Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not space exists and we're starting right now. With Flat Earth Ozzy's opening statement, thanks for being with us, Flat Earth Ozzy, the floor is all yours. Cheers James, thanks Tom. I've written out a little bit of a spell but I must say I also bought my own hand grenades that I'm vegan so it's a vegan hand grenade so maybe it's the wrong thing to bring the knife fight but here we go.  I'm actually quite amazed that this discussion is finally going ahead. Big respect first of all to James and all the moderators who make these unbiased, nonpartisan platform possible and secondly to my highly decorated armchair philosopher opponent Sir Thomas of Jump. While he may get to prove his ability to stand on his own two feet, well he may yet prove his ability to stand on his own two feet, figuratively speaking, on any topic yet to do with the spinning, open air, organic pear-shaped spaceship twirling and whirling at multiple speeds and directions through the vacuum of infinite space, periodos must be given to him for reattaching his butt after having it recently handed to him on a shiny metal platter after a recent encounter with a bloke from Hawaii called Dave. Today's topic, of course, is whether or not outer space is real, most especially as we currently tend to think of it according to current mainstream, which is to say Hollywood consensus. There's no argument that real tangible gaps exist between real and tangible objects. Though I do have questions for another day about the alleged space between the particles that real and tangible objects consist of, that of atoms, hypothesize that even real and tangible objects are 99% empty space as well. I'll go for consensus that real solid objects for the purposes of this discussion are real solid objects. What we're really simmering this cauldron of conundrums down to is the essence of the existence of outer space, specifically that vacuous state that's been indoctrinated into our fertile mines all the way from the crib to the hallowed halls of higher indoctrination, where we infuse by degrees, sometimes with honors, just enough knowledge to make each trained monkey useful in its own specialized compartment. I know, I know, I'd digress. Please, not for one second am I suggesting these learned people lack in intelligence. In that same breath, however, I will suggest that the best trained soldier or policy enforcer is better equipped to perform their roles thanks to a lack of intelligence and a willingness to follow orders. And so it follows all the way up the chain of command that every successful employee must be willing to compromise certain, shall we say, standards in order to enjoy a successful career. Those who rock the boat, so to speak, are often the first to pull overboard accidentally or otherwise. So rather than delve down any conspiracy spiral, let us focus on physics, the very essence of the foundation of science. It seems quite ironic really that vacuous space is the very antinom of physics, the complete lack of anything physical, the absolute metaphysical void. It must be stressed that the fantasy of outer space cannot exist, let alone persist, without the fabricated fantasy of the heliocentric globe and all that goes with it. Best of all, placing us hypothetically on one of those tiny orbs of light you see in the night sky, spinning and twirling around and yet another of those tiny orbs of light, now supposed to be multiple magnitudes of our own sun, bigger in size, rendering even our own son of God insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Thus paving the way, completely and utterly into the atheistic paradigm, rendering anything of intelligent design to be far less likely than the most amazing supercomputer capable of self-reproduction, little more than the accidental consequence of sheer random accident, freak beneficial mutations and statistical consequence, given enough time, ironically associated with the wandering star god Kronos, otherwise known as Saturn, or as I call it, the great deceiver, the Lord of the Rings, Satan. The very topic of space being poked necessarily lends itself to multiple conspiracies and consequences that to simply less them off one after another will denote justice to any one of them, let alone my case in general. Yet I find myself wondering, like a country kid for the first time in the proverbial candy store, marbling over the choice of juicy topics to sink my teeth into. I would dare say that each and every one is worthy of an entire debate in its own right, which alas, forces me into a more generalized position, leaving the debunking of a million proven falsities of the space paradigm for another time. Most especially those of NASA, not a space agency. Instead of disproving a negative, therefore, I'll focus on the more scientific method of proving the positive, specifically that we dwell upon the only plane of terra firma at the bottom of the known universe, which by default renders the entire concept of outer space redundant, extraneous to all the known and observable laws of physics. We know, for example, how the laws of physics apply to the field sports event we call the hemathrough. A heavy weight is attached to a tether. The athlete holds a handle at the other end and rapidly spins, applying maximum centripetal force to the hemma. At the moment it is released, it flies off in a straight line until eventually inertia gives weight to friction and the density of the mass, otherwise known as weight, from the Latin term gravus, drops through the less resistant medium of air until being arrested by the more dense medium of the ground beneath it. It's no coincidence that the same person is described as standing with his two feet on the ground or is well grounded while the crazy person is said to be off with the fairies, which equates with pixie lights we see, pearling and whirling in the empty space above us. Can you just imagine, therefore, a god like Thor descending to the physical plane and throwing a hemma so hard and fast that it just missed the ground in such a way that continued falling to the ground that every time it got close it just missed again and again and again until eventually it ran into so much space debris that it formed into the moon. This is literally the closest you will ever find from scientific consensus for the actual existence of our actual moon. So if that's the scientific consensus of just our nearest celestial body, can you just imagine how much more and more absurd it must necessarily get to believe that we do similarly to the Sun as Thor's hemmas does to our Earth? The sky clock we see rotating around above the stationary plane or Earth remains constant, repetitive and predictable year after year, century after century, millennia after millennia. So to assert the positive position, matched with our observations of the celestial above, we can posit that by definition of water level and the observable laws of density and buoyancy, the sea level is the mean bottom level of observable reality and the various fluid gases filling some of the space above us. Loosely follow the same physical laws rather than defy them absolutely by clinging to an open air organic spaceship whirling and twirling through a vacuum of space. Let alone dragging Thor's hemma a constant distance away as it went. On the stationary plane or Earth, when we apply laws of perspective and convergence, we view the model at the full scale with which it actually exists. It matters not how many rockets or A bombs we send up in an operation fish bowl. We simply cannot penetrate above a certain height despite all of the Hollywood fabrications suggesting otherwise. Could it possibly be a coincidence that one of the very first Hollywood productions was called a trip to the moon? The idea of space exploration has excited the imaginations of mankind since the beginning of time. So there's no wonder that the authors of fantasy have expanded to realms of science fiction to boldly go where no man has gone before thanks to the genius hard at work in a Hollywood basement, the final frontier. Thank you very much. Flatter of the Aussie for that opening statement and wanna let you know folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from, we host debates ranging from, as I mentioned, science, religion and politics, including this political one coming up on the bottom right of your screen, it's gonna be a juicy one. And so hit that subscribe button if you haven't already for many more juicy debates to come. And with that, Tom, thanks for being with us. The floor is all yours for your opening. Yep, so space is a really simple concept. Like we can little make parts of it by creating a vacuum chamber, sucking out all the air and then poof, we got space. And we know this happens naturally because as we go up, there's less and less pressure. So the pressure decreases and continues to decrease and continues to decrease and continues to decrease to the point where we can't breathe. And we've literally just gone up high enough to the point where we can't breathe. And when we can create a vacuum chamber and put in even less air, we can know what's above that and the less know what's above that. And in a vacuum chamber, when you put an air that doesn't like fill the container or even it does, then the air will go to the bottom for some strange reason. Air will start to fall, the molecules will go to the bottom of the container. When we put the container, it'll also go to the bottom of the container, which every side is going down for some very strange reason. Which means that on the bottom of the container, there is an air, molecules, pressure, gas. And at the top of the container, there's nothing. That nothing is what we call space. Space is just the lack of particles. We know there's, it's out there because what we've been there and you can see it, rich people can get pretty close apparently now. And we can demonstrate all of the celestial bodies pretty simply the best one being the moon. We can demonstrate the moon is there with the in your backyard with a radio wave called this thing called radar. Radar is a phenomenal technology that bounces electromagnetic waves off of objects to know their speed, size, shape, momentum, distance, et cetera. And we can bounce them off of the moon using very high frequency radio waves. So you can build a radio tower in your backyard or just rent one and bounce radio waves off of the moon to test how far away the moon is. It takes about five seconds for you to send a signal for it to bounce off the moon and for it to come back at any point in time during the day, which means the moon is about 250,000 miles away given the speed of light and the speed of the radio waves. And it's at that distance the entire day beginning of the day, late at night, anywhere on earth you can do this when the moon like is off in distance when you lose sight of it. If you have some friend who starts to seize it from a different part of the planet they can measure it still the same distance. This is a problem because if the moon is the same distance within like 10 to 13% for everyone who measures it at any point of time on the earth then it can't be going around in a disc shape above a flat surface. Because if it was going around in a disc shape then you get this strange problem where the moon is here, it's closer to this side than it is to this side. And it moves and changes to be further away which means it can't be measured to be the same distance at all times during the day if it's doing this around the earth. It's just not possible.  So it has to be one big bump over the entire planet anywhere you are without exception which means, well, the world has to be around because if it wasn't round then it couldn't be measured to be the same distance at all points while moving. And if the world's round and the moon is 250,000 miles away and we know that the atmosphere gets less and less dense as we go up, that's a lot farther than we're gonna keep having the atmosphere. So we know space is there. We know it's in space. We know the world is round. You know, the moon is real and you can prove lots of other things but that is sufficient to demonstrate that. In fact, yeah, space is definitely real. There's no way around it. I'll conclude there. You got it, thanks very much. And with that, we'll kick it into open discussion. Wanna let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description. That's not only here on YouTube. That's also at the modern day debate podcast which by the way, we put out our podcast of every live debate within 24 hours of the debate. And you can also find Tom's and Flat Earth Aussie's links in the description box for the podcast episode as well. Thanks so much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours for open conversation. Well, I wouldn't mind addressing that extremely lame bit of evidence really because we don't deny the existence of the moon for one single moment. And so that doesn't for one second prove space at all. And I could probably go into some depths about the way the laws of density and buoyancy work and the fact that with radio waves and radar itself, these things are all calibrated on more or less at sea level. Maybe up to mountain top level, which we don't go more than maybe 10,000 feet or something with most radar or planes and that we might pick them up at 40,000, 60,000 feet maximum maybe. And what we do know is that with density, like we've all done as a kid, stuck a head under the water in the bathtub and noticed how sound is so much louder underwater. And that proves that waves propagating will propagate more and more extremely in the more dense medium. And so as we go into a lighter and lighter medium, what would happen is that those radio waves, this is purely hypothetical on my behalf, but I've thought it through quite a bit, is that they actually go on much, much slower. So they're giving the illusion of traveling a much further distance because they calibrated in a more dense medium and say what you're supposing is 250,000 miles might actually be only about 70 miles for all we know because as how much you've explained the density gradient, you know, just by climbing a high mountain, we can barely breathe. We can't breathe in 30,000 feet on an airplane if it suddenly lost pressure. We need to put the oxygen mask on. So we could say that that's purely down to density. And we could probably argue back and forth on that. I'm not a radar expert by any means, but I will be honest with you. So really all radios and radar sort of technology is done morally at sea level. Aussie, electromagnetic waves aren't like sound waves. Sound waves travel through the medium. Electromagnetic waves, they just pass through it. They're not like propagating through the mat or like sound waves. So electromagnetic waves are like microwaves or cell-phone waves. The radio has constantly been called airwaves.  That's what has always been called. So why would they suddenly change just because you assume space exists? They're called airwaves because they pass through the air. They're not because they're like literally passing through molecules of air. They're just in the air. No, no, no, they're called airwaves because the place that we use them is above our heads. It doesn't actually pass through the air molecules. It's not using air molecules. That's not how like microwaves don't use air molecules to heat things up. It's not how they work. Okay, well, as I said, I'm not an expert in that field. We can build vacuum chambers and use radio waves in the vacuum chambers to know the difference in the speed between the radio waves in vacuum chambers and in air. It's pretty much nothing. There's like no difference in speed. Is this about the same speed? Would that speed be detectable? There's actually tiny medium of a vacuum chamber on it. Because those vacuum chambers are tiny in comparison to the vacuum of space, which is the speed of light, yes. Okay, well, speed of light now too. Okay, cool. That's the speed at which radio waves and microwaves travels at the speed of light. It's an electromagnetic wave like light. It travels at the speed of light. Fair enough. Okay, so the first thing you brought up actually was the vacuum chamber, which I think is actually one of the most interesting parts of credibility or to disprove the existence of space. And it's actually one that I heard years ago from a famous flat earth that most people have heard of called Mark Sargent. And I think it's actually a brilliant example of how a vacuum chamber might work. Say for example, you've got a two-story house, a full two-story building that was completely sealed into a single vacuum chamber and you could create a seal across between the two floors. Now you evacuate the air from both floors. So it's a complete thing is a vacuum and then you let the air in down on the first floor. And so now that first floor is normal air pressure. Now, if you then release the valve between the two floors, what's gonna happen? The air will immediately rush up to fill that void because that's what the air would naturally do. It naturally fills the nearest void. It doesn't go towards the more dense place. You claim it goes towards the bottom of the chamber. And yet experience tells us that we would know that it would automatically fill the top of the chamber given the opportunity to. So you just extend that to the open air, no seals whatsoever around the earth spinning through a vacuum of space. The first thing all our atmosphere would do would be to dissipate into the void, whether it sucks or not. So if we're gonna, we create a vacuum chamber, like the biggest one is several stories. It's like a five, four stories or something. And we put gas into it. I mean, we can measure the gas or the water or whatever you wanna put into it. It goes towards the bottom. It doesn't fill the chamber. It goes towards the bottom. Why does it do that? Well, that's natural laws of density. The more dense thing will always displace the less dense thing until finding a place of most resistance. And the floor is the place of most resistance. Okay, so. It's a natural law. So suppose that we, this law of density thing you're talking about. If we put gas into a vacuum chamber, the gas should expand to just fill the gas. Like if there's a single particle, imagine a single particle of gas. Why is it going down in a vacuum? Well, I'm assuming that the vacuum pump is like turned off at this point. And so it's just like a fully floating. Yeah, well, it's for the same reason that the feather falls at the same rate as the bowling ball, because there's zero resistance anywhere else. And so the path of least resistance to the place of most resistance is the bottom. That's just the laws of density has a natural up and down. Resistance to what force? Because there's gotta be something pushing it down, right? Because it can't just. No, no, no. It's just its mass alone is basically, for want of a better word, it is the force. But really the force is resistance. And because a vacuum chamber is the total lack of any resistance, anything will drop at the same rate in a vacuum. Why does its mass go down and not up? Like if so, if we flip the container upside down, why doesn't the particle flow to the top? Because that's just the law of density and buoyancy means resistance has always come from the bottom. That's why the ground is beneath our feet and the sky is above our heads. That's the laws of density and buoyancy. The very first law in science is to make the observation, then make the hypothesis to fit it, not make the observation and then try and make up something that doesn't fit it. It's just what it does. So if, so there's some force that affects everything, even if it's in a vacuum, how does it affect things in a vacuum? Is it like something that propagates through the space in the vacuum? Is it goes through the space? And as I said, it's just the only force is resistance. The vacuum has removed the resistance. So it's naturally just gonna go down to the place of resistance. If there's no forces, then it won't go anywhere. So if it's going down, there has to be a force causing it to go down. So no forces mean no movement. It's called the properties of matter and gas being a fluid, it will still flow to fill its container. So if there's just the single molecule, well, it's not really on a fill its container very much, is it? Yeah, but why is it gonna move? It will fill the whole container equally, but it's just the properties of matter. We don't have to make up anything new to describe what matter does. We make the observation, the more dense thing always goes down to a place of most resistance. And if it's a fluid, it'll keep on flowing until finding a container that can hold it, which is what we call three-level. So yeah, so I'm asking here is why does it go, how, what causes it to go down? If there's no forces, if it's just density and nothing is pushing on the molecule, then it can't go up and it can't go down, it can't move at all. So if it's just in space, if there's a single molecule in a vacuum and it's just density is the only force affecting it, then it will not move. The only way density could cause something to move is if something that is more dense is above it or less dense is below it because density is kind of friction. So if there's no object above it and no object below it, then density, relative density can't actually cause it to move. There has to be something else there to actually touch it to make it move for density to cause it to move. That's not necessarily the case. Like as we know that object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by another force. And generally speaking, what that force will always be is lifting it up in the first place. Like you've added a force by adding that molecule of gas to the vacuum in the first place. If you didn't add it, then of course it's not going to go anywhere. You've added the force and the molecule is just reacting to that force. It's the reaction. It's not a force in itself. It's the reaction to being put there somewhere where it didn't have enough resistance to support it. Again, so yeah, we put the molecule in. We didn't put the molecule in at the bottom. We put the molecule in like in the middle. So we want to know why does the molecule go down and not up? If there's relative density, the laws of density all say that you have to have one object of a greater or lesser density to push a different object of a greater or lesser density. In a vacuum, there's no object. This is the only molecule. So there's nothing to push it up, nothing to push it down. Why does it go down? Because the vacuum won't resist it. I think I've already explained that several times now. Like, do you have any other questions? So gravity? So because gravity is pulling it down. There has to be something pulling it down. Because there's no resistance. You don't float in there. Resistance means stopping. Resistance is like something trying to stop it from falling. Exactly. And that's what the floor does. The floor is dense enough to resist it. So it stops at the floor. That's where it comes to. If there's no positive force causing it to move, then it doesn't matter if there's resistance or not. So if there's nothing causing it to come down, then it doesn't need any resistance. It will just stay there. So there has to be some force causing it to go down for the floor to resist against. There's a force causing it to fall. It has to hit the ground and then the resistance stops it from continuing to fall. That force, we got a word for it, it's called pudding. The scientist put it there. Putting? Yeah, he put it there. If he didn't put it, he didn't lift it or somehow inject it into the vacuum of state. Like if you kept the vacuum pumps going and you had that gas molecule into it, it would get evacuated as well because that's what the pumps do to create the vacuum of state. So somebody has used energy to put that molecule of gas in there which is the equivalent of lifting, throwing, kicking, shooting, whatever and put it in in some way or another and that is the action and the falling to the ground, the place of resistance is the reaction. That's all it is, just action, reaction. Well, we can put something at the top of a container, we can throw it up, it still comes down every time. So no matter where we put it in the box, it's still gonna fall down because of some force that's actually going through the container that has nothing to do with density. Yeah, it is that due to density, it's resistance. Buoyancy is literally resistance and so the floor- Can't be density because density only applies between objects. So there has to be an object of density one and object of density two and they have to hit each other for density to transfer a force. If you're in a vacuum, there's no two objects, it's just a vacuum. There is, there's the gas molecule and there's the floor. Yes, but there's, remember, we're saying the gas molecule is in the middle so that's not touching the floor, right? Not until you release it. Once you've released it, there's nothing to resist it from going to the floor, except the floor itself. That's the part I'm asking about. So once you release the molecule, now there's nothing above it, there's nothing below it. There's no molecules of any density above it or below it to push it anywhere. So density can't cause it to move but it's still falling for some reason. So it can't be density but it's falling for some reason other than density. Well, because it's more dense than the vacuum of state. The vacuum of state is lack of density altogether which therefore means lack of resistance altogether which means everything would fall in a vacuum. So that's why outer space is so impossible because everything that we see in space would fall because that is just the universal thing but things of density to go down. That's why we see meteors, if we see them they always go down. They're always going to the place of the most resistance.  Like I said with the Thor's Hammer example you know that if you throw it really, really hard it's still going to come and crash them down to the ground eventually. It's not going to keep orbiting just missing the earth again and again and again like we say the moon does. So let's say that the moon orbits us due to gravity is the most ridiculous thing ever. It is the equivalent of the gas molecule sitting in the middle of the chamber with no reason to fall any direction whatsoever. It shouldn't just miss the earth every time in pre-port. It should just miss us once and keep on going and we'd never see it again. The very idea that you're trying to bring up contradicts itself when we then apply it to the things that we do see in reality. You mentioned the moon going around in a disk. Well, that's the way we see all of the celestial's move. We see them all move due to some sort of electromagnetic force that are pretty much an equal distance away from Polaris, the center fixed point of everything. The sun being the point of the equator which happens to also be the place where Polaris disappears from you as you move from, with distance away from it. So everything's measured in circles around Polaris, the fixed northern center of the fixed planar earth we live upon and the moon being a physical object. I won't say that the light of the moon that we see is actually the physical object. I do believe that's a projection but that's going into something outside of the realms of the discussion of space. But it moves due to electromagnetic force of some sort that we don't exactly know but it also drives the tides around the head of it which can be explained by the resistance force, the same force that we should hold at the loft above the earth is what then has a pressure gradient onto our saltwater oceans and drives the tides around. In the heliocentric model, you've got one thing that says tides is caused by the moon and it's gravitational pull which you can't pull water for a start. You can repel water very easily. You get a straw above a glass of water and blow through it.  You won't move it and it's very easy to repel water. So with the moon going around the stationary plane of earth every 25 hours approximately that aligns perfectly with our tides. The ocean hits one coastline and then the rebound sends back the secondary high tide on the opposite coast. The global model using gravity, that's all the moon is absolutely impossible because the speed of the earth going around the sun, 1.6 million miles a day and the moon is only in free fall, some 2800 or 2000 and 80 miles per hour around the earth. Back to the coast. There's no way that it could even keep up at those speeds that it's attributed for the earth to be around the sun at its ridiculous half a million miles an hour plus speeds. And yet the moon is meant to be pulling two tides per day with only one mass. You get one massive high tide only and one massive low tide every 25 hours. And that just completely disproves the heliocentric model in itself. Just the moon alone disproves it. The gravity of everything disproves it. Wait, have you ever like hit a glass of water? Like if you hit, I put your finger in, you notice there's multiple waves that happen and when the waves hit the edge, they bounce back and create waves going the other direction. Yeah, like in a tub, if you sit up suddenly the water hits the other end and comes back and spills over behind you type of thing. The splash back effect is quite often greater than the initial force that pushed it in the first place. And that's what creates the secondary high tide. Yeah, so the moon could definitely create tides going in both directions, couldn't it? Because if it creates a big, like if it pulls the water in one direction and the water is then going in that direction, well then the water on the other side of the planet is going to move to fill the hole, right? Like if you stand up in a bathtub, the water that you have displaced is going to be filled by the water behind you. Even though there's a wave going in front of you, there's another wave coming behind you to fill the hole, right? Yeah, but we'll say we've got the same argument down here. I'm saying that the moon repels the tides because I've actually spent years and years of experience on beaches and watching the moon, watching the tides. The moon repels the tides? What? Hmm? The moon repels the tides, you mean like so the moon pushes the water? Yeah, you watch the moon approaching from the east because I live on the east coast here and you watch the water creeping up across the dry sand. Like when water creeps across dry sand, it behaves completely differently from how it does on wet sand where it sinks in quite rapidly. The dry sand sort of has a bit of a crust on it and so it sort of has a quick silver type of effect. So when you're sitting there on your tower, watching the ocean and you see little bits of sticks and pots and jets and floating up, crawling across like on a bubble almost across the dry sand, it's quite a unique sort of experience which you get to see with years of experience sitting on the beach, watching tides and so forth. And you think to yourself, well, how is that happening if the moon's over in front of me, approaching towards me? Why is the tide coming ahead of the moon? And I couldn't work it out at the time because I was still a bona fide globe believer at the time but now it makes perfect sense is that the moon is actually repelling the water ahead of it, pushing it. Then as it reaches the coast and goes overhead, then it sort of is also slightly pushing it away with that splash back as it keeps on going across the other side of Australia and right around on its daily circuit of about 24 hours, 50 minutes. And our tides every day are about that extra 50 minutes later, every day. So if you ever put your hand in water and just pushed it like this, do you see what happens when you do this? Yeah.  And you'll also get in vortices by running way either side in opposite directions. This proving the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect is just the reaction of the sun itself as it goes around the equator every day. It creates heat waves basically from the light and everything that creates low pressure systems and that's why storms, tropical storms will rotate across the equator. So the question was, if the moon was pushing the water like your hand pushes the water and there's going to be a big blob of water in front of the moon and a big hole of water behind the moon, but we don't see that. We see an equal distribution of a big blob in front and behind, which means it's not pushing. Your mission's happening how I was suggesting the moon repels it. I'm saying it repels with a downwards force which would create a spot directly beneath it, but it's not a huge one. It's only a very, very light force, a bit like how gravity is such a weak force. I call it the diamagnetic repellent force, a bit like when you've got two pole magnets, the two similar poles trying to push together, they repel. And I believe that's the force that holds the moon above us. And that's a weak force, but it's sufficient because the oceans are so massive that it will push around one or two meters, which is really, to narrow a scheme of things very, very tiny. It's not a massive wave like you're pushing with your hand. It's a repellent downward force pushing the waters, generally speaking, in a broad way ahead of it. So the moon pushes the water down. So if we're under the moon, then the water level should be lower than any other point of the day, right? Yeah, technically that would be the lowest point. But it's not, it's the highest point. Is it though? Yes. And how much experience have you spent at the ocean watching this? Watching it? Like I've seen tides come in and tides come out. We do know how that happens, Bill O'Reilly. Yeah, well, so have I. I've spent like 30 odd years plus watching tides, surfing in tides. Like when you're a surfer, the tides are really important, especially on point breaks, because you know, certain rocks appear at a lower tide, and it's a lot safer on a higher tide when you open beaches, the sandbars, get a lot shallower at a low tide. And I like the waves, when I get a lot fuller at a high tide, there's not as much fun. So there's a lot to do with surfing over all the years that I've learned to observe the tides and so forth. And because I've also spent all this time with the moon chart on my wall, which is how I know that tonight's full moon will be at exactly three minutes past 10 p.m. here in Australia in our eastern standard time. I know the moon phase is particularly well, and I always make a point, especially when I lived at the eastern most point of the Australian mainland, the famous Byron Bay, I would always go on the full moon night to watch the full moon coming up because it always coincides with the sun setting, which is like above the flat earth, the yin yang symbol, as we would see it if we could look at it from above. So I know the moon and the tides rather intimately through many, many years of experience. And I can tell you that as the moon's approaching, you get the high tide, but by the time it's overhead, the tide's actually rapidly running back out again. Maybe you're just not looking when it's overhead in the right direction. Like this is like when the moon's overhead, during the new and the full moon, the tide is the highest when it's directly above you. When it's directly above you. Like maybe you're looking in the wrong. Oh, maybe because you're in Australia, so it's technically to the side of you. What I've noticed is that when we get our king tides on the full moon, which are right at the aquinoxes, so in the next month's full moon, that's when we get the most king tides and they always happen as the moon is rising. So that's when the moon is on the eastern horizon from our perspective, it's not necessarily rising. It's always the exact same height above the earth, of course, might vary slightly throughout your super moons and so on. But it's more or less the same height above the earth at all times. And so it's gonna have the most repellent force when it's at the horizon coming into view. And then as it passes overhead, it's starting to repel it back again. And I think you'll find that the high tide is highest around sunset or soon thereafter. It doesn't happen at midnight, which is when the full moon would be directly overhead at midnight and it's setting as the sun is coming into view again. That's how the moon phase works. I wouldn't be directly overhead at midnight, that doesn't make any sense. That's how the phases work. The full moon, I mean, the moon itself only shows all night, one night of the month. And that's the night of the full moon. That's the night that's overhead. So it doesn't mean it's directly overhead. Like the moon is only in front of one part of the earth at a time. Even on the flat earth model, the moon is only above one part of the earth at a time. And then it moves to it, being above a different part of the earth. It's not like it's on midnight, it's directly above every single part of the earth everywhere. That's not how it works. So obviously, take your model, take your model of the flat earth, the flat earth model. So the moon goes around like this. The moon goes around like this, right? Like on the flat earth, like this is your model, something like this. Something like that, yep. So it's only around this very small, like directly beneath it, only covers like 10% of the earth with the Gamefly disk. It's only gonna be, the moon is only going to be directly above about 10% of the earth. It never goes above here, never goes above here, never goes above here. It's only this exact circle thingy that it goes directly above, right? Okay, well, that's a huge misunderstanding on your behalf of how perspective works. The higher something is, the more you can see. And so at the height of the moon, half the world at any given time is capable of seeing it. You know, at one point where it's rising, it'll be setting at the other point. And then that 50% in between that is going to see the moon. And so on the full moon night, because we do have time zones, the sun and moon are moving synchronously with one another. So because the sun sets at the time the full moon rises, as it goes around the sun, which is over, whatever it's overhead, is their local midday. So we've got 24 different time zones around the main earth. And so the moon, on the full moon night, in the middle of the night, will be directly overhead, wherever you look at it from, because each time zone is separate. As I say, there's 24 of them loosely speaking, like some countries divide them up a little bit differently, but there's loosely speaking 24 time zones. And the sun is like the hour hand of the 24 hour clock. And half of the world can see the sun or the moon at any given point for at least on average 12 hours of each day. Right, so my question is, if the moon is here, this is like on this little globy thingy, that means that the water directly beneath it is going to be affected more than the water, like 10 miles to the left or 10 miles to the right, correct? It's not noticeable enough. It's a very broadly spread out push. It's not a very strong repulsion, as I said. It's only pushing the entire trillions and trillions of litres around about two metres at the coastlines. And the coastlines obviously have a greater effect because of the shallow water. You know, anything about waves whatsoever, they increase in speed and they gain in height when they get closer to the coast. So tides in the actual open ocean are probably negligible. You wouldn't even notice them at all. It's only on the coastlines where you do actually notice them because you notice the water receding and lowering compared to the actual coastline. And a two metre difference might seem significant for you when you're trying to get fishing or surfing or whatever or boating in a shallow water that opens into the ocean. But generally speaking, the tides are pretty well insignificant on the size and scale of the planarer. So you're saying the moon pushes the water and in your model, the moon is a lot closer than in my model. So if the moon pushes the water, it's going to push it closer to it a lot more than farther away, right? Or does it spread out the force evenly no matter how far away the water is? Well, as I said, it's a very broad sort of thing. It's pushing the entire ocean around from a central point, but it is very far away still. But we tend to think of, you know, in terms of hundreds of thousands of miles, which is what you guys attribute the moon to being, whereas I say the firmament is no more than 70 miles high and the moon is an artificial satellite made here on Earth of an unknown size, but it's this side of this firmament. And I would say it's probably far less than the 70 miles high. And I say that the radiant energy that it picks up off the sun, it's projected into a much lower place again, which I call firmament B, which I would say is only 12 to 14 miles high. That's our blue sky limit, where if a pilot goes really high up and he goes out of the blue into the black, that's what I call the firmament B. It's the noble gases that give us daylight level. And so you can still be in the blackness of space as they call it, but it's still well within atmosphere. It's just it's above the layer of gases, which give us daylight, which is completely different from sunlight, which casts a harsh shadow. Daylight basically can light up an entire room without being able to see the sun whatsoever and cast a very blurry shadow. And then of course you've got twilight, which is the very edges of sunlight. Well, the moon, I believe, takes this light from the sun and projects it into that particular layer of the gases to create a plasma apparition of itself. So even the moon that we're looking at isn't really the moon itself. That's why so many people think of it as plasma and not a solid thing, but I say to steal a solid thing much higher up and much smaller than it appears.   Well, if the moon casts a 70 mile shadow on Earth, it's quite possible it's only seven miles wide up so much higher that when it passes the sun to eclipse it, it casts a 70 mile shadow, a bit like a shadow puppet. So it could be much, much smaller and much, much nearer than what we actually believe. Well, it can't be because we can literally bounce radar off it. Does radar work? Does radar work? Well, as I say, I don't believe it works the same as what it does through the density of air. I believe it works differently. We have to agree to disagree with that one. No, no, no, there's like radar here on Earth. Like when we bounce it off of a building or a plane in the atmosphere, it doesn't work. Of course it does in the medium of air. That's what it's calibrated for. That's how we know. So if the moon was in the atmosphere. We take a tiny, tiny layer of what we existing. So if the moon was in the atmosphere, in the air, we could bounce radar wedge off of it. Yeah, but there's no air up there. We know that. We know for a fact that the air has this gradient layer. So space is real? You're admitting space is real? I'm not admitting space is real. I'm admitting there is space between things and there is a void between us and the firmament. But I don't believe we can go above or beyond the firmament, never have, never will. So there is a place where there is no air and that's space. There's just below the firmament. There's places real below the firmament? At Helium Ballerian, we can send them up with cameras and to the best of my knowledge, the highest we've ever gone is about 130,000 feet. Which in terms of miles, it's about 23 to 24 miles. It's not particularly far. But as far as that's concerned, when it comes to height, it's extremely far. And one thing you will notice once they get to that height, you do not see the moon at all. You cannot detect, you do not see stars at all. You see a sun which seems to be about twice the height of what we see that blue fuzzy layer right below. So that's why I sort of assume that the sun itself isn't the sun either. It's actually a hotspot apparition in the firmament which gives it the visible light to us. And so that tells us the height of the firmament, not actually the sun. The sun varies in different heights above that firmament, which is what gives us the seasons in this model. So there's a few things I wanted to bring up. First is that if the moon was directly above a place and moving around in the disk shape, then the highest tide would be in front of the moon, not behind it. So your model seems to disprove your own evidence that you have presented. Also, it's the highest tide in those models. It's probably quite slightly. I think about six hours and 12 and a half minutes on average between each tide from high to low to high to low again, which averages out at 24 hours, 15 minutes. So it's not as though it's pushing very directly in one particular spot. It's a very generally broadly spread out, slow ebb and flow of the tides that's caused by the moon. The moon is six hours ahead of where it would need to be to push the water down. If the moon is pushing the water down, it would have to be six hours like to the left of where it is. It's just pushing it ahead of it, yeah. For it to do that, it would have to be six hours off where it currently is. So the spacing of the moon is incorrect for your model. It would have to be halfway off. Now I was hoping that the delayed reaction, it's within that six hour period. Delayed reaction. Yeah, yeah, because it's a lot of water to move around. So by the time it reaches the highest point, by that stage, that's when the moon's starting to pass it because it's pushing a huge, huge amount of area. I mean, you're talking about a disk of some 25,000 miles as far as we know the equator is now. I'm not saying that the moon follows the equator the way the sun does. I'm thinking the moon is on a bit more of an elliptical path which is why it changes signs of the zodiac so rapidly. It goes through them every two and a half days or so as the sun takes an entire month to change from one house to another. So the moon is sort of a lot more elliptical. So it's not as concrete as what we would say if it was the sun causing tides and we would know we'd get the exact same tide at the exact same time every single day throughout the year but because it's the moon, the moon is an anomaly in every sense of the word both on the heliocentric model and in reality, so the tides broadly. So how does the moon push on the earth with a delayed force? Is it blowing on it or something? Like how does the moon using relative density push on something that must, well, since it's lower it must be of less density than the moon and do it delayed? No, you've misunderstood what I'm saying is the force. Now if it's relative density, I sort of would hold it aloft if it was say filled with helium for example which we don't know one way or another a lot of people have proposed that it is filled with helium tree and it's a very valuable thing to go mining someday in the future but that's neither here nor there. That's what I call the diamagnetic force that holds it aloft. The repellent force like magnets so like if the earth is negative and the moon is negative then that force is what's holding the moon aloft and because the oceans are full of electrolytes which is what dissolved salts are in water that's basically a natural force that holds it aloft and reacts to that force which keeps it aloft in the first place. It's just a reaction. It's not density and buoyancy when it comes to driving the tides. So magnetism. So the moon is being held up by a magnetic pull and caused by electrolytes in the water. Is that correct? Revolve the force. I'm saying the electrolytes react to that force. I'm not saying it's caused by them but they are what react. That's why salt, massive freshwater legs don't react to the moon hardly ever. They have some dissolved salts in them but not very much. That's why they're fresh but the higher the salt level the more it reacts to that force what holds it aloft. So is this the same as a magnetic field or is it just a different thing just using magnetic fields like an analogy? No, diamagnetism. It's repulsive. But it's actually a magnetic field so it would affect surfaces. Have you ever played a bar magnet strike and you have to put one on the table and then you get the other one and you rest it here and it sort of just floats there if you get it balanced perfectly right. Well that force that's keeping this one anti-gravity balanced that's a similar force in a much larger scale as to what I believe holds the moon aloft. And the other electromagnetic force that keeps everything going around Polaris it's somehow joined up into that same cosmic soup for one of a better word that keeps everything moving more or less as one around Polaris however the moon being physical has some slight amount of drag as opposed to the lights in the ether above the firmament where everything moves as a single body apart from the wandering stars. Okay so there is a magnetic force holding up the moon but we can't detect it. Like for magnetic forces we can hold a compass up and the compass will point towards the poles but it doesn't point towards the moon ever. Why don't magnets point towards the moon if it's being held up by this magnetic pole? Because as I said it's diamagnetic repulsive force not attractive force the North Pole Polaris is the magnetic force and that's what all compasses point towards that's where North always is and South is always away from that it's not pointing towards any other pole it's just simply pointing away because a straight needle for one of a better word has to point two directions one of them towards the inner center like spokes on a wagon wheel South is always outwards hence the word southwards, southwards and North inner goes towards the inner North Pole and the equator just happens to be the place that the sun goes around it just happens to get higher and lower which is what gives us the seasons and when it's at the midpoint between two that's where we have an equinox. If North is the pole then South is away from the pole and the moon is like to the up to the right and left of the pole so it's like 45 degrees off so how is it being held up? Up to the right and left right where the moon isn't like directly above the North Pole, right? It's going like in the middle of the Earth somewhere. That's right, yeah. Yeah, so the diamagnetic force repels it from the Earth and from the magnetic center which keeps it more or less locked at that distance away from the pole. Right, so there should be somewhere where we can hold a magnet where the North is pointing the opposite direction of the moon, right? And the South will point towards the moon because for it to hold the moon up it has to like push upwards, right? Now the moon has got nothing to do with how compasses work, nothing to do. But you just said the moon is being held up by this diamagnetic force, right? Yeah, diamagnetic not magnetic it's the opposite of magnetic. So if it's the opposite of magnetic then the South should be pointing towards it, correct? The North will be pointing away from it. But if you get two magnets if you hold North and South together that way where you hold South and North together this way they're both going to bang together. Right. Whether you have North or North or South. So you take those two magnets you can hold a compass in between those two magnets and it'll point at both the magnets. You can tell you where they are what direction they're pointing which one is the positive and negative. You can take a compass in between any diamagnetic relationship and you can map out the entire field. Do you know what diamagnetic actually means? Becoming magnetized in 180 degree something field. No, no, no. It's the opposite of magnetism.  And then if you turn around and put the South pole to it it will stick as well. So it's sort of like non-magnetic. So whatever this force is I know that sounds counterintuitive to what I've been saying about how it's a repulsive force but diamagnetism is not the same as magnetism. Now I don't know I'm not the genius who designed the moon and made it work I don't know exactly how it works. All I'm saying is that it's a repulsive force and that force dives the tides around. But a diamagnetic force is not what you're trying to say it is as magnets. If you put two magnets near a compass the compass will get stuck in the middle and it'll average out. It'll always point towards the strongest force. And on earth without any other metallic or magnetic influences their magnetic compass always points towards North. Irrespective of where the moon is. So it means nothing to do with it. If it's a repulsive force then you should be able to measure it with a compass. If it is an attractive force you should be able to measure it with a compass. If it is using the force of magnetism in any direction that isn't completely still you will be able to measure it with a compass. So if the moon- I disagree. I don't think it could be measured as we need an extremely sensitive instrument to measure what I call because diamagnetism is a very weak force. You need something extremely, extremely sensitive probably more sensitive than a seismograph or whatever you use to measure earthquakes which by the way is the only motion we've ever detected here on the planet earth despite the heliocentric model claiming it's whizzing and twirling at millions of miles an hour through space and no motion has ever been detected apart from earthquakes.  Not with a compass, no. A compass is a very weak magnet. It's pointing towards the North Pole a very strong magnetic force. The North Pole seems to be the driving force of everything. If this force is causing the tides to move billions of pounds of water and we can't measure it you don't see a problem with that. I'm not sure if anybody's even tried to measure it but I would suggest that using a compass is the very last thing you would use to measure a diamagnetic repulsive force as weak as what the moon gives. I mean, it doesn't affect the land it doesn't affect fresh water it only affects salt water very large bodies of it. And so basically I think that the test for measuring it is the tides themselves that's what proves it that we don't need to test anything more than that because we can see the results from the tides that match perfectly with the cycles of the moon. So by diamagnetic, how do you spell that? Is this the same as the science, the DIA? Magnetic DIA before. Yes, so that just means repulsive magnetic fields which is the exact same, it's not the opposite. That would definitely be 100% verifiable through a compass. Well, I'm never gonna be able to detect up maybe that's something first thing I'm gonna do. In science, diamagnetic and paramagnetic are opposites they're the direction of the magnetic field there's the magnetic field is still there it's still measurable. Okay, well fine, but all the same this is hardly really debating the topic of the existence of space. Like, you know, you've used the moon as an example to prove space exists I use the moon to prove space is impossible. That's the same argument.   Now that requires energy, a force. What force does the moon have to keep speeding up to race ahead around us every 27.3 days going backwards nonetheless from west to east as the earth moves 1.6 million miles every day over this 27.3 day period has gone millions and millions of miles to go one month around the sun. What force is the moon using in free fall to stay a constant distance from the earth? Gravity, centrifugal force, it's being pulled. No, no, but we've, I discussed the hemathrow event as soon as you let go of the tether the thing goes flying off in a straight line. So if you're saying centripetal or centrifugal force that can't be the case at all. It would have to just miss the earth once and continue in a straight line unless another force acts on it. What force is, you can't say gravity because gravity would pull it to earth. It is. Pull it to earth. So it's like gravity is like here.  The rate of gravity is the same as the rate of the objects are moving. Then it'll stay the same distance the whole way away. So if you imagine like two objects falling at the same time essentially, the moon is falling and it's the same distance away. But now if you add like a little spin to it it'll go around in a circle orbit. All right, but so this is your earth right and it's going this way and the moon's going around the earth. So when the moon is in front of the earth going this way around the sun how can gravity repel it from the earth? Gravity would make the earth crashing into it. Repel it from the moon. Yeah, it's repeling it, keeping it the same distance away the whole time. Because you're saying gravity's pulling the moon towards us fair enough when it's behind us gravity might pull it that slight little bit even though we're going 67,000 miles an hour through space. It's still pulling this moon away from 250,000 miles. But when it's in front of us of our orbit of the sun during that half of the month or that few days anyway where it's exactly in front, it'd have to be repelled. It'd be have to be going faster than the earth. Yeah, so that's the track into it. You ever like held a rubber band? I felt a rubber band.  The rubber band is going to be pulling it towards you the entire time, right? Yeah, that's correct. But the force of you throwing it is going to be pushing it away from you the whole time. Yeah, that's also correct. So if those forces are about the same then the ball will start to balance in a big circle around you, won't it? Absolutely. So if the moon had been launched at some speed and gravity is like the rubber band and if that speed the moon was going at was enough to counterbalance the pull of gravity then they'll start to get into a locking thing just like the tennis ball and the rubber band, right? Well, there you go. There you go. You've just disproven how it could possibly work because the vacuum of space can in no way be equivalent of a rubber band which is a forceful tether. Right. As I said with the tether. We're going to let it go. Space isn't the rubber band. Space isn't the rubber band. Gravity is the rubber band. That's what you said. All that space in between is a vacuum. So how can gravity be a rubber band? Because the rubber band is constantly trying to pull it towards you. Remember, so in a vacuum chamber, remember the example I used with the vacuum chamber where the molecules fall even though they're in a vacuum chamber? Yeah, yeah, exactly. So the force goes through the vacuum just fine. It can travel through the vacuum and grab stuff. Uh-huh. But there's nothing tethering the moon and the Earth's orbital speed is what destroys the existence of the moon because the moon isn't going fast enough like the kid riding the bike. If the fly is staying the same speed, then he'll crash into the fly when the fly was in front of him. And if the fly was behind him, he'd be going too fast if the fly didn't accelerate with force to get back around in front again. He would have to be using a force to accelerate to get back in front. That's the whole problem with the moon. It has no force of acceleration other than this invisible rubber band, 250,000 miles long, which doesn't exist.  And he doesn't let go. It continues to pull on it towards the Earth and the moon continues to be moving in a direction parallel to the Earth with the speed and gravity continues to pull it, which then creates the exact same thing as the tennis ball on the rubber band. It doesn't ever stop. It doesn't let go. There's no letting go. Even the tennis ball on a rubber band, you still have to assume that the person holding the rubber band is moving faster, multiple, multiple times faster in the direction, in one particular direction. But you might be swinging it around on a tether the whole time and that's fine if there's a solid tether there to hold it in place. But as you're going in one particular direction, the Earth, 67 or 66,600 miles per hour around the sun to go almost one degree per day, which is equivalent of 1.6 million miles, which no flying vehicle could possibly keep up with, which is another thing that I didn't have enough time to put into my introduction, but assuming we were in outer space and the Earth is traveling that speed, no rocket we ever sent off the Earth would ever have enough speed to catch back up again. Let alone a big giant ball rock called the moon have enough speed to ever catch back up again once we left it behind us. If it's in front of us, we're gonna smash into it. There's no two ways about it. That disproves the space. The tennis ball is moving faster than the guy holding the tether. But it's not. See in Helios, Sanctisity, the moon is going 2,280 miles per hour to go once around the Earth at its distance every 27.3 days. But every day the Earth is traveling 1.6 million miles. It's traveling 66,000 miles per hour. Those two add together, the moon is going the Earth's speed plus the moon's speed. So the moon is traveling faster than the Earth. It's like the tennis ball. If you're holding a tennis ball on a tether in a train, the tennis ball is traveling your speed, the train's speed plus the speed you're spinning it. The moon is traveling the Earth's speed plus the speed it's spinning around the Earth. It's going faster. Plus then the speed of the sun. Now I know a little bit about speed. You don't know about speeding bullets. We cannot see speeding bullets with the naked eye. And yet these things are going like hundreds of times faster than speeding bullets. We can't see bullets because they're small. If they were bigger, we could see them. It's going 10 times faster than a bullet. Yeah, bullets were bigger, we could see them. Do you really believe that? Yes. At the speeds they go. Yes, we've done it. We put the tracer thingy on the bullets where it reflects light so we can see them. We can see the big rockets that they launch with the electromagnetic guns. We can see those. They're big. You can see them. Rockets like missiles travel faster than bullets. We can watch them in the sky. Well, I find it highly dubious considering the speed that the Earth itself is going at. That man means though that these things are going their speed, 10 times bullet speed, plus what another 60 times bullet speed that the Earth itself is moving. It's just all too much. It's the story of the little old lady who swallowed a fly. Why don't you swallow that first lie?  It's as equivalent of a little old lady swallowing a horse. The heliocentric model is dead, of course, because it's just too much to fit in to a mind that understands things with common sense, starting with the most simple little thing.  The swallow of the spider was a big web you weaved to swallow that spider. Then you need to swallow a bird, which is... How far away do you think the firmament is? Can you say that the sun was on the firmament or something, a bright spot on the firmament? I suggest that the firmament is probably in the vicinity of 60 to 70 miles high. And that is where we see the apparitions of light, such as the sun and stars. That's where they appear to us as visible light. 60 to 70. And if we're traveling, how fast is the firmament moving? We're not moving. That's the thing. Firmament, firmament. Nationally, in a row, we don't move. Firmament, how fast is the firmament moving? It's not moving. The stars and the sun aren't moving. They rotate around above us. And as we know, it takes 24 hours for the sun to make a single cycle. The stars do it in about 23 hours and 56 minutes. The sidereal day is the star's motion. Yeah, so if it's 70 miles above us and it goes across a 360-degree circle around us, how many miles is it across? But see, this is the thing. You're not understanding. When we look at the visual phenomenon through affirmament, we're not actually seeing what we think we're seeing. We're seeing an apparition of light created by the actual thing. We don't know how far away it actually is, how fast it's actually moving. All we know that from our perspective, we see it takes 24 hours to go around what I consider the equatorial circle for the sun, which would make it approximately 1,040 miles per hour. But because it's up so much higher above, it seems to be going much slower through the sky because we're seeing an apparition of it. And we see it in a direct line of sight between us and the source of the sun. So that's why it can appear in many, many multiple more places than what would be logical to us, thinking it's just a single point source of light, when in fact, if you think of the story of a fish under a lake, a frozen over lake, when it looks up towards the sun, it sees a hotspot apparition on the ice into another fish, even just 50 meters away. It looks up through the ice. It'll see a completely different hotspot apparition in a completely different part of the ice. But for all intents and purposes, both those fish, that is still the sun. And that is what we have the problem with here on the planet Earth. When we're looking up at an apparition of it, we think it's the sun, but it's not. It's a hotspot apparition created in the environment, which makes it appear much, much further away than it is because we're using the wrong method of calculating its height. So when you're on a plane and you're like walking up and down the aisles and you're going 600 miles an hour, like, does that feel any different from walking, like on the street going zero miles an hour? Actually, it does, yes. It feels quite distinctly different. How? Because you don't notice any difference. You do. It takes a little bit of getting used to you. You know, once you've gotten used to it, you don't notice it so much, but it is actually, you do notice something. But unfortunately, if you're doing an enclosed, pressurized capsule, you may as well probably come across as the sun. So going half of the speed of the sun in your model, you can notice almost no difference, like almost barely any difference going 600 miles an hour. I notice it, definitely. Barely any difference. You notice barely, like you can still walk. That's accurate. You can still sit down, like you can still breathe. Going 600 miles an hour, you notice almost no difference. Because we're in a pressurized sealed cabin. Sure. So now let's imagine if we put the entire planet, or God created a super big train, and he put the entire planet and the Firmament on the super big train and decided to make it go 6,000 miles per hour, but just started to accelerate it really, really slowly. Would we notice any difference? No, you wouldn't. But you wouldn't need to go and invent speeds, that didn't exist and couldn't be detected. So there's no problem with actually going the speed that NASA says we're going at. There's no problem with the speed of the sun in the galaxy or the moon going around the earth or the earth going around the sun. Those could all be possible and we wouldn't feel them at all because God could do it the train. Well, no, that's completely wrong once again because when you consider that in the heliocentric dialect, basically you've got the earth going 66,000 miles per hour around the sun. It's also spinning at 1,040 miles per hour at the equator. The whole thing on average is moving at about Mach 86, but the fastest part of it is on the outside, which would be the night side, the side away from the sun. It's actually going almost Mach 88 while the side closest to the sun in the middle of the day would be going the slowest speed because it's going backwards relative to the orbital motion, which means it's going roughly Mach 84. So on the average speed of the entire earth being Mach 86, you're going to a difference of almost Mach 4 every single day and you say we don't notice it, we would notice it. Yeah, because we're not affected by the gravity of the sun. We don't feel the gravity of the sun on us. Like we don't feel a pull towards the sun. We can't feel it. No, I didn't say gravity or gravity pull. I said the actual surface speed of the earth itself in relation to its speed going around the sun and spinning on its own axis. Right, so it's the only way... One's going 67,000 miles per hour. The other one's going 1,040. It's a bit like the T-cup ride when you're on the outside of the T-cup going around in the center point, the outside's going much faster than the inside because it's following a smaller circle. Yeah, we only feel the spin if we're affected by the gravity. So if we're affected by the gravity of the sun, then that change in the Mach, whatever you mentioned from the dark side of the earth to the light side of the earth would affect us. You would feel it. But since there's no change, the only speed we feel is the speed of the earth and nothing else. The speed of the sun, we feel none of it because the gravity of the sun doesn't affect us. I didn't even bring in the speed of the sun. I'm just talking about the speed of the earth. The surface speed of the place you're on is going up and down about Mach 4 every day. Relative to the sun. No, no, just relative to the earth itself. It's got nothing to do with the sun in this particular moment. It's just got to do with the direction. The speed of the earth doesn't change. It's continuously spinning at the same speed. It's spinning at the same speed, but it's also orbiting at a much greater speed. Orbiting the earth, orbiting the sun. It's orbiting the sun. Yeah, so if we don't feel the gravity of the sun, we will not feel any of the speed from the orbit of the sun. It's got nothing to do with gravity. Forget the gravity. It's got to do with linear speed, which is orbital speed. Because it's less than one degree a day to go 1.6 million miles, it's a linear speed. We don't feel speed. We don't feel speed. We feel speed relative to gravity. We have to have some force pushing on us. Speed doesn't cause us to feel anything. If we're traveling at a billion miles an hour in any direction, we won't feel any difference from being exactly still. Speed is not a force. We don't feel speed. No, that's crazy because people wouldn't go to amusement parks if we didn't feel speed. Kids wouldn't jump on merry-go-rounds if they didn't feel speed. Yeah, we feel speed. We feel motion. We feel those because they're interacting with a force of gravity and physics. Exactly, and I'm talking about the forces here. The one force is going 65 times greater one direction than the spin is going, which means that the spin for half the Earth is going backwards relative to that forward speed while the other side of the planet is going forwards with that speed. So it's accelerating with that speed. The other side is decelerating relative to it. It's all spinning at the same speed, but when you put the two speeds together, one side's accelerating, one's decelerating. That's another variable fact. If there's not the speed, we can't feel speed. So if there's nothing to convert the speed into our bodies, we will not feel it. So there has to be something to convert the speed. Far down at great speeds. They get back forward, things are looking right along the back of their head, and... Because the speed is converted into our bodies by gravity. So there would need to be some force that could convert the speed into our bodies. Speed doesn't feel like anything. We need something to make us feel the speed. So then, therefore, the speed doesn't exist. So therefore, we're on a stationary plane around. Speed exists and we don't feel it. Like, we're traveling, we can be traveling in a million miles in a direction. We'll never feel it. It's the exact same. The point is to pass out from it because they do feel it. You don't. You can grade the children and enjoy merry-go-rounds because they do feel it. But you're now saying that when we're going billions of times faster, millions of times faster, we don't feel it. That's correct. We do not feel speed. If you're traveling on a train at one mile an hour and at 200 miles an hour, it'll feel the same. If you're traveling on a plane at stationary, or at 600 miles an hour, it'll feel the exact same. You do feel speed. You don't. But you're talking about an enclosed capsule once again. Earth is open air. Open to the vacuum of space. The open air doesn't matter. The open air doesn't matter. Just to be sure we can hear you guys, there's a lot of overlap. So just to be sure we can hear, you might go into two minute intervals. So the open air doesn't matter here. Like if we put the entire planet, or God put the entire flat earth on a train and made it go at a million miles an hour, you would not feel it. It would feel the exact same as if we were standing still. It's absolutely ludicrous, mate. Absolutely ludicrous.  You're talking about going 66,000 miles per hour, mate. That's a huge, massive speed. And you would get blasted into oblivion. You wouldn't even get to a fraction of that speed without feeling it and everything getting blown off into the vacuum of space. Yes, because we feel acceleration. We feel the increasing of the speed. We don't feel the speed. We feel the increase or the decrease. But I'm just saying to you that there's a max forward difference every single day. No, no, no, we don't feel that. Because again, there's nothing to convert that. No, no, no, acceleration is relative to something converting the speed into our bodies. If it's not converting the speed into our bodies, then we're not accelerating relative to the gravity. So if you don't have acceleration relative to a big force that's like touching you, you don't feel anything. The gain with the gravity. That's the answer to everything, isn't it? Yes, there has to be something to push you.  If you can picture a donut, for example, a donut has got the outer circle and it's got the inner circle. And you know that to travel around the outer circle, you're going a lot faster and to travel around the inner circle. Now, if we consider this donut then as the annual path of the earth going around the sun, so somewhere in the middle of the hole is the sun, we're going to ignore the fact it's moving 500 and 14,000 miles an hour for now, which is a shimmer standing still. So the outside part, outside ring of that donut is the night time because it's facing away from the sun. The inside part is facing towards the sun. So the much smaller circle is always facing inwards, so technically in a way, time is going faster on the outside at night time, even though it's not, but the earth itself is going faster. We measure it the same. You're going with the orbital speed on the outside. So the overall night time speed around the sun is exponentially higher than the inner side of the daytime side facing the sun. So that translates to a daily spin every 24 hours of a greater speed moving on the outer circle than the daytime speed moving on the inner circle. Do you understand how it's faster and slower every single day, accelerating, decelerating to map out 365 and a quarter spins around the sun to create the entire donut that it would map out to be? We can only feel acceleration if it's relative to the big force holding us to the ground, whatever you want to call that. So the sun is a lot farther away. And on your model, it's really, really small. So the force that we feel from the sun is essentially nothing. So our acceleration change relative to the sun is not something we can feel. It doesn't matter what the speed is, it's too far away. It doesn't pull us. Our acceleration to the earth, we feel. So the fact that we don't feel the speed change relative to the orbit of the sun is obvious because we're not being affected by its gravity or at least by like 1,500th of the amount of the earth. So it's not something we would feel any more than like being on a train and traveling at zero miles an hour. If it's too far away, we're not going to feel it. You've totally missed the point, Tom. You totally missed it. I'm not talking about the speed of the sun. Yes, you are. The force is forming around the sun. The acceleration you're talking about is the increase and decrease in acceleration. The orbit is a constant, it's a constant. But the actual rotation means half the world is spinning with the orbital speed, half of it's being against it. Oh, no, the earth, just the earth. Just the earth, forget the sun. Yeah, it's got one direction speed, orbital speed. Forget the sun, we know it's going around that according to your belief, but it's still going that one speed, the constant 66,600 miles per hour. That remains constant. The actual rotation speed remains constant. It's 1,040 miles per hour. So you put one speed together, half the ball is moving with the orbital speed, half is going against it. So the overall speed you're going, it's a bit like if you're spinning the ball, like you said, on the tether, on the moving train, when that ball is going around you, when you're going forwards, and the ball is going forward with you, it's overall speed with the train is going faster than when that ball is spinning backwards towards the direction from the direction of the train. So the overall speed is accelerating and decelerating. If you then say charted an exact picture of the ball, moving one direction and spinning around once, it's like making a big loopy spiral sort of thing. It's not making exact same speeds the whole time. It's going much faster with the speed of the train than it is then when it's going against the speed of the train. So when you're on a train and you throw a baseball, does the baseball go forward slower than when someone throws it back to the back of the train, or does it go the same speed? More or less it's because the air is enclosed, it's going to be going pretty much the same speed. So if the earth's orbit, if all of the air in the earth is going the same speed, then it doesn't matter what the orbit speed is, because it's going to be like the baseball. It's going to be traveling the same speed in both directions. But once again, the earth is not enclosed like a train capsule. There is nothing that's enclosed in the earth. There is no reason for the atmosphere to be moving at whatsoever with the spinning space ball. The spinning space ball will be moving through the air, not dragging it with it and like it's magically velcroed on. We get wind speeds up to 200 miles per hour, they're absolutely devastating. They flatten entire villages, forests, plantations, you name it, completely devastates everything, flattens it to a T, that's 200 miles per hour. And yet to believe we have perfectly still calm air is moving a thousand miles per hour, that's normal. That's ridiculous, absolutely bollocks, mate. It's the exact same as having a fan in a car or a fan in a plane. The pretty much all of the air in the plane is pretty much going about the same average speed, but certain areas of it are going faster in one direction than the other. The size of the earth, those winds, because of the size of the earth, those winds that you're mentioning are just like turning a fan on in your car. This is not hard. The cumulative air on the earth is going the same speed, which is why we don't feel it. That's crazy, that makes no sense. No sense whatsoever that perfectly still air is going a thousand miles per hour. And yet if someone that slows down by 200 miles per hour, it's devastating. Some of it speeds up another 200 miles per hour, it's devastating. But as long as it finds that gold-elect zone of moving with the earth the whole entire time, and yet we see entire storm systems spiraling around as they do almost perfectly still, it's the winds that are creating the only speed that they feel that they're also going 10 times faster than the devastating winds that appear to be staying relatively stationary compared to the continents around them. It's ridiculous. It's the same thing with planes flying. Flight would be impossible if earth was moving any of these speeds whatsoever. You could never land on a north-south facing runway because it'd be moving at a ground speed of a thousand miles per hour. The plane doesn't go that fast to catch up with that speed to come in at the right diagonal to keep up with it. Everything works because the earth doesn't move. Can you throw a baseball on an airplane going 600 miles an hour? It's not very high. It's not very far.  Right, right. So in a closed plane going 600 miles per hour, you can throw a 620 mile per hour baseball. But what's that got to do with anything? It's the exact same thing you're saying. Oh my God, it's so impossible. You can't possibly throw a baseball 600 miles per hour. In your model, we're on the outside open-air surface of it. There is nothing containing it except the vacuum. Yeah, there is. So in our model, it's contained by gravity. So you're saying that, oh, so what you're saying is that, oh, look at the cumulative speed. Look at the cumulative speed of all these things moving.   Clearly that's impossible. But then guess what? If the air in the container is going at 600 miles per hour, that means you and the baseball are already accelerated to 600 miles per hour, you're only adding a little tiny bit of force that can go an extra 20. So you're just reasonable. You're just able to say that you can throw a baseball. It's perfectly reasonable to say that you can throw a baseball going 620 miles an hour because all of the air around you is already accelerated to 600 miles per hour. The earth, the air on the earth is spinning at the exact same speed the earth is. Does some of it go in different directions? Yes, just like in the plane, some of the air goes in different directions when you turn a fan on. It's not very much of it. So just like you can throw a baseball on a plane, we can walk and fly and do stuff on earth because the air on the earth is moving just like it's in the container because it's contained by a force called gravity.  That's a fantasy belief that your go-to, God of the gaps answer for everything is gravity. That's the equivalent of saying you've got a pressurized tire without having the rubber on it. You just got the rim there but you just pump enough air around it and you've got a pressurized tire. That's basically what you're claiming. But except at least the air has some pressure around it. But in a vacuum, you've got nothing. Everything would go to the path of least resistance which would dissipate to the vacuum of space because gravity is not a container. It is nothing. It is empty. Even with, no matter how much gravity you gave to the earth, you would still lose all your air. It was surrounded by a vacuum, no matter what. You create a vacuum of space on earth. You have to use great forces. You have to use solid walls to get the vacuum container. And the minute the sail is broken, in fact just the slightest, the air instantly rushes to fill the void. Now if we're at a universe sized vacuum and you've got no container except a pool of mass in invisible fantasy, pool of mass of something whizzing and hurling through the vacuum, you've got nothing. You've got a balloon without the rubber. Earlier in our conversation, you said that above earth, below the firmament, there's just, it's very, there's no air there, right? It's just, there's nothing, it's empty, kind of like a vacuum tube. Conduct, it's a pressure gradient. I'd say there's lighter than air gases such as helium and hydrogen and so on. Right, right. So there is what we would call space in between us and the firmament somewhere, which means why is there no container there? Because there's clearly like an empty part where there's nothing in there, but it's not contained, it's just empty. There's no container in between the very dense part of earth and the very no dense parts below the firmament. So it seems like- That's the beauty of the model. What? It's the beauty of the model is that everything finds its place according to the laws of density and buoyancy. So even with or without a firmament which would be the container, it would be this upper layer of frozen gases that is cushioned by the atmosphere, by atmospheric pressure sitting above everything at this 60, 70 mile height. Even without that, you would still have the same pressure gradient regardless because the earth isn't hurtling through a vacuum in the first place. Everything about the heliocentric model is absolute lie. We don't need it if we're the only physical plane at the bottom of the known universe, going nowhere, not going around the sun. Everything rotates around above us. It's much near and closer. The whole outer space diorheic debunks itself by claiming that it's a vacuum in the first place. We have a pressure gradient because that is the natural order of things due to density and buoyancy. All right, so let's take in your model, let's say we just remove the firmament. There's nothing, no water outside. It's just empty, nothingness. Would any of the atmosphere below move? No, not at all. So if we just got rid of the firmament, there's no firmament anymore, we could have the exact same atmosphere with no container, just fine. Well, I wouldn't know because that's not something we could ever experience but technically speaking, as far as we're concerned with what we know according to laws of density and buoyancy, it wouldn't be necessary. But of course, having it there is what drives the whole entire model because without the sun, we've got no life, no light, it's pointless without it. So everything works like the organs of the body, each one is useful and functional because of all the others.  So it all works as one thing and the firmament I believe is quite essential to it in the overall scheme of things. But as far as the density and buoyancy of the gases above the stationary planar earth, that could still just as happily exist without it. So we don't need the container for air pressure? We do not need a container for air pressure? That's what you're saying? We need edges, like a lake has edges to hold the water in. There'd be edges of some sort or another eventually. Or if it's an infinite plane, then we've got the same pressure gradient to infinity all around us, but that's just something that we don't know at this stage. Okay, so as long as there's containers on the side, we don't need a container on the top and you can still have air pressure. That's right, like you probably heard of how they gas pigs at the slaughterhouses, for example, they drop them down a well, which are filled with a certain gas, which is more dense in oxygen and they basically kill them humanely that way. Basically gas still has its own pressure density, pressure gradient. You can see that Sunset, the different layers via the different colors that you can see, the various noble gases that give us daylight and twilight and so on. These things have their own pressure gradients and once you get above a certain height, where there's far less wind and influence from heat and so on, they tend to balance out a lot more equally. Okay, so if there's no container at the top and we can still have air pressure and it continues to get less and less and less and less to the point where there's no molecules left, what would you call that? I'd call it the void. Okay, I'll take it, void works. I mean, I'd go with space, but I'll take void. Yeah, but there's a difference though between what we think no in reality to exist because we do have sunlight, we do have starlight. We do know that they need a medium to propagate through for their energy to turn into visible light for us here down at the bottom of the planariff. So yes, space exists. I've agreed with that from the start. It's outer space that I am refuting here and say there is no such thing as outer space. The stars and other wandering stars we see, some of them with their moons and so forth, they are not terra firma. They are not big balls of shiny gas. They're not big explosive things, thermonuclear devices or any of those sorts of things whatsoever. If anything, they're completely sonoluminescence or some other form of energy and vibratory frequency which turns into visible light once it hits our firmament and becomes visible light to us through the reactionary process which is basically a chemical process more than anything. Okay, so would you say outer space doesn't exist? What do you mean by outer space? As in the vacuous universe, as in what we see the stars at night, they are not in outer space. Well, so you said that there's space exists. What's the difference between space and outer space? Well, the firmament is the difference. We've got the firmament layer and as I was about to just say before you jumped in is that many of the ancients like the ancient Egyptians for example, called the goddess Nutt as the firmament and the stars are in her. Nearly all the ancient theories about space or the firmament, so to speak, say that the stars are in the firmament and I put that down to a slight misunderstanding is that they appear to be in the firmament because that's where they appear as visible light to us. But they could be any distance, arbitrary distance above us but the fact that they seem to rotate as a single body around Polaris tends to tell me that the visible stars we see are basically a very localised event as far as whether other galaxies and so forth exist. I think a lot of that is made up, focused, focused done by the agents who gave us heliocentrism in the first place because we can't actually see them the way that we're shown and if they are real, then why not? Why not have other heavenly bodies? Why can't they be seats in heaven that extend forever for infinity? That once you reach a certain stage of enlightenment that we star seeds become stars in heaven and that's what we're looking at when we see the stars. So by outer space, so by outer space you mean the stars are not there. So you're just an illusion. That's kind of what you mean by outer space? Not at all, no, I believe it's an ether. It's like if you think of being underwater, I don't know if you've ever had dreams, no doubt you probably did as a teenager, where you're underwater and you're able to breathe when you're underwater. To me that the ether is similar to that. It's like water, but it's a higher vibrational frequency. Much like we've got vibrational frequencies here on the planar if everything's dense and slow and everything takes time to manifest in the higher dimensions, light just manifests instantly and the ether is kind of like being underwater but you just say something like light and music the whole time for want of a better way to explain it. So the stars do exist in the ether outside of the ferment? Absolutely, oh yeah. But it's filled with higher consciousnesses. The stars are higher consciousnesses? Yeah, raised vibration beings. What we aim to become, everybody aims to be a star. That's literally comes from that to become a star in heaven is the goal. So if you're good here on earth, you do a lot of good and eventually you might reach enlightenment and hence you ascend into heaven. Okay, and why is that more reasonable than saying they're giant balls of gas and rocks? I mean just listen to it. Giant balls of gas and rocks or highly enlightened beings who watch over and rule over our lives and we've known through astrology all our lives for thousands of years the influence of the stars and how they affect us and the way we move through our various lives from karmic consequences and everything and say when we're born at a particular time where that's how we call it our star's ruling sign. Now we've got our son's ruling sign which is about 50% of our astrological makeups don't speak and then you got the signs of all the various wandering stars what they're in your time of your first breath all of these things are things which as they say billionaires pay for astrologers, millionaires don't. So it's only the most it's one of the most highly sought after sciences which is ridiculed the lower you are down in the pecking order of things. Astrology? Astrology, absolutely. Well, I mean, if you could demonstrate any like testable predictions with astrology that would be that would be cool but as far as I know they fail every single one of them so I don't mean that would be a great testable prediction that you could use as evidence for your model if you could demonstrate that. I think they've all been proven false though. I'm not sure what you mean about predicting what I mean we can predict eclipses can't we? That's ancient astrology. They might have got turned into modern astronomy and astrophysics and all that but all of this predictive powers are all coming from astrology to start with. It's not about predicting certainties it's about seeing the signs of what's most likely to occur and when's the best time to start a new project or when it's a good time to mow your lawn or when it's a good time to plant trees or it's a good time to pull weeds it's, you know, that's generally based on the moon signs and whatnot. But yeah, astrology is a highly useful tool that we can use to make more successful decisions in our lives if you know what you're doing.  Well the sun signs as I said that accounts for about 50% of a person's makeup on their astrological chart. And so there is general patterns that most people under a certain sun sign will have general personality characteristics but they're pretty broad and pretty much that becomes a mentalists game to be using that alone. Modern astrology is nothing like what ancient astrology used to be where it's a true science. It's become a bit of a parlor game really so. No, modern astrology, I don't give it time of day. You know, you can read your chart and say, yeah, whatever, it's a very generalized broad interpretation. Generally speaking of what sign the moon is in at the time and it can be somewhat correct. You know, if the moon is in a very fertile sign and it might say it might come into money or it's going to rain or something like that because it is still a natural occurrence and the moon and the sign that it's in at the time quite often has a very real effect on the weather. Which is why it's so useful for ruling how you run your garden around it. Okay, well, as soon as you start demonstrating that astrology starts to work at some time I'm sure you could win a Nobel Prize for that. That would be really cool but you kind of admitted space was real and you just said that stars are spirits, I guess. But I don't see the reason to believe any of this is true. Like we have lots of scientific evidence that they are actually there that we can literally see them. We can point telescopes at them and see their structure and makeup and see them move. Like we can point, you yourself could buy a telescope in your backyard, look at Jupiter and see the moons of Jupiter spinning. I could, but I could also draw a completely different conclusion that they're not moons as such is that they are children of Jupiter one of the ancient Greek gods and that these things, they're part of family hence their familiars. And so these things are in adoration of their father figure they spend their afterlife then in adoration of their father figure and that's why they appear to be moons going around it. It could just as easily be interpreted that way if you start to see the stars as highly conscious enlightened beings and you might see them as balls of gas but to me that just sounds absolutely ridiculous because for one thing, for anything to burn to combust, you need some sort of chemical reaction such as oxygen or whatever and generally speaking, the bigger the combustion the sooner it's over and done with. These things have been there perpetually for thousands of years. There's nothing burning, there's nothing being insured it's the same with the sun and I believe the sun is more like an energy portal into a higher dimension that transfers this energy from a higher dimension which creates the light that we see as the hotspot apparition in the firmament as the sun which then simulates the noble gases on the plane over to give us daylight. Now, that's a very scientifically proven fact you can get the various noble gases in test tubes, isolate them like your krypton, your argon, xenon, neon I think there's one other as well we can't think of them all off the top of my head you put these test tubes around the Tesla coil where there's an electromagnetic force coming from it and they start to glow and they give us the exact same colors that we see in daylight the blue sky, the neon colors of sunset and twilight that's all been scientifically proven and this is stuff that we flat out scientists, researchers have been discovering over the past best part of a decade now almost, we're getting close to it and we've been pushing the limits of discoveries we've come so far in just a short decade of time then what people from thousands of years ago could only have dreamt to being able to do they didn't have the opportunities of scientific labs they didn't have modern cameras to be able to send up on helium balloons to see what we actually see to see that it is as flat for as far as we can see to see that there's a layer of illuminated blue gas that is our daylight spot these are things that only the modern scientists has the advantage of and yet heliocentrism is still based on hundreds of years ago thoughts, philosophies and things that have been they're all based on superstitious beliefs like the fact that Polaris disappears at the equator of these things I think they've descended into the underworld for crying out loud that they're gone around a globe that's a ridiculous notion it doesn't happen that way we're just so far away from Polaris that that's where it disappears and of course the ancient navigators they get all superstitious oh we can't see Polaris anymore we're in the underworld oh God save us, Blava was part of my interruption I'll give you a chance to finish but did want to mention in just a moment we'll be going to the Q&A thanks for your questions folks but go ahead Flatterthause if you wanted to draw together some of the threads from this debate as well as Tom yeah actually let me see I want to see if I can like rehash some of Flatterthause first oh yeah sure go ahead thank you yeah all I'm saying is that nearly all these beliefs were based on ancient superstitious beliefs because they didn't know any better and so they just made the most sense of what they had available to them at the time charts made in bigger and bigger circles around Polaris because that's where the magnets always pointed towards on their compasses and you use a compass to make circles so everything gets bigger and bigger until something goes pear shaped because you can't see Polaris anymore it's all done on ancient superstitious beliefs all the things of what we call the constellations and everything they're all different houses of the zodiac it's all astrology and it's got mixed up into heliocentrism which when Copernicus came up with his heliocentrism he declared that the sun was standing perfectly still and even he tried to dismiss it wouldn't believe it so it's been wrong basically the whole period of history until now we're finally making more sense of it we can see much further we've got telescopes we've got cameras we can send things up really high and we see we live on a stationary plane of Earth and outer space is a fabrication NASA has never sent anything to space except your imagination Go ahead Tom Yes, so this was an interesting conversation I learned a lot of stuff about the Earth I didn't know before like the fact that the Moon is held up by a diamagnetic field that we can't detect and it's repulsive so it pushes the water away creating the tides when the Moon is directly above it even though it's pushing it away and that the planets and stars are people souls and lightened beings that are in space that the the firmament is 70 miles above us even though it goes tens of thousands of miles in every direction to get to the size of the Earth apparently that we can actually have a pressure without a container you don't you don't actually need the firmament to to hold in the gas we don't we don't need that and there's actually space between our atmosphere and the firmament where there's nothing it's just no no gas or avoid space of some kind lots of lots of interesting stuff today the electrolytes oh the electrolytes are affected by the Moon's diamagnetic field that is that is interesting like like electrolytes don't have a magnetic field they think they're not affected by magnetic fields but that's really cool too I like that so there's a lot of interesting things I learned today but thanks thanks for hosting the debate I appreciate James thanks Flatterdossi I appreciate you having taken the time to have a conversation you are a pleasant man to talk to I definitely enjoy your personality a lot more than like Nathan so thank you for being a nice guy I appreciate that and the bird sounds are awesome by the way I do love the background bird sounds but thanks again for having me on appreciate it and let's go to the Q&A you got it thank you very much gentlemen want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description so if you want to hear more of Tom or Flatterdossi you certainly can by clicking on their links in the description right now let's jump into the Q&A thanks so much very first one coming in from you you guessed it Jason Day thanks for your questions and I love T-Jump no homo he is well spoken very nice Aspero Falls says Flatterdossi colloquial usage of terminology doesn't refute scientific principles quote-unquote airwaves is colloquial parlance not science oh well that's just what they call it isn't it I mean we call water waves water waves because they're in water airwaves is pretty much the term for it which I think actually is part of again going back to astrology we've come out of the age of Pisces which is where we conquered waters and now we've known all the continents as far as we can go to the ice wall and now we're in the age of Aquarius which is an air sign and we are basically conquering the airways we've lasted flight or we've started some pretty primitive technology of flight and we send messages through the air all the time so um it's I think airwaves is as good a term as any you got it Anne this one coming in from Youduff Hickey thank you very much says would a Medicare for all system work on a flat earth if so why don't we have it would a which work would a Medicare for all system work on a flat earth model if so why don't we have it Medicare oh yeah yeah here in the U.S. Medicare refers to let me get a proper definition how do we have they're talking about a medical system of what a united one world government for everybody I think that's the sort of thing most of us want to steer clear of you know we'd much prefer to remain as sovereign as possible not saying it's sovereign citizen movement or anything but we just want to remain able to make decisions for ourselves and why not have a united front where we could combine our common wealth that we do have where it is spread evenly for everybody to have all the medical treatment they need rather than certain amounts of wealth be distributed be hoarded by a few individuals who are never going to use it in their entire lives it should be more accurately spread absolutely you got it and thank you very much for this question this one coming in from M2M says we don't have a pressure against a vacuum of space we have a pressure gradient what proves pressure gradients is the countless or are the countless aircraft flying around the world that measure changes in pressure yeah I agree there's a pressure gradient it's exactly the same if you went underwater the further deeper you go the more water is above you pressing down on you so as you go up higher you've got less air pressing down on you that's what pressure comes from it's just the amount of it and sea level is where you've got the most of it the higher you get the less of it is it doesn't prove we're on a spinning space while hurtling through a vacuum which would literally just steal off our entire atmosphere in less than a nanosecond you've got it and thank you very much for this question to appreciate it coming in from Roger Pollock says flat earth please define vacuum gravity mass density force I don't know if they mean each of these terms individually or if it's meant to be a single concept I think you meant each one of them individually I think most of those things are pretty straightforward we all understand the basics of properties of matter a vacuum requires a very strong force to create a vacuum of state and to assume that the nothingness of the entire universe isn't a strong force is as ludicrous as saying that you can just make a vacuum and survive a I don't know a giant 24 gallon drum just like a audit or something sucking it out with your with your own lungs you need powerful pumps to create a vacuum of state just list them one at a time and I'll happily spame if it's necessary you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from Displaced Gamer says explain how we see planets using a telescope well a telescope is basically similar to a microscope when you look at something under a microscope something like say a blood cell for example you're magnified and make it appear much bigger so when you're looking at the tiny light in the sky you're just looking at something with a greater focal length and making it appear bigger to you doesn't mean it is bigger it just makes it visibly bigger obviously it's further away which helps but it's not proving that you're seeing terra firma you got it and this one from made by Jim Bob for T-Jump says can you isolate gravity in an experiment isolate it I'm not sure like we can do an experiment to identify it and isolate it as the variable in the experiment yeah we can't like bottle it but yeah we can definitely demonstrate it to the cause of experiments sure you got it and this one from Farron Salas says what does Flat Earth Ozzy think stars are streaming through across the night sky is it inside his firmament model and not outside of it well for one thing they're not streaming they're actually moving relatively slowly like it takes almost a full day to rotate around us but this one saying I believe they're in some type of ether which I say is like a water but just have a higher vibrational frequency a much finer sort of substance that's not nothing equivalent to water but we can't explain it I can't explain it in physical terms because you basically have to experience it to believe it or to understand it and we can't experience that here in the physical plane unfortunately I gotta pee in me back in one minute you got it how about this one Flat Earth Ozzy going back to this question on the definitions what if I how about I press you for density how would you define density per se well density is basically the amount of mass per volume so the smaller the volume and the heavier it is obviously the greater the density of it that's how you describe density so you can have okay like I like to use the this comparison you got a lead ball and a rubber ball exactly the same size you get a very tall bridge high bridge you drop them and through the density of the medium of air they will hit the water at exactly the same rate now they're completely different weights they're completely different densities but in the medium of air you get the same resistance because they're both ball shaped and air resistance is very minimal they hit the water however the lead ball keeps going down the rubber ball gets forced back to the surface and it floats and that just proves that it's the density of the medium that determines the amount of resistance compared relative to the weight upon it so relative density is the explanation for why things go up or down and it's the relative of the mass to the medium you got it and this one coming in from this please gamer says how much pressure is the moon adding to the water when it is pushing it and how come we don't feel this pressure math please it's so so very little some people do go a little bit crazy on a full moon which tonight we're actually having one as I explained and it probably depends on the amount of salt levels in your blood we are 70% roughly liquid which is sort of equivalent to the surface of the earth but we say tiny the amount of pressure from the moon is really really quite minimal as I say it pushes trillions and trillions of tons of mega liters of water around just a couple of meters which on the scale of the earth is pretty tiny you won't feel it as like some people saying we don't feel mac 4 motion because it's too slow it's too little and this is nothing like a mac 4 acceleration you got it and Farron Salah says what does flat earth ozzie think stars are oh no we got that one sorry this one coming in from this place gamer says explain where meteors and meteorites come from ozzie I don't know I can't claim to know everything um for me they could be little pieces of rock falling off the moon they could be from a giant volcanic explosion and some deserted island that have got shot so high and coming back down and they could be interdimensional beings coming through portals in their little spaceships and hitting physicality and playing star wars with one another and shooting each other up and we see them as meteoroids it could be a million different explanations I could make up that the truth is I don't know you got it and thank you very much for this question this one coming in from made by jim bob strikes again saying tom can we do proper scientific experimentation in astronomy uh yes and we do it all the time like one of the best examples is measuring the light that balances off planets we can tell what their chemical composition is based on the kinds of waves that dance off of them you got it in displace gamer strikes yet again saying ozzie what is the highest point above earth now what is just past that point then what is just past that new point I don't really see the point in answering the question like that as I say we can send a helium balloon up to about 130,000 feet that's about the highest we can send anything because it's got such a small payload as the camera as I say the firmament maybe 70 miles and everything above the firmament creating the light effects we see as sparkly stars that could be any unknown arbitrary height above it that we can never know but if we can say the firmament is roughly 70 or 60 miles high then that's pretty much to our experience where we see them at that's how high they are you got it in displace gamer says how much pressure is and we got that one thanks very much Don Fulman says can ozzie explain how gps works yeah sure there's we got our fixed towers everywhere they're like radio signal towers and even from way back in world war one days we were able to ping out signals called radar and as technology improved over time we had little computer devices so you could analyze these things from multiple different towers at once and chart those according to known charts or maps which we've already designed and we can fix our location by triangulating of multiple different signals that this little device receives all at once without needing then having to have anything whizzing through the sky whatsoever which would be useless as far as pinpointing your position anyway they're fixed ground towers and that's what's called ground positioning system gps this one coming in from do appreciate it ozzie says but brondo has what plants crave it's got electrolytes I can't remember is that from the movie from trey parker and matt stone but anyway don fulman says oh we got that one the freak says I don't discount all the ozzie that all that ozzie has put forth but I need assurance this isn't a subversion please ask ozzie what does he say about jesus of nazareth aka jesus christ I believe that the man existed and he was one of the greatest in light and marches of his time from the age of about 12 or so I think of that 12 he started meeting with various teachers and ended up traveling the whole world went around india china to bet all these different places learning off the great healers sort of from the greatest teachers he was very highly highly intelligent so of course all the great teachers always looking for a good student he even met gotama buddha and when he returned back to Jerusalem of course well that was where he was his native town or native place where he was now old enough at the age at 33 I believe they have to be to be able to teach him the synagogue and he didn't like the way he saw the way the high priest would teach him things they were stanging money in the temple of god and so forth and so he was seen as a bit of a rabble rouser give us the short version please I'm so sorry go ahead he was seen as a bit of a rabble rouser and so they had to do away with him so basically today he'd be called the terrorist and dafric says I don't oh we got that one chris gammon says fighter with Aussie a satellite parentheses moon does not increase its speed as it goes around there is no significant friction that would slow it down so say that one again please I missed the start gladly they said a satellite parentheses moon does not increase its speed as it goes around the earth there is no significant friction that would slow it down okay so that's fine if it doesn't slow down but something has to increase its speed for to get back around in front of us because the orbital speed of the earth is virtually a linear speed that's again it's the same thing as I said sitting on a bike you got a fly going around you're the same speed or the moon doing the same to the earth has to accelerate to get back around in front in order to fall back around and has to slow down then and then speed back up to get around in front again so there's just no explanation for that if you're saying there's no friction it will just fall around us once and keep on disappearing because there's no friction to bring it back again to slow it down and accelerate it gotcha Ann thank you very much for your question this one coming in from Rudy questing says why don't flat earthers ever actually provide a model it's always quote oh we don't know but we know it's not this but we aren't going to show you how that is the case well that's that's that's unfair he did flat earth also he actually presented more of a model than I've ever heard any other flat earth or present so he's actually done that more than anybody else's I've ever heard from so I think props to flat earth for actually presenting what he believes I think that's a admirable step that most flat earthers don't take yes thank you Tom I believe that's exactly what I did when I described the firmament as being similar to a layer of ice through which we see all these things in a direct line of sight which is why the sun can appear to be in multiple places at once because it's not a single thing so I believe the model itself can only work at full scale which is why we don't present tiny little models because they won't work at that scale they need true scale and perspective to work you got it and thank you very much for this question you guys are in danger of becoming friends you're going to be playing an xbox together displace gamers as flat earth can you explain what a g force is well it's an acceleration force equivalent to you know 1g as they call it which is quite fast but I believe it actually is also one match which means 767 miles per hour at the speed of sound I believe that's what they call a g when it comes to g force in acceleration you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from nobody here says the great lakes has tides and it's fresh water you said it took salt water for the moon to make tides how does this mass of fresh water have tides as I did say as well that fresh water does have some amount of dissolved salts in it electrolytes and the great lakes being a very huge body of water has a very very slight tide I think it's equivalent of about five centimeters as opposed to about two meters on oceanic tides so it's slightly salty all water has some amount of electrolytes in it so if you've got a very very big body with certain amount of you know the more the water evaporates out of it the higher the salt content will gradually increase over hundreds of years so this is it's probably slightly more salty than most other fresh water lakes you got it this one coming in from Alexander says Ozzy how does your model account for north and south celestial poles at the same time how does your model make predictions on eclipses well first of all all predictions of eclipses are done through centuries and centuries of observations and so we can predict them like clockwork you've got the antique a theory device which is thousands of years old and it's predicted from a geostationary model so accurately that it can even predict the shade of red or orange that the moon will turn during an eclipse so these sort of things have been known from a geostationary model for a very very long time as far as the celestial poles are concerned that is again a matter of perspective if you're in a big room with a disco ball in it for example if you look at the directly at the disco ball and you look at the lights above it they appear to be going in one direction but if you turn your back and look at the lights going on the wall they're still going in the same direction but from your perspective now they appear to be going the opposite way and I don't see the stars here in Australia going around a celestial pole as such I see the southern cross in the southeast virtually every night in the same position almost and by the morning by the time it's too bright to see it again it is far in the west which means they're still going in the same direction around Polaris we're just seeing it in a much bigger circle further out from beyond the equator you've got it this one coming in from D.D. Merleys D.D. Merleys says Aussie why do you not understand the physics of this stuff my guess is you disagree all the physics remain exactly the same as we've observed them for since millennia since forever physics don't change just because we understand the ground itself isn't moving if anything they make far far more sense and the idea of curving water around a ball which then has continents below that water level that's to me our utter insanity the laws of physics make far more sense on the planar earth this one coming in from Chris Gammond says please define speed motion next Chris Gammond and D.D. Merleys both ask would you please define acceleration well change of speed like increase of speed some particular points say you're standing still and you start walking and then you start running well then you're accelerating that's pretty straightforward I think then they both ask please define velocity velocity is just motion whether you're accelerating or decelerating you still have a velocity if you're moving and Chris Gammond also says blindfold yourself in a car and detect the speed of the car while blindfolded I'll wait that's actually quite fun to do I once did that many years back in the back with somebody due these days you know you'd get huge fines if you got busted doing that but we went for a big trip out west one night and I laid because there wasn't a lot of seats in the front it was just the ute which means you've got three seats at the most and there's four of us so we took turns laying in the back and it was quite pleasant experience actually laying in the back with your eyes shut and you could feel the motion of course but you don't sort of feel it in the same way you would with a visual experience of say driving through a tunnel where the experience of seeing lights going past you would tell you you're moving it's actually yeah it's you only feel it when you got the wind in your face basically you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from bernie sharp says given an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on why if I lift a bowling ball up in a vacuum chamber it doesn't continue moving up well exactly because the upward force is applied by his muscular system he is applying the force if he left it sitting down on the ground it would stay at ground but he's applied a force and then when you remove the resistance take your hand out from it then it has the reaction to it and drops again it's ridiculous the thing it would keep going up in a place that has zero resistance which is what a vacuum is you got it thank you very much for this question coming in from made by jimbo says tom is gravity a scientific theory if so what's the observation experiment and all three variables please u beta I made that last part up but go ahead there's tons of different scientific experiments of gravity the lego experiment the one that I did measuring the curvature of light around the sun the there's a whole bunch of them it's not easy it's not hard to think of them the three variables the independent variable the dependent variable and the whatever like just google it yourself this one coming in from get stanfield says has ozzy ever questioned physicists about his concerns meaning how they know how fast the earth is orbiting around the sun for instance has he gone on physics forums to find out how it's measured I've been on quora or however we pronounce it I call it quora here you are already quite a bit asking questions in all sorts of different forums I will mostly responding to questions and then of course debating with people and it seems to me that nobody actually just like einstein actually has any method for detecting any motion of earth whatsoever and they just have to call it all relative which to me you've got two types of speeds you've got real speed and you've got non-speed and relative speed is in the section of non-speed real speed and non-speed relative is just hogwash that's made up as an excuse for why you can't detect real speed you got it juicy wolf van hinslich thanks for your question says look have you ever driven in your car with a soda and the air conditioning running the soda is perfectly still and some parts of the air are moving faster it's really that simple that's another non-secretary argument you know there's no wind screen to the earth when you if you've ever driven in a car like it happened to me once where I did get into a little fender vendor with a tree and I was able to put my little Suzuki in the forward drive and get out there and drive it home and if I hit about 45 kilometers an hour the wind streaming in my face because the windscreen got knocked out big star in it from my head got having a seatbelt on too um every time the wind got about into my face I couldn't see it was too much and that's 45 kilometers an hour so you're talking about the windscreen must going thousands upon thousands of miles per hour and you don't feel a damn thing I tell you you won't be able to see a thing you ride a motorbike without goggles or glasses on and you hit 60 kilometers an hour you won't see very well you need some sort of high protection so to think that we can do it on the open air earth without a windscreen is ludicrous you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from you guessed a displaced game or strikes yet again says how does the sun stay in the sky is it less dense than the atmosphere if not how is it floating well in my opinion the sun is what I call an interdimensional portal and it's above the firmament that's in the ether in the first place it's not even affected by the laws of density and buoyancy it's in a completely different realm altogether and whatever forces that keep it going obviously it's still going around Polaris now Polaris obviously has some very important role as to how everything rotates around it being magnetic north but I don't know what that is exactly but there are some mysteries we don't know but we can still fit like with gravity we can still still tell you what the effects of it are even if we don't know what it is you got it and Derek Donner thanks for your question says what keeps me from falling through the ground on a flat earth model what keeps my more dense bones from falling through my less dense flesh it's called the properties of matter and as we know solids are solids liquids are liquids and gas are gas and they pretty well behave themselves reasonably well within the realms of their own particular densities like if your bones are made out of lead they might have a greater chance of crushing your flesh going through you or something but bones are actually quite light that's a really silly question really because everything is density and buoyancy and relative density takes care of everything everything what is worked out perfectly fine to work exactly the way it does you got it and thank you very much for this question while I read these questions we do have more I want to remind you folks both Tom and flat earth Ozzie are linked in the description they have their own YouTube channels so if you want to hear more I mean hey the links are waiting right there and that includes on our podcast folks we have them linked in the description there as well git stanfield appreciate your question says tea jump stars are obviously light projections on the firmament I thought you'd know that it's not just that they're souls they're magical souls that hire and lighten beams that are trapped in orbit around each other flat earth Ozzie I think they're making fun of you yeah I wouldn't say that they're trapped I'd say that they've earned their seats in heaven and they're in absolute paradise in an absolute bliss like I've had a couple of near-death experiences myself where I've been out of body for a while and when you go to this realm the the pleasant state of being is something you do not want to ever leave and it's I've heard of cases where drug addicts have had an overdose and when they get brought back they get violently angry they say why the hell did you bring me back because this place when you get there is absolutely beautiful blissful and pleasant and you come back here and it's like you're in living hell again did you say that you've been to heaven I've never heard you say this you've you just we've known you for this whole time and you just didn't mention that oh I've been to heaven by the way you never told us this it's not something that's ever come up in conversation actually but um I've been there uh several times actually at least three times on my count and the first time when I did it I was only like 11 and I kept trying to get