DEBATE: Alan & Dominic Vs @MCToon & Peter Markley | Podcast
02:10:31 Share

How to have fun. Anytime. Anywhere. Step one. Go to ChumbaCasino.com. ChumbaCasino.com. Got it. Step two. Collect your welcome bonus. Come to Papa welcome bonus. Step three. Play hundreds of casino style games for free. That's a lot of games. All for free? Step four. Unleash your excitement. Woohoo!

Chumba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome bonus now and live the Chumba life. Visit chumbacasino.com. Why choose a Sleep Number Smartbed? Can I make my side softer? Can I make my side firmer? Can we sleep cooler? Sleep Number does that. Cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side. Your Sleep Number setting.

And now save 50% on the new Sleep Number limited edition smart bed. Limited time. Exclusively at a Sleep Number store near you. Learn more at sleepnumber.com. Hey, everybody. Tonight we're debating Flat Earth versus Globe Earth, and we are starting right now with the Flat Earth side. Thanks for being with us. Alan, the floor is all yours. So question, can you use objects in the sky to prove the shape of the ground?

Following the scientific method of observation, defining a problem, forming a hypothesis, and trying to falsify that hypothesis with a null hypothesis, we're going to analyze the two schools of thought here.

Starting with our null hypothesis, we have the Earth is planar and measurements of curvature are dependent on the position of celestial bodies. Our alternative hypothesis is going to be the Earth is globular and measurements of curvature are independent of celestial bodies. Now we're going to examine evidence that should lead to a mutually exclusive outcome in determining the correctness of the shape of the Earth.

So first off, we'll start off with maps, which goes back to the graticule and cartography and astrogeodex surveying, which we're going to cover through here. But what we're going to start with is what a map is. A map is a graticule. It is a spherical coordinate system. A coordinate system is arbitrarily defined by Cartesian coordinates here. We have rectangular, cylindrical, and spherical. All of these under transformation are equivalent coordinates.

And that is what that is the beauty of the spherical coordinate system that has given to us on the left that uses the latitude and longitude lines which are derived from positions of the stars, which is part of my hypothesis here. So as we look over at all these different map projections we can see that they all look different the land masses are in different shapes and different positions.

Does that mean that any one of these is more invalid than the other? Well, no, of course not. The globe and azimuthal projection are two representations of the same coordinate system. Now, one is just a favored projection, and it is said that that one represents the shape of the ground based on a cosmology that had coming starlight from Earth.

In an infinite distance, to take measurements of stars to say that the only reason that the starlight could be deviated is due to the shape of the Earth, which we'll get into when we cover geodetic surveying. So real quick, there are three kinds of projections here, azimuthal, cylindrical, and conical. All of those can be projected from a sphere, and we're going to be dealing with a celestial sphere, specifically one hemisphere at a time.

And it should be further noted that the graticule, the spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude, defines all units of measurement in modern time and in previous times.

All units of measurement are a ratio of the terrestrial meridian, which is the distance from the North Pole to the equator. And if you take that out in nautical miles, that would, uh, so we're 69 miles, uh, 60 miles per degree with 90 degrees of latitude in between, you would get, uh, 6,214. And if you ratio that, I'm sorry, uh,

one ten millionth of that comes out to be the meter so that is what they're defining as a meter and that also links back to the speed of light where the speed of light traveling uh over one in meters is 39 inches and that is um how they relate the meter to the speed of light through the uh through inches and the inches obviously are a ratio of the uh

metric system itself. So they're all interchangeable and they all start with being defined by a fraction of the gradicule of the coordinate system that is used to describe this place. So here we're looking at the representation of that with 69 miles per degree times times 90 giving us the dimensions and ratio to define the meter.

Now, when you cosine stars and use a set altitude because you have the angle, the starting angle, and you have the altitude set at the length of a terrestrial meridian, because remember, the position of the stars, specifically Polaris, as you go towards the equator, is what defines the northern hemisphere of this projection. So anyway, when you follow that ratio, the law of cosines, you can get in, you can computate a distance out of that.

Now, when you take a zenith measurement of the star that you used as your reference when you traverse the land in units of measurement defined by the coordinate system and your theodolite up there, you should see a star directly in the center of your telescope. But what they found was that the stars never have,

are directly in their telescope and they drift back and forth throughout the years. Now, they say that there's a precession that occurs where, you know, Polaris used to be a steuben or something like that. But the stars don't actually follow that sort of trajectory when they plotted out over time. If you look back at the almanacs, all the corrections, they go back and forth in the sky. There's no fixed defined point.

or preferred position for them. It's just an apparent position that's a snapshot of the sky based on the vernal equinox, which is called the first cusp of Aries. So then they went out to go measure the-- they went to go take zenith measurements, like I just said, following the law of cosines. And they found that the stars were always off a little bit.

Now what they'll say is that you can only do celestial navigation and get circles of equal altitude on a sphere like this, otherwise the angles won't add up. Well, when you do that on a different projection map,

um it's going to look just different because there's going to be a different corresponding correction for the transformation when you apply the correct transformation the because of maps with the exact same thing the there's a direct equivalence there and it just looks distorted but they all represent the same thing that is the purpose of the graded kill system and the symmetry of it now here we're looking at astronomy which defines the positions of the stars and we should be noted here at the bottom it makes note that

The celestial heavens look like a curved dome, but it's no greater than the curvature of the earth and there's the equivalence between what you see in the sky versus the ground curvature in between to create the illusion that there's that the sky is curved. Now here we have all celestial objects in the sky are apparent to us. This is a manual from a solar panel manual.

And this is describing how there's a true position of the sun, but what we see is projected in a dome that arcs around us in the sky. So we actually see an arc across the sky. And this is also for the moon showing the same thing. One second. Same thing for the moon. So all celestial bodies can actually be considered at an equidistant web from us at that distance of 62, 18, which is that distance from the North Pole to the equator. And circumference is not mutually exclusive to a disk.

or a circle. So circumference, radius, all of that still applies applicably. Now we see in curved visual space,

which means that it creates a dome of vision around us. So we see in one hemisphere at a time when we're looking out 180 degrees at the sky, what you can see, you can consider all celestial objects at that altitude, and that's how they do celestial navigation. And that's how the map coordinate system is derived in relation to that. Now, what we're looking at here specifically, though, is an anticorposcular shadow showing the relationship of how light in...

perspective bends objects around you. So here the sun is blocked by a shadow that goes across the sky. You'll see it maximally diverge at her zenith, and then it starts to reconverge behind her, completing the shadow. And this is all due to perspective. This is the, if you're familiar with anticorpuscular rays, this is the exact same thing, but just a shadow. So do we have direct measurements of Earth curvature? Well, we have the geodetic surveying from mctune.net/se. You can go there and read all about the triangulation of the arc of the parallel.

This is full of astronomical corrections and comparisons. People will often say the Earth is flat, the Earth measures flat, the Earth measures curved. Well, in reference to what? Well, it turns out it's in reference to the stars, which was the part of my hypothesis here. And when we look through the data sets, we get angles that are sub 180 degrees showing planar measurements. But then after astronomical corrections and comparisons, the spherical excess is computated as noted in the glossary.

And then we have deflections of the verticals, which is supposed to be the explanation as to why the stars are never in the correct positions. They say that that's due to the Earth's obladeness. This goes back to the nautical almanac and throughout the history of that when they did surveying on different ellipsoid models to determine the eccentricity for the corrections that were needed for celestial objects. So what they're doing here is doing triangles in the sky, transposing them on the ground, and wondering why they don't line up when everything in the sky is apparent to us.

So there's some mutually exclusive things to go over here that I'm going to present. But as we go through the debate, this is the geometric properties of Shadows at Sunset.

circumpolar orbits for terrestrial navigation and satellite orbits. We'll look at some of these over different projections and see if they truly represent north-south circumpolar navigation. And then, of course, we have Battle of the Beams, where radars were used to intersect at distances well beyond what would be blocked by Earth curvature to guide planes at night to do bombing runs over the course of a year. How much time am I at? All right, Dom, you want to...

You can go if you want. I need just like two minutes. I did presentation about motion, so you can go. All right, cool, cool. Okay, so starting off with circumpolar orbits right here. What we're looking at here is you're going to be coming down the ball, then you're going to be coming up the other side of the ball. This is a true north-south relationship.

orbit here. And then when you look at that on an equirectangular projection, you'll see the same relationship. It goes off the screen and then you're, this would be going down the ball, you're going up the ball, doesn't matter which one, but it'll always be the opposite. So when you transform that onto an AE projection, what you would have is this. This is what it would look like. You're going up the ball, down the ball, back around, up the ball, down the ball. Now, when we look at all publicly available equirectangular projections given to us, they make

Figure eights in the sky. They make giant flower life patterns over the earth. They don't do, they don't represent the proper north south circumnavigation so all satellite orbits are evidence that the earth is planar as noted by how they never do any north south circumnavigation.

Now, it would be, this would be a feat of the globe. You would see projections like this, but you guys have never seen one, and you'll have to go back to look at it again because it's the only time you'll ever see it. So we're just going to continue through here. You

You know, all of these showing the same thing their figure eights in the sky. Now we're going to look at north south terrestrial navigation done from planes. There were several Pan Am flights that were done for like tourist attractions and world records, etc. So we're going to look at the routes that they plotted out on that rectangular when they when you go to an azimuthal projection, you'll find that they're just making a big circle across the ground.

Same thing for other Pan Am flights they did. And then, of course, the one more orbit crew, which was trying to set a world record. And when you plot their route out, it shows the exact same relationship where there is no true going over the ball and coming up around the other side to do circumnavigation. And when we called out on this on Twitter by our boy Gleam, shout out to Gleam.

The response was to blame the marketing team for using a conceptual route and not the actual flight route that they took. So again, all publicly available representations of this do not represent north-south navigation. And that would be an absolutely mandatory feature to be, you know, if the globe projection was the correct interpretation of the map.

Now, of course, we have Battle of the Beams to continue off of that, where two intersecting beams over different distances, one 450 miles, the other 330 miles, intersecting at an altitude of 19,000 feet with a maximum beam divergence over target 400 to 600 yards, respectively, depending on the starting location.

And that would be geometrically impossible on a globe. In fact, the British, a few years prior to the radar system being used, said that due to their calculations, the radar system would hit Earth curvature at 50 miles and be completely useless. A minute 30 left. All right, that's all I got. I'm going to yield it to Dom. Okay, I will share screen. Second...

In the meantime, folks, want to let you know, DebateCon 5 is happening in Newark, New Jersey. Just in case you're not able to find the screen share button, let me know, Dominic. I think I found it. Can you see it? Yes, sir. Yes.

Perfect. Well, I'll stop it. First of all, sorry for my English. My main language is Czech, so I will be trying to speak as fluently as possible. As Alan said, the Battle of the Beams is, as well as for me, is one of the best proofs that the Earth is not a globe because they were...

propagating radio waves horizontally from the antenna that is impossible to turn vertically. So just like on the axis, turn around. And the specificity of this propagation is that they have to have really precise geometry of the beam

and the geometry of the beam was mechanically precise on the specific distance. And if you do your math, and you can do it, the distance that they propagated is impossible on the globe. The only way to maintain the geometry of the beam is when you propagate it horizontally and horizontally.

as if Earth is flat, which is like, for me, it's very weird because the plane has to fly in the beam

all the time in the night and they have to like drop the bomb on specific place and the beams actually like have to uh cross over on the target which is like you have to count on specific like atmospheric like the impossibility of two beams maintain the geometry and specifically drop the bomb on place where you need it is like uh for me this is like the

biggest mystery because like I know there's like some new evidence and stuff like that but I didn't heard any good refutation on this Battle of the Beams

So for me, especially is the one of the like best proofs, because if you take some other radio propagation, there's could be like why it could go and like some diffraction and skyway propagation and stuff like that. But in this case, the plane has to fly in a specific altitude and drop the bomb on specific target, which is like impossibility if you if you count everything.

Do I have a time still? Minute left?

Okay, okay. So if you count everything, because we had the time to get so many information about this Battle of the Beams, we have all technicalities. And if you count all data, if they propagated from Mount Everest, if Stolberg or Cleve were on Mount Everest and they would be propagating from Mount Everest, they still wouldn't be able to propagate the beam over the...

Earth curvature, if there was any. So this is for me one of the best proofs. And to simplify it, I would say that we are here to debate the shape of the Earth, but we should decide what is our default position. Because when we wake up

and see, do we see curvature? Do we like see some motion or this is like our default position is that the earth is flat and stationary and then it could be like some other way. And if there's like some other way, then like the site who's claiming it's other way, it's their time to prove it because like who has the positive claim, then you should be like presenting some evidence that it's different.

It's time we will kick it over to the globe side. I want to do a couple of quick housekeeping things. First, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. And, folks, I've been on mute that entire time. It's very embarrassing.

It's like my first time here. Look at Melvin. Look at how sad it is. I heard you over here. It went out of my side. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Folks, a couple quick housekeeping things. If it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. And don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up, including the ones at DebateCon 5, our in-person debate conference featuring Fight the Flat Earth and Austin Witsit Gitsit in Newark, New Jersey on February 15th.

The tickets are linked below. What are you waiting for? With that, we're going to kick it over to, thank you for being with us, MC Toon and Heater. The floor is all yours. All right. I'm going to try to share my screen here. Ready for you. All right. Can you see that? If I do this, can you still see it? Now I can see it. I just have to crop it slightly, but give me two seconds and we'll be ready for you.

Is it better if I don't do full screen? All right. We need to clarify a term better. We can't hear you. I don't know if it's just me. Wait, hold on a second. I'm sorry. I don't know if it's just me, but it sounds really robot-like. Oh, boy. Is anybody else having difficulty in hearing? Yeah, he's coming in broken.

We might have to forego. We'll give it another shot, Peter. But if it's this way, we might have to forego the PowerPoint. He could turn off his camera for the presentation. Maybe it helps. That's probably what it is. The PowerPoint and your camera are being zoomed into the call. And I think that's what's making the difference. So I would turn off your camera. Thanks for that idea, Dominic.

and we'll see if this makes a difference for your audio. So hopefully you can still show your slides, even though your camera's not showing. Hopefully you can still show your slides. We can't see your slides, though, right now. Can you share for him, too? For East, show it if you can see. I don't have his presentation. If you email it to me, I can share it for you. I don't know if he's not even there.

We lost Peter. Okay, don't worry. He's okay, though. He's maybe just trying to reconnect. He'll be here any moment. In the meantime, let me just try to crop the screen down. Peter is back. In the meantime, Peter, can you hear me? Oh, boy.

I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes. I think we at least have your audio, so it might be good if you are just going without your camera, because, well, it's more important that we have your audio than your video. Okay, I'm going to try just sharing this. Can you see us? Let's see. We can see you. I don't know why this is

We can't. Let's see. I didn't turn on purpose because I really want to show my slides. Yes, we can see your slides. Let's see if this works. Go ahead. Peter, you can send them to me. Let's hope this works because if I sent them to you too, then I wouldn't be able to press forward at the exact moments and it would...

Yeah, anyway. I guess I could give a verbal cue, but that seems... I don't know. I think this works. You guys can... I'm a little distorted, but it's not the best. It still sounds pretty bad, even with your camera off.

All right. You know what? I'm just going to send... Now it sounds okay. Because he turned it off. Yeah, he just turned it off. It's a bandwidth issue. Let's see. Narrow it down, lads. We know who the problem isn't. If you send it over to MC Toon and then MC Toon could show it on his side because my side is probably...

My side's a little bit probably maxed out with both OBS and then the stream and then the other stuff that I've got running for the stream. So in the meantime, folks, I do want to let you know, I want to give praise to our speakers as they are the lifeblood of the channel. So folks, if you watch Modern Day Debate, which obviously you do if you're here,

The speakers are what make this channel awesome. So we do want to say we appreciate them. They have busy lives and we appreciate, for example, that Peter made a presentation for tonight. It'll just take a couple of minutes, folks. So relax. We'll be good. Just two minutes. No problem. I have to disconnect from the call for a moment while I upload my presentation to share it to Michael Toon. Because it seems to be at a premium at the moment.

Sorry, I'll be back. No problem. So let me try to adjust the video feeds in here because the screen will be scrambled. But yes, I want to say, folks, the guests are the lifeboat of the channel. We do appreciate them more than you know. And they're all linked in the description box. So if you want to hear more, you can look at Dominic on screen. Look at his face there. Does it look like a guy you can trust?

This is a great opportunity to find out by clicking on his link below. Dominic, wait a minute. Dominic, do you have a link? Like some links on me? Actually, you can find me on YouTube, EtherCosmology, CZSK. So I'm actually part of the EtherCosmology group. Did you say we're international, Dom? That's awesome. Yeah, definitely. EtherCosmology is international. Shout out to the international chick lads.

If you haven't yet hit that like button, we do appreciate your support of modern day debate. It means more than, you know, as I mentioned, the conference with fight the flat earth and Austin, which wits, it gets it though. They'll be debating on different days. So they're not debating each other, but they will both be at the conference. Want you to check the link out. It's in the description box below right now. It's also pinned at the top of the chat. It is going to be two days of in-person debates in Newark, New Jersey, Florida,

and you don't want to miss it as well as as you can see there is a crowdfund for this event check that out as for example you're like james uh what have you got in terms of perks like what kind of cool things if i did donate to help make this conference become a reality here's an example there is a signed emblem page this is from last year so this year would say debatecon 5 of course is you can get a signed emblem page

from all of the speakers for that day, which is awesome. So for example, on the Religion Debates Day, you have Fight the Flat Earth, a.k.a. Craig. You have Alex O'Connor. You have David Wood. You have Lawrence Krauss. All of those autographs will be on the page. Check out those cool perks at the Indiegogo link in the description box right now. Peter is back with us. Glad to have you back, Peter.

We are ready for your opening song. I'm back, but I'm not quite ready. I just saw that it was not helping the upload speed very much for me to not be here, so... Not a problem. Is... Let's see here. What I'm going to do is just scramble these little videos on the screen, just because each time a person leaves the call, it scrambles the...

The little guy's here for me, but we're going to be off and running in just a moment. And I do want to say, folks, you might be thinking, like, well, James, do you ship to anywhere around the world? Anywhere around MC Toon's precious globe? Why, yes, we do. If you were in Australia, so Flat Earth Aussie, if you were watching, or who else is in Australia that's like a Flat Earth or globe debater, by the way?

Anybody know? What was the question? Like, aren't there any other folks from Australia that are involved in the flat earth versus globe debates? No, Australia is fake. Just like birds. Paul from Plane Reality will debate anyone on the horizon. Yeah, I'm C2. Yeah. Take that, Melvin. He's fake like birds are. Hey guys, I think my camera actually freezed it, so I have to restart my camera. Sorry. What happened?

My camera freeze. My camera is freezed. But I've got to tell you this, folks. We're excited about the future as modern day debate is reaching new feats all the time. While you're waiting, this is a great time, a little intermission. You're like, okay, I got the Flat Earth opening.

Just chilling now. Check out those links. And I'm even going to show you because maybe you're like, James, what do you mean about this conference? What are you talking about? I'll show you. If you look on screen right now, it's in the northeast. So in Newark, New Jersey, even if you were from Baltimore, just two hours and 45 minutes away. So if you're in the New York City or Philadelphia area, this is a piece of cake. Folks, you have to come to this conference.

But not only that, you might be thinking, James, tell me what else there is at this conference. I'll show you with these epic posters. As I mentioned, it's a two-day debate conference. On the left, you can see Lawrence Krauss, popular atheist speaker against Mike Jones, inspiring philosophy, as well as Alex O'Connor versus David Wood, apostate prophet versus—I forgot to update that poster—Central Dawa will not be making it for the conference—

in any way, shape, or form. And you can see at the very bottom, fight the flat earth. And Andrew Wilson will be debating. It's going to be a slobber knocker, to be sure. Then, the next day, on the Sunday, February 16th, political debates day, not-so-aridite versus actual justice warrior on Trump versus Biden's policies. Alex Stein versus Andrew Wilson. Brianna Wu versus MC Toon's brother, Austin Witsit Gitsit.

No? Okay. And I got to tell you guys, wouldn't it be great MC Toon, long time debater on Modern Day Debate, wouldn't it be great? MC Toon, you know, this is not our last DebateCon. DebateCon 5 is not our last one. I don't know if you'd ever have interest in an in-person debate. Sign me up. Okay.

I'm there. Is that something that I'm like, hey, that could be pretty epic because we've well, actually, Witsits is the only flat earth guy that we've ever had or globe or flat. And then Craig is coming, although it's not for a flat earth debate. It's for like a religion type debate, although there's like a moon landing debate he'll be in. But MC Toon, you've been a longtime friend of the channel. And so I don't want to treat you like, you know, the redheaded stepchild that you are. We want to make you feel welcome.

Okay. Hey, can you open open document format? I usually leave your office. Oh, certainly. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Just checking in, in Google docs. I might even have open doc. Let me see. I don't know if I have it. Well, Melvin's looking that up. I will continue pitching folks. I've got to tell you at this conference, it's going to blow your mind. We've got a question from our chat, James. Yeah. What's up? People are wondering if we can see your subway tattoo.

Hey, that's a possibility. I'll be at the conference as well. I will be there in person. Let me know, by the way, really quick, because my mic the other day, I had bad audio. Is my mic okay? I'm looking at the live chat. Let me know, folks, if I have messed up audio like the other day. I think it's better this time. It's okay to me. Oh, good. Okay. But I've got to tell you, folks, you're kind of like, oh, James, can I see the subway tattoo? I got to tell you, you might see it. Now, I'm not going to show it at the conference. That'd be weird. But it is real.

And I've got to tell you, I've had enough Subway that I don't really want to have it ever again. I do love Subway. Very good, very convenient. There's one on every block. But I've got to tell you, for this event, you might be like, James, what do you mean about this Newark location? It's at Holiday Inn. It's going to be in the Crystal Ballroom. It can hold up to 400 people. And no joke, we are shooting to max out those 400 seats. We're going for broke.

But like I said, you're maybe like James, but I don't know. It's probably like really far and stuff. I don't know about that. Believe me, it's not that far. If you're in New York City, it's only about 45 minutes. And you might be thinking, hey, well, James, like what is it that you have there that like in terms of perks for the Indiegogo that is linked in the description box? As I mentioned, signed emblem page where you get signature from all of the debaters.

Or if you want a signed photo, for example, if you would like a signed photo of Craig fight the flat earth at the beach shirtless in his European Speedo, this is your opportunity. You can get a signed photo of Craig. You can believe it that my dear friend MC Toon already purchased those up though. There are none available. There's no, none left. There's none left. You know, I give MC Toon crap, but it's because I like them the most. It's like my love language. I like to tease people about,

And I just hope you know that MC Toon. I know I call you Melvin. Now I'm accusing you wanting to see Craig and Speedo, but I want you to know it's all because I love you. Okay. I believe you. I think Toon has my presentation now. Is that right Toon? I do have the presentation.

I wouldn't have gone to so much trouble to save the presentation for here if I hadn't worked so hard on the slides. So thank you all for bearing with me. All right. I'm going to share it, James. I'll just say next slide and I want you to flip to the next slide. How's that sound? That sounds good. All right. Are we ready? Yep. I'm ready. Crystal clear.

All right, next slide. We need to clarify the term flat earther. My opponents today, Alan and Dominique, next slide, are not flat earthers in the simplistic sense that might describe people from ancient cultures who made naive assumptions about the world prior to scientific knowledge becoming available.

next slide oh no not at all in today's world as far as i'm aware that type of flat-earther does not exist any more i've never met one and i'm willing to bet neither has anyone here quite the contrary next slide

Alan and Dominique are members of a very specific modern-day cult movement that I call Robothamism. Next slide. Because it started with Samuel Burley Robotham. Here it is right here. The first appearance of Alan and Dominique's ideology, the core of which is almost completely unchanged in the last 150 years. It remained in relative obscurity all that time until around 10 years ago when it started growing on social media through memes and conspiracy groups. Next slide.

Consider the question, where does the sun go at night? Next slide. For 10,000 years, humanity has known the answer. Now, the world arrives at it's obvious. Next slide. Oh, shoot. One second, I'm going to jump in and just turn your, if you could turn off your camera, because it's, we had it going a little, it was going well audio-wise, but then it started to go bad the last like 15 seconds. Okay, are we there? I don't know, we, let's put a shot.

That's still pretty bad, to be honest, but is is a let's see. It's very let's give it a shot now. Is there anything that I said that's not audible? I honestly can't hear you.

We might have to do this another night or something, because I just can't... We need your audio, and we're just not able to make out the words. Oh, boy. Your bandwidth is very 1992. I'm sorry, guys. I hope this isn't my fault. Hold on, I've got an idea. Now it sounds better. I don't know if it's coincidence. If you're...

If you've got anything running in the background, it might be worth even just every program shutting it. I mean, just in case it's like in some way using internet. I do want to remind folks, Chris, Peter didn't know, you know, he didn't know that it was going to happen tonight. So sometimes it happens. Mine actually, before we started, I had to like restart my PC. So, you know, it happens and...

let's see if Peter has an idea of his sleeve here as he tries to work this out. I want to remind you, but Peter and MC2 are linked in the description box. And then Alan, I think you've got a link that I have to add there. Sorry about that, Alan. Do you have a link, Alan? Yes. At space underscore audits on YouTube. Okay. I'm going to throw that in the old description box right now as well. And then Dominic, I know you mentioned actually,

since peter is getting that taken care of i had to step away for a moment to implement my i'm back now i send it a link on our youtube channel to the chat okay thank you uh if you could email it to me though that would be easier because my that's how i can i do the

description box on another computer and then I got the one that you just sent it to me to is like the streaming one email would be ideal but Peter are you able to give a difference there am I able to what I'm sorry did you do anything different that would make it so that we could hear you

Well, I don't know. It was a long shot. I tried to basically limit the usage on my network, basically. But I don't think my network was the problem, so I don't know. Let's give it a shot. It does sound a little better now, and we're just going to go until, if it seems bad, I'll interrupt, but maybe it is a little bit better. Go for it.

Okay, are we still live on your channel right now? Yes. Okay. The audience can still see my slides? Yes. And I want to give huge props to the audience because we have 500 people here still waiting. So thank you for waiting, folks. Ready for you, Peter. All right. So Alan and Dominique are members of a very specific modern-day cult movement that I call...

Oh, I read that already. Yeah, so consider the question, where does the sun go at night? It goes down below the horizon, it's obvious. You'll notice this basic observational fact, next slide, is with both the globe and all ancient flat cosmologies. Next slide.

And yes, I checked. It's all of them. Next slide. And yet, one day Samuel Robotham decided out of the blue to throw out that answer and instead say, no, really the sun moves away horizontally. It's an illusion due to perspective. Next slide. This will sound familiar to anyone who's dealt with a present-day Robothamist such as Alan and Dominique. They still repeat the exact same cult dogma today. Next slide.

We globers call it "flirf-spective" because it makes a butchered, incoherent mess of perspective geometry. Next slide.

An object's vertical position in your eye or camera lens is dictated by the inner angle of this right triangle. You'll notice that no matter how long you make the bottom leg of the triangle, it will never, ever, ever make that angle go negative as we see the sun view every day. Perspective doesn't work that way, and any simpleton who can pass high school geometry should know better. Next slide.

The sun goes up and down, but Allen and Dominique must deny that as part of their cult doctrine. They are sunset deniers. Next slide. The way an object can recede infinitely without ever crossing that zero line, next slide, is by following a nonlinear pattern. It's like dividing the angle in half every time the distance doubles. Each time, the position in your eye moves less than before, so the spacing in a time lapse like this one is extremely variable.

No two frames are the same distance apart because it's slowing down the whole time. Is this what the sun does? Next slide. No, not even close. I took a three-hour time lapse of sunset using two identical cameras. Next slide. One with welding glass and one without, while I tracked the sun's position using a compass and sextant. Next slide. Oh boy. That looks weird, the way that's displaying. Anyway.

We should be looking at a... go to the next slide, I think. Yeah, that's the compass in Saxton. Next slide. In the resulting time lapse, next slide, the spacing is fixed. It's the same distance between every pair of images. Next slide. That sun cannot be moving away from the camera due to perspective. This evidence makes that obvious. Next slide.

So, Alan and Dominique, and Dominique, feel free to translate this message to your entire Czech audience for me, too, if you'd be so kind. Let me be frank with you all for a moment. On top of being scientifically wrong and mathematically incoherent, your cult dogmas have no foundation in any other form of human thought.

They sprang into existence out of nowhere, almost fully formed, but unlike Mormons or Muslims or Buddhists, you don't even have the self-awareness about that to say they came from God or an angel or something. Apparently, you think that Samuel Rowbotham was just randomly born one day as the only free thinker the world had ever seen, but he's not even a big enough deal to mention? Next slide.

There's a reason your cult not only attracts but celebrates disreputables, malcontents, and unteachable dropouts. There's a reason that these conversations are basically internet bar fights instead of grown-up discourse on a real-world stage. Next slide. Your belief system is made of memes that are five years newer than Minecraft. Where did you think it came from?

Next slide. While you were both do what were you both doing in 2009 while I was comparing my lifelong biblically grounded young earth creationist beliefs against mainstream science at a college level deeply exploring the apologetics of theology anthropology and how worldview does or doesn't affect science. Next slide.

You don't get to fall in here backward, crash the party, then act like you got here first. Next slide. If you want to tickle your brain's limbic system with a pack of self-indulgent spy thriller fantasies where you roleplay as Morpheus, don't call it real and spread defamatory misinformation about Jews, astronauts, and Freemasons. If you want to be taken seriously, don't base your identity on preaching lies.

Next slide. Robothamism is deliberate insanity, and I think any reasonable person is about to see that firsthand. I just presented a perfectly sound, bulletproof globe argument based in geometry and my personal measurements of sunset, but neither of you are going to even attempt a logical rebuttal.

If you don't run from the topic entirely, I predict you will answer by playing semantic games, nitpicking random unimportant details, spewing word salad for perspective, and inventing ad hoc rescuing devices. It's like perfect clockwork because you do not care about truth. It's all show, no substance, only brainwashed cold dogmas. Thank you. We'll go straight to MC2. Thanks for being with us. MC2 on the floor. All right. Give me a second. I got to stop his share.

Start my share. If you haven't hit that like button, folks, we really do appreciate your support. If you would be willing to do a kind gesture today, that would mean a lot to me personally. Each like that I see gives me more satisfaction and pleasure. Here we go, MC Toon. Pleasure.

All right, well, for over a decade, flat earth robotomists have claimed that there is no 24 hours on Antarctica. They parroted Eric Dubé, who first said it in 2014. He borrowed it from Samuel Robotom, who invented the idea to fit his flat earth map, knowing his Victorian audience would not question him. And Dubé repeated the lie without any evidence.

Dubay knew his simpleton target market also wouldn't question him. All Flat Earthers that have ever made this claim are parroting Dubay, intentionally or not. It is Flat Earth religious doctrine. It is sacrosanct. Last month, I went to Antarctica

with four flat earthers where they did see the 24-hour sun themselves there was no military interference no ice wall and no restrictions on the trip we did a large number of experiments every single one matched globe predictions and every single one falsified flat earth

I'll cover a couple of these experiments. First, the very obvious test if the Sun did circles as the globe predicts or did whatever Flat Earth predicted. Of course, it matched the globe just as it has been reported for over a century. Just as all the videos the Flatties have blindly rejected for the last 10 years shows. There is a 24-hour circling Sun.

and it is completely impossible on all flat earth maps. Even the Pac-Man maps don't support a 24-hour circling sun, like this one here. This is a Pac-Man map because if you're over on the west side and you want to go over to the east side, you have to magically teleport to the other side.

They have problems with the non-Pac-Man edges too. Oh yeah, there's another flat earth map. But either the oceans fall over the non-Pac-Man edges, spilling out of the turtle's back, or there must be some sort of a magical barrier. Of course, this is too much of a stretch for even the most simpleton of flat earthers. But maybe, maybe they just haven't figured out the map yet.

Maybe there's just a few tweaks. Maybe there's just one more thing they need to do to figure it out. Well, let's test that. Here's a Rubik's cube right here, right? You see how large that is in the screen, okay? Now I measured this ahead of time, right? It's about three times farther away from the camera. It appears smaller.

When something is significantly farther away, it shrinks in angular size. When something is already far away and changes its distance by just a tiny percentage like this, it's imperceptible. Did you see that? You didn't. Elementary school children understand this, but do robotomists? Let's see.

In Punta Arenas, I measured the size of the angular size of the sun at local solar noon and at six hours later by taking photographs with the Nikon P1000, the flat earther camera of choice. I'm going to present my screen again here in a second. I used a solar filter and properly exposed the photo. And this is it right here. You can tell that the photo is properly exposed because you can see the sunspots.

Now using the only map the Flat Earthers have ever seriously posited for the last 150 years and employing a two-dimensional coordinate system, I applied perspective and we can easily determine the straight line distance to the Sun while postulating Flat Earth. For brevity, I won't cover it now, but you can see all the math on my website at mctune.net/tfe-experiments.

So here again is the sun at local solar noon. The flat earth straight line distance to the sun is 6,717 kilometers, right? This is the photograph. Now, six hours later, the straight line distance is 21,075 kilometers. That's over three times farther away. Perspective requires that the sun is about one quarter of the angular size as it was at local solar noon, just like the Rubik's cube I showed you.

But what did we find? We found this photo taken six hours later. Noon, six hours later. So it's local solar noon, six hours later. You notice something? It's the same size. The sun did not change in angular size even though for flat earth perspective absolutely requires it. It's using the same camera settings. It's the same sun size. This is not possible on flat earth. But it gets worse.

Being the same aileron size requires that the sun must circle Punta Arenas on December 12 at the same distance all day, but flat earthers also claim that the sun gets lower in the sky because it gets farther away. They love to show photos of street lights getting closer to the ground because the lights are farther away, but according to perspective, the sun did not get farther away. So it could not have appeared lower in the sky because perspective says the sun did not get farther away.

But it gets worse. Flat earthers claim the sun sets because the sun is too far away, you know, due to perspective. But perspective already chimed in and declared that the sun is not getting farther away, so the sun cannot set due to perspective. This is where flat earthers start to cough up excuses. They don't know what the sun is. Therefore, how can they know how it acts?

Well, they knew it well enough when they were claiming the sun sets due to perspective. Not that you need to know what something is made of to apply the law of perspective. They also brag that they're unable to determine the shape of the ground by looking at things in the sky. And I completely agree. Flat earthers are not smart enough to determine the shape of the ground by looking at the sky. But children that successfully graduated middle school are smart enough. But it gets worse.

In Antarctica, Dave McKeegan, Dave McKeegan photographed the sun every minute for 24 hours. I'm sharing one more time here, James, last one. It will surprise nobody to learn that the angular size of the sun did not change the entire 24 hours. So here it is. Here is 24 hours of photographs of the sun every

not changing angular size. But it will surprise some flat earthers to note that the Sun is actually rotating, showing that not only is the Sun spherical, because you can see over on the left side, the Sun spot is going off, it's getting compressed, it's going out of view, but it's very much a physical thing. So not knowing what it is, is not an excuse.

Flat Earth has the same problem with the angular size of the Sun as it does in Punta Arenas. It has to be the same distance from Antarctica the whole day.

And that problem exists 24 hours a day, but it gets so much worse. All the normal people that went to Antarctica asked our audience to take photographs of the sun with solar filters on each of the days we were in Antarctica. We had an absolute flood of photographs. A volunteer by the name of What's Up curated these submissions on the Flurf.info website. And I bring it up right now. Let's see here.

So many photographs of sunspots. Here you go. Look at them. Pages and pages of them. You can peruse these yourself, and when you do, you will discover that every single photo shows the same angular size of the sun.

Perspective is a relentless taskmaster. Perspective informs all of us that the Sun cannot be small and local. It must be very far away. Far enough away that many thousands of miles distance between the different photographers is a trivially small percentage difference to the total distance to the Sun. This perfectly matches the globe and completely falsifies flat Earth. Again.

Now watch, dear viewers, as the Flat Earthers spend the next couple hours desperately avoiding this topic. They will never provide any evidence-based methods by which this can happen. They will never provide a map where this works. Everything they will provide upon investigation will dead-end at the same place. A faith-based claim. That's because the Flat Earth is a religious cult, and it's dead.

Thank you very much for that opening MC tune. We're going to jump into the open dialogue. And thank you very much, folks, for watching. We'll have Q&A afterward. If you want to submit a question, you can do it in two ways. One, you can tag me with at Modern Day Debate in the OI chat. Otherwise, you can send in a super chat on that. We'll push your question to the top of the list. With that, thank you very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours.

All right, cool. So before I begin, I took some notes there to kind of give a broad spectrum reply to everything and then we could go over the specifics and details. So to start us off with, there was a lot of slander, fallacies, ad homs, etc., etc. Not going to bother talking about those or addressing those. Is this going to be the discussion right now? No, not yet. I'm doing a quick recap and then we're going to get into it.

So anyway, you want to do a quick recap in terms of just a few points, though, because like if it is just to be a heads up that if it is too many minutes, it's kind of like it defeats the purpose of open dialogue. So maybe it's a few points. Otherwise, it turns into rebuttal speeches. Yep. Gotcha. Gotcha.

All right, cool. So redefining flat Earth or as Robothism does nothing right. The original premise was that you can't use objects in the sky to prove what the shape of the Earth is. You can prove what shape isn't right. Following the scientific method there. Now, it was stated that sunsets would be mutually exclusive on a globe to cause the physical obstruction to block light. Now, of course, there's light attenuation and.

Wait, I'm sorry. Alan is giving a rebuttal to our presentation. I thought this was a recap of his presentation, not a rebuttal to ours. We should be able to speak if he's giving a rebuttal. Just a minute or two. We'll give you a chance, but I don't agree. I mean, I did just tell him that we don't want it to go more than just a couple of minutes. Put your mic away from your face, James.

So what we'll do is we'll give him a couple of minutes. And by that, I mean, like, we'll give you another 60 seconds, Dominic. And then we got to go into where they can actually respond. Yeah. So this was my original presentation, like all the points that they brought up, right? Objects above the horizon don't prove the shape of the earth. So we can get into each specific thing mentioned. So sunsets, Toon was saying that latitude dependent objects,

sunspots, all of these things, we're going to go over all of them explicitly. And it was stated that the sun has to be, you know, 93 million miles away, but we're going to go over how that's not the case for celestial navigation to work. So anyway, whenever you gentlemen are ready, I'm ready. This is open dialogue. They've been ready the whole time. Go ahead, gentlemen. Okay, cool. So if this, if sunsets truly prove a glow, this is open dialogue that you've already talked for like several minutes during open dialogue. Now we've got to give somebody else a chance. Oh, I was waiting. Nobody said anything. Go ahead.

As I said, you didn't address how the angular size of the sun can vary throughout the day using whatever you think the flat Earth explanation is.

Great. That's a good thing that you brought that up. That is in the notes and that was covered in the Prezi at the beginning. So the sun and all celestial bodies are considered to be infinite light sources and you can treat them that way in regards to the distances. So for celestial navigation specifically, you can treat everything at a distance of 6,218 miles away from you at the altitude. That's what they cosign to stars. So you can think of a celestial sphere in that way. So if everything is an apparent light source that's projected to us,

and we see it in our field of vision, then it isn't a prediction of Mars. The geometry works on a globe. It doesn't work on a flat Earth. So if you're just saying that it's a magical thing that we can't explain, then that doesn't help you.

Well, we have a hemisphere of vision and we have two respective hemispheres that are mapped to the so-called globe that you think we live on that's actually a spherical coordinate system. So this isn't mutually exclusive to either both have elevation angles to the stars. No, the geometry works on a globe. It doesn't work on a flat Earth. What geometry are you referring? The flat Earth geometry.

Show us the flat Earth geometry. How does the angle work on flat Earth to pick your celestial object? Show the map for it for different locations on the Earth. Okay, one second. Not for the globe. I mean, you spoke at length about the massive success of the globe using spherical coordinate systems. I completely agree. You've not addressed how it works on flat Earth yet, though.

Well, it would be just the same elevation angles to stars, right? Because we're starting with Polaris. As you get further away, 69 miles per degree, if there's an optical equivalence, which that's what my position is, through curved visual space, which I brought up in the original Prezi there. Yeah, what is that geometry?

Can you stop interrupting, please? Yeah. I'm interrupting because he's not answering the question. He's just invoking magical terminology and not answering the question. Well, it's just faith-based. But as I said in my presentation, everything will dead-end at faith.

So I referenced an astronomy book from 1920 that went over the optical equivalence between the two. So you want specific math. They're telling you that they're identical. All right, one sec, just to be sure that so we don't have everybody. I do want to, so I think Peter asked a question, or Peter said, but I'm looking for this particular thing, Alan. We'll give you a chance to answer that question. Peter, can you say it one more time? What was it that you were looking for from Alan? I'm looking for the geometry of how he thinks that...

Sun or that star-zenith angles work on a flat Earth because they work according to geometry on a globe. But he's just invoking magical phrases and saying, show us the geometry for how those magical phrases work. All right, let's give him a chance. My guess is that you would disagree with that, Alan. Yes. We have the exact same equivalence for optics. We have a radius of vision we see in a dome.

When you compare what you see in the sky to the ground, they say that there's an equivalence there, but trust us, it's the ground that's curved. That's what I went over earlier in the beginning of the presentation with the citation from the astronomer book. It's not trust us. That's not correct. This isn't trust us, bro. It's a direct primary source documentation. Would you like me to read it aloud, sir? If you think it'll answer the question, sure. Okay.

It absolutely does, and then we'll go over the math here in a second. So overhead is a dome of the heavens, which so far is determined by the actual positions of the visual bodies, like the heavenly orbs or the blue sky or the clouds, has in no reality a definable shape, but may be geometrically regarded as a hemisphere around a center. This is not indeed the natural idea of the observer, whom the dome of the heavens appears somewhat a flattened form, the horizon being between them three to four times away over the region overhead.

the considering the cloudy sky we have to remember that it would be rightly understand that we must rightly understand what we see is usually the curved surface at which we look is much flatter than this we mistakenly attribute the domed shape of the heavens whereas in reality it is the curvature is no greater than the curvature of earth itself

So I'm saying that there's an optical equivalence there. You guys studied Robothamism. So what was Robotham's position about the curvature of your eye and optics and everyone mistaking the curvature of the ground for the measuring device that they're using? That's not the core of Robothamism. The core of Robothamism is believing the sun stays above the earth 24-7-365, which if I'm not mistaken, you also believe. That makes you a Robothamist.

Can I ask why we still bring up the roboton? Because, for example, in Czechoslovakia and in our countries, we don't care about the roboton at all. And there was generations who believed in flat earth cosmology before roboton. So in China, for example, until 17th century, until Jesuits came to Europe,

Asia, they believe that Earth is flat and stationary and they have like dome up of their heads. So I don't think they knew Robothom. Did you not hear my presentation? The sun, they believed the sun went below the flat Earth. Those people were not Robothomists. You are a Robothomist because you don't believe the sun goes underneath the Earth.

I don't think this is a definition of probabilism. Yeah, I don't agree with the definition, and I don't care if you agree with it or not. It doesn't matter. You said you wanted to go over some geometry and math. Would you like to do that now, or what? I'd like to see the flat Earth geometry, not the globe geometry. If you use the radius of the globe, you're acknowledging that the Earth is a globe. Oh, using the radius of my eyes.

Your eye doesn't have a radius of 5,000. Oh, 6,171 kilometers. The radius of your eye is a couple centimeters max. So you don't get to use the radius of the globe and pretend that it's flat Earth.

It's the radius of our vision, sir. No, there's no radius to our vision. We just read about the optical wavelength. It's a spherical space with no physical radius. It's incoherent to apply a linear measure to the radius of that sphere.

Well, we see in curved visual space in between 30 and 70 degrees. Please don't interrupt. There is a linear segment. I assume you guys can hear me in the Google call. Okay, so when I jump in, that doesn't mean keep going. I'm trying to bring both you and Peter. If you hear me, that's basically me saying, hey, we're going to jump into one or two minute intervals. So let's give it a chance. Space, Alan, I should say.

Sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW.

We've got the timer set. Go ahead. And then we're going to do the same thing because there have been a lot of interruptions already. So go ahead for a minute, and then we'll kick it over to Peter for a minute.

Thank you, sir. What we're looking at is the optical limits of your vision defined by your optics. Now, we're going to start with the angle of elevation to Polaris, which decreases as one moves from the North Pole, right? This is what we're looking at over here. This is the same equivalence on flat Earth or globe, right? Now, in radians, we convert that

For the necessary conversion, which makes it a trigonometric function, we use the hypotenuse. On the globe, you would say that this represents the radius of the Earth. For the flat Earth model, this would just be the distance from the observer to a point directly below Polaris on Earth's surface. So that's the equivalence between the optics and the triangles that we're drawing. Because the cool thing about triangles, if they're in the sky or in the ground, it doesn't matter. You can do it either way. It's going to come out to be the same thing. And like I said, when we get into measurements of Earth curvature, there aren't any. Everything presented is

against my null hypothesis has yet to falsify it. You guys have only presented explicitly things that are occurring above the horizon for observers and then claiming that this is mutually exclusive to a globe so far. And we haven't even got to the geometric properties of shadow sets

which means that the globe isn't setting behind curvature because objects casting shadows never cast them higher than the objects themselves. They actually raise up at 15 degrees or, you know, corresponding to 15 degrees per hour. And then they slow down as they would, instead of going over the object casting it, they actually slow down and then they fade out. We'll switch it over to Peter for a minute. Yeah.

Okay, you still didn't answer the question and you made a bunch of false statements. So like the stars corresponding in a linear correlation to your latitude, that is exclusive to a globe because on a globe your orientation changes with latitude and your orientation dictates the elevation of the star. It's a linear relationship because of the surface being a sphere. So if you are denying that geometry,

then you have no explanation left for why that relationship is linear. If you're saying it's due to perspective, like Grobotham said, then it makes no sense. But if you're just... I should say it's mathematically wrong in that case. But instead, you're just throwing around these phrases like we see in curved visual space. That doesn't answer how the geometry works. Yeah.

So specifically, we have a near field and a far field and an extreme far field. Those are broken up into three portions. As things are closer to you, that's more linear. As things get further away, the extremities of that curvature increases, right? It can be best described as logarithmically. As I stated earlier, when you have elevation angles, what we're looking at here is how the same thing would work on a flat Earth. Here's some geometry for you.

So anyway, as everything for celestial navigation starts with about 30 to 75 degrees angle-wise, that's where you have the linear portions. The linear portions of your vision are going to be represented by that 69 mile per degree relationship. And outside of that is where you're going to have the most corrections. And when you look at the almanacs, that's what you'll find outside of those ranges. Now, what we're looking at here is the exact equivalence on a flat Earth for these angles. Oh, look.

Where'd the globe go? The globe would just be representing things as a negative coordinate system as they go out of your field of vision. All you ever see is one hemisphere at a time.

All right, you've thrown out this assertion about curved linear, curved visual space, things like that, and with zero supporting evidence for it. So I'm going to just simply ignore it and ask you once again, can you provide the actual geometry? I can go over the geometry that you would need to go over. It's not that difficult. It's something that is covered in... Wrong one there. Here we go.

All right. Just so people are on the same page, Melvin, a.k.a. MC Toon, is currently sharing his screen. Sorry. All right. All right. So so here is here. Here's your opportunity. This is where you do the actual geometry. Are you seeing this right? So you've got here's Polaris. You brought a Polaris. Here's the North Pole sits there nearly above the North Pole.

Here I am in Minneapolis. I measure the angle to Polaris at 45 degrees in angular elevation. I am 5,000 kilometers from the North Pole. So now here we are at the equator, okay? Now, show me the geometry, the application of geometry that predicts the angle to Polaris at the equator using flat Earth. What do we do here? What's next? I'm ready. I'll give you one sec. Pull it up.

There we go. Baseless assertions are just faith-based cult dogma. Did you hear me? I said give me one second. I'm preparing the audience to hear about your dogma and doctrine that is just faith. Sounds like you're poisoning the well there, Slick. All right, so here we go. He's just making an observation.

Oh, is that what it is? Okay. So the angle is 60 degrees there. Hypotenuse distance to the star is 60 degrees. Cosine, the ratio adjacent over hypotenuse equals 0.5 degrees. You can solve this adjacent side with the adjacent equals hypotenuse times the cosine 60 degrees. The adjacent equals 60 times 0.5, which is 30 degrees. Using that relationship, the adjacent horizontal distance is 30 degrees to the position of the observer.

Using the adjacent distance of 30 degrees, the conversion is 69 miles per degree. Distance equals 30 degrees times 69.08 miles per degree, which comes out to be 2,072 miles. The distance along the Earth's surface is approximately 2,000

72. So this is the optical equivalence for what we're talking about. If we see in a radius, and you think that you're calculating things based off of a radius and a deviation due to the contour of the Earth, there's an equivalence there. That's why my null hypothesis is that we can't use celestial bodies to determine what the shape is, only what it isn't by the consequences of geometric properties like shadow sets and battle of the beams, et cetera.

in circumpolar orbits. Sorry, go ahead. All right, thank you. You did not address this right here. You didn't use 45 degrees. You used 60 degrees. You said that this distance something was 2000, whatever. Here, equator. Please, geometry for equator using flat earth, not globe. You don't get to use a radius of the globe and you don't need to say anything about the globe.

Show me how this works on flat earth. Right here. He just basically asked, what's one plus one? And you said red fish, blue fish, one fish, two fish is basically what just happened. Or did I calculate a distance based off of a triangle while you guys weren't paying attention? You didn't answer. Hold on a second. So MC Toon asked Alan, let's put it this way.

MC Toon is asking, are you able to do what he just asked you to do? No, I came with pre-prepared math just to show for that. No fighter can do this. Thank you. I said that you would not touch this. You are not touching the perspective, the application perspective. I brought my own angle and walked you through it one to one, bro. But that distance you got from the globe, that's the problem.

You use the globe in that. Because if you're saying there's that particular distance, right, it doesn't work on this particular geometry, which is what you're claiming. It only works on globe.

The geometry did was 100% globe only geometry, and you're like hey, let me not really actually do flat earth geometry could wink everybody into thinking that it was flat earth geometry but it's not. Well you didn't hoodwink the people that understand the topic, only the flat earth audience that you're trying to appease.

All celestial bodies are treated as an equidistant web at the same altitude to them. That was awesome. I just did. Don't ask me to do it again. You didn't do it. All right, we'll give... Now second me. Just one sec. All right. We'll give Alan 60 seconds. Alan, the floor is yours. What I already showed you

That's my angle for 60. Now the units of measurement derived are a ratio of the terrestrial meridian, which I already covered, is the distance from the North Pole to the equator at 6,218 miles. And then a meter is one ten millionth of that as their starting ratio. So any distances you get are going to be the same because we're using the same coordinate system and the same units of measurement derived from it, taking the same elevation angles to stars.

which is not mutually exclusive to either model. You can do tangents all over a sphere and take the same measurements. You could do it on a flat Earth. The distinguishing factor here is when they went to go take zenith measurements of the stars, and they realized that they couldn't complete the cosine relationship because the star was never in the predicted spot.

All right well thank you very much for asserting and agreeing that you're using the same coordinate system. You used a spherical coordinate system, you need to use a non-spherical coordinate system. That's where the disconnect is. Everybody sees this here, this is the flat part. You need to use a flat coordinate system, a two-dimensional coordinate system, not a spherical coordinate system. Maybe you'd want to use a polar coordinate system.

Maybe a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system. But when you use a spherical coordinate system, you are admitting that the Earth is a globe. Well, I understand that that's your position, and that's why I came up with the null hypothesis, so we could independently verify the correct projection type, because the globe is one of the many projections, as I went over in the presentation, as well as the azimuthal map. The globe is not a projection. It's not a projection. I'm familiar with the assertion.

It's not an assertion, that's a fact. You use the spherical coordinate system, the sphere, you complete, you, you're my evidence, you use the spherical coordinate system,

The globe is that coordinate system. You totally used it. You don't get to use the globe and say, oh, wink, wink, it's flat. You use the globe, dude. Okay, so now the position isn't that you can take tangents to a sphere and do cosines that way. You're saying that this is now mutually exclusive when I agree and have the math to show it as well. 100% mutually exclusive. You use a spherical coordinate system. You need to use a non-spherical coordinate system.

Good luck. - The only system we have is the system that was given to us. Now, my position-- - Matt, you lost. - My position, yeah, my position to start with though, is that we only see in one hemisphere at a time. So if you map out the one hemisphere and you map out the other with negative coordinates,

you could combine the two to make the spherical coordinate system complete. And then you're using units of measurement derived from that spherical coordinate system. So when you cosine stars and traverse the land, guess what? It's always going to work out. And it has no relation to the shape of the ground. That's why you have to use things independently. Oh, that's not true. It does have a relation to the shape of the ground. Well, not if there's an optical equivalence and we have a radius of vision that's the same as the supposed globe. Well, you need to... Not if there's a magic hand-wield phrase that means nothing. Optical equivalence, blind faith religion...

Hey guys, can I interrupt for a second? I want to hear about the optical equivalence. Maybe you can explain it because he seems to be a brilliant... Well, Alan actually explained you and showed you the math and you just hand-wave dismissed it. He used the globe. He didn't know it was a telescope. Actually, I think it is. I embrace it. Hey guys, you are interrupting. I don't want to give Don a chance. Hold it.

Why, Dominic, when I'm talking, why do you... We're going to give 60 seconds to Dominic, and then we'll jump right back to you, MC Toon. I think Peter is still here. Peter, are you still here? We can't see you. Yes, I am. Okay, he's still here. Okay.

Go ahead, Dominik. Yeah, it's just not time to insult flood hunters, I guess. We give you evidence. We give you how the beam looks like. We give you the way how it works. We show you evidence from the German. We show you how the beam length over the distance where they're dropping the bombs.

And we gave you like everything that you need and you didn't answer any single thing. And you always like say, hand wave, dismissal it. And then you start asking us questions. And I know that you have been debating a lot, but this is not actually like a battle against each other. But we are trying to show you the evidence that why so many people are flat earthers right now. And you could like give us some ideas.

answer on Alan's specificity. And if you can't, it's okay. But then you don't have an answer. And this is the reason why we are flat earthers. And my camera free, so I will rejoin. One second, sorry. Well,

I did give an answer. You didn't like it. In response to my answer, you made blind faith assertions multiple times and refused to support your claims. I completely agree with all of the things you talked about, the shape of the beam and the divergence and the angles, all that. No problems with that. And I'm saying a highly polarized beam has no problem diffracting and staying coherent after diffraction.

And you say, no, without any evidence for that. Can you can you still man my position before we move forward? Yeah, I don't care. Don't care. Your position is magic.

There's no steel manning. It's magic. You just assert that if it diffracts, it will scatter in all directions. That's not necessarily how diffraction works. In all truth, the best steel man that we can produce would be just that you don't understand what Michael Toon is saying. That's the best steel man we can...

we can create. It's that incoherent here. Really useless comment to the conversation. If you would like to add a refutation to it, you're welcome to do so. But if your sole contribution is to do that, just go ahead and turn your mic back off. I was replying to your question about steel manning you.

Peter, actually, everything that you did in this debate so far is only insulting us and creating new ad hominem fallacies, which is insane. Like, if you say that steel man is that we don't understand it, it's such a... Please don't interrupt. 60 seconds at a time.

Yeah, just say that our position is that we don't understand it. I just told you that for me, it was such a cognitive dissonance evidence that I actually went to the radio specialist and

And I asked them because they were neutral. They didn't care about the shape of the Earth. I just asked them how the beams could work, how the specificity of the horizontal radio propagation and stuff like that. And everyone who looked at it is going to say, wow, this is something I don't understand, how it could be propagated on the globe. And it was actually the position of the British. They were not able to understand how the Germans could propagate the beam over the distance

if the earth is globe. So like it was even the, like the British position. And like, if you have some reputation on this, it would be really nice. Stop asking for it again. I already gave you the reputation. You didn't give us anything. A little bit, 10 or 15 seconds here to wrap up Dominic. And then we'll kick it back over.

Oh, you just, you can give him the space. I would like to hear some refutation and the refutation it's not gonna be the beam is so strong that it's not gonna change the coherency and the geometry if it's gonna be diffracted. It's a basic thing about radio waves is if it's gonna hit some

some physical obstruction it's gonna diffract it's not gonna maintain the same geometry of the beam it's so simple don't uh can i can i call you don't you you start calling me don't without asking so it's fine now well that's the first time i've called you that i know it's like for the crying just call yes it is just make your point do you look at your own face in the mirror sometimes

If you're going to follow any flat-out insult or anything like that, I'm not going to respond. I don't like it. I'm not trying to insult you. It's an honest question that will help illustrate a concept about how wave propagation works. Do you look at your own face in the mirror sometimes? Yeah, I do. Does it still look like your face when you look at the reflection in the mirror?

It depends on the day. If I have a hard morning, I look like a shit, to be honest. Well, I'm sure that we all have those days. But the point is, certain systems can alter the path of a wave, whether that be a light wave or a radio wave, without decohering the image. So it still looks coherent after the path has been altered.

That's what Michael Toon is saying happened here. If I understand you right, Michael, am I, am I understanding correctly? He's saying the path was angled. Yeah.

It's not the same as a reflection. It's diffraction instead, which is also not the same as refraction. Some flat earthers get those mixed up. This is diffraction. And here we go. You were able to maintain it for like 54 seconds until you claim again flat earther. Dominic, that was not an ad hom. That was an honest statement. I have literally heard flat earthers mix those up.

That's why I clarified. I was simply telling you why I was making the clarification. I was not trying to insult anyone. I'm trying to say that diffraction will alter the path of the signal being propagated without decohering the signal. It still has the same shape as it propagates. It's just changed path.

Did you try this with a mirror globe? If this is your comparison, if you make a mirror globe, is it going to work? Lads, do you guys want to know why that's physically impossible? Right? There's Earth curvature, supposedly, in between the...

Radar system and the target. You have to overcome that. You're not bouncing over top of it. You're only at maximum benefit of the doubt, 700 feet above sea level, right? You are hitting earth curvature. There's no...

You would be following a tangent to the sky to preserve the beam geometry. That would be your only option. Now, this is important. Well, it might not be your claim, but this is important because in the historical narrative, there is no proposed mechanism, diffraction or refraction.

Because when you attach the math to it, none of it works out. The beam would be destroyed. The coherency that you're asserting would be maintained does not exist. Your position is actually invoking magic, as you say, right? We're going off a simple radio wave propagation and how it actually works functionally. Okay, what you're describing would be omnidirectional propagation. There would be no problem. Do you understand what diffraction is? Yes. Tell us what it is, please, because I don't believe you.

Yes. So in the instance of a radio wave hitting a physical obstruction, as it overcomes that obstruction, it will start to fan out again. No, that's not diffraction. And I think we've gotten to the core of the problem here. You misunderstand. That's not an insult. It's possible to not understand things. Natural beam divergence versus diffraction of hitting a physical object is what we're talking about here. Can I share a screen for a little bit, like for a second? Okay, I will share a screen.

One second. Sure. Screen ready. Okay. This is just like a little painting, but it's actually what we're talking about right now. Okay. And I think it's as simple as it could be. Like there's a point where you're propagating the wave.

And if the wave hits Earth's curvature, it's going to diffract. And it's going to either diffract up against the sky, or it's going to... This is from a radio specialist. You can laugh as you want, but this is from a radio specialist. If you can just present his illustration.

I didn't hear you. Sorry. I said, for the love of Pete, no pun intended. If it was Pete who interrupted, I don't know who it was that was laughing. I want to give Bellarmine a chance to present without any audible interruption, whether it be laughs or words.

Yeah, they do all this time, but it's okay. We see who's acting and who's not. This is actually very simple, because we are actually arguing about a very simple thing. And if it's a diffraction, you still are not able to get it over the globe to maintain coherent signal. This is like if we talk about... I'm going to stop screening. If we talk about regular...

regular horizontal radio propagation, then it's fine. You can claim that there's some magical atmospheric condition, there's some magical sky wave propagation. It's okay. We know. When Marconi sends a signal as Earth is flat on over 2,000 miles, then you have to invoke some way how it was propagated on the globe, and it's fine. Okay.

But the issue with this specific mutually exclusive evidence is that the plane had to fly in the beam and the beam had to have specific geometry so the two beams could cross over and they could like land the bomb on the target. And they were using this technology for almost one year and they were using in the night. So you have to like...

have a specific, specific like accuracy to be able dropping bomb over a year as like over such a long distance and with two beams. So you don't have to, if you like claim it's a diffraction, then you have to claim that from two different beams where

diffracting in such a specific way that they were actually able to cross it over the target and drop the bomb on a specific target. It's insanity to believe that this is a diffraction because the coherency of the beam wouldn't be the same. And if you have any math,

to show us if you have any math then show us how it could be possible like count it and you can i know that you don't have it right now it's fine but you can show us later you can do some video you are doing video all the time so show us some video where you prove that we are wrong with actual math that would be amazing because that's what we are show you right here we got the math okay you you

Just because it's been maybe a couple of minutes, I do want to give the other side a chance to respond. But I also want to mention, folks, we are going to go into the Q&A pretty quick here. So fair to say, Dominic, you're saying, do you have the math to give a response? Anything else? I'm not saying that they have to give me the math now. I'm just saying it would be nice if they back it up later with some real evidence. What's something you'd like from them in the debate right now?

Well, I did actually right now in the debate. We actually asked them so many times and we didn't get one single answer. How they like think that the bill should be propagated. You just had two minutes and it was to tell them that you need them to email you something. Like I'm saying, like, what is it that you want to say? But yeah, but I mean, you're like, but you don't have to have the numbers now. You know, it was like maybe another time and say, OK, well, bring up a challenge that you expect and be able to answer right now.

I gave them a challenge that I would be able to answer right now. How they could propagate the beams and maintain the geometry of the beam if Earth is globe. Okay. Give me a chance for San, MC Toon, or Peter, and we're going to go to the Q&A in just a minute, folks. All right. I'll show, I'll present here, do a little diagram. Because it's, it seems, so you can, I'm not presenting, I'm just changing my screen.

my camera. So here you go, here's the earth, here we have the transmitter there and let's go with this here. So let me get a straight edge. So your diagram showed reflection in addition to I think there was the red line maybe, I'm colorblind, but anyway.

It may have shown refraction or sorry, diffraction. Here is, here is a line of sight, but diffraction, then as it, as it goes around there, diffraction causes things as you're near to an object to have more and more. This is what happens in, in diffraction. This is diffraction, right? And, and a large portion of that distance was either low lying, um,

land or water. So not a whole lot of mountains in between. Certainly there was some topography, but this is what diffraction looks like. One source here and of course, highly polarized and extremely powerful. And so all of these waves here, no problem, no problem with these happening here. This is diffraction, this is what diffraction looks like. - So Tune, is it fair to say that it would spread out vertically?

It does spread it vertically, and that's why it's important to have a powerful signal. But it does not, because it's polarized, it is not scattering or dispersing horizontally.

At least not, not in a significant amount. And that's why it's able to maintain the coherent beams as it gets near the target in the previous. So it's coherent horizontally, but not so much vertically. Is that right? Yep. So here's what it looks like horizontally from the top down.

You've got this side here, this side here, and you don't see it because it's a top-down view, but it's diffracting as it goes this way. So the beam is getting tall, so there's no problem with the planes receiving it, provided that they're far enough away. Now, if the planes were in this vicinity here, they wouldn't

Let me get my finger right. They wouldn't see it. But when they're over England, they're in this area here, so they're able to receive that signal. No problem at all. This is basically an issue of thinking in three dimensions. I think it could be. Yes, you may screen share, Alan. Go ahead. All right. Awesome. Thank you, sir. This is the last thing before we go into the Q&A. Sorry, folks. I've got to re-enter my microphone.

I'll take care of it later, but I do agree my audio is wonky, but go ahead, Alan. We're ready for you. All right. Thank you, sir. So as we covered earlier, this isn't a diffraction of an omnidirectional beam. Just to be clear, your screen is not showing. Oh, thank you. One second. I need to double confirm. There we go.

Okay, so we're looking here at Dave McKeegan's video from a couple of months ago where he was asserting the same thing, making the same mistake that McToon just drew out. As I stated earlier, this isn't an omnidirectional AM FM radio station. This is coherent overlapping beams that make an equi-signal, which geometry has to be preserved in order for usefulness of the targeting system. So what we're looking at here is the beam coming out, hitting this object.

and then diffracting down to still hit the car to overcome the physical obstruction between the two. This is not analogous to the system that is being proposed. What we have is the exact angles for the derby site that we can go over. So at 660 feet, you're going to hit earth curvature at 32 to 50 miles. And that tangent that you drew is actually going to put you following –

the line to the sky when you map it out or math it out it's going to be 111 feet over target if you're doing the distance from Stolberg to Beeston which would be that intersecting beam that intersected the one from Cleve to Derby. So anyway

This is the summation of what you're proposing and the bombers only flew at 19,000 feet so that Eklis signal would have to be 17 miles wide, which defeats the purpose of it it was measured by the British at 450 yards to 600 yards at the distances over target and another thing to note what you were saying about how it would be cool if they flew over target.

There would be no problem with that. Well, they actually flew in the beam to guide them to Britain. And it was noted in the documentation for the system that you had to, like the first 30 to 50 miles out from the radar system had to be completely clear.

Because what we're looking at is this beam geometry, where at three degrees above the horizon, you would have something like what you were showing for the globe. But remember, our angles are way back here at sub one degree at 300 to 400 miles, respectively. And then, of course, the Germans actually measured the beam and used it at further distances and whatnot. But the minimum max specs that they put in their documentation from the company who built it was that at 1,000 kilometers, the beam accuracy was sub one degree.

I'm sorry, the beam divergence, sorry. So everything that you asserted and tried to, you know, correct it on is either wasn't analogous or it's a complete strongman and misunderstanding of the technology, as was stated earlier, that maybe we weren't the ones that understand it. But it seems weird that you guys are drawing analogous diagrams to the radar system and then asserting that we don't understand it. I have right here.

There's nothing, what's non-analogous of it. It's a highly polarized beam sent from a low elevation at a angle that matches, it's a very low angle, right? So it's going to, as you said, hit the surface of the earth at some point perfectly fine because then on the other side of it's diffracting and you're getting a large portion of the vertical section of the sky painted with that beam. No problem at all. Nothing at all an issue with diffraction doing this.

We're going to jump into the Q&A. We'll give the last word to the Globe gang as they were, as it was the Flat Earth who got the first word of the first speech. Thank you for your patience, folks. As my microphone, we're going to get through this together. So, one. I didn't realize you were still talking. Sorry. Go ahead. What is it that's on your mind, Peter?

Oh, just, I thought we were supposed to like summarize basically or answer or whatever. Just wrap up. I don't know if you know, you guys want like a closing statement? Yeah, yeah. So, um, Well, okay. I mean, just, uh, they, I mean, I don't like, then of course they would get one too, but if that, if you're okay with that, go ahead, Peter. Uh, sure. I guess. That would be fair, right? So it sounds like you're okay with that. Okay.

As Tuna and I both explicitly predicted, Alan and Dominique spent this entire time completely running away from and ignoring all of the evidence that Tuna and I presented. The best thing they said was, this isn't what we want you to present. We want you to present something directly measuring the ground, not measuring the sky. Well, that doesn't answer our evidence. Simply saying, I don't want this, is not a rebuttal. So...

That's fun. And Dominic, I do want to say, I don't know to what degree you are being genuine that your feelings are hurt by some of the things I said. I don't want to hurt your feelings. But unfortunately, I do have to say some hard truths here in this public forum, especially since you are both actively deceiving your audiences. So, yeah.

You threw around the accusation several times that my opening presentation and tunes were both a slander fest. I take that very seriously, so I'd like you to DM me specific examples of things we said, not just that hurt your feelings, because that's not what slander is, things we said that are slander, that are untrue about someone,

that make them look bad. That's what slander is. I don't think either Toon or I said anything untrue, so please share with me in DMs later or whatever exactly what was slander in our presentations. Can I respond now, me or McToon? Let Dominic.

Thank you, guys. Well, you were able to even like this, your last speech to make it without insulting. You don't know me. You don't know me at all, Peter. I don't know you either. So that's why I didn't bring your pictures in presentation. That's why I didn't claiming what you believe or don't believe in.

And I would never speak publicly that you are deceiving people because I don't know you. I don't know what you believe in. And when I say I 100% believe on my life, believe on my life that Earth is actually stationary and the most accurate question

depiction would be topographical plane, geocentric topographical plane. This is what I do believe in. And I would never ever lie to any people publicly because I hate lies. I am Scorpio. I hate lies. So I would never ever lie to people publicly about my beliefs. This is my belief. And I'm here to defend my belief. So far, I didn't hurt any refutation about the Battle of the Beams.

Our position was that Earth is a planner and the measurement of curvature are dependent on the position of celestial bodies. If Earth is a globe, you should be able to measure curvature independently on celestial bodies. I did some measurements on the ground and all the measurements, I physically went out there and I did measure the Earth and the measurements when the Earth is flat. I didn't find the Earth curvature. And I will definitely send you the list of all like...

attacks and fallacies that you did. I actually go to Riverton right now, so I will send you as we done. I can send you right away. And for me, it's very sad that you spent all this time attacking us instead of the arguments, because our arguments were very clear. We didn't bring any insults, and I don't think that you are a wrong person, because you believe that the Earth is globe, and

It's very sad that you actually believe that we are like bad persons because we believe in something different than you. And in the end of the day, it's a belief from your side and it's a belief from our side. But our side actually realize it and your side thinks that it's a backup by all the science and it's not. So that's my position. And it was a nice time, guys, really nice time. But if it were without the insults, I would enjoy it more.

We'll go to MC Toon. All right. Well, thank you, Dominic. You're just a little too sensitive. Alan, I do love debating you. It's always engaging. And so I look forward to it. So.

I look forward to future debates with you. We did not choose to use measurements of the surface in this particular instance, Dominic. It's okay. We get to choose what we present. You get to choose what you present. That's the cool thing about me deciding what I do.

Right. But if you wanted to do some sort of debate where it was limited to ground only measurements, that would then be an instance for you to say, how come you didn't bring ground only measurements? You see how that works? So if you if somebody wants that, hit me up. I'd be glad to talk about that. Anyway, this has been super. I look forward to the Q&A.

Thank you, sir. So fair enough about the, you know, evidence is presented. But as you'll note, my premise was your guys's conclusion that

And with that, we're not able to, you know, come away with any mutually exclusive evidence if we're referencing the same things and whatnot. That's why there was additional evidences. But this is a free for all and we didn't, you know, swap sources or anything like that. So it's, you know, got to take what you can get when it comes at you. So, you know, it's all good in regards to that. And thank you for the debate. It was a lot of fun.

And that's it for me. Peter, it was nice to meet you. Toon, pleasure as always. Dom, you crushed it, bro. Your English is on fire, bro.

Thank you, guys. I'm sorry if I misspoke or something like that. For me, it's quite hard to speak in English and also think in English. It's a really different thing. But it was a really nice debate. I would have to actually go because my time is 4.30 in the morning. And I actually have to go get my dog, take him out, and then I have to go to work.

So for me, it was a pleasure. Thank you, guys. I think that you should look on people who believe in something different than you differently than not just they are liars and bad people, because I don't think you are liars and bad people. I think just you believe in something different than me. And I think that's perfectly fine, guys. Well said. First question coming from. Thank you, Dominic, for coming with us today. It's been a tremendous debate. Well, there you go.

I hope you have a great rest of your night. It's morning. Yeah, I actually have to go as well. Was it Peter or Alan? Alan. I don't know if you guys know this, but all the questions are for you. But we're going to have to read them and you're not going to get to respond to them. That's just our policy. That's unfortunate.

Yeah, my dog is definitely going to cry about it, but it's going to do what it's going to do. Well, Dominic, I don't blame you. I have no idea what Alan's excuse is. Dominic, you're excused. You don't have to like... Your English is great, Dominic. Alan, if you have to go, you have to go. I guess he had to go. Sorry.

That was kind of a surprise for me, folks. We have like 50 questions for our Flat Earth guys and they just left. So they weren't angry, though. So, you know, it's totally normal to have to take care of your dog. That's a good reason to go. I don't know what Alan's reason was, but let's first one.

Hang 044. I'll adjust the screen, folks. Bear with me. Hang 044 says, Alan is just a massive... Okay, that's disgraceful. Freesal Problems says, Alan, what subject is your most advanced degree in? Where's that degree? And what institution is it from?

Alan? Okay. Seraphs, what flavor hot pockets have you got tonight from Barbar Jinks? Thanks for that. Monkey Cat Pat Pat says, question for Flat Earthers. I went to Antarctica and proved the globe. What experiments or outside observations have you personally done? Ryan Peck says, holy, push a gallop, Batman. Barbar Jinks says, Alan, let me see if there's any from MC Toon. Keep going on these. It's all good.

Barbara Jinx might be very disappointed if you don't read the question, although they're already probably disappointed that Alan won't hear it. All right. This one from, they say, Alan, in your model, how does quantum decoherence of non-local eigenstates affect entanglement entropy within a topologically invariant Hilbert space?

Too bad. I have a feeling Alan would have had a great answer for that. Tangle44 says, Alan, we don't see inferred visual space. Please give some sort of citations. The visual impression of the outside world is made within our brain, and it is learned distortion due to the shape of our eyes are compensated out.

Alan. Okay. So Brian Peck says, since human eyes, okay, I'm sorry for doing that. They say since human eyes are passive receivers, how does the azithumal field of vision created and how does light bend later than 90 degrees in the South? West side girl reacts says, does James have to pay for Witsit's childcare while in New Jersey?

I think that's supposed to be a joke. Look at MC. Oh my God. Look at him. It's because Will Duffy paid for Witsit's childcare while Witsit was in Antarctica. Wow. Are you serious? Yeah. He demanded it. He what? Austin demanded it. It was one of the demands that Witsit had. That's expensive. Will Duffy. Will Duffy's a generous guy because that's got to be a lot.

He's amazing. Will paid to fly out Austin's mother-in-law as well. Are you serious? Yeah. Holy smokes. Will's all about getting past the nose. Wow. Well, I'm impressed.

Then David says, sorry, answer the question. No, I'm not paying for anything. James, does your merch shippers use the have-or-seen formula? If not, I'm not buying. Well, it doesn't matter. You're in luck. It does. He's full problem. Says, James, did you ever meet Jared from Subway? I am the new Jared. Not that way. Wait. It's like...

Okay. Just take it back. Alejandro Vallejo says, if the sun sets through to perspective, then please show me physical-to-scale flat Earth model where the sun appears to set while staying above the model's surface while seeing the sun only through air. Any thoughts? Okay. This next one coming in. The trouble with that is that they can't build cameras small enough.

Because in a scale model of any Earth, really, then the camera lens becomes gigantic and the focal blur and then depth of field becomes like a big problem. Interesting. It doesn't matter. Two objects above a flat surface, there's no way that the surface of the flatness can get between those two objects. It's not possible. Okay. This one from, do you appreciate it?

Chicken Hats says, it is absurd people like this exist without... Are they talking about MC Toon? Okay, they say, you can quite literally observe the Earth's curvature on a plane. Oh, okay, it wasn't about you, MC Toon. They say, it's a manner of pure ignorance and utter stupidity. Wow, pretty brutal there, heavy-handed. Chris Hoffman is saying that you don't need to have the mic so close to your face. I always forget that.

That's much better. I get excited. Basal problem. This sounds better, right? Yep. Basal problem says, Dominic, suppose A and B are vectors in R3 and a dot equals zero. Then let C equal A times B, parentheses, the vector product of A and B. What is the dot product of A and C?

You know what? Dominic would have knocked that out of the park. You guys are lucky he's not here. PhD Tony says... That's math I can't even do. They say Alan... I've never taken linear algebra. PhD Tony, good to see you, Tony. We hope you're doing well. Tony's been a really good sport. Sometimes, like, we've, like...

I've been like tired and burnt out and I've been cranky with, and Tony's been super patient with me. So I, Tony, thank you for being here and thanks for your patience. You're a saint. I appreciate your kindness. They say Alan's claim that he correctly in term interprets math, geometry, and scientific literature is an unsubstantiated assertion. He has no qualifications, no real life achievements. And,

No expert assessment. He just says so. Some from hashtag chicken hats says, I would also like to add everyone arguing on the debate is also cheese. They said so idiotic. What is the entirety of it is a red herring to the fact that flat earth makes zero sense. I don't understand. You said, I would also like to add everyone arguing on this debate. Jeez. He's saying that, that, that by forming this type of debate,

is, is not a good idea. I think. Oh, I see. But, but I disagree because I think that this, this topic needs to be challenged publicly when, when things are, are, when misinformation is, is left unchallenged, then it gives a little bit of the impression that it might be correct. And it certainly is not. We saw here that they couldn't, they couldn't address the topic that just, it just came down to, you know,

Blind faith assertions. And when I brought them, you know, actual answers to the questions they were demanding, they didn't like it. They said no to the answers. Again, blind faith assertions to the answers. So, yeah.

Hang on, 444 says, Alan, does a camera lens see in curved visual space? And also says, Alan, does a space-based telescope see... Sorry. See in curved visual space? And said, Alan, what about a pinhole camera? Cardboard box with a pinhole in it and some photographic film in it. No lens does that.

quote unquote, see in curved visual space? Yeah, so one of the claims that flat earthers have made and he hinted at it tonight is that our eyeballs somehow cause things to be seen curved, which is ridiculous because a camera, a regular camera, has very different optics than our eyeball.

sees this straight ruler as straight, just like our eyeballs see it straight. But you can even go farther than that because a pinhole camera has no lens. It's just a pinhole and it works on, you're gonna love this. It works on diffraction. It functions because of diffraction. Anyway, it's got no lens in it at all. And a straight line is a straight line and a curved line is a curved line through a pinhole camera, just like a high quality lens.

Alejandro says, Alan, 6,000 kilometers is the radius of our vision. So since we can see stars, then the radius of the dome is 6,000 meters or less than, or we wouldn't see stars. MC, can you explain this one for us too? Well, yeah, he asserted that he took some, I don't know what book and read it as if,

some number could be like, it was just an assertion. Reading somebody else's assertion doesn't make it true. It's still just an assertion, but he's claiming that the limit of our vision is 6,000 something miles, but that doesn't work because when I was in Punta Arenas, according to Flat Earth, the stars embedded in the dome

that are near the South celestial pole. We're on the far, far, far opposite side of the dirt pizza, which is more than 6,000 miles away. And yet I saw them in the sky.

I wasn't clear on whether he was saying that things just disappear past that radius or if he was simply assigning a radius to the celestial sphere and somehow saying that had significance. I wasn't clear on that. And I'm not sure he was either. It would not work because the diameter of flat Earth is 24,000 miles, the entire diameter of it, right? Right.

And they both use the AEMAP, even though we destroyed it. Even though Austin, who is Alan's bud, is like, the AEMAP's been falsified. Austin is your king, MC Toon. Acknowledge him. This one coming from Basil Problems is, Dominic, what is WGS84? And David says, question four.

Flob, aka flat globe earth. You say a flat globe has two hemispheres. Use a piece of paper to show us how a truly flat earth has two hemispheres. King Ed V says, Retired ATC air search radar takes into account the curvature of the earth to work properly. Explain that, flat earthers. Microphone. Oh.

Ben says, given the longitude, negative 73.5 in each latitude, 47, 0, and negative 47, the durations between sunrise and sunset are 9.5 hours, 12.1 hours, 13.9 hours. Opposite during the summer. Globe perfectly explains this, but how does Flat Earth explain it? By using the globe.

Chase Hatchett says, why does my telescope require polar alignment if Earth is flat? Basil Problems says, Dominic, please describe in words the Maxwell equations. How many are there? What do they mean? You guys are lucky he's not here. Native Wildman says, why do flat Earth deny thousands of years of science?

Alejandro Vallejo says, flat people. How about the four of you take physics? I don't understand. Two of these guys are glovers and an electrostatic college level tests. Let's see which side actually understands the topics better. Oh yeah. He's saying like, take a test from a class like this and see who gets the answers best. This one from diesel problems is Alan. Do the calculation.

Iceman says these flatties read a couple of pages of something and they think they are now experts on the subject and twist what they read to their dogma. Beasticles says if the signal diffracts and recombines, then the signal coherency falters and the Germans would not have been able to bomb those targets at night. Any other refutation? Okay, so I think that was to me. Okay.

And I can address that. I mean, this diagram makes it pretty clear right here. So they're saying that it would recombine and it wouldn't necessarily recombine. That's not really what we're expecting would happen. So if we take just a single line, right, they don't go like that, but, you know, they go in a normal direction.

Anyway, you take it, just draw a single line of the beam. It gets to the surface and it diffracts and it's continuously diffracting. So a little bit diffracts off here, a little diffracts off here, a little diffracts off here, and it just keeps going. It follows and some is basically, some is released and some is not, just like in that pinhole camera. Anyway, this beam here isn't recombining with some other beam.

It's just the signal here. And so, yeah, if there was another reflection off of something, then there may be an area where you'd have some incoherency here. But for the most part, that's not going to be the problem. And because it was rather low tech, it wasn't some complex signal that was high bandwidth, you know, ECC encoded QAM stuff. It was just a signal that was

long and short dashes alternating on left and right beams. So if they recombined in a little bit of a weird way, you'd have a little more of a fuzzier sound on one side or the other, but it wouldn't change the overall signal. It's not like a new digital signal with DSSS. Anyway. You got it. This one coming in from...

3ron says legit question why can't the flat earthers figure out the difference between ad hom and insult they are not the same this is actually true i do want to be clear that uh well i don't want to say all flat earthers make this mistake but some flat earthers and frankly some globe people like people in general just make this mistake

uh technically an ad hom is when you make the insult and you kind of connect it to their argument it's like if let's say you're having a moral debate and i was like wow you know mc toon wants to like make his moral argument regarding ethics being based on deont like a deontological foundation a lot of you guys don't know that mc toon you know he uh

Two years ago, it was like caught cheating on his taxes. You know, so his argument really like shouldn't be trusted here. It's where you tie it to the argument. But if you just say like, oh, you know, MC2, nasty guy. He's got all these lewd photos of himself on the internet. Nasty. That would just be an insult. You're welcome for not doing that. Mm-hmm. Basil Problems says, but yeah, so ad hominem is like you've got to directly tie it to the argument.

And I think, frankly, I'm not trying to throw flat earthers under the bus. I think people in general, they want to call it an ad hominem because it sounds more rhetorically powerful.

label it as a logical fallacy. It even has the intellectual, it's a nice Latin word. It's an ad hominem. It makes them sound almost like intellectually a little bit more credible. But yeah, it's like, well, it's not if they don't tie it to the argument. Basil Problems says, Dominic, can you demonstrate the calculation of wave propagation that justifies that cartoonish diagram?

Globy McGlobeface says, Alan, please bring back up the calculation of distance to star and explain to us why you set the hypotenuse distance to the star at 60 degrees. It is arbitrary. NasalProblem says... Microphone.

Basil Problem says, Alan, are you familiar? Thank you for that. I appreciate it. He says, Alan, are you familiar with Dunning-Kruger? Do you accept that it might apply to you? Goofy the Cat says, please ask McToon to say A-L-E-X-A by nipple clamps. Alexa, by nipple clamps. Okay. I'm so thankful that it didn't hear you. I've got mine in my room with me. This one from...

You don't have, how do you turn yours off, Melvin? You unplug it. I, a while ago learned I can't have them in my, in this room here listening. So I either have them unplugged or on where it doesn't listen. Wow. This one from the KM says, how can coordinate system work fine for flat earth when ground distances never match those coordinates? Drive between latitude and longitude points in your car.

Theodore Paul says, Alan, with all your math done for you, what does that mean? Somebody else did the math for him. He can't do math, right? He doesn't, he's not shy about that either. I mean, he, I think. I was kind of shocked that he admitted that. Yeah. Like that was such an embarrassing moment for him because he has been spending all this time spewing all this knowledge that, that.

It was supposed to. And yet he can't even do the math. And that was simple math. Like a middle schooler could do that. This one from Max V says, James, my dead grandma just came out of her grave to unplug my speakers because your mic is not letting her rest in peace. It is true. I'm so sorry, guys. The audio issues are because I'm such an amateur. I keep like

Basically like eating the microphone as I speak. Theodore Paul says, we got that one. Flat Earth Evidence says, man, someday I'll get to be on here. Wow. Someday there will be some Flat Earth Evidence on your show. Not today though. They want a PCUMC tune. Now I do want to say thank you so much folks for your support. I do want to mention folks, you guys, this is so important.

you guys might be thinking james what is it what's on your mind i'll show you right now really quick before we let our speakers go we appreciate these guys we love these guys and if you didn't know if you some way if you've been living on mars in a cave with your fingers in your ears as you can see on screen debate con 5 is in newark new jersey you can see the left-hand poster that's on screen right now that's the religion debates day

That will have Fight the Flat Earth. Craig is coming in from England. No joke. He is going to debate Andrew Wilson. As you can see on the bottom left, it is going to be huge. That conference is seriously, right now I'm telling you, we've already got 120 for the first day. I'm thinking we're probably going to have 300. It's going to be like triple the biggest conference we've ever had in the past. And then you can see on the right side, the political debates day. You don't want to miss it. It's in Newark, New Jersey.

Check out the link in the description box here at Modern Day Debate. I will also pin it to the top of the chat. If you are anywhere near the Northeast, you have to come out to this debate. And if you didn't notice, the poster on the right, on the right side of that poster, second from the bottom, you see there, none other than MC Toon's brother, Austin Witsit Gitsit. He will be debating Brianna Wu.

You don't want to miss that. It's going to be a controversial political debate. And then we had one last super chat come in. But I do want to encourage you folks be at that conference. It's going to be huge. Iceman says next time you can also meet fight the flat earth and wits. It gets it there. The next time ask the flat earthers, what is weight and why the buoyancy formula includes gravity. Listen to MC tune all self-satisfied over there laughing.

I want to say thank you, folks, for being here. Thank you for our guests. They are the lifeblood of the channel. And thank you. Yeah, we appreciate you guys. MC2 and Peter, thanks for being with us tonight. Can I give the answer to the question I asked but didn't get an answer to? Sure. All right. You see the diagram here?

Here's the flat earth geometry that he didn't want to do because this is actual flat earth geometry. He used globe geometry. This line here, you got the equator, you got Minneapolis, you got the North Pole, 5,000 kilometers, 10,000 kilometers in reality from the North Pole to the equator. And if Polaris is as high as it is according to geometry, then this angle right here, right, because this is 45,000,

right here in reality i measured this it's 45 degrees then this angle right here must be 26.6 degrees but in reality it's not it's zero or right next to zero so there you go there is the problem with you can't do flatter geometry because it requires this angle here but but it doesn't actually happen thank you

And last minute super chat from I killed Earl. Thanks for your support. Thanks for being a channel member. I killed Earl said for Dr. Coons is new microphone. My ears are bleeding. They're not bleeding. We'll be fine. Isa Kavir. Thank you. Says I'll be at debate con five. Come there. It is true. You should come folks. It's going to be a tremendous time. Thank you. MC tuned for that demonstration. Thank you for being with us, Peter as well.

Folks, you can find both Peter and MC Toon's links in the description box below. And you can also find the link for Alan. And I'm going to try to get that link for Dominic. With that, thank you, MC Toon and Peter. I'll be back in just a moment, folks, to do the full plug for DebateCon 5 in Newark, New Jersey.

Thank you very much. MC2 and Peter. Newark, New Jersey is where our next debate conference, DebateCon5, is happening starting on February 15th with our religion debates, including Dr. Lawrence Krauss against inspiring philosophy, Mike Jones, and Alex O'Connor against David Wood. So click below to get your tickets as some ticket types are already selling out. You don't want to miss out on this cultural moment. That's Saturday, February 15th and Sunday, February 16th

Debate Con 5 in Newark, New Jersey. You don't want to miss it as these debates will be live and in person as well as many other debates. Click now to get your tickets for this in-person event. It is Ryan Seacrest here. There was a recent social media trend which consisted of flying on a plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment. But a better trend would be going to ChumbaCasino.com. It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket.

Chumpa Casino has over 100 online casino-style games, all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane. So grab your free welcome bonus now at ChumpaCasino.com. Sponsored by Chumpa Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group. Void where prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply. Why choose a Sleep Number Smartbed? Can I make my side softer? Can I make my side firmer? Can we sleep better?

And now save 50% on the new Sleep Number Limited Edition Smart Bed. Limited time. Exclusively at a Sleep Number store near you. Learn more at sleepnumber.com.