All right We're gonna try this from the top. I'm so sorry to all of our speakers. We were getting into it I see you guys in the comment section. You know just blame it all on Ryan. It's fine You know the focus rate has to be set up properly with the inputs to get this going Welcome to modern day debate everybody tonight We are going to be debating globe versus flat earth to get us started We have Matthew you got six minutes on the floor, and I'm refreshing your clock there, buddy Floor is yours All right, I want to say thank you very much to modern day debates for inviting me here I want to say thank you to the creator of heaven and earth for allowing us to be here and discuss these very important topics I want to say thank you to my flat earth partner in this debate Nathan. What's up, man? I want to say thank you to the Glovers on the other side phd Tony and t-jump. Thank you guys for showing up All right, so here we go basically Well, how I understand it globe theory has four mandatory Conditionals okay the first of which being curvature if the earth is a globe then there would be some sort of shape There would be some sort of globular shape that could be measured and now that curvature rate which People can you know we could talk about for one mile there should be point six six six feet of curvature over one mile Okay over ten miles. There should be 66.6 feet of curvature. Okay for ten miles now over 100 miles there should be 6,600 and 69 feet of curvature which we don't see Anyway, you cut it. We don't see it now when I see six six six all those times You know what I think of now watch I know you guys may not like the Bible But how about Iron Maiden, you know Let he who have understanding reckon the number of the beast for it is a human number its number is 666 So basically Satan put his signature on the globe theory. Okay, so right there That's the first mandatory conditional the curvature, which is not there second one is rotation now If the earth is spinning Thousand miles an hour which no matter where you cut it. Okay, no matter where you cut it The earth is allegedly spinning a thousand miles an hour, right, which we don't feel no one can feel Okay, maybe some expensive little device that's designed to give you that result may feel it But anything no one Plane hover or a helicopter hovering in place the earth isn't moving. Okay, if I jump in the air Okay, if I t-jump in the air, right one second The earth would allegedly be spinning so fast under me that four point three miles Should be spinning underneath me. Okay, no matter how you cut it no matter how much? Fairy mathematics you lay on that it is not happening Okay, and I know Globers might say yeah, that's like half the speed of an hour hand on a clock Okay, which is reasonable, right? However Theoretical globe earth is much bigger than a clock. Okay, what that means. It's more ground to cover in The same amount of time. Okay, so that's the second mandatory conditional, which is not present the rotation Okay, the third one is tilt. Okay, allegedly on globe earth on the globe Theory there is a twenty-three point four degree tilt back and forth, which is allegedly the reason for the seasons But what I would like to demonstrate using a pair because as we know the high priest of Globe religion Neil deGrasse Tyson actually said earth is pear shaped. Okay. I'm not putting words in his mouth. Okay Now watch the reason there is no tilt. Okay Polaris would be directly above the north pole of this pear, right? Doesn't matter how far away it is Polaris is directly above the north pole of this pear now not only Polaris doesn't tilt but Orion The constellations the fixed stars Do not tilt Now if now this is the third mandatory conditional for the globe theory Allegedly the earth tilts like this with all of the stars Tilting perfectly. Do you guys see what I'm saying my hand represents the northern celestial hemisphere? I hope you guys are following what I'm saying. I'm not trying to be weird or throw some weird stuff at you guys But the reason we know there's no tilt the sky It's like this the sky would stay put and the earth would tilt like that, but that's not what we see Because the earth is not tilting. What that is is there The Sun's path goes from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of Capricorn. There is no earth tilt, right? Next here we go the fourth mandatory conditional which we can discuss if you guys want I'm open-minded to whatever you got to say. Okay The fourth mandatory conditional for the globe theory to work gravity So that people could stand on the bottom of this pair you see and I'm not trying to Put words in your mouth or do you know what I mean? This is what the globe theory is telling me Since I've been a kid in school. This is what the globe theory has been telling me People are standing on the bottom of this pair dancing, right? Gravity right now as I understand gravity It is the greater the mass the greater the force of attraction, right? This is what I've heard you guys I don't know if you guys still agree with it or not But greater the mass greater the force of attraction The reason we know that isn't true is because if there was something that weighed 100 pounds and something that weighed one pound If if gravity were true the heavier object having more mass would indeed fall faster But that's not what we see because it's not happening The other one that I know about gravity is mass attracting mass Now, okay, we don't see that when I look in the sky. I do not see the moon 10 seconds. I don't see the moon being attracted to the earth I don't see the earth being attracted to the sun because there's no gravity All of those mandatory conditionals for the globe are non existent Okay, thank you very much guys. Appreciate it. Thank you All right. Thank you so much matthew for your opening statement I just remind everybody who's hanging out in the live chat If this is your first time here at modern day debate hit that like button and share this out in those spaces You like having these conversations. We super appreciate it. We're a neutral platform We host these debates on science politics and religion. We hope everybody feels welcome here. This is a friendly space We're going to hand the floor over to nathan. You have up to six minutes to present Your case for the flat earth All right, thank you very much ryan. Thank you Very much to the creator as well for for this get together To matthew as well for my my partner and the interlocutors here Anthony and t jump tom. Thank you guys for for being here for making it for this discussion And uh, so if I may uh, can I share my screen, please? Uh, my screen is up here Sunny and share everybody. Uh, I'm seeing our zoom meeting. There you go You see slide now. I see the slide you're ready to go Okay, so to go off of what's matthew was saying here. We're talking about the Shape of the earth the cosmology Geomorphology the earth shape And so it's is it a globe or is it a plane? These are two intentions So we have the observations and the evidence it's so for the case of curvature We have things that would falsify the claim of curvature and then any recreated demonstrations and then we have what would support curvature and Any recreated demonstrations if you are contrary to to the curve the curve claim So, uh, we have here the the four lights experiment as well as an observation of The base of some poles and there are multiple data points Which we can see the the base of and these data points you can plot out on a Cartesian coordinate grid which will Give you a a line as a geometry shape of the surface of water which most of the earth is And so this is a a flat appearance that can be recreated on a flat known flat surface to scale As far as this I've tried to reach out to several people of the globe side to get like a four lights Recreation on a known curved surface And because talking about the shape of the earth the ground is the most important thing second to sky or how things act upon the ground Uh, so the shape of the ground so this is yet to be recreated on a known curved surface So I put uh here an image. Uh, that would be the attempted recreated demonstration There's yet to be one. Uh, maybe it's because there are different sizes to the united states depending on the image of the earth That we use according to the computer generated composited stitched together data And so the support for curvature would be things like the boats disappearing over the bottom or uh, bottom up in water Or uh, only being able to see the tops of towers for skylines Which is what that middle picture is on the right side and uh, and so this here And so this is actually using a on a known flat surface This is using a realistic variable of temperature variation and inversion And the the known flat surface is actually able to recreate and demonstrate What would be a bottom up disappearance But the the globe cannot recreate a an apparent flat position on a known curved surface Uh, and then to go with rotation What would falsify our rotation would be something like the michaelson moorley result Uh for the for the michaelson moorley experiments where they had barely any friendship about one sixth of what would be predicted For the claimed motion of the globe earth, which is an absolute motion of axial rotation Added on to that compounded in would be the orbital of the sun the orbit of the galaxy and the Galactic drift and so the explanation is that everything is relative the maths are equally valid For a non rotating earth or for a non moving earth just as valid as a moving earth And so you can't tell which is which and which is motion here And so then for rotation what would support rotation? Well, there are things that will be claimed like hurricanes on the north or south side of the equator So how a flat model would attempt to Describe why the rotation is the way it is is because there is an equator And so if you're on the inside of the equator or the outside You're going to have the sources of influence the sun and moon and things of the ether They would be coming in from the bottom The bottom right or the top right of a hurricane on the north or south As far as tilt goes what would falsify falsify tilt Would be something like the solar anilema. We see a small circle In the north if you look at a still I maybe should have used that instead You have a large loop in the south and then a small loop in the north which would match the sun making If I can go back here the sun making smaller circles on the inside and bigger circles on the outside And then you also have The the response to this Two would be the astrolabe which and other things like the antikythera and mechanism ancient Celestial navigation devices that are still accurate today things that support the tilt are supposed to be things like Like that we we can see a rotation of the stars at 15 degrees per hour So that supports that it's the earth spinning at 15 degrees But we have a refutation of tilt also using the star rotation Because when we see parallax of the stars in turn not in terms of like other side of the sun parallax But rotational motion any time you're moving in a in a body You're going to look out and the closest objects are going to move the fastest and the distant objects are going to move the slowest All of the stars no matter how distant or close they are claimed to be all appear to move in uniform motion Which would imply via parallax that everything is equal distant as far as stars go And then lastly we have gravity the falsification of gravity is the claim of Actually, if we get into gravity, we'll get into it But I do want to say one last thing. Um, there are experts in the field of various Very complicated difficult Mathematics sciences Things that make the world better every day and one of the interlocutors here, tony is one of those people There are people who do very accurate credible work Who whose math is accurate? Challenging and they still get it right. It goes through a transform and it still works for us But I don't want to have any accusations of people trying to be bogus or deceivers or liars there are very well-meaning people and that I just want to make that clear that There are very smart people who it's it's everything they're doing is accurate as far as the mathematics go And so I think that that is everything Yeah, this is just something on NASA here. So, um, all right, we can get back to you. I think I should be able to stop sharing here Yeah, I was gonna say if you had anything else, thank you very much. Uh, you are very welcome And thank you everybody and thank you Nathan for your opening statement there We're gonna kick it over to the globe side. So, uh, dr. Tony, I'll ask you to go first You have six minutes to present the case for the globe earth and thank you for so much for being here Well, thank you and thank you too for the kind welcome from My interlocutors and thank you to T jump for agreeing to to appear with me. Let me just Start my share Here we go Can you see that Yep, we are coming through I can see your okay, so we've got we've got two models and the key Question as to which model Works best is to compare those models versus observations. That's the key element of science If one model fails to give, um predictions, then it loses by default You don't get to just win a competition by saying sure I can do that. You have to actually do stuff So let's look at the most basic Navigational problem that you can face You know where you are point one You know the latitude and longitude. You know where you want to go point two lambda two long theta two How far away is it and what direction do I need to go in? um Now if the earth is a flat and we accept that one angle of separation corresponds to Approximately 69 miles or 111 kilometers Then this should be an easy solution on the flat earth We know the two sides of the triangle we can the angle between them. We can work out the we can work out the The third side and the angle um and the angle side If you accept that geometry, then this is your flat earth map. There's no other map that has those properties um The way we do it on with a spheroidal calculation is exactly the same except that it's a spherical triangle We know two sides. We know the angle between them We therefore solve for the third side and the angle side and these are the formula that um that give those Now this is a very Long-standing problem that a lot of people have been faced with when bly and his 18 crew members were thrown off the bounty They had to navigate 7000 kilometers to safety and they had to do that without making landfall the first time that they made landfall They got attacked by Islanders and one of their crew was killed So they had to work out how much water they had how much food they had Could they make that journey without making landfall and they were able to do it? Similarly the shackleton expedition to antitica their ship the endurance got trapped in the ice Then it got destroyed in the ice Then they camped on the ice until it melted and then they took rowboats to elephant island from elephant island Five of them had to navigate 1500 kilometers or almost a thousand miles to get from elephant island to south georgia Um, and they made it um had their navigation been off. They would not have we have hundreds thousands of Intercontinental marine Um transports every day We know what techniques they use and we've been using them for hundreds of years. Here is a A manual a sailor's manual from the 17th century written by samuel sterney And it's the the problem. It's discussing here is how to navigate from the mouth of the amazon to the island of londi We can show that they use spherical geometry to do that um The flat earth is incapable of telling us how much fuel food and water we need It's not capable of giving us those answers You can't just say that your distance formula is the same as the spherical distance formula that won't work If you do that then you then you have to agree that the distance from a murder station to Mawson station is 3000 kilometers Not however much you need similarly. We use the same navigation techniques for aircraft and we have done Here for instance, uh five intercontinental air journeys What i've done is i've averaged the outbound and the inbound flight flight times Which are in red in that fourth column I've multiplied that by the average cruising speed to give that fifth column And I compare that to the spherical distance estimate in the next column The final column is the flat earth distance element and you can see that the flat earth distance elements are generally larger than the than the aircraft could travel in that time frame For sending to santiago, which is the shortest flight in terms of time taken The flat earth says that it's actually almost twice as long as As it is in practice meanwhile flat earth tells us that the shortest of these flights is actually Seattle to Dubai, which is the one of the longer flights by time taken again, um flat earth fails to give us um aircraft fuel requirements or food requirements We can actually check physical objects here. We have submarine cables One submarine cable going from sydney to hillsborough We can compare the cable length that we know Versus the spherical distance formula and the flat earth distance formula We can see the flat earth distance formula is several thousand kilometers. Well, is it more than a thousand? It's about a thousand kilometers too long. Um, even at a hundred percent tension We can have a look at the perth to musket one. We can see that again the flat earth distance is just too long There are hundreds of these. Um, similarly we can look at railways So here's a physical object The railway between kalguli and takula. We can measure the track length. It's a hundred. It's one thousand two hundred and eighty kilometers If we look at the spherical distance estimate, that's one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers The flat earth estimate is three thousand kilometers So we can show that the flat earth does not get that right Similarly, we can look at jacksonville the pence cola We can see that the track separation is five hundred and ninety three kilometers the spherical distance is five hundred and thirty three The flat earth distance six hundred and forty three We can now check We can now check the geometry flat earth suggests the um distance between longitude should increase with Distance south it doesn't Um, we can show that here But we can also go to argentina and see that the track length in argentina is even shorter than the northern hemisphere track length All right, I just ask you to stop the screen share and thank you so much tony for your introductory statement And just want to remind everybody if you haven't already hit the like button It only takes a second and it really helps us out when we're having these live streams to get it boosted up in the algorithm T jump six minutes on the floor to present the case for the globe earth and the floor is yours button All right, um So yeah, the earth is a globe all the objections They said don't make sense like the fact that when you jump you don't feel it moving When you jump in a plane you don't feel it moving when you jump And uh train you don't feel it moving the fact that you jump would not indicate it's motion unless you don't understand that There's an atmosphere around you that's also moving You feel changes in motion not motion Um for one of the other ones there's curvature. There is curvature. So yes We see curvature. We can prove curvature curvatures can prove and literally just bounce radio waves off the clouds And have a bounce back and forth and you can calculate where they are. It's very very easy not difficult at all um Yeah, that's good. I'll just conclude there when I'm like open discussion All right, no problem. You still have five minutes on the floor there. So we're going to kick it into an open discussion everybody Uh, if we go into muted rounds with too much crosstalk, we'll do that You're guys are requesting a live chat, but uh, we are going to do a Q and a At the end of this discussion. So get your questions in there And we're going to ask each of our speakers here those questions at the end of the debate So, uh, without further ado, uh, let's kick it back over to uh, Matthew and Nathan to respond to some of the things that they just heard and uh, I put you on mute there. Uh, Matthew. Sorry. Yeah, just I heard some background noise while he was making his intro So I'll just ask you to come off mute And we should be good to go Can you hear me brilliant? All right, let's rock it. I was coughing a beard and I'm sorry if it was live I didn't mean to interrupt anything. I apologize for that Uh, so excuse me, uh, no problem. But anyway, um, let's go Mr. Mr. T jump.  And you jump And you don't feel it What do you think the reason would be really that if if you wouldn't feel it? How about if you were on top of the plane Mr. T jump say you were one of those wing walkers Out there on top of a plane. How fast you want to be going any any speed you want to go 400 500 What will happen if you stop the coin? How does that relate to the question? Oh, sorry, uh, if you're if you're jumping in a plane, is this plane traveling in a linear straight constant speed You can go in a curved speed. That's perfectly fine. You still wouldn't feel it So What's that? Yeah, let's get Tony in here. I just wanted to I just wanted to ask So, um, both of you made a conflation that I don't think is warranted um Here's a cube. It's going to be a cube whether or not it rotates It's going to be a cube whether or not it is tilted It's going to be a cube whether or not it exerts a force or whether or not it is acted on by by force The debate here is about the shape of the earth Not whether or not it spins not whether or not it's tilted not whether or not gravity is As described by mainstream science The debate here is about the shape of the object that we are standing on So, um, it's very easy for flat and this is a complicated enough topic That I think we need to stick to it. The flat earthers do like to sort of say well There's this there's that there's the other stuff. Let's talk about the shape of the earth Yes, I agree. Uh, Tony, do you mind if I address a couple of, um, the things that you had brought up in your over Feel free So, um, you had mentioned the flat diagrams of triangulation using a star as well as Two ground positions And so you you gave uh, you showed an example of what we would see like in math if you're doing trig and you're drawing on a piece of paper You're drawing a triangle and so, um, maybe here I could do um So this This is a triangle that you would have in math class and this is just on a board or a piece of paper or whatever Uh, and so this would be how you would use trig to try to calculate your angles But I think what this is is a is a misrepresentation because if we're talking about the real world and determining the earth's shape In reality, there are Other variables that are impacted in on our measurements. So there is the medium of the Environment we're looking through with optics and so light is traveling. So the the true position Of the star, uh, could be different It's also a claim that there is a Is a glass I would I would advocate for a firmament a dome structure So there is a a medium change that could be affecting the the position of the stars As well as things like the atmosphere that are that would Would essentially make squiggly lines At added into uh the into the triangle It wouldn't be a straight line trig that would work if there was no atmosphere No medium change and everything was direct line of sight. But because there are these variables. I think that that um That in in particular is is something that is not it's it it works as a Mathematic on on a piece of paper, but it is not allow me to ask the liquid Yeah, allow allow me to ask you a question though. Do you agree? That we can navigate accurately and correctly and we can work out how far we need to travel using the spheroidal distance approximation Yeah, we can travel using uh, what we have gathered for our our travel logs as far as ground Traveling how long it takes us to traverse from one point on the ground to the other As far as the Um, the stars bearing on that for their their general position What what our zenith star is? I think that we can do navigation because there has been navigation for a very long time Including going back to antiquity where there were flat earth cultures who were navigating successfully with their flat Could you give me an example of A flat earth um culture that was capable of intercontinental sailing? um, so the uh Scandinavian cultures, uh, the vikings were able to get to like canada into north america Apart from north america. I believe that there was some intercontinental Sailing with the chinese as well, uh, and do you know how the do you know how the vikings Sailed that do you know how they did they use charts? Did they use instruments? Were they using calculations or Were they um using a combination of um dead reckoning in sun angles? um I I would I would uh, reckon that they were probably using a mixture of of various Charts positionings, uh, maybe coastal sailing as well, uh landmark navigation Uh Do you know how they found do you know how the vikings found green land and found? um, uh canada household It was it was by accident. They got caught in storms blown off blown off course and they found themselves near these things so it wasn't a matter of um Them navigating successfully into areas that they had never been before they traveled accidentally into areas that they had never been before And then again and then um based on the wind that they had experienced during the storm. They navigated their way back um, it's um But you you mentioned also the anti-kathara mechanism and I hear flat earthers Mentioned that a lot the anti-kathara mechanism dates from around 130 ce um, and by that stage, um, we know for a fact that the greeks were using um spherical trigonometry in order to calculate um Eclipse as some positions um and planetary positions We have the textbooks that they wrote on these subjects Also the claim also the claim, you know, this is a slightly different topic But the claim that the stars don't move is demonstrably false We know from these we know from these old star charts that there has been procession of the equinox the equinoxes Yes, matthew Okay, I would like to address just a few things First you did lie when you said we didn't address that we were talking about the shape of the earth If you play back the video the first material conditional I gave for the globe theory to be true was the curvature of the earth So I forgive you for lying, right? I didn't sir Sir, I object to that characterization. I object strangers. I never Play back the video.  We're talking about the shape of it. And I and I was just in You I was like I that was the first thing I brought up was that the we were talking about the shape Right, and I didn't say you didn't Right, but yeah, your questions what what I said was that your questions about rotation and planes All have to do uh, uh irrelevant to the shape Right I mean can I Okay, really quick. Yeah on the globe theory Really quick php tony the reason rotation would be important on a globe earth Is that would be the reason for having day and night? I'm not disrespecting you. It's not irrelevant But I do want to I want to just kind of like I just want to like really quick, uh I want to go back to t-jump, man If someone before we go back to me, I want to fix this problem. So like well, I want to get off my Because yeah, you said Just stop this is moderation is going terrible here. Yeah, you miss the point. Matthew. You've missed the point Anthony we stop You missed the point. So anthony when he was bringing up the the cube He was telling us to stay on topic of the shape. He wasn't saying you didn't address the shape in your ability He did not say that that was not a part of his claim He was saying let's stay on topic about the shape.  You were wrong Okay, you were just wrong dude. I was talking about the shape everything I mentioned I don't care Matthew. You missed the point.  Stop talking. I don't care if you don't care All right, I just We're gonna let t-jump have a second here because he hasn't said anything in a hot minute. So go ahead t-jump Tony did not say that what you said was irrelevant to the globe that was not the point Was not the point He was saying that he was making an argument about the rotation not being relevant because that's a separate topic Which is fine, but that was a different thing.  Okay, because he wasn't claiming you never addressed the shape in the beginning I don't know why you're spinning your fingers. I can eat it Okay, if it's about flatter, what do you think we're talking about? How would we not stop Matthew stop Matthew stop Matthew Go back to our claim One claim at a time Matthew you claimed he was a liar because he said we weren't addressing the shape Okay, I think I think I think he already clarified what he had said in his intro Matthew So I do want to move on from this The the idea that he was lying in the intro, uh, maybe like maybe there was a misunderstanding But Nathan had something he wanted to ask So let's let's carry on and try to progress the conversation because we're getting into meta debate right now and it's He's just talking there are various topics of this discussion But focusing on the shape of the earth is the most relevant the primary in determining the shape of the earth We should talk about the shape of the earth Tony, I completely agree with you. I absolutely you're being I think forthright and very on topic. Um So I wanted to to bring up that Uh, you talk about the the food and fuel and and things for travel going from location to location and how I would Explain how that is able to be done is that we are able to Uh, we're able to to gauge our distance traveled over the ground And then we're able to say, okay, if we're going to go this far We're going to know we're going to need this much food to last this many crew crew members And we're going to need to bring this kind of water If if they were able to know that they were by certain lands They might have been there before if you go on to one land and then some people Are not too fond of you being there Maybe you continue to go on your voyage and you find another land and get out there Are they being I'm not sure if they're being attacked everywhere they go or anything like that But if they can find resources on the lands that they that they settle at but if they apparent if they know the destination is so many Um such so many thousands of miles away Then maybe they're already prepared for that because going into an unknown open expanse of water I think would be pretty difficult to uh reconcile how many resources you should bring along So I would think maybe there's prior knowledge to the Locations that they're going and they're and and we are able to topographically lay out the distance of our Of our ground coverage Okay, but one of the examples I gave was Shackleton sailing from Elephant Island to South Georgia A journey that had never been made before At a time of year that it had never been made before in a vessel in which it had never been made before um, so the um the the claim that it's based entirely on on experience is is not true and similarly, you know the Uh, if you've got only two data points, which is your current position Which is what bligh had bligh had his current position And he had his destination and he had to calculate how much food he needed to make that destination And he knew the distance and he got the distance right. We have his log books We know how he calculated it. We know how he calculated it and we know how he did it And it's not just actually people traveling. So, um, you know, I've raised that I've raised the the concept of um Of boats and planes and trains and etc. Um, but actually the speed with which earthquakes earthquake vibrations travel the speed with which tsunamis travel the speed with which atmospheric pressure waves travel the speed with which um Sorry, what was the other one weather systems travel all of these speeds are consistent with spherical distance calculations So it's not just a matter of you know people doing this everything travels at a Everything travels as though the earth is sproidal um Matt you might if I jump in and just ask someone about this Oh, yeah, I'm listening. I'm just I'm I'm watching what's going on. You're doing great, man. Let's move So rounds for each side so that you guys can make sure you're bouncing back and you're not throwing too much stuff out there all at once So one minute. Yeah, uh, just to to continue with this with you, Tony about um, so they knew that The distance that they were going to a land Uh, but they didn't know where they were going and it was the first time they had sailed using this craft First time taking this route due to weather conditions first time going to an unknown location But they they also knew it. I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you there Um, but it's no no Nobody had so it's not the it's not the where they were going. Nobody had been it was where they were Nobody had been all right. So nobody had been Nobody had been on elephant island before they were trying to make elephant island to south georgia Nobody had made that journey before All right, another three seconds. They were that clarification Yeah, okay, so um, maybe uh, I would I would suspect that if someone is in the dark about Where they're at and then where they're trying to go there would be very unknown variables there that would make navigation hard So are more difficult to to really get an estimate of how far you're gonna go. So maybe you're gonna try to Uh, if you're in an unknown starting point, you know your end point You still can't really gauge this and so you might just bring as many resources as I can What you think might be reasonable and hopefully get all the crewmen there, uh, well and and uh able to You know, enjoy the land landfall Well Okay, so the They did know where they were because they were able to make celestial observations of their latitude and longitude So they knew where they were. It was just that nobody had been had tried to make this journey before Um, I don't know how to say say this in a way that's going to clarify it more Um, they knew where they were they knew where they needed to be nobody had made that journey before Okay, so they were they were taking a route that had not been done. Yeah Oh, yeah, sorry man Hey, thank you james. Thank you james. Okay, uh, tony. I know what you're talking about the people They needed to make sure they had enough food And fuel to get to where they're going right they wanted to make the right calculations But maybe you overlook that if they're sailing their fuel is the wind and if they're hungry they could fish man They could cast their nets and get fish So I don't know what you mean about they're going to be Worried about all the food and fuel because I mean what kind of fuel do they need on a wind powered craft I don't mean to make you feel weird or anything to make the point but So what where did they get fresh water from? They just keep oak barrels or whatever bunch of that's probably the only thing they really needed I mean So they had to work out You know you you say that they can fish but actually british sailors were pretty Loathe to eat fish. They considered it not Not person food I mean So but the Fresh water is one of the resources that you most need And that you can't find at sea so they had to do a calculation of how far they were traveling How long it would take them to get there and how much resources they had now? I don't care Whether or not you think they got the distance right What I care about is that if you were on that ship If you were captain of that ship you'd be dead because you have no way of making those calculations Yeah, so if you were going to uh, basically if you're going to have um a point Two points above the ground You could essentially Uh, you could you could look up here At your that your zenith and then you could determine the distance Nobody can see that Ground coverage and then find the location that you're going to and you can then engage the distance between The before and where you're going on the ground Yeah, you're you're talking about celestial navigation. You're you you're talking about using the fixed stars To know your location on the the non rotating level earth, right? No That's what exactly what I think it is. I mean that's like a life all that you know Well, you see I'm talking about Is if you have if you know your location Here and you know where you need to get to there How do you calculate the distance between them and you drawing a diagram? like that Doesn't actually help because without extremely precise chronometers and um Uh and ephemera these you don't know what star is as a muthily above your destination Any thoughts there to jump before we pass it over? You're on mute right now there to jump. So if you're I know I'm on mute No, I think it's a complete waste of time. I don't I'm not really interested in this specific topic It's like flat earthers can do nothing. They've never built anything. They're never traveled anywhere. They never discovered anything This doesn't work. It's a complete waste of time the the global earthers do we discover things. We make progress We change the world Until the the flurfs can actually do something with their Hypothesis that the world is flat then they have nothing they they can do nothing I don't care about their complaints their opinions their feelings their thoughts mean nothing go do something build me something discover something go go to go to the go find the firmament Do something your opinions are just not evidence. So I don't care about your word games All right thoughts on that fellas. May I uh just one second there tony? We'll let them respond to what they just heard there May I speak sure thing matt?   Can I add a qualifier real quick? Uh, you got 15 seconds and then we got to hand it over before we're too much in there Tony would not look dumb if he was wearing a dunce cap. I want to emphasize that Um, but I I do ask tony as a qualifier to the premise of this if they knew the location They were going how did they know where it was? Don't they have to say the star should be above that location and that that land and then they look down and say That's where we're going to go towards. How did they know where the distant land was without using the sky? and I'm going to explain this and I'm going to use small words for you my point was My point was not That they can't recognize stars My point was that they cannot identify which stars are exactly as a muthal at their destination At a particular point in time They would need an ephemeris a specifically detailed for ephemeris That would um and an extremely accurate chronometer if we were doing this today We could do this. Yes, but just knowing that that star is in that constellation is no help in this problem um, so prattling on about constellations is um and claiming that it makes me look dumb is so pathetically inept That I am struggling to really understand what you're talking about I explained very clearly what the problem is And the other point that I would make is that they know the coordinates Of the point that they're navigating to Because they have books in which the coordinates of ports are set are written down So those people at the local at the local port Made celestial observations noted their latitudes and longitudes to write them down in a book and the people have access to that book And and just to clarify with this here in this example that we're talking about this is the example involving Antarctica and South America not the destination going east to west in Indonesia in in that area right where we're talking about the Antarctic Both they both knew their end Directions their end goal coordinates Yes, so they had sailed there before and knew where they were going No The Bly the the mutiny had not been to that point in indonesia They knew that the port in indonesia was there Because it was in a chart that they had they had not actually been to it before somebody else had been to it All right, you guys still have another 25 seconds and uh I think that this is I actually think that this is I actually um I actually think that this is Getting to be a waste of time as the two of you don't know how celestial navigation works And you don't know how these distance calculations work All right Over to you fellas. Um, so I would like to actually introduce another data set Okay, just hold that thought right there. I will let them respond to uh, what you just said there And uh, we'll let you introduce that in just one now one second Matthew you you got something to say there, so i'm going to say another one minute go Matt if you want to go and then can we introduce a data set to to advocate towards I just want to say something really quick if you want to finish that previous topic, but uh, Tony Yeah, you you mentioned they did use celestial navigation. So they had to know where they were on the earth and um Yeah, it's like so they're using the stars if they're at sea What do you think they would use to navigate like say they're out there for like, you know extended periods of time The only thing they would have is the stars nothing to do with like Calculating ferocity of any kind Only the stars above and I don't mean to Or sound dumb or I'm just ignorant, but I just want to put that out there that the stars that was important You know nothing about ball earth Uh, Nathan, so why do the sailing manuals? Instruct people in spherical trigonometry Excuse me Why do sailing manuals instruct people in spherical trigonometry? I mean, why would they perpetuate a lie? I don't know people put That they're using the uh, so that there's a cyclical nature to the stars cyclical patterns And if you have the circle circles being made above us Or around us as far as what one model would claim or the other You're using those circles and those those trackable predictable patterns that have been repeated throughout history and tracked throughout our Logs of the stars You're using those to be able to navigate and and if they knew had maps of the locations they were going Those could all be charted out star to star Brown location Compared with the sky location of where objects are and then they're able to navigate to this area that had been explored And already so they knew where they were going. They knew the distances because they had traveled it and logged it Except we have their log books and we can tell that that isn't what they did We know how they did this calculation. It wasn't in the way you're suggesting Okay, so if they if they had calculations in their logs to the distance of the port that they were going to And this was the Someone had already been there with they themselves had not They are going to calculate the distance that they already had a map to the the location No, they did not have all they had was the coordinates of the location They had the coordinates Yes, and then they had to determine the distance to that coordinate. Yes And I didn't do it in the way you suggested but look this is It is clear to me that you don't you guys don't know what an ephemeral is or why it's useful Why it would be necessary for For the calculation that you're that you're discussing. So let's move on to another data set Okay. Okay Maybe I could I'll ask you later about what that that device is but okay I have a data set if I could um bring it up. I I am curious just one second there, Nathan We're just just if you can hold on to yours now. I'm just going to ask you to hold on yours We're going to let Tony do his first. So uh, Tony go ahead All right. I just need to share my screen. Is that okay? Sure thing Okay All right, imagine a sphere Imagine that there's some sort of vibration at the top of the sphere We would expect that vibration to spread out like this And if you look in the if you look across to the left, that's the top view It's spreading out like a circle Now it moves into the other hemisphere If you look to the right into the bottom view, you'll see that it starts converging on the other pole like a circle Now let's look at an actual earthquake. This is the Macquarie rise earthquake of 2004 Um, the the epicenter is that red star The blue circles are the most recent size mix stations to receive it If we run forward in time, we can see That the signal moves out in a roughly circular fashion We can see also that it has made it to the far side of Antarctica Without going through the northern hemisphere in any sense If you look at the um, if you look at the flat earth model on the right That doesn't make any sense But we're about we're going to run through in time and you can see the circularity of this wavefront spreading out Um, as it does so and if you look on the right on the flat earth model You can see the circular pattern Let me just rewind it a little bit so that you can see that better You can see on the right hand panel. You can see the circular Convergence on the point opposite on the side of the earth So we made a prediction about how earthquakes should behave We went out. We looked at some earthquake data. We got an exact match um the You know and you again, there is no flat earth model for this um Here is a model versus prediction. The model are the solid lines The predictions are sorry. The observations are the dots So the model predictions are the solid lines You will observe that as the Arrivals get later get further and further away The wave seems to be traveling faster. Why is that on a flat earth? There's no explanation for that But on a spherical earth there is um, the wave is traveling less distance And it's doing it at greater depth where there is higher velocity So, um, we have observations. We have a model we can predict. Um You know, and this is a million predictions. I'll give you 30 seconds Give me its depth. Give me give me its origin. I can predict the wave from arrival times for you You have nothing All right, thank you so much. I'm gonna jump in real quick on this one. Yeah, we'll give you each a minute Okay, uh, Tony, can I just ask a real quick question? I've heard that there is some difficulty with waves Traveling through Antarctica that the continent is is that? Is that any any sort of accurate just as a qualifier? Well, then There are there are somewhat lower velocities under Antarctica. It's it seems to be somewhat warmer but It's not a major problem now Okay, um, so how I I would try to Explain and one thing about too and even this can relate with the distances on the ground and everything Flat earth we we claim to use those kinds of maps like a at the azimuthal equidistant map and everything Are are more for to get concepts down I wouldn't claim that they're accurate as far as the the distances in a lot of senses The latitude and longitude seem to be accurate, but the military the military has the accurate Maps, but how I would I would explain that kind of it if you could go to your slide For around one full 190 that you you show that you get a mark over here And I think what could happen is you have the waves going out And then they're going to angle And and everything is going to Eventually converge Anti-total and then it's going to go back and bounce And this is not supposed to be some sort of shape shape like weird shape or nothing I'm not into that unicursal stars and all that Five is the white no propagate across the center of your disc T-jump. Yeah, you're making some expressions there. Do you have anything to add? Oh, I've been messing with my audio trying to get my audio to work where I can Send my audio to my my stream while I watch play video games. I just got it to work, which is great so what I would I would say is that um The What Tony said about earthquakes is a great example So if there's an earthquake in Malaysia He can predict where the earthquake is going to go to which city where everywhere and get it right 100% of the time So like If the globe is correct and there's an earthquake here You'll get an equidistant circle that'll go to all the places And if you get an earthquake in every different continent, they'll connect in some way You'll get it'll always be some equidistant to some other one But if the world's flat that won't be the case There'll be an earthquake in some some part of the very far right and it'll never touch the very far left Or it'll be very very far away We don't see that never ever in the history of ever doesn't happen When there's an earthquake it'll go equally in every direction and hit every continent equally in every direction It's never the case That there's just one area where it just never gets to it doesn't happen So so Tony's example of earthquakes is great because if earthquakes happen on a round sphere and they happen Regularly in every different location then we can prove for for fact the world must be round That's it game over you lose because if it's flat that gives a completely different Spread of the way earthquakes will spread the vibrational spread. He's debunked you like what how do you how do you explain? the rates and location of where The expansion of these earthquakes goes to and what why does it always go equidistant to every location All right over to you Matthew Okay to answer that simple thing. I mean that's funny. You say it's debunked and game over right time to go home, right? Yep. Hey, uh anyways, uh about the cartoon that Tony was showing On the one side it was the azimuthal equidistant map Which is useful because the distances are correct. Okay Now the one you showed on the left side Is the isn't it's even worse than the globe Like if you look back on the graphic you showed it's the southern Azimuthal, which is totally wrong. None of those distances are correct like in the northern hemisphere. So what you showed Actually is so incorrect. It's worse than globe. Okay now I appreciate the cartoons, but there is that pesky ice wall So you see how the the cartoon energy was bouncing away That's probably what it did. You know, I would love to go see it. I'm not rich enough to go Pay 20 grand to go down there, but if I I would like to but maybe that's why the things bounce a certain way Maybe is not science I love you Tony. Did you have anything to respond with their uh, yeah, I have several things to respond to I or Tony I guess maybe or you know, um, I saying maybe or um, you know Possibly or whatever. Um, we've got a model. We've got a prediction the model Well, we've got a model. We've got a prediction from that model and we've got observations The model and the observations match That is validation of the model You can't just say well, maybe there exists a model. I don't have it, of course I can't do any predictions, but maybe there's a model that matches up. That isn't science That isn't even a basis for a scientific conclusion Um, uh, you know furthermore, um, your problem is even worse than that Um, because it turns out that there are seismic waves That go from the point of origin. Um, I actually have another display may I share my screen again? Sure thing Just let me know when you're ready Yep, just a second You are good to go Okay, here we're looking in on the left. We've got an earthquake Um occurring at the top. We've got wave fronts ones going out to the right ones going out to the bottom These are surface waves. So they travel around the circumference So they get to the receiver bang. That's the r1 wave They continue going around they go into the um, uh, the opposite hemisphere and now they Come back and they get to the receiver from the other direction So if there's a receiver, um south of their current receiver, they come back bang. That's r2 Now we get r3 which occurs very close after the first one So these waves go round and round and round if you've got a large enough shallow enough earthquake, you'll get r4 This also happens with atmospheric pressure waves. For instance the tonga tapa Eruption, this is the air pressure wave around it. You can see it spreading out from tonga tapu Um, this is it 73 hours later after it's made multiple circuits of the And this is observational data. You can hold your hands all you like Um, Matthew, this is real observational data and I have visualized it for you I have turned it into a graphic fine, but you don't get to pretend that the data doesn't exist May I respond? Sure thing over to you.  Okay, really may have just a little time to speak and eloquent Okay, computer programs don't mean anything. I'll tell you why Someone, uh, probably make a computer program app on my phone They could show me pokemon in my front yard With my eyes, I don't see poke. I don't see pikachu. I don't see charmander or eckons But the phone someone can show me on their device.  With my god given senses I the computer program can say anything it wants the numbers you could do any numbers you want But it's like you're calling me a mom No, I love your cartoons I love them You're saying you're saying that the data doesn't support these these presentations. I'm saying the data can obviously be manipulated I mean our What is your evidence for supporting that point If I show you a cartoon a pikachu, that doesn't mean he's hanging out with me. Oh my god. Oh my god We know The cartoon I said the least so let's give the floor a tea jump The cartoon is a picture to help you understand the argument the cartoon is not relevant to the argument So the cartoon shows a picture of a globe and if there's an earthquake in one location, it'll spread out in the circle Right, that's that's just showing you that If we expect this to happen like if the world's a globe And the globe predicts that certain cities are in certain locations on a globe model Then we can predict that if an earthquake happens here It'll hit this city and this city and this city the ones that are equidistant in every direction at the same time That's all that that's all the cartoon is showing And that has happened that that literally has happened. There is an earthquake in a location We know the building's got fallen and we can test what time Was the earthquake felt in a different city and we can say hey, there are people there They have their phones like hey, we were feeling the earthquake at this time and we can say oh Look, this is the time it happened. Here's how far away it is. Here's what here's how the things spread now If it's a globe it's a ball and the earthquakes happen all over the ball Everywhere all over the ball Then we can measure How far away every city is it's going to come a very very strange shape if the world's flat When there are earthquakes all over the ball, it'll be different It'll be two different measurements with different numbers for wind earthquake We just hear and hear and hear and hear for each different earthquake it's triangulation different numbers Guess what? The globe numbers are right Blurf numbers wrong So the cartoon is just showing you the facts that have been proven not by a cartoon But by the actual data we have of when the earthquake happens And when it gets to the other cities everywhere else around in the world So the cartoon isn't the evidence. That's just a picture to show you why you're dumb Okay Nothing in here very quick Matthew just uh, I think what what what tony was showing there was was the data collected from from detectors of of the seismic waves and then Cell phone is he he he graphed out where those detectors were and when they went off and anthony I was going to ask you if you could and I do believe we have the ability to detect these things that that is observational data empirical data that they've measured Would you be able to show uh, uh, like I think it was around 190 of the slide um, if you could show around there, I was just curious about uh one thing but um I I do think that you would get sort of like, uh, if you dropped because it if I think that these waves would travel We could kind of maybe try to use fluid dynamics to understand the properties of how these Waves would would move about and I think if you drop if you drop something into like a tub Like if you drop a ball into a tub of water The the waves that are going to go out closest to the sides Would bounce and then go in a direction from there and then the waves that are traveling out the furthest before they hit a Wall they're going to keep going until they hit their wall and then bounce from there. And so, uh, I'm curious here. Um, This is on on the right side What's up? So Okay, except that we can prove that that isn't what's happening, right? um, so I've got another presentation. It should surprise no one All right, I'll give you two minutes on the floor there if you want to show something up there But before we move on Nathan, you had some closing thoughts on what we were just talking about Yeah, uh with with where about where where anthony was showing there with the the epicenter I was I just wanted to make note that you had you had pointed out that there was a a Detection that was about on the opposite side of the the flat earth model. Um, which would be further distance on a globe then Points that are closer to there weren't stars If you were just looking at that map on your on your computer screen on the top half of that map There weren't any detections that were close by closer to where the epicenter is on the anardic coastline Um, just sorry that again because you missed them All right, um, this is before you want to make the next point here Uh, because we will eventually go into the qa If we want to bring up a new topic, that's totally fine by me. Uh, I don't mind if we go a little bit longer. That's cool Okay, so you you're you're talking about here Yeah, so uh, you could maybe run it forward a little further Okay, so like say right there like right around this area So right now you're getting a a reading that is around that 30 mark at the bottom there Uh, that's on that ring. But now if you look straight Up from the star you have those two red dots on the coastline of anardica But there there is nothing kind of over towards that 150 area Which on a globe with anardica the shape that it's claimed to be that would be a closer location They they appear to spread out a location, but there's no seismometer there So we are constrained by where the instruments are So the fact that there's no um circle there is an indicator that there's no instrument there Or at least no instrument that showed up in this data search So it's not uh, the fact that the wave didn't make it there. It's the fact that there's no instrument to detect it um, so we the but we can refute the um We can refute the reflection argument. Just give me a um a moment um Need to find the Need to find the right one A1 are we moving into your next point now? I just had to Check on the kid. Yeah, I'm just down. I've just found it. Let me just go Because we know actually what happens when a circular wave reflects off a circular obstruction Let me just share once more. Yeah, you're all ready. We're still ready to do the share Now you can find videos of this on youtube People with shadow tanks doing this experiment A the wave starts at the purple star it spreads out It hits the circular edge now. What happens when it reflects is this It turns into a straight line and sweeps back along um, so it doesn't um go out across the It doesn't go around the edge of the At the disc and as I say you can go onto youtube you can look up Circular wave circular obstruction and you can see what happens for yourself Um, so no your reflection mechanism does not make sense and it does not explain the data So I would want to want to contest that what you're showing here is not an accurate representation of of what an earth would be Because this looks like a a uniform Um homogenous one material type of of circle that the simulation is being run through as opposed to has This model been done with various densities of medium within the ground within the water Uh, have these these wave? Motions been been tracked in in different density mediums. Yes There have been attempts to um make flat earth um models flat earth seismic models That can work on a regional scale. They don't Um, I can show you um the papers. I've got them here Snokes and la 2001 by et al 2017 investigated on what length scale um the uh The um you actually need sphericity in order to match the observations and the length scale is 150 to 180 kilometers So after the wife has traveled 180 kilometers, there is no way to have a flat earth model that matches the observations Yes, we have looked at this and if you're going to say that's wrong You need to come up with one It you know, so you need to come up with a model. This is what I said about earlier if you can't lift the weight you lose Right, we're in a weightlifting competition now and you haven't even attempted to lift the weight You haven't made an effort and laughing when saying, uh, yeah, we can Um is not going to cut it. They they don't hand out olympic medals for um saying. Yeah, sure. I could do that. No problem um do it And you know, you'll find out that it's not um, it's just not possible. There is my phd Was in was in adapting flat earth seismic models to model viscoelastic relaxation I know about flat earth seismic models. I'm an expert in them Um, they don't work on long length scales. It's that simple and you can dispute it. You can say you're wrong Do you just say flat earth doctor? I say I'm sorry But what did you say you still have flat earth? Seismology and you put what did you do with it? You took it and put it in some kind of model that Maybe put it on a ball coordinate system Did you say I'm I'm not I'm not understanding it. Yeah, clearly. Um, what I said was My part of my phd thesis was adapting a flat earth seismic model into modeling viscoelastic defamation This viscoelastic defamation Yes, so defamation that has a both a viscous and an elastic component like a Maxwell solid So what's the purpose that you're what you study was called flat earth? And what I studied was high resolution modeling of um Glacial isostatic adjustment So the way the earth deforms under heavy weights like large ice sheets or large sediment loads or volcanoes earth science Earth science Yes, okay Yeah, you haven't done for a loop first. I thought you were saying like you take the flat earth seismic data and you do something to You change it somehow No, you don't Tony I I gotta just a quick question when you're trying to make flat earth models of seismic activity Are you using the data that we have? According to like our our current ability to um Record and detect things and then we're taking those data sets and trying to put them onto a flat earth model Yes, so I would I would ask if there is any sort of transform going on with well Say the military accuracy of data compared to what we get that might have gone through a transformation equation The rents transformation or anything like that that that maybe that it would be difficult to put the the data to a um To the the slightly more precise or however much more accurate true representation of the earth because we we are not given the the actual Distances or or anything like that. It's just a matter of time and location That's all that we're getting here All that we have is the time at which the the the wave function is a function of time at various locations There's no okay, so they're going off of the distances that we have Recorded well Locations we're going off the locations for the seismic instruments that we have Okay um And if I if I could real quick just address and then um I'll kick it back to you But I do so I I think why there are not like a flat earth Seismologist right now is because when you go through the academic schooling system you you are trained using Globe models globe numbers and so the people who are going into these fields are taught certain methodologies and practices that involve using Certain coordinates certain measurements and and so I I think that there there's a reason That there there are It's the lens that things go through Allow me to rephrase what you just said There is a reason why everybody who has been highly trained in seismology Thinks that the earth is round And that's because the data overwhelmingly supports it um That's the reason there are no flat earth seismologists Is because the data doesn't support your position and you don't have any valid models that match our observational data If you did and this is this is the thing if you want to if you want flat earth to be taken seriously You know that formula for the spherical distance um that I showed you at the beginning of my presentation Find me two points on earth's surface where that's wrong any two Cause all of the points all of the pairs of points that we've applied it to We get the right answer. So just show me where the spherical model is wrong Show me how it's wrong and I will start believing you I will start taking you seriously Okay, but that's what you've got to do Um, you can't just say you can't just say well, maybe there's some way that it can work Show me tell me prove it to me, right? I'm you know And and you you've got to do this and you know You you are sort of on a hiding to nothing because none of you have the technical Expertise to really process seismic data and I understand that's an obstruction But if that's the case maybe listen to the people who do um, you know, it's just like Flying a plane you may not be able to fly a plane, but you trust the pilot to do it for you Yes Geodesics is I Y'all what what tony does is very complicated mathematics. It's it's very involved very intensive I've heard that geodesics is the like the most Complicated form of mathematics that academia offers to to learn and study. So it's very high level um, very in-depth Mathematics and and and I do agree with that. Um But I I would think, um Uh, maybe that so like the the usgs Uses a a flat earth model as their as their logo and and I would and they are the ones that do have contained the the most accurate data and so I would think that um What what coordinate system we use if we're looking at certain flat earth models that are shown like the azimuth equidistant map though that is claimed to be Latitudinally and longitudinally accurate And so those coordinates would match up and then if you ascribe those to a globe with that data set You're going to be using real land-based coordinates that are latitude longitude correct And then you you could apply them the coordinates are there regardless if you want to say that they're sphere or or Triangle or square shape the the coordinates are Latitude x longitude y and then they they they apply it do very complex math and then get a data set May I may I share again because I think you missed a point in my original presentation? Sure, I've gotten used to these discussions involving a lot of screen sharing. So go for it tony Okay, um, there's no worry at all Thank you for that. I'll just close that Um, that's my rotation presentation, which is a completely different um thing but Okay, so if you if you remember my argument from down here um, right, so the the The flat earth model tells us that um it tells us that Uh As you go south the distance between points of a given longitude must increase Okay, but here we have Points that are in the northern hemisphere and at the same latitude and points that are in the southern hemisphere and at the same latitude um, and we can Use the rail track length between them As in it because the the rail train the rail tracks are mostly east west So we can just divide those rail track lengths by the number of degrees longitude difference and we can get the difference And over here we see That in the northern here in the northern hemisphere the distance along this train track is longer per degree Longitude than it is in the southern hemisphere That's the opposite of what should be happening a degree Longitude in the northern hemisphere should be shorter than it is in the long in in the In the southern hemisphere and as I said in my presentation we can go even further south um, uh, sorry seem to have lost that um seem to have lost that element, but um the uh but if we go to um Argentina we can see that the um that the Unit size per Degree longitude gets even shorter down to 93 and a half kilometers So we see that degrees in longitude get narrower as you go to the pole. They don't get broader um, uh, so you know if we accept your If we accept your map if we accept what it says, which is that degrees longitude should be extending We can prove that that's wrong We've got railway lines. They can be measured They can be walked people travel between these cities Um, we know how far it is. They have gps units on them. They they record their positions So, you know this this argument that you've got that that the azimuthal equidistant northern hemisphere map Works it doesn't it doesn't When you were showing that uh, just curious for clarification when you were showing that uh, the railroad tracks of the southeast united states and Australia Florida and australia The the point of emphasis there was those points between those dots added on to those railways the i believe the white and red red dots so um so that it was actually, uh A wider span in the north and i'm i've i've heard um neil neil tyson say that the the earth is actually bigger in the southern hemisphere So wouldn't that uh conflate with the globe as well? um And and i would agree if what's up? No Okay, thank you that the the this pear shaped um thing that you that you that you're all very keen on It's very slight. It's a very it's a very modest. Um, uh Influence you would not see it um, you know, you could look at the earth. You would not see it if you were um On on on a satellite you need very precise measurements in order to detect it And certainly more precise than a railway line Okay, railway lines are good. I mean, they're a fixed physical thing whose length we can measure Um, but you know, they're not precise measurement devices And and for the the railway is there a they were that these the stretch of land that they took from australia and the stretch of land that they took from um From florida if you looked at both of them side by side They're going to have equal topography amounts of variation in their elevation. So those are yes. Okay. Um, and and I would So then I would think if we are using especially like But that actually that actually ask me is against you, right? Okay, let's assume that there is lots of up and down and let's assume that there is lots of sides inside The track length is still less than the flat earth estimate right So the flat earth estimate is the flat earth requirement there is much much longer than what is observed Okay, the the spheroidal earth estimate is always shorter than what's observed Okay, which which it is which is consistent with their being topography and little wiggle side to side But the fat but you need that line to be as straight as possible And in some cases three times as long In order to in order to match the observations and that just isn't true So i'm i'm curious because you're saying that the the rail length distance isn't what it should be on a flat earth but I I have yet to and I'll I'll take note that what was shown there for the maps were flat map portrayals of these land masses But I I would think that There would be because I don't have a 100 accurate map of all of the continental land masses of the flat earth To to assume the the shape of australia the width of it or what dimensions aren't land All we would be able to tell is is by the length of the railroad tracks themselves That would be our our only kind of tangible ruler because Anything else would kind of be like So what so what you're saying is that it doesn't matter that the data disagrees with your model? Wow Your model the fact that the data contradicts your model doesn't matter Um, that that's not a concern for you Yeah, well, I would not say that's my position I would I would say if if if in florida florida one and position one in florida position two Requires X amount of track to be laid down no matter how much up and down or side to side me entering It has to go through to get there I will claim it's going to take that much track to get there based on the The path that they took to connect those two distances and the the amount of track would be the same in australia And and that distance is always consistent with the spherical distance formula The amount of track you need the amount of submarine cable You need the amount of air fuel you need Is always consistent with the spheroidal distance formula and it's never well It's not often consistent with the flat earth formula. It can be for some specific Locations But you know, it's it's not um, you know where Our formula works all the time and if that's the case that means that earth has to be a sphere But didn't you say that the globe predictions are tend to be a under the actual amount of track use? Yes, because the tracks aren't perfectly straight And yeah, and there's winding and it's not it's not taking the straightest Well possible to get there. Yeah, that's right. So the the spheroidal earth distance calculation is the shortest path possible The train line isn't um, but even even allowing for that, you know, you in in in the australian example You've got 1280 kilometers of track and the spheroidal distance estimate is 1242 kilometers So it's accurate to within, you know within a few percent so, you know the the I'd say that that's pretty good validation for the spheroidal distance formula, um, you know, it's it's And this is this is the thing that i'm trying to get whenever, you know This is what I think the criteria should be and I think that, you know I agree with you guys that it's okay to ask questions I agree with you guys that a lot of people think they know why the earth is flat Well, why the earth is spheroidal or flat? But they don't actually look at the data But if we look at the data and compare the models impartially The spheroidal model performs better. Um, and that validates go and met I already demonstrated with my opening statement that the globe theory is a contradiction So therefore it cannot be a globe Any computations you make data a computer programs? Yes, you could make many beautiful mathematical equations you could give me the equations about Like how much santa claus weighs and how much cookies and milk he gets on christmas and how many eggs The easter bunny lays and what color the eggs are that the easter bunny contradiction probability of the green How is it a contradiction? Oh the globe theory, where would you like listen to my opening statement? Let's do it again garbage. Give me an example. How is it in what way in what way the shape is a contradiction Okay, the globe theory suggests that the earth actually curves How is that a contradiction? Okay, let me eliminate this for a t-jump. I'm not trying to be weird But if the theory is saying something's gonna happen And then we put that theory to test and we look in reality And the the the that falls apart like when we don't see any curvature over one mile 10 miles 100 miles and it's non-existent To assert that there is curvature on the earth is a contradiction therefore the first mandatory Conditional for there to be a globe Is not there therefore If the first mandatory conditional is not there and we can prove that it's a it's not there That means it's a contradictory statement. No. No, that is literally not what the word contradiction means You need to google contradiction means Let's we could bring up the definition and then like put it into practice and see if The definition of contradiction can be applied to Curvature and globe theory All right, dr. Tony had some thoughts there. Um, I did have some thoughts there One you didn't present any data You didn't present any observational data in your opening and you haven't presented any observational data in the in the entire Um discussion to date. So the claim that you did is not true Um, I maintain the position that you see exactly as much curvature as Would be expected given atmospheric conditions and your position always Under any circumstances and your claim to the contrary requires um requires Demonstration and you have failed to produce any observational evidence whatsoever Supporting your point. So your claim to have contradicted the globe is simply an assertion and without evidence and can be dismissed instantly May I respond may respond I gave all kinds of info. I gave you info about how much curvature there should be over one 10 And a hundred miles. I gave you the information about the alleged rotation of the earth Which wasn't there. I gave you the information about the legit tilt of the earth Which wasn't there.  I could see for many many many miles That's my personal testimonial observational data when I go to a higher elevation like a tall building or a hill I can see There is no Curvature and I'm not talking about between two points I'm talking about if I'm in the hills and I can see santa anna anaheim Buena park Right, and then I can see more than 20 miles almost 25 miles away and I can identify Long beach with my eyes and I can see there is No Curvature not just between two points but over surface area No, I mean you I don't know if you know the locations I'm talking about I don't know if you're familiar with southern california, but it's like from hollywood to disneyland flat 100 flat Can you see radio waves? Can I see them? No, I could hear them So based on your evidence Based on the fact that you can't see them therefore radio waves don't exist Dude, we could prove radio waves exist We can prove the curvature You say that but I can't I mean I don't see it I can hear radio So the but we just established that the fact that you don't see something Is an evidence it doesn't exist I could turn on my radio We must establish that for radio waves. We can establish it for x-waves. We can establish it for atoms Like I listen to you prattle meaninglessly for about five minutes So stop interrupting me um, you know We just demonstrated That you not being able to see something is not evidence that it doesn't exist So you claiming I don't see it therefore it doesn't exist is not evidence.  I'm sorry to tell you phd. Tony. There is no curvature on the earth over one mile 10 miles a hundred miles Let's just give uh for a second there Tony just one second uh t jump uh, you're making a lot of Noises that should be reserved for you know, the 18 plus sections. So like what's going on, buddy? You're making a lot of growing of everything Matthew is unable to understand Breaks my brain.  Then Tony made a very clear point. Do you see radio waves? Like no Matthew, but he does not see radio waves So if Matthew's first argument actually worked then by virtue of the fact he can't see it It must not exist. So since he can't see radio waves, they must not exist Since that argument fails in the case of radio waves Even if you can't see them, they might still be there Then it's also fails in the case of the curvature even if you don't see it. It could still be there Which debunks his own argument that was that was the full point of Tony's argument and Matthew just Completely did not understand that and it was so simple. It's so so simple I don't think we're gonna forget this one Matthew. Let's just let Nathan in right quick. I don't think you'll forget though If I can jump in here I'm giving the floor to Nathan. Go ahead. I could share my screen here real quick um So uh, so what I have here Uh, so let's let's take this claim of um And I'll try to be as clear as I can with this So let's take this claim of is there curvature that we can detect say I'm skeptical that there's curvature So we can look at something like Bottom up this appearance and we could say that that is is more inferential towards their being curvature Because something would go down a physical dip and then only part of it would be would be visible because of the curvature so, um So if we look here, this is on a this so now now a flat surface needs to be able to show What looks like bottom up disappearance? What looks like curvature using realistic natural variables that we would expect to find if we were measuring for them out in the real world In the shared reality So this here is is a known flat surface and using temperature variation You'll watch as the bottom things the bottom of polar objects and then things that are are shorter inherently are all removed because of this controlled variable Uh, and and so this is a recreation of what should support a globe, but it's recreated on a known flat surface So now we we can look out because this is a what looks like a curved observation in reality Now we can look to what would be a, um a uh Something that would show a flat Uh observation of reality which would be these lights which are all one foot high and observed from a viewer height of under one foot They're five six seven eight miles away and they appear in a line So if you if you graph them out, so this looks like flat So now the globe which is claiming contour has to be able to recreate a demonstration Where we have realistic variables if you want to call it refraction Take any refraction you want control it for a variable in a scaled experiment Uh, and and then repeat it and show To to scale that a curvature rate Uh would would be able to look flat Because this is these are linear space lights that are exponentially curving further than each one than the last So you would need to show that this can appear on a known curved surface To scale with the controlled variables and it has yet to be done Uh to the I've tried asking several A smorgasbord of times to a plethora of people and I've yet to see this recreated on a known curved surface Thank you. Yeah May I have one last thing before I go or if we go to the next topic? I just want to say about Uh, yeah, we can't see radio waves, but we can know they exist by you know Sending them and receiving them my point about the curvature is like how would we determine? There is curvature if it was not seeing and recognizing locations But that was just my point is that yeah, we can detect and send radio waves and then the curvature The the best way I could think of that's actually real Not a computer program or a cartoon is to identify locations at long distances That was my point earlier about naming all those cities that I have recorded I should have had a bunch of things you guys check out my youtube channel, right? Uh, but yeah, there's it's no curvature. We don't see it All right there to say there is it's it's a lie to say there is okay We're gonna give the floor over to Tony here. Just uh, okay That's the third time that's the third time in this debate. You've just called me a liar Um, please don't do that Um, the other point I would raise is why can't I see Everest? If the earth is flat Everest is 10 kilometers tall. Why the hell can't I see it? um So, uh, you keep on saying there's no evidence of curve the fact that I can't see Everest Is evidence of a curve the fact that radars have horizons? um, is evidence of a curve if right if the earth was flat radars wouldn't have horizons, um, you know the There is the There is a but the fact that a degree of longitude covers different distances at different distances from the Equator and that it decreases as you move towards the poles is evidence of curvature All of this stuff is evidence of curvature to claim that there's no evidence of curvature is nonsense That was perfect. That was actually a perfect minute. My timer was just going off Tony. So that was like your internal timer is amazing Uh, go ahead Matthew. Okay, Nathan mind if I answer why we can't see Everest from where we are Okay, let me break this down for you phd. Tony. There is such a thing as visibility You could check it your weather app or whatever and let me give you like personal observational testimonial information. Okay There's a mountain range. It's like 20. No, it's like maybe 30 miles to the north of me Sometimes I can see it sometimes I can't sometimes the blue sky is in front of the mountains That's it. That's why we can't see ever. We can't see forever So sometimes you can see Everest and sometimes you can't know my point is if there's mountains that are like kind of close to me And there's days when they disappear like I can you know visibility is a thing Okay Why can't I see why can't I see man ever's you can you are you paying attention to my judge to answer your question I gave you Hold on one second I'll give you 10 seconds Matthew to clarify your question and then Tony the floor is yours Yeah to clarify. Yeah, uh, we can't see forever We cannot see forever the sky becomes opaque at a certain Distance visibility is a thing and like I just said there's close by mountains that sometimes the blue sky is in front of And I cannot see Okay, even if I accept this argument If I fly up into a plane where there is no pollution where I'm above the cloud and where I'm above mist I should be able to see Everest You know that the claim that the claim the pollution or clouds or smog or some other obstruction Obstructs ever Everest is demonstrably false If it if that were the case we'd see it as soon as we got into a plane and got to 10,000 meters We don't see that the idea that you can only see a finite distance is false um, you need to prove that you're claiming that and um Uh, you're you're claiming that without any substantiation whatsoever. Where is your evidence that we can only see so far We can see my personal testimony I'm still talking sir What's the question we can see stars that are some that are um, that are a long way away Without obstruction Oh, so sorry. I was just saying you got another 10 seconds there before matthew and jacks. So go ahead there matthew and Oh, I just want to say no matter high high gop There's going to be like gas and air, you know, like there's going to be like oxygen that you keep going up There's going to be all kinds of atmospheric stuff going on and not only, um, Is there that but when I mean, I don't mean to sound weird phd.  I'm gonna look like an inch tall Now how far how big do you think mount everis should be if it's what like 10 000 miles away from you Do you think it's gonna be its maximum height? Dude, i'm sorry to tell you like it's going to be taller than anything between it and me There's nothing obstructing it and you'll climb it, especially if i'm at 10 000 meters Um, you know, there's nothing obstructing it. There's nothing in the way you'll claim that obviously Can obstruct vision matthew, please demonstrate it. Where's your evidence? Before you guys start responding, uh, nathan, I will cede you the floor But I just want to look at look at look at hold on one second y'all hold on one second there guys All right, so i'm just got you on mute there matthew Before we carry into this i do want to check with you guys We've been going almost for what it's an hour and 50 minutes now that i've had you um I do want to check to make sure that none of you have any time constraints because uh, I have no problem to let you guys continue with this discussion But uh, we've got four people here everyone. Uh, if you're hanging out in the live chat hit the like button You know, this is a lot of uh Discussion going around and a lot of effort getting put in here by the speaker. So, um Does anybody have any time constraints speak now or forever hold your piece? Yes, I need to go to bed. You need to go to bed. All right Well, you you you go to bed whenever you need to go to bed and I will adjust for that Um, so just Let me know No problem. So I'll let you guys carry on with what you were discussing. I do did just want to check in there so No worries. We're going to keep tonight really chill if you need to drop out just uh send a message in the zoom chat and carry out fellas Yeah, and um, if there are I don't know if there's any questions specifically for for tom or anything like that But if there is and everything and that you want to ask his and then we could go back to discussion or anything like that But um, I would want to say uh, tony I'd like you to consider if you're looking at an object like mount evers and and it would be taller As far as it's true shape and size and height than anything in between you and it But if you have evers very far away, it's going to have angular shrink It's going to look small and so you can have an object that's closer to you You could have a mountain before that that appears bigger because it of its closer Position to your eyes so your eyes angular resolution will resolve it bigger And then there is also if you go up in elevation and you're looking out If you start to look down towards and tilt down for what you're looking at a small mountain that will appear smaller You're going to look back down into those things like debris that can block your vision Water vapor causes magnification which will distort things. There's a vanishing point Because we have the ground going up and the sky going down And so they're competing for visual data in our eye what our eye can take in And so when the ground light has met the competition line of the ground like when the skylight and the ground light have met each other's competition line They they have competed to each other to the furthest resolution We can see distance wise and anything beyond that would be would be vanished because you would only you Going up in an elevation you would push that back and if we could go high enough up We would be able to see ever is i'm sure from from a high enough elevation But we can't get there even nasa and all of them say we can't get past low earth orbit And all of those things are a problem to get high enough up So you run into issues with that which would it supports An enclosed system, but if it's free space above us in outer space We should get high enough up to just take a picture of the earth and settle the thing The whole discussion, but we can't Ah Okay, but anyway, that's I just there are multiple variables factored into why evers would be hidden Okay, can you provide a single academic reference for anything that you just described? Uh, yes, or is it just garbled nonsense that you've heard from other flat earthers that you're reciting here as though it's meaningful Uh, no, have you personally studied optics? Uh, I've I've done just a little bit of stuff with um, like organic chemistry and refraction labs Um, but as far as like the magnification of the atmosphere, I haven't like tech I don't think technically gotten into into that But I there are um, like when they were talking about the the horizon Or the skyline that was seen from michigan of chicago The the weatherman had mentioned that it was a superior mirage and then they had gotten scientists who are global Tenants they had said that the the atmosphere does act like a lens because of the water vapor And and so it does cause things too that are closer to you to to bloom up in your vision and to look bigger And so if something is looking bigger of your angular resolution It's going to crowd out other things And so that also will further restrict what you're able to take in through your okay the bit about crowding out I need a reference for Show me the textbook or the scientific paper where this crowding out phenomenon is is discussed and described Could I give you a demonstration? No, I want a scientific paper Um describing and enumerating this option because what you're describing Is actually not physical reality Um, okay. I don't think I'll be able to meet that request right now because I don't I don't have a paper on that specific topic Okay, my suggestion to you is that you should actually Because I hear claims like this a lot And um, they're generally made by flat earthers who actually don't have any formal training in optics And don't understand what they're talking about and they might Be well advised to actually get some training in some physics Okay I agree and I do think that the people who had mentioned that water acts like a lens in the atmosphere and causes magnification Um and and causes optical phenomena. Um and and mirages and illusions. I I believe they had some form of educational background Yes, and did they tell you how often that happens? Is it a common thing or is it an uncommon thing? Uh, it varies by the the humidity in the air the temperature. It's it's yes I know what I know what the functional variables are I'm asking if it happens a lot or if it happens rarely If it was on the news that is because it doesn't happen very often so, um unusual conditions led to this phenomenon being observable on this particular day And they got experts in to explain why it happened That does not mean that you can invoke it to explain commonplace observations Um, because it's a very unusual phenomenon and I know exactly how I know exactly how it arises Um, but it's not a commonplace event And so you appealing to it as though it can explain all of our observations all the time is not valid Do you understand that? Uh, I I understand but I think it is valid because there are It's understood that there are multiple conditions that determine how far we can see on any given day under any given set of conditions And so let's say if we're in michigan that the furthest we're allowed to see with the clearest conditions that allow us to see the furthest Are something that allows us to see the chicago skyline Uh, which should be hidden by a pretty substantial amount of curve But I would I would wager that the In on on average the the weather of the area would tend to put the visibility termination line somewhere between michigan and the the water so that it actually prevents you from seeing Chicago and even if you have fog around you you're going to have your field of view limited to like 30 40 feet so I would say it's somewhere between those those events that keep it very close and near and very distant and Most of the time the conditions will put you um Five miles out or 10 or 20 miles out But then that would if if if we want to take that to the aeratosthenes thing or uh, or not the aeratosthenes thing But the boat's going over the horizon at three miles How do we determine on what day on what conditions the actual limit of how far away we're seeing something go over it The the distance to how far out we can see changes so that our value would change um And so I I think that can you can you google Visible termination line for me because you use that term as though it was technical jargon Can you google that for me and see how meaningless it is? Because it doesn't refer to anything that is real And while you do that, I'll just remind everybody that uh, Approximately, I you know, I'm going to say if you've got if you guys got more thoughts to get out That's all cool, but approximately five to ten minutes We should start engaging with the audience a bit with the Duck off to go to the bathroom. Sorry to interrupt. That's fine. Uh, yeah, if you need to use the washroom t jump You were shaking your head earlier, uh, you know when you were listening to uh, some of what Nathan was saying Did you have any thoughts over there? I think it would be faster to list the coherent things he said than the stupid things all right Matthew You're making faces over there. We we had to uh, Tony is not here to engage right now.  So I'll see the floor over to you Matthew and see we can get some engagement back and forth between you and t jump when we wait for uh Tony and like I said, everybody get your super chats and they'll be priority, uh, read, uh, to all the debaters here so, uh Go ahead Matthew Oh, well since the the dude is Is uh Oh, sorry Could I could I just have um like 10 seconds to explain why I use the term like visual termination line? Okay 10 seconds sure So I use that word just to try to convey a meaning of of us having a A vanishing point due to our perspective of the the ground and sky colliding So I was just trying to use terminology that would convey an image to be able to follow along but I There might be a different technicality for the word or anything like that. So but I do apologize for the wording To me it sounded like you're appealing to something that is absolutely not demonstrated to exist To explain something that you can't demonstrate using physics That's what it sounded like to me And I would and actually I'd like to say something else. This is why I don't Like using optical evidence. This is why I prefer using length scales um submarine cables flight paths navigation Earthquakes atmospheric waves because whenever you get into these discussions about what you should or shouldn't see There's it always boils down to fairy tales about Optics being different from we understand it to be You know the the limit of refraction or Rayleigh's criterion or whatever magical phenomenon People want to want to appeal to And it's why I prefer to stick away from these blurry out of focus photos And actually stick with something that is measurable and repeatable That was fascinating I think this might be a good time everybody to move into our q&a We get lots of questions that are coming in and if you're hanging out in the live chat right now And you want your question be asked Get it in there as a super chat and that will ensure that we read it before the end of our debate So let's get into it everybody and once again Smash that like button as if it owes you money Ambient guitar music says question 40 jump. Why does Polaris never move? Um, even the sky it does It's not completely stable Any other thoughts on the panel there? Do you really want to move on? Yeah, we've got abundant. We've got abundant observational evidence that it moves We've got abundant observational evidence for a procession of the equinoxes The equinoxes are observed to process by about 50 arc seconds every year So the claim that the stars are stationary Is is just a result of not actually looking with sufficient precision at the data sets involved All right, let's carry on unless you got any thoughts on the other side mac can I can I can I Yeah, go for it because I was listening but you can go for it Okay, so uh with with Polaris there the talk about the procession of the axis Is that you have like this this arc in the sky that gets traced and the earth over 26 000 years Is claimed to make a 360 degree circle? And so Polaris will say has been the pole star for about 500 years Which would be about we'll just say it's about seven degrees of arc in that sky So it took 500 years to get that seven degrees and the claim is that only within the so that Only within the last or in the next hundred years will we approach the pinnacle Where Polaris is the most aligned with the axis of our rotation So we're not even at the peak of Polaris being the pole star So that means in 500 years it covered 6.99 degrees of of the arc swing and then the In the last hundred years it's going to cover a very small portion of the sky And and aligning itself So that would turn this this arc that casts over 2600 years And it would it would have it would essentially make a sky path that looks something like this where this Arc here is taking a lot of time and be and uh this narrowing here And then this can get covered this swath can get covered very quickly, but it's claimed to be a gradual Uh a gradual swinging of the arc through the sky. Do you do you know what? According to the zodiac according to astrology What star sign should you see at dawn on the spring equinox? I I don't follow stars signs. Okay, so it would be planted the Um, it would be Aries is supposed to be there But if you get up in the morning and you actually have a look you won't see Aries because Aries isn't there It's Pisces because the stars have changed because of procession since the zodiac was developed Also, if you bother to get up and actually observe Observe stars rather than opining about them Without any observational evidence. You will notice that Scorpio is barely in the zodiacal belt anymore Its place has been largely taken by the constellation of Eucharist So the claim that there is no procession is falsified instantly by the observed profession procession of the zodiac Since Epochus Compiled his star charts and since the Chaldeans compiled their star charts before him Uh, I would refute that with the Chaldeans being a flat earth culture And that there are cycles to the sky and cycles within those cycles And so some cycles will take longer because the sun's Grand hierarchy of cycles takes a different time than the stars Over time we could expect that the sun will go through different Zodiac signs As you can see that the zodiac does just change and that the and that And that the position of stars changes Hey, I would throw it out there that no Polaris is not moving because there's megalithic structures that line up with Orion and if the stars were tilting or if some other Bigger like 30,000 year cycle is taking place That would not line perfectly with the pyramids and Polaris would not be Exactly above the north pole and to answer further questions about Polaris. It looks like it's turning It's in one spot Turning on I think it's the one degree I'm not sure how to describe it. It's it's like it's just turning in its spot. It's not moving anywhere You know, I don't believe that stuff where they say like the it's going to shift to a different Whole star because if it's not moving now and it wasn't moving 10 years ago And it wasn't some other place 100 years ago Probably like in a year and in 10 years and 100 years from now Probably going to still be in the same place. Hopefully we're all alive to you know, no, right? Hope we all live long time to see that whole star stay put for another thousand a couple thousand years So you don't care what the high precision on subational data is you're just not going to believe it No, I look at the stars. I I track what's going on I compare it to what I've seen throughout my life and I see that there's no tilt which should happen every year I mean till that's not something that would take 100 years to see if it happens or not Allegedly tilt is the reason we have seasons on the globe earth But your inability to see tilt is largely a product of your inability to properly understand How it how it would be detected, but we can the tilt that we see is the Is the angle between the plane of the ecliptic and the celestial equator Are you claiming that the sun is always over the equator? No, i'm claiming uh that the tilt is at an angle to the equator, right? Please don't interrupt me, thd tony I asked you a question. No, what i'm saying is that the tilt we see is non-existent What was the question again because that's what i mean We can this is the first question guys, so keep those questions coming in go ahead tony What is the plane is the plane followed by the sun always over the equator? Is the plane followed by the sun Always above the equator. You mean the path the sun takes are you talking about the tropic of cancer? Yes In summer the summer solstice. That's when it's like at the edge of the tropic of cancer Then when it's uh when the tropic of cancer the equator, please don't interrupt me When the the tropic of cancer the equator is called the tropic of capricorn That's when we get the winter because the sun the path 10 seconds The path of the sun expands and contracts throughout the year. That's how we have seasons. There is no tilt Okay, tony has to clarify hold on there. Nathan, uh, tony has to clarify a question over to you tony Okay, so the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer are not the equator Therefore the sun is not always over the equator Right, that was my question. Is the sun always over the equator? You're right. The sun is not always over the equator. You're right. Okay, so the angle that the path of the sun Makes with the equator is the ecliptic angle. That's the obliquity Saying that the obliquity is zero would require that the sun Is over the equator. So you're saying that something that we observe isn't real No, i'm saying the globe theory is lying about what's happening in reality. I'm saying, yeah How song Like you just said, I mean, what do you mean about the sun? You just said you thought the sun would always be over the equator. No, I just explained to you The sun has a path over the earth Right, the sun has a path over the earth. It goes from the tropic of cancer in the summer Then it goes over the equator and then it goes down to the tropic of capricorn giving us winter Then it comes back Then it comes back to us because he's lying about what I said No, no, I'm listening to you, man. I know I love you Tony. I love you All right, I know you want to jump in here and there nathan But uh, let's move on to the next question there guys because we got lots of questions And i'm sure eventually we'll come full circle. We always do Melavaya glad to see you're hanging out there, buddy You know a big critic of mine originally, but uh, we grew to love each other and I really appreciate He's an honest guy. So that's cool personal incredulity poisoning the well ad-hom How many more fallacies this good dude gonna unleash in his opening? Oh, oh, he's still spicy Melavaya, I think he uh I'm not sure he's coming after there. So he says poisoning the well ad-hom How many more fallacies is this guy gonna unleash in his opening? Uh Who do we think that's for melavaya you didn't really specify? Let's continue on melavaya Goes on to clarify five dollars. Thank you so much melavaya and keep the super chats coming in guys We really appreciate this to carry the conversation forward and get those questions in tectonic plates cannot work on a flat earth earthquakes cannot work on a flat earth because Uh a flat earth being caused by tectonic plates. Stop your nonsense already okay, I think that Clarifies the first question. So he accused guys of poisoning the well and then Um is saying that your explanation for the tectonic plates is not accurate. So Uh thoughts on that there Nathan and matthew Uh, you want to go first? Yeah, just I'll just real quick throw this out and then uh, so with the the terminology itself plates It's kind of like airplane. It the a plate itself is is a flat surface There are flat toes abyssal planes. Uh, there are these these flat features flat referenced features throughout Um tectonics they they are they are something in the ground There's there are structures and if there's a jostling of them Maybe if something hits it from this side and then uh causes it to wiggle You're gonna measure something on the other side of the plate that could send something through Uh But uh, yeah, I I think that that the term plate itself It's a it's a piecing together of these these sheets As far as that at a certain elevation and uh, and and they they're moving around Depending on how much oil lubricant we take out from within the earth Go on May may I just a little bit? Okay, I live in southern california. We got earthquakes all the time. Okay all the time The street lock setup. It's perfectly like north southeast west if you look on a map of like where I live They're all lined up north southeast west. So if there was plate tectonics shifting around The there would not be that alignment and I would just tell you guys. Yeah, look at my area It's uh, like fullerton anaheim bonaparte.  There is there are earthquakes. There's stuff happening beneath us There's geothermal activity. Um, you know like what makes lava and all that. I mean I have my own personal opinion that beneath us is hell So there could be all kinds of weird stuff going on below But rightly so above us if there's hell beneath us that means heaven's above us There's all kinds of like electricity going on in the sky and It's amazing. It's beautiful what the creator did and where he put us Thanks god with with earthquakes too There is there are events and things that happen at faults and and where plates meet and merge There there might be at least like subduction and things that can happen Convection and everything that can happen with those plates and how they interact with each other at those at those faults I don't know what you Tony may I say something here? Yeah over to you Okay, hey The naivety of the discussion was transparent in the sense that You have not done any calculations for instance of how beneath how much material is Being produced at the mid ocean ridges or how much material is being subducted We have done those calculations based on the length of those features on a globe earth And they match so as much material is being produced as it is being subducted and subducted Which leads to equilibrium in the geometry of the plates The claim that plates do not slide past one another As was as was reduced just a little while ago. I'd like to start. I'd like to share my screen again I don't think ryan is there right now or is he Just play it. Let's watch it. Yeah work ordeal Just a second. This is an image taken from the Taken from the Alaska earthquake of 1969 where a school was ripped in half landslide No, an earthquake. It looks like it just slid It the whole earth Yes, but it was actually an earthquake earth ripped open that looks like a landslide cool Said that it was an earthquake You can look at the anchorage earthquake. There's earthquakes. I agree with you 100 percent. They're a team Sorry, sorry. Sorry. Apologies. Love you. Okay, so it's so, you know, it doesn't matter what data you see You're always going to explain it away as somehow fake or somehow It's not what it appears to be or somehow magically The earth is flat regardless of what you see Is your proof for for plate tectonic shift is like a building that looks like there was an earthquake in a landslide It looks like it was ripped in half by motion of the We have we have We have thousands of examples of faults Shear faults that have ripped laterally and then one of them is moved vertically We've got lots of that There could be things happening. Yes Um, but your claim was the you know Nobody claims that these things happen everywhere They happen at plate boundaries So the fact that they happen around plate boundaries Yeah, my claim is I live in an area where there's earthquakes all the time And you know you're an expert on earthquakes We have mudslides. Was that school at a plate boundary? Just Yes, that was on a plate boundary. Okay. One thing I will say for and I think it's very important to note this I think it is worth noting that uh, we do need more people going to school for trades and learning how to make infrastructure That can withstand earthquakes. I think that would be good for everybody That's That's easier said than done for shallow earthquakes So in japan there's a lot of work that's been done on earthquake proofing buildings and sky rises But they can do that because the earthquakes are reasonably deep Whereas along the along the coast of alaska and along the coast of california They've got very shallow events. Um, and there's a lot more vertical earth motion because they're not having they're not having to Lift up as much earth But the idea that because you live in california That makes you more of an expert on that makes you more of an expert on earthquakes than seismologists and geophysicists Is absolute nonsense I'm now it's drivel don't allow me to respond to that. It's it's fatuous gibberish Well, we are going to have to move on everybody because we have all kinds of questions coming in So ameridon says if it is true that the earth is flat then why is it the case that we know for fact? Items away about one percent less at the equator compared to the poles So the alias effect shows that there is a an influence of the sky above us on matter on this earth Uh, if you look at how pendulums are during an eclipse, which should have no bearing on what the if a pendulum A full-called pendulum for example is exclusive Only motion derived from that is due to the supposed rotation of the earth the aligning of celestial bodies that has Death a negligible amount of gravitational influence, especially considering the results that are get during the alias effect You can get pendulums that will swing differently And so now if you look at objects that were weighing on the earth If you look up at the sky and look at a time lapse You're going to see stars that are north or south of the equator appear to turn Almost into a point because they're getting smaller and smaller the circles So you're getting more angular turn over less distance. So there's going to be more angular motion imparted into objects or influence imparted into objects Whereas if you're at an at the equator It's going to go straight as it as it influences and imparts into the object. And so that that can fluctuate the If you have something in a fluid it can weigh differently depending on how it's traveling And the medium that it's in and everything so the the direction of the flow of the fluid flow Could alter and shift where is your observation evidence So can you present any observation evidence for this? Uh, so they they weigh objects and they weigh differently depending on where they're weighed and then we can We can tell that there is an influence of phenomena in the sky that affects how things behave on the earth You're not doing what I asked for I asked for evidence and you're just repeating yourself What is your evidence for what you are claiming? All right last 20 seconds there for you, Nathan Let's carry on with the questions. Uh, yeah, so if if I am going to um, if I if I put Uh water a scale or something that can detect pressure and water and I push straight at it Uh, it it's going to get more of a direct a more blunt pressure reading then if something is is is um is arcing across it It's going to have less direct initial impact and then the reading difference with the the difference in readings would be would Be there because you have a whole force hitting something at once or or the very tip of an art And then more would crash into it as the rest of the the the arc catches up to hitting that pressure plate All right, that was for was that evidence So that one explanation that one was for Nathan and Matthew. So we're going to carry on from there Uh, can go 44. Thank you so much for hanging out in the live chat and your super chats We appreciate everybody who has already asked their questions. Let's carry on Mr. Beast spent 50 hours in Antarctica and filmed the 24 hour sun He was not stopped by the army. He also did not see a huge ice wall Matthew is uh having some Some thoughts there go ahead Matthew. Okay, really quick. Let me let me get this one, Nathan about the 24 hour sun video Okay, in Antarctica. I saw it right I saw a couple of them that did look like total fake CGI honest I'll say it the shadows weren't moving. Okay, but to the I saw one and I thought to myself What if this is just the north pole and they just flipped it like neared it? So I'm like, yeah, that obviously that's one thing But in today's day and age Um, listen, they can make realistic videos of taylor swift performing fallatio on president trump So, I mean come on Oh Open up that article. Let's go. Let's all go. Let's let's get those shits already open That's how mr. Beast got there. It's open anybody can go there And I'll trust mr. Beast. Hey, you know what the number of the beast is t-jump any person can go there Six six. That's not a real number Iron maiden album, let's continue on to the next question that can go asked can go 44 In a flat earth antarctica goes all the way around the disc. So from anywhere on earth, you could travel in any direction Excuse me and get there. Why would you have to travel south to get to antarctica? So when you're considering The way that you would travel like as far as cardinal directions go on a flat earth You have to consider what the model is claiming So if you look at a flat earth map like what matthew is showing here North if you were looking at a compass which compasses always point to north despite their supposed to be a south pole It will point north and then south is anything directly 180 degrees diametrically opposed to north So that would be that would mean if your compass if you have a compass in your hand and it's pointing to the north You are going to turn 180 degrees so that the compass is pointing directly at you and you travel in that direction You will reach antarctica because both models claim according to our magnetic declination and the way that our compasses work And that we navigate south is away from north on both models Circum navigation is east and west and that's possible you make circles on the Above the circle of a flat earth or a round circle of a sphere But east to west circumnavigation is the only way and going you'll on both models. They claim the same thing North is towards the the way the compass points and if you go 180 degrees yourself All right, I think we can move on from there if that's all right with everybody Mm-hmm. All right.  So, um, what's the point? Let's move on Okay, oh Is that factoring in declination? I'll I'll look into that I I've not heard that but that's that's not having declination make it appear to point at a south pole That's actual it's it's it's honed in on That's a magnetic south pole. Okay all right Let us do carry on because we do have quite a few questions to get through Dr. Dino says geology is great for showing the earth is a gold Earthquakes release p and s waves p waves go through liquids s don't Measuring them. Let's us see an outline of the liquid outer core The way the p waves refract through the core shows us there's a solid core at the center Geo rules. Thank you. Dr. Dino. Love you, buddy thoughts panel is that so that's something that um I didn't dwell on in my presentation, but there's a thing called the p wave shadow zone um as it where the p waves slow down so that If you remember that presentation I was showing um, can I show it again or am I pushing the friendship? Well, let's just say it's quite a bit of screen sharing, but uh, yeah, if you can keep it to like 30 seconds, that's cool Uh, let's see what you got there I can Sorry, um, yeah, no problems. Don't worry All right, so um, this is the um, this is the Area so There we go, okay, so as you so as you sorry, this is the this is the Wrong wrong presentation for whatever as you converge in the p waves slow down. And so you get this area here at about What is it 1200 seconds so 20 minutes afterwards? You can see that there are no blue lines in no blue circles And it keeps on staying that way For a while the p waves don't arrive That p waves shut and then they start arriving after a while That is because p waves travel more slowly through fluid Than they do through um, everything else So that and so here you're finally getting the waves coming through the coming through the liquid core So the fact that the p waves this p wave shadow zone, which always occurs at the same distance from whichever earthquake you've got um, is always caused by So it tells us Um, you know again as each doctor was saying, um, you know, we've got thousands and thousands of earthquakes We've got thousands and thousands of observations. They all behave like this. They've all got these p waves shadows All right. Well, thank you for that. Uh, any other thoughts there if we can keep it to 30 seconds before we move on to the next question Go ahead. This is really quick. I thought they're they're all talking about the core of the earth It's like, oh, it's solid. No, it's liquid It's like how can we get down there and actually verify these fairy tale stories about what's going on so far down there What is it that Scientists can make all these guesses and we just take it as the truth and people can't get down there To the core of the earth thousands of miles guesses guesses assumptions fairy tales That's it Um, matthew, have you ever had a child? Oh, no, no, yeah Okay, are you aware of the concept of ultrasound on pregnant women? Yeah, you're talking about when they put that's exactly the same technology It's exactly the same technology Okay, that's a bad example because the the baby the baby is right there not thousands of miles away If the radio Let's let t jump in because he hasn't like I said, he's not had much of the floor here So t jump go ahead So if if waves can be used to measure thing at one inch They can also work at a mile and 10 miles the same science works at all very distance That's why we can see like stars and stuff Waves we can see stars. You're talking about scanning the earth scanning thousands of miles into the Right, I don't mean to interrupt you, but that's what I'm hearing. That's what I don't believe I don't believe these fairy tales Do you want me to believe something? That's all Matthew Matthew Matthews.  Like because what happens if the television gets bad, right? A mountain to propagate through without obstruction. I think it would go until it hits a boundary of the medium Yeah, pretty good One second, please. Let's let let's the t jump in here just for a second Pitch. I don't what is your name pitch His name's Nathan or yeah Nathan is correct as long as there's a medium for the wave to propagate through it'll continue to go and then bounce back with signals Guess what earth Is a medium big rock stuff can travel through it So so if we send a radio wave or vibrations through it, it'll continue to flow through it It'll hit something and bounces back.  Well, all right There's so many things that could stop it and you want me to believe that You can there's these waves, right? They're going to penetrate thousands of miles to a place No one can go to or verify. You want me to believe your equations I reject over to Tony sorry Sorry since the earthquakes on the far side of the earth, don't we? So I showed an earthquake. Okay. I'm still talking. I showed an earthquake at Macquarie island The waves traveled all the way to the north pole and indeed on the flat earth They traveled all the way to the far side of the flat earth So you're claiming that well the waves don't travel that far demonstrably they do That's the surface Um Well, they they they travel through the earth. All right, we can Don't Don't worry.  I guess Well, let's let's suppose the world is flat a minute. Just one second Suppose the world is flat earthquakes do happen. There are vibrations and the vibrations travel from one end of the earth to the other Which means they necessarily travel that far even on a flat earth They still travel that far on the surface Which is still far enough Yes Oh, so you admit you're wrong. No, there could be machines that could feel that That's my point. What machines are down in the center of the earth that you could verify the signals This might be a good time to move on guys Uh, we got lots more questions lj coming in lj. You got a nice new fresh picture there looking fly buddy In the globe model you have to believe when you watch the sunset You are on a ball falling over backwards faster than the speed of sound Do you feel it? That one is for tony and t-jump. Let's keep these two one minute and we can get you guys out of here at a good time No, you know, you don't but you only feel accelerations and um The acceleration involved with the earth rotation is small Smaller than your vestibular systems ability to detect All right, any other thoughts there t-jump before me we move on Potato all right kango 44 can Nathan and matthew. Please give us their phd credentials Oh, the industries they work in that use applied sciences and the papers they have published kango is coming right for you Hey, my phd credentials and keeping tony on his toes pretty good. He's a phd, isn't he? I that's my Okay Feel free Feel free to use me as a reference for your intellectual capacities and see how well that works out I'll show them the video this debate this guy's a phd ladies and gentlemen a phd level like a doctor He's the man. All right This was already kind of a caddy question phd is well earned difficult to attain That stuff is legitimate and for credentials. I had to change my major because it's something that I went in school in with Something I got into with with the school system and an inaccuracy in what we teach that it's more based on about evolution but it was obstructing my ability to carry my nutritional cardiology degree forward And I could talk about that but yeah, no no credentials right now But and you don't have to have a credential to be interested or to want to learn Or to to talk about topics and especially if you have someone like pony who is able to explain things very well It makes it a lot. You know learning becomes an easier process But yeah, those those phds are definitely earned. All right. Well, thank you so much, Nathan and uh, you're very kind. Thank you Yeah That's very nice of you and let's carry on guys lj Why don't we have a real non cgi videos of space? Do you want to answer that one t jump? We do Nice and short and sweet, uh, Tony. Why don't we have real non cgi videos of space? Any thoughts there or do you want to carry on? We do it's just the The reflexive dismissal of any evidence that runs counter to their belief system as being false Traps them. Um, if they see something they instantly conclude that it must be false That must not be what people say it is And it's kind of sad to see People fall into such paranoia hauls All right, uh, uh, can I uh, can I real quick just share my screen? I I was gonna say I know the natural human inclination is to want to respond.  They'll go ahead if that's how you feel Let's do it 20 seconds 30 seconds. I think it it bears some some ability to to show the credibility of NASA and the images that were given um So, uh, this here should be my screen. So this is something I show these are images supposed to be of the same earth The same data set. Uh, so you have here you have the continental united states taking up What about an eighth of the entire globe and then over here you have it taking up about a 16th So it's about half the size and then you can get into um Things as well like, um, this is robert simmonds who talks about its photoshop But it has to be and then uh, this is actually part of his data set where you can see that there are these These gaps in the data where they have to actually admit that they stitch it together They paint it together and then I I showed it briefly in my intro, but you have the duplicate cloud formations Uh somewhere in here and so uh, oh right here So you you do have these things where you get these anomalies that might not be there Clouds don't have the exact same shape in several positions. So just something to consider about the validity Why would the