Hey everybody, today we're meeting Flatters vs Globerth and we're starting right now. With the Globeside team, thanks so much for being with us, Snake was right and Word of the Wild, the floor is all yours.  Alright, so I run a channel that's basically, it's called Snake was right and it focuses on skepticism, debunking stuff and mostly just critical thinking skills and source methods. So epistemology, how you know things, I cover whatever topic I feel like in the day but tends to be more religiously oriented topics and yeah. You're just doing introductions here. Actually, you're opening statements. So this would be your chance to, you got your 12 minutes split between the two of you. Okay, let me, okay, so yeah today we're going to be debating the Flat Earth and basically from my understanding, Flat Earthers kind of arrive at their conclusion based on they don't understand how things like how to how to water and Australians just how do they not just fall off the co-bottom of the sphere and how a globe can spin and fly through space at high speeds without throwing us off, how air doesn't escape the vicinity of the globe and combined with not understanding like basic forces, they're, they don't understand the globe model. So they and then Flat Earthers makes more sense to them. Their intuition just tells them things just move down. And I guess I'll get to them, the real physics is not intuitive. So but this doesn't change the facts that gravity will always form balls of masses the size of the earth and air pressures possible without containers, things like that. And because of the Dunning-Kruger effect and misunderstandings of facts are more likely to induce extreme confidence in the mistakes. And thus Flat Earth also brings a sense of pride and superiority, but it has this crippling reliance on a vast global conspiracy to cover up the true shape of the earth because of all the scientific consensus towards the otherwise. I don't understand this conspiracy theory. There's no gain from covering up the shape of the earth, nor is there a means to do so, even though it's completely reliant on it. So the amount of coastline that would be need to patrol and stop exploration is greater than all the continents on the earth, except for Antarctica.  Our government can't cover up basic material facts. The politicians have stuff leaked about them all the time that are much more personally damaging, but somehow they've covered up the shape of the earth for hundreds of years with no leaks, but no comparable security on their own personal information. The closest Flat Earthers have to admissions of this are just quote minds from people like NASA. I'm sure everyone's heard that NASA says everything has to be composited while it's not true. First of all, the composites aren't fake pictures. It's kind of how your panoramic camera on your phone works. It just puts multiple camera, multiple images together in one. And second of all, there are full earth pictures. And the only compositing that needs to be done on those sometimes is just color correction. The shapes and features are all unedited.  And you can't fake those because they're constantly updating the weather patterns so you could easily debunk them at any time by going to some random place on the globe and comparing the weather patterns. And it's not possible to fake because you would have to have literally hundreds of thousands of data points photoshopped every five or 10 minutes for multiple different satellites. So again, you have to rely on a ridiculous conspiracy theory to explain that way. There's also no flat earth model. All they have is undercutting arguments against the globe earth. They have no rebutting arguments or positive evidence of the flat earth or flat earth model. And I'm going to go through a couple of just basic everyday proofs of the globe earth. Flat earth or jarenism proved the curve with his famous experiment where the outcome he said would prove the globe earth occurred in his experiment. And the other flat earthers have measured the rotation of the earth with laser gyroscopes. Cavendish experiment proves gravity is an attraction of mass. Anyone can do this over a weekend. The way stars spin, the way stars are visible only in certain parts of the globe and the way they spin is only possible on a spinning globe. It's not possible on a flat plane. Lunar eclipses show the shadow of the earth. The ISS has uncut footage of weightlessness longer than weightliness lists can be faked on earth. Lake Pontchartrain has a bridge that's built to be curved over curving water and it's visible and both that lake and other salt flats show curvature. And time zones, time zones themselves prove that the earth is not flat because you can't have a square or a rectangular projection of light from a spherical light source. You would have to have a lampshade over the sun. And so it's not possible to have a flat earth model because, one, they don't really know how and two, it's just a game of whack-a-mole. So if you adjust the parameters to explain the shape of the earth, you end up distorting the parameters of individual continents. Like Australia becomes the width of Eurasia and the coastline of Antarctica becomes the entire rim of the earth, which is, again, longer than all of the coastlines combined. And flights that take the same time at the same speed in the same direction all of a sudden are going twice as far as in the southern hemisphere, in the southern hemisphere. The sun would have to move up and down in latitude for some unknown unpredictable reason and change speed and route for different unknown unpredictable reason to spin around either pole. And being in the atmosphere, you could go visit the sun, but of course, no flat earth through where the pilot's license will bother. Not to mention the moon, same thing, but it needs a completely different mechanism to explain its completely different procession through the sky. And we can visit it, but no one will bother. And that's still not addressing the fact that the sun and moon physically disappear below the horizon, which is not possible on flat earth. There's hypothetical electromagnetic explanation of gravity that pulls all objects, including lighter than air objects. And this contradicts the electromagnetic anti-gravity that holds up the stars and the sun and the moon that somehow doesn't pull or repel other objects. And if it's a lot of electromagnetic, it would destroy computers as it somehow moved under the ground at hundreds of miles per hour. So flat earth creates 10 more problems with every so-called solution. You can't put all of the things that they claim in the same model because they contradict each other. The globe model substantiates all of this with just one model and one explanation. And nothing suddenly changes patterns for no reasons. It's all predictable and explained with gravity. There's no globe takes fewer assertions and no assumptions. So Occam's razor points towards the globe. We have all the scientists, all the math in the world, videos, photographs of every angle, people who went to space, video from space to space and in space, on the ground and in space. And we have models which account for everything in the flat earth. There's remained skeptical. But if you need to patch up the whole on the flat earth attempt to the model, they just use conjecture to come up with things like electromagnetic wakes as the cause of hurricanes. And every flat earth are instantly accepted, hook, line, and seeker without so much as a single demonstration or experiment or even a mechanistic model, even a theoretical one or a hypothetical one. So it's a double standard or selective skepticism, if you will. And despite all of this direct evidence that you could do in your own backyard, I'm going to start this debate by completely throwing out my belief in the globe. And I want to try and collaboratively build a case for what we know about the earth from the ground up using only fundamental premises that we can all agree upon. And then if we can even do that, we'll see how many of my claims hold up to that. So thank you. You got it. And word of the wild, you do have a bit of time left if you had anything to add. You've got about four minutes. One minute. OK, well, mine's Jonathan Finley. I was a pastor at a Calvary Chapel for almost a decade. I'm a father of three. Married to my amazing wife for almost 13 years. I'm a hobbyist homesteader. Me and Nathan doing some farm work today, not together, but separately. I've been a Gandendorf main since Melee and the boring stuff. I work as an electrician every day. But for this debate, here's my opening thing here. I wanted to offer an alternative conspiracy theory. So I want to admit and then agree with my opponents that NASA and the government, and most, if not all, of our civic overlords don't have our best interests in mind. Many, if not all of them, are deceitful, corrupt, full of lies. And I agree with most of my flat earth friends that the world we live in is a hostile and scary place thanks to the tyrants who lord over us. But it's also a wonderful and awe-striking world in spite of them.  And we can't always trust what comes down from above in the media or otherwise.  But where we're going to disagree is the nature of these deceptions.  They're just more educated versions of us. They have hobbies, families, sicknesses. They poop. They cry. They make mistakes. They're humans. They're our brothers and sisters. Even the NASA hygenomy, they too are people, I guess. But we know what happens when money gets involved. Rapacity has no bounds. When I was a pastor, I would find myself, like as I'd get more prestige and access to money, find myself saying, well, that's kind of a church thing. And then I'd just buy myself some music gadget or something. And that was just the beginning of a long, what could have been a long string of corruption. And NASA is not, they're no exception to this. They're corrupt just like any other for-profit business. They deal in making money. And the best way to make money is to make good products that work and convince the world that they need your products. So let's see. I'm convinced that the only conspiracy going on at NASA or the White House or whatever is a conspiracy of consumption. They have convinced us that they are for our future. They're for the humanity of future, all of humanity's future, and then our future's in the stars and it can take us there. But I'm not convinced of this at all. I believe that God, the Earth, whatever brought us into existence and put us on this planet and our fate is linked with it. NASA wants to convince us that the way forward is investing more money and technology without a thought to the environment and the poor people and other creatures that suffer from the extraction of resources and the ravaging of land and cultures and the weight of its progress. But humans are very good at making things that work and making money and thwarting nature at every turn. I have about 30 seconds left and I'll just say I don't think that I think that if you just understand that there's no limit to the human ingenuity, but also it's avarice. So I want to agree with you that NASA probably is corrupt and they probably lie to us, but not in the way that we think. I think it's a whole nother ball game. And my challenge is that we all trust to the science at some point. We all trust different sciences, but where's the line? Where's the line? And I'll stop there. You got to thank you very much gentlemen and want to let you know folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. We're thrilled to have you here. And hey, my dear friends, we are absolutely excited at the bottom right of your screen. That's right, a week from today, T-Jump will be in a brand new debate as it's been almost a month since we've had Tom. Good old Flat Earth Debate. So do hit that subscribe button if you haven't already as we have many more juicy debates coming up. And so with that, we're gonna kick it over to our Flat Earth friends. Thanks so much, Nathan and Davey, the floor is all yours for your opening. All right, so you guys, Flat Earth is not a belief. A belief is something that you just accept without having information. To know something is that you have information. One, okay, so first of all, Taylor is saying that we don't have a model. I have a link right here to NASA's website saying a model frequently used is that of a flat and non-rotating Earth. So you're wrong there, that one's out. And then the next thing is that we don't live on a model. So what these ballers, they wanna do is they wanna reify a model into existence. I'm not standing on a model. I'm standing in the real and physical world. I can see, this is the number one globe debunk. I can see a sunset at a six foot height from one Hawaiian Island to another. And if the Earth were a ball with a 39, 59 mile radius, this is like too funny. You would see obstruction because the sun is supposedly the center of the solar system. So here's the sun, here's the Earth. Supposedly they're spinning backwards, right? So when I stand with a six foot observer height on the ocean, and I could see the sunset past Kauai, which you could see the island, and it's 108 miles away, the sun obstruction should actually be at three miles. Here's the map. Anybody can get their iPhones and do this. It's 1.23 miles times the square root of six. That's gonna give you the top of the ball. The top of the ball is what's supposed to be causing obstruction. But in reality, not in a model, we already won with sunsets. It's a done deal. The sun isn't being obstructed at 108 miles where I could see Kauai from the tip of Oahu. It's hiding behind the horizon way further. Globe debunked. Do I even have to bring up the fact that globe versus flat went to court in the state of Georgia in 2019? And guess who won? Flat Earth won by a landslide. Not once, twice. The reason is, is the baller could not provide actual evidence of curvature. The one I just debunked, that's why we went in court. So as far as this being a debate, the debate's over. NASA uses flat earth models. You can see a 9,000 kilometers squared area in the Bolivian salt flats. And guess what? It's all flat. By an Oxford scientist, he measured it. And from east to west, 100 mile distance, sorry, 100 kilometers, there's under one meter of vertical drop. If the earth were a ball, okay, and your model was the thing, there would be about 781 meters of vertical drop. But there isn't. There's only about three feet. Globe debunked right there again. Flights. We've interviewed pilots and they all say that their altitude meter tells them that they're going straight. Why are they going straight? Well, go ahead and read any pilots manual or any NASA manual talking about oscillations and flights. They all have to assume that their earth is flat. Why? Because if the airplane at 35,000 feet in altitude is going, like at a cruising speed of 500 miles an hour, you should be dipping down 2700 feet per minute. When I'm on a plane, I know I'm going straight, okay? When I'm going down, I could feel it. When I'm going to the side, like you can feel that in your body. Everybody would feel it, but we don't. Why? Because planes, they fly slightly with their nose up, but they go straight over a flat bed of water. I do it all the time from the mainland to Hawaii. It's all flat. Every pilot that I've asked, I go, do you guys dip down? No. Well, you should have to since you're going over a ball and they're like, huh, that's weird. Yep, that's globe debunker right there with flights. Another one is all laws of physics state that you can't have gas pressure without a container. Gas molecules go up as well. That's why we have carbon cycles. Well, guess what? Those gas molecules require a container to bounce off of. They can't get out of this one. I've heard everything from hydrostatic equilibrium to gravity, which is nothing. By the way, there's two gravities. And if these guys don't know the two gravities, this is going to be easy for Nathan and I. Nathan and I know your guys' models. We know all the gravities better than you guys do. We can actually do math, do actual measurements, but you guys don't do any of that. Okay. So basically gravity is the new gravity because it got debunked. What's his name? Newton's gravity got debunked by Einstein. He superseded it with the bending of space time. If anybody goes to a dictionary and they look up space time, this is what it means. A concept of four-way math model. You know what a concept is? You know what a math model is? Nothing. It's just some equations written on a board and say, all right, this is gravity. This has been doing why gravity is nothing. Space time is an idea. You can't bend an idea and cause all of this stuff to just, well, it's just gravity. The new one is the universe is the container, which is so... Listen, they call it the vacuum of space, but then they're saying it's a container. Vacuums are not containers. They're an available volume for our gas to fill. But guess why we have cycles and gas molecules actually go up debunking gravity, gravity debunked. They have to come back down because they're bouncing off of a container. The sky is not a vacuum, people. Outer space is a big fairy tale. You can never measure curvature in reality, which is why the Glober lost in court. You can look it up. It's Thompson versus Zen Garcia, state of Georgia. He couldn't provide curvature. This guy's talking about we have photos from space. The only volume you have, the only space is from here to the gas pressure container. Anything claimed to be taken from outer space is 100% fake. Sunsets debunk the globe. I'm done. Oh, Nathan, you're on mute. I'll just get right into it. Thanks, James, for having me. My opponents and my teammate, thanks for being here. Everyone in the chat, go ahead and share this. With anyone you know that has eyes to see and ears to hear because the truth will be so prevalent in this debate, it's gonna smack these guys right in the face. They're gonna be stuttering, bumbling by the end of this. So I used to run a YouTube that got deleted because obviously sharing flat earth with people in the streets isn't allowed on YouTube. I used to run a Facebook group with 150,000 people. We didn't allow cursing and we didn't allow insults. No one was allowed to post anything not related to the shape of the earth and where we live. That got deleted too, because you can't run groups talking about the shape of the earth that don't allow cursing and don't allow insults. I guess it's just not allowed on Facebook. So I have an Instagram, the globe is flat. The globe is flat. My email is flatearthflyers at gmail.com. To everyone in the chat, eight and on me. Don't even pay attention to those guys. They've been following me for four or five years now. They are so boring.  Rejoice for great is your reward in heaven. That's what I'm here to do today is store some treasure. In heaven, Davey asked me to be his partner for the debate. Thanks Davey, appreciate it. So I'll try not to let you down. Also, dogs don't bark at parked cars.  All right, let's get into the flat earth. Truth is incontrovertible. Malice will attack it. Ignorance will try and deride it. But in the end, there it is. So an honest man, when proven to be wrong must either admit he is wrong or he no longer remains to be an honest man. And I've debated NASA employees. I've debated land surveyors, PhD astrophysicists, McWest in the flesh, live in Vegas, Metabunk. He couldn't prove earth curb. And he went against what Neil deGrasse Tyson said. He said, you could see it from 40,000 feet. Well, Neil deGrasse Tyson, six million followers on Twitter, the most famous PhD astrophysicist in the world, says you can't see the curve of the earth from 120,000 feet, which is three times that height, Metabunk. So, sorry guys, that I don't even know why you guys are here debating. You have like no qualifications. You didn't test earth. I'm gonna get into what you talked about. But first let's do some contradictions with the globe model. First of all, we see way too far. There is no curve. Fluid static state that when a body of water is at rest, the surface is level and horizontal to its container. So, level and horizontal, flat, smooth, flush. I mean, those are all synonyms, but sea level means sea flat, ladies and gentlemen. Also the Chicago skyline, they said you're seeing a mirage when it has no properties of a mirage. You could just see the skyline. And I've done that. I did that test, my observation. You could see it. We also rented a helicopter. You could see the entire Chicago skyline from Kenosha, Illinois, which was approximately 55 miles away. Bar Day at Friends is the world record photograph. These people aren't even trying to debunk the globe. They're just trying to take really, really far pictures with their camera and they're competing with each other. They don't even know they're debunking the globe. 270 miles, this guy saw it. And I've heard Glober say, well, you can't see it every day. What is the earth changing size? And sometimes it's curved and sometimes it's really flat. I mean, what are you guys talking about? Then you've got the black swan, which falsifies the radius value for the earth, which is tied to earth spin. It's tied to gravity. It's tied to everything. So we falsified everything on the globe model with the black swan. Neil deGrasse Tyson, like I said, admits it's flat from 120,000 feet. So no civilian has ever seen the curve of the earth because none of you guys are going above 120,000 feet. That was the Red Bull space jump. He went to space and couldn't see the curve of the earth. Astronauts say the earth is flat from low earth orbit. You don't see a globe. Holy moly. Astroarchaeology, they've been building giant megalithic structures and lining them up with the sky map, the sky clock. For thousands of years, the pyramids, Stonehenge, the Georgia guide stones. I was just there. I did an observation. All the stars rotated one on one whole. That doesn't work on your spinning monkey ball blasting through an infinite universe at 1.5 million miles an hour.  Also, you have lunar eclipses. The shadow changes direction. Well, also shadows are, which would mean earth would have to change direction, which is why I mentioned that. Sometimes globes can't put two and two together. You gotta really lay things out for them. Also shadows are black, not glowing red. A lunar eclipse is glowing red. And if you say, refraction.  You don't know what it's gonna be like in three years. You don't know what it's gonna be like in three days. So don't give me that. NASA admits they use a sauro cycle to predict eclipses. That's a flat earth cycle. The sky is a map and they clock. It's repeatable. That's why we have constellations. That's why we have Polaris. That's why we have star trails. So you can't ask me anything, including the word Polaris. You can't ask me anything, including the word eclipses. You can't ask me anything, including the word star trails. You can't ask me anything about the sky because we're here to talk about the floor and how it doesn't occur, which I already talked about. Also, not government documents. Like my friend mentioned here, NASA uses a flat, non-rotating earth. The FAA uses a flat, non-rotating earth. When they're training pilots on the target generation facility, the Air Force, the Army all have documents saying we are assuming a flat, non-rotating earth. Hello. And then NASA bloopers. I mean, Homie said they're there to make money and they produce a good product. Sorry, bro. No, they don't. There's harnesses. Green screens. Oh, I didn't even get any snakes there. I was just just, man. All right, no worries. We can do that in the back and forth. I got it all written down. But yeah, there's no proof or it's a globe. I wish it was. I don't want to be a flat earther. To be honest, it comes with a lot of ostracism and ridicule that I don't need in my life, but I'll stand up for it because it's the truth. Truth is incontrovertible. Stand up for the truth. Share the video if you guys are enjoying it so far. It's gonna get better. Love you guys. Go ahead, James. Thank you very much for that opening as well and want to let you know as well, folks. Exciting stuff as we are very excited. Is Islam true? That is coming up in just a couple of weeks. Apostate prophet, we'll be taking on. Doctor, I think I'm pronouncing it right, Majid. It's going to be absolutely epic. We're pumped about that one. With that, we're gonna jump into open conversation. And so thank you all, gentlemen. Also want to mention, folks, all of these guests are linked in the description right now. If you want to check out their links, we encourage it as we really do appreciate our guests. The floor is all yours, guys. So do you not understand why models are used in science? Snake, I want to go over all your globe proofs. I asked a question. No, it's on a model. Okay, I didn't know you had a floor. So that's why I asked the question. That's why I asked the question. Do you not understand why we use them?  Okay. Hold on, hold on.  Yeah. Okay, give me the two. I'm a cell biologist. Okay, so, okay. So are you gonna answer the question? We don't live on a model. Do you understand why we use models in science? Do you live on that globe right there that you have in your house? Do you live on it? No, we don't. Models are concepts. They're abstract. They're not real. They don't need them. They're not here to talk about what's real. Not what I asked. They don't understand it. Dude, I was a glober for 30 years. I thought Earth was a globe for 30 years. So if you're- By the way, guys, his whole opening and anything about the globe. Not what I asked. His whole opening is you don't understand- Can you answer the question? That's an ad hominem attack and a logical fallacy.  They do that to attack the person because they lack evidence. That's what it means. I didn't attack you. Can you answer the question? You did. You said you don't understand. You don't understand. Hold on, gentlemen. Given that there's a tug of war going on, I do wanna give Word of the Wild a chance to reset us. So Word of the Wild, any argument that you wanna touch on will let you redirect it since there's kind of a tug of war so far in terms of those who have already engaged. Go ahead, Word of the Wild. Let me ask Waters' level something since he's gotta go here pretty soon. I notice, I don't understand why people who are globe skeptics, they will try to use measurements to disprove the globe. Like why don't you just throw out all measurements? Like how come you'll accept some measurements and some methods of gaining measurements and then dismiss others? I just gave you a sunset that's supposed to be obstructed at three miles in front of me. Why is it not being obstructed until a hundred or 200 months ago? I know, I'm saying I don't- That's an actual measurement. I say I don't know how the science works and you don't either. Yes, I do. What are you talking about? I don't either. I just gave you an actual measurement and you're saying you don't understand science. You use models selectively when it works for you. Do you know why models are used? We don't live on a model. That's a re-efficacy. That's not my question. I didn't ask you if we lived on a model. I didn't ask you if we lived on a model. I live in reality. Here in reality on this physical Earth, I can prove that it's not a globe. Good thing I didn't ask that. I asked you why we use them. All right, I don't need to use models to prove that they're Earth. I don't even have to- No, my question. Reversal fallacy. I don't need to prove that the Earth is flat. The Earth is freaking flat. Look at it. Right there, you should see vertical drop, but you don't. That's the ocean right here. So you can't answer the question. No, I don't live on a model. I don't debate models. I debate reality. Measurements, science. You just start to criticize the model. Models are not reality. Let me say this to everybody once again because this guy does not understand. His brain is not processing this information. Models are a reification fallacy. You're not gonna take me to your little model so that I can experience it. That's why models are nothing. I can make- Yeah, so you don't understand why we use models.  You can do anything with models. So you don't understand why we would say- If you add harmony in- Represent, you don't understand. That's not ad hominem. You're refusing to let me speak or let me ask a question. You're refusing to answer the question. So you don't understand why we would say a model in 3D, a protein structure to understand how it's working, right? That's the red herring fallacy because you're moving away from the topic at hand. That's another logic. No, the topic is models, why we use models in science. So you don't understand that. We don't live on a model so you can scrap your model. We can scrap the flutter's model. All we have to do is use reality. Yeah, so you don't understand that models, they represent reality. Yeah, but they're not reality, right? You know, you can calculate and predict things with models, right? Well, why didn't your model, why not? I can't you answer my question. Why? Why can't you answer my question? Your model doesn't work. Why can't you answer my question? The sunset does not happen three miles in front of me. Why can't you answer the question? Your model is debunked right there. You're just- No, because the sun is not at the level of the horizon. So you don't even understand the model. Sorry, Nathan has something to say. You don't live on a model. Who cares about your model? You don't use it selectively.  Do you live on a model? We can model what we live on. That's the point of them. Answer me this. Do you live on a globe model? No, but we can model a globe. We're trying to prove the earth. So you don't understand. So you don't understand why scientists use models. Okay. If this guy wants to talk about models, he's not talking about a globe or a flat earth. He's talking about something that somebody made and said, this is where you live. He believes that he lives on a model. He's trying to say that a reification fallacy is not a reification fallacy. No, because models predict things in the real world. No models don't predict, people predict. With models.  Let me just read it here from their alma mater, a Wikipedia. So you don't understand why models are used in reality. Can we move on? You don't live on a model science. Your globe is debunked. Yeah, but we use models. So you don't understand why. We're talking about the floor, bro. Scientists use models. Reality. You don't even understand that basic premise of science. You don't understand. That's because you lack evidence.  Get out of here with your little model argument. It's nothing. It's nothing. We're talking about the earth, the floor that you stand on. No, we're talking about the scientific method. Oh, the scientific method. Okay, go ahead. Give it to me. Give me your scientific method for your model. Scientific method is using hypotheses or models. Give me your scientific method for your model. Go ahead, let's do this. The scientific method for the globe model? You're saying it's science. You're saying a model is science. Go ahead and give me the science. Models are part of science. Okay, so go ahead. So I started off asking you why we use models and we use models because they make predictions of reality. People predict. And they help us do anything. Models don't do anything. Models are tools that people use to predict. I don't know why this is so weird for you. Yeah, because you want the model so bad. And I'm saying, no, the globe Earth is the bug using reality, so you have to have that model. Right, so you understand when it's convenient how to use a model. Go ahead. But not when the model... Let me ask Waters Little something. So if I'm in my car and I feel like everything's working in the car, the car, the engine should turn over and it doesn't, does that mean the car is broken or maybe I just don't understand how cars work? It's called flat versus globe. We're not talking about cars. We're not talking about cells. We're not talking about anything. But we're talking about conceiving things and how we understand things. Cause I'm saying it could be that you're seeing the sun, it looks too high, it possibly... Could it possibly be that you and I just don't understand how these things really work? Oh, I understand. If you have a globe with a 39, 59 mile radius, like your model says, the sun should be obstructed only three miles in front of me, but it doesn't happen in reality in your model. Sure, models can do whatever you want. In reality, sunsets debunk, debunk the globe. I just told you how to do it. Anybody can do it. Anybody can get a calculator and see. That's a straw man fallacy. That's not the globe model. 39, 59 mile radius is not the globe model. Yeah, the sun's not on the horizon. So, no. The sun is the center of your solar. Only if the sun was on the horizon would your straw man work. He's actually right about that, Davey, but you can see an island 100 miles away, Taylor. You forgot that part of the observation. Islands go above the horizon. Did you know that? Yeah, but it should be obstructed by downward drop. Cause if you live on a ball, the earth would drop vertically in all directions, tangent to your feet. You know that, right? Uh, I don't know what you just said. The earth, if we live on a ball, all right, I'll try saying it again. Could you not interrupt me this time? I didn't. If you live on a ball, 39, 59 mile radius, the earth would drop down in all directions, kind of like this one does in all directions, tangent to your feet. Okay. So what he's saying is that you can see an island 100 miles away on the horizon, when the horizon should be three miles out. Now you have other problems like oil platforms that are nine miles out and the horizon, the water level is behind those when it's one foot observer height. So we falsified the globe model. Now, do you understand that falsification is independent of replacement?  No, the horizon is at horizon. I said the horizon was past the oil platforms. The horizon was not one mile out. It's past oil platforms that are nine miles out. The horizon is not one mile out. Is the horizon the geometric edge of the earth or no? It's the geometric edge of your field of view. Is it the edge of the ball where it curves down or no? Oh, it is. Okay, well we falsified that. From your point of view. So we falsified that because according to the math, pay attention, the earth should curve in all directions and the horizon would be 1.225 times the square root of the observer's height and feet. Davey covered that in the intro. I don't know if you should have been taking notes or something, but we already went over this, Snake. Your model's been debunked. It hasn't because you're making straw man in the model. You're assuming all the variables are at the same height. Hold on. I'm gonna show you your math. It's not a straw man, bro. Hold on. Let me just explain to everybody how a sunset debunks the globe. Hold on. If this is the earth and you're spinning backwards and my head is the sun, that curve, that obstruction of three miles, that's where the sun should be obstructed. But guess what? It happens way further than that. The sun is supposed to be the center of your solar system, right? Aren't you going like this? Spinning backwards at 1,000 miles per hour, right? We don't see that in nature. We don't see that in reality. Globe debunked using sunsets. I don't know how much more I have to promise. This is the problem with straw man. What do you mean? I'm using your radius. I'm using your math. I'm literally quoting. Let me get this for you. Guy doesn't understand what he's talking about. A straw man. This is your freaking model. You're using it incorrectly. All right, while you look at it, maybe two. Hold on. How am I using it incorrectly? Go ahead. Because you're assuming everything at the same elevation. The sun.  An airplane past three miles shouldn't be obstructed at six feet, okay? Because it's above the ground. You'd have to make an observation at sea level. A good one, it's the black swan because it is observing the horizon. You're using the horizon to debunk the horizon. Now, could you say how that's a straw man, Snake? That's totally fine with me. Okay, great. Well, we falsified your model. Is falsification independent of replacement? How would you falsify the model? Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. Is he just agreed with me? Retard. He just agreed with me. I gotta go soon. I'll go. I'm not going to put it at third time for you. But we're not going to do the name calling just to be clear. And the other thing is word of the wild, just in case you had anything to mention, just want to be sure that you have a chance to jump in here. I'm enjoying this greatly. I don't like the talks about models and math and things because I feel like none of us really understand that very well. But I think what we all understand is that we are just people that are kind of subject to the scientific method and we kind of just say, well, the experts know what they're talking about and we trust them that they know what they're doing. I mean, what's wrong with that? Is anybody gonna agree that we're standing on a big ball yet or can we just call it a day? It's basically a bandwagon. I'll see. Well, I mean, Nathan, it's true. It's true that it's, we just, we have to get on the bandwagon.  So I'm not gonna assume you're intellect, but I used to run the largest research group in the world. I've debated NASA employees, land surveyors, PhD astrophysicists, people that run earth curve websites. They're all clowns. They have no proof. They all talk about vain religious superstitions. They land surveyors don't even know the curvature formula for the earth. That's what I'm saying is we're just regular people, but there are incredible scientific, mechanical things out there that we all trust. Give me the name of one. Give me the name of one. Like cell phones. You and I do not in any way understand how cell phones work. I'm not talking about cell phones. They have accelerometers in them and the cell phone accelerometers are calibrated on a level non-rotating, non-moving surface. So it's actually a flatter proof of you as your cell phone there, bro. No, I don't think so because these things are created by scientists who understand waves and frequencies and all these things, they create silicon chips and they create, you know, I mean, they transport all our voices across the whole plane of the earth or across the globe.  It's not, but I think it's proof that the scientists know what they're doing. Hey, my man. My man. Scientists don't make cell phones. Baby, scientists don't make cell phones. Engineers make cell phones. Okay, scientists do scientists do science experiments. Science experiments are cause and effect tests, hypothesis tests. You have an independent and dependent value in every experiment. Now I was waiting for Taylor to tell me when he used models in natural science and when those were gonna be the independent or the dependent variable, but I couldn't get a word in earlier. Yeah, so even just the simple model of the DNA letters, GCTG or ATCG, that's a model. The little picture of a cell. Hold on, just to be sure we hear the rest from Snake. Models and experiments are not equal, okay? You already told us the scientific method includes experiments. You already said that. So you're contradicting yourself. No, I never said models are the exact same thing as experiments. Experiments can use models in science. That's what you said.  Okay, so when do we use models in... Well, I'm still talking. We also use... Sorry, go ahead up. I didn't mean to be talking while you were interrupting me. No, I thought you were done. No, when do we use models in natural science? Go. When do we use... I just told you a couple of models. We use... There are mathematical models for populations. Populations is not natural science, bro. Yes, it is. Natural science has to do with cause and effect in nature. Animal populations cause and effect. So when we analyze the cause and effect of... So when we analyze the cause and effect of why certain animal populations grow or shrink or how certain genes grow or shrink in populations. That's not natural science. Wow, it looks like we... Okay, show me you're using a model. You're just saying that. Show me you doing all that science with a model. Yeah, I can look up a page or an article for you. You can look up some things on the internet. I didn't... Just hold on, snake... Just to hear as the rest of what Snake was saying. There are published materials on this. I'm not sure why you're skeptical about this. Going back to cell phones, hold on. Going back to cell phones, scientists who are engineers, who are scientists, use models to... They use schematics and blueprints to create what is going to be built in reality. Robots who put together these things have models so that they can put together cars and cell phones, things like that. And as for the NASA claim that we use Flat Earth models, yeah, that's for short-range, basic, like, intro-level calculations. It's only short-range, not for the whole Earth. Okay, now go ahead and give us scientific evidence for the globe. Go ahead. Well, since you don't like models, I can give you a couple pictures. I'm sure you know the Lake Pontchartrain. You can literally see the bridge and the power lines curve over it. That's scientific evidence. Can I respond to that? Can I respond to that? Because I've been to Lake Pontchartrain. I've done observations at Lake Pontchartrain. I've met Flat Earthers that became Flat Earthers because of Lake Pontchartrain. So, Taylor, have you been to Lake Pontchartrain? No, I've seen pictures. No, no, you haven't. I was just there this year, actually 15 states trying to find the curve of the Earth. And let me tell you, it's not at Lake Pontchartrain. I took a time lapse and put it on my YouTube. I've also done long-range observations. You can see buildings on the other side that should be obstructed by the downward drop that you didn't understand Earth should have earlier and I had to repeat it for you. Okay, so Earth should drop in all directions.  Not when you have pictures of it. Would you accept the testimony of someone who went to space and said, I've been to space? Obviously not. So you have selective skepticism. Hold on. No, I don't. I don't believe people that say they go to Narnia either because Narnia doesn't exist in closets. Oh, so you're begging the question, Valisif. No, I'm telling you, I don't believe known liars. And I know for a fact the sky is a map and a clock. We're not blasting through space. We don't have stellar parallax. We have astroarcheology, sky map, sky clocks that use sextants and astrolabes to celestial navigate. So anyone who tells you they go up in the heavens in a rocket and they saw a ball, you're just gullible. And we asked you for scientific proof and you said, well, I could show you some pictures. Robert Simmons, who made the most famous picture of the globe started with a blank circle. You were talking about earlier how composites doesn't mean it's not a real picture. He said he started with a blank circle and then he put scans in of the Earth and then it looked fake and flat. So he had to add highlights and hit Control-Z, which means copy and paste a lot to make the clouds look more real. Dude, you're joking, bro. You were so out of your league. It just got so smoked. Because we have pictures. Actual measurements and pictures, you don't. You don't have a picture of the entire Earth. Show me one, show me a picture. Show me one. Okay. A real photo of a ball Earth. Here we go, ladies and gentlemen. Get ready. Dun, dun, dun. Is it showing? Yep. Yep. What else do you want? Well, there's some curve. You said you're going to show us a picture of the Earth from space, not a zoomed-in refracted bridge. It's not zoomed-in or refracted. So he doesn't know where to go. That's not zoomed in. Bro, I've been there. That's the very tip. You can only see it. You can count the number of pylons. There's 47. You don't even know how many pylons there are across the bridge. How many pylons are in this picture? It doesn't matter. If it goes, if it curve, if it doesn't obey the laws of perspective for a flat model, then it's curved because it's disappearing over the curve under the horizon. Why are you still talking about models? We don't live in a model. Because we can test the variables in models. I just debunked it. You did not debunk the concept of models, no. An idea, a concept of a model? You haven't shown us when you used the model to glow, bro. You haven't even used the model to glow. I didn't hear anything either of you saying. You're talking about models, bro. You are obsessed with models. You should go look at a Victoria's Secret catalog. We need proof the Earth's a glow. OK, but Nathan, you're looking at this picture here. And what do you say that's refraction? I've been to that bridge. It's refracted. He just cropped the horizon, which is the most refracted part of the entire picture. If you actually look at the entire picture, the bridge is not curving for way more of the freaking part of the bridge. There you go. It's a straight line until you get to the little part showing curvature. Who put that up? Did you just put that up, Taylor? That's a flat Earth picture, bro. So it shows curvature beyond the horizon. It also shows the amount of pylons and that your picture is cropped, bro. Well, it's not a straight line, though. I mean, look at some of these red lines. They're not equal with those pylons. That's what it would look like on a flat Earth. The bottom of the pylon? That's how perspective works. Right there on the very bottom red line, those are all straight until you get to the very small part of the picture that he's zoomed in on with a telescope. You're not going to see curvature over very short distances. You should, according to the globe Earth math, the horizon should be at 1.225 miles times the square root of the observer's height and feet, bro. You can't say no. That's the globe math. Tell me what it is. Where's the horizon then? How far away is the horizon? We do not expect to see curvature in small ranges. What are you showing me right now, bro? This is over a long distance. This part, with the red part, you wouldn't see curvature on. You would only see curvature beyond that point because that's a long range distance. I mentioned a 270 mile picture. Bardet-Cranes is 270 miles. So you're going to tell me this isn't a short range picture. This is a long range picture. Bro, I've been to that bridge. People became flat Earthers because of that bridge and because of these pylons. You obviously doctored the photo. You didn't even know how many pylons were there. You've never been there. This is someone else's doctored photo. And you're presenting this as proof of your globe. I thought we have pictures of the entire globe. Do you have pictures of it? Did you bring back pictures of it? Every picture of Earth is a flatless photo. Except for this one. Yeah, no, that's been there. He's observed it. He's actually measured the horizon. The pillars line up in a flat line before you get to the refracted part of horizon. So they line up in a straight line. If it was curving at the horizon, it would have to be curving in the foreground too. How do you not understand? It only curves past the horizon because the horizon is when the curve begins. You don't understand the model. Oh, the horizon is when the curve begins. And how far out should that be? Right, because you can't see past the horizon because it curves down. Okay, and how far out should that be? Taylor, how far out should the horizon be according to the map? About three miles. About three miles. Oh, really? And how far is this bridge? I'm not sure exactly, but it's above the horizon. I know exactly how far it is. It's 22 miles. So, bro, you shouldn't even see past three miles and you're trying to use a zoomed-in part of a flat earth proof. But you already... Flat earth, and you just admitted it. You just said the horizon should be three miles out. Hold on, you're interrupting me. You just said the horizon should be three miles out and then showed us a picture of the horizon 22 miles away, bro. Holy crap! All right, you're in. Okay, let me get in here. Okay, so we've seen...  I'm sorry, but the horizon, three miles, the thing above the horizon, which he agreed with me twice, which is why he ran away, is can you can see further than the horizon? So, sorry, John, go. I just... It's funny to me.  I mean, it looks like it's curved, but then we'll see other pictures where it looks like it's flat. So I just don't understand what are we to do? I think there's not... I mean, if you just look at it, it looks like it's curved. You'll see other ones. It looks like it's flat. So where does that leave us? You know what I mean? You're muted, water's low. Okay, so again, Oxford scientists measured the Bolivian salt flats, 100 miles, 62 miles, 100 kilometers, distance, no curvature. I know, but those same people, they don't agree that it's flat. What? So then you're admitting that that's proof of a flat earth right there. I haven't seen it, but I would think that the people that measured it would not agree with you. Okay, anybody can go to my website. It's waterslevel.com. You can go up to Flat Earth Proofs. I have the entire Bolivian salt flat document right there. The website is there, the link where they actually measured it and it turned out to be flat. Well, you said, even yourself said it wasn't flat. It was just kind of curved. You're missing 781 meters according to Model Boy over here. You're missing the curve. But it's not flat. It's curved. It's slightly curved. One meter, dude, you're waist down. You're supposed to have 781 of those, but it doesn't exist in reality. But it's not, I mean, it's not flat. And the people that measured it don't think that the earth is flat, dude. If this isn't about what people think, it's not what people believe. No, it is what people think, because I mean, you and I, we trust, again, cell phones work, cars work, airplanes work. Why are you changing the subject? We're talking about the earth. Stop talking about things. But I don't think that, I think this is kind of the point of my intro is that you and me and everybody else, we're just people. I'm an electrician. Stop including us in what you are and what you do. I don't even know who I am. You don't know what I do. We're all people. We're all humans. We're all looking at the same thing. We're all trying to figure out this confusing world. And I have come to the conclusion that when I look out on the earth, it looks flat to me. I don't feel like it's moving, but there's a lot of things that aren't intuitive to me. Like when I drive home from work and the moon follows me home, I think, it looks like it is, but it's not because it just looks like it, because it's far away. So there's a lot of things that are intuitive, but they're wrong, don't you agree? Well, if you have 62 miles, 781 missing meters of curvature, that's flatter right there. But couldn't that be just a misunderstanding of the measurements? There's no misunderstanding, bro. 62 miles measured. There should have been 781 meters. There's under a meter of vertical drop. There's no misunderstanding. There's no... Oh, you're not a scientist. You don't know what's going on. It's been measured. Like that's members of the globe. And me looking at that thinks, okay, well it's not flat and it's kind of curved. So that leaves us back to square zero. Where do we go from here? It is flat. One meter. One meter of curve. That's not curvature. It's a meter of... If the Earth was a ball, according to Model Boy, there should be 780 meters there. Why are there not? You answer me this.  Look, again, I don't know. So if you don't know, let's talk to somebody who knows. Taylor, why? I don't think any of us know. There's 780 meters missing at the living cell flight. Geez. See, in a debate, you have to cite experts. I'm citing an expert who actually did the... But you're citing an expert that disagrees with you. It's not about agreement, dude. Scientific consensus is not even scientific evidence. It's not... Oh, he thinks it's a globe. So then he measured a flat Earth. So then it can be flat because he thinks it's a globe. Do you realize the logic that you're using here? No, it's about you not understanding why he got to those conclusions because you don't know as much as the experts. He's back. The snake is back to gaslight. I can't do it. I love gas. So you understand why he came to those conclusions? Why, even though you think that it says these things and he came to a different conclusion, you're telling me you know exactly how he came to his conclusion that it's a globe? He measured it using... He's doing topography, which is the study of land services. There should have been 780 meters of curvature, but there isn't. Globe debunked. Why are we still talking about this? Let's move on. And yeah, you do know that the land goes up and down like mountains and hills, right? So it's not a perfect sphere. It's flat water. Okay, and? And it's got 100 kilometers with just under a meter. Okay. So you don't understand why he came to the conclusion that the Earth is still a globe. You won't have flat water on a ball, right? Let's talk about why water curves. It doesn't. It's a property of fluid static states, a body of water at rest is level and horizontal to its container. Can you show us water conforming to the shape of a curved surface? Yeah. I'll show you my document again, if you really want to. Like an observation?  Wow, that's a ball with water falling off the sides. What happens when you? It clings to the side, but it's clinging to the sides. It's falling off the sides, guys. But it's still clinging to the sides. This is hilarious. The ball is not sustaining the water as the globe says it should. And he's saying that this is a global Earth proof. This is a joke. No, I'm saying that's proof that water curves. So let's talk about why water would curve around a globe because you don't understand gravity. That's not water at rest, bro. I said water at rest. So you just straw man an argument with water moving and falling off a ball and thought that was a good proof to show flat earthers that water sticks to a ball. Well, it does. Cause it's sticking to the ball. I think you should follow us. Water at rest conforming to a sphere. Let's go to a university. I just did that. Of course, hold on. Water was not a rest, bro. You're confused with the word rest. Rest means not moving static. Yeah, you can move those or you can stop them from moving. I've done it. How would you stop the water from moving? Freeze it? No, the ball. You can stop the ball from moving. The water doesn't move. It's just on the surface. It's called surface tension. All right. So we had models. You get out of the shower. The water sticks to you, right? This is not evidence. When you get out of the shower, does water stick to you? Yeah. Well, there's a problem with that. Yeah, same thing here. The reflection on that ball you showed us. It would not match the reflection we see at sunrise and sunset or on long flat hallways. If you looked at a sunset on that ball, it would look nothing like what you observed here, Snake. You understand that? Lighting is irrelevant in that model. So let's say this is a dense object. This is air. What? I thought I answered it. Reflections on a curved surface are not what we see in reality. In reality, like on water, the ocean, we see the reflections of a flat surface. That's great. But I don't think that's great. I mean, how in that? I've already explained to you that you see flatness till the horizon, which is where it starts curving. Yeah, anything, I mean, that first picture, you've got like a tiny, you know, a short building that's flat, and then you've got a long ocean that most of it is flat. Locally, the earth is flat. You don't understand all the water on Earth should curve if we live on a ball, bro. I know, but curves so tiny. The surface of the water, it actually debunks gravity too, because if gravity pulls all the water towards the center of a ball, then the surface of Earth should curve and we would live on a ball with gravity. But we don't have any gravity. We don't have a ball and the water's flat. You just said the ocean's flat right there. Bro, you were like this close to becoming flat Earth and you showed up to debate flat Earthers. I don't get it. I don't get it. So if we have a dense object and not dense air around it, which direction does it fall? Gas moves in all directions until it bounces off the walls of the container. That's actually in the definition of that. Falls in all directions? It doesn't fall in all directions. It moves in all directions. Okay, so which direction does the ball move? What ball? The ball that I've drawn here. You don't give him on the ball and he doesn't like to move. No, this is a hand-sized ball. This is a hand-sized ball. He's doing it. Pretend this is a rock. Okay, hold on a minute. The rock, which direction does it fall? This way? This is two logical fallacies because what we're doing is trying to use a model. He's trying to use a model. Number two, he's begging the question that we are going to roll a ball when he's supposed to be actually proving it. No, I am not begging the question. You don't even understand what that means. I've made no claim. I'm asking you a question. That's not what begging the question is. You don't understand that either. Is this the ball model that you're claiming we live on? This is a hand-sized rock surrounded by air. Which direction does it fall? Wherever you pick it up and drop it. You. What did you do with the rock? Tell us your steps. I threw it into the air. Floating in midair? I threw it into the air. You threw it, into the air. Well, then there you go. That's your cause and effect. You're the one who caused it. Why does it slow down and where does it fall? You're the one controlling that. Why slows down? So you don't understand how basic forces work. Are you seeing the gravity of the force? Hold on, are you seeing gravity of the force? You can't describe why an object moves in a particular direction. Gravity is not a force. Hold on, let's smash this one real quick. Gravity is not a force. That's great. It acts like a force. Now, tell me. Well, it's not a force. Act like a force. Yeah, it acts like a force. It's not a force, right? It's not a force, then. Yeah, I don't care. It's not a force, right? Oh, you don't care? Yeah, I don't care. All right, so far, we've got him to admit. We've got him to admit the horizon should be three miles out. But he tried to prove the globe with a picture of the horizon 20-something miles out. Yeah, curving beyond the horizon. I just want to recap how many times you debunked your own model. This is getting good. By showing proof of it? Yep. Sure. You didn't show proof. And now you're avoiding the question of why did things? No, I'm not. You paused. And you interrupted me. No, I didn't. So I was continuing my stream of thought. So you can't even tell us why things fall. You've drawn up a little ball and a talk board, bro. Do you think you're proving globe right now? You already debunked your model, saying the horizon should be three miles out. No, I'm asking you with a horizon farther than three miles out, bro. No, I'm asking you how over small distance. Let's just take this one to the end. I'm asking you how why things fall and how they take a direction. It's picking up a rocking. Why do things go up? Teach me. Why do some things go up? Hold on. That's true. Why do helium balloons go up? Good question. Yeah, good question. Yeah, let's talk about that. Some things go down. Well, did you know that?  Let's talk about that. I'll show you exactly why. Taylor, is getting a rock and dropping it on the floor scientific evidence? Yes or no? It's an experiment. So, yeah. OK, give us the dependent and the independent variables. The independent variable, the dependent variable is the rock. Are you listening? You said the independent variable is the rock. Yeah, the thing you're going to change. Please, Chris, the dependent variable is what direction? Let's prove rock. OK, what's the dependent variable? Is where it goes. Where it goes. OK, you got that, right? Here's the naturally occurring phenomenon, rock where it goes. Independent variable, the thing you're going to manipulate, rock and dependent variable, the effect where it goes. Let's see, the cause of that would probably be you picking it up and throwing it. Brilliant. That was absolutely brilliant. You're an excellent scientist. That was a great science experiment. Ladies and gentlemen, this is globe Earth logic. This is globe Earth science. This is how much they don't understand scientific method. So, we're trying to measure the direction of the rock, which is a variable. Let me get in here, Taylor, for a little bit. Nathan, in water's level, let me ask you, where is your line for when you start to not trust the experts? We're debunking it right here. Bible says, test all things and hold fast to whatever is true. So, once I know they lied about one thing, 9-11, or wars, or wearing a diaper on your face, even though the box says it doesn't protect you from the thing you're wearing the diaper for. OK, so even though I know they lie about things, you just question everything. Just question everything. If you can't prove something, why believe it? Who cares? But you trust? I don't know category. Leave it in the I don't know category. And then definitely don't go on debates, debating people who know a hell of a lot more about it, and show up and say, oh, we're just people. No, I am an expert of the Earth, bro. I ran the largest research group in the world. I have debated the largest YouTubers, more NASA employees than any flat Earth or in human history. I got it all on video. I got to walk around with spy glasses on, because NASA employees run away when I pull my camera phone out and start asking questions about the second law of thermodynamics and water. And these are the rocket scientists that NASA hires? Give me a break. OK, so but you trust that airplanes work? I know airplanes work. The FAA trains pilots to fly on a flat, non-rotating Earth. So why are we talking about airplanes? Because you know, because you trusted you trust that the science behind them works. Yeah, and they fly over a flat, non-rotating Earth. And then at what point? So why not space rockets? Well, because space is fake, violates the second law of thermodynamics, NASA's been caught with green screens, harnesses, wires, hairspray, bubbles in space, people ghosting out of screening, things disappearing and re-occurring out of space. NASA, NASA. I knew you wouldn't let me finish all the bloopers NASA has. I knew you were going to have to interrupt. Because I haven't seen these proofs. But I'm wondering, NASA doesn't just make space rockets. They make other things that I think you would agree work and you trust them. What does NASA make besides space rockets? They're a space agency, bro. Do they make other? Would you talk about Tang and Velcro? They make other kinds of planes, don't they? OK, so guess Earth's a globe. Hold on. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm saying it seems to me to be a inconsistency to say I trust these engineers and these scientific methods up to a certain point and then decide, once it starts kind of getting into the globe like space thing, then I don't trust it for whatever reasons. John, do you think Bill and I could build an airplane? Who? Bill and I, the science guy. I don't know. I don't think he could at all. No, no, dude, it's a total doofus. So he's allegedly like a science guy, right? So engineers build planes. The mainstream science guys are doofuses that tell you boats go over the curve of the Earth. Bill Nye said boats go over the curve of the Earth. Uh-oh, somebody better tell Neil the Grass Tyson that, because he said you can't see the curve from 120,000 feet. Now, do you see the problem here? Bill Nye says you can see the curve from the beach. Neil the Grass Tyson says you can't see the curve from a red bull space jump. There's a problem there. So it's not about not believing him. The story doesn't add up. Neil the Grass Tyson posted Earth rotates under field goals, and that's why this one field goal was made on a Super Bowl at this particular latitude. Trying to sound smart on his Twitter, the problem is, if Earth rotates under field goals, it would rotate under everything else in the air. But that doesn't seem to me to be a reason to mistrust the whole of the scientific part. OK, if mainstream science says you live on a ball that spins, but the Earth doesn't spin and it's not a ball, that's a pretty good reason to not trust the science. I agree with you that it doesn't feel like it spins. But how does somebody like you and I supposed to comprehend the vastness of the whole planet? It does feel like it spins if you have enough of these and you get drunk. The problem is, when you test Earth, every test, airy failure, SAGNAC interferometers, ring laser gyroscopes, star trails, you have to set your camera on a stationary object.  Let me ask you about the ring laser gyroscope. It seems like you kind of trust that it works, even though I don't understand how ring laser gyroscopes work. And then when it comes back 15 degrees per hour, then we reject it saying, well, something's wrong. So at what point do you say this technology works, but it doesn't also work with this other thing? It seems arbitrary. Do you know what a SAGNAC interferometer is? I do not. No, no. But see, that's a ring laser gyroscope. It's a SAGNAC interferometer. SAGNAC, very interesting. He said, we observed interference effect turns out to be the optical vortex effect due to the motion of the system with respect to the ether, SAGNAC GL ether, L-Pars 1913. So SAGNAC himself, the one who made the ring laser gyroscope, because you're all about trust in the experts, he said it doesn't prove Earth rotates. There's no such thing as ether. But that doesn't seem to be the case. SAGNAC experiments that prove ether. The guy who invented a ring laser interferometer, what we were talking about, said it's not Earth rotation causing the ring laser gyroscope, aka SAGNAC interferometer. So you just believe people? So you just believe people just because it confirms your bias? Is that it? No, not at all. I don't have to believe anything about it. It measures light. It doesn't measure the Earth rotating. Are you kidding me? I've had played with one. Have you ever played with a ring laser gyroscope? In your perspective, what is it measuring? Pitch, roll, yaw. It's like when you turn left and right, measuring that sort of stuff. So you accept that it's measuring something, but you accept only the things that kind of correspond to your thing and not the globe thing. So that seems to be inconsistent. They don't use it to prove Earth rotates. They use it to measure pitch, yaw, and roll in an airplane. That's what it's used for. Now, the guy who made it said the interference patterns in the light is caused by the ether, not the rotating spinning ball Earth. That doesn't rotate because nobody feels it. We went over this. Well, again, I think that I agree with you. It doesn't feel like it, but I don't base my world on only my empirical thing. That's why we're talking about experiments and observations we could do. And they all prove it's non-rotating. Airy failure. If you agree about that one. That's where I disagree. I think it's like the moon. It looks like it follows me home every night, but it doesn't, right? You agree it doesn't. You don't feel forces that equilibrium. At the center, there's another debunk for the globe. Because if you move to a different portion of the Earth, you don't see different features on the moon. The moon is U-centered. This entire place was literally made for you, and Snake, and James, and my partner who left. It's U-centered. So it's designed to be viewed from your point of view. For example, when you have reflections off the water, that's only a reflection for you, which reflections are another proof of latter. I'm just going through it. We're going personal domes now? That's on both models. No, it's not. You know that, right? Yes, it is. There's an atmosphere around everyone on a globe, because you have a medium around you called air, Snake. You understand there's air around you, right? Yeah, and it changes. It's different for each person. And the fact that there is, Snake, will you agree with that? It changes. The air person and the air changes. The air around me is different than the air around you, right? Yeah, we're in a different space. So you're going to have a different personal perspective based on the refraction and the medium that you're in.  Right, because if the moon is in the atmosphere, you should be able to see different sides of it. It's not going to show you the same thing from every perspective. That's why your personal dome thing makes no sense, because you're trying to say that we don't have each a different perspective. We're seeing the same thing from different positions. Whereas in a reality, you should be able to see different things from different positions. Well, especially if it's curved surface, you can see different features from different positions on Earth. Would you agree with that? Yes, and we do. That's why the stars are important, but you don't think the sky shows anything. We're not talking about the stars. We're talking about the surface of the moon. Can you show me where we have different features on the moon from one place on Earth than the other? You just said we have that. No. No, no we don't. I said we should have that if we're on a flat Earth and the moon is local and in the atmosphere. You need to listen. You're on a ball, and the moon's a ball, too. OK, you move on the Earth, and you would see a different side of the moon ball. Not in geosynchronous orbit, which is what we have satellites on. Oh, so we don't see different features on the moon from different points on Earth. Yeah, that's not a problem on the globe model, but it's a problem with the flat Earth model. So basically it's like the moon follows you and the moon's you centered, and you want to make fun of me because we have a personal atmospheric dome on both models. No, it's because it's always facing the Earth. You can't get around it unless you go into space. You hilariously earlier said they had no reason to lie about the shape of the Earth, and then your teammate went right after you and said, I understand the elite lie about everything, and I understand NASA is just a money-making organization. Do you understand that your teammate debunked what you said right after you said it? He didn't when we talked about this beforehand, and we both agreed on the same points. You said there is no reason to lie, and your teammate said they're in the business of making money. Why don't we let John correct you on the record for that? Yeah, I don't understand what kind of contradiction you're trying to point out here. NASA is making money. Best way to make money is make good products. You said that, John, at the beginning of this debate, right after Taylor said NASA has no reason to lie. Ha! No, that's not... So, if they're faking space and getting... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be talking while you're interrupting me, John. No, go ahead. So, you give them $60 million for space exploration, but if space is fake and we live in a flat-contained Earth, then there's a very good reason to lie if you're a space agency, Taylor. Your partner figured that out. You have it. But I'm saying they're not lying about what they're doing. They're not lying about the efficacy of their products. That's not at all what I'm saying. The lie is that we need them. You should check out their products, John, sometimes, because they have harnesses, green street bloopers, CGI, glitches, people phasing in and out of the thing, ghosting out. You've got bubbles in space. My friend asked an astronaut about bubbles in space. He's like, I don't know what you're talking about. It's just dust. Then he followed him to a nether speech, asked him about bubbles in space, and he's like, I've never heard of this. He just asked you the same question a couple of months ago. Except the bubbles go in. Sorry. The bubbles go in all directions, which- I'm all right. I didn't mean to be talking. You were in the middle of interrupting me, Snake. Go ahead. I thought you were done. These things happen. You need to be a little less touched about it. I thought the Earth was a globe. Yeah, you were wrong. You were wrong. And I wasn't done. You were wrong. Correct. I was wrong. So I stopped as soon as I heard you keep going. OK. OK. Then you stopped. Oh, I'm still talking. Sorry. OK. So the bubbles in space. No, it's OK. These things happen. The bubbles in space are shown. I mean, this has a cause in the ventilation. So the bubbles are shown to go in all different directions. That does not happen under water. So they aren't water bubbles in a simulated space environment. And you can prove it because bubbles do not move like that. If there are currents under the water or turbulence under the water. Yes, you can make a bubble. So there's a current going like this in as much space. You're in the middle of interrupting me again. So the currents are like this. Sorry, bro. What were you saying? The currents are like this. In this much space and go in any direction. You've got multiple people, not only filming, but taking the spacewalk. You would not have bubbles on a 17,000 mile per hour. Five point nine miles a second. That's how fast they say it goes. And they say they built it in space and nobody got hurt. But there's no video of it. It just magnificently appeared out of nowhere. That's pretty hilarious, right? But according to Snake, this is something you can easily test in your backyard, because earlier in his introduction, he said there's the ISS. And then later on went to say, this is all stuff you could test from your backyard. Yeah, bro, you could just get on the ISS from your backyard. Good. No, you can say you said nations can't agree on anything. Have you ever heard of an Antarctic treaty? Oh, yeah, that's one of my favorites. What does it actually say? It says no militaries are allowed there. You're about to say that they put the military bases there, right? No, I'm about to say it says Snake was wrong because Snake said nations can't agree on everything. And they all agreed on the Antarctic treaty, you bozo. OK, and all right, so composites aren't fake. So you think I was being literal. You think I said that when you were literally doing your introduction and trying. Well, we're being sarcastic, being sarcastic. I was being a little bit hyperbolic and saying they can't. Did I say everything? Or they can't agree on anything? Yeah, anything. Yeah, that's not true. They all they all agree. That's not strictly true. They do all agree that the Earth is a globe, but yeah. OK, great. Well, I guess it's a globe. Let's just go with that bandwagon fallacy. All the nations said it's a globe. So it's a globe. All the nations said slavery is good. All the nations say you should get. I see you miss the point. Every three weeks. OK, you kidding me? That's your proofsies. You've got proofsies you're going to bring up in your introduction is all the nations can't agree on anything, but they all agree Earth is a globe. OK, I see you miss the point. I guess it's a globe. Also, you said we have live feeds from space. When have you done a live feed from space? May I address that point? So so you seem to have missed the point that how does every nation on Earth be unwavering for hundreds of years on the same conspiracy? That's that's not a proof. That's just makes me very incredulous. The other point that you mentioned, do I have a live stream from space? No, we can watch it. We can watch live streams from our backyard. We can watch things get can't be faked from our backyard and we can watch videos of the ISS that can't be faked from our backyard. OK, because earlier you said we have live feeds.  No, no, what you meant to say was we can watch what you meant to say was we can watch live feeds and pretend they're real. No, what I meant was we as a human race. Excellent. Some can't speed up or slow down for no reason. You said that in your opener, Snake. I said that has to be in your model. I don't have a model. But you did say that in your opener. Didn't you, Snake? No, I said you don't have a model because all these things that would have to be in a model contradict each other so you can't make one. Earlier in the debate, Snake, did you say it's not possible to have the sun speed up and slow down for no reason? I did not say that. OK, what did you say in your introduction about the sun speeding up and slowing down? Let me read you for a bit laterally. Let me let me refresh your memory and moving laterally.  That's funny. I know the sun would have to move up and down in latitude for some unknown unpredictable reason and then change speed and route for a different unknown unpredictable reason to spin around either pole. And also being able to go to the sun, but of course, no further with a pilot's license will bother. That's talking about a flat earth model. Do you know why it would have to do that on a flat earth? Because what? Because that's how we observe it moving in the sky. And if we track that on a map, that's what happens. It doesn't have a circular movement. How do you observe it happening? What is your point?  But then you just said that's what we see it doing. Do you hear yourself? Do you hear what I'm saying? That's what it would be doing on a flat earth. That is not what happens in reality. If we're on a globe, it's not speeding up or slowing down. It's all at the same rate. Oh, really? The earth is the earth at the same rate? The earth's rotation is at the same rate every day. Oh, it doesn't speed up and slow down and have any elliptical orbit for no reason? We understand how ellipticals work. And that's not the reason. We understand exactly why they work, which is why I keep trying to ask you and you keep running away how gravity works. Now you want to talk about gravity. It's all about gravity. Gravity proves the globe earth, which is why you hate it so much, which is why you deny it. Which is why you don't understand how gravity works. And I can prove it. But you won't engage in the questions because you're scared of being proven wrong. Yeah, Nathan, does gravity work on the inverse square law? Let me ask Nathan. No, no, no. He said I don't understand gravity. Does gravity work on the inverse square law, Taylor? OK, let me ask another question. Does gravity work on the inverse square law? Yeah. Yeah, it does, because it's m1 plus m2 over distance squared, right? So would gravity increase or decrease the farther away you get from the surface of the earth? It would decrease. It would decrease. So the closer you get to the surface of the earth, it would increase, right? Sort of like magnets. OK, great. So we've got problems because objects reach something called terminal velocity. Are you familiar with what terminal velocity is? That's because of the air resistance, which creates a normal force. Are you under? How familiar are you with apparent normal forces? More gaslighting. Excellent. I asked, that's a question. Are you familiar with what normal forces are? You already said things are increasing in gravity as they go down towards Earth's surface. And I said terminal velocity, and you tried to gaslight me and say, I don't understand things. That is your only argument. I did not say that. Your joke. So let's get back to the topic. Let's get back to the topic of terminal velocity. I did not say that. Falling down, it reaches. Why are you interrupting me again, bro? What did you say? I did not try and gaslight you and say that. I told you why terminal. Go back and watch the video later. No, I told you terminal velocity. I didn't say that in forces in crap, bro. That's gaslighting. No, I asked you if you understood what a normal force was. That's not gaslighting. That's a question. And I asked you, does gravity increase as you go down towards the surface of the earth? You said yes, right? Follow along, right? Great. So do objects continue to accelerate as they get down towards the surface of the earth? Exponentially, because remember, you said gravity works on an inverse square law. So this force, as things get closer and closer to the surface of earth, is getting exponentially stronger. But the pair reaches terminal velocity. Yes, do you understand that air creates? Oh, the air creates resistance. So now it's not gravity pulling it down. It's the air slowing the apple down. No, it's both. So things don't fall into gravity. They fall into the air. Listen very carefully. It's both. OK, so why does it continue to accelerate? I'm pushing at both sides of this right now. You can have forces going in opposite directions. You understand that, right? Do you accept that? OK, cool story. That's a yes or no question. Yeah, you can you personally can push on two things in two directions. What are you saying? Does so that your push is down and it pushes up to. Nope, the air pushes. When you when you put your hand out, when you put your hand out the window, what are you feeling? When resistance? Mm hmm. Do you think that that doesn't occur when an object is falling? You missed my entire argument. Let me go over it for you again. I asked a question. You said things are falling because of gravity. Now, I said does gravity increase or decrease as you get closer to the surface of the earth? And you said it increases. Well, uh-oh, you got a problem with that because the apple doesn't just accelerate and accelerate and accelerate and accelerate exponentially towards the surface of the earth. Correct. It seems to reach some sort of a permanent. I'm not done yet. I'm literally in the middle of speaking. It seems to reach some sort of terminal velocity and then stays at that terminal velocity. I know it's correct, bro. That's why I'm saying it. That's why I'm talking. So I got to come on here and educate people who don't even agree with each other on whether or not the nations would lie like, holy moly. That's gaslight. So let's tell you. Let's visualize. Your teammate literally said the elite lie about everything and you say there's no reason to lie about the shape of the earth. Andy literally told you you're lying about that. You're gaslighting right now. So an object, you are only opener. He's all four minutes. Go back and listen to it, guys. His whole opener was about how the elite lie to us. Not proof we live on a globe. Four minutes to prove love. He said the elite are corrupt. NASA is making money. Best way to make money is make good products. I agree with you. NASA is corrupt. You said all this in your opener, bro. This is your teammate, Taylor. So you keep blindly believing NASA. Your teammate doesn't even believe you. That's not at all what I mean by that. I don't mean that they're lying about their formulas and their science. That's not at all what I'm saying. You're right, John, because they say they use the sorrows cycle. Oh, no, this is backwards. They use the sorrows cycle to predict eclipses and they're paying for it, says we use a flat, non-rotating earth. I'm saying that I agree with you that there's corruption and that their money corrupts absolutely, but they're not lying about the efficacy of their science. To me, they're lying that we need them and that we need to go to the planets. We need to give them money. We don't. That's what I'm saying. And don't you agree with me on that? I agree. We don't need to give NASA any more money to fake space. James, we're way over on time here. If we go to Q&A, ASAP, that'd be great, because I'm done. I'm dusting my feet, bro. We are ready to go to Q&A, but if you have any last remarks as well, snake and word of the wild, I don't want to cut you guys short. What have you got in terms of wrapping us up? Short and pitty. Do we have any super short and pithy? Yeah, I'm wild, because we haven't heard a lot from him. Yeah, go ahead, John. I could go first if you need a second to gather your thoughts, Taylor. I don't. I'm ready to go, but I'm ready to go, too. Go for it, guys. Yeah, go, John.  Thanks so much, James. It's been awesome. I can't wait to do it again. I just don't understand where the line is. We trust all of these things. We believe in buoyancy. We believe in acceleration, and we believe in all these things. But when it comes to gravity, all of a sudden, I don't believe that. We believe that cars work. We believe electricity works. We believe all these things. But then at some point, we decide, I don't believe it here, and I feel like there's big inconsistencies there. We trust all the science, and we trust all of the technology that they bring us up into the point where it starts to suggest the shape of the earth, and then we throw it out. It seems to be arbitrary, and it seems to be inconsistent. Yeah, so I guess I'll just use my time to explain since I wasn't able to. I'm not trying to be offensive when I say you don't understand things. But it's clear that you seem to be ignoring the air resistance. Pretend this is air molecules. The fact that it creates a force pushing against an object that is pushing into the air, he left. Very professional. I miss Nathan already. This is your time to finish what you're saying, actually. Sorry, I just looked up, and he was gone. The fact that an object is pushing into the air creates a force that pushes back equal and opposite reaction. That means that it can't accelerate infinitely like in a vacuum. So you're trying to confuse a vacuum model with an air model, and there's just a lot of misconceptions about it. I thought we might be able to have a civil discussion about it. But yeah, let's just go to Q&A. We're going to jump right into it. Want to let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description. And that includes at the podcast, folks. If you didn't know, we have a podcast, and that is actually currently linked at the top of the chat. And in the description box, you can find our guest links if you're listening via the podcast as well as we put our guest links there, too. Next up, thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from WhitsitGetsit says, Nathan, call me, bro. We should get back together. He's got my number. Next up, bubblegumgun says, why? What? Sorry. Why was the live chat disabled after Daniel's debate? Oh, that's because if you ever notice, folks, oftentimes the live chat after the debate was live is gone. The reason is whenever a YouTuber, this is true for all YouTubers, when we go into our Creator Studio and we trim, for example, the intro music or the outro music, what happens is the live chat goes with it. And so that's why you might have been missing that. This one from Nottachump says, you're damn straight. I'm a baller. Nathan? Juicy. OK. Nathan won't humor at all. Says, answer the question, Nathan. I don't know which one they meant. But Wolf says, Flatterthers are doing a real service. I'm not very confident about how smart I am. But then I remember that Flatterthers exist. Thank you, Nathan.   Says, why are sun rays redder during dusk or dawn, Nathan? Yeah, because they're going through more atmosphere. And actually, that's super interesting. If you look at a green flash, the green part of the green flash is above the red-orange-yellow part of the sun. If you look at a Pink Floyd album, when you shine light from below a prism, the green actually appears below the red-orange-yellow spectrum. So sunsets, green flashes, all that stuff is going to prove Flatter. Also, sun rays only come down into your house, even if you're on a top of a really high mountain. And it's sunrise or sunset. The rays are never going to come horizontal or up and hit the ceiling of your house. They're always coming down because the sun is always above your head on a flat, non-rotating Earth. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question, MC Tune, your old buddy, Nathan, says, Nathan, not asking about airwake, asking about electromagnetic wake, what is the scientific basis for it, causing hurricane rotation, please provide citations. No, I don't get all my stuff from like citations. Some of the stuff I have to come up with myself and figure it out myself. Now it's very obvious the sun affects particles in the air. So if you're going to say the sun wouldn't cause things to happen with the atmosphere, you're just goofy, MC Tune. And I can very easily demonstrate on a flat stationary surface how the wake would move in opposite directions with the sun moving above. So you can't do anything. I would love to read that paper. This question from Conrad says, Nathan, how do you flat Earthers explain the jet stream? Thank you. Yeah, the sun affects particles in the air. And there you go, jet streams, electromagnetic wake. That's why it's hot. Is it ions or radiation? Nathan yelling at the NASA guy at Starbucks wasn't a debate with him. I never claimed that was a debate.  To be fair, I think that they were referring to though, I think you said earlier that you've debated like professors and NASA people, they were thinking that you were referring to the Starbucks incident as a debate. No, I ran into about eight or nine employees and had multiple debates. One of them was about 10 minutes, one of them about eight minutes. One of them got taken off YouTube because the lady was such a cry baby, she complained to YouTube and she wasn't even uniquely identifiable. It didn't have her first and her last name. She didn't have a special voice that was like Morgan Freeman or something. She was not uniquely identifiable and she still got my video taken down. And then my channel got deleted. This one from Magellan. Brilliant. The assumption of a spherical earth is in practically every single electrical device you own, plus every operating system, every software vendor, et cetera, Nathan. Nathan. No comment. No, you got accelerometers in your phone calibrated to a non-rotating earth. Sextance work, assuming straight lines. Uh-oh, my internet's poopy. This one coming in from Iron Horse. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Your father, Flat Earth Ozzie says, hey Globers, why are there undersea cables providing 95% of internet communication if satellites are a thing? I don't know. Isn't it faster? Next up, Fight the Flat Earth says, lack of change in elevation isn't proof of no curve, Nathan. Okay. And says- If you say so. And also says, I've been here five minutes and Flat Earthers have committed the fallacy of strawman, stolen concept, goalposts moving, ad-hom, and false analogy. Good job. Nathan, do you agree? Okay.  What? Sorry, my internet's not going well. The mountains growing weed. You've got to give me some slack. The websites I told you not to go on. This one- He just glitched. It's fake. Nathan's fake. Thanks very much. Says Davey or Nathan, it's one meter elevation difference in salt flat. Please show where it says it's one meter dropped. Not the same thing unless you assume it's flat. Same as QE's Bob and Alice strawman. Dumb. I didn't follow that person. It technically was for Davey. So it might have actually been something that Davey said that they were actually asking about. Next up, Tango24 says, Nathan, are the oceans at rest? No, they are not so. Therefore, your thing with water at rest being flat is nonsense. Nathan? Hey, Einstein, sometimes the ocean freezes and it's not moving. Got you. Made by Jim Bob says, snake is law ever the result of the scientific method? Is law. Correct. Like, I'm not sure what law he's talking about. Like. Scientific laws. I think that's what they meant. One of those, for example. Is law ever the results of the scientific method? Yeah. Gotcha. And. Wrong.   I would have thought you would be very keen to do that. So you could discover the shape of the earth. Tom jump. Team jump doesn't have a radar experiment. I was in a debate with him. I asked to see it. He literally told James, hey, James, could you YouTube it real quick? Look up this. He hasn't done it. It's like $10,000. If you want to send me $10,000. Maybe I'll do it. He did say he did it. At his school or whatever. Gotcha. This one coming in from. Oh, I did it. Yeah. Back of the day. Yeah. I was with 10 supermodels. Thanks for your super chat. I didn't see a question attached. Let me know if you had one and Mark Reed says, Nathan, what are your credentials to lead quote the biggest research group in the world? Unquote. What are your credentials to lead quote the biggest research group in the world? What are your credentials to lead quote the biggest research group in the world? What are your credentials to lead quote the biggest research group in the world? And you show the research you did as part of this group. Yeah, of course. I put out 800 videos that I got deleted from my YouTube. If you want to email me, I could send you some proof personally. But what qualified me was I didn't blindly believe anything. And I required everyone to test earth themselves. So anyone was allowed to be a member. And every waking hour, making sure people followed the rules in the group. And then I did the stuff myself too and tested earth myself. And it's flat everywhere. I went 15 states this year started five years ago. Got you. And KO24 says, Davey and Nathan, 90% of the technology in your smartphone was developed for ICBMs, which is strange if space is fake. ICBM intercontinental ballistic missiles. Is that what you're talking about? This one coming in from your twin brother. We're made for twin brother separated at birth. Fight the flat earth says ladies and gentlemen, I present you the results of mothers. That are beautiful. He's saying your mom's pretty. Isn't that nice? And this one from made by Jim Bob says, snake is math science. Yeah. It's part of science. It's a, yeah. It's a scientific model. Run. It's not. Next up. Thank you very much says Nathan laser gyros. Formerly known as euros are not only used on planes. Many geodetic labs have large gyros working 24 seven that even pick earth's wobble. Do your own research. Okay, we'll do every time I do it's flat non rotating, but I'll stay on it. Thanks. Nathan, they say made by Jim Bob says, oh, this is for snake made by Jim Bob says snake. Can you do science without experiment? Yeah. No. This one coming in from do the measurements are part of science as well. Jared A says, you keep exposing yourself every time you talk, keep moving. We have so many questions. I promise. I promise chat. I'd move fast because we want to get in as many questions as we can made by Jim Bob says snake. No, we got that. Jared A says, Nathan, if you were to have a flat earth model, would it resemble a snow globe? Yeah, probably something like that. You got it. And Mike, such a amenable answer. I didn't think you were going to be so straightforward. Jared. Let's see. Mike Menze says, thank you, snake. I'm now a flat earther. I suspect he was before. Next up. Thank you. That's funny. Canine strike says, this is my first time seeing snake. And I like this. You got a fan out there, snake. They're balancing it out. Next up. Kano24 says, Nathan, your misunderstanding of terminal velocity was unbelievable as a global expert. You don't know that things accelerate until the air resistance cancels out gravitational acceleration. The gravitational acceleration should be continually increasing exponentially as you go towards earth surface. So you can't just say it cancels it out because it's canceling out a force that's allegedly getting exponentially bigger and increasing the closer you get to earth surface.  Seriously. You don't understand the gas like me and tell me, oh, Nate, you don't understand terminal velocity. No, bro. I understand. Just fine. You believe you live on a spinning tilted cartoon water monkey ball. Have you done the math on that? Punch out to four. It says Nathan and or Davey. You get more with sugar than you get with salt. Can you explain how the moon cycles work and why the tides change on a flat earth? Yeah, exactly. There's a lot of flatters. So you have the moon in the sky changing phases over a flat earth that you can test yourself if you go outside and stop blindly believing the internet and what you heard. Cool. This one. Non sequitur. Coming in from put a foot says question for Nathan. Do you think we live on a model? No, models are concepts. They're abstract. I already went over that and you're right. Talking about the sky is a non sequitur when you're talking about the shape of the earth. So if you're talking about the sky it's an idea of a model. So we have a model for you. Next up. Anonymous. I'm so sorry, I forgot to write your name down. I'm like to put this in my sticky says can't some models work without. This is, I remember his bubblegum gun says can't for you, Snake can't some models work without depicting reality. Yeah. There's time. But yeah, I mean. There's computer models of things that don't exist. I'll have the computers too. You got it, Anne. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Farron Salas, long time, see, you could say, we loved you, he's just hanging out at the channel. Thanks so much for being with us. Your question was, where's all the pics of the flat earth, quote unquote, edges or walls, Nathan? I've never claimed to have seen the flat earth edge or the flat earth walls travel to Antarctica. It's not just extremely dangerous. My friend had to do it in an icebreaker. It has like a million pounds of iron in the front of the boat so they can karate chop through three stories of ice. So it's super dangerous.  And it's restricted, okay? And I never claimed to have any pictures of the edge. I know you're really interested.  Do you wake up every morning going, man, if I live on a ball in space, I'd sure like to see some pictures of the edge of space. No, but you hear the earth's flat and you're like, show me the edge. I'm so goofy, dude. It's hilarious. You can't go to Antarctica, actually. What was that? You can't actually go to Antarctica. It's not restricted. Nathan, is this true? I was done talking to that guy 20 minutes ago. Are we doing questions from the audience? We want to let you know, folks, we are very excited. This question coming in from Prof. Phil Bell says what measurement is the flat earth they're referring to? I wish they would have, in the context, I can't remember what context they were referring to. Next up, Truth Nerd says, Nathan, you said astronauts do not see the curve from low earth orbit. Could you say more about the flat earth astronauts and low flat earth orbits? Yeah, check out fdupworld. I'll give him a shout out. Joe Hill on Facebook, he just posted a video of astronauts saying the earth isn't actually a globe from low earth orbit. And they can't agree on if you see stars or not from low earth orbit and space. You got it. And this question coming in from, do appreciate it. Fight the Flat Earth says, did Nathan just use Pink Floyd their album cover as evidence? Did I dream that? Nathan, is this true? Yeah, the Pink Floyd album cover shows the green under the red, orange, blue, which is the opposite of what we observe in a green flash, proving the sun, the rays are coming from above the horizon, even at sunset, which is when a green flash happens. Next up, Sofa, King Sleepy says, quote, if a triangle has sides one, one and one, what is the shape? Nathan. Sorry, it was. If the side. I don't think that one, for me. If the, you don't think so? Let me, well, I... Because if the sides are equal, those are straight lines.  There's places all over the world where the ocean, not the entire ocean, but parts of the ocean are frozen. Look it up. Gotcha. And I can't believe, by the way, I'm just looking at you in the dark there in your precious Jurassic Park hat, Nathan. I just can't believe how long it's been that we've been, it just, this brings back a lot of nostalgia, a lot of great memories of old debates. And so you as well, Snake. But I think Nathan, I'm trying to remember the first time you were on, it's been a long time. And so anyway, just a lot of old memories. But let's see, this one coming in, and oh wait, that reminds me. Now, word of the wild you might have noticed is new. And we are indeed looking for new people who wanna come on to modern day debate. So I do wanna mention this, pardon my doing this during the Q and A, you guys, so sorry, this is such bad form. But since I started, let me finish this. The sign up is in the live chat right now. And if you, similar to word of the wild, would like to come on to modern day debate, I highly encourage you, you certainly can. And the link for that, I'm gonna throw that in the live chat in two moments. But first I'm gonna read this question. This one coming in from Lyric Edge says, Mike Menze says, I don't know. You got it. And this question coming in from John Rapp says, I didn't blindly believe anything, quote unquote.   But if you wanna answer, we'll give you a chance. And we also have, as I mentioned, that link is, I'm throwing that in the live chat. But of course, another question, or you could say comment from your twin brother, Fight the Flat Earth, Nathan, your old buddy, your old rival. It's like Peter Pan and Captain Hook, Batman and the Joker, Luke and Darth Vader. Fight the Flat Earth says R slash whoosh. Next up, Nathan, you're not gonna greet your friend, Fight the Flat Earth? Next up. I don't like that. Oh, James, if it's okay for me to answer that question, we just had that I said I don't know, because I forgot what the word was, but I just remembered. Yeah, so it's just the fact that there are obstructions like clouds, it's the rays that go through the clouds, great angled light. And it's just because there are local obstructions in the atmosphere. You got it. And thank you very much for this question. This one coming in from, you guessed it, your twin brother, Nathan. Alex Stein says Nathan is a beast. I love his debates, Flat Earth for the win. Dude, nice. I'm glad to hear that. I literally just killed a fly real time. That is epic, Nathan. I appreciate you letting us know that. And this one coming in from a design song one says, fine, you don't see a curve from high altitude balloons, but shouldn't we see an ice wall, Nathan? Nathan? While we're waiting for Nathan to answer this question. There's plenty of pics of the ice wall. You just gotta look it up. If you have Google, Google is really helpful.  You got it. How do you know they're not fake? You don't know they're not fake. You'd have to go there and take pictures yourself if you really care. But you don't really care, which is why you never prove Earth curve, you never prove Earth rotates, and you never prove anything. All right, go visit the moon. You got it. And let's see, John Bernard's fight the Flat Earth is challenging you, John Bernard's, to a debate. So John Bernard's, if you wanna email me or if you wanna put your name into that signup sheet link that I put, if you're serious about coming on a debate, I think I remember seeing you earlier saying that you wanted to. And this one coming in from the Science Ultimatum with Jason Torn says, thanks for your patience if you're still with us, the Science Ultimatum. It took a while. It says, question for Nathan, what is the research team you led that you report is, quote, the latest in the world? Largest? Oh, that's what they meant. I think you're right. Yeah, sorry. It was gone, it's gone. They were asking though, what was the, they said, what is the research team you led? What's like, what was the name of it? Even if it's gone. It's called the official Flat Earth and Globe Discussion. You got it. And this last one of the night, thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from, and then John Bernard's, by the way, says he will accept fight the Flat Earth's challenge. So that could be a juicy one, folks. And we are excited. In fact, next Friday, by the way, is going to be a juicy one, Tom Jump taking on Howard George stirrup. That's going to be an epic one. As we, we want to let you know, folks, we want you to feel welcome as we were a neutral channel.  This one coming in from, Liz says, Nathan, can you please explain the Coriolis effect? Yeah, it's not real. Neil deGrasse Tyson says we have a Coriolis and the Earth moves under objects in the air, but we don't observe that in golf tees, balls you throw in the air, insects, birds, drones, helicopters, airplane flights should be drastically different durations east to west versus west to east. It's not. And I don't know if you guys, I couldn't find a cork opener.  That's really special. Thank you, Nathan. And thank you very much for this question coming in from. Mike Menze says without Googling snake, how far is the sun and moon from the earth? Moon is somewhere like 225,000 miles. Sun's like, it's in the millions. I don't know. You got it. It's in the millions. You don't know. I'm pretty sure it's in the middle. We don't understand the model because it's 93 million miles away during. Well, I don't I don't really care how far. Oh, but then you have happen to be on and very nearly on. So sometimes it's only 91 million miles away. Yep. It's an ellipse. Yeah. You got it. I don't really care about the numbers so much as much as the concept of gravity. You got it. And this one coming in. Oh, do want to remind you folks, Discord Let's Farm has done a fantastic job of building up the Discord to make it epic. And so I just put that link in the live chat. Highly encourage you. That's also in the description box. Want to encourage you to check out the Moderated Beat Discord as we are excited that the moderators have done a fantastic job and want to say thank you as well to the moderators here at both YouTube and Twitch, keeping the chat clean so we don't have things like hate speech. Design song one says, wait, there's pictures of the ice wall from high altitude balloons. Nathan, question mark, back that claim up or give this up for good. I don't know why you guys so worried about an ice wall. You should find a curve of the earth because I want you to realize that that's not there then big deal. Everyone agrees that we have all the scientists. Gotcha. And that wasn't a question for you, Taylor. Nobody cares about your bandwagon policy. Well, we all think that it's, we have done that. So that's all I'm saying. Next up, want to say we do appreciate you folks. I'm going to be back with a post-credits scene letting you know about upcoming debates. It is going to be amazing. We had last question coming in. It is MC Toon, your father, Nathan. He's in the live chat. He says, Nathan, what is the elevation of the sun and moon over, quote unquote, flat earth provide citations? All simplification is independent of replacement clown show. McToon honestly one time during the debate says, don't straw man me with eight inches per mile squared. Don't straw man me with eight inches per mile squared. That's not my formula. Then emailed me like a week later. We are, we'll talk about your guys as personal vendetta later, but I do. All he did, he just asked you a question.  He just said, you know, so don't worry. He still loves you. It's an old father-son bond folks. They've got an interesting story, but want to let you know, they're not really father and son. I made that up. But want to let you know, our guests are linked in the description. I'll be back in a moment with a post-credits scene to let you know about epic upcoming debates like the one on the bottom right of your screen between T-Jump and Howard George syrup. So stick around folks and thanks so much for hanging out with us. Thanks so much Snake, Word of the Wild and Nathan Thompson. It's been a true pleasure. Thanks all. Thanks, Nathan. Thanks, Snake, especially James.