Flat Vs Globe: Redemption | ‪@pitchlumin‬ Vs ‪@planetpeterson2824‬
02:24:53 Share

You're free now. Free to fill your feed with impossibly chonky chonkers who chonk harder than you ever thought possible. Cats, corgis, babies, baby penguins, baby pandas, chunky baby pandas. Free to make your smart devices do silly things. Free to open a world of remote work and a portal into gametopia. Who's the boss now? Free to be everything you imagine and then some. That's how it feels to have Quantum Fiber Internet.

Quantum Fiber, your world unleashed. Learn more at quantumfiber.com. Limited availability, service in select locations only. Six months from now, you could be running a 5K, booking that dream trip, or seeing thicker, fuller hair every time you look in the mirror. Through HERS, you can get dermatologist-trusted, clinically proven prescriptions with ingredients that go beyond what over-the-counter products offer.

Whether you prefer oral or topical treatments, HERS has you covered. Getting started is simple. Just fill out an intake form online and a licensed provider will recommend a customized plan just for you. The best part? Everything is 100% online. If prescribed, your treatment ships right to your door. No pharmacy trips, no waiting rooms, and no insurance headaches.

Plus, treatments start at just $35 a month. Start your initial free online visit today at forhers.com slash talk. That's F-O-R-H-E-R-S dot com slash talk. Tom Pounder products are not FDA approved or verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality. Prescription required. Price varies based on product and subscription plan. See website for full details, restrictions, and important safety information.

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to Modern Day Debate. I'm your host, Ryan. It's Flat vs. Globe. We're doing the redemption tour for Flat Earth here, and we have Nathan to represent that side of the argument. So without further ado, you have 10 minutes on the floor. Thank you so much for being here. Pitch Lumen, it's all yours. And he froze. There you go. You're back. You're back. Awesome. I was going to say, just at the wrong time.

Hey, okay, yeah, no, this show, hopefully this is okay. I'm going to open this up real quick and then share my screen. Sure thing.

I want to remind everybody too that we are doing a little bit of a, we're doing a pity like tour. I don't know if that's a secondary part of this tour that we're doing. But if anybody out there has the time, the means, the patience to check out the Modern Day Debate Facebook page, we only need one more like in order to reach our milestone for the week. So if you can check it out, hit it up with a like. We'd really appreciate it while Nathan gets his screen share up and running.

I should be good to share here, if you would allow me to. Yeah, whenever you're ready, you just have to click the share. It says host disabled participant screen sharing. Did I? Oh, okay. I think I figured out what's going on here. Very interesting. All right. We're going to just take a recess for like two minutes, guys. I got called in last minute. I'm just going to for dangle a few things. So I'm just going to put you guys back to the intro screen. Two seconds. Thank you so much.

Just bear with me, everybody. I'm just getting logged in to James' Zoom account here. Otherwise, we were going to get booted in 40 minutes, which isn't a lot of fun, especially when we get to a really good spot and then we have to cut things short. So just bear with me here. I'm just sending the fellas out the email right now. It's a good opportunity for you all to...

Make good on my offer there check out the Facebook page give us a like that'd be appreciated like the stream while you're at it, too It's been a while for now dad rock. Yeah, wait till I start singing. All right We're just gonna give the fellows a second here. They'll be back in I see you in the chat there and xxd you're already starting to rattle some people looks like

Oh boy, it's gonna be a juicy one everybody. Alright, the fellas are back. I'm just going to put you back on the tunes and we'll be with you in a second. We're gonna get rolling. I see the screen share is good to roll on your end too. So I'm just gonna blow up your face a bit here so that people don't see me in your sidebar. Since my Zoom has moved you guys around a little bit. That's not the worst thing that's ever happened to us here at Modern Databate. Don't worry guys.

They can hear me. They can't hear you right now. All right. Thanks for your patience, everybody. We're going to get started. So we're doing the redemption tour for Flat versus Globe. And to get us started here, we have Nathan Pitchluman, better known as. So whenever you're ready, the floor is all yours. All righty. I'm going to go ahead and share this.

So thank you, MDD, for hosting this and Ryan for the late join into this. And thank you as well, Planet Peterson, for this discussion on this topic. And so this hopefully should be. Click here. Yeah. Hold on. I just got to show the first meeting. And let me just size it down a little bit. Just wait a second here and then I'll start your time.

It's just a little too blown up. There we go. Ready to roll. All right. So this is a biblical flat earth topic or natural oblate spheroid. Essentially, there are two options really for the cosmology for the earth and they are exclusive from one another. So there are primary primary difference claims in motion and also in the shape of the ground.

as well as secondary different explanations of phenomena. So like things like the sky and down and actual land layout. And then there is also the exoscience, which is how important we each are and this one life itself that we have, this one existence as we pass through. And there are tremendously different implications. So

Uh, the first thing that we have here is, and this is a little bit of a jumble, uh, but this is the primary scientific determination. So if you're talking about the shape of the earth, uh, like if you're talking about the shape of the table, you would look at the table itself for the primary characteristics of its, um, dimensions. And so, um, with the primary sciences you have, uh, first you had like Aries failure, which was tilting a telescope water in it. Uh,

then that showed that they did not have to tilt the telescope which implied that the stars were moving into line of sight of view of the telescope the light was and then that's why they didn't have to tilt it and so that caused nicholson morley experiment to get ran and they actually found they had an expected displacement that they expected

And they actually ended up getting somewhere between 120th and 140th of their expected result based on their idea that the Earth was heliocentrically moving around the sun. And so this here is, I might be blocking it at least on my screen I am, but like on the top right here you have the expected result and the actual result. So they were expecting to be able to track the motion of the Earth because light is a very sensitive element.

measuring device with very small wavelengths to be able to detect the fringe shift in the phases of the light waves. And so it was certainly sensitive enough to be able to detect motion and it got a very, very small amount, which would

Planarly be explained as like an ether drift. And so this actually here is a part of, and this is for any relativist. I haven't like debated with a Newtonian globe earther, but for a relativist motion is conceded right away because relativity says a non-moving motion.

object needs to have the same mathematical ability and explanation as something moving. So if something is moving zero miles an hour, one mile an hour, 1000 miles an hour, it's all, um, it's all relative. And so, uh, you, you, the, the motion claim is already in favor of a motionless earth, which is our experience. And, uh, and then as far as like the shape goes of the ground, I do, um,

count this here, these lights as linear on the surface of water. These windmill bases as well show linearity. And yes, I have had examples shown to me of

refraction like water on a driveway. And but what I've never gotten as a follow up is this here was is on the bottom is actually something I was giving in given in chemistry. And when we are doing refractometry, when you have a hot temperature or a cold temperature, it

alters your result. It either adds or subtracts what you add to your measured results. And so that means that light is bending more or less depending on if it's hot or cold. And we have seen both these examples here are water that is not frozen and water that is frozen. So we've seen two, we've seen flat appearances in hot and cold weather. And those, I haven't seen it done in cold. I've seen it done in hot.

So, and as well you have here the Red Bull jump which has this out of from inside the gondola you have a level horizon. One thing to keep in mind for plane people who see curvature and planes and everything is this is just a diagram showing curved windows and stuff.

you have the globe proponents on the globe side. I know science doesn't have an authority, but there are people who will say that the earth is so big that it just appears flat. And that's our experience, essentially in our practical world, day-to-day living, our influence is going to be within what appears to be a flat world. And then you have here, this is

which this should kind of be a primary thing, but like photographic evidence. And it's one thing, this conversation could have never gotten off the ground if there was validity to a lot of NASA stuff, which there's not. This here first picture of the earth in 43 years, a photo of the entire earth, uh, because we don't go past Leo. And so, uh,

This actually, this image is significant because this happened when Flat Earth was kind of really getting big in 2015. And this here has sex written in the clouds upside down, which gets into some stuff with NASA and part of the society and the explanation of this world and how we are here. And so we'll get to that in a sec. So then the evidences, like the secondary evidences, and then I also threw NASA and TFE in here. So...

You have the sky, you have optics, you have lights. And then these would need to be explained. And all of these lights have a ground position and everything. And so I guess we'll just to go to TFE first. So this here is actually...

When TFE, before it happened, I had said that I would go to Globe if they saw a 24-hour sun and reported that. They did. And for like a week and a half or so, I was on the side of Globe. And this was because I...

I had not thought it was possible for a flat earth to show a simulation of a 24-hour edge sun. So that would be an exclusive worldview claim because I thought it was not possible. So once this here, this example, if you can see my mouse by the asterisk of also, compared creator,

who would be all capable. Joe's model would probably be able to be called crude, and I don't think that's an insult. So if he's able to crudely make a 24-hour apparent sun, then whoever set up TFE left it up to optics, and that's where you can get into things like optical illusions and how does light bend and what medium and...

was used by the creator if he has materials that we don't have access to, like an unbreakable firmament, we don't have access to that material and stuff. So it's no longer an option of if it's possible or not, is it plausible?

what ways could work to get this type of result. So this was a flat model using a flat earth base model and showing an apparent edge sun, which was the observation touted as the ender of the discussion. And because this actually was shown on a model, that's where I think it opens back up the plausibility aspect of it, not the exclusive falsifying non-possibility of this observation on a flat surface.

So I think that's where this conversation is able to open it up, reopen it up and it's not like I actually I'm going to, I would like to, but flat earthers have said for a long time it's the ground it's the ground we're talking about, and what should have happened with this with this sort of an ordeal. They've left it up to optics they made light observations of lights in the sky.

And what could have done and what I'm going to try to do is get two groups to one go to South America and then one go to Australia. And then both groups get a plane and you get 5000 people.

And you have to meet at the same location in the South Pole, because I looked early on I've looked over the years for examples of trade between Australian and like Chile or Argentina at meeting at the South Pole and I could never find anything. So, so that would be an actual covering of the ground a primary area.

objective to quantify not leaving it up to the sky, to optics, to places we've never been and can't go because then you can get anything. Like this here is a picture of a moon dog and then you have like a line of cloud in the sky trail.

but you have uh nasa with predictability one thing too about like if you can predict lights in the sky that actually is kind of biblical because the bible says that the sky is for signs and seasons which is like navigation predictability dependability um circles and cycles and that's how ancient people were able to track the sky as well um and then part of this and this is going to get into that exoteric thing i mentioned in the beginning

Excuse me. This is going to get into that kind of part of how society is and how it's here. So if we look at how this stuff is laid out, we can see that there are people that have very particular, specifically anti-Bible views.

which would not make sense if the Bible was a false book. And I think that the biggest thing about this is what happens is if the earth is a globe, this is likely the only life that we get and how we spend it here is very important. Our time here is very important. How we treat each other is very important. Speaking of time. But we still have an afterlife as well and all.

get more into those in the open discussion. So thank you. Thank you everyone. Uh, thank you and Ryan for being here and, uh, Eric as well, uh, for the debate. So you got it. All right, everybody. So if you haven't had a moment to, I know we had a little, uh, expose there. Thanks for ending the screen share. Uh,

Yeah, welcome to Modern Day Debate. I'm your host, Ryan. If you haven't had a chance to hit the like button, we are a neutral debate platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion, and... Let me get my timer out of the way there. We do hope you feel welcome here. Once again, yeah, we're live right now, so the more of you that smash that like button, the more you boost us up in the algorithm right now, and Lord knows all of us YouTube creators need it more now and more than ever, right? So, you know, there's a lot of competition out there, so...

Once again, if you haven't had a chance as well, head over to our Facebook page. Give us a pity like we really need just one more in order to hit our goal. So without further ado, we're going to hand it over to Planet Peterson. So, Eric, thanks for coming back to Modern Day Debate and your patience with the situation earlier. You guys set up. So thanks for coming back. And the floor is all yours. Ten minutes. Oh, here I am. I had myself muted. Yeah. No worries.

thanks for all that and uh thanks nathan for being here by the way you can just call me eric it's so much that's my first name it's so much easier than planet peterson so uh we're talking about uh is the earth flat or is the earth a globe so my general stance on this is that we have uh

I mean, we've been to space and taken photos of the Earth. Now you can just say that that evidence is fake and whatever else, which is convenient, but that's fine because ordinary people like Nathan and I here on the Earth, not even really doing science, can basically prove that the Earth is not flat. It's not very hard to do. Hopefully in the discussion we can talk about those sorts of things.

And the probably the number one problem with trying to assert that the earth is flat is that all of the explanations for how everything works, they always contradict each other. The explanation for why the sun disappears at night will contradict some other type of explanation. It just introduces all these weird maybes and what ifs and possibilities that don't transfer to everything. Whereas a

If the Earth is a globe, you can even take a geocentric position. You don't have to take a heliocentric position. But a geocentric position with either the Sun going around us or the Earth turning as it goes around the Sun is actually vastly more simple and it unifies all the explanations that we see.

For the rest of what I wanted to go over, honestly, I just tried to type up what Nathan was saying in his opening statement. And there wasn't too much. There was. What I wrote down was biblical flat or natural oblate spheroid. I mean, the vast majority of Christians don't think the earth is flat. So I'm not really sure what appealing to the Bible is necessarily going to— where that exactly is going to get us.

us i mean we can talk about that a little bit and that's fine um and then there was a primary difference claim to motion primary difference claim to ground secondary difference explanation of phenomena but none i didn't really hear anything that was organized within either of those so the first thing we heard about was the uh

I always hear people say Mickelson Morley, but lately people have been saying Michelson Morley. I don't know. Poor guy. He's dead, and maybe I'm mispronouncing his name. Sorry to your... if you left any progenitors behind. But...

This experiment is very often, it just seems like people don't understand what was going on. They tried to look for motion through the luminiferous ether. They didn't detect any motion through the ether, meaning that they nullified the luminiferous ether existing. Nobody at this time

thought that the earth was flat. Nobody at this time thought that geocentrism was true, or virtually nobody. There were probably five or six people out there. We had known for an incredibly long amount of time that earth is a globe. The prevailing theory was that the earth was the center of things and didn't move, but even that was overturned. So this experiment

Didn't have any bearing on that. The results of the experiment weren't catastrophic to the paradigm of Earth being a sphere or anything like that. The reason they did this experiment was because it was thought that light needed a medium to travel through.

And this result, or this null result or whatever, was instrumental in developing the idea that light travels at a constant speed. They were looking for basically almost like a Doppler shift. If we're moving this way, then we should detect like a contraction in the...

In the light, it should be moving in different directions this way versus that way. And they didn't detect that. And then Einstein comes along with this incredible idea that the speed of light is a constant no matter how fast you travel. And then...

We now understand that light doesn't require a medium to travel through like sound does. And by light, we mean any form of electromagnetic radiation. So you can put an alarm clock in a vacuum chamber, and as you suck out all the air, eventually you can't hear the alarm clock ring anymore. But guess what? You can see the alarm clock. And that's because electromagnetic radiation doesn't require a medium to travel through. You could, I don't know if anybody's

Well, this wouldn't really be possible because a balloon can't survive in a vacuum chamber, but you could use one of those crazy 5 megawatt lasers and pop a balloon in a vacuum chamber because the heat is a form of EM and it can travel through there. But like I said, a balloon would pop in a vacuum chamber, so that probably wouldn't work. But you could set off a firecracker, for example.

What else did I write down? Sex is written into the clouds upside down. I mean, this is just kind of typical goofy. Well, NASA's up to something, right? So let me look for something, anything I can, this Texas sharpshooter strategy, and then I'll retroactively fit an explanation into it. So

So it's in the clouds and it's upside down. So, I mean, just the layers and the desperation you have to try to heave stuff to make a story out of nothing, I think is pretty apparent in there. But, I mean, we see stuff like that all the time. And then Nathan talked about the final experiment. He said he changed his mind on the shape of the Earth after the experiment because he thought it was an exclusive claim. And then...

Nathan said something about, well, but then I realized there's a crude model. Those were his words. But I never heard an explanation of what the hell this model is from Nathan. He showed like a microscopic screenshot of something. It had a dark background and I was next to a picture from the final experiment. So I have absolutely no idea what his position on any of this is.

But, something that Nathan said that I thought was really cool was the idea of have one person in Australia and the other person, I don't remember, in Argentina or maybe South Africa. And they'll fly south and both end up in the South Pole. Well, on a globe, that is where you would end up because we have two poles there.

Now, that exact thing hasn't been done before, but I have this, I don't know how well the camera will pick it up, but I have this issue of National Geographic from March 1964, and it documents the first ever flight from Cape Town, which is in South Africa, to Christchurch, which is in New Zealand. So it was the first time that specific flight had ever been done.

And I'm not going to read you the article or anything like that. But this entire process was documented. Now, on a flat Earth, you cannot do this. South Africa and New Zealand are about as far away from each other as any two points can possibly be on the flat Earth.

But I'll try to put this up here. This has been done. It was documented. There are, I mean, like travel logs are in here. It's obviously not extensive because National Geographic is like a popular magazine. It's not a technical magazine or anything like that. But this has been done, and I am certain that there are records that you could look for this. They do have the flight time, 7,100 miles, and it took 22 and a half hours to

For them to... Cape Town Christchurch flight via Antarctica. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that would be it right there. So it's not the exact same thing that you asked for.

And here again, they have like the log hours of stuff that was going on. It's not the exact same thing you were asking for Nathan, but it, it kind of is in a way because the guy started and then ended in the places you want. You just want two different people to do this at the same time and meet at the South pole. But instead he started in your takeoff place, went over the South pole and then landed in your secondary takeoff place. So this stuff, um,

In the words of the bare naked ladies, it's all been done before. And that is all I have for my opening statement. Oh, how dare you with the Canadian references at the end there. All right. Well, thank you so much. He's vying for the Canadian voucher. But yeah, let's get into the home discussion, guys.

We're going to have super chats at the end. I think I'm a little choppy here. Could I swap over to my phone? Sure thing. If you want to pop out right quick, we'll do a little bit quick housekeeping. Try not to smack anything while I'm in the process. This is what I get for keeping my mic on the table. But yeah, pop on out there, Nathan, and rejoin us via the email there. No worries, because yeah, it does seem like you're having a little bit of a bandwidth issue with whatever it is that you're using right now. So...

There you go. Oh, it seemed like he was here for a second. Okay, anyway, so yeah, we'll just wait for Nathan. He'll be back in a few. Once again, if you have a second, hit that like button. Now Nathan's gone. That's two points for... No, I'm kidding. On roll tonight. All right, so here comes Nathan. And I do like to give it back to the other side to respond to what they just heard. We got to talk about the...

We've got to talk about the perverse clouds, of course. That sounds like it was definitely a fun, interesting thing. I don't think I've heard about that one yet. So I'll let Pitch Lumen take it where he'd like to go. Am I in here? You are in here. We can hear you. It's not as great of audio, but if you keep yourself still, it'll probably stabilize a bit better if you're able to. I know it's hard because you're probably holding it, but...

Let's hand you the floor to respond to some of what you just heard and then give them like 30 seconds and then feel free to pop in there, Eric. Go ahead, Pitch. Okay. So the first one, like contradictions and FE explanations and phenomena. So like maybe you have to explain the sunrise by being outside of the firmament, but then you explain like the motion of the sun by being in the firmament.

There might be some people who might have different views on how something might go. It's still kind of an emerging thing. It's a few years old and everything. So how things work and everything, there might be a conflict or a contradiction here or there. But I do think that people, if they stick with that explanation of why that is and they can build models outside of and around that explanation of that phenomena, as long as there's no contradiction, there shouldn't really be an –

Once you have a fuller flushed out model, there shouldn't be those contradictions will go away. Like I, I feel that when the way that I explain it with like a sun being outside of the glass or at least not in our area, but in the glass embedded in it or past it beyond it outside can give us these optical effects that

But I do think because the model is, or because the idea even of a flat earth is new in this modern society, it's something that to try to piece together how an explanation might work, I think it just has to do with lack of depth of experience in the sky, being able to understand

quantify and tangibly interact with the stars and everything other than receiving pixels of points of light, um, from up above, I think that hopefully can alleviate some of your, um, noticing of contradictions and explanations. Plus there's no authority. So like one person might say that, uh, there's it's relative density for why something goes down. Uh, and someone else might say that gravity is still a thing on the flat earth. So it's, it's a work in progress. Um,

kind of polishing up as you go sort of a thing. Is that a fair response for that, Alan? I mean, it's a response. I don't think it really does anything for you because William Carpenter wrote a book, 100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe, back in 1885. And the idea that nobody's been able to come up with anything for, it's been, what, 140 years since then?

I think is pretty damning to the worldview. And I haven't read... I've read parts of that book a long time ago. It's all quite silly. But if nobody's been able to build on any of those and produce anything that makes any sense or can account for anything, then I don't really know... I don't really understand how this movement has any life in it. Like, for example, there were...

There were some proposed ideas before the final experiment happened. And I don't want this to be a meta debate about the final experiment. I'll just use it as an example here.

They had some explanations for, well, here's how you could get a 24-hour moon or a 24-hour sun visible in Antarctica. But from what I remember, those required the sun to be reflecting off of the dome or whatever. And they looked at the sun with solar filters and saw that the sunspots on the sun were not a reflection of what people at other latitudes saw. So that explanation is just...

thrown out. But this is the other problem, is that every single issue where we say, well, but if the Earth were flat, then you would see this, or you wouldn't be able to see this. Flat Earth comes up with

to tell us why that would be, but it's not based in a model of the relationship between the sun and the earth. It's just you come up with something new for every single thing. Whereas it's like, look, if the earth is a sphere and it rotates, you can't see the sun because it's blocked by the physical earth itself. It

It's simple. And that also explains why we have two sky rotations, one in the north and one in the south. That's just absolutely impossible if the earth is flat. So that actually was my answer.

Yeah. My, um, my exact thought was that it's impossible to have a 24 hour sun on a flat earth, a model and, uh, or at least on the outer edge. And, um, and that's part of like, so that, that thing that I showed in that slide with, um, Joe Hanvey's model. Uh, so what he had basically was like a flat plane basically for the earth. And then he had a dome over it. And then he had like a, another, um,

like split glass or mirror in the, as a ceiling, um, to kind of simulate like, um, layers to firmament. Uh, and what he was able to do was he got that appearance of a, of a 24 hour sun. So people on that edge would see if you were, because the way our, our view view works is you have a, we always will see a hemisphere of view, uh,

And so, and then where you are is the epicenter of your, of your view. And so the people who are out there would have their epicenter in range to be able to see that sun. And then that's why at that, at those extremities, you would be able to get that 24 hour sun. And the, the specific stills that I showed from Hanvey and the TFE Joe's model actually got a little bit of like a

almost football shaped kind of sun. It was a little bit squished on the top and bottom. And, uh, and from TFE, the sun had an apparent squish as well, um, which would show, which could be explained with and shows kind of how a firmament or glass in the sky could cause this sort of, uh, an optical effect. And I, um,

Like I personally like with, with the sun moving, I think that that covers, uh, it going too far away from you to where you can no longer see it. And then the attenuation of light for once it's passed, preventing the light from reaching you, I think can work as a way to terminate the light as well. Not just having it go behind a physical bulge. Um, and so I think that there are, um, some uniform, uh,

explanations for certain phenomena. And I, I think part of it too is if people have heard one explanation of this or that, or one of the things that was popular early on was that the earth moving upwards at 9.8 meters per second. And, and yeah, and it's, it's, it's silly, but like,

Part of the speculation was that in the beginning, there were people who would latch onto these arguments and try to promote them to muddy the waters, to create confusion in how – in trying to put together – because if this is at the time where the model is first forming and you have people putting all this input in, it could be this and this and this. You have to look into all of those and what makes sense and what would work. Let's let Eric respond to the reflection argument there. So go ahead there, Eric.

I don't know the specifics behind that.

John Hamby, Joe, whatever. I don't remember. I'm really terrible. I don't know the exact specifics of what he was proposing. If that's the one where he said it was a reflection or not. And I don't want to get bogged down with the particulars of the final experiment. Cause I wasn't like tuning in every single day and go and, and digging over every single thing they went over. I would rather just us talk about things on the earth and what makes more sense. If that's fine with you.

Yeah, absolutely. Um, let me see. Uh, so I wrote down here. Uh, okay. So we'll kind of go over the envy. I would like to, um, so I was on my computer and, uh, the connection was a little fritzy. Um, what were you saying that they did? I just want to clarify for that flight that you showed, they flew from, uh, from South Africa to New Zealand and it was over, uh, Antarctica over the South pole specifically. Yes.

over the South Pole specifically? So like over Amundsen Scott? I don't know. There probably wasn't a research base there because this happened in... What year did this happen? Well, that's the year the magazine came out. But it happened 1962, apparently, I think. Again, I'm speed reading this because I don't want to waste the audience's time, but it was in the early 60s. Okay.

And let's see. I'm just trying to see. So it was I think the Amundsen was around for a little bit. So, OK, so that there is a claim that they flew over. Is there like a is there a route like with lines showing this is they flew this way over this landmass and then they went because one. Yeah.

One thing that, like if you look at one more orbit, it was touted as a fly north to south to north circumnavigation. And they actually, in their route, you can see that they, and they had astronauts on there and royal people and everything, but they

In their route, when they got to the South Pole, they turned. They didn't go like straight through. And that is kind of one thing that would be nice to me. If you did make a flight through a South Pole to have a compass with you and watch the needle flip 180 degrees. That wouldn't happen. The magnetic South Pole is not at the South Pole.

Yeah, you'd have to go through... Yeah, that's true. It's in the ocean. It's not even in Antarctica. It's in the ocean. It wouldn't really flip like that, though. Earth is freaking huge, and magnetic fields are not hyper-precise things. So you'd have to fly over a really huge area to see the compass do anything like that. I think I was wrong, because this map does say that there is an Amundsen U.S. station over the South Pole. But yeah, they flew...

directly to the South Pole and then directly to New Zealand. It's on a perfectly straight line, but that's because Christchurch and Cape Town don't perfectly. They can't fly straight through. That would explain the bank. And that is too. Part of it is because like and with like with flights and everything, like I think that would have something to do with no,

the exact layouts of the continents and the exact layouts of land, which I do believe we can navigate. We have GPS, we have tracking and everything. I think over the water, things could get potentially skewed. But I think that is part of not knowing an accurate land layout, right?

Um, but to like, and I know that is, it's, it's a request of people who are a globe that will, uh, on the globe side, we'll say, provide a map, provide, um, the, the, the precise layouts of, of everything because we do navigate. Um, I think the, the Bible gives a little bit of coverage by saying we can't really know everything about the earth. Um, maybe navigation in pieces and you, and you can put it together. But, um, I think, I think that that flight I'm going to,

I'm going to have to check into that because that is something that I do believe would be because I couldn't find trade happening at the South Pole where people would each fly 5000 miles. Now, something like that, depending on how a flat earth model would be. It's very dangerous. You wouldn't want it. You wouldn't want the South Pole to be a trading hub like Timbuktu.

No, no. Yeah, it's I mean, it'd be very there'd be few people that go there and everything. But I think there would be like people meeting each other there from other countries and being able to exchange goods and everything, which I wasn't really able to. I wasn't able to find that. Let's see. So if you want that, you're going to look into this later. It was Admiral Reedy, R-E-E-D-Y.

That is the guy that apparently led the expedition. And they had two planes do this.

for whatever reason r-e-e-d-y e-e-d-y okay yep read all right um um i want to talk about the southern i want to talk about the not the south pole but the southern hemisphere if that's all right with you and i gotta share my screen yeah let's do that okay because i'm not sure exactly what uh resources are in antarctica right now maybe we can talk about that later but uh let's uh share screen go ahead there eric

Yeah. So pitch, can you see this South Africa here? Yep. Okay. So I, we don't need to go to Antarctica. I think the Southern hemisphere alone is just absolutely devastating for the flat earth. And I'll try to walk you through it here. So do you agree that, Oh shoot. What's the name of this town? Port Elizabeth. It has a new name now, but I can't pronounce it. So these are the coordinates for Port Elizabeth. Do you have any problem with, with this, with accepting this?

I mean, so I accept that that is the coordinate position that we give it on our coordinate grid system. Yeah, yes, I accept that position. If I go to that location, I'll be at that spot. Yep, that's fine. And in Cape Town, I mean, you can be in a lot of places in Cape Town, but I have this particular coordinate. You have no problem accepting that? Nope. Okay, so what I have here is these are their longitudes, right?

right? One is 25 degrees, 34 minutes east. The other is 18 degrees, 25 minutes east. So there's a difference in separation of seven degrees and nine minutes. So, and both these towns are at the same latitude. So you can see I have 34 degrees right there, 34 degrees and a tiny bit of change right there. So

What we can do here is, do you accept now for east to west, it varies because it would vary if the earth was flat or globe. But north-south, if you travel one degree, you travel 69.1 miles. You don't have a problem with that? No. Okay. So what we can do here is we can create a triangle. So we go from the North Pole to Port Elizabeth, and we go from the North Pole to Cape Town.

And the distance for that, the straight line distance would be 8,568.4 miles approximately from those points that I created.

So you can create a triangle out of that. Distance from each city to the North Pole as the sides of the triangle. We know the angle for that triangle. It would be 7.15 degrees. If we change minutes to decimals, that's what that would be. So what this does is it predicts the base of our triangle, which would be the distance between those cities. And it's well over 1,000 miles. And that's because on a flat Earth, if you travel south...

you always get farther apart from the other person. So all it does is create triangles like this.

But the problem is, the real world distance between these two places is not even half that. It's only 409 miles. Now you can claim, yeah, but that's Google Earth or whatever. Well, I mean, I use Google Maps all the time, and I'm sure that people who live here do that too. And even the road distance, it gives us, it's longer because it's not a straight line.

But people would know if they were actually traveling well over twice this distance that it tells them. So I think this is absolutely devastating for the idea that the Earth is flat.

And it also, because your model doesn't match reality. It is testable, but it doesn't match reality. And I'm not, we're not looking at the sky to prove the shape of the ground. Now on a globe, after the equator, you get closer together. This goes to the heart of what you were talking about earlier. I don't really need to share this anymore because of that convergence. And in the real world, those things, those two cities are converging.

closer together than any two points north of them until the equator on that same on those same lines of longitude yeah i um i i do agree that there is um so with the polar coordinate system the the grid system that we have it is set up to be um

they engineered it based off of the sky because we do always see in a hemisphere, which always gives you another hemisphere of unseen sky to put everything else into. And so I feel that that is, is based off of the sky, which if you, if you mapped the, those two cities and put it into the sky and ran and, and, and took the convergence of those stars in the sky, you would get this, the 450 miles because that's,

That's what that's it's the coordinates are based off of a ground position with the zenith star. And that is I believe that those those types of maths that that we can do are are built for a globe system. I like we have a problem is they're accurate. Yes. So you you can you have the distances. What would it be?

You would you would draw the disc. You would have the distances on the ground that you would measure. And then you would put them to a the sky position like there. I don't I don't even believe on a flat earth that they would predict that they would be split a thousand be a thousand miles apart. I would. Why not? Because I because I gave the coordinates and we can know how far away they are from the North Pole.

Yeah, but when you're you are also drawn, you're like that. That is kind of, I think, similar to like when people try to say how far away the sun is and then they make triangles. You're putting straight lines through curved and spherical like fields. These these we we don't see. No, these these lines are just on the ground. I'm not. This doesn't have anything to do with the sky.

Well, so that's exact. So if you measure, if it's 500 miles of ground, approximately 500 miles of ground between these two cities, that's 500 miles of ground, no matter what the shape is there, that that's going to be like, you're, I think you're trying to, to run it back up to the sky by comparing it to by running the star or the latitude longitude back to the North pole is putting it up, up into the sky and trying to extrapolate the,

No, there's nothing about the sky in this. I'm using literally just the ground coordinates. Where is Port Elizabeth? Where is Cape Town? Where's the North Pole? Draw the lines between them. We know the separation in degrees from them. We know on a flat earth what that would mean if you are going, if you are staying on the same meridian, which is to go south. If you do it here and the other person does it there, all you do is separate the

And I know that I know the initial angle of separation. It's 7.15 degrees, whatever it was. So I know how much ground separation has happened by the time I get to between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. None of this has anything to do with the sky. This would be based off the ground tracking, walking that meridian down to that city. Yep.

Okay, that one I'm going to have to – hold on one second. I'm going to write that down. Meridian – because I get what you're saying, and then as far as how it would be explained as to why there isn't a –

why it doesn't continue to expand. And I don't know, like I'm thinking right now, maybe it has something to do with that. It's the true size of the landmass. So those cities, if the earth, the ground under the continent wouldn't know if the rest of the earth is expanding outward or not. It only knows its own size. Like if the ocean is wider on each side of it, the size of that landmass doesn't care, right?

Um, so, uh, this, yeah, I, but this example has nothing to do with it's intercontinental, um, or sorry, it's intra continental actually, because it's just Africa. So I'm not talking about the distance between Africa and South America. I'm talking about

They're in the same country. They're both in South Africa.

No matter how Africa is oriented or – because you're not actually – just because the claim – like you would have to take Africa on a globe, the landmass size and everything, the sizes of the countries and everything, and put that on a flat Earth model. You don't expand – like you don't apply the southern part of Africa onto the flat Earth model and then have to expand that.

I hear what you're saying, but if you do that, because you're talking about the flat earth map, a lot of them distort the sizes of the continents. You're saying, no, take what the continents look like and put them on the flat earth. The problem is the coordinates will be wrong, but those coordinates are not, I mean, I'm not in Port Elizabeth and I don't have a GPS device with me.

Well, I do because you can look it up on your phone, but I'm not in Port Elizabeth. But you'd have to deny that the coordinates that are given when you look up where is Port Elizabeth, you'd have to deny that they're correct because it requires South Africa to be distorted and expanded like you're talking about. But if you say no, don't do that, then Port Elizabeth and Cape Town are not separated correctly.

Even on the flat, even according to Flat Earth, they're not separated by seven degrees. And what was it exactly? Nine minutes. They wouldn't be. So that number would have to be much smaller. But you agreed that you said you have no problem with the coordinates. And I think those coordinates are correct. Yeah, I think if you were going to navigate on the coordinate circumpolar system, it would be you would get to that location with that.

I think that's how they mapped out and allowed us to get with like modern navigation and everything is through these coordinates and through the math and the cycles that the sky provides, they're able to reverse math things.

or engineer math to make it navigable so that we can go place to place, but the system that they have would be set up to appeal and appear to give the resemblance of a globe. That would be, but I'm going to, I do have to, I'm going to have to look into that and try to figure out the explanation to that because those, that is like the navigation. And I do believe those are fair rules.

criticisms of the Flat Earth model, which I also am embracing scrutiny.

But that – those are points that, like, navigation – and that's something, like, for Flat Earthers to have to consider is that we do navigate. That's a real thing. And what the distances are is real and how there would have to ultimately be a way to plot it unless – and that's part of, like, the sky with TFE and all that. People will say, like, there could be portals and stuff. I don't know if there are – like, I couldn't –

I, that part gets into like light teleporting and everything, but I, there, there has to be, I believe there has to be explanations for events on the ground that we are here and man is intelligent and smart enough to figure out. And so that, that navigation part of it, I do want to, I'm going to look more into that and try to line it up with, and then I'll try to make something about it and I'll send it to you. Yeah, that's, that's fine. So I, yeah,

That was a very, we did that for a while and it was, it was me grilling you. So in the interest of fairness, you can ask me whatever you want for the next 10, 15 minutes or whatever. Yeah. Um, okay. Well maybe I could get into, uh, maybe not so much grilling, but like, could I give you kind of, um, a backing or like going into like the clouds and everything and, um, NASA? Yeah.

Um, I mean, I can literally, I can literally grant you that we've never been to space and that doesn't prove the shape that doesn't say anything one way or the other about what the shape of the earth is.

Well, what if there's an organization that should be giving us space travel and insight from space, but they actually aren't going to space and they're still getting millions of dollars a day for that? Then our money is going towards cartoons being provided to us. That would be inefficient use of tax dollars, which is kind of, I think, a quota for if you're a politician to be able to do that.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not a fan of wasting money, but that's really not what we're here to discuss. Because at the end of the day, whether or not NASA's real, that doesn't prove anything.

the shape of the earth really, if they, if they had a physical picture of the earth, the globe hanging in space, the pale blue dot in space, if that was a physical real picture, that is a that's photographic evidence. That's taking a picture of the screen in front of you or something. And that's, that's a capture of reality. That would be a real undeniable thing.

but instead you get like crop boxes and duplicate clouds and everything. And I think as well, like part of one thing about the cosmology, what's. Don't you know about the earth rise photo that William Anders took on Apollo eight earth rise Apollo. Apollo eight went to the moon and went around it. It was the first time we ever actually flew all the way to the moon. And he took this really famous photo. It's called the earth rise photo. And because it was 1960, uh,

It's either 67 or 68. I don't remember. It's on film. I don't know if somebody knows where the original film photo is, but that picture is kind of famous. It's just called the Earthrise picture. Is that where they're in the lamb over the surface of the moon? They're not on it, but then they can see the earth in the sky from the moon? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think I have seen that. Okay.

Well, let me – because this is the part of – if the earth were flat, I think everyone would agree there's a conspiracy at play. And that's part of why like with cosmology and specifically biblical cosmology is –

The Bible makes a claim to be able to describe how the world is and how it was made and how things operate. And the Bible makes claims about like how the earth is and how we got here and science, like natural science, that if you go to school and you learn, get a science degree, you're going to learn evolution and you're going to learn big bang. And you're going to learn that matter can create itself or that sun was before earth before,

When the Bible says that earth was before sun, you're going to learn that there were fish before birds instead of birds before fish. So coincidentally or not, or by design of people guiding education to teach people what they want them to know, we are taught that it is the empirical worldview is exactly 180 degrees diametrically opposed opposite to the Bible's claims of how the world is.

And I don't think that's a coincidence because you can look at NASA's foundings with, um,

The Nazi origins with Project Paperclip and Wernher von Braun, he made biblical references so much so even on his tombstone, the thing he would be like, the last thing you leave on earth is your tombstone. So he was referencing the Bible, which is supposed to be just a book written by men of fairy tales that don't have any meaning beyond poetry. And so he wrote that you have Jack Parsons, who was Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL. He was studied by.

uh, under Alistair Crowley, who called himself the beast 666. He was very anti-Christian, hated Christianity, wanted to promote Crowley-anity and the golden age, which does get referenced today by a lot of people. A lot of celebrities from then, from early 1900s to now are influenced. They, they will wear Alistair Crowley slogans, uh, the

The Beatles put him, Aleister Crowley, on the album Comfort. This dude wrote about sacrifice of children, young men, young boys who are high energy. He smoked feces. He did a bunch of depraved rituals and stuff. And so these people are very specifically anti-Bible. The thing I showed on the slide was Peggy Wilson, 666 Days, the astronauts doing devil horns. You have...

uh, Mason, like, uh, Mason's like Buzz Aldrin. It was a Mason. He was on the moon. He was at the last playboy mansion party, which is probably hard to get into and clientele. You know, Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon, right? Well, you don't believe it happened, but you know that that claim exists, right? I didn't hear you took communion on the moon, but I heard he had like a lot of knickknacks in his pockets that he took to the moon and can give to people for a few bucks.

I have not heard him take communion, but some of these there are some not all masons are bad and there are Christian masons and everything, but they do teach in their writings that they follow the light of Lucifer, that they that that's the light that they seek. And that is a very biblical claim to go to Lucifer instead of to the creator.

And part of this too is like, if you look at these institutions, our education has been set up over the years by like the Royal Society and stuff. And you get these people who are setting up our modern governance, talking like 1700s and later, you're getting- Nathan, I have to interrupt you. I have been a science teacher for a decade. I do not take orders from some higher up Masonic group. I literally teach whatever I want. There are standards to meet.

But those standards make perfect sense because it says things like, if you're going to teach chemistry, you have to talk about conservation of energy because, or conservation of matter and energy, because you're going to balance equations.

I've taught every single subject, and yes, we don't teach that the earth is flat, but it's not because we hate Christianity or anything like that. The vast majority of Christians don't think the earth is flat, and they take their guidance from the Bible or whatever. I mean, the Bible contains metaphors and poetic language, but

And, uh, most people, well, I don't know about most, but a lot, there are people who are young earth creationists, but think the earth is globe and the sun goes around, or I'm sorry that the earth goes around the sun. Um, but they take a literal interpretation of Genesis. They think that there was a firmament. They think it was destroyed during the flood. Um, so this, it, it doesn't

It doesn't really matter exactly what the Bible says. And this is not just according to me, it's according to people who consider themselves Christians.

But if the Bible does make a claim that the earth is one thing or the other, and then that thing were actually shown true, that would add validation to the Bible and help to bolster the claims made by the book. If right away in Genesis, the Bible says that the earth has a firmament, some sort of glass dome, but then we actually know that reality is outer space and that there is no glass dome,

Then a skeptical person, rightly so, would say, why would I listen to the rest of this book if the all-knowing creator couldn't even write down and give to man how the earth was actually made? It calls into question Genesis, creation, God's authority, God's ability to convey to man how things are, and that can hinder relationships with the creator. And it's part of discrediting the word of God.

of the gospel, because that would be the devil's plan would be to separate man from our, our relationship with our creator, which can be established through the gospel. Um,

So that would be ultimately – if the Bible is false, it can't be the literal perfect word of God, which is what – if it's vying for that, that's a huge thing compared to just being false. Yeah, but the problem is I guarantee that you have this attitude that you are condemning. Do you think that –

Satan took Jesus up to a mountain that was actually high enough to see every single kingdom on earth, as it says in Matthew. Because even if the earth is flat, the idea that that happened is just way too silly. Because the tallest mountain in the world certainly wasn't in the area where Jesus was living.

but even, but I mean, even on Mount Everest, if the earth was flat, you couldn't see everything. I would think that if, if he took him to a point that,

The point where you can see all the kingdoms of the world would be in the heavens, which would be like where spirits are falling, like angels and things like that. And the devil being a fallen angel, I would think when he brought him up, he was bringing him up to see over the whole world from that sort of like to see the kingdoms of the world. But it specifically says he took him up to a very high mountain. To see the kingdoms of the world, to offer him all the kingdoms of the world.

He it's well, that that that he took him that he took him up to the up to the mountain to offer to to show that the whole everything under that, that the whole world is the is the devils that he can give to Jesus for for following him. I know I'm not I'm not talking about the moral of the story, no matter what position you're going to take here.

no matter how you're going to interpret this, sorry, you're going to say that what the Bible says isn't literally true. It either wasn't literally a mountain, he just took him up to the heavens to see everything, which means that it's not literally true, or he did take him up to a mountain, but we're both acknowledging that you couldn't actually see all of the kingdoms on earth from that mountain, even if the earth is flat. So no matter what

Position or interpretation you're going to take of that. You're going to say the words literally can't one-to-one correspond to reality. And that doesn't make the Bible false. It just makes the story not true.

meant in the first place perhaps to be taken in that way. A literal interpretation, because that's what it says is, again, the devil taketh him up to an exceedingly high mountain and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and saith that he will give him to thee. So yeah, he's saying that he takes him up into an exceedingly high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world. So that would be, yeah, he shows...

That's how it feels to have quantum fiber internet.

Quantum Fiber, your world unleashed. Learn more at quantumfiber.com. Limited availability, service in select locations only. Six months from now, you could be running a 5K, booking that dream trip, or seeing thicker, fuller hair every time you look in the mirror. Through HERS, you can get dermatologist-trusted, clinically proven prescriptions with ingredients that go beyond what over-the-counter products offer. Whether you prefer oral or topical treatments,

HERS has you covered. Getting started is simple. Just fill out an intake form online and a licensed provider will recommend a customized plan just for you. The best part? Everything is 100% online. It prescribed your treatment ships right to your door. No pharmacy trips, no waiting rooms, and no insurance headaches. Plus, treatments start at just $35 a month. Start your initial free online visit today at 4HERS.com slash listen.

That's F-O-R-H-E-R-S dot com slash listen. Compounded products are not FDA approved or verified for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription required. Price varies based on product and subscription plan. See website for full details, restrictions and important safety information. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the valley with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning.

With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Up to the king, to the mountain and shows him any, and that's where he, yeah, he's offering him all of the kingdoms. Mountain, show them all the kingdoms of the world.

So yeah, it is saying he's showing him all the kingdoms of the world. That's... And there wouldn't be a mountain. So that's, I think... Show... Showeth. That one. Sounds like there's something happening right now. What do you think? I'm just... I want to... I'm going to look into Showeth, if that can mean... Because if that means offer, if that you take him up to a mountain and then offer him all of the kingdoms...

But I, yeah, I don't, but it, but it doesn't matter because either he took him up to heaven where conceivably you could see everything on the earth if it's flat or

Which means it's not literally the part of the mountain isn't true, or he didn't literally see all the kingdoms of the earth. Either way, it's not going to... The interpretation of showeth, which don't use a King James translation, by the way. But either way, that's not going to... You're going to have to adopt this. I can't take this...

Literally, you can believe that Satan tempted Jesus. You can believe that Satan existed, Jesus existed, Jesus was God, all the other stuff. Just not every single word of the story as it's written. I want to go ahead and respond, but I do want to...

Um, I, I do want to be pretty picky about this. We're not talking about the shape of the earth right now. And that is the topic. So I really want to move away from this soon. Yeah. Well, I, so I would say, um, I think that this would be a time where, because yes, the Bible does have poetry in it and, and, and allegory, um, metaphors and imagery. Um, and those are in there. And I, this would be, I think that time where he's saying like, he takes him up to the mountain and offers him all the kingdoms. Um,

shows him that the world is the devil's to get, to be able to give him the land. But I think that's part of like with, there are times in the Bible where you can't, where you can see that it is, it's talking metaphorically, but when it, when the Bible makes claims that like the earth has upturned edges and is like a clay seal press, like a pressed clay seal, those are indicators of like, of, of literal speech that the more literal the Bible could be, the better, the,

that the odds of it being true are, which would, and the whole point of why I bring up the stuff about cosmology and creation or like with the Bible and everything is because my, like the big thing that I want to get across here is what this earth is determines if we're literally, are we humans with souls or are we animals?

And that has a huge implication on what we're doing here and how to approach talking to people about how can we go forward as a whole, as humanity. We need to know reality. We need to know things about ourselves and how to accurately move forward. If someone believes in a religious text, like if the Bible was wrong and not true, like because it was wrong in its claims and everything, it wouldn't be...

People could have faith in it, but their faith would not go anywhere and every time you then it would be like every time you go to church if the Bible was you knew was wrong, but you're believing in it for comfort. You would be spending an hour a week wasting your time doing something that could be spent learning a skill or practicing a hobby or spending time with your loved ones on this one pass through because some people right now have this notion that there's also an afterlife, which I wouldn't love reuniting with their loved ones.

But if that's the reality, that's different from one time, that's it. Let's figure things out now. And that's kind of a big thing that I wanted to establish was depending on how cosmology is, has serious ramifications for who we are. And for centuries, we've been brought up with religion and God. And if those notions are obsolete or archaic,

That's pretty remarkable considering our society is so influenced by the Bible that DC has pentagrams and 666s all over the place with the obelisk and everything. That's pretty profound.

So just as a quick question, just because we are doing a redemption for Flat vs. Globe after we did all the final experiment debates and all that stuff. Would it be more that the Flat Earth, as you see it, is more in contest with the globe? Or is your view more that the Bible is in contest with the globe?

So, I think that the flat earth versus globe would be the contention because technically, I think if you're looking at it scientifically, you can't use the Bible in science because it's not a science book. It's not going to measure anything or help you quantify. But I think that...

if we already, like if the globe has to say that there's no motion that we can measure because it's all relative. And if there are these concessions that go with kind of in favor of flat earth, it's not necessarily something you could easily chalk up to as laughing off as incorrect. Let's put a bow on that there and give it back to Eric because I didn't mean to give you back the floor for an extended portion there. I just was curious what your position on that thought was. So go ahead there, Eric, when you're ready.

Yeah, let's talk about the shape of the earth, I guess. Why can't we see the sun at night?

Uh, so we see, uh, in a field of view, uh, circular hemisphere field of view. And so you will have so much from where you are to your, um, circumference, you'll be able to see things that are in that. And so if the sun is traveling, the sun is going to go into your field of view, and then it's going to eventually go out of it, uh, away from it. And, uh,

That will eventually put it beyond the vanishing point of your horizon where because you have a sky and a ground and they're trying to collide at the horizon, they do. And then things that are there's information beyond that. There's more sky beyond what you can see. There's more ground beyond what you can see. But they they compete and they cut each other off at that point. So the ground doesn't let any more sky show. The sky doesn't let any more ground as you go up in elevation. You can see further.

and there's something with the select that i can explain the sun keeping its shape and everything as well for over long distances and not shrinking with perspective and stuff like that um it's because of the increased elevation but as

there's only so much information that you can perceive with your eye. And so as that sun gets further and further away, it starts going into that area. And then eventually it's, it's past it's, it's out of your field of view, um, magnification can't bring it in and everything. And so, yeah, it would be, it's, it has to be visible. The, um,

So this idea that the sun disappears because of a vanishing point, the sun doesn't change in angular resolution. I've seen time-lapse footage of this and it varies by a couple of pixels.

which you would expect because of atmospheric interference, things get swimmy as it gets closer, but the sun doesn't vanish. It, it disappears over the horizon from bottom to top, which is what a rotating curved surface would do. It would, it would make it disappear in that way. The sun being above you, it doesn't, it like disappears.

If the sun were only so big and yeah, it was above us going, I agree. It would, it would diminish and then disappear, but it wouldn't, it wouldn't converge with the horizon. It would get closer, but eventually atmospheric scattering would make it disappear. So, um, I would say, I do not, um, believe that the sun would shrink to a point. I would say if there was no atmosphere, that would be what would happen. But there have been, um, examples, uh,

People have shown on a flat surface, they will take like a magnification lens and they can cause the sun to appear to set. It will go down. It will cut off behind a skyline and appear bottom up to disappear, keep its size, keep its shape. And that is because our atmosphere creates conditions like magnification. There's water vapor. There's debris. We have refraction. So we have objectification.

optical lighting effects that will help to, and this would, I think, be the hallmark of like a genius creator would be able to set the sun in a certain way to where it appears the same size and shape the whole time for consistency purposes with lighting and for everybody to have equal light and everything like that. But those characteristics have been demonstrated, like bottom-up disappearance on a flat surface has been shown. Actually, I think I got it.

part of it or a video i've seen that before the problem with that effect is that it deletes the foreground in front of you which isn't reality the foreground in reality what we see is the foreground is is there and the sun does this um the whole thing about magnification um

Sure, you can demonstrate that with a curved lens, however they do that, that you move that candle away and it appears relatively kind of the same size. But nothing does that on the Earth. The sun appears to do that. And for our description is because it's freaking huge and it's so far away.

that the rotating of the earth only changes the distance by a few thousand miles versus the hundred million miles it is away from us. So you wouldn't expect that in the first place. But you can build an apparatus that makes a candle flame appear about the same size as it retreats

But that effect in that demonstration applies to everything behind the lens. Yet in reality, when an airplane flies away, it disappears from my sight pretty quickly because it's true. So the atmosphere can't be doing this thing that this demonstration that only that works on the candle says it's doing because it would have to apply to everything. The atmosphere can't just magnify the sun.

And I guess it would magnify the moon too, but neither of those can make any sense. Those objects, I think what you should consider here is that those objects are up in the sky, so they have a lot of elevation to them. And so...

As an object goes up in elevation, its apparent shape and size will change less over the same amount of movement. Like if something's high up in the sky and moves 100 feet from you, it still looks pretty similar compared to being on the ground and moving 100 feet from you. I think that candle example is based on something at about equal elevation. But those objects in the sky are going... Like if you look up in the sky and you have...

you have just say for whatever, 10,000 miles of sky, and say you have 10 miles of ground on, or 10 miles of ground in front of you, you're going to have a thousand times more information per degree in the sky that you do per degree of field of view. Like you're going to be covering a much larger gap. So every time you see the sun moving, it's covering a lot more ground.

it's covering a lot more ground, so to speak, in the sky than the ground is covering because the ground, you're only dealing with a few miles to get to the vanishing point of the horizon at the ground level, which is close to us. But up in the sky where you do get these conservations of shape and size, you're also getting a huge, that's part in part due to the huge distances that are being worked with. And those do hold to preserve the,

the integrities and characteristics that we observe in the sky. And then when we recreate that, like people have, have, you can show that. So I think that it, that why the sun has these apparent static effects of, of how it looks is because of the elevation causing it to keep it itself. Um, I really genuinely don't understand how that, how the, excuse me, how the, um,

The sky. I mean, like I heard what you were saying, but I don't get that. Let me show you a couple. I don't know how well you'll be able to see this. This is an actual photograph that I took in my backyard. So I don't know how well you can see it. Can you see the clouds? And then those are the streaks from an airplane. Can you see that? Yep.

Okay, do you see how the streaks from the airplane are very well lit? They're bright white, but the cloud is dark. Hey, let me just zoom out so everybody else can see that. Just one second there. Yeah, sorry. My ring light's kind of making it hard to see too. A little bit, but I think the audience can get the idea there. Let me just blow it up a little. That's all right. Oh, okay. I'll put it up there again. All right. Does everybody see that? You let me know in the live chat. Oh, that's a nice clear one. All right. I think we're good. Thanks for that. Okay.

So what is being seen in this picture is the clouds are not being lit, but the airplane is. Now, I took this photograph as the sun was setting.

So on a globe Earth, this makes perfect sense because that light is the shadow of the Earth, which is what causes darkness, nighttime in our model, is making it so that sunlight cannot hit those lower down clouds, but it can hit something that is higher up. And the airplane is obviously flying at three, four, five, six miles per

above us. So I have another picture somewhere here on my phone. I'll see if I can find it pretty quick here. But another thing you see with sunsets is if you look at the way clouds are lit,

From your perspective, literally the part of the cloud facing the sun will be illuminated and the bottom of the cloud will be illuminated, whereas the backside and the top of the cloud is not illuminated. So the only way this can make sense is if light is somehow going like this on our flat earth. And I just don't think that that's a workable explanation. Go ahead and I'll see if I can find that picture.

Yeah. So, um, I would, uh, so why, uh, that cloud trail, um, the, the plane trail was lit up and not the clouds. Um, I think it's kind of has to do with like on both models, both models will say that the higher up in elevation you go, the further you can see. So that, that, what that is, is the higher up in elevation, you go the further away you push your horizon. And

And that means that now more information is reaching you on the ground and in the sky. And as I said a minute ago, when you have ground, you have a few miles to work with until you get to your horizon. And when you have sky, you have thousands of miles to work with till you get to your horizon. So as you go up in elevation, you're gaining access to a lot more sky, which allows the light to travel further and,

to still be able to reach you how does that work how does that work with a flat earth i don't understand how um okay we we can address this with a slightly different issue if i'm on the ground and somebody else is in a skyscraper they see the sunset after me that makes perfect sense on a globe earth because they can see over the curvature of the earth more than i can

But for flat earth, if the sun is above us, there is no meaningful difference between how close that person is to the sun versus me. And that sun is just linearly, it's not changing its elevation over the ground. It's just getting away from us. I don't understand how the sun would appear for you longer if you're higher up. How does the sun selectively not go to the ground, but will keep going to the sky if the earth is flat?

Okay. Yeah. So it would be maybe directly like if you were at the top of the Burj Khalifa and I was at the bottom and the sun was directly overhead, it would be very negligible difference between you and I to the sun. But as you go out further, if you – like if I have my pen set up on the desk here and I put my head down and then if I close my bottom eye –

I can see or I close my top. I, I can see what I can see, but then if I open and like my, my thumb or the base of the pen looks closer. And then if I open my top eye, so I'm essentially giving myself more elevation. I can see further beyond. And so it's, it is, and that's a flat table. So on a, on a flat table,

As you go up in elevation, you're going to push back the horizon. And that's where once you do that horizon, you're like if you push the sky back, the ground and the sky are going to flood in and try to take up that position all the way to the horizon. And so that's all you're doing is you're getting more sky, which allows you to have more access to the sun as it's further away because it's in that further away region.

That now is filled in to your horizon. You're mixing in the sky and the ground, though. I agree that even if the Earth is flat, the higher up you are, the more ground you can see. But, well, yeah, I mean, that would be true in a different kind of sense. But the sky, for both ground and high up, the sky is just still...

there there's no there's no more sky i don't get i don't get this idea that you can see more sky yes you can see more ground in either case that kind of makes sense but i don't see how that translates to the sky real quick i did find the other photo i was looking for so these are clouds right over my right over my house and only the bottom of the clouds are getting light so this is actually the point i would more like to focus on it's on

Sorry. Sorry. Can you guys hear me okay? Yep, you're good. Okay. So in order for that picture to make sense on a flat earth, the sunlight has to be – the sunlight is coming to the clouds but somehow not hitting the top of the clouds and only hitting the bottom of the clouds. Okay.

That just doesn't make any sense. For a globe, it does make sense because of the curvature of the Earth and the light is coming through. So it does, because of the perspective, the light only strikes the bottom of the clouds as the Earth, the sunlight, whatever, only hits. What is going on?

Yeah. So I want to take, go back to that, like a cloud, the sun going up and hitting the clouds. I want to go back to that and put something to you from that. But I, I believe that why the bottom of the clouds gets lit up by the sun is because once that sun is very far away and we're talking now at you at ground level, so a lower elevation, not up in a plane or anything,

once that sun is far enough away where it gets close enough to that horizon, it's going to be because the clouds that are above your head are above you. So they are going to be up. And then as that sun is low, it's going to actually be like if you took that, if the sun, if this up here, this pen cap was the clouds and this is where you were,

As you if you were to trade take this and go thousands of miles over to where the sun is that sun is going to appear to set down here where you are. And even though the clouds back overhead by you are up here. This is where the sun is appearing. So it's appearing.

low in the horizon and its light is able to go up to the clouds that if you traced over, but we're able to keep that apparent location, the clouds would be overhead. But because the sun is here and the clouds are doing this over here, the perspective causes what the sun would be here with the clouds or above the clouds. The perspective is causing the sun to be down here, which

which by the time it goes back thousands of miles to get to your clouds, it's able to, it's under them by, by its apparent position.

Okay, this doesn't work. I'll tell you why. You're appealing to that the sun appears to converge with the horizon, although it doesn't converge with the horizon. It gets obscured by the horizon is what actually happens. And then you're saying that's how the sunlight can do that. But that can't be your explanation because...

That idea that a sunset is just kind of an optical illusion almost, in a sense, that can actually be tested by the cloud thing here. Because even if what you're saying about vanishing point is true, it's always true that the sun actually is literally higher up than the clouds. So that means that the sun can't...

be lighting the bottom of the clouds and not the top of the clouds. So that explanation can't do anything for you with this picture for those reasons. Well, what it... I don't want to say this. So...

The straight line from you to that airplane would, in this case, it would go underneath the cloud. But the airplane isn't emitting light. Whatever you believe, like for us, we think the sunlight is coming to us parallel. You would think it's a little bit more like a lamp type of thing, more radiative than we would. But in either case...

Yes, you could see it there, but it would still be sending light in your direction. And again, because the sun actually is higher above the cloud, it would have to be lighting the cloud. Yes, you'd be able to see the sun because light from the sun would go directly to you. But the light from that sun would go directly to everywhere around you.

And it couldn't make its way to the bottom of the cloud that way. It would only be able to do the top of the cloud.

I can create a model of this. We see – and a model might be one thing, but would a model be able to account for that we're not talking about an actual location? We're talking about apparent and visual because we see the sun at that location due to whatever atmospheric conditions might be influencing it, but everything in the sky is considered apparent. That, I think, would be –

Like the sun is appearing lower than the clouds and casting its light from that apparent position, even though it is in reality above the clouds further away out overhead somewhere else. So it's over there. It's up certainly above the clouds. But for us, because we lower its angle, its apparent angle, that's what causes it relative to us to appear to be lower than the clouds. Right.

I'll let you show what you are going to show, and then I was going to ask you something based off of this about shadows. Yeah, no problem. This is going to be one of the most low-production-looking visual demonstrations of all time, but I think we're all here for it. So can you see what I've drawn here? You drew those mountains? No, mountains. What screen am I sharing? You are sharing a document on the side. Opening statement.

Oh, that ain't the right one. We're seeing your game plan. Oh, no. Yeah, no kidding. It's all in the catcher's bag now. I totally shared the wrong thing. Oh, yeah. I shared my desktop. No, it's all good. It's okay to take notes. It's cool, everybody. You stop it. I hate when people do a Google search halfway through the debate and everyone's like, oh, you had to do a Google search and it's like,

Oh, no. How dare we go look stuff up? No, yeah, I did. Don't try to learn. The National Association of Biology Teachers is against critical thinking and examining things for strengths and weaknesses. All right. Plant Peterson's sharing, so we'll hand it over to you, Eric. But yeah, dang those Google searches. All right, go ahead. Yeah, I can make this a little bit. Okay, so the smiley face, that's the observer, right?

Okay. And way over here, this is the sun, right? Mm-hmm.

So, and here's a cloud above me. So in this case, yes, the sun is above the cloud, but it gets far enough away that from my perspective, I would see it underneath the cloud or whatever. The problem is if we draw the straight line from me to this cloud or for me to the sun, still that straight line, no matter how we do this, and it would actually make more sense that the

The sun is going to be emitting light everywhere, and we can see that the only thing it can do is illuminate the top of the cloud. It can't just illuminate the bottom of the cloud. Now this gets more extreme the farther away it gets, and I'm limited in what I can do here. So the angle becomes more and more shallow, but it can never illuminate the bottom and not illuminate the top.

Whereas for the globe model, what we would say is happening is the sun literally is kind of below our perspective. And that's, I can't draw the curvature of the earth here on this. But then the sunlight does come up and illuminate only the bottom of the cloud. So this just doesn't work with a flat earth at all. But it works very well with a...

a uh a glow birth and then that other picture i showed you where the higher up clouds were getting lit i'd have to i'd have to draw the curvature of the earth covering more of this up and i i can't do that on the fly i did the best i could i think i think you did a good job there and i think uh the most beautiful presentation no that that diagram i mean that

I think it would be a little bit disingenuous if a flat earther said that that wasn't a really concise diagram that is in favor of the globe. That is a very swift explanation for that observation of illuminated clouds.

And I think with – because with the flat earth model, I think how you were showing it there, I think what the flat earth needs to – what someone modeling that for a flat earth would need to consider is you need to factor in the refraction that lowers the light, that bends the light down of the sun, lowering its appearance. You have magnification. You have variables that –

medium changes of the light as it travels, you're going to have factors that are also that will, will cause these effects. And so if now, if you go to that diagram that you had, um, like, I think that that actually goes into the point that I wanted to put to you was, um,

Why is it then if that sun is physically lowering under the feet of us? Why is it that like if I have a westward facing window in my house or say like you're somewhere where there's a big west facing window? Why doesn't the shadow rise up?

from the windowsill and just go up? Essentially, if you had a wall on the east side, why doesn't that setting sun cause a shadow to rise up from the bottom of the wall all the way up to the top of the wall, that east wall, as the sun casts that shadow outward? I promise... Well, the reason for that is because...

windows are not very high off the ground. So there are going to be trees and fences and plants and stuff that are going to get in the way. I promise that you could do that experiment literally tomorrow. If you have access to a really tall apartment or, or something, you could do that. Cause if you're way, way up high, then there won't be anything to get in the way. Um,

I don't have a photo of this. I really wish I did, but I have seen this before. Where I live, the Sierra Nevada mountains are right there. Like if I literally moved my camera and opened up this blind, you could see them. And I have seen on multiple occasions because the mountains are to my east. So the sun sets to the west. I've seen on multiple occasions where

a shadow rise up on those mountains. So the tops of the mountains are still bathed in light, but a shadow comes from the base of the mountains on up. That's the curvature of the earth casting its shadow on them. And it would cast that shadow bottom up, just like what you're talking about with the apartment. The shadow is on the mountains or on the clouds on the mountains themselves.

So, so there would be like a mountain here, like my one of each finger is a mountain, there would be this mountain casting its shadow on this mountain and it would rise. No, the mount the mountains aren't producing the shadow, the curvature of the earth is producing the shadow, I can just see the mountains in front of me, and the bottom of them darken before the top of the tops of them do.

I mean, you can see that same thing with buildings, I guess. But you could test your shadow idea, like I said, in an apartment, a really tall apartment building, like literally tomorrow. Okay. All right. Because I have not seen shadows set like that. So that would be... Okay. All right. Then that is... Okay. All right. Then I think...

I think that's what I got for shadows or for the sun here. Before you move into your next point, because I know you're just about to jump in, either of you need to take a bathroom break or is the catheter equipped? What's going on there, fellas? Are you good? I've got my debate diaper on, so...

Yo, catheters are so painful. Okay, I never had to, and I don't want to know. Just leave me out of it. Yo, they just put that in you. They don't say nothing. Like, they just put it in there.

Five days later, they're like, yeah, you got it ready to take that out. It's like, wait, what is that? Do they even like prime it or anything like that? Like a little bit of or something like they do. I've had to go through this multiple times, unfortunately. Oh, my God. Anyway, I sometimes make the joke on stream just because it's like some people just sit there for hours and it's like.

What is going on? Are you guys just fasting like Cory Booker every day? What is going on? Anyway, so yeah, you guys are good. I just wanted to give you a chance if you wanted to grab a drink or step out for, you know, whatever. Anyway, so yeah, we do have Q&A coming up once these guys get through everything they want to discuss. Clearly, they're not ready to get out of here quite yet. So keep the super chats coming in, guys. We will get to them in a little bit.

Yeah, we appreciate everybody in the live audience. Hit the like button if you haven't already. And go ahead there, Nathan. You were just about to launch into a new topic or maybe just touch on something else. So go ahead.

Yeah. So while, what do you think about like movement to the earth? Like would you, as far as relativity goes, like it's not a completely foolish notion to say like the earth is not moving. And I know you had referenced kind of a little bit in your opener about like geocentrism and how that can account for like celestial observations and stuff like that, double celestial pole and stuff. But so like, yeah,

The motion claim, like, do you acknowledge that, like, motion to the Earth, like, not – accelerative motion should be able to be, like, detected and that it is not an experiment? Yeah.

Well, my answer to that is yes and no in different ways. So the Earth only turns 15 degrees per hour. That's not an acceleration that you would feel. And people invoke big numbers, 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, 1,000 miles per hour at the equator.

Yeah, but that's a kind of a radiant or something.

Uh, no, probably not. And then you keep in mind, Oh wait, but I'm in a car and everything in my surroundings, the windows are rolled up. So everything's moving at the same speed. So relatively speaking, I'm not really moving at all compared to myself. With that example, with the linear example, cause, uh, and I like humans are not calibrated to detect such a slow motion, rotating motion. Um, but light is light is sensitive enough to detect these, um, shifts in direction, um,

And the earth, like a car example or an airplane or anything like that, those are linear constant motions. But the earth is a rotating, unenclosed – like there's no ceiling. We have air molecules, which are not good at translating motion from one molecule to the next. They're very random. They're incoherent. They're not –

conveying information. Like if you push on a, on a laptop and then the whole laptop moves, it's because it's all connected like gas molecules. I can't push on a gas molecule and have it translate that motion to one over in the other corner of the room. So,

I have a response because what I said was yes and no. So the yes is a Foucault's pendulum maintains its angular momentum and then knocks over all the – it rotates in a complete circle and knocks over all the little things. But it doesn't work at the equator because there isn't a change in its angular momentum at the equator.

And you and you've maybe heard like some of the anomalies, like how people set one up at the South Pole and they had it running and everything. And then they were like, oh, wait, it's going backwards because we're from the north and we set it up like how they do in the north. So they had to reset it up and get it to run backwards the correct way. Like they wanted to they fixed it to run backwards. I've never I've never heard of that. So, OK, yeah, I can't give you any feedback on that.

Okay, yeah. Some of the things I've heard about pendulums are that incident, and then there are things with magnetic drives and kicker motors being put into pendulums to keep them swinging, but that might be more for a demonstration at a museum's type of purpose. But there are also things like the Elias effect, which is reported that during solar eclipses,

There will be a pendulum will keep its motion of 15 degrees per hour. But then during an Elias effect, it'll actually go like 13 degrees in 15 minutes, the opposite direction from where it was, how it was swinging, which is a wildly chaotic effect.

to the pattern. And that would indicate that there is sort of a sky motion, like there is an influence of the rotating, what would be in part of in the Michelson-Morley with that slight detection that there was, that would be the ether drift, the influence of the sky, the rotation of the ether on objects.

Um, so I've never heard of the particular Elias effect that you're talking about. So like, sorry, I can't really give you feedback on that. But I was talking about so like,

I was going to bring up the Coriolis effect because the Coriolis effect, it's not a detection of motion, but the fact that hurricanes spin in different directions in different hemispheres and the fact that ocean currents circulate in different directions in different hemispheres is explained by the conservation of that momentum

as air currents and water currents move to different latitudes. So I would say it's sort of an observation. It's like a byproduct of rotation. Yeah, like you can't, it's not a measurement of acceleration or whatever, but it's a consequence of that. And it's explained in the globe model. I've never heard a flat earther try to account for why the Coriolis effect is observed because a stationary non-rotating earth is,

What on earth is producing rotating currents in different directions?

Well, that's, I think at the midpoint is where the rotational field has its, does its flip to give the, because the appearance would be two converging nodes. And so at that midline is where it does, where it flips. And so that's where your field influences would be opposite and would cause, you would have your initial starting subtle influential forces that would guide something are going to be

Coming at it from the bottom line,

From the bottom of an object on one side, like if this is the equator and the force is going in this way to an object in the north, it's going to be hitting it from underneath. But if this is the equator and this is the object down here, the force is going to be going like this and it's going to be hitting it from the top. So up here is bottom influence, up here is top influence. So that's going to cause it to spin one way or spin the other way depending on...

how it's interacting, where it is at that midpoint with the field. And I, a lot, it's, it's, it's a, it's a very similar, it's an observation. And so it's both sides. It's kind of similar to the earth with the globe, but instead of the ground rotating, it's the sky that can cause that influence, which is, I believe, supported by the Elias effect. Yeah.

that shows influence sky influence, but that would be what can influence those like hurricanes and everything like that. Yeah. What do you think? What do you think about, uh, tidal nodes? Like how there are, um, amphidromic nodes, uh, like in the oceans and everything. And in bays, there are areas where there is no tide, uh, that tides go around those nodes. Um,

But there are areas where there are no tides. And if the earth was a, was being like uniformly pulled in a bulge of water, wouldn't there, wouldn't those tides go under that bulge and be influenced by the bulge? No tides. Even, even globe people really don't understand what a tide is. A tidal bulge. One of the misconceptions is people think that gravity pulls on the water and that's what makes it,

Do that and that's that's really not the case because what actually happens is it's squeezed because we have to keep in mind is yes, the water directly underneath the moon is pulled directly toward the moon, but the water everywhere else.

It's not pulled. It is pulled toward the moon, but there's an angle to that. So it's actually happening. Tidal bulges are actually a result of a squeeze. It's like when you pop a zit, you squeeze from the sides and that creates the bulge. That's actually the effect we see. So this is why, for example, even huge lakes like the Caspian Sea or Lake Superior, they don't have tides because you have to have a huge, like,

like thousands upon thousands of square miles, accumulation of that sort of squeeze effect that produces the bulge. And I say all that because

It's not only that, but tides are a little more complicated. So for example, like in the open waters, tides are very minuscule, whereas really extreme tides, those happen along coastlines. And that's because as that water is squeezed, the geography and the shape of the, well, the- Basin.

magnifies the effect. Like, for example, in the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia, those have the most extreme tides in the world. And if you look at the Bay of Fundy, it's shaped like a funnel. And so what you have is it's almost like you have a pumping of water in there. And that's what contributes to such extreme tides there. But I mean, you know, the

Like, you can give some skepticism and, like, point out some head scratchers on, like, tides or whatever. And that's fine. That's fair. Because all that's going to do is inspire a further pursuit of knowledge. But what I would throw back is, okay, well, if it's not a gravitational effect that is causing tides, then what is it? Because the flat earther needs to come up with something. You can't just...

Poking holes in one theory doesn't increase the odds of your theory being true. Yeah, you have to also be able to explain what is apparently somewhat of a difficult to explain observation. And those happen. And just because you can't explain everything doesn't necessarily mean a model is false, even if certain things are still in the works.

So that I, I agree. And I would think that the flat earth would probably have some overlapping explanation with like how there can like the, the shape of the basin and currents and water temperature density of the water. I think that those types of things could play a role in tides. I'm not too certain about like different influences and stuff like that, but yeah, it's, it is, it is something that I just I,

Like I think part of like with this specific example of tides, I think the flat earth might have slightly more leeway in this particular example, because the traditional depiction of how tides work on a globe is that there's a bulge. And if you pull the ball under that bulge, you couldn't have a tide or a node anywhere under that bulge because it would fill in with water and

But I do agree, like just because if there is something that isn't fully understood in a globe model and in the context of a globe that doesn't falsify if the Earth is a globe or not at all. It's just inability to explain is not falsifying. Don't be intimidated by the bulge. Did you guys want to keep going for a little bit longer? Did you want to jump in the Q&A here soon, guys? You want to go for like maybe five more and then check out what the people have to say?

I don't really want to start a new topic because a new topic will take more than five minutes. So, I mean, I had there was tons more that we could have talked about, but I don't have all night. Yeah, we've been going for about two hours. So I feel I can go all night. But whoa, whoa, whoa. That's another that's another bulge joke. Yeah. Oh, my God. Yeah. I was gonna say.

Yo, Richie's going to be looking for you. All right. Yo, is the ball in my court to make a joke now on that or what? You got to just jump on it, man, when it happens. What's going on? It's got to be impromptu. Oh, did you say the ball in my court? Oh, was that a joke? Yeah, you already did. Damn. Damn. Say my dad joke over my head. The funniest type of humor. Well, there are so many good reasons to be a dad, but.

Dad humor, highest level of comedy. Yeah, highest level indeed. Man, I got two kids and now I feel ashamed of myself. That one went over my head for a second. I was like, wait, did you want to make the joke? And then, oh no, I just enhanced it. I enhanced it so hard. Anyway, it's all good, guys. Thank you so much for hanging out. I like overly explaining jokes, like breaking them down and just making it overbearing. It's fun. No, that's all good. No worries. Jokes.

All right. So we're going to jump into that Q and a here. Once again, thanks both of our speakers for hanging out. If you see me moving my arm under the desk, I swear I'm not doing anything bad. I got this, I got this little goober here and she just, she wants attention. She's silly. This is where I've been guys. If everybody's a couple of people in live chat, I'm like, where have you been? And it's like that here, look at her. She's so cute. This is maple.

She's my little Canadian dog. She's so cute. All right, go on with you before I get myself in trouble. Anyway, give us a like just for that, all right? That's dog peddling, cuteness peddling. All right, if we're not cute enough for you, that is, all right? I think we're pretty cute too, though. Come on. All right, Basel Problem says, modern day debate. In a previous debate, Dr. Koons acknowledged he was a crazy Christian. Are you a crazy Christian? I don't know if they're asking this to James, but...

I mean, he has me host and he knows I'm not a Christian. So I think if he was like a crazy Christian, he would probably be like, no, you're not allowed to host because you have to be exactly like me. And he's had other people host that are 100% agreement. Why is that so much to ask for? He's had other people host that are, uh, you know, I have all kinds of like Kaz has been on the show hosting as well. I had a conversation with Kaz, uh, you know, uh,

enjoy his company. So, you know, James isn't biased in such a way. So if you're talking about me, though, I mean, I just told you that I'm not. So if you're asking me, no. Deputy Frank Garrett says, modern day debate, we got cut off. I'm six foot two, 190, clean cut, masculine, call me back. Phew, mushroom emoji. I don't know what James is doing in his own private life here, but it sounds like Frank Garrett is...

looking like to glow like the metal on the edge of the knife with our Dr. James Coons. My goodness, you guys are wild. All right, we're going to get some real questions here. These guys just kind of put these in early, I think just being kind of trolly. Issa Kabir says, both are Mason, so two both, are Masons and Jews involved in globalism? So I'll let you start out on that one, Planet Peterson. Oh, I doubt it.

He's just not feeling that. All right, go ahead there, Nathan. There are various groups. There are good people who call themselves a title, bad people who call themselves a title. But there is a – I do believe there's a group of people who –

I don't want to believe it. I don't see it in the people I hang around with or anything. But there are, unfortunately, some people out there who would harm others for gain. And those are the people that having a better sense of reality helps us go against them, knowing about their works and everything. But, I mean, there are people who do say, like, that they follow Lucifer or seek the light of Lucifer. I can't. So here's what I'll say. And this is I was kind of wondering if.

There are levels to, like, I showed some conspiracy stuff here and everything, Masonic and stuff, but I've seen a little bit more than that, too, like a lot more 666s and stuff, and some things I can't really show for copyright, but the number one podcast in the world had a guest on, and this guy, he makes music, and he actually has... I'm going to pull the lyrics up real quick. I'll read them, but this guy was on the...

He was on the number one podcast in the world, which I think people...

People know who that is. But then this guy, he has lyrics like this. He says, listen up, mother effer. I'm sick and tired of playing with y'all. My gun told me I'm a sucker for aiming at y'all. I'm from a different cloth, no relation to y'all. And when it comes to me and you, there's no patience involved. He says the Luciferian conspiracy of forward pass, a law seeking while y'all are speaking the balderdash.

Cypher Protocol, Indecipherable Ocean Mask, The Code of Baphomet, I Will Worship the Goat and Laugh. And then, so like this, there are people who promote, and he has a lot of 666 lyricism and everything, very...

blatantly satanic. And these are a lot of people who make media. They will put 666 stuff in there, sacrifice, Luciferian. There are people who are influential media makers, producers, who do have, for one reason, I don't know if it's to troll the dying Christian population out there as Christianity recedes into scientific acceptance or whatever, but there are people who continually

make an effort to mention the Bible, oppose the Bible for whatever reason that's their artwork, but that is what they do. And there are a lot of songs I've heard with a lot of very disgusting lyrics.

And, um, and I've got to ask, is this why, is this why we don't play games together? Is it because I love iron maiden? No, no, no, no. And that's, and then that is there. So there are, there are good people, uh, in, in all sorts of groups. There are good musicians, good politicians and things. There are good people in all sorts of groups. And there are some that are bad who might masquerade, uh, in that group or try to claim that group so they can be a victim or blend in or whatever. Um,

But there are, I think, groups of people, consolidated groups of power. There are some, you know, Masons, Jesuits, Bilderberg Group, Council of Foreign Relations, World Economic Forum and those people. So there are people that are. I guess I'm more in the troll category there. And not for the chattel. Let's let Eric respond there. If you have any commentary to make. We do have other questions. So sorry, though. But a little bit. But go ahead there, Eric, if you have any commentary to make.

I definitely don't. Okay. Keeping a pithy. Excellent. All right. Let's carry on there, guys. Yeah. Thanks for that, Issa. You knew. He knew what he was doing. Early skeptic. Can somebody ask about the sexy clouds, please? All right. No, I'm just joking.

That's the sex magic. Aleister Crowley was into sex magic. He taught Jack Parsons. It was in early NASA. Wait, wait, wait. Let's let somebody ask the question. If somebody has a question about it, I don't want to steer it myself. I just thought that. I've never heard that.

That brought up before, and it just, yeah, definitely interesting. Earthly Skeptic says, pitch longitude is not arbitrary. Maybe I'm just a little immature, I guess. You know, whatever. Local noon in Cape and Port E differ by, I just thought that, I've never, I've never heard that up before. And pitch longitude is a little immature, I guess. But local noon is exactly a 60.

All right, so the equation being tween. Uh-oh, am I gone? It can't be just us. We don't know what we're doing. How is this even being withheld right now? Where is it? As far as the stream is concerned, I'm here. Hold on. Okay, you're back, Ryan. You're back. I'm back. All right.

Let me just turn off the Wi-Fi on my phone just to save up on it. I think it's pounding pretty hard out there. The old rain's really giving her right now, guys. All right, so let's see. The equation was...

Local noon in Cape— 29 minutes apart. Yeah, 29 minutes apart, and they said 29 divided by 60 times 15 equals 7.25, which is the city's longitude separation. So the main criticism saying a pitch longitude is not arbitrary.

I agree that those numbers are, I agree that those numbers work for the grid system that for the way that we navigate using the coordinate system that we do. I believe that those are the, those are accurate numbers and distances.

I do not know the layout of the shapes of the continents or their layouts relative to one another to know, like if you travel from Cape town to Brazil, uh, what exact water you're going over to be able to then get to that point in Brazil. But then I do believe like once you're back on land, everything is locked in and in place and in those, uh, definite locations. Um,

But yeah, like the specificities of continent layout and everything, I don't have that information. All right. Any thoughts on the other side or do you want to carry on? No, I don't really have any thoughts, but they were deriving the longitude from solar ups from a stellar observation. Yeah, I was with noon. Yep. No worries. I was just picking. What is the reported time of when when high noon is at each location?

Which I do accept. I accept those those values. I do believe that this the you know, if the earth was flat and the globe was a lie, this lie has been in the works for a very long time, had a lot of thought behind it, had a lot of organization behind it, a lot of funding and stuff from like the Royal Society and these people who helped, you know,

All these ventures and Marco Polo go explore and everything. And so I believe that they're the system would have to work. They would have to be able to tell you how to travel from location to location or they would not be able to deceive and get people to think the Earth is a globe that that wouldn't the deception would fail before it would ever even start. So I think that they have to give us accurate navigation.

Okay. All right. We're not along. Let's carry on then. Thank you so much for your super chats. We still have several to go. What about 10 to 15 super chats still. So we're going to try to unpack a bit more there, guys. So as soon as you have any thoughts regarding either of what the, you know, either speaker saying, feel free to jump in there.

and get some thoughts out. We'd like to, of course, the audience would like to have a little back and forth as well during the super chat. So JSS Tiger says, to the flat earther, the Bible is faith over fact. It never cared about being factual. Why do you put so much stock in it?

Uh, if the Bible was not fact, then don't put your, then I wouldn't put my faith in it. I wouldn't put my faith in a book that was wrong and, and written long ago. Not that you can read and get some good meanings out of it here or there or anything like that. I think everyone acknowledges there are good things in the Bible. Um,

But the importance is that if the Bible is true or not, that means it's worth the faith. If the Bible is true, that means that we do have a Savior. We are forgiven of our sins. We have a Creator who loves us, who made this world specially for us. And not only does He want what's best for all of us in this life, people will say, how could God let there be hurricanes and cancer and kids and all of this stuff?

But you have to remember if you're critiquing the God of the Bible –

Yep. If the earth is a globe that would put, um, like all the stars couldn't fall from heaven. Um, Jesus Christ couldn't return and have everybody see him. Uh, the, the globe claims that there's like an expansion, physical expansion of space and time, which would mean the physical location of heaven, uh, outside of the universe or whatever would be getting further away. It makes God very impersonal. Uh,

It makes it's a very inverted, colder worldview compared to the flat earth. And like Jesus rose, he didn't go into outer space. He went to heaven, according to the Bible. And and what I the big thing is the afterlife. It's is this the only life we have or is there more after this earth? And like Jesus, according to the Bible, is the afterlife life for the thoughts there.

Ryan Dunnett again. What do you mean? Oh, no. The inmates are running the prison again. Yeah. Yeah. James has got them on a. Oh, no. Running it tight over there.

Am I cutting out a bit? We can hear you now. Oh, good. I didn't know. What if we say something like this, like weather control modification, like NASA can make it rain, but they don't help our farmers grow food or put out fires? Maybe they could stop it from raining by Ryan so that the connection can hold. No, I'm just...

You know, they could, though. They could really help our farmers. Maybe Planet Peterson could come out here with that super debate diaper that he's got that he's rocking and sopping all up or whatever we need to do. Yeah. Yeah. Hi, man. Whatever works, right? All right. A couple rain cloud. Hey, we can look at the cloud and see where the light is on it. If it's left side of the cloud, it's on it.

All right. Let's go. Uh, fatty. All right. So, so Carl Slagan just puts up three face palm emojis. Uh, thanks for that. Carl Slagan. Uh,

All right. Go get them, queen. That seems a little silly, but there are, I mean. That's a drag queen name, though, if I've ever heard one. Carl Slagan. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. I'm going to have to find someone to hit them up with that. All right. Don't copyright that, all right? That's mine now.

No, I'm just kidding. Fatty Abraham says, Luke even says, in an instant or a moment of time, which supports this being a spiritual vision, not a physical sight-seeing trip. So I think they're saying that, you know, if this was a vision and he was getting brought to heaven, I guess, which was your contention there, Eric,

I guess he's just saying that they don't have to follow the laws of... And then he was getting brought to heaven, I guess, which was your contention there, Eric. I guess he's just saying that they don't have to follow the laws of, you know, here in that space. This being a spiritual vision, not a physical sightseeing trip. I mean, I'm... Pitch, you can reply to that however you want. I'm reading Luke right now to see where that specific phrase comes in.

I think it's like 11.4, but yeah, as far as making it sound like a vision, and that's why I think it does, I think that passage would be something that has to do with the, it's the devil taking Jesus up to a mountain and telling him, I own all of these kingdoms. Yeah.

This whole world is beneath him. He was essentially saying to Jesus that the kingdoms of the earth were under him. He was at the top of the world and that he could give Jesus control over the world if he would serve the devil over the creator. Right. So I found it. It's Luke 4, starting at verse 5. The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of

of the world. I mean, if you're in a high place and you open your eyes, you will instantaneously see everything. I don't remember exactly what this person's point was, but even if we take Luke's interpretation to be a different variant, like it was a spiritual revelation that he just made Jesus be able to see it,

He accessed the home Wi-Fi and he... No. But you can go ahead and take that interpretation, which makes Matthew's verse false. So that would be a contradiction. The only thing to do here is the typical...

galaxy brain no not galaxy brain mud brain uh thing of well a contradiction isn't a contradiction because i can endlessly interpret it to mean something else in light of something else which means you literally believe that there literally cannot never be a contradiction which yeah talking about anything at that point yeah so that's just not an honest uh interaction there anyways what's next

All right. Yeah, we'll carry on. Yeah. Speaking of the Wi-Fi there, I went in. My son was watching Preston plays on the tablet. So, you know, that was probably having a little bit of the Wi-Fi dip as well, especially where there's some nice weather going on here. So Earthly Skeptic says, pitch, explain why the moon looks huge and near the horizon. I'd be more water vapor lower to the ground.

And so that has a magnification effect that can cause it to like sun. The sun will look like that as well. And yeah, things can look bigger towards the horizon for that. It's magnification. It's water vapor and such that magnifies it to make it look larger. So I'm going to disagree with.

you on that but this doesn't really prove the earth is flat or a globe or anything and it's not really larger yeah it's not larger it's actually an optical illusion it's the equivalent of the Sydney Opera House illusion you can look that up but you have frames of reference for the moon at the horizon which are going to be trees, buildings, mountains yeah yeah yeah I hear you alright

it's showing yeah yeah yeah yeah i hear you all right i'm having a real ball over here myself by jay oh man this is dancing oh man yeah i'm really uh doing the dance of the uh internet death over here guys all right let's see if i can get back to the sub chats and we'll try to whip through them before i completely crash out holy lightning i'm holding on here by my last oh man

My brain is... I was going to say pube hair, and I'll just say it. I'm just going to say it. That's where my brain went. I'm just the tiniest little thing. It's just pinching on there. All right, guys. Why even hide it at this point? I'm terribly inappropriate. JSS Tiger says, On a flat Earth, the captain of the ship should see as much ocean in front of him as the people in the crow's nest. They are both above the water.

No, they would, the person on the bow or whatever would be lower, closer to the water, which means that they would see less water. Both models, like that example I gave where I put my head on the desk, if you put your head on the ground,

and just look at something and close your top eye relative to the thing you're laying on, and then you close your bottom eye, you can see the shift in the object you're looking at. If you close your top eye and then you look at something and then close your bottom eye and open your top eye, there's going to be like the object goes up. You start to see further. You can see beyond that object as well, just putting on a flat surface. So you can very easily show to yourself that,

Both models. This stupid point. Ancient people through mathematics and basic astrology proved the Earth is not only a globe, but also it revolves around the sun. Ancient people. I mean, it was kind of contested a while back even and...

There were flat earth cultures and everything. And that's actually one thing too about the Bible being a flat earth book is it has to be because chronologically the globe wasn't around until like 2,500 years ago and the Bible was written well before that. So the people, if the first conception of a globe was 2,500 years ago,

The Bible needs to be a flat earth book because it was written before then, especially Genesis. But those ancient people, they were able to like navigate and use the stars and be able to tell when they were going to be able to harvest and what season it was. And they had names for these things in the sky because they saw them frequently enough. Let's let Eric respond to some of that if he has a point and then we'll move along just to be fair.

I mean, I agree with the statement, so I won't really add anything because I know we're trying to get through these.

No worries. A lot of them have been for you, Nathan, there. So obviously, you've got a little bit more speaking time. So sorry for that there, Eric. But it's just the nature of the audience. They're curious. So Basil Problems says, Pitch, in your intro, you mentioned relativity. Please explain the Lorenz transformation. What is proper time? The Lorenz transformation and proper time is

I'm not going to be able to answer that one right now. But with the Lorentz transformation, are you also going to factor in matter contraction and the ability for things to shrink as they move closer to the speed of light to cause the measurement to appear stationary? Are you talking about those transform equations that make a conversion? Proper time...

the whole thing of like relativity and time and like one second is, is one second just because something moves more or less in that second, um, that gets into it. You can get into time. Do you want to measure time with an atom vibrating or with, uh, something in the sky returning to a position? Um,

I don't know. I feel like that could go a little bit more. All right. Let's see if Eric has any thoughts too just because, like I say, he doesn't have any questions yet. So did you have anything to add on there, Eric? Any complaints?

Not really. I mean, a Lorentz transformation is taking into account time dilation. So it's the way an object experiences time within its frame of motion or frame of reference or whatever. But I mean, that wouldn't prove that the Earth is flat. It would prove GR. Well, it would prove special relativity, actually, in this case. But yeah, so nothing else to really add to that.

All right, let's try to bang about. That would be like if you're going to go with how much an object travels as it's moving that speed. What are you using to measure that time? Is it a resetting of a cycle or a vibration frequency of an atom? But yeah, okay. I think things have calmed down here if you guys want to talk about that for a few. It's up to you guys. I mean, this isn't my area, but like satellites, well –

I'm not 100% sure for the satellites. I think they use atomic clocks, but we've sent atomic clocks into orbit around the Earth.

synchronized atomic clocks with one on the ground and the one that was sent into orbit around the Earth comes back and the time is ticking differently. And that actually is because of GR, because it's the strength of the gravitational field that gives it the time dilation. It's not actually the speed of the

satellite because yes they go extremely fast but not fast enough for relativistic effects to be to be detected at that level I don't think so there is a time dilation GR perspective but then there's the light as a constant special relativity angle on this stuff too I would say that the difference in readings would have to do with the motion as well of the

like of a high speed, accelerative or yeah, accelerative motion. All right. Let's carry on to the last, uh, super chat here. So what is proper time? Uh, Basil had asked there. Uh, so thanks for your question. Uh, thanks to everybody else who asked a super chat. Uh, but it is the proper time to get out of here. Uh,

after this super chat. So we'll give our speakers some closing statements after we read this chat. We'll end with Nathan. I do it EU style, so he'll get last word. Josh Gardner asks, does an egg standing on end during an equinox happen on a flat earth?

Oh, big yawn. Stop doing that. You're going to get everybody all at once, right? Sorry. Oh, boy. I'm trying to hold together. It's 1220 here, right? No, I'll still be up for a little bit longer, honestly. Yeah, but yeah, it doesn't... Thank you for saying this a little bit earlier today, too, by the way, both of you. Hey, no worries.

Yeah, my wife and my daughter are in Mexico right now traveling around and it's just me and my son hanging out here for the next little bit. So yeah, I've got some free time for sure. There's not my daughter pulling out the paints every day. So saves me a lot of mess.

for sure, but no, I miss them already. So it's going to be a long two weeks. So hopefully I'll get lots of debates to host. If you're watching and you're somebody who likes being on modern day debates, send me a message. I've got some free time. So, you know, I'd love to host some debates in the meanwhile. It'd be great. But yeah, does an egg standing on end during an equinox happen on a flat earth? Thanks for your question, Josh Gardner. So does that happen on a flat earth, Nathan? And why would it be relevant?

An egg standing on end? Yeah. I don't know what that means. It means like if you put an egg on a table instead of tipping over, it just sits there upright. I mean, I don't think this is a real thing. Yeah, probably not like a legitimate question. Like if you have an egg standing on a table and the Elias effect hits it, will it knock the egg over? Probably not. All right. I didn't know if this was a troll thing or not, so.

Sometimes the internet's strange, right? There's memes and stuff out there that I don't know about. I've said some things on the show. Look at my worldview. It's pretty, yeah. No, no, no. I don't think that's a, I don't think the Elias, if that is a legitimate question, I don't think the Elias would knock over the egg or anything like that at Equinox.

I don't know who this Elias guy is, but he sounds like a real pop tart. All right. We're going to carry on into our closing statements. There follows, uh, there's been a lot of fun. Uh, it's been good hanging out on modern day debate. I haven't been out for a while. Uh, you know, every once in a while, James lets me out to, uh, uh, mess about, uh,

And hang out with all of you so I appreciate these guys keeping things moving along and being fair to each other during the open discussion and of course the Q&A very Favored to ask you questions there Nathan, but so I'm gonna give you the last word here We'll give a minute over to Eric at planet Peterson. So that is linked in the description Go give a follow or subscribe like all that good stuff

uh, wherever that takes you. I think it's your YouTube link. So yeah, that'd be subscribe. And you know, there's all the lingo, right? Anyway, I was going to go down the list, but we'll let you close out. Go ahead there, Eric. One minute on the floor. Oh, um, uh,

I usually don't really prepare closing statements, but and also I went second. So now you threw me off a little bit. But I just I mean, I'll just think pitch for showing up seemed like a seemed like a dude that is curious and likes to know things. And, you know, we we disagreed, but I can tell that his disagreements were like in earnest. You know, he has a different interpretation of

or a possible explanation for what's going on, but you wrote down notes on things that I said. So that's pretty cool. I typically don't use these as an opportunity to try to dunk and be like, here's all the reasons why I won this debate. I mean, I did, but I'm not going to say it. I'm not going to say that I won this debate, which I clearly won. I'm not going to say it.

You're so humble and wonderful. Thanks for not saying that. We wouldn't even know what it would be like if you said it. That was great. All right. No, that's fun. I will remind everybody – actually, I didn't remind anybody. I sometimes really suck at the whole pitching things for the channel. My apologies, James.

He'll get over it. Don't worry, guys. But we do have a GoFundMe right now for the camera lens. What a good time, guys. We do have a GoFundMe linked in the description right now for the new camera lenses that we need for the upcoming live events.

So you can check out the link in the description of our video if you can help us out. That's great I'm gonna hand it on over to pitch lumen also linked in the chat there. They'll take you to his YouTube channel So if you like what you're hearing from Nathan Check him out over there. Give him a sub and keep an eye on what's going on. So one minute on the floor there Thanks for coming out to modern-day debate

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you both, MDD and Eric, again for this event. And yeah, I did write down, Eric, so for any flat earthers out there, Admiral Reedy, R-E-E-D-Y, and then the Mediterranean Cape Town travel, Mediterranean travel, Meridian travel with the 7.1 degrees.

I got the show-a-thon here, the mountain shadows, how they rise up according to the globe on the mountains from the supposed curve. And then the William Carpenter, I'm going to be looking those up later.

And so thank you for those. And really what this is, is I want to know who wouldn't want to know like where we really live and everything. And I think the real important thing is knowing where we live is one thing, but then how we treat one another, knowing that there are some people out there who are nefarious, just because you're not one of them doesn't mean that there aren't people who are. And so if we can do something in this era that we live in, we have technology that travels at light speed so we can literally speak

faster than bullets and we have translated language so we can speak to each other even if we are different tongue. So we have the ability to unite against some people who might have been in power for a while trying to keep things consolidated to their families, their bodies and everything like that.

and we could, we could take it all back. We all, it's all a choice. Everything we do, we have free will, whether it's given to us by a creator or a pseudo free will from naturalism or anything like that. Um, I, I think that, uh, what, what we're doing here, uh, we, we got, it's, it's up to us. We could all band together. Um,

Um, we're dealing right now with the, with like the university system doesn't want to teach how to reverse heart disease. So who knows what other health term lifespan expanding things people are being deprived of. There's a lot of stuff going on and, um, yeah, it's up to all of us. We like we, the people and truth. And so, uh, thank you. Thank you for the discussion. Um,

Eric. All right. We're going to let both of the speakers go, but yeah, it is strange that if you're playing a shooting game online, that bullets in the game travel faster than bullets in real life. That's,

That is very strange that the Internet's very fast now, you know, compared to the Doom 95 days, the Windows 95 that I grew up with. Another strange thing, you know, streetlights and video games use real electricity. Fun fact. All right. Thanks, everybody, for coming out to Modern Day Debate. We will see you next time. Cheers.

Six months from now, you could be running a 5K, booking that dream trip, or seeing thicker, fuller hair every time you look in the mirror. Through H.E.R.S., you can get dermatologist-trusted, clinically proven prescriptions with ingredients that go beyond what over-the-counter products offer.

Whether you prefer oral or topical treatments, hers has you covered. Getting started is simple. Just fill out an intake form online and a licensed provider will recommend a customized plan just for you. The best part? Everything is 100% online. If prescribed, your treatment ships right to your door. No pharmacy trips, no waiting rooms, and no insurance headaches.

Plus, treatments start at just $35 a month. Start your initial free online visit today at forhers.com slash talk. That's F-O-R-H-E-R-S dot com slash talk. Tom Pounder products are not FDA approved or verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality. Prescription required. Price varies based on product and subscription plan. See website for full details, restrictions, and important safety information.

Just fill out an intake form online and a licensed provider will recommend a customized plan just for you. The best part?

Everything is 100% online. It prescribed your treatment ships right to your door. No pharmacy trips, no waiting rooms, and no insurance headaches. Plus, treatments start at just $35 a month. Start your initial free online visit today at 4hers.com slash listen.

That's F-O-R-H-E-R-S dot com slash listen. Compounded products are not FDA approved or verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality. Prescription required. Price varies based on product and subscription plan. See website for full details, restrictions, and important safety information.