Woohoo! What is up everyone and welcome to modern-day debate. We are a neutral, non-partisan platform welcoming everyone from all walks of life. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates, we are all over the internet, including your favorite podcasting platforms like Apple, Spotify, and Google. So if you enjoy debates, please don't forget to like, follow, or subscribe.  Is NASA deceitful? With our debaters Mark Reid and Flatzoid here to help us find out and if you enjoy what either of them have to say tonight, our guest links are in the description below. You can also tag me in chat at Amy Newman with your questions or comments for our Q&A section. Those super chats will get yours sent right to the top of the list. With that, I'm going to hand it over to the affirmative for their opening statement. The floor is all yours. Hey, hey, good to see you. Thank you for this opportunity. I've wanted to be a modern-day debate for a while, so it's good to have a, I think, a worthy opponent for Reid. So I wanted to say thank you to you guys. Well, what can we say? I don't know if I'm going to be able to have a 10-minute opening, but I'm going to try my best. So I'm just going to give maybe four arguments because I don't get too much. I don't think you'll get through them all. Okay, is NASA deceitful? I would say yes. Why would I think that you might have? Only very simple. There are many ways we can present this argument. Yes, NASA's deceitful because they claim to be operating in a place that violates natural law. I'll show you that many times. What natural law you may ask? Well, we can start with the first law of thermodynamics. We'll start with the first law because it's simply energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred or transformed. The origin of space, and that's NASA's playground, is founded on the violation that nothing can create itself. So that would be the deceitful argument of one because you cannot have a space, I mean, it's a space agency, if it already violates the first law, space cannot create itself. Then we can move on to second law of thermodynamics. That is the law of entropy. That's law of state that entropy will always increase to the surrounding system, and thus it could fold the available space to the surrounding system, aka called space, which is also NASA's playground. So the problem again comes that the earth is based on the geocentric relief system as a closed system. Now, what do you think? Well, what's wrong with it? It's nothing wrong with it. The problem is it's considered a closed system and it has no physical bound and method is not allowed to leave the system in a dynamic system.  It seems like your microphone is coming in a little garbled. I just wonder if you couldn't just check to make sure that it's set to the correct microphone. Yeah, I'm just sending love out there to you in the audience. Okay, I want to just try to talk like this into the camera. Okay, so if it's a closed system, then you would require a physical bounding because matter is not supposed to leave. Then we've got another contradiction problem. You guys claim that astronauts, okay NASA, they can go out into space, you've got things leaving, which is matter, but sending rovers and everything to the planet. So, now I'm going to say, we have yet to see any present demonstration where you can have gas pressure without the payment. Please note, pointing to the sky is not a demonstration, but a begging the question quality without any demonstration cracking up. Also note, this argument shows that you have a lack of understanding the thermodynamic systems work in conjunction with the surrounding system always. This is why the hypothetical system named the isolated system is the universe. That's argument number one. So I would like to be able to present as a demonstration that you can have gas pressure without the payment. Argument number two, why would NASA need to have such so much fakery that gets caught out constantly. There would be no need to fake anything if it was real. I mean, there's so much footage out there that's showing its face like using augmented reality and harnesses and all that kind of feel. Then we get to argument number three. They use augmented reality and get extra health cell record. That's not really something that a space agency wants to use. Yes, space is the product and they use it to sell. No people in the corporate compliance center. This argument goes further. You may ask, therefore, the race to me, the friend likes like its experts. In the line of Stan Kubrick or Ray Harrison, what Harry? I'm sorry, that microphone is still absolutely terrible. I don't think it's the volume. I think it's something to do with the way that's coming through. I'm having a little trouble hearing you. Probably is awful for the audience as well. Okay, well, and what I will do for the I'm going to try and see what the state of mind is. What I will do for the sake of the audience is if you want, you can try to reconnect. I have you at five minutes and I will give you not only the five minutes, but another 30 seconds or whatever on top of that. Because I'm going to leave and give it to you one minute. I'll be back. Sounds good to our audience. It may make the visual a little weird right now, but that's okay.  Read for the beginning of your opening statement. The floor is all yours. Oh, really? Okay. That's a weird to do my opening in the middle. Well, I suppose, you know, um, yeah, flat. So I can certainly start again or, you know, take it up from where he's at. So I'll just quickly run through mine. I'll just share my screen. Just one second. We do I do believe that Mark. It's going back and forth because now Mark Reed has disappeared. However, we have got flat Zoid back. Hopefully his audio is and here comes Mark Reed back. That is my sound, but better than all I've said it to my other mind. You actually do sound, I believe remarkably better. I'll ask. Yeah, I'm so sorry that I hit the wrong button. I do apologize. Listen, this is not an April Fool's Day. This is a real debate. Like, seriously, this isn't some kind of thing. So are you okay? So it looks like because he came back and his sound is good. I know it's already been a back and forth, but I am going to give it back over to him. So yeah, yeah, of course, of course, no problem. And sending love out to you all there. Thank you for being so generous with your time with us. Please keep on like, following and subscribing as well as getting those tickets for the Birdcon 3.1.  I will also add another 30 seconds minutes somewhere between that range of time. Floor is all yours again. Okay, thanks, Yasa. I just said before that argument one was the deceitful because of the laws of nature. That was the first law of thermodynamics in the second law of thermodynamics. I would just like a demonstration that you can have gas pressure without containment. Okay, argument two, I just said they get caught up constantly. Why would they need to have constant fakery if it was real? And argument three, I was touching on they use augmented reality and VFX to sell their product because space is their product and many people for whole planet Singapore. This argument goes further to ask, since why do they need, sorry, this argument goes further to ask why do they need to prevent the likes of VFX experts in the line of Stanley Kubrick and Ray Harryhausen. This brings my thought to VFX expertise would be employed for space travel. Why would you need, you don't need that for space travel. The argument also comes to that as well. You could argue they need some advice on the cameras and aperture and so forth because they decided they're going to the moon and all that. But that claim would be conjecture. And they would just, they could just contact the product manufacturer about the best settings of space, I mean, and specs because I mean, they had the hassle, hassle that which they actually fix their camera. I can say modern the camera for a vacuum to say you could say that. But yeah. So I don't see why they would need to get in touch with VFX experts for that. They say, you could agree they need, well, that's the argument for my why employ war criminals like Vanne Van Brom, a person who was against the great nation of America and the ideals who killed many for this fight of for freedom.  The same people who would be shamed upon for many lives that took without worry for their ideals in communism. How would the families of the foreland take the news that the same people helping them to get to space travel with the same Nazis who killed their children and family members. So I can bring many arguments, but if it is not going to get anyways, I just thought I'd bring these four arguments to light. That's it. Thanks. Thank you so very much for your opening statement. And with that, we're going to hand it over to Mark Reed for your opening statement. The floor is all yours because of the way that of our systems handled up. You might have to manually mute even if. Yeah, OK, fantastic. I'll share my screen this time and I won't click the wrong button. I promise just tell me when it is up on the screen. You're good to go. OK, hello, my name is Mark Reed. Today I'm taking the negative of is NASA lying or is NASA deceitful. Thank you for joining me and I want to thank Amy for moderating and platoid for being my debate opponent. Now, first off, NASA mission statement is indicative of the way they are inclusive and work for the benefit of all humanity. They do provide a safe, stable working environment for their employees and sort of it encompasses all of humanity and all of our planet for the benefit of all. So they're very upfront with what their intentionality is. Now, people do point to the cost of NASA and it's 26 billion, which sounds like a lot, but it's only 0.3 percent of the entire NASA budget. And you can see that here of all the industries and the agencies throughout the U.S. They're actually very one of the smallest agencies in the U.S. with, of course, defense being much larger, income assistance and health care being much larger. So NASA employees, there's about 17,373 employees, 35 percent of women, 65 men, they are inclusive. So why is the most common ethnicity at 55 percent? But there is a diverse amount of people working there. If you include all of the other sort of industries like the work in the aerospace industry or the other companies in the aerospace industry, sort of like Lockheed and Boeing and all of these companies, the number of employees in the aerospace industry rises to 521,000 workers. Half a million employees are not lying about what they do and that does not include all of the aerospace personnel in the 77 aerospace industries across the world and easily over a million people work in aerospace across the world. They're not all lying. This is the eighth straight year for the highest satisfaction of any government agency in the U.S. They treat their employees well. Overall, the staff are very happy with the leadership. NASA employees sort of so the accountability that they have, they report directly to the president of the United States. The administrator is nominated by the president, but the Senate does have to confirm them. They do have a committee that overused them accountability and oversight that reports to another committee which oversees them space and science. They are subject to law, coordination of aeronautical and space activities and freedom of information can access all documents without a problem in accordance with all laws and regulations. So these are some of the NASA discoveries that have actually helped us. I'm just going to go through them quickly. There's been developments in health and medicine. Things like space blankets, which we use in first aid kits, transportation, highway safety, chemical detection, things like that, public safety like these firefighting suits which resist heat. And there's a reason why I'm going through this. I'll get to it at the end. Sort of temper phones, baby food, so food preservation, air scrubbers, water purification, solar cells, computer technology. I myself have dabbled with OpenStack which is a cloud computing product, software catalog. They've released over 1,600 pieces of software, powered lubricants, mine safety, flood safety. So what I want you to think about going through all of this stuff, these are all technologies you would expect from an institution exploring space and doing aerospace activities. None of it is CGI developments or things that they have developed that have been a ways to fool people. All of them have been practical implementable technologies that, for instance, like those firefighting suits that's to do with breathing in hostile environments and surviving hostile temperatures, all things that you would expect from a agency participating in space exploration. This is the technology that Flat Earth has produced. Flat Earth movement has actually been around for longer than NASA. They have produced literally nothing, zero, zilch, nothing to help us in any way, shape or form. And now NASA definitely has a higher budget but you would expect over the 100 of years or 200 years since the 1800s that the Flat Earth movement has started, it would produce something, but no, nothing, absolutely nothing. NASA is honest about its failures. Its first satellite on the left had a strophically failed and the challenge of disaster was the biggest failure ever. Now, that took the lives of seven astronauts and was absolutely catastrophic for NASA's image and detrimental to their overall image. Now, in the aftermath, they participated in reviews, they improved safety systems, they were very upfront in what their failures were and how they failed. This shows that they are honest about what they are doing. Now, this is actually a three NASA employees staged a protest at JPMorgan Bank. This is employee is Peter Kalmas. He studies biological systems and climate change with him were a physicist, Greg Spooner, and science educator Alan Chornack, as well as engineer Eric Gill. He basically said about the climate change that we've been trying to warn you guys for so many decades. We're heading towards a catastrophe and we've been ignored. The scientists of this world have been ignored. It's got to stop. We're not joking. We're not lying. We're not exaggerating. Now, this speaks to the strong moral fiber of NASA employees and you may not agree with them about the subject here, but they will stand up for what they believe and this guy was arrested for protesting what he believed was right.  But this is a group of people that will actually get arrested trying to stand up for what they believe. Now, why don't Flat Earth trust NASA? Eugenie Scott noted basically that usually it is extreme biblical liturist theology and I suspect that's the case in this debate. Dr. Joe Pierre said it was the Dunning-Kruger effect, the Dunning-Kruger effect being thinking that you know more than you actually do when think you are an expert when in fact you are not. And Steven Novella basically blamed it was partly ignorance and partly motivated reasoning that you have a motivation to believe something on very weak evidence, but another thing you'll believe, you won't believe on very strong evidence. So why trust NASA? In 100 years of order or Nordics which they have been upfront and honest with their failures as well as their successes, they are accountable to the government through freedom of information account of the people. The main question I want you to consider is one that I've asked before. If you don't trust NASA for aeronautic and rocket technology and innovation, if they're lying, then who should we trust to handle aeronautics? Will it be the Flat Earthers? Will they be calculating Delta V and vectors for aeronautics? Is it going to be people just off the street? I can't do that and I guarantee my opponent can't either. I mean, it's not like it's rocket science. And thank you. That's my presentation. I'm sorry if I rushed through that a bit fast. I didn't want to equalize the time, but I did have a full presentation. Not all. Thank you so very much, Mark Reid. And with that, that concludes opening statements. I do want to keep on sending love out there and reminding everyone that the bacon 3.1 is about to be upon us. Not only are tickets on sale right now, but if you can't come to Texas in person just for a single dollar, you can get that live stream feed and come see more great debates. But again, we're handing it off now to both gentlemen as we go into our 52 hour minutes of open dialogue. The floor is both of yours. Well, I start, I ended the thing.  So you start us off. Okay. First, I'm going to say remember the debate topic is is an asset deceitful. Trust has got nothing to do for if they are deceitful or not. So that's already actually wrong because you don't need to trust someone if you try to figure out if they're deceitful or not. It's their intentions which makes them deceitful. That's what deceit means. I did pick up a few points there on where you were talking about people are employed and whatever. So therefore not lying. Let's put it this way. You get a lot of Muslim mosques that employ people worldwide. You would agree that in your opinion, Muslim is not real. Correct? That's correct. Yeah, I don't think it is.  I don't think their beliefs are real. Right. Yeah, I would agree with you. So I mean, to me as well, the foundations of Islam is deceitful because of their morals. They stand for everything. So to me, that's also, but that comes to so we can say now based on that same equivalence, they employ many people. So therefore they are not deceitful. That so that goes against the argument that you're saying, okay, they have this much employees and everything. And now we can go to why would, how could everybody lie? Well, it's actually simple. It's compartmentalized. If you're going to work in an area that let's say just produces the bolts for a certain craft or something that that's going to now say go to Mars or Venus, it's compartmentalized. You are specifically commissioned to do that bolt. Now, how it works with compartmentalization and the structure of mental governance, you automatically assume what you're doing is real because you literally creating physical product and it's for people are paying you and everybody's working together. As you said, consensus says so therefore it's real. That that also that doesn't mean that's not deceit. The people working in that aren't deceiving because they believe it to be real. This is is NASA itself deceitful. Can they be trusted? No, because NASA itself, like I said in the opening, they're in a place that violates natural law and what do they use? They use VFX. Okay, so this is Gish Gallup. You're going on to a topic after topic after topic. So I'm going to interrupt here and start to address some of the topics that you've gone through because you've gone from the seat for the Muslims to bolts for craft to assuming what you're doing is real and then you're going on to another topic. So I'm going to cover all of those before we go on. So when you say to say that right now it's good and you guys are going back and forth. But if it gets too spicy, we can go into intervals. But Mark, you were speaking right back to you. Sure, no problem. Okay, so when the seatful and trust are inherently related. So if somebody is being deceitful, you should not trust them. I'm saying you should trust them because they are being honest. That was the thrust of my presentation. That is the sort of contingency of those orts. If deceitful shouldn't trust, honest should trust. And that's a very, very basic thing. Now Muslim mosque, basically you're talking about two different things. You're sort of putting two different categories together because one is a religion and the other is a practical implementable scientific and agency that is overseen by the government. So when you go to people working in a mosque or praying in a mosque, their beliefs are completely unfalsifiable. There's no way you can falsify a ephemeral God that somewhere out there. That's just totally unfalsifiable. But the people working in these industries would quickly see, very quickly see that what they are doing does not match what they've been told to do. And in the history of corporations, we have multiple times over. People that have been deceived in these corporations start to understand that what they're doing doesn't match with what they're actually being told. And we see this time and time again in corporations sort of just saying that, oh, well, people are just producing bolts. No, that's not what's happening. Usually production of equipment and things. I mean, NASA does do some in-house stuff, but they mostly outsource that kind of production because that's not actually what they're doing. What they're doing is aerospace and aeronautics, which means the study of weight, the design of these things. So, yes, don't get me wrong. There are people producing bolts, but probably not as many as you think. What they would do is they would manufacture somewhere else, have it in house. There would be engineers constructing things, but those engineers would be taking aeronautic principles into consideration, whether it will fly essentially. And it's not just space. It also is aeronautics. So the design of planes, you assume what you're doing is real, not really. I mean, they've been trained to do what they're doing. And the principles that they have been taught are implemented and then work. Now, we can go on to wherever you want from there if you want to respond to any of those. Yeah, thank you. OK, so we'll start first with that. Yeah, again, compartmentalization doesn't make it real. It doesn't mean that people are actually lying. Compartmentalization works on the principle that you are mentally governing the people to believe what they are doing is lying. So the people themselves are not the deceivers. It's NASA. Remember, the topic is NASA. So that's NASA as the whole. Now, I disagree with you when you say it's not a religion because you guys do have a region because you have to go against natural law. Like I asked in the opening, would you be able to demonstrate us gas pressure without containment because it goes against the second law of thermodynamics? And like I also stated, the first law of thermodynamics which created space also violates natural and the whole foundation of NASA is based on these two principles of violation. So we can go with that first. OK, well, compartmentalization like at least a significant proportion of the population of NASA would have to be lying because they're all involved in the principles that they've been taught. The people designing the things would have to be lying. The people, the astronauts would have to be lying. The engineers would have to be lying. There would have to be so many liars at NASA and I wonder how you come by what percentage is it and how did you come by this information? Now, gas pressure without a containment we see that actually in our world because if there was a container around the Earth then the gas pressure would equalize. So with a container the equalization of gas pressure would occur like in any other system we see. So if we have an uneven amount of pressure within say a bottle, a gas bottle and there's only the container around it all of that gas will equalize to one pressure. They don't have a different pressures going up and down. So the actual fact that there is a gradient of pressure shows there cannot be a container there or else the gas pressure would equalize. Now, space violates the first law of dynamic? No, it doesn't. No, it basically entropy says that all the law of entropy says that all in a closed system the amount of entropy in total will always increase and that is completely consistent with the expansion of space and you're saying, hey, it violates it. How does it violate it? Because you just keep saying that. Okay, well, we'll first start on the first law and then I'll get to the second law game. The first law states that no matter or energy can be created nor destroyed. That means it has to already have been there to be able to have the expansion. So would you be able to explain to us how the matter was there to expand? Sure, so not like when you say it comes from nothing when Lawrence Krauss sort of used the term nothing it was kind of misleading and just the title of a book. So what they actually are trying to say is that the space may have come from a quantum field essentially. That quantum field has no matter, no energy. So in physics terms, it's nothing but it's not no thing like in a philosophical term as nothing there or there is nothing in my hand kind of thing. We can't have nothing, right? Because if you have nothing, you have something. So nothing is an incoherent concept but that's not what they're talking about in physics when they talk about no matter and no energy i.e. what we sort of described as nothing. They're talking about a background quantum field of quantum particles. So it's not created. So it's not created. Yeah, and it's not destroyed either. Matter has always been here. No. So even Big Bang cosmology doesn't say that. How do you explain physical matter? How do you explain physical matter just popping into existence there? It didn't pop into existence. It's nothing. Nobody is saying that. That's a complete straw man. That's exactly what first law thermodynamics. No, no. It starts out as energy, right? Matter and energy and well, I mean matter is a form of energy but energy can be changed into matter. You do know that, don't you? So it had to be there. Well, something was there. Yeah. So can you state the origin of how it was not there, but it's there? You want me to explain how a quantum field collapses? For the quantum field to collapse, they require something. So where was that something if it didn't create itself? Well, I don't know it did. I don't know where the universe came from. This is the whole point. Nobody is saying that they know exactly where the universe came from. I mean, Sean Carroll basically says, well, if the big bang was the start of space and time, then if you're sort of saying what was before space time, then you're asking an incoherent question. Because if time was at the start of the universe before is a nonsensical statement. So you're sort of saying, how was the universe? How did it come about? How did it form? And I don't know the answer to that. But you're saying, you know, I presume you're saying God and you can't demonstrate that one either. That's the problem. Nobody knows for sure where the universe came from. They just assert it to be true. Now, I'm not asserting anything, but I'm saying that it doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics. Because the postulation is that that quantum field collapsed into energy, and then that energy had matter. Nothing about that violates the first law of thermodynamics at all. And the end of the universe is hate death. It doesn't violate the second law. Entropy will still rise until hate death occurs when there is no hate anywhere else in the universe. So it's not being destroyed. It's just being particles are so far away. There's no interactions between them, i.e. hate death. That doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics at all. So you just violated my statement that you don't know where the origins was stating yes. The energy was there, so it's just there. So that would validate my point. OK, but now we can move on to the second law. No, no, that doesn't. Just because I don't know how something happened doesn't mean you get to tell me that it just popped into existence. Because you don't know that. I know how it popped into existence. Because we had how did it pop into existence? We have a supernatural being that's above natural law, a God. So he created everything because it's above. Can you demonstrate that? The heliocentric model is based on nature, not supernatural. So you have to abide by natural laws. God is above supernatural laws. He's supernatural. He created the natural laws.  So he doesn't need any natural law to create anything. He just creates it. Just because you claim. I don't have a region story. Well, just because you claim that a supernatural being did it doesn't make it true. It's just your assertion and it's a hollow base assertion because you can't actually demonstrate how it was done or that a God did it at all. I could claim that a magic unicorn did it and is above natural law doesn't make it true. So you don't have an explanation of how it happened. What you have is a crutch, just an explanation post hoc that is inserted and you say, no, that one is true. And while the honest person will say, hey, I don't know how it occurred, that that's the honest truth. But for you to claim something, you're obliged to demonstrate it, which you did not do. All you did is reassert it. Okay. I'm in the process. I understand we can't demonstrate, but I'm on the premise of a particular argument one logical argument two argument one. Nothing created everything because it was just there and then exploded. Not nothing. You got something that's above nature that we both can't demonstrate it. But the logical inference is supernatural law is more plausible than non that are not supernatural. Okay. I just because you have the one view and I just went through how saying it's nothing is a straw man. I just went through that and then you just used it again. No, it is a straw man because when we say like when we say the universe began, it collapse is a quantum field. Nothing to you. It has matter. So it requires something. A quantum field has matter. Yeah. Well, you had energy. It had to include it. No, something. It's something. Yes. So if I say a quantum field collapsed into the big bang, the origin of the universe was a quantum field. Does that mean it was nothing? Yeah, because something had to be there to collect you just you just said that a quantum field was not nothing. Something had to be there to collapse. Yes. Quantum field inference. It violates the first law of night of thermodynamics because no it doesn't be created or destroyed. It can only build off of what's already there. No, it doesn't. Because when you say nothing, it is something and it can. So what is the building block before something is there? Quantum field. It had to have an origin. Origin means it had to have a starting point. Yeah, that's your eternal starting point. Okay. So what was the origin of God? It's got to have a starting point. What's the origin? It's supernatural. He is the origin. It's supernatural. Yeah, and quantum field is the origin. Hang on. Hang on. Quantum field is the origin. Why do you get to special plead and say, Hey, God is somehow exempt. Everything's got to have an origin, but my God doesn't. And this I might add is not the topic of this debate. You've gone completely sidetracked onto this. Like I don't get how like whether or not whether or not that statement is true. It is what the scientists at NASA believe that they don't know the origin, but it could be a quantum field, right? They believe it. Are they being deceitful if they believe that's the case? No, they are not. They're being honest with the information that they have. If I truly believe that I can summon a giraffe, if I absolutely believe that, am I being deceitful? No, I'm not. Deceitful means you're purposely and intentionally lying. So even if your explanation of, oh, well, it betrays the first, which it doesn't. If they believe that to be the case, that that's within the laws of thermodynamics, then they are not being deceitful. They are being honest. That I have to agree with you because if it goes against the... Well, then why are we going over this? And that means they're being deceitful. But like I said, this is going to be new because you have a view on it. Either view on it. Let's move on to the second law on why it's being deceitful. The second law is container pressure. Sorry. So you stated a closed system will always just seek equilibrium. Therefore, no pressure gradients. That's false because we live in a dynamic system. By the way, pressure gradients comes off to having gas pressure, which requires the containment to have the pressure in the first place. There's a lot of reasons we do have pressure gradients in the system and can be demonstrated. So my ask to you is for you, can you show us a demonstration where you do not need containment to have this gas pressure? Well, the only place that we don't have containment is around large mass bodies. But we can sort of tell there's a pressure gradient. So if there is a container, you're saying you have to have a container and have pressure, right? So if there is a container, why doesn't it equalize? Because we live in a dynamic system. That doesn't mean anything. Yes, we've got cycles. How does that work? What's the actual process of that working? What is keeping it from equalizing? Gas behavior. No, no, no. Gas doesn't have a behavior. No, it just follows natural laws.  Gas doesn't have a behavior. What do you mean? Can you describe that? What behavior are you talking about? When you change temperature of a gas, what happens to it? It's behavior. It either expands or contracts? Gas has a behavior then. So you're going to go and see gas has a behavior. Okay, great. So you have temperature changes. You have volume changes in the full system. You have pressure changes. All these things are interlinked to create the pressure gradient. At ground level. Do you have the calculations for this, please? Can you cite me something that sort of says this? Just give me the calculations you have on the changes in gas density that would cause this and I can have a look at them. You don't need to obfuscate from trying to move from you demonstrating. No, no. You've made a claim that the density of gas will change the pressure gradient. Now you need to demonstrate that that is in fact the case. So if you could produce that, that would be great. I can show you demonstrations where gas pressure, where we have containment with pressure gradients. But we first need you to support the premise that you can have gas pressure without containment. That requires demonstration from you first. Okay, so gas pressure, right? When it contracts, there's more air molecules, right? Because it's contracting. When it is warm, it expands, which means there's less molecules, correct? So why is it that towards the earth where it's warmer, right? And it's colder up the top. Are there less air molecules when there should be... Is there more air molecules when it should be less because it's warm? And higher up where it's cold, there's less air molecules, contracting, there should be more. Explain that one. No. When it's contracting, that means it's moving slower. Remember, when you're on the ground, there's more for the gas particles to hit off of. There's more of a collaboration of all gases. So you've got trees to hit off. You've got mountains to hit off people. You've got all the cycles of the densities of gases down on the lower level. So it's more compact. Now, when you go higher up, there's more area to fill. Now, most of those dense gases are still hitting all over the lower ground because it's more compact. The more you go up, the less moles you have to hit off the wider area. Now, you've also got temperature to play and everything. But remember, the temperature played with a less amount of that. That's why you've got average garter's law because you've got the amount of gas in a certain area which gives the pressure. So if you've only got, let's say, five moles that's gone up at a certain altitude and it gets hotter, you still only got that amount of moles hitting around in a wider area. Therefore, the pressure is lower. Now, again, you still have to demonstrate it. Wait, you're gish galloping again. Stop. You're going over point by point by point. I will address every single point. So you've got to stop doing this. I'm going to just allow flat soil. Do you have 30 more seconds to finish up your point? And then we're going to hand it over to Mark. Okay. Yeah. So I just made an, I just explained to you in very simple terms why we have pressure gradients. Now, I'm still asking you to please demonstrate gas pressure without protein. Yeah. So this is, this is weird because you basically said I will mountains and things like that are what causes the pressure gradient, which is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in my entire life. Mountains and people and the ground and telephone poles, I guess. And there's more area up the top. So that's why it occurs. There is no sort of temperature that will cause this gradient. And the simple fact that you cannot produce any kind of documentation or any kind of calculation to show that temperature will produce this gas gradient rather than gravity is kind of ridiculous. And it also seems to indicate that you don't understand what the gradient is at all. You have much more air at lower altitudes than you do at higher altitudes, right? Every guy does constant. I explained it. No, you didn't explain it because you didn't actually say how it occurred. You just made a claim that it is something that makes it and then blamed it on mountains and the ground, which is a weird statement because the pressure gradient doesn't just go from mountains and then quickly go into a small gradient. There's a gradient. So it goes all the way up getting thinner and thinner and thinner as it goes up. But none of this sort of says why NASA is being deceitful at all because your entire argument seems to want to, you want to shift that into, oh, well, I'm going to prove that Earth is flat, which isn't the topic of the debate. So you're just doing a dodge and switch. So explain why NASA is being deceitful because the onus is on you. I'm basically saying, hey, they believe what they say. They believe that the Earth is round. They aren't lying about it. You're saying they're lying about it. Prove that they're lying about it. Don't ask me for proof. By natural law, they're lying about it. You require containment. Otherwise, entropy will increase and it will move into the surrounding system. Now, again, you've obfuscated. Remember, they're lying because we are in a closed system. They are saying we're going out of that closed system into space. Now, to have an open system adjacent to another system, the higher pressure will always equalize to the lower system. I've explained the reason why we have lower moles. It's called Evergardo's law. It's the Boltzmann constant. I've given you reasons that I'm waiting for you to show how you can have gas pressure on containment because NASA is deceitful because they know you need containment and they're claiming to go through that containment that has no boundary. So that's right. So here's the thing. Here's the thing. You keep quoting natural law and gravity is a part of that natural law. You're just trying to change what the natural law is so it does not include gravity. And that is entirely dishonest. Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. And gravity does exist. You have to explain why natural law suddenly doesn't include gravity, which you haven't done. So perhaps you could prove that gravity doesn't exist. Perhaps you can include some calculations and some actual things that you have done to demonstrate at what experiments have you carried out? What have you done? Because I can name the experiments we have done to prove gravity, the Cavendish experiment, the vacuum chamber dropping of different articles experiment. I can name experiments you can do yourself to show that gravity exists. Well, the debate's not about gravity. I haven't said the word once until now. It's not about pressure gradients either. Secondly, you cannot demonstrate gravity holding gas indefinitely in an open system. Again, the illnesses of you to prove, yes, prove or demonstrate gravity can hold the gas down without the need of having containment. Pressure can only exist in containment and therefore realize back to my first argument, NASA is lying because if it's an open system, we would not be able to have gas pressure to have the pressure gradients. If it's a closed system, 100%. But then they can't claim to go to the place they're going to. So, yes, NASA is deceptive. No, they're not deceptive. Gravity is a thing. We can measure slight changes in pressure due to gravity inside some containers. Definitely can. The whole thing is that in order to demonstrate and sort of so that's always going to an unfalsifiable claim kind of thing or basically requesting proof that is outside of what it's possible to demonstrate because you in order to show the gravity of Earth and its effects, you need something the mass of Earth. And that is the Earth. And we can see sort of atmospheric pressure gradients on other planets that have mass as well. But, you know, flatsoid will then just beg the question and sort of say, oh, well, that's not real. We haven't been there kind of thing. So it's just sort of a article of faith and we could see him go to the faith article. That's all it is. It's an article of faith that it can't be real as in my presentation. The first reason this has been studied by psychologists. So the whole thing is if you have a container like a bottle or something and you have gas within it, it will not make a pressure gradient, even if one side is warm, like you put it warm it up on the bottom and it's cool on the top. It will not make a pressure gradient. The only way that can happen is by gravity. That is the only way. No, you're wrong. You're just wrong. And if I can bring up a demonstration showing you wrong. Go for it. But anyway, back to what I was stating. Can you show me? What does it say? You were saying gravity is the reason for pressure gradients, correct? Why does low pressure follow high pressure? Now, I asked a simple question. That's what you're saying. Gravity is the reason for pressure gradients. In the atmosphere, yes. Now, I want to ask a question. I want to ask a question. I want to ask a question. I answered yours. Does low pressure follow high pressure? Yes. Then why doesn't it do that in the atmosphere? I explained it because of gas. No, you didn't. You gave an excuse. Remember, the larger the volume, the easier it is to have the pressure gradients. Then why does low pressure follow high pressure in our atmospheric weather systems? Easy. High pressure follow low pressure in our atmospheric systems. Okay, let me just... Yeah, and that is the behavior. In our atmospheric systems, high pressure follows low pressure. Why does that not happen in the atmospheric gradient? It does. Why? It does. It does. It does. There's a time. If that was the case, there would be an upwards wind constantly because low is always a higher pressure. Again, remember, gas behavior. Now, like I'm getting, you are offsetting from showing your point. Can you see my screen? Yes, we can. Okay, so I'm not going to play the sound, He took a canister, he welded a gauge on the top and he put it in an ice bucket. He's got another gauge on the top that's linked to the bottom of this closed canister. It's in an ice bucket. He's heating up the top. He's getting a difference in pressure reading from the top of the container to the bottom of the container. So therefore it's a pressure gradient in a closed container, which you just said isn't impossible to demonstrate. Now I'm going to ask you again, please show me where is the heat coming from? So now he's going to the top to show you the difference. He's heating it up first. Where is the heat coming from? In this demonstration, the heat comes. No, no, in Earth's atmosphere, where is this heat coming from? The Sun. The Sun. So the top is heating up. Through less amount of gas. Remember we talked about evergardo's law? No, no, no, no. Less amount of gas, you're saying that the heat is causing the less amount of gas. It can't be that heat is being applied to a less amount of gas if the less amount of gas is already there. What is causing it? If you've got five moles in a larger area and it gets heated up, it's still just five moles. They're just moving faster. They're expanding more. Now, lower where it's more compressed, it's together, you have now 50 moles, for instance. The pressure is going to be higher because there's more moles to bombard off of something. I realize you misunderstand physics. So if you put a thermometer at the top of this, would it be hotter or colder than the bottom? It was the pressure was high at the top. No, no, no. Would the thermometer, would the air be hotter at the top or the bottom? Sorry, the air pressure? No, no, no. Would the air temperature be hotter at the top or the bottom? On the demonstration to show you. Yes. It's colder at the bottom. It was in the ice bucket. Right. The pressure was lower. That is the equivalent of the sun striking our atmosphere. Right. Correct. Hang on. Yes. And then it should be hotter at the top and colder at the bottom. Correct. That's what you just said. No, the demonstration was you can provide, if I can provide you pressure. Yes. In a closed containment using gas behavior. Heating up a gas. Listen, heating up a gas. Remember that containment when it comes in, it's got a full, it's at the equilibrium. It's not pressure gradient. So it's got the same molds at the top as the bottom of the container. Everywhere. It's in equilibrium. Yes. And that hate is the sun, right? Yeah. This is not about the sun. This is about gas behavior itself. No, no, no, no.  And you said the sun. Right. Now, but is the earth in equilibrium? What does it matter? You're saying without this, you're saying without this principle, it would be in equilibrium, right? Why are you talking to me? If he has a container, it's already in equilibrium. He then puts it in the ice bucket. Therefore the container is becoming. And the air on the bottom is colder, right? Right. So then he puts up the heat at the top. The sun. It's not at the pressure gradient because the gas from the top is what's being heated. The gas at the bottom is not. Therefore it gives a difference in pressure readings. Now with earth, it's simple. We've already got the conglomerate of the gases lower down and less moles at the top. Less moles to get heated up. Why is that? You get it? And radiation works going through and radiating the ground, which causes more heat at the bottom. But why if the source of the heat up the top is the sun is the bottom, right? Because your example, this is why your example does not work in the slightest, because you have a system where you're making the top hot and the bottom cold. And the problem with that is that if that was the earth's atmosphere, then that would be reversed. Because it is warmer towards the earth than it is towards the top. You can't claim that it is temperature that does it and then explain and basically then flip it around so that it's colder at the top, top for the earth, and then warmer at the bottom. You have just disproved your entire experiment. Congratulations. First of all, it was an experiment with a demonstration. Secondly, you asked me if I'd be able to demonstrate. Actual demonstration having gas pressure gradients in a closed container, which I've just simply done now. Now you realize that you have it from top. You have not yet demonstrated your claim gas pressure without a container. So would you please? You have not actually given any of those readings that you have taken to see whether that would work in the earth's atmosphere. You do realize that, don't you? That you basically just said, hey, there's a different difference in pressure. What was the temperature? What was the pressure? You haven't recorded any of that. You've just said, hey, this will work because I've made it something work in my thing. You realize how unscientific that is that when you're talking about something you really should have. And this is what I'm asking for. I'm asking for your independent variables and your dependent variable. Hey, I changed the temperature for this amount over this amount of gas in this space. Then the dependent variable will change by this amount. And the problem is that Flat Earth has refused to provide any of this because they can be shown to be wrong through natural laws. But he basically wants to say, well, gravity is not a natural law. We'll throw it out. Doesn't matter. While at the same time proving that just using heat won't actually make this work. Yet I'm the one demonstrating gas behavior in containment. I'm just saying you don't understand. You believe the Earth is flat. I can demonstrate gravity. And without any gas whatsoever. Can you hold the gas down indefinitely? Can you show gravity holding gas down indefinitely? I can show gravity. It doesn't matter which gas you take. You can take a fish tank of sulphate. It's a fluoride. Let's get on to gravity then. If gravity is true, then why do, say, in a vacuum chamber, feathers and a bowling ball hit the ground at the same time? That's not gas. We're talking about gas. I don't care. It's gravity. I'm talking about gravity. I'm talking about gravity. I'm talking about gravity. Again, gas behavior of a gas. I'm sorry, gravity on gas behavior of a gas and on a physical, I can say, bowling ball or something, a ball. A bowling ball is not a gas particle. It's two different things. Are you saying gas is unaffected by gravity? It's a false sequence. We're talking about gas behavior. I want you to show us a demonstration where gravity, that's not actually even a force, can hold down indefinitely gas particles. Sure. So we just have to have a heavy gas, that's all. Sulfate is a fluoride, which you say is a very dense gas. One of the dense gas you get. Do you know there's still dispersion with sulfur exafluoride? What's a heavy gas? I'm sorry, you asked me to find something. OK, so this is the problem. You have gases of two different masses, right? Two different mass. One will go lower than the other. One will settle to the bottom. One will be higher. They never settle there. They never settle. You understand Alton's law? OK, but you do realize that one's going to be pulled lower than the other, right? They don't get pulled. Gas moves in all directions, not just one direction. OK, so I feel like you're just being willfully ignorant here, that basically if you have a light gas, like hydrogen, OK, so if you have a container, hang on a second, if you have a container with hydrogen and oxygen, which one will be at the bottom? They will mix if it's a closed container, correct? Oh, my. Really? Is that what you think? You claimed... Which one will... Equilibrium, did you not? Yeah. Great, so why they're not... Because they're not the same gas. They're not the same density. They're not the same mass. Air and atmosphere is...   That is just so silly. You know, you just literally conceded that you could have pressure gradients in a closed container, which you said 10 minutes ago is impossible by your own emission. No, that's because they are different gases. So pressure gradients in a closed system are different gases. We have different gases in our atmosphere. But they don't... That's ridiculous because it was a closed container. All of the oxygen would go down to the bottom.  Okay, so again, you understand how gas works. It moves in all directions. There's still the density gas also high up just a less amount of it. So if that were true, then hydrogen would not have the buoyant properties that it does. You think there's no hydrogen yet ground level? No, I do. Not even any percent of hydrogen at all? I do. And you think that... We have a certain amount of different gases. No, which is totally bombarding into each other at every single oxygen content. Why does a balloon full of helium rise then? Because it's less dense and the pressure around it forces it up. So how do you calculate density? I'm not yet to calculate this. You're obfuscating from demonstrations. How do you... You mentioned density. How do you calculate density? How do you calculate density? It's a question. How do you calculate density? Don't dodge. Don't dodge. How do you calculate it? I can counter this by saying Archimedes principle predates gravity by 1,900 years. It doesn't matter. So does... Look, leeches predate modern medicine. It doesn't mean they work better. Archimedes principle work without gravity. I know you guys are starting to talk over each other, but I love actually enthusiasm. It's actually been a fantastic debate. So thank you, Mark and Flatizoi. We have about 15, 20 more minutes of open discussion before we switch into the Q&A. Please keep on sending me all of your questions at Amy Newman. But with that, Mark, Flatizoi, the floor is yours once again. Okay. Density is mass over volume. Mass divided by volume. Right? How do you calculate mass? I'm saying, I'm not moving to gravity. You calculate mass because you won't answer the question. You calculate mass with gravity. Archimedes principle, you still over scale. Archimedes principle does not require gravity when it was prescribed. Archimedes came predated, I think, it's like 1,900 years or something before Newton came upward with false gravity. Yet we had ships working on Archimedes principle for 1,000 years. Archimedes principle is displacement. Exactly, of pressure, not gravity. Right. So how does displacement work in a vacuum chamber? Easy. It's still working. If it's a vacuum chamber, it's just less moles. They're still bouncing around in the vacuum chamber. And hence, you still have to provide evidence of grass pressure without containment. So Archimedes principle does not work without gravity and mass because the more mass that you put into water, the more it displaces. So the more weight it has. And in order to calculate weight, you do need to have gravity. No, you don't. Yes, you do. How do you calculate? What's the calculation for weight then? It's pressure displacement. No, what's the calculation for weight? You said you could calculate weight without gravity. You're trying very hard to obfuscate it. No, I'm not. NASA is deceptive because the Earth is classified as a closed system which leaves it's method blue, so therefore it can only be open, therefore we could not have air pressure to have the pressure graded. Your affirmative bias is we do have an open system. I, therefore, can have gas pressure without containment. Please demonstrate. Mark, I think this is the 30th time. No, no, no, no, no. You don't get away from this. You don't dodge and run. Hang on, hang on. This is my turn to talk. You said that you could calculate weight without gravity. So what is the equation for your calculation of weight without appealing to gravity? What is it? Okay, I'll tell you something. I'll give you it. What is it? Yep, go for it. No, no, no. That's all I want. That's all I want. I will give it to you once you demonstrate it, gas pressure without containment. Yeah, the Earth. That's gas. It's atmospheric pressure, actually. It's not gas pressure. So you're kind of conflating the two because atmospheric pressure is not the same as gas pressure. So the fact that gravity works on our atmosphere gives atmospheric pressure. But now you can give, you don't need me to answer anything else to give the equation. Hang on, to give the equation of weight without appealing to gravity. So you know you can't do it. You know you have no equation without gravity. And that's why you're not giving it. So gentlemen, we have 15 more minutes. We're going to do one or two minute increments. But you could feel free to give up your time as whenever you want. But Mark just talked. Flatazoid, the floor is yours. Thank you. Yeah, again, I appreciate it. Again, Mark, the topic was NASA's Deceptive. My argument one was why they're deceptive is because they're claiming to do something that violates the natural law. I can't help you don't understand how gas behavior works. The atmo, yeah, the atmo falls under every single gas law there is. Dalton's law literally just debunked you because it's the conglomerate of gases, oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, oxygen or whatever. So therefore gas still has to abide by gas laws just because you have a belief that its atmosphere doesn't take away the gas behavior. It's still gas that has to abide by gas behavior. So one last time. Can you provide us any demonstration, not pointing to the sky, that's a belief, any demonstration that the reason we have these pressure gradients without the gas moving anyway without containment, show us a demonstration. Yeah, there's plenty of demonstration that's efficient gravity to do it. Plasma, for example, is a demonstration when the plasma of stars and things can actually cause a pressure gradient without actually having a container around it and we know this can happen upon massive objects. Even in very large containers we can... Yeah, it's... And I can't do that quickly. No, you can't. And this is just a dodge because hang on, this is my time. Have some decorum, sir. We're going to hand it back over to Mark.  Hand it right over to you, Fatsoid. Yeah, learn to take your...  It's really disgusting. Yeah, and this is just a dodge because he wants to sort of go to Flat Earth and not whether NASA is lying. It's just a Flat Earth debate dressed up in, you know, sort of lipstick kind of thing. He hasn't actually demonstrated why NASA is lying at all. He just has a faith belief. The Bible says the earth is flat and therefore it's flat. It is a religious belief and we've heard that out of his own mouth when he starts talking about the origins of the universe which he can't demonstrate. And just because his misunderstandings of physics, he wants to say, hey, that doesn't work according to natural law but gravity is natural law so he doesn't get to make that appeal. He's trying to say that a part of our scientific understanding is wrong without having to prove it wrong. We have observed in stars on the planet all over the place that atmospheric pressure and that's atmospheric pressure, not gas pressure. Atmospheric pressure can exist without a container. Okay, thanks. Yeah, like I said, I can get it. When you create plasma you require a chamber, a container and by the way, since when is on earth we're breathing in plasma we're not breathing in plasma. Secondly, again, you have yet to demonstrate gas pressure without container. The one that's not understanding physics here is clearly you more, not me. Secondly, yeah, we've been showing you just been saying this whole time now our belief and you should stop going and making arguments on my behalf. The only reason is because of God. No, right, I believed in God way before I became a flat earth. Secondly, like I stated, our communities principle worked way long before your beloved gravity concept came to being. Thirdly, gravity is not a force and it violates then F equals MA if you say it's not a force. So it's either force or it's not a force. Okay, still I'm keeping you to show me gravity holding down gas pressure without the need of containment. You can't do this. All gas laws still abide to your atmospheric belief. Dalton's law, Avergo's law, Boyle's law, Charles Dulcet's law, it doesn't matter which gas law you want to take, they all require containment. Okay, it's as simple as that. So NASA is lying because space cannot exist the way they say it is to exist you need 30 seconds. No, so all of these talk about gas pressure within a container and that's the dodger that he's doing. That's not what they're applied to but they're not applied to atmospheric pressure and that's where he's doing the dodge and so there's only one person here lying and that is flat so it because he doesn't understand physics in the sliders because the hilarious part, the hilarious part is a flatter basically going no, gravity's not real you don't understand physics appeals to natural law when gravity is within natural law and I never said gravity's a force gravity is the bending of spacetime which he suddenly says, oh no it doesn't work throughout all of these things so I wonder when flat so it is going to publish his paper on the non-existence of gravity and get a Nobel Prize. Remember earlier when over done in Kruger where people think they have more expertise than they do basically what we have here is the classic case of done in Kruger we have a person who is not trained in physics yep, so I'm appealing to physicists, people who do know what they're talking about you're appealing to your own mistakes ignorance and misunderstandings of the subject of physics so when's your Nobel Prize going to be awarded to you flatzoid okay, again you saying I am not a physicist or whatever it's just appealing to authority I don't have to care what authority says just like you don't I abide by natural laws like everybody, the argument here is we require gas pressure without containment you're not understanding that all gas has to abide by gas behavior is not my misunderstanding it's yours and by the way your atmospheric belief is based on Dalton's law Avrogato's law Boyle's law and Charles's law which are all gas behaviors now you can tell me gravity, gravity all you want again you require a force to have an acceleration so therefore no force, no pooling of gases I 100% agree gravity is not a force I never even brought it up saying gravity is a force or not all I said was based on your model it's not a force so if f equals ma is true then gravity can't do it's not gravity if it's not true then the other way around that's it yeah so it's funny that he appeals to natural laws and then can't even give a single equation for weight and no equation at all because all of these laws are written up in science as equations but the problem with flatzoid and other flat erthers is they don't want to provide equations because then their work can be checked they're like a little boy going hey I've got all the answers and then the teacher says hey will give me your actual calculations they say no you're not allowed to check it it's childish it's unscientific it is absolutely dishonest because they know as soon as they actually provide any calculations they're going to be checked and when they're checked they're going to be wrong and I think deep down flatzoid knows this and that's why he desperately avoids giving any calculations whatsoever so if you could give me the calculations of weight that would be great flatzoid go for it give it to me now I'll see again I don't require to give anything because you haven't given what I've asked for this whole debate I said I will give you an equation on our committees principle without gravity if you demonstrate gravity holding gas pressure having gas pressure without containment that's what you have obfuscated from this whole debate now again if you even know how weight works it's not pulling it's the pressure that's applied to a scale a scale works with load cells it works on pressure it's pressure mediation and that's it it's got nothing to do with gravity even though your belief says it's gravity there's no pulling force so therefore it cannot be gravity giving weight it is simply the pressure applied to the scale so please provide your demonstration of gas pressure without containment yeah so that's a complete misunderstanding of what gravity is it's not supposed to be a force it's the bending of space-time that causes things to fall towards objects of mass like just because flatzoid doesn't understand it doesn't mean it's not real now I've gone on to say hey I can demonstrate within a demonstrate gravity on objects within a vacuum chamber where there is no gas and he says no no no no no that's not good enough it has to be a gas so for some reason flatzoid thinks that gravity doesn't work on molecules the same he thinks that for some reason gas is in its own special category so we talk about being against natural laws the whole idea that there are effects that he uses special pleading for to say hey gravity doesn't affect gas for some reason it's all up to gas behaviour but doesn't actually like he wants me to just demonstrate gravity but only on gas is is just ridiculous like the whole idea he is so dishonest and he will not give equations he won't give equations because he knows wrong and yes it is up to him because I said that gravity is part of a calculation of weight and he said no it isn't so I said well give me your calculation of weight he has made a claim that it's not part of it but will not actually back that claim and that is why you should not believe a word he says he's lying and before I let you go on flatzoid I'm going to give each of you one more round of back and forth and then I'm going to let you both have closing statements tell people what you got going on on the interwebs but right back to you flatzoid for your last open discussion thank you very much Amy oh yeah it's very simple I said I can give you an equation if you've done what I've asked first this whole debate demonstrate don't you yes pressure without a container I can literally take that g constant and change it to p for pressure if I wanted to it would give the same results your gravity believe is only the ideal that it's pulling mass attracting down to mass and 100% gravity is not a force so therefore F equals MA is then pulse according to your belief and just call me me dishonest and at homing me constantly is not showing good for your cause it's just showing you cannot demonstrate your belief system to be real thank you thank you so very much flatzoid for your last back and forth and then Mark Reed hands it over for your last back and forth yeah so he hasn't shown anything because when you ask him how you calculate the equation he won't be able to tell you what p is or how to calculate it at all and he's not giving any kind of readings or measurements for his equation so I'll look forward to your you know paper being published flatzoid about how you calculate weight without gravity I'm sure you've done tremendous work on it you know as I pointed out flat Earth has have not produced anything of note in the entire time they've been around and flat so it is no exception he does not understand physics he doesn't understand the role that physics play at gravity plays in physics he doesn't understand anything about it he's just basically making assertions and then requesting unproducible things because he knows you need the mass of a planet but we have observed plasma in stars we have observed the Earth using gravity pull it down we've observed gravity if a container is holding it then what I want flatzoid to do is show me the container where's your proof of the container give me the container where is it give me a piece of it and with that we are going to conclude the open discussion we're about to be moving into the Q&A so tag me with your chats questions and super chats at Amy Newman however flatzoid I want to hand it over to you one last time if you would like anything final to say on the subject and tell people what you got going on thank you very much just a quick thought thank you Mark again for this debate it wasn't actually a challenge for me sorry to say just add homing and call me understand just shows you level of ignorance to the subject you said the same about me when we have gas pressure we are talking about gas behavior and gravity then as you put it so having a false equivalence of a bowling ball is not going to work secondly I have shown an actual demonstration and got you to actually concede in omniscient that you can have pressure gradients in a container which you said earlier wouldn't work I have stated natural laws which are in nature always accepted and always provable you have appealed to a belief system that's not demonstratable by the way lower ground should have stronger gravitational pull so therefore gravity should be stronger at the bottom of mass and therefore gas would always just pull it and we will always die because we would just the whole time breathe CO2 because of gravity it's just stronger the mass attracts more mass 30 seconds I do have a channel so yeah do look me up thanks guys thank you so very much flatzoid and we're about to go into the Q&A but Mark Reed the floor is all yours for your closing statement and what you got going on yeah so we can see in sort of containers that we do have gases separate there's a gravity method for separating gas in fact fluids do exactly the same thing it's just that gas does mix a lot more because the particles are less there's less there's more space in between the particles meaning it can mix a lot more but we do have separation and we do have separation of fluid and you know this sort of ad-hom flatzoids was been saying exactly the same thing that I don't know the physics I'm not appealing to my knowledge of the physics I'm appealing to physicists knowledge of the physics who absolutely refute flatzoid and can explain all of this I never claimed to be an expert but flatzoid isn't an expert either in fact he's suffering from Dunning Kruger which is sort of thinking he's an expert when he's not he doesn't understand that gravity is a natural law and he's sort of saying hey it's outside natural law what he is describing is outside natural law because gravity is a natural law that's what it is so the entire thing is he's just projecting he's sort of saying hey you don't know the physics he doesn't know the physics the physicists all say that he's wrong he hasn't he's dodged completely his NASA line he just wants a flat Earth debate that's all he's after so he's been really dishonest in the way that he's asked for a debate sort of saying hey we'll discuss one topic oh I want to discuss flat Earth now so you know just absolutely I don't see why I should trust him at all because seriously this is supposed to be a topic about whether NASA is lying and it turned out to be just a flat Earth debate which is obviously what he wanted so you know and time and alright gentlemen thank you so very much and just one last point one last point I noticed that he never addressed a single one of my points we went through all of his points never addressed one of mine not one not one but more fun in the Q&A as we are switching so keep on tagging me in chat and Amy Newman but the first super chat of the night iron horse to the glurf how come sun and moon rise in the east and set in the west but stars go around in circles I believe that is for you Mark because of the rotation of the Earth the sun is in one direction from the Earth as it rotates around so it always rises and sets in the same place the stars do the same if you're at the equator by the way and this may be something flat so it can explain why the Earth's stars at the at the equator go in the direction while at the poles they go in circles so that question is slightly malformed because it's only at the circum polar stars go in circles not at the equator thank you for the super chat iron and your response Mark and then a $5 super chat from nominal Mark do you believe the moon landing videos are actual footage of astronauts on the moon that we see in our sky yes because they left reflectors up there that we have shots of and you can bounce lasers off the reflectors they're basically a squarish mirror reflectors that if you shoot a laser at them they bounce on two sides and go back to the origin point so we can actually test to see whether that's the case thank you nominal and your response Mark and then a $5 super chat from Javier are flat earthers even open to changing their minds what piece of evidence would they accept as proof of a globe well to start it would be great to get a demonstration for any of the beliefs but we don't get simple things like gas pressure without containment thank you so much Javier and your response flat and a $20 super chat from Cory Clark thank you Cory for all the love and support NASA is responsible for some of the misadvancements in human history they invented everything from WD 40 to thermal blankets don't you feel like you're being disrespectful to all those hard working people's achievements nope I mean war criminals like one of them gone was a rocket scientist who bombed people for a living can we now say can we now say that we are being disrespectful to him for the technology he bestowed on us okay I just got to address that because this is something I did want to cover and say okay so Von Braun basically was a rocket science he was member of the Nazi party as all scientists were required to be regardless of what they actually believed when he was brought over to the US there were scientists that didn't he didn't bomb people for a living he did rocket tree and the Nazis maybe used that for bombing sure the V2 rockets were a thing I'm not going to deny that but that wasn't his intention when he came over to the US he made fast friends with the director of NASA who surprised surprise was Jewish so you know flatzoid again is just being deceptive oh flatzoid you are 30 seconds because it was directed towards you okay thanks very simple you do not go and befriend someone who have you been fighting for in the last how many years killing your family and friends that's the deceptive part they were playing together the whole time and alright thank you so very much both of you and then we have to give a big thank you so very much Corey and then we saw that Corey Clark actually gifted 10 different memberships he gifted 5 and then he gifted another 5 and so I just have to say thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you so very much Corey and thank you our modern day debate audience and all of our subscribers and members out there and alright continuing the list nominal for $5 Mark Reed by your logic is dark matter not just unicorn farts I don't know what dark matter is that's the whole premises of dark matter we don't know that that's the whole premise that we don't know what it is possibly yeah I don't know I'm not I'm not a physicist so I wouldn't I wouldn't really have an opinion on dark matter some people claim it doesn't exist I don't know if that's true either you know so there may actually be something providing gravitational force to the universe out there black holes we didn't think existed for a long time and then the bending of space light of light around that distortion that incredible mass we found them so you know just because we don't know exactly what something is at the moment doesn't mean we won't know thank you so very much nominal in that response Mark and then a $5 super chat from cool Lambo the earth is losing helium a detectable phenomena how does this compute with the claim of a closed system simple how do they how do they prove that is it just here say that they're losing helium and that goes against the heliocentric belief Earth is supposed to be considered a closed system which means no matter leaves the system NASA says itself Earth is considered a closed system prediction yeah we're losing helium um yeah that's a really good question I just want to say that and yeah we can and I just want to say as a personal note don't use helium balloons and stuff we are losing helium there is not enough decay of radioactive matter to replace it which is where it comes from so please stop using helium balloons and it's a very useful element final statement NASA is the largest users of helium by the way yes we want to say for scientific purposes that's correct yes and alright we're moving forward thank you so much cool Lambo and for your responses panel and then $5 super chat from Tim Pryor thank you so very much Tim if you think NASA is so deceitful then stop using their technology hypocrite we're coming in spicy good point alright thank you so very much Tim and panel and we are moving forward a $5 super chat from Maglin FZ there is a pressure change flat there is a pressure change without a container every time a storm front moves through ding dong it's the same system it's a dynamic system that means the whole volume has a dynamic system inside so those pressure changes are inside the same system you don't need containment between every pressure system inside a system but there is a pressure gradient is there not yeah in one system it's a complete system that system around the thunderstorm the thunderstorm there is no container around that pressure system the thunderstorm is in the same system so you're defining a system as anything with a container around it no if you've got let's say you've got the universe as a box now you've got another box inside it that box is the earth so a weather system isn't a system cycles these weather systems inside oh it's a system it's a weather system it's a system yes earth is a thermodynamic system weather systems is a system thank you that's all I need to hear that's all I need to hear weather system is a system there's a pressure gradient in it phatazoid it was your question so you get the last few seconds I can't help the guy that doesn't understand gas behavior of gas in a closed system creates weather behavior and alright thank you so very much mitchellan for your super chat and both answers panel and then gourdzilla 11 dollar super chat thank you so very much the homeless tweaker shelter let me get this pronunciation right the rhythm that homeless tweaker shelter sent to the moon in 69 to know about whether NASA is deceitful or not sorry mark it ends there for the honest yeah I don't know why it's a you know a homeless tweaker shelter was the best technology we had at the time and certainly I would challenge you to design anything better but of course flat earthers don't actually design anything they don't do anything they basically just you know sit around and claim that the people actually doing things are lying to them for some reason because it doesn't really matter whether the earth is round or flat we would explore it either way I don't even understand why these people are supposedly lying to us there seems to be no reason apart from oh they want to destroy my bible or my religion or things like that or just they want to feel special by having some secret knowledge that nobody else does and sort of pretend that they're more experienced in physics than actual physicists well I hate to burst your bubble you're not and you're wrong thank you so very much Gordzilla for your super chat mark for that response and a ten dollar super chat from earth is life flat zoid why can't the container holding container holding earth's atmosphere be detected by radar we don't know how far it is so how do you know it's even possible to detect it with the radar what it's made out of how far does radar go you tell me you're the one making the claim we can bounce radar signals off the moon and how far are you claiming to be 240,000 miles does that make another this is another debate all on its own well no I can just look it up that's okay and alright while you're doing that we are moving on thank you so very much earth is life and panel for that response and then nominal five dollars for mark what are the independent and dependent variables in your proof of gravity okay so carbon dish experiments you've got basically a weight hanging from a line like a pendulum so the two dependent sorry the independent variables are the weight you've got on the end and the distance to the other weight so distance away from a mass and the mass of the secondary object you can also use the mass of the primary object as well so those two independent variables make the dependent variable the amount of deflection caused by that on that weight towards the other weight so there is the answer to your question can I say something about that first of all you only have one independent variable in hypothesis that causes the dv you can't have three independent variables in one hypothesis that's not true and you have to have the last word and so unless you have something else to say we're moving forward so when you're doing an experiment you can have as many independent variables as you want the thing is and you know that so it doesn't understand science is you only alter one at a time and see the result this is what you do to test the effects of that one independent variable on the dependent variable so while we have multiple independent variables we can alter each one at a separate time in each experiment so we alter, yeah I don't know why you're doing hand signals it doesn't mean anything well that didn't ask for hypothesis did they did they ask for hypothesis you stated multiple IVs in the same well then I misspoke I just mentioned in an experimental situation you can have multiple independent variables wow okay just being so you can alter each of those so yeah and the hypothesis would be if I alter this pendulum weight how does that affect the deflection of that weight hanging there which is the dependent variable or then you can do if I alter the distance through that other thing how does that affect the dependent variable if you alter the weight that it's being attracted to or the stationary weight of the fixed weight how does it alter so you asked for what you asked for and then I've given it and then also how you can actually run this experiment to find out the gravity as real which has been done like millions of times are you muted Amy for some reason have to do that at least once a podcast send in love out there in fact it's a great reminder that you can all get tickets at debatecon 3.1 live in Texas as we are traveling through our Q&A you can travel to Texas or you can just for a single dollar see our stream live are we doing this live is this live it's live a $10 super chat from Madicus Minot Mark is the son of Sloth from Goonies 1980s hey you guys now I want to say I'm sending love out to Madicus we always want to attack the beliefs and not the people we do appreciate all of the love and support that you sent us we'll give like a 4 second air for anyone to respond I'm not sure who knows once I'm not sure what that can go for 22 New Zealand question for Flatsoid do you know that gas molecules have kinetic energy you know that these gas molecules do work against forces like gravity and collisions with other stuff what is the temperature of measure yes gases molecules have kinetic energy but there are elastic collisions so they can only change direction with a collision not gravity thank you so very much and we really want to send all love and support for giving us that amazing super chat and another $10 super chat from earth his life Flatsoid why do the density towers mix while in freefall is it because they require a downward acceleration for the liquids to stay separated good question first of all on your globe it's the earth rising up not the falling so that goes against what you're putting density if everything is falling together at the same rate it's not going to separate because it works on the pressure of the differences of density thank you so very much earth is life and for that explanation flat and then a $5 super chat from Rustaman Flatsoid explain the difference between mass and weight and give the simple equation for weight in terms of pressure doesn't exist very simple you guys believe that pressure for density is pressure equals mass divided by p equals mv okay by volume so that's the pressure but you guys believe that gravity has a constant of g putting it down therefore g constant but that g constant can just be constituted with p because it's just based on pressure going through density that's not pressure it's density equals mass divided by volume yeah p equals mv yeah pressure density is pressure remember it's a compacton of that mass inside of volume to its pressure the more mass in the volume the more pressure and alright thank you for that responses panel and the super chat rustaman but a 220 super chat from Keith man thank you so much one leader of water is displaced solve for buoyant force just replace that g with a p and alright thank you so oh very much no you're good one time it's all yours yeah yeah yeah so pressure is for so about that area um yeah nevermind that's okay I have to hand it over to you flat though for your final statement because the question was yours time is back to you I love how he laughs about it but he cannot provide evidence that it's not the pressure because by definition it is pressure thank you panel for that response and Keith man for your super chat and then another thank you so very much earth of is life a $10 super chat flat so instead of bickering about gas pressure and perspective why not take that flight from Johannesburg to Sydney it's only an 11 hour trip figure that out on flat earth hmm I've got family in person stuff so yeah it doesn't we can fly that same route on a donut if you wanted to it's the earth of donut no thank you so and then it doesn't answer the question if you can do that route on a donut it doesn't make it a donut just like you guys say you can do it so therefore glow it doesn't make it a glow doesn't make it flat either it makes it flat you can't travel like the same amount of time from say Europe to America and Johannesburg to Perth it takes you know the same amount of time I think you are trying to equate to the Gleason's map which is only along the Trudinal and time calculator it's not let the Trudinal and I just want to say 15 more minutes left in the Q&A so if you want to guarantee that your super chat or question burning desire is red please send them in now tag me at Amy Newman I want to continue thanking our interlocutors Flatzoid and Mark Reid their links of which are in the description below however another $5 super chat thank you so very much nominal if 95% of the universe is made up of unicorn farts then spacetime is bending those farts Einstein the avatar the far tender perhaps it's a good one I do believe that is for you Mark and they did have question marks at the end and so if 95% of the universe is made up of unicorn farts then spacetime is bending those farts question mark Einstein the avatar yeah no I don't believe that unicorn farts exist but I don't believe that a magic man created the universe either so these are things you would have to demonstrate are actually true which unfortunately you know Flatzoid and the rest of this ilk cannot seem to do they just assert it under a faith belief and thank you so very much do you have something to say alright sorry just like gas pressure like containment so back to and alright exactly Mark final word yeah so this whole idea is sort of to take what I said about the origin of the universe and say hey if unicorn farts have mass as gas has mass and which my interlocutor has acknowledged already then gravity has an influence on it now calculations show that in fact the weird part is that he said p was m divided by b but if weight is mass times gravity times pressure how does that equation work it doesn't work so you know if unicorn farts have mass then yeah gravity has an effect on it because you know weight is gravity times mass thank you so very much nominal for what are you doing there are you saying you're going to punch somebody or something are you going pressure weight is pressure on the scale yeah this this is a debate not like a dance off kind of things I don't know what you're doing down there I'm just showing it's pressure five dollars super chat and thank you Samar five dollars super chat from Farron Salas thank you for all the love and support Farron ten thousand dollar flat earth sextant challenge still up for grabs fluffers should be easy to collect if celestial navigation on a flat earth model exists would be a challenge if it wasn't just a strawman from his opening statements thank you so very much Farron for all the love and support and then thank you flat for your response and then two dollars super chat from Ethan W zero four zero six mark of the beast prove to us you're wearing pants right now actually it's based at the mark thank you thank you very much yeah okay so I am definitely wearing pants love the shirt by the way yeah I got it from I love this shirt see ladies and gentlemen modern day debate we are here making connections and I'm sending love to Farron and Ethan Magellan five dollar super chat flat says the dome is too far for radar and then when asked how far radar can see if he doesn't know this is typical fluff dishonesty no it's simple we don't know how far it is or what it's made out of as simple as that we don't have to back up any claim that we haven't made the positive claim comes from the globe side with distances not us it's just like when you take a go to restaurant and you order a steak do you know to know the cows original where it came from you know there was a cow I mean the cow didn't exist just because you don't see the cow thank you so very much Magellan and for that response flatzoid and then another super chat five dollar fifty cents from keithman nice dodge flatzoid try again if a rock displaces one liter of water calculate the buoyant force on the rock using Archmedes principle with pressure coming after you flat one liter of the splash there one liter whatever alright thank you so very thank you so very much keithman and for that response flatzoid and we are moving down to Congo for five dollars fifty cents again thank you so very much question for flatzoid why is it harder to carry a weight up a slope or upstairs than a long a flat surface easy you disperse more energy and alright thank you so very much keithman and Congo another super chat from Magellan flat density and pressure are not the same when a gas is heated it goes up and its density decreases alright thank you so very much Magellan in fact thank you all of you guys for your continued support and for that response and then a ten dollar super chat from Samir Samar sending so much love flatzoid let's say we renounce the current working scientific model do you guys have an alternative model to move cars fly planes light light bulbs something we could use or should we live in caves until you do first of all it's not scientific the globe is based in pseudoscience I have not yet seen yeah Mark and priori once this would be a challenge to you Mark give me a scientific hypothesis for your global use just because we have an explanation of gravity doesn't mean gravity it just means there is some kind of natural tendency what matter doesn't make it gravity looks like it's caves for everyone and then flat you have the final word yeah if Mark wants to live in a cave that's his problem technology is not science by the way it's from science thank you so very much Samir and for your responses panel and then another $10 super chat from nominal thank you so very much you claim Mark you claim that cavendosh proves mass attracts mass but then claim that gravity is the bending of space time is there an experiment that proves the bending of the time yeah well Einstein proved that when he made testable predictions on how light would be deflected by certain masses like he predicted how light would be deflected by the sun for instance and it's twice the deflection what you get under Newtonian physics so there is definitely testable high predictions that were done by Einstein's equations that allowed us to know that he was in fact correct with cavendish I'm not sure because the gravitational attraction is caused by the bending of space time so I'm not saying it's two different things like one is mass attracting mass and the other is bending of space time I'm saying that the bending of space time is what causes mass to attract mass so I'm not I'm not saying it's one thing or the other I'm saying it's the same thing can I just give one thing anything first did you know cavendish is not an experiment and it's talk it's just based on talk it's the oscillations cavendish is not an experiment that's done experimentally all the time yeah that's great so it's called the cavendish experiment but it's not an experiment it's just it's a demonstration of talk yeah no it's not don't give me your conspiracy theory stuff this is wild conspiracy theory the cavendish experiment is an experiment it's a famous experiment it's one that's repeated in physics classes all the time and just because some sort of person who is conspiracy theorist says no that's not an experiment doesn't mean it's not an experiment it is can you give me any kind of citation for it not being you just asked him a question any kind of you know scientist that says it's not an experiment so the floor is yours flat but then mark is going to have the final word the dog from the cavendish is torsion it's based on the talk from the torsion twist that's mechanics of demonstrating mechanics of torsion wow wow so he has no idea what he's talking about the cavendish experiment is an experiment he hasn't actually said how he knows this he's just given a wrong answer about how the actual experiment works look it up look up the experiment and see is mechanical torsion or whether it is gravity like just don't believe a flat earth when they say hey that's not an experiment go for it alright we have about 5 more minutes so this is going to be the last few super chats and then we are going to head out because we respect our interlocking time but it has been a fantastic debate someone even say oh my god and so a $22 super chat from bearsworth mark when you shave your head do you just save the sides in the back um no why I don't understand what that's got to do with anything but sure in fairness I'm also receiving very bad so well just accept it and shave you know that's what I say you know actually my hair was burnt off with the incredible amount of calculations my brain does no I'm joking I'm so joking seriously and alright thank you so very much for the super chat bearsworth and then your responses panel and then a $5 super chat from coolambo again thank you so very much what is the mechanism that NASA causes the earth to be a closed system who's that for that is for you flat oh what is the mechanism that causes it to a closed system they claim the heliocentric belief is that it's an open system yet they claim earth to be a closed system which contradicts the thermodynamic definitions of a system I don't need to show any mechanics about it because it's not me contradicting what a thermodynamic system is it's NASA well it's an open system because you know certain amount of gas escapes and also the sun has to come in so that it can't be a closed system because it's coming from the outside yeah energy goes through a closed system in and out matter can only stay in the system or outside the system it gets closed and alright thank you so very much for your responses and your support coolambo and then a $20 thank you so much from yadian flatzoid why do you think the vera asano is a tension bridge did NASA say so there is only bridge it's got nothing to do with NASA and yes it's a tension bridge that's how the mechanics of the tension bridge works thank you so very much for your support yadian it really does help the channel grow and get even more amazing debates and with that we're going to nominal mark reid I'll take that as a no thanks no one for one I'll try and go back up to nominal you shave your head on your sides in the back I think it's about that well it was also about the cavendish proves mass but then the the question I was asked about cavendish was that it was too independent and the dependent variables so I don't know what you'd take as a no do you mean amy amy you had to do it twice just to be lucky you claim the cavendish proves mass attracts mass but then claim that gravity is bending in the face time is there an experiment that proves the bending of time yeah I gave I gave Einstein's equations testable predictions alright thank you so very much nominal and thank you so much mark reid for your response and then a 550 congo super chat flatzoid the fact that you're doing a live debate debunks your entire position I don't know how ok thank you for the super chat I guess we have a 550 and thank you congo 550 super chat from keithman flatzoid here's a hint a pressure is measured in Pascal's same question one liter of wooder displaced by a rock find the boring force using pressure sorry I'm not going to do the met no boss not you don't know is it my turn to talk or not he can send it all he wants to I don't need to do anything remember you haven't provided gas pressure without containment for us ok so where can I go to find a gas like an uncontained system you can't because we're in a contained system exactly so you're basically asking me to show something where I can't get you're basically setting it up so I can't get to an uncontained system basically it's a dodge it's just basically saying hey we're not an uncontained system you can't prove it because you can't go anywhere that there's anything that I show you'll say it's a contained system so a weather system you're like it's a contained system and all right and all right this is a dishonesty there is a single question and then we are heading out the last super chat of the night I appreciate if any other super chats come in but we just appreciate our interlocutors time for coming on and so Madicus Minot for $5 says both flat and round can work I believe more with simulation whoever wants to go first I will hit your timer but I could talk for ages on hard solipsism simulation theory and things like that I think though it's interesting to talk about although being unfalsifiable maybe we will be able to falsify or confirm it to be true in the future but I think that everything we gather is from the prune simulation so it's impossible to tell at the moment maybe we'll find out don't know and all right the floor is yours flat for the last statement of the night okay yeah if he wants to believe in it I would like to see the observations to present it but yeah everybody has their own belief and opinions on how we see everything I mean I think Mark would appear on this it would be boring life if we all believed exactly the same thing so yeah thank you so very much and with that I want to thank both our interlocutors Flatzoid and Mark Reed for coming on tonight I want to also send love all the people out there like sideshow working behind the scenes our fantastic mods keeping things so pretty and most importantly you our audience for joining us on modern day debate we are a neutral non-partisan platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life if you're looking for even more fantastic debates we are all over the internet including your favorite podcasting platform like Apple, Spotify or Google Podcasts so if you enjoy debates well why not look at the bottom right of your screen because you can see that debate con is coming on Saturday April 22nd in Fort Worth tickets are in the description box below along with all of our interlocutors links and if you just have a dollar and you can't quite make it over there you can get a live stream feed right to your door less than a cup and coffee ladies and gentlemen and if you enjoy the show please don't forget to like, follow and subscribe maybe even share it helps us reach a wider audience including tonight's debate on Is NASA Defeatful with our debaters Marguerite and Flatzoid who are here to help us find that answer furthermore like I said if you like what any of our guests have said tonight their links are right there in the description box below finally if you're looking for even more fun in the sun the after show on the MDD discord is also throwing after parties and fun on the topic right down there as well in the description with that I am Amy Newman with modern day debate and we hope you continue having great conversations discussions and debates good night bye