the experts actually use the scientific method The people that know the scientific method the best much much better than either of us do Caleb so Don't pull me if you do not because you're reputing actual scientists every time you open your mouth So if you're talking about the picture it would be explained by the the elevation of the viewer The elevation of what you're reviewing the distance between the two things and refraction of the atmosphere Which has to do with the temperature and I think the humidity of the atmosphere during the time of the observation So I would have to see all the data to be able to calculate it and I'll bet you Every time a flat earth or provides one of these pictures you actually get the actual data It proves that the earth is a globe every single time such as a black swan the wiggly friggin crane You think that are you done? Are you just gonna sew fish through the whole debate? It's not soft. Okay my turn now now it's my turn Okay, so there should be 40 miles of geometric curvature in between the two points It's very simple. All I'm looking for is if that's the case Let's assume the observer height was over 100 feet and he was seeing the shoreline basically meaning basically it's at sea level of mountains Raised up into the sky. What is causing that? How are we seeing that far when they're supposed to be 40 miles Of curvature over 600 miles. Please just give like a succinct explanation of how that would happen Well, I'll look at or just avoid it. See if it is actually 40 miles over you said 600 miles of difference So we need earth curve 616 miles earth curve calculators. So let's do this in real time. Okay Yeah, okay, so the audience just pull up a good one that does the observer height and stuff like that Distance to opposite distance to a right. No, that's not the one Which is a good one, which one do you prefer? I think they all suck. Use what you want, bro. High height target distance That's not a good one either There's an aspen answer. There's walter bizlin's calculator Okay, so what's the observer height? It's a 150 meter or 150 feet. You're saying so What's that? We'll see call it 50 meters close enough Um distance to the target is how many miles 640 miles? 616 616 so This is in miles, darn it This sounds so boring like so 616. I'm just looking for a symbol explanation not while you you ask so 985,000 meters. Is that right? Target size I don't know. I'd have to this thing's not making sense to me. I don't do the earth curve calculator So I don't know if it's 40 miles to drop Over 600 miles. Let's just let's say it's 10 miles. Let's just say it's 10 How do you explain it? I'm not asking for you to go through all this Just explain how we would see the object have to go through it all I already know the explanation. Do you want me to like steel man the globe dude so we can go forward So 500 miles it says it's about 31 miles to drop. I explained what it is. It's going to be Refraction at the atmosphere is going to be the server height and the height of the object You're seeing would have to be a fraction And the distance between the two objects. You have to verify it's actually the object You think it is because a lot of times it's not I think in some of them. They were actually clouds They were claiming they were mountains So I'd have to yeah, you'd have to prove that you know what I'm saying It looked just like the exact mountains. You should really watch the video Is that the one you're talking about the one? Yeah? Yeah, that's the one that That mctoon said it clouds hold on you're gonna get calm So there were clouds. That's the answer. Caleb. They were clouds prove it It was already proven. So you can watch mctoon's video. I've watched it. It was He literally go through the go through the measurement yourself. Caleb. How do you prove it's cloud with measurements? I I don't believe your measurement. I believe it's a lie. Somebody's how did you prove it?  I'm not gonna accept your claim that it's even relevant to the conversation or true Mctoon's already done a refutation of this a refutation if you understand logic it means he refuted The claim it means the claim is by definition False because it was clouds. So mctoon did it. So we shouldn't talk about it Because he knows the map or thank you. Michael tune. Yeah. Thanks. Sorry not mctoon mctoon I do that. It's terrible. It comes off the tongue better. It's mctoon mctoon anyway mctoon whatever you want to call him you can ask a question out Um, I can one another question. Caleb. Okay, fine. I have my last one here Assure, how does flat earth model explain seismic data geological phenomena like volcanoes and tectonic plates Which are consistent with its spherical earth's interior structure. We can actually see um Particles that come through the earth from the sun on the other side of the earth So how do you explain all that data actual facts observations? How do you explain it? Do you know how many begging the question fallacies you just committed? I accept testimony 11 You don't okay. That wasn't my question. Um, do you know how many begging the question fallacies you just committed? Yeah, but the answer did the question No, okay. You're asking me how seismic data works. Oh, you're gonna be talking even though i'm supposed to be answering the question We'll answer the question then Yeah, so there's movement to plate tectonics plates plate level So there's movement there's seismic activity under the surface of the earth Just because the earth's flat doesn't mean that there's not seismic activity This is like almost an entire red herring the entire logic like the entire question at hand like Ask me how it's like asking how volcanoes work on flatter It's like it doesn't make any sense. They work the same There's pressure mediation from the pressure of the soil on top of one another Creating pressure and that being released through a volcano It doesn't even pertain to the question of whether the earth's surface is round or flat It literally makes no sense. It's an illogical question very incoherent it doesn't work the same because the um, the earth requires gravity downward pressure Towards the core of the earth for any of this stuff to work plate tectonics don't make any sense moving around on a flat disc They make sense on a we're not on a disc With the with it makes sense on it.  What is your claim is? No, I'm sorry your claim is straw manning me your straw manning the earth is a level infinite plane We're not on a disc floating around in a vacuum brother. This ain't 2015 anymore How can anything how can anything physical be infinite? Talk about logging. Explain the process. How can anything be physical is infinite infinite? Do you think that's a coherent thing to ask me? Like you genuinely think that's a good question Correct. Be sure. Claim. How do you expect me to answer that? You're seeing it's an infinite flat plane, which is incoherent. It's an incoherent claim Because it's incoherent to see a physical thing. It's infinite. It's just like like, but the vacuum of space is infinite. Well, it's like, Zeno's anybody can look up Zeno's. So wait, wait, wait, is the vacuum of space finite? Yes. How do you measure that? How do you know? We haven't measured it. It's based on the modeling data. Oh, so what is what is the space expanding into if it's fine with? What is nothing expanding into? Nothing wouldn't expand, but we don't know if it's expanding into nothingness or something else. I don't know. Space is already nothing like it's a privation of matter, correct? No, space is something. Space, logically, logically is something. What is space? It's mass, energy and fields. Matter energy and fields. Yo, somebody clip that space is mass, energy and fields. Wow. Holy cow. No, space in the form of a vacuum. Yes. Is mass, energy and fields? Yes, matter, energy and fields. Yes. No, it's the privation of mass, energy and fields. It's of I don't think what's a vacuum? There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum. You ask. I don't care. What's a vacuum? Those space. What is a vacuum? A vacuum is something under a specific tour value. I don't remember of the tour or what is the amount of pressure that the environment has. Really? Yes, it's a pressure measurement. It's the it's the measurement of the PSI, if you want to. It's the measurement of the privation of mass. So is 10 to the negative 17 stronger than 10 to the negative 6 or vice versa? Did I say mass or did I say mass, energy and fields? Did I just ask a question? Yes, but you keep you strong man being seen. I'm talking about mass. I'm talking about mass, energy and fields. Space is all made up of mass, energy and fields. Is 10 to the negative 17 tour stronger or weaker than 10 to the negative 6? It's. So in relationship to each other, 10 to the negative 6 would be a higher pressure. Oh. It's OK. I'll ask you. Is 10 to the negative 17 tour stronger or weaker? There's two words you should reply with stronger or weaker. So that's that's what's the word that's a fallacy to it's like. Wow. It's called a false dilemma fallacy. You're actually attributing like some value to it of being smaller, greater or weaker when actually it's just one is a higher pressure and one is a lower pressure. This is like talking to a third grader that spread one. There's no force when it comes to pressure. It was very simple. I just asked it. 10 to the negative 17 is stronger or weaker and you can't say stronger or weaker. Just say stronger or weaker. Which one? It's a false dilemma fallacy. You're misappropriating the value system. There's one. There's a tour value that's a higher pressure and one that's a lower pressure. If you want to see a higher pressure is stronger and a lower pressure is weaker than I answered your question. So is it stronger or weaker? It does higher mean stronger to you. No, I'm done, bro. I can't I can't do this amount of semantics. Let's go on to the next. Let's go on to the next question. I think I think we've beat a dead horse. You know what I'm saying? It's not semantics.  I answered your question.   You said I didn't answer your question. That's false. I answered your question. I explained the fallacy. I explained the fallacy by implication. I explained the fallacy and I answered the question. If you want to see stronger means higher. You directly did not. Are there any other topics that you guys would like to hit before we do go into the Q&A? Did Eratosthenes prove the Earth is curved? Yes. How? How did he do that? There was a well and I can't remember the name, but the town that they knew during the solar solstice that the sun was right above that well and there was no shadows cast in the well and they were able to measure the distance between that well and another pole. They were like any specificity, like the degrees, the miles. They measured the shadows and they did. They did it in Coliseum. Let me explain it. We have to give it a chance. We have to give it a chance. You asked me questions in the middle of it. I think it was like Coliseum links or something like that, but we basically know the size. Based on that size, so there is some room for error. If the measurement unit they used, if we're wrong about it, then it was more than 2% off, but if we use the measurement we think it is, he was within 2% of what we measured. The size of the Earth is modernly using shadows and trigonometry and a well. Wrong. Eratosthenes. Calm down. Let's try not to interrupt. Eratosthenes assumed the Earth. Do you see? I hope I don't get this. No, I don't see it. I'll read it. I'll read it. No, it's my drug. So you're good. Calm down. Let's try to calm. You asked a question I answered. Then don't ask a question and be upset when I answer your question, Kayla. What was the interpreter to your question? Is it sincere rather than a rhetorical question? We'll give you a chance to respond now. Kayla. Please. Please. So Eratosthenes divided 360 degrees by 7.2 and got 50. And that told him the distance between Alexandria and Syene 500 miles was 150th of the total distance around the Earth. Where did he get 360 degrees as the assumption in his map? A circle. They just established that a circle had 360 degrees. You didn't answer the question. Where did he get the 360 degrees that he assumed the Earth to be in the map? Where did he get that? It's an axiomatic claim for a circle and it matched the prediction. So science would work. You would say we have an observation where you're going to formally a hypothesis. Hypothesis is that the Earth is curved as the Earth is this great circle sphere. And then they do a test to do an H1. Hypothesis is if the Earth is a sphere, I expect to measure this type of shadow. If I don't measure that type of shadow, then the Earth is not a sphere. They do measure the shadow. The Earth is curved and they can measure in multiple locations and they can use that math to calculate the size of that sphere. I just want to note that you didn't answer the question. I simply asked where did he get? How did he get the assumption of 360 degrees that he did in the math and you just like went on a rant? It's an axiom of geometry. That doesn't explain it. Do you know what axiom is? It's the thing we assume is true. An axiom of a circle is 360 degrees. So you admit that he just assumed it, right? Circle. Yes, axioms are assumptions that we assume are true to make, to do math. Axiom's math is full of axioms, Caleb. So he assumed the Earth was a ball, did math around it and that proves the Earth is a ball. That was his hypothesis. That was his hypothesis was that the Earth was a sphere based on other observations they had. He did the math and it confirmed that hypothesis was true and then he was able to calculate the size of the sphere. But we've done much, much better tests since Aristoteles. And just for the audience, just to be clear. When I said he proved it, I'm just using it in the colloquial sense, not in the scientific sense because Carl Popper would note we don't prove anything in science because we use inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. Induction doesn't prove anything deduction says. So when every time you appeal to the scientific method, you're appealing to the philosophy of science, you're appealing to the king, the god of the philosophy of science if you want to call him one, which is Carl Popper. Even though I think it was wrong about, like he goes all the way to solipses and you can't believe anything is true, I don't agree with Carl Popper about everything. But when it comes to the scientific method, I think it works pretty well. I just want to know that this was not a correct answer. Well, you got me. I answered it directly. Can I please stop being interrupted? Okay. So he assumed the earth was a ball. Did math around that assumption that the earth is a ball? So in no way did he substantiate the claim that the earth is a ball. He just committed to begging the question, affirming the concept. No, it's not a fallacy. That's how science works. You formally have hypotheses, which is an assumption. Then you test it. Okay. But he didn't, he didn't affirm the hypothesis that the earth is a ball in any way, shape or form. Just assume with the measure, he did with the measurement. No. Oh, it's crazy. Wow. That's smooth. I think, I think the audience can decide if you understand that. If he hadn't measured the shadow. Right. It could work with a local son. It could work with a local son in a flatter. No, it doesn't work with the local son unless everybody has a personal son. Yeah. Unless everybody does not, right? Yeah. You don't like to listen to people because if you, unless you assume like iron horse did that everybody has a personal son, it does not work on a flat earth. Why? Because everybody doesn't have a personal son. Everybody. What do you mean by personal son? Why are you, why are you straw man? I said, if you agree with iron horse, he has a personal son. It would work. But if you don't assume that everybody has a personal son, then it doesn't work. You cannot measure those angles because you would not get the same, the angle from your shadows on a flat earth. The shadows would be much more extreme the further away from the other son. Then you actually measure because light travels in a straight line. Caleb. What are compulsory rate? So light is bendy wiggly. You think that like the azimuthal grid of. Does light, does electromagnetic. Hey buddy, does electromagnetic radiation have troughs? Yes or no. Electromagnetic, are you talking about the wave form of a trough signal? This is very, very signal. Are you talking about wave form? Hold on, let me talk, let me talk, let me talk, let me talk buddy. Does electromagnetic radiation, which is a form of light, does it have high troughs, highs and lows? Yes or no? Very simple. Yes or no? You're using non-normative language. You're talking about electromagnetic. It was a yes or no. It was a yes or no. If you're talking about, I'm going to answer the question. Wow. Because you're using poor language, so I have to clarify what it is. So if you're talking about wave form propagation, there are peaks of the wave form as a propagates the atmosphere. That is correct. We don't call them valleys. Does it have highs and lows? Highs and lows. We don't call them highs and lows. We call them the peak of the wave form. So it's not in a straight line. It's not in a straight line? It depends on the. I can't. So you're talking about RF, right? When we transmit RF. No. It has a frequency. No. No. I'm not talking about RF. I'm talking about the entire spectrum. Ozean. I know you don't understand what the entire spectrum is measured based on the troughs. The highs and lows of the signature. They have a wave form. Correct. So they're not straight. Correct. They are straight. They traveled straight. Caleb. What are caposcular rays? What? This refraction of light. What are caposcular rays? For your gish, galloping and changing topic. Just want to point out to the audience before I answer the question. Before I answer the question and before you make faces and stuff like that. Which I do my other button. I have more of them. Anyways, caposcular rays are refraction of light through the Earth's atmosphere that shines on the bottom of the moon. So it gives a cool effect that we all see. But it's perfectly explained by where the sun is located, by where the moon is located in by refraction. Like we have the models. We have the math to explain caposcular rays. I'm not prepared. You're just gish, galloping, changing topics. Thank you. Because you're not prepared to cover this debate. You just want to gish, gallop and say, oh, look, this guy over here can't perfectly explain every phenomenon in reality. He's a dummy. Dummy. And I won. You now provided zero evidence to prove that the Earth is a flat, infinite plane. This guy believes. The ocean surface is level. He believes the Earth is perfectly, infinitely flat. No, there's topography. He's strong in reality. Eyes and lows. There's mountains. There's mountains, bro. So he believes it's an infinite topography of the Earth. Like, like Kyle Adams does. Are there infinite people? That's strong, man. Why are we talking about population? Because it's an observed plane. Red herring. Red herring. You made the claim that the Earth is an infinite flat plane, dude. You made the claim. I'm ready for super chats. Ask me a question, LA. I know that you're just trying to waste time. Ask me a question. Hold on. Let me get my point out. Let me get my point out. I can tell you're just like literally red herring and just making this literally non sequiturs to try to waste time so that we get to questions. You haven't directly answered any questions. You didn't. Projection. I do want to. All right. So do you guys have any topics you'd like to cover before we do go into the Q&A? I haven't got a straight answer to anything.  He hasn't substantiated the theory of relativity. He hasn't substantiated anything. So I almost feel like the back before this point is because everything's just been avoided that I've brought anybody. And all you're doing is projecting your own debate tactic. And I have answered all the questions. You just don't have the answers. Okay. This is our opportunity to go into the Q&A. I want to say, folks, if you happen to have questions and you're new here at Modern A Debate, if you put in a super chat, those go to the top of the list. Appreciate all of your questions so far. We've got a lot of them, but gentlemen, do you guys have any limitations on time? Because I actually have as much time as we need. But let me know if you guys have to cut out any time soon. I'm good to go. I do have an aftershow on my channel, Matters Now. Taylor's welcome to come on. But I can postpone it, so I'm good. You got it. We're going to jump into this. Thank you very much, gentlemen. And thanks, folks, for your questions. We are at 313 likes. Thanks so much for your support. And like I said, it is a message to YouTube. If you enjoyed this debate and don't worry, we've got plenty of juicy questions coming up. You can tell YouTube like, hey, give me more of this. I like this. Hmm. I like that by hitting the like button. So don't do it for me.  And we are at 315 likes. If we get to 400, Whitsitt gets it is in the live chat. He said, he said, he sent me a text. He said, James, if we get to 400 likes during this live stream, I will send feet pics to everybody in the live chat. So folks, if you want some many, many mucho feet pics of Whitsit or from Whitsit, just hit that like button. With that, thanks very much for your question. Coming in from Kango44 says, question for Caleb. Do you think we can't say this name out loud, but it's a sincere question. H-I-T-L-E-R thought that the earth was flat. Probably not. You got it. LJ, thanks for your question says, how do we have a pressurized system within a vacuum? Bozian. We have a pressurized system within a vacuum because second law of thermodynamics is best explained by having a pressure gradient. We do have a pressure gradient. We can measure it with weathered balloons. So that's, there is no like high level pressure next to a low level pressure is a pressure gradient. Never actually reaches zero tour. As far as we know, I don't think. You got it. Thank you very much for your question coming in from LJ strikes again says, has gravity ever been measured as force? I got keys right here. I drop them. So under that paradigm of Newtonian physics, we would call that a downward force is causing the keys to fall down. I think William Harris and his last debate against what's it was very good articulate in describing it as we can consider it even under Einsteinian physics that we can consider it a force as in like, there's been a space time is like the hammer or something like that you watch his video. So you can sort of look at his force even under Einsteinian physics, but we don't generally consider it to be a force. There's lots of videos guys. Megan Marie. Thanks for your super chat says don't want witsit feet pics, but here's a like. Thanks so much Megan. And I gotta tell you, I've never seen the likes jump up so fast as in the last five minutes, it just jumped big time. So thanks witsit. Robin Webster says for the flat earthers, give me a reasonable motive for the concealment of the shape of the earth for over 2000 years and how it would even be possible to conceal it. Usually I don't entertain this question because it's much more logical to look at the evidence for the earth being a level plane rather than asking like why they would want to hide it, but I can postulate some periods. I would say to hide God to hide intelligent design because of the earth is intelligently designed separate from the celestial bodies that would prove that God exists and designed here as well as a hundred million dollars a day to NASA. Money's a pretty good motivator. I don't know they want us to have a fantasy based reality where we believe in things that don't actually exist. So we're not critically thinking. You got it. And the song coming in from LJ says Ozean brought up the big bang while reading his intro. Scientific evidence relies on repeatable experiments. When has the big bang ever been repeated? So we don't have to repeat the big bang to be able to repeat the empirical testing we've done to confirm that the big bang is most likely explanation. So all the big bang is talking about expansion from a hot dense space. I guess I'm not a perfect, I'm not expert on it. And what we've seen is a cosmic background radiation and redshift. So that explains expansion in the big bang theory. We could hypothesis. So people often like straw man a little bit with the singularity. The singularity is a mathematical artifact. If we apply like the two relativity fully to the big bang go backward in time, we would have to get to a dense state where it actually forms into a seal of singularity. But that's more of a hypothesis based upon the three relativity. But what we do know is that gravity breaks down at quantum states and we don't have a full theory of gravity. So under quantum gravity. So it may be the case that maybe it doesn't reach a singularity. We just don't know beyond the state of expansion. So we don't have to re-see the big bang. We just have to be able to perform the test that measure the results based upon that hypothesis, which we do all the time. Just a quick note. Is that cool? I'd recommend everybody look up. Yeah, I'd recommend everybody look into the book in red, written by Halton Hart, debunking redshift and blueshift in the modern form. So if you look at that book and you can debunk everything. So I'm coming in from Kango44 says question for Caleb. You have clearly learned all your talking points from flat earth memes. Do you have any real qualification? If so, what are they? Straight appealing to authority fallacy. I don't need qualifications to buy the hundreds of dollars of physics books behind me and read them and understand so appeal to authority. Appeal to credentials. You got a fringe conspiracies. Robin Webster, thanks for your super chat said why do flat earthers refuse to go to Antarctica when offered paid trips? This would be a way to falsify your hypothesis. Dude, give me give me the opportunity, bro. Who's who's willing to pay for me to go out to Antarctica? Send me the cash. Send me a couple of 40 50 grand. I'll go out there. I'll spend some time. I'll see if there's 24 hours. Somebody send me 40 50 grand. I'll go out. Nobody's offered me that. You got it. LJ says if it's a globe, why doesn't half of the earth stay lit? It's the angle of the axes of the planet like it changes as the earth rotates because of the axes like this. You got it. This one from Kango44 from New Zealand. It's always I love seeing people from around the world says for Caleb, have you ever had a scientific paper published? Have you ever performed an experiment in a university or commercial lab? Have you ever worked on a commercial project involving the application of any of the sciences? Billing authority, billing credentials saying that for me to have opinion on science, I would need to go to a scientific propagandized institution and actually do science experiments. There is a lot of talk about science. Long answer is no. This one coming in from Awake in the Theatre. Globes need to stop saying that the M.M. Pax quote-unquote disproved the ether M.M. that's M as in Martin. Nicholson Morley experiment. He said it showed that earth is stationary. Please explain why Caleb I'm saying your name right Caleb. Yeah, Caleb, yep. So the Nicholson Morley experiment did not experience the sprint shift that they were expecting for the 30 kilometers per second assumed rotation around the sun. So they basically say, oh no, this actually disproved the ether. They were proposing one specific ether. They were proposing a stationary ether. So it disproved one side of ether, not a dynamic ether. Either way, if the earth were moving, we can see that with movement we can pick up this effect in perometer equipment. Hence the SAGNAC effect. So if the earth were actually revolving around the sun, we would see a higher friendship. They explained this in relativity by saying no, no, no, no. It actually is revolving around the sun, but there's time dilation and length contraction. So the length of the apparatus actually shortened and made it look like we're not revolving around the sun. Either way, this is what led Einstein to say that there's no terrestrial experiment that can prove the motion around the sun. So for anybody to claim that we are revolving around the sun is absolutely insane because relativity necessitates that guilt. You can't really respond to that too because that was directed as attack against people who believe does disprove the ether. So the Mickelson Morley experiment was measuring light. It determined that light doesn't have a preferred speed. So that's all they did. So they said there's no ether for light to travel through. That light is not mechanical. That's what the Mickelson Morley did. Light doesn't have a preferred speed? Yes. So light is variant? No. What are you saying? Light's non-variant. So it doesn't, so it's not... Hold on, hold on. You're saying it doesn't have a preferred speed? It doesn't have a preferred speed? What do you mean by that? So it's not constant? It is constant. So it does have a preferred speed? That's an absolute speed. I know you're nervous, but try to think about what's coming up. This one coming in from... I never actually responded, but I'll go on. He interrupted me in the middle of my response, but I'm done. Go on. Next question, sorry.  If you'd like to say anything else, you can. I'll give you a 50-year response. Yeah, so a lot of people do say it disproves the ether, but what they were trying to measure was it. That was it. This one from K-144. Thanks very much. It says, Caleb, why did they account of the curvature of water in tow tanks used to test boat holes? You might not know about that as it's not flat earth meme. That's great. So they might have done math and done a coordinate transform or a mathematical transform to assume the radius or circumference of the earth. That doesn't in any way substantiate that they're actually accounting for curvature. So you can do measurements on the earth and it'd be flat. And then transform those observations into a mathematical equation that assumes the radius or circumference. It's called begging the question, Valicy Gango. Next question. This one coming in from... If you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button. We have many more debates coming up. Maybe you're like, James, I already did hit the subscribe button. I've got to tell you this. We just made a new channel membership offer.  What's going on? I don't want this slow mode. I want to be able to say as much as I want as fast as I want. It is a 99 cent membership. If you didn't know this your membership makes you immune to slow mode. So if you want to go in chat and you want to as fast as you can, just rapidly, please send me feed picks. Please send me feed picks. You can do that as fast as you want in slow mode will not affect you. And that, like I said, it's 99 cents for that brand new membership level. We just added 99 cents. So what is that with that? Thanks very much for your question. Wake in the ether says, Ocean, can you demonstrate a ball having three different wobbles simultaneously? It's impossible yet science claims the earth wobbles three different ways. I'm pretty sure when we take a measurement, we only measure one vector at a time. So I don't know if it'd be possible because you got to measure that vector in one instantaneous given moment or not within a moment period of time. So I don't know if there's a way to measure all three at once. So you got it. This one coming in from thanks very much.  I don't know what they have. Yeah. In my opinion, Mr. Beast might be controlled opposition.  They didn't use a time lapse to show that there's a 24 hour sun. He simply just went through the day without showing blocks or cardinal directions in the form of compasses and said, the sun never sets here, bro. That video in no way was evidence that there's a 24 hour sun. You need like a time lapse of the entire day. I know you just like completely adhere to anything that that guy says because it's supposedly evidence for the globular Earth. But no, he definitely lied about a 24 hour sun. We've never observed that. There's not one singular time lapse. The ones that are reported to be true have been easily people. You got it. Thank you very much for this question coming in from Megan Marie says glass of wine and flat earth nonsense debates. Great way to end the week. Always good to see James modding. Let's go Ozean. Give a fan out there Ozean. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Hang on for four says Caleb have fun in court with Mr. Beast for defamation of character. Yeah, tell him sue me. Tell him to sue me. Yeah, sue me, Mr. Beast. I would juicy to say the least to Saka says Caleb stop with the generic fluff keywords and stop hiding behind that petty burden of proof hard bored wall to avoid providing evidence of your own. Yeah, I guess I'll I'll use less logic next time guys. Sorry about that. This one coming in from deems traveler says Ozean how do you explain the first trans Atlantic radio transmissions going 25 100 miles in the year 1910 if refraction. Why didn't he put that in his diary? They understand refraction like we do now. I think that's a Mac. What's his name doesn't matter Marconi experiment. I think where they say RF signal is also long wave of radio and also bouncing off the honest they didn't understand the honest here was there. So a cool thing about long wave radios because the like Caleb was talking about before about RF has a waveform. So it's those peaks of those waveforms go up they actually can traverse long distance like over mountains and stuff like that like over tall structures and you also have the curve of the earth that gets around and it also tends to follow the surface of the earth due to refraction also long wave radio deaths. It's awesome. You got it. Billy Philly 22 How do we never see the other side of the moon if everything in space is free to spin omni directionally? We do see the other side of the moon we got pictures of it. So we've spent spacecraft to the moon and we have pictures of the dark side of the moon. So the moon is in tidal lock with the earth so the face of the moon is in tidal locks is always going to be facing the earth but we can't do the other side of the moon and seeing. We have pictures. Robin Webster says opinion. I love Robin. Opposite the consensus is a positive claim. I think they're saying Caleb that your opinion, given that it's against the consensus they're saying therefore it is a positive claim. What do you think Caleb? This is very if you claim the earth has specific dimensions a form of radius or circumference and I say I don't believe those those claims that's a negative claim. The fact that people can't follow basic logic is so so juicy. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Jiffy Jiff Walz 3k Caleb is still sad from his spanking the fight the flat earth. Is this true Caleb? No Craig has been completely manic ever since I have been just glad. It was incredible. I absolutely decimated Craig. It was actually worse with Ozean. Ozean did a better job of not answering any direct questions than actually FDF. He was actually worse than FDF I would say. You've got this one coming in from, do appreciate it. G.J. Moss says so Caleb where can I find your own research which supports your claims? Um I don't know maybe you could use like common sense and realize that the ocean surface is not convexing at an average rate of 80 square necessitated by static. It's just level contained by an article acting as a shoreline to the ocean. We're like in this big pond okay and article is like a shoreline to a lake. Water always necessitates a container. The surface of the water is always level observably flat. If the ocean, if the surface of the earth is covered 70% by water what can we assume the earth flat? You got this. From verbally finished says my condolences for having a debate Caleb. Geez he's sitting right here okay this one from Deems Traveler says James where's the moderation at when Ozean plays these little five second clips that insult Caleb. Oh childish. Juicy. Well this isn't your grandma's debate channel as you know so we let a lot fly but Yehuligan says after show for this debate on matters now. That reminds me both of our guests are linked in the description box if you'd like to check out matters now which is Ozean's show you can and you can also check out the link tree which I've updated Caleb that is a link tree to Caleb's links in the description box including at the podcast jiffy jiff wall says the cross rails in England need to take earth curve into account you lose KK Caleb Uh yeah when people put three K's in front of my name just so everybody knows my girlfriend's African American so that's like really weird for you to say that. Um either way I know just because you assume like just saying oh they had to take in the curvature of the earth for railroads doesn't mean anything that's no substance just because you're saying that they didn't math to suggest that the earth again it's the same thing with the other guy that claimed that they have to do the radius and circumference claim for whatever as far as ships or whatever he said it's the same thing they could be taking real-world observations from the earth being a level plane and then they could do coordinate system transforms as in the form of math equations and assume sphericity just assuming the earth of all doesn't make it of all you got it this one coming in from Robin Webster says Caleb explain the time zones on flat earth Oh if you actually look if the earth were a ball we should have 24 uniform time zone because there's a physical geometric cutoff in relation to the sun we don't see that we have 18 time zones in the north and 32 time zones in the south doesn't work on a ball completely destroying the idea that we're on a oblique revolving spin you got it this coming in from Robin Webster again Caleb explain the circumnavigators paradox on a flat earth okay so circumnavigation proves neither model the earth could be flat with the all compasses updating towards the center of the earth you can go in a circle on a flat surface circumnavigation dude let's go you got it this one coming in from Mastabond Ilabaka says Caleb geodetic surveys do not assume flat earth nor use plane surveying it's all based on angle measurements between three points of known distance if flat the angle would add up to 180 but it never does that's just demonstrably a lie geodetic surveyors use plane surveying data they stitch it together this is kind of my question so they stitch the plane surveying data together and assume the radius and circumference similar to all the other times you guys keep saying proves because they had to use the curvature of the earth they use plane surveying data which is the only type of surveying that we do in reality so if it's the only type of surveying that we do in reality they use the plane surveying data they stitch multiple observations together over a long distance and assume the radius and circumference juicy to say the least this one coming in from k144 says question for Caleb considering the sun does not change angular size as it sets please explain a sunset please don't say perspective uh yeah the sun's angular size demonstrably does change I've actually posted a video on this on TikTok it does change it changes very slightly because of the simple understanding that things at a great distance the angular size changes slow things at a close distance like my hand to the scammer changes fast so the sun's a good distance away from an observer on the surface of the earth hence it will change slow and you can measure this and the time lapses that have been uh reported to prove the earth size doesn't change have been analyzed and the pixels it literally does change so that's this one from k144 got that one Matthew de Gregorio says drop that ball this one from Robin Webster Ozean explain how the Coriolis effect proves a globe okay thank you um Robin Robin was my first member on my matters now channel anyways but um so the the Coriolis effect is best explained by the earth across the axis and the atmosphere gains momentum and it goes out from I think it's a warmer to the colder I'm not an expert on it and as it it goes away as the the air moves away from the atmosphere they spin in clockwise and counterclockwise directions because the earth underneath it's moving so Coriolis effect and you can see that with the focus pendulum I shouldn't memorize like a thing for that if I'm going to do these more often but um I did read a script but so did Caleb for his powerpoint and I think the audience will decide who wins I think the poll showed Caleb didn't everybody should vote on the poll this one from Lee Kahn the great James doing a great job earth and flat thank you very much Lee Kahn said I do mean James appreciate that the sacred says only thing that matters now is only thing that matters now is Caleb not referencing a satirical article about gravity again Ozean dodges a KO thanks James Flat Earth Fridays hashtag quitter axe uh was that way was that like I can't even understand so was that from sacred that was from sacred yet so me buddy it's my question so essentially the satirical satirical article that I showed that gravity is not the archaic form of mass attracting mass that literally if you just google is gravity a fact it will say no so in sacred's a flat earth that's really interesting wow that he's actually agreeing with wow the sacred yeah you're going to have some problems saying that you google then posted a satirical um article is gravity a fact you've googled and posted it's gravity a fact you google and posted a satirical argument in your debate with um so I guess sacred believes in gravity now everybody doesn't follow it just it's simple question simple question Ozean try to follow along with the question is gravity a fact or a theory uh it's an absurd fact and it has a theory that explains it the bending and warping of space time is a fact that it's a theory that explains the observation of things that we call the observations of fact that things fall down that's the gravity is an observation it's a fact the theory which explains the observations is a theory that explains the fact of gravity correct let's move on yes this one from Theodore Paul says Caleb do you have let's see they say you sound tiring oh and a higher altitude increases the distance from the bottom of the boat so in your view it should limit the perspective I don't even understand what each one say you might need to read that again Theodore Paul says a higher altitude increases the distance from the bottom of the boat so in your view it should limit the perspective oh my gosh he's not serious if you create if you increase your altitude you will see more on both models that guy himself stop drinking fluoride bro so I'm coming in from do you appreciate your question I'm insulting Bob says give any experimental evidence of a hyperbolic frame of reference straight lines converging to the horizon ain't it Caleb clearly doesn't understand okay just saying I don't understand stuff Robert this life says Caleb what are you going to do when space tourism is a normal thing and people are posting selfies with the curvature of the earth in the background I don't think that's going to start happening I think there's a reason they keep postponing the Apollo missions they just postpone them 3 years or so great stuff, fantastic stuff which it gets it says wouldn't the variant propagation rate of light corresponding to altitude direction and the equinoxes which has been proven refute heliocentrism it what but science doesn't prove anything science is based on inductive reasoning so he doesn't have any proof that his third relativity has been refuted so he's talking like we would call that the Segnak effect maybe there's not a complete agreement on what causes Segnak effect but it is best explained the plus or minus view that he's describing we have to do GPS corrections on Earth due to the Earth rotation as we align them to GPS times in orbit we've been able to do these tests so that's what he's appealing to but I would need to see this supposed proof, science doesn't prove anything I reject his claim Simon says you played a belter, Ozean a belter, well done love seeing early Caleb's squirm thank you all the visible constellations that rotate around the Earth's fixed axis pointing to polaris north star north and crux constellation in the south together show us that a flat Earth is impossible no the north star, even if there are a stationary north and south star guess what guys, that doesn't work on a spinning wobbling ball that's processing around the sun and shooting through space 4.9 billion miles in a singular year with an expanding universe we would observe something completely different and stars would not be able to be stationary so it's actually a breath patient