DEBATE: Alan & Shane Vs Globey McGlobeface & MCToon | Flat Vs Globe
03:14:14 Share

Breathe in. Ahhhhhh.

nature's gift. But let's get real. Your indoor air probably smells stale, funky, like last night's takeout. We don't want to be a vibe killer, but allergens and odors are throwing a funk fest in your living room. Remy Halo obliterates the skunk, funk, and all that junk. Remy Halo. Because no one wants to breathe funky air. Clean air is life. Let us help protect yours.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures.

Did he know that the majority of progress the U.S. has made in reducing emissions over the past decade has come from the oil and gas industry? With more electrical power generation now coming from natural gas versus coal, the air we breathe today is cleaner than it has been since the '90s, according to a report from the EPA.

Clean burning natural gas is also a reliable source of power for more than just our electrical grids. It is also used to power data centers, hospitals, schools, and so much more. Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.

Hey everybody, tonight we are debating Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth and we are starting right now with Shane and Alan representing the Flat Side. Thanks for being with us. The floor is all yours, Shane, for your opening statement. Oh, I actually have a quick video we can play to get us going, but what's up everyone? Great to be here. Just to be sure it's not a copyrighted video, right? No, it's one I made for this specifically. Okay, you got it.

It does have Nicki Minaj in the background, though. Right? I like that. Where did you take that out? I think it's an AI-appropriate copyright thing. Oh, okay. No, we're good. We need this, Shane. Go ahead. Roll the footage. All right. Share video with volume. Share sound. There we go. But don't make me shut it down, because if it is something that's copyrighted on YouTube, I have to... Add-on. Pay 10 bucks to add-on. The letters and the...

A turtle and a bear in the background. Do we get sound here? Can we hear everything? We can do so without... Yep, sound. All right, here we go. By the way, this isn't your opening. We have an educational discourse. What? This is not your opening, is it? What do you mean, opening? Like your opening speech. Oh, I thought that's what you were doing. No, an opening speech is where you give it live.

Not pre-record it. I even put this in the description because it's so annoying. It's a live debate. So give a live opening. Don't play a recording of you recording it earlier for some reason. Okay. Alright, so we're going to talk about the...

null hypothesis, right? In which case we put forth one hypothesis being our H naught and we try to falsify it. And if we don't falsify it, then we fall back to H1, right? As our alternative hypothesis, the way that we put forth our position on flat earth versus globe is we frame it via the null hypothesis. So our actual position is H naught.

Okay, just to be sure, we can see your browser, but we can't see if you're talking, if you're showing something other than our browser, which conveniently, it looks like your last search was a modern database. You have way too many tabs open, by the way. Yeah. Makes me anxious every time he screen shares. That's way too many tabs. I'm a little nervous myself.

One of these is bound to be illegal. Go ahead. That was a joke, folks. Come on. But it could be illegal. Boy, is that the one I'm sharing? All right, I got it. I got this. I didn't know I couldn't do the thing that I set up, James. My bad. People want it live. The mob wants more blood and they want it live. I respect that. It looks like you're sharing the proper 69 mile per degree obsidian screen share.

Yeah, no, not that one. Hold on one second. There we go. Apologies about that, guys. I did not forward those rules to Shane, and I didn't read them myself. I always do them live, so I didn't think about it. Well, Alan, why don't you just go right now, actually? Just take it over for a minute. Sounds good. Just end screen sharing whenever you're... All right, I just turned off the screen share. Alan, ready for you? It popped back on.

Looks like Shane started sharing again. Shane, if Alan's going to present, he's going to be able to share his screen. I didn't do anything. How do I turn it off? You got a virus from going on those websites I told you not to go on. Now I stopped your sharing. Okay, go ahead. That was a joke. Come on. Go ahead, Alan. The floor is yours. Yep, I'm trying to... Am I still sharing? No, I stopped it. The suspense is killing it. Everybody right now...

I can tell. I can see in chat the suspense is killing them. Content from... Look at Melvin. Look at how self-satisfied he is over there. Look how happy you're making him. There we go. Okay. Ready. All right. You guys ready? Yes. Mm-hmm.

Okay, so we're going to change the argumentation format to be in the form of a hypothesis versus a null hypothesis. The reason for doing this is we can analyze evidence in a way that gives falsification so that we can have a mutually exclusive outcome. So the Earth is either flat or it's either a globe. Now, if we falsify our null hypothesis, then that gives evidence that the Earth is likely a globe.

So a quick refresher on how the null hypothesis works. You can turn to the U.S. justice system where innocence is presumed and that has to be falsified so that you can be convicted for guilt. Right. So innocent until proven guilty is the staple here. So if you're going to provide something other than the null, you need to provide mutually exclusive evidence that can falsify that or show that that's likely false.

Now, I can't tell you what the shape of the Earth is, but I can tell you what it likely isn't using this scientific method that's also approved for how drugs and whatnot are administered, like when they do surveys and stuff on them. All right, so we also have...

How we're going to interpret the measurements that are going to be put forward to show mutual exclusivity and this is done. This is all going to be done optically, right? So like theodolite measurements, looking at the stars, positions of stars, etc. So we need to understand the visual field and the spatial field where it is asserted by the mainstream that both are Euclidean when in fact there's a deviation from this spatial field. The spatial field

is best represented by logarithmic geometry, in my opinion, because it's clearly not Euclidean. And what they put forward is that you can use curvature. You can use curvatures of different types. So hyperbolic, you can use negative curvature constants. You can use spherical curvature curves.

all to describe different observations, but under different experiments, these different curvature theories fail to explain the physical location, the Euclidean three-dimensional location of an object under these experiments when they're done. So there is no unified optic theory that explains

everything all at once, unless you incorporate them all. That's why I say it's logarithmic, because along that scale, you could incorporate the hyperbolic, ecliptical, and spherical, and linear geometry along that based off of relative distance to you. So this is an ongoing debate that's been going on since at least over a century now, since the mid-1800s.

So in addition to that, astronomy is built up in how we perceive the stars in the realm around us is through a dome of vision. And this is true no matter what model you believe in. Here we have astronomy from a book from the 1920s, New and Old Astronomy, where they're talking about how we see in a dome. And this creates the illusion that there's –

We see the sky in a perceived dome, but that's just an illusion because the Earth is actually a sphere, so don't be tricked. But that's what they acknowledge and put forward, that we see a hemisphere of the sky projected into our dome of vision. And of course, this corresponds to ground positions, which will later be turned into a map. But still, it's important to understand how everything is apparent. We only see the apparent, never the physical. And this is also noted in a 1970s book on...

What's it called? Solar panels where they note here, they say the sky dome is a visible hemisphere above the horizon in all directions. Right. So what they're saying here is that relative to the time of year and relative to your latitude, you're going to perceive the sun arc across the sky as if it's in a dome of vision and the elevation will correspond to your lati and also the time of year.

Now, NASA is explaining the same thing with the moon illusion and where the moon appears bigger than, you know, they say it is for its physical size. And here's the diagram that they're giving about the true position of the celestial body versus the apparent that we see. And we never see the true, always the apparent, right? There's not two moons. There's not two suns. We only ever see the apparent. And here we have...

So that's to understand that this is true on either model, no matter what you believe. Now, we have what we talked about earlier with the stars being mapped to ground positions here. So we have a coordinate system called the graticule. This is represented by the latitude and longitude lines of this coordinate system. And this can be projected over different types. So we have cylindrical, conical, globular,

azimuthal equidistant, you can, anything that does this, that uses the lat long, as long as you use the corresponding corrections or use the projection in the correct way, you will get the desired outcome that will get you to where you're going with respect to positions of the stars. So if this is true on a flat Earth where your azimuthal grid follows you around as you move relative to your latitude, you perceive the sky projected into a local dome no matter where the physical objects are, if they exist at all,

It's true. Same for the globe here. We're looking at the exact same thing. These are equivalent. Neither one falsifies the other. They're all using the same latitude longitude systems, which just which just which is just indicative of a position of celestial bodies at a specific time. It does not assert any dynamics.

So what's the proper way to analyze this? Are we going to look through a theodolite and simply say the Earth measures flat, the Earth measures globe? Well, no, that would be insane because we're not using an external reference, and the only external reference that we have is already asserted by the graticule, so we need to falsify that. So we're going to say that the Earth measures flat or it measures globular with respect to the stars.

Now, we're going to use empirical observation of the motion of the sky and the known positions of the stars and the units of measurement of distance that are derived from that graticule coordinate system with respect to those positions of the stars to test and do a falsification of our hypothesis and null hypothesis using the relative elevation angle.

based on how far away an observer is and the relative elevation between that observer and a physical obstruction, i.e. a mountain peak, for example. So we have an observer here and we have a distance and we have the elevation between them. We can use trigonometric functions to determine what that corresponding angle should be. Once we have that angle,

We can go into Stellarium. We can go on top of this mountain peak with that same exact angle. We can wait until a star matches up with that angle, and we could write down the time. We can wait down here on the ground at our observation point. And when we're looking in the sky, when that star intersects with that mountain peak at that specific time, if we can no longer see that star, that means that that star is physically obstructed

by that mountain peak, right? We don't care about refraction or anything like that because if it's no longer visible, it's no longer being refracted. That's all that matters. And this gives mutually exclusive outcomes based on the trigonometric functions because one is planar, so one will show the elevation angle of this being higher based on just the trig function, and the other one, removing 8 inches per mile squared away from the distance, will leave you with about minus 200 feet. So when we plot this out,

We get two mutually exclusive predictions and outcomes for the positions of the stars and that mountain peak for the timing in which it gets occluded. It'll take longer for the star to get lower in the horizon, so the globe predicts a longer time. So what we have here is 39 measurements over seven different mountain peaks in different locations and different times that show...

times that only correspond to a flat Earth. And when you use this trigonometric function here, where the altitude of the peak is equal to the altitude of the observer plus the distance to the peak times the tangent of the true elevation angle, you can backwards derive what the actual physical elevation would have to be to correspond to that angle. And you can compare plus or minus to the globe measurements. And from that, you can...

take differentials from the two and see which is true or not on average, and we don't have a single measurement that corresponds to globularity here. Now, I ask you, if alpha is equal to alpha, then by those trigonometric functions, the Earth is measuring planar with respect to the stars. That is a geometric falsification of our ability to falsify our null hypothesis.

Right? So if the Earth were a globe and we had different timings, if alpha did not equal alpha, then our null hypothesis would be falsified and the Earth would likely be a globe. And I would be here debating two other people as a glober. I'd be the glober debating two flat earthers. And I'd be zipping them up with this. Because this is a mutually exclusive measurement. You won't find any mutually exclusive evidence in this debate very likely.

All right, so to argue against this, you would have to suggest that trigonometry is an unreliable witness, which is ironically how the globe is supposed to be proven. So is Pythagoras a liar? Well, claiming that the Earth is a globe without mutually exclusive evidence is using and affirming the consequent fallacy. That's why we're using the null and null hypothesis analysis to apply to our cosmological and physical reality. All right, that is the end.

Thank you very much. We'll kick it over to Shane. Thrilled to have you here as well. I'm going to pick, let's see, unless you're going to show Shane's PowerPoints from your side, Alan, in which case you can just pull those up. Otherwise, I'm going to cut off your screen share. Yep. No worries. Go ahead and cut it off. You got it. So let's see. Shane, what I'm going to do is...

I'm going to decline only because otherwise it'll show both your and Alan's at the same time. Let me just first stop participant sharing and then I am ready for you, Shane, for your PowerPoint. If you want to hit that share button one more time. There we go. All right. Good. Yes, sir. Thank you. Perfect.

Right. So to go along with what Alan said, we argue from the null hypothesis position, right? Our position here is Earth is planar and measurements of curvature are thus dependent on the position of celestial bodies. So we're going to offer some evidence that that is the case. Also, the alternative position would be the Earth is globular, right? And measurements of curvature are independent of celestial bodies. Not so, as we will see as we move forward, right? So some evidence we're going to put forth real quick is some laser measurements from FE Core done in 2018.

Something you'll hear repeated often in these debates is that flat earthers never bring evidence, never bring measurements. As Alan just presented, we have celestial theodolite measurements and evidence, of which I believe if you look at the summation is about 39 different measurements from seven different peaks. And over here we're going to have different, I think seven different measurements as well within two different places of extreme flatness absence of curvature.

of course if the earth is a sphere of radius 39.59 it has to bend with an observed rate eight inches per mile squared laser tests falsify this observation in plenty here's a very well-known published document of all their data the uh the instruments they used the results they got the corrections they made the con the variables that they controlled for including refraction at

temperature, atmospheric opacity. They did everything they possibly could. They had a custom built laser, this thing right here, they call it the SALAD. And then they built it to make these precise measurements. And over and over again on each seventh measurement for all seven measurements,

Continue to falsify the curvature rate. So this would be evidence to support the measurements of flatness as we move forward. All of these separate measurements have all the different calculations. They did the globe side. They accommodated for the spheroid model. Even we went for the WGS 84 corrections over here. And they corrected for humidity, temperature.

Literally every variable that you'd want to control. Here's all the instruments and technical data. I'll post both the link to this PDF and the video in the chat in a second. Here's the first measurement. Here's the second measurement. Every single time, absence of coaches. We are at 12 minutes. If you guys would like a couple more minutes, that's okay. But that's 12 minutes or I started it at the start of Alan's presentation, just so you know where we're at. I could do like 30 second wrap up. Sure. You bet.

Cool. So the other side of this would be the measurements of curvature as in geodetic surveying, which has to have previous dimensions of the Earth known. You can refer to the American Arc of the Parallel, mctune.net, at which you'll find copious amounts of corrections to longitude-latitude tables and adherence to the spherical reticule, right? Corrections to latitude-longitude as we see here. Of course, if they don't have these spheroid measurements, don't fit the curvature of the arc, they'll swap out the spheroid model on the fly. That's the point of having multiple models.

So that would mean that we failed to falsify the original hypothesis that, of course, Earth is planar with respect to the stars because all measurements of curvature have to comport to the stars. So I'll end it there. Thank you very much. And with that, I'm going to do is...

stop your share and then I want to let you know folks if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate I'm your host Dr. James Coons we want to welcome you no matter what walk of life you are from flat globe you name it we are glad that you are here this is a fully neutral debate platform hosting debates on science religion and politics and last but not least if you have not already

We would appreciate if you would share or follow, better yet both, our Facebook for Modern Day Debate. Facebook sets up weekly goals for me. No joke. They do. They assign them to you. And right now we are one follower away on Facebook from meeting our weekly goal. So if you can give me a pity follow, I would be so grateful. I pinned the Modern Day Debate Facebook page at the top of the live chat. And with that...

We're going to kick it over to our Globe friends who are here as well. Starting with, I hadn't asked you guys before, pardon, who would like to go first between the two of you, Mick Globeface and MC Toon? If you like, and I'll mop it up. I can go. Perfect. I'm going to share my screen. Ready. All right. You getting that?

Yes. All right. Well, you may know, everybody, that I went to Antarctica in December, and that was quite a trip. Thank you to everybody that...

that helped help pay for it. So I'm going to also present some hypotheses. Now this hypothesis and null hypothesis stuff is a rather rigid way. It's not necessary to do experiments. You can just simply falsify things and it doesn't absolutely always require a null hypothesis. It doesn't necessarily follow that you can always even put together a null hypothesis. So

Anyway, we've got four. Experiment number one that we did there was whether or not the sun circles 24 hours a day. The globe predicts that it will. And Flat Earth has two predictions. They weren't very consistent about that. Flat Earth has generally said that the sun would set. But if you actually apply the geometry, that the sun would actually be due north at local solar noon and then move sideways. And then at local solar midnight, it would also be due north.

And so when, so either, either of those two predictions, we will be testing, we would, we did test. And what did we see? Well, in fact, this is what we saw. We saw the sun do circles 24 hours a day. There is no, no prediction for flat earth that we would see the sun do south. I'll pause it when it's due south. I got to play it again. I'll show you it. It, it,

right there play again so right over there that is due south in fact you can see the on the bottom of the screen there i've got some snow boulders that i put together uh we used the globe model to predict the angle of this of the sun of the shadows

and of the sundial and the length of the sundial based on previously computed based on the the radius of the globe and the the position of the sun in relation to the to the globe and they completely matched it was it was absolutely another confirmation of the globe but this is simply about whether or not the sun is seen due south and this is was seen due south so if the earth is a uh a

a disk as both Alan and Shane presented in their presentation, then the Sun would have to be 180 degrees opposite. Absolute opposite direction. The margin of error of this is all of it. All of the error. All right. So globe prediction confirmed and flat Earth prediction falsified. Experiment number six, we saw star trails.

when we were there. So the Flat Earth predicts something very specific and the globe predicts something specific. The globe predicts that there will be a single center of rotation seen due south and the Flat Earth prediction is that there will be horizontally moving stars when you look due south. And this is the globe prediction, a three-dimensional prediction of the globe here.

in just some software showing what it's supposed to look like. And here is a, I have behind me, I have that dome here. So the dome model that both Shane and Alan presented. There it is, I put stars on it and I used a black light, that's what the color is. And there you go, you can see these stars are moving horizontally. That's the flat earth prediction.

horizontally moving stars when looking due south, especially from the south where we were in Punta Arenas. So there's our two predictions. What did we see? In fact, this was the video that I took. It's a series of stills that are stacked in the P1000. We saw

the star trails going around a center of rotation clockwise in the sky so it matches the globe prediction when we look south this is a video that will duffy took again there is a stars moving around a center of rotation there that we see due south all right and uh so uh let's look at the declination for a crux in beta hydry there are um

There they are in the globe celestial sphere right there near the center there the South celestial pole and then we've got here they are on flat earth. We saw them both at the same time while looking to south the at the southern tip of South America we looked south and saw them south.

But yet they were opposite each other, nearly 180 degrees opposite each other, nowhere near south of Punta Arenas. Yet we saw them both at the same time in the sky south of us. Amazing stuff. And there you go, six hours later, this is where they were. One of them was due south of us. The other one was due north. Yet we saw both of them due south.

There you go. Globe prediction was confirmed. And once again, the flat earth prediction was falsified. And what did we do? We applied trigonometry to figure that out. Amazing. Thank you for your affirmation, both of you, of trigonometry doing the job. All right. That's my presentation. Over to you, Globy. Ready for you, Nick Globface. Very good.

All right. Let me see if I can just share this. Excellent. All right. You guys got that? Yep. Way far ahead. Hold on. Got a lot of stuff here. All right. So I'm glad Alan mentioned mutually exclusive evidence because we're going to show some mutually exclusive evidence. But also we're going to show how predictions can be made. Okay. So the globe is symmetric. Okay.

I think everyone agrees on that. Flat Earth is not symmetric. Okay, so we would expect on a globe things that happen in the northern hemisphere mirror those that happen in the southern hemisphere. This is just geometry. Okay, so you can see how the Tropic Cap corn is much longer here in the flat Earth than it is on the globe. Obviously, they predicted to be the same length, right?

So how do we test something like this? Well, some simple observations that are mutually exclusive are direct flights. American Airlines 52 at 27 degrees north latitude matches that of Qantas 64 flight at 26 degrees south latitude, almost the same exact latitudes. They both fly 7,000 miles about. They both fly the same speeds.

they both fly there at about 11 and a half hours. So that alone is just a mutual exclusive thing for the globe. I mean, it's symmetric, right? This flight on flat Earth would look something crazy like this, direct flight, right? Even if you fly straight across and don't fly around this arc, which you do according to the flight data, it doesn't make any sense. These are the same times and distances, right? But it makes perfect sense on the globe because the globe's symmetric.

This is what we expect. Another example of the same thing. This is China Airline 6, Qantas Flight 27, 34 degrees north and south latitude. Again, direct flights that completely disprove flat Earth. Both of these are about 11 and a half hours as well, about the same speed and distance as well. So again, that's what this would look like. It's nonsense. It's nonsense. That thing on the right is a cartoon, right? It doesn't exist.

Direct flights prove that. Toon showed this a second ago, so I'll go past it pretty quick, but this is a mirror image of each other, right? North and south celestial poles. They mirror each other. They mirror each other because the globe's symmetric, okay? The bottom left is the prediction on a flat Earth, as Toon showed. Doesn't follow that prediction, right? Flat Earthers have to invoke magic magic.

Magic light bending of 180 degrees and domes of vision that follow you around with personal suns that follow you around and personal stars. It's nonsense. You can put two phones on a ball and spin it and get the exact thing we're looking at here. Opposite rotations, right? Something so silly and simple to show the symmetry of the ball. I did this observation myself live on TikTok. This is the Southern Cross from Chicago.

and from South Africa, right? At the same exact time, okay? Both looking south-southwest on a compass. So much like Toon was showing, this is 90 degrees apart on flat Earth, but we are both seeing them looking south-southwest in reality at the same time. Why is that? Because everyone looking north, everyone looking south is looking in the same directions at the same time. It's symmetric. I just lost. Oh, sorry. I lost audio for a second.

Symmetry, 15 hours of sunlight in Chile and 15 hours of sunlight at 40 degrees north, where that is, about New York, at the same time of year. Well, exact opposite times of year, right? So that's symmetry. How can there be 15 hours of light in the south and the north at the exact six months apart? It doesn't make any sense on a flat earth, right? And we got paths of the sun. I don't know how much I'm doing on time here. Any trick?

Three minutes. All right, I'll go fast. Path of the Sun. If you're standing here looking west at the sunset, the Sun is south of you or north of you, it doesn't matter. That Sun is going this way around flat Earth. That's the prediction. Top right, that's the prediction. Yet what we see is it going to the left. It goes to the left because Earth's a globe. You're slightly tilted, you're tilted a different direction in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere. It's very simple. This is what we expect on a globe. Symmetry. Equator, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere.

Okay, that can't happen on flat earth. And last but not least, coordinate systems, right? You mentioned coordinate systems, you have to transform them. Thank you, Alan. Again, you have to transform coordinate systems to work on one model versus the other. We use the, you know, a spherical coordinate system, right? So if you check this airport here, which I placed markers on, the length of that airport based on the markers is

If you take those GPS locations and use the Haversine formula, which is the great circle distance over a sphere, you end up with 10,824 feet. That matches what the stated length of that runway is, right? And this is in the northern hemisphere. It's Chicago O'Hare. That's about two minutes of separation, longitude lines. Same thing in Punta Serenis in Chile.

They're about the same length. This one's 9,000 feet, a little bit shorter. But if you place the GPS markers on them, you get the same distance, 9,182, 87 feet. This would never work on a flat Earth. As you know, lines of longitude spread out as it goes south. I have that here. They spread out as they go south. So if you're not applying the correct transform to this, you would never get the correct answer. You can't apply globe coordinate system to a flat Earth.

So these coordinates would never line up on a flat Earth. So I'll end it there, and thank you. Thank you very much for that opening as well. Now, folks, we are very excited. What I'm going to do is pop us out of the screen share mode and other quick housekeeping things first. Folks, it's still linked there. If you'd like to give a pity follow to the Modern Day Debate Facebook page, it is appreciated. It's still pinned at the top of the chat and other housekeeping stuff.

we are going to have a Q&A after this open dialogue section. So this open dialogue section right now, it's going to be about 50 or so minutes. Then we're going to go to the Q&A and that goes for however long

We also want to let you know you can submit a question either via Super Chat or you can do it the standard way, which is tagging me in the chat with Modern Data Bait and asking a question. Super Chats are at the top of the list, so read through those first. With that, gentlemen, the floor is all yours for open dialogue. Awesome. Thank you. Well, I'd like to draw particular attention to the fact that it was stated that

falsification is sometimes not needed. Well, if you're saying something that can't be falsified, you're not saying anything scientific. And if you're trying to assert physics and cosmology and the shape of the earth and geometry, then it needs to be a scientific assertion. Now, when you get into this, huh? Who said that falsification is not important?

You did at the beginning of your presentation. Immediately. No, I didn't say that at all. No, I didn't say that at all. I specifically didn't say that at all. I don't remember hearing that. Don't stick words in my mouth. Moderator. You're starting out lying about me right away? Wow. Amazing. Moderator. Falsification is critical. I specifically tested two different hypotheses. One was falsified. That's the point. The other was confirmed.

Did you hear his opening statement about falsification and how it's not important and sometimes blah, blah, blah? I said the null hypothesis is not critical. If what you're saying can't be falsified, it's not scientific. I didn't say it couldn't be falsified. I said the null hypothesis is not critical. You do not have to have a null hypothesis to do a falsification test.

Then what are you, then whatever you're falsifying isn't scientifically relevant then. If you're trying to do something of noteworthiness, you need a null hypothesis. No, you don't. Okay. Well then good luck. How would you get your PhD then? You know that they do that through a null hypothesis, right? Oh, James, do you have a PhD? Did you have to have a null hypothesis? Instead of dragging me into the debate, I do want to just redirect us. So gentlemen,

Are there any points from the openings that you would like to discuss that you've been burning just with a burning desire deep in your loins that have not been covered yet? Yes. Go ahead, Shane. Go ahead. Let's address the laser measurements from FECOR in 2018. The only way that that would be not mutually exclusive, right, is if you argue refraction at any distance. Now, that was a measurement over 7.5 miles, but...

There isn't an actual distance that you could tell me that we can make an observation past that where you wouldn't claim refraction if it's made. So that also would be an unfalsifiable position unless you can give me a distance at which we can make an observation of which you will discount refraction. James, do you mind if I share a screen? All right. Here is from the FE core document there. You see this is measurement number five. They measured the temperature

At water level and at 2 meters above the surface of the water, you can see here 11.4 degrees Celsius at water level and 13.3 degrees Celsius at 2 meters above the water level. That's almost 2 degrees Celsius difference. Now, this is called the lapse rate. It's the amount of temperature change in a vertical linear distance. The...

When you have refraction like this, this causes refraction, when you have 1 degree Celsius per 10 meters, then that causes the arc of the curve of light to have a radius of about 6,370 kilometers. The radius of Earth, oh man.

And this was an even steeper gradient, a significantly steeper gradient. So this is causing, this is documentation showing that the radius of the arc of light is going to be significantly less than the radius of the surface of the Earth has been measured. So now when they did it, they didn't actually compute the

the effects of refraction correctly. They did it horizontally instead of vertically. I don't know why, it was pretty embarrassing for them. But anyway, this is right here confirmation of the globe right here because this is showing how incredibly strong they needed the refraction to be in order to see it at that distance.

So when can refraction cannot account for curvature, right? So we're looking for falsifiability. At what distance would we make an observation that you wouldn't induce refraction? Why didn't they account for refraction? Why didn't they account for it properly? Of course they did. You just argue that they don't because it's unfalsifiable. They didn't do it right. Bring up where they did the refraction. Go ahead. Show us in the document. The point of bringing up the laser measurements is to say that it's unfalsifiable for you.

Please show us where they included that in their observation. Is there a reason why you won't bring it up? Which is why we bring it to the celestial theodolite, which is mutually exclusive. No, you brought up Fe-Core. You're running from the Fe-Core measurement now. Thank you very much for running from your own first law of FLIRF confirmation. No, showing you that the unfalsifiable position of refraction, and no matter what the distance, as you can see, is going to go back into it. That's why the celestial theodolite has mutually exclusive.

Because when it's only connected in a dichotomy, as we've reduced it to, then you can't eke out of it with these ridiculous refraction flames. All right, James, do you see my share here? Yes. Okay, so here is the, just a couple pages later,

Here they are using a, this is their attempt to compute the amount of refraction. And what they did is they took the temperature at one side and they took the temperature at the other side. They did not take the vertical temperature gradient. And then they treated it as two distinct values.

mediums, only two mediums instead of a continuous medium, which would be wrong even if you're gonna do it horizontally, which is the wrong way. And then they just use the modified Edlin equation, the fine equation, but they applied it incorrectly. You need to do it vertically. They did it horizontally, right here. This is embarrassing.

horribly embarrassing low quality understanding of what's going on and how to compute refraction. Go to Andrew Thomas Young's website at San Diego State University. He goes over all of the ways that you can do this. He has citations. He is the one that has citations of the one degree Celsius per 10 meters vertical lapse rate will give you a radius of the earth, a radius of the arc matching the radius of the earth. And again, when doing it correctly,

you will find that the elapsed rate is significantly stronger than that, giving a radius of the arc much shorter than the radius of the globe. It almost looks like they assumed the Earth was flat when they did that calculation. Everybody on the same page? Yeah.

Oh, no, sorry. I was just waiting. Okay. So, well, it's important to note, like, even if the refraction had been done correctly, right, there's different types of refraction that could be applied, different coefficients. What Shane pointed out earlier in the arc of the parallel that gives agreement to the coordinate system is riddled with different refraction coefficients that are applied in different lateral refraction assumptions that are made. So when you get into... I don't want to interrupt, but this is your test, right?

Yeah, just one second. As I'm continuing, right, Shane will pull him up in the background saying, let's see him. They're there. He's got him. So I'm going to continue on now. But anyway, this is why it's important to have something that can differentiate between these measurements, right? Because you're asserting that there's

a refraction that was erroneously calculated. We're asserting that the measurement was good and that there could be... Let's give refraction the benefit of the doubt there. What can we do to satisfy the conditions of our null hypothesis that are independent of refraction? That's why we turn to the celestial theodolite when an object is actually blocked because when you introduce evidence...

that isn't falsifiable, right? Which we talked about earlier, how there's not, if it's not falsifiable, if there's no limit that's too far before you can, you know, on that equation for refraction, then there's no limit, right? So we can't falsify it in that way. So we're going to introduce, so that's why we introduced the celestial theodolite. So whenever you guys want to get to that. But we're done with the lasers. Just want to be clear. Sure. Sure. No, yeah. What excitement was used for that observation?

For the observation of what? The celestial field of light? Yeah. Do we know? I'd have to look. Yeah, the specs are available. I don't know off the top of my head. It's a star. What do they call it? A star seeker or something like that.

No, that was a telescope. What was the angle measuring device? Theodolite. Oh, you're not familiar with the celestial Theodolite real quick because you're thinking like an actual... I asked you what equipment you used for your observation. I got you. 8300, I think? No, that's for the measurement with not doing the celestial Theodolite. Yes, it is.

No, that's a measurement with a field of light. It's on your own video from... It's a... Buddy, buddy, the measurement is done for comparison, right? Listen... You don't have to call me buddy. I mean... Oh, sorry. Sorry. You're right. This is your video right here, right, Shane? Yes. Okay. This is the David White 8300 that they used to take the measurement over the mountain? Can you stop interrupting, please?

That is a David White 8300. That is not the celestial theodolite that we're talking about. It's conceptual, right? But he talks about using that and how to measure on the veneer scale on the theodolite? This isn't used for the celestial theodolite, though. Do you understand that? Go ahead and explain it. Go ahead. How did you get the elevation of the mountain?

How did he get the elevation of the angle? Trigonometry. So he took the difference in elevation between him and the mountain peak and the elevation of the mountain peak. And then you can do trig to get the elevation for that. I'm very confused because this whole article, this whole video and all your videos since then talk about measuring the angle to the mountain peak using the theodolite.

And then measuring the star angle. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

the difference on the relative angle. The beginning measurement showing that David White 8300 is for a comparison for optical measurements because the premise, right, the optical field and the spatial field are different. So we bought an old device, took a measurement optically, right, for the comparison, just the raw measurement to see what it would be. And then he used the celestial theodolite for the comparison. So what you're asserting is not relevant to anything. Now, I'll tell you this, though. I'm not hiding from this. This is relevant.

You know what? It is relevant because this is the exact point of it. Because when you point that device to that mountain, guess what angle it measures? Guess. Go ahead. I don't know. Two degrees, 31 minutes? About two degrees and three minutes. So that one in particular measured, he said measured the right angle, but then he got a better device. He got a Sokia or something or whatever. Measured two degrees and 19 arc minutes, right? Which corresponds to the globe prediction. Very cool, right?

Sure. But our premise, remember, is that there's optical compression. We don't know if the Earth is curved or if this is an optical effect, right? So what we do with the celestial theodolite, now that we have our theodolite measurement for comparison, we've done our optical on the ground with the theodolite. We've got what the globe predicts, right?

Now, we calculate what the relative angle would be to that mountain with plain trigonometry, and we get the actual raw angle, and we go to Stellarium. Can I screen share real quick so I can show this, the diagram? Oh, he's AFK. What the ruck? Okay, thank you, sir. Share. One second. It'll be nice to have the diagram for you guys. Okay. All right. So once we have our relative angle, the calculated angle, right, differing from the- It's not showing yet. Yeah.

It says, Alan has started screen sharing. Double-click to enter full screen mode. I've seen that before. It says on my end that I am properly screen sharing. Sometimes if you just stop and restart the share, it might help. I just stopped it. Let's give it a second shot, Alan. Okay, one second. Let me get back. Where is my Zoom? Did I get disconnected? Let's see. Now the...

Not even the black page is showing. When it says, I think someone in chat said, James, you have to click it. No, that's not how it works, Beasticles. Because what it's saying for me in terms of if I double click it, that just means that it would make it full screen for me. But it wouldn't change the content of what's being shown. So let's give it another shot. Alan disappeared. Okay, let's see.

What we'll do is kick it over to... I don't know what happened. Any other thoughts from the debate? We'll wait for Alan to come back. But in the meantime, were there points that you guys wanted to address besides those? Yeah, you guys mentioned the Graticule, right? Globally brought up coordinate systems can only be spherical. That's patently false, right? I didn't say that. Don't strawman me. You did. Well, what did you say? I didn't say they can only be spherical. I said we use spherical coordinates.

Okay. All right. Sorry about that. My bad. Okay, we're ready for you to show. Go ahead. We're ready for your sweet screen share. Awesome. Awesome. James, you can drag now in Zoom to rearrange the panes if you need to. That's been like that for like 10 years, Melvin. Oh, I'm so far behind. James is ahead of me on this. Okay. Go ahead. Ready. All right. So once we have our calculated angle relative to our distance, we can go...

I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but I need to understand what you're doing. Got you. Got you. Got you. So we have our observer here on the ground, right? We have our distance away from a mountain, right? And we could reference, let's see, what I reference is this website right here. Is that a flat earth distance or is that a? Oh, no. Oh, no. It's using your boy Haversine. It's using, it's Haversine now. So you're using Haversine. Okay, good. The Haversine is a trigonometric, is a spherical trigonometric function. It's kind of a first law thing here. Okay. Yeah.

Okay, please don't interrupt, but the Haverstein, right, is a spherical trigonometric function that's used on a graticule, which is a spherical coordinate system to compute distances between latitudes or longitudes. So that's not, that's, it's fine, dude. That's part, and it's, hold on one second, and it's also using units of measurement to

that are derived from the coordinate system. So, of course, it comports and works accordingly. Now, the purpose of this is to test independently the geometry of the ground and the sky using both of them together instead of just using empirical observation because the graticule, I don't know if you know this, but was derived from astrogeodetic surveying, which means that they took single zenith observations

measurement observations of stars and when they didn't get the angle that they thought was going to be where it would line up with their telescope, then they just asserted that the difference was due to Earth curvature. So that observation can't tell you alone the shape of the Earth.

So was there something you wanted to add on?

Okay. Now, but they're 50 some kilometers away. So where did that, the numbers come from for the, those two minutes, 31 to two degrees, 31 minutes. Exactly. So I'm not the Adelaide. So he told me he didn't use before. The Theodolite doesn't give an angle of two 31. It gives an angle of two 19. If you actually watch the presentation, as you asserted, hold on one second. Hold on one second.

I'm in the middle of telling you, if you actually watch the presentation, as you asserted, Globy, you would know that you would know that the measurement comported with the globe. Right. With what the globe predicts at 219. This calculation comes from taking the distance. Right. And the relative elevation between the mountain and the observer. There's a whole spreadsheet we can show to calculate this.

Well, the words off your presentation say that means the elevation of the visitor center should be two degrees and 31 feet above my level if the earth is flat. Right. Is that what you're talking about? Well, first of all, that was Mike Heffron's PDF. That's what I'm talking about. Right. And it should be. OK. Right. We're talking about this part of the measurements now. Right. Whatever you're talking about, just focus on this because this is super important here.

Right. So for the measurement for Pike's Peak, where they say where we have this 31 arc minutes, right, this comes from the distance.

Right. Which comes from the trigonometric functions from your boy, the Haversine. Right. Which comes from the graticule, which gives us the units of measurement to even do this with. Right. Now, that gives us an angle, though, regardless. So we have this angle now. So now that we have our angle, do you agree that we can use trigonometry to that? We can get a tangent of this by knowing the elevation angle or by knowing the elevation difference in the trigonometry.

And the distance, if we have those, we can get an angle, right? Any disagreements with Pythagoras? I'm still curious. I'm still curious on, I need some clarification. At the vantage point two, you have also two degrees, 31 minutes. Where did that number come from?

Yes. So what that number comes from is the intersection timing of when the observer on the ground no longer sees that star. In order for those two times to match up, then this geometric relationship alpha has to equal alpha, which isn't on this slide. There's their thetas, but the relationship here has to be the same here. Otherwise, the star would occlude at a different time. But you are indexing against level at that advantage point, too, and...

not Vantage Point 1, so it will be on the globe, it will be a different value.

No, we're specifically referencing if there's curvature between the distance between this mountain and this observer. Because if there is curvature, then this mountain peak will be physically lower than the raw calculated 231 angle. Because if you subtract 8 inches per mile squared, you get 214 for what the globe predicts. So 214 corresponds to a different time when this star would disappear. So you see how this doesn't have the same geometric relationship here with...

With respect to the locations there, that's if the Earth were a globe, this is what would happen. So because this doesn't happen and these line up, that's why I asked at the beginning, if alpha equals alpha, then the Earth measures flat with respect to the stars. Well, yeah. So did somebody go to vantage point two and measure the angle to the star?

Oh, somebody going to the vantage point measuring-- No, on the other side. On the other side. No, no. Yeah, I'll show you. I'll show you. Yeah. Doing that isn't necessary because all we need to know is if the star is at this angle in time at this location, which is what is predicted, and this is what is referenced. And if it's not visible anymore at that time, then the only way that could happen is if there's a geometric obstruction that's at that elevation to cause that blockage.

So the relevance in the if you were to be on the observed, if you were to be on this mountain peak, we don't predict that you would see the star where it is. We only care about where the star isn't. And to do that, you use that by using the relative angle calculation here and the timing difference, because we never told Stellarium where we were. This is the beauty of the measurement, because

If when you plug everything in, it'll make two different predictions to try and correct for where it should be. But the timing difference here shows that the geometry is actually planar. But but so you said I just want to be clear. You said that the observed angle matched the globe prediction from the vantage point one.

Yes, optically it does. And that's part of our prediction, too, because like I said, curvature, I mean, optical curvature isn't Euclidean, right? The spatial, the visual field is non-Euclidean. The mutually exclusive part is the occlusion timing. That's why it's reduced to a binary and it's been confirmed 39 different times over seven different peaks. OK, so you're using Euclidean geometry in this then?

Using planar geometry to – or yeah, using plane trig to calculate the – And Euclidean. Yeah, and Euclidean geometry. But then you're talking that it's not – that it's non-Euclidean somehow. The spatial field is different from the visual field. The spatial field is where an object exists in three-dimensional reality.

So if you were to plane trig out the relative angle difference here, that would be like a saying, okay, this is where this mountain peak physically exists in reality. To do the globe calculation for where it physically exists because, you know, relative to where you're at, the ground is tilting away from you. So this mountain peak is going to be slightly lower in the horizon. So you subtract what the eight inches per mile squared difference would be from this, and it subtracts 200 meters.

from this, which gives a, which corresponds to a different time because we know how fast the sky moves at 15 degrees per hour, which corresponds to 15 arc minutes, which corresponds to four actual real minutes, which core. And then you have arc minutes, which corresponds to 15 seconds. And then we have 15 arc seconds, which corresponds to one real second. Right. And then we have distances that are derivable from this relationship as well. We're 69 miles per degree, 1.15 miles per arc minute and 101 feet per arc second.

So the 200 feet difference predicts a actual different time where the star isn't visible.

And we and we referenced we and we not only reference just that one mountain, because like that could be an anomaly. Right. That could be some crazy thing or whatever. Right. There could just be some magic thing. But now we're also referencing different distances here. So we have different angles that correspond to different elevations because the because they're different distances. Right. We're doing trig functions. So we're getting different angles here and we're looking for stars that correspond to those same angles in all of these timings here.

Right. See here. See how it says here. Flat difference here. This is the altitude that is predicted by the official. Like if you go to Wikipedia and look up Pikes Peak, for example. Altitude. What's the units there? Meters. Oh, the altitude of the of the mountain. Yes. OK.

Yep. Yeah. So then you'll see here this column, the flat delta out, delta out. This is the difference that's measured plus or minus with respect to the timing, because if you actually do this trigonometric function right here, which is the altitude is equal to the observer altitude plus the distance to the peak times the tangent of the elevation angle that it was occluded at, you can reverse engineer what the actual elevation would have

to be. So this is what this column represents here. And we see here that the elevation is slightly higher than what the globe is predicting. 44.9. What are the units there? Meters. Oh, that's the difference of the peak.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the globe says it's this high, but it's measuring physically slightly higher based on the timing, the occlusion timing. And this is what the globe predicts based off of eight inches per mile squared subtracted from the 50 kilometers here and that distance difference. So what we're looking at here is a globe difference that's missing, that should be present here of 249 meters and that's never...

Never observed. So like in other words, if this star got occluded at a different time, it would mean that the angle that it corresponds to would be this relationship here. It would give mutual exclusive proof of the globe. Why are you adding the observer height to that calculation? The observer height. Subtracting the observer altitude from the mountain altitude. Or the elevations. What's that? Which one? One second. Where they just were.

This one? Yeah. Why are you adding the altitude of the observer in there? Oh, that one? Okay, so this is how you do the trigonometric function to get what this true elevation would be with respect to the distance and the time that it got occluded. So does that make sense? That's the flat Earth triangle you're solving there. That's just a triangle.

A triangle can't be flat Earth or anything. Yeah, but the tangent of that angle there would be the elevation over the distance, right? Yeah, that's what the... Why is the altitude of the observer? That seems erroneous. Why is that included in there? What? The altitude of the observer relative to... It would be the tangent of that angle, right? Is the elevation, which is the altitude of the peak, which we're trying to figure out.

divided by the distance to the peak, which is what you're solving. Then you're trying to solve for the altitude of the peak, right? Yeah. Well, this, one second, this function here doesn't belong to this necessarily, this 231 calculation. This corresponds to how you would calculate. Yeah, that's not how you calculate. Okay, so if I, can you solve for that right triangle right there, right? You say it's not how you calculate it. Yeah, it's not. You have a spreadsheet of it. Doesn't mean your spreadsheet's right, right?

I mean, what's the tangent of, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but what's the tangent of your, the tangent of that angle would be what? Tangent of the angle would be 231. Right. Times, and that would equal what to solve for that triangle, right? The tangent of that would be the opposite side.

Right. Which is the Sokotoa, which would be the opposite side, which would be the altitude of the peak. Listen, are you trying to assert that this is wrong? Because the. It looks wrong to me. I'm trying to understand how you solve for the altitude of the peak by adding in the altitude of the observer there.

The altitude of the peak is subtracted from the altitude of the observer. Well, it's right there. Altitude of the observer plus the distance to the peak. This is for the function to calculate what the elevation is with respect to the angle. Alan, the tangent of that angle, which is the right side of that equation, I'm pointing at my screen like somebody can see me. I see it. Would equal the altitude of the peak divided by the distance to the peak.

That's the equation. There's no altitude of the observer in there. It says altitude of observer. I know it says it, but I'm trying to... The trigonometry of that calculation would be the tangent of that angle equals the altitude of the peak divided by the distance to the peak. That's how you solve that triangle. Then you multiply both sides by the distance to the peak.

to get your height of that mountain. Well, that's fantastic. I'm just asking why you added that in there. Well, listen, the trigonometric function works because it gives the accurate comparison.

Because that's what the globe differential is taken from. Nobody's disputing the trigonometric function there. A lot of people have analyzed it. I don't know what your specific intention is, but it's pretty simple. You have the angle and you have the distance. So you're just solving for the opposite. So it's literally the same thing. So when you're saying you disagree, he did it wrong, well, it gives the exact amount.

Like it's not wrong. So do you have a different – You're calculating that. You're calculating that in the spreadsheet. So if those numbers are wrong, then your whole thing is wrong, right? It's not wrong. But luckily they're not wrong. And here's the thing. You're taking it to the wrong location. You need a different timing. You don't need a different elevation calculation change. You need a timing change.

That is the big thing that's in dispute here. Getting lost in the trigonometric functions of the spreadsheet. Getting lost in the math you're using to disprove the globe. I know you should get lost in that. You're misunderstanding your variables. The tangent of the altitude over the distance. You're just misunderstanding what the altitude is in that additive in that additive equation. Right. That's what you explain it to me. Then I don't understand it. It's fine. We just did the tangent. Right. How we get to 31 degrees is the simple formula. Right. It's tangent of the altitude over the distance.

The tangent of the angle is the altitude over the distance. Dude, it's so ridiculous. Yes, I agree. So then when you multiply both sides by the distance to solve for the altitude, you just add in the altitude of the observer into the equation for no reason? No, the altitude of the observer is taken into account, right? So in this formula, it's 2,226 meters, right? And 50,700 meters for 50.7 kilometers.

If you click right in that angle, am I? All right, let's just say it says 2.4 degrees. You can see that we apply. I don't. You said yourself it's the tangent is the is the opposite of the height over the distance. So that's so that's the that's the tangent of the height over the distance. That's three variables. There's three inputs. Suddenly you have four.

Altitude of the observer is a fourth input. Where does the right-hand triangle terminate? I'm trying to figure out where that fourth input comes from. Where does the right-hand angle terminate? At the observer. There we go. So add the observer height to get the ground because we're adding ground elevation to the peak. Moving on. So if he's at 30,000 feet, you would just measure the angle differently. Wow. Okay. Very small difference. I agree. Yeah, it's close. I'm sure it's close enough. All right. So the table book calculates the altitude.

Another question.

this trigonometric function that is backwards deriving what the actual true elevation is using the occlusion timing, which we're, by the way, we're using the true GM, I forgot one of the key aspects of this argument. Sorry, McToon, I'll let you speak here in a second. I just, this is very important here. These, the positions of the stars that are being referenced here

Is the position with refraction turned off? So this defaults to the nautical almanac, like the true position, the so-called true position of where it would be, even though we never see the true, only the physical. I mean, we only see the apparent. We never see that. That's what we're referencing here. We're referencing the raw so-called true position of where they say that that is. And we're raw calculating what the elevation angle of this is based off of our distance here.

and the elevation of the mountain peak to us to get our angle it. So that's super important to this geometric argument because when the true position and this true position of this mountain line up, suddenly this star becomes not visible for this person at a specific time. Now, that is what is the primary argument here. And we have...

This spreadsheet. So you're saying that this is wrong, but it just so happens to equal up to what the globe predicts and then plus or minus the flat Earth measurement and the globe differential. Like, come on, dog. I'm just asking where it came from. You added that in there, right?

Do you guys have an occlusion timing that would prove the globe in any measurement ever done? Do you think you could find one error in the 39 measurements that prove flat and aren't on our side or what? I want to get some clarification here because this seems like an awful lot of things to go through for something that I think might be a little unclear. This is...

This is a method, an attempt at a method to measure the angular elevation of mountain peaks. Is that correct? The physical elevation, the difference in the physical elevation with respect to the visual elevation, right? Because there's two separate assertions here. So where did the physical, where'd you get the physical elevation measurements from?

The physical elevation measurements come from when the star is occluded. That confirms the plane trigonometric functions that are done. And then that's it. It is done through the timing interval. But where did you get the elevation of the mountains from? The elevation of the mountain is done from Wikipedia. That's what's in contention here. Okay, so hold on, hold on. Where did Wikipedia get the elevations of the mountains? Google Earth, probably. Google Earth, probably using the radius of a ball, et cetera, et cetera.

The gratitude, right? This is this is what is in contention. This is why this is so important, because everything that's been asserted about where the physical elevation of this mountain peak is, if what you're saying, if the line of logic you're trying to draw me down to to make it seem like everything is backwards on the globe here and on the up and up, I assure you it's not. This is for the specific way to tell the difference in whether or not you're what you're saying is correct and what or if what I'm saying is correct.

Okay, I'm just still trying to get some clarification. This is a method to attempt to measure the elevation angles to mountains. Is that correct? No.

No? What is attempted to being measured here? It's a conceptual method to use occlusion timings to perform a mutually exclusive mathematical prediction. That's what it is. Yeah, but is there an elevation measured in that process? Yeah, it's calculated. It's not measured, but go ahead. Well, all measurements other than the very most basic ones include computation.

No, I agree. I agree. I think you and Shane may have been having a little impasse there, but you're not wrong. So it's to show if that elevation is true or not. Okay. So you're using the celestial theodolite, you're saying, to measure the elevation angle to these mountains? Via timing interval. Okay. Now, so there are multiple centuries –

of tried and true methods to measure elevations of distant objects. Why not use some of those instead of trying to invent a new way that has never been done before, nobody has ever tested before, nobody's ever confirmed that it's a good way to do it. Why not use the tried and true methods?

That's a fantastic question because the tried and true methods are one what's in contention right here. Remember the spatial and the visual field difference is what's in contention. Do you guys assert that the difference is due to earth curvature? We assert that it's due to optical. So taking the,

using optical measurements in that regard would tell us nothing new, right? We're not introducing or manipulating any independent variables or doing anything, right? Like we don't have anything falsifiable. So if we're not putting forward anything scientific, then what are we doing? So the purpose of this is to mix the geometry of the ground and the geometry of the sky in a way where we can tell the difference. Because if this peak was a lower elevation, like I said, I'd be here arguing against flat earthers and I'd be zipping them up too.

All right. I have, we've been on your presentation for a while. I have something I've put together for this particular topic. Go ahead. When you're ready, I'll share, James. Alan is still sharing though. Oh, yeah.

So the same button that you use to start sharing is where you'll click to stop sharing, but I'll do it on my side. There you go. Yeah. Yeah. Do it on yours. Cause it disappears for some reason. All right. Here is some, some of the numbers that I got from the presentation from Dr. Heffron. He was 31, 31,

31, 51 miles from Pike's Peak. There's his latitude and longitude from the presentation. He talked about 2 degrees, 3 minutes. Your presentation talked about 2 degrees, 31 minutes of elevation. Can I give a quick correction? There was a mathematical error that was corrected for the globe earth prediction on that. So it does come out to be whatever it is that the globe predicts minus 2 for the terrestrial refraction or whatever. So that has been corrected.

Okay, so somewhere between 2 degrees 3 minutes and 2 degrees 31 minutes. Is that fair? Is the elevation of Pike's Peak from his house, right? Okay. Now, I've measured myself Polaris to be 5,000 kilometers in elevation, presuming flat Earth. I'm at 45 degrees north latitude. Polaris is approximately 45 degrees elevation, plus or minus half a degree from 45 degrees north.

And I am 5,000 kilometers from the North Pole. So that simple triangle gives us a 45-45-90 triangle, meaning that Polaris is 5,000 kilometers in elevation above flat Earth, if we're presuming flat Earth. So I don't know what you say the elevation is for the star, the first one he was talking about there, 39 Aquarii.

But it must be somewhere in the vicinity. Maybe you can correct me if it's not 5,000. Maybe it's less. Don't know. But we can start with that and do some corrections from there if you need. The 2-minute 30, 2-degree 3-minute value, all of the things that I've computed here will be larger if it's a larger value, if it's 2 degrees higher.

31 minutes instead, then the number I have in this next these next slides will be larger, not smaller. So it will increase the amount of the numbers that we see here. So I I solved the triangle there for for how far it is away. Let me see here if I got the the right thing. So all right. Here is

I'll just show you the bearing here from his house there to Pike's Peak. You see that we've got due west. The bearing is 250 degrees because it's 20 degrees south of due west. I took this in Google Maps. I put where he said he was. I took Pike's Peak. I used Photoshop to measure the angle. That's where I got the 20 degrees from.

So and I put that on the map that you guys used earlier right there. We've got due west from his location. We've got 20 degrees south of due west from that location. Now go back to this slide here. So I used the 2 degrees 5.

or 2 degrees 3 minutes, which is 2.05 degrees. Again, that number will be higher, which means that the value will be larger. But that triangle there, the distance across the surface of flat Earth, that's b. And that triangle on the bottom right, so the observer there is at, is alpha over on the far right side. We've got the distance b to the star there.

to the star because that elevation, A, I put in 5,000 kilometers. You see that? 5,000 kilometers, an elevation angle of 2.05 degrees. What do we get? Well, there's flat Earth, but from the center,

to the perimeter of Flat Earth is 20,000 kilometers. We need how much? 139, let's call it 140,000 kilometers. Well, that's not quite there. Let's be generous and say that it's 20,000 kilometers from Colorado there to the edge of the disk, right? We're nowhere near, we need 140,000. This is to scale how far away

So 39 Aquarii needs to be to scale in order for it to be at two degrees angular elevation. But the problem is, of course, there is an actual GP on the surface of the Earth at around 14 degrees south latitude, which is significantly inside Antarctica. So way, way, way off.

The value here is so massively off. The scale, the number of zeros in the difference between where Flat Earth requires it to be and where it actually is in reality is an absolute multiple orders of magnitude difference. So there you go. I don't know how you're going to explain that one there, but seven times farther away than the distance to Antarctica.

All right. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much, folks. We do have I'm going to quick jump in with a quick housekeeping announcement. Couple of things. We do have the Q&A coming up in just a bit. And folks, if you did not know, if you've been living cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and you didn't know, Modern Day Debate is currently doing a fundraiser for

new lenses for our in-person events, this GoFundMe is linked in the live chat right now. We appreciate your support. And if you're like, hey, you know, I want to ask a really long question for, you know, a Q&A, but, you know, I don't really want to do super chat because, you know, with super chat.

You have to put in like five bucks just to get like a hundred characters. In other words, like to ask a long question, you have to pay more money. But if you put a donation of any amount in GoFundMe linked at the top of the chat, let me know and we will read your question no matter how long it is. Even if it's a story about how attractive you find MC Toon, we'll read it no matter how long it is. So with that, gentlemen, we'll let you resume, but folks will have the Q&A in just a bit.

Well, that was a nice episode of Euclidean misappropriation, I think, right? Assuming infinite vision and Euclidean triangles exceeding into forever. That's the same principle of how they get, you know, parallax angles with a triangle that closes at 0.000001 or whatever. So I don't think that that's appropriate distance. I think you were drawing distances also wrong, right? Based on stellar observations and misappropriation of Euclidean perspective, I would say the proper way is to use the graticule, right? As we started with... Just point out...

Could you just point out the correct way to determine what I did? Just walk us through the right way to do it. So we know in reality that at that moment, that 39 Aquarii is at 14 degrees south latitude. So how is the correct way to do the geometry? Okay.

Well, you can use Haversine, right? You can get your input points as points with long lat because the coordinate system with which it's defined is going to measure the distance. Same with the nautical mile if you want to use that. And then that's how you would determine the distance on the graticule. And then you splay it out on your flat and graticule projection that you are also misusing. But don't do it without a projection. Do it in a non-projected coordinate system. I mean, how would you measure distances like that across vast without using the ground when it's mostly water?

Just go ahead. Just go ahead. So we would show how to do it. Show how to do it. Run us through the geometry for seeing an angle to a star of slightly more than two degrees in Colorado when it is over 14 degrees south latitude. Show us that geometry the correct way. Don't start with a globe. Yeah, just just use flatter. You don't get to use Haversine. You can't use Haversine.

I'm not talking about seeing forever. I'm talking about you can definitely see that star. And so you're saying that there's a different way to do the geometry that I did it wrong. Please show the right way to do the geometry. Get out your paper. Get out your map. This is the non-projected map. Don't use a projection. Don't say graticule. Use a one to N scale map of what you think the Earth is and show the correct geometry for that.

What I'm saying is you portrayed the calculation incorrectly on that flattened out gratitude. Excellent. Show the right way to do it. Show the right way. Heck, go show the right way. All you got to do is just- What's the correct way? Chop, chop.

I disagree with the method, as I said, with using Haversine, right? With the longitude and latitude is the graticule. You guys can't separate the graticule, longitude, lat from the earth, right? You think those synonymous. They're not. They're different. They're different things. But here's the thing. Here's what we can do. Shane, here's what, stop saying, Shane, we can use a non-projected coordinate system.

and we can use a non-projected algorithm, have or sign, and get the actual position. That uses the globe. And so you're saying that's not correct. You say it's not a globe. So use the non-projected value

This is what you present as the non-projected Earth. So show how to do that on the non-projected Earth. And you can't use Haversine because that's a spherical coordinate system, right? The non-projected spherical coordinate system that we use, not projected. And you need to show the correct way to do it using not the globe geometry.

Yeah, so it is the coordinate system of long lat. It's not the globe. You said it's the globe. No, you're measuring it in the coordinate system. You're using long lat. Haversine take inputs of latitude and longitude as starting and end points. It's distance. And linear distance. And its result is comporting with the system with which it's defined in. And a linear distance. So when you say it's the globe, that's incorrect. It includes a linear distance. What's the linear distance?

Shane, what's the linear distance that's used in the Haversine formula? Show me that it's the globe being used and not the spherical coordinate system. What is the linear distance used in the Haversine formula, Shane? If my position is that it's the coordinate system and your position is that it's the Earth, show me that it's the Earth and not the coordinate system. Shane, why are you avoiding the answer?

Because what is the chanting this? What is the system is the until you man up until you and you look down in your panties there and find the balls to answer the question. What is the linear distance used in the Haversine formula as an input? What do you mean? There is a linear distance that's input into the Haversine formula. What is it?

- For which calculation? You mean just in general, the parameter? You want me to define the term with which describes the linear portion? - There are three inputs to the Haversine. Latitude, longitude, and a linear number. What's that linear number? - I don't know. - You don't know? You're gonna tell me about Haversine formula and you don't know that third number?

Oh, so you think that that changes the output and changes my position? I think it shows that you don't know what you're talking about. It shows you don't know what you're talking about. It shows you don't know what the Haversine formula is for. It shows that you don't understand the concept. Of course I do. Okay, what is the linear number that is put into the Haversine formula?

Go ahead, Google it. Ask Rock, ask ChatGPT, whatever you need. Go ahead. Where's the linear term you want me to define? There is a linear number that you put into the Haversine formula in order to compute distances across the surface of the Earth.

So what is that linear number? For using the Haversine is that it's tied to the coordinate system, which is my position. And one other number. What is that other number? Is that it's tied to the earth? What is that other number? In any which way? What is the other number, Shane? Is there a reason why you won't just say what that number is? It would be tied to the earth in any way you can prove? I think Alan might know. Or is there no way to substantiate how it's tied to the earth and not to the coordinate system? Alan, tag in. Tag in, Alan.

One second, but before I do, this was your conclusion was our premise. The 39-59 that's asserted in that is also derived from elevation angles from Polaris. There's nothing mutually exclusive of that. This is why the celestial theodolite tells us the difference here. You're using a trigonometric function. Shame. Shame, Saint Plagier. The radius of the globe is the other number that's necessary in the Haversine formula.

Shame? Oh my goodness, how embarrassing for you. This is where they claim the radius of the dome is the same as the radius of Earth, right? Do you know why? That's the first law of FLIRF, guys. Toon, do you know why it's that? Yes, I do, because it's a spherical trigonometric function. It requires the radius of the sphere.

Using a coordinate system derived from elevation angles from Polaris. It's derived from all sorts of things. You can derive, you can figure out the radius of the Earth through many different things. I'm trying to speak and he's having a seizure. Let's go with it. Alan will give you, how about 60 seconds? You want 120 seconds? 60 should be enough. Thank you, sir.

So, again, your conclusion was our premise, right? We're trying to test for mutual exclusivity, not calculations using the coordinate system and then asserting the correctness, the correct interpretation of the coordinate system, right? That same linear value would be used either way on the coordinate system because our assertion is that the coordinate system is a merger of two hemispheres derived at independent times.

with respect to a specific time of year, which is the vernal equinox. That's what the latitude and longitude system wholly represents. What you're asserting with the linear distance, do you think someone went to the center of the Earth to measure it? No. No, there's other ways to do that. It wasn't a question. It was rhetorical.

it's calculated from elevation angles to Polaris, which gives the same thing. So what you're asserting isn't mutually exclusive. Use of the Haver sign is not mutually exclusive. Timing differentials with respect to star occlusions is mutually exclusive. That tells us the correct nature and geometry of the realm. Otherwise, the calculations that the same ones that you're relying on to give accurate distances wouldn't give the accurate elevation that corresponds to the time that corresponds to when the star was actually occluded at the relevant distance to the observer.

So this whole getting excited and wetting the bed was for not. I simply, in the beginning of this, brought up a lot of mutually exclusive things. We could gladly go over any of those and explain how. I know you want to immerse yourself in the world of the flights, simply the flights. Would you like me to bring them up?

Not coordinate system. I got you. They fly the same amount of time, the same distance. What you're showing, right, how it looks different, that's because you're looking at a projection. It's the same distance. It's the same coordinate system. To say one is not the other is you're basically saying that the globe doesn't exist. Then show me how that works.

It's using the same lat-long system. Show me how that works on a flat earth then. The distance will be determined by how long a line looks or is the distance determined by the distance between longitude lines? It's the distance the plane flew.

which is the distance that corresponds between longitude lines right but but this is what your claim is this is your claim yeah you say the earth is this no no no do we the distances don't matter no we don't know the longitude spread out as it goes south right specific this is the map you guys keep using

On a projected coordinate system, yes. This is what we're saying. We're not talking about a projected coordinate system. We're talking about the actual real Earth. You're holding a projected coordinate system. But you say this is the actual surface of the Earth. Listen, I don't say that that is the surface of the Earth. I say specifically that that is a snapshot of the sky that corresponds to positions of the stars. That's not the sky, though. What?

That's the surface. This is North America, South America. This isn't the sky. Please don't interrupt and talk over me when I'm explaining my position. That is, and those correspond to ground positions of stars. That is what we're looking at here.

Okay, the overlay of the ground on the projection doesn't represent the actual geography of the ground. Australia is not really stretched out like that. You're looking at a coordinate system stretch that is relating geographic positions to stars. So what is the actual non-projected shape of the earth then? Yeah, the earth according to percent. If this isn't, I mean, you presented this a bunch of times.

And leading us to believe like like Edward Hendry, like Gleason, like one hundred and seventy five years of flat earthers have said this is the actual non projected real distances, real everything of the surface of the earth. But you seem after your presentation to not think that's it. Could you please present us the non projected surface of the earth measurements and distances and shapes that you think it is?

So the lines of longitude on your map would have to converge somehow like they do on a globe, right? They don't have to converge anyway. If it's a merger of two hemispheres observed at different times but merged together. That's a globe. Did you just say? That's a globe. That's a globe. Oh, my gosh. We already went over that. Just describe the globe. We already went over that objects in the sky are apparent to you, right? You see in a globe. We're talking about the surface. The surface, right? Yeah. The surface. No, you're talking about the surface. You're talking about a...

Well, then let's stop talking about a coordinate system. Just tell us what the surface looks like. Is this it or is it something else? What's the something else? Show us the something else. How can the distances be the same in the north and the south physically on your map? I don't care about coordinate systems. How physically can they be the same? In the south, right, in the coordinate system that you're representing holding up there, guess where the biggest corrections are in astrogeogenic surveying?

To make it comport to symmetry. Guess where they are. I'm going to guess they're not answering this question. I'm just going to need the citations once you answer it. Go ahead. It's in the south. We have tons of them. Citation needed. Shane will pull them up. We've got a lot on his database. I'm sorry. What happened? Astrodeogenic surveying, southern corrections. Oh, Australia. Okay, hold on. So anyway.

As we continue here. I just want everybody, this is a flat earth debate and they refuse to say what they think the actual surface of the earth looks like. Right. They are afraid of their own topic. The,

The surface of the earth is flat. What you're holding up corresponds to positions of the stars. Okay, fine. That's not your map. Where's your map? That's what we're asking. Yeah, where's the map? The geography is likely laid out similarly, but the stretches and distortions are not the same. Cool. Show us the non-stretched and non-distorted one. We don't have one. All we have is the radical and multiple. Then why are you even here?

Globe confirmed. All you're doing is trying to back into the flat Earth from the globe. And it's so weird to watch. Everything in the sky matches the globe. Everything on the ground matches the globe. But we're just going to back your way in and say we see globes. You say everything matches the globe except for the mutually exclusive timing predictions of the occlusion of stars. Numbers on a spreadsheet are not evidence. If the Earth is actually tilted. Hold on a second. Yeah, this dude's been talking over me for a hot minute. No, no, no. We came here with 39 mutually exclusive predictions

measurements that show with timing that the star's position, uh,

shows that the elevation angles of what is asserted by the globe is false, right? Everything that you presented is positions of things in the sky with respect to when they can be seen. Hold on one second, you're shaking your head, but your whole presentation was positions of the Southern Cross, positions of this and that with respect to time, right? There's no way to differentiate the correctness of what you're asserting. That's why the celestial theodolite is introduced. That's the significance of this argument. You have nothing. You guys are fully disarmed here. You guys are

disarmed you said it matched the globe but but it's that was just optical yes that you made a whole bunch of word salad nonsense bullshit you say why that's not really what we're seeing that's what you did you say that all you guys have you ignore the references to multiple things that in both models we see in a dome of vision and everything in the sky you're making garbage up can i screen share real quick james

Is it a pile of salad you're going to screen share? No, we're just going to read some plain English. Because I'm hungry. We're just going to munch on some salad. I need some blue cheese on mine. You guys bring some? All we have is ranch in the house. I need some blue cheese. Left my oven mitts in the other room. I got mine. I got mine. One second. Okay, here we go. I'm so out of water. I got my oven mitt. All right, here we go, boys. Let's see. We might have glazed over this in the beginning, so you might have missed it.

So here we have old and new astronomy, right? Down here, it's talking about how we... Can you see the screen right now? No, don't see anything. Oh, one second. How about now? Nope. Tune, do you see anything? Nope. Okay. That's okay. It's as good as what you're going to shoot. Well, I will send a screenshot in the...

So you guys can be on the same page here. But anyway, or if you want to pull up to YouTube chat or pull it up on YouTube real quick and just pause it, you can see what I'm reading. So this is from New and Old Astronomy 1920. It says, and in considering the cloudy sky, we have to remember. Oops. What happened here? This, uh, what just happened? It crashed out. Yep. Gotcha. Give me one. No, it's a, it's a Linux issue, but I don't want to say it out loud because Shane will socially shame me.

Okay, can you see that now? Is it working good? No. All right, let me close and reopen real quick then. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Hopefully it works this time. Inshallah? Inshallah? God willing? Yeah. It's just Arabic.

It's just in Arabic. I mean, Muslims primarily say it, but I like it. Just read the quote, Alan. Nobody can see it. It's still not there. This podcast is sponsored by Delete Me. Would you just give your house key to criminals? Having your personal information on the internet is like giving a thief the key to your home. They can take everything that's valuable to you

anytime but join delete me.com can help you protect yourself online data brokers compile information about you and sell it to people who could ruin your life but join delete me.com scours the web removes the personal information you don't want seen and reduces the risk of data brokers scammers identity thieves even political enemies getting personal information that could hurt you your family or your reputation you'll get regular reports detailing what they find and remove in

And Joindelete.me.com isn't just AI. They have real people working to keep your data safe. Keep your private life private with Joindelete.me.com. Sign up today and get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to Joindelete.me.com slash protect. Go to Joindelete.me.com slash protect. That's Joindelete.me.com slash P-R-O-T-E-C-T.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures.

Did he know that the majority of progress the U.S. has made in reducing emissions over the past decade has come from the oil and gas industry? With more electrical power generation now coming from natural gas versus coal, the air we breathe today is cleaner than it has been since the '90s, according to a report from the EPA.

Clean burning natural gas is also a reliable source of power for more than just our electrical grids. It is also used to power data centers, hospitals, schools, and so much more. Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.

Plan on flying? It's time to upgrade to a Real ID. Because in order to board domestic flights, your driver's license or state-issued ID must be a Real ID. Or you'll need another acceptable form of identification. So don't wait. Find out how to get your Real ID at tsa.gov slash realid. That's tsa.gov slash realid. Or visit your local DMV. And then you'll be cleared for takeoff.

Okay, sorry about that, guys. But I'll just, I'll read the quote. It's just text anyway. I'm just reading. So it's from Old and New Astronomy. It says, in considering the cloudy sky, we have to remember, if we rightly understand what we see, the usual... Oh, man, I did it again. Oh, yeah, you're good. You're good. Yeah, I understand. You're good. You're good. I'm back. So anyway, it says here, if we remember what we would rightly understand what we see, that usually the curve of the surface at which looks...

is much flatter than even this. If we mistakenly attribute it to the dome shape of the heavens, whereas in reality, the curvature is no greater than the curvature of the earth itself, which is under ordinary conditions imperceptible. So what he's saying here is that the equivalence of how the sky perceives with a curve, like that's just optical illusion. The sky is definitely not perceived in a dome. And then we have a solar panel manual here from the 1970s explaining how

to set up your solar panels with the, you know, what angle to have them tilted at with respect to your latitude and season. And they say here, they give the analogy, the sky dome, they call it the sky vault. The sky dome is the visible hemisphere of the sky above the horizon in all directions. The grid of the chart represents the vertical horizon angles on the whole of the sky dome. As if it were, as it is, as if the, we were cleared a dome of the, around the observer when we charted it off and then peeled off the dome and stretched it out flat.

So what they're saying here is that the real sun is moving along here, but we see it projected in this dome. That's what they're explaining in the NASA

explaining the moon illusion is showing here the true position of the moon with respect to how it's perceived with the apparent moon. We always see the apparent, never the true. This dome of vision here that's represented on this graticule projection that's following the observer relative to the latitude is exactly how the globe was derived and measured with relative angles from Polaris. That's been the flat Earth assumption for quite a long time.

Well, if it wasn't – That's exactly how Walter Bisland made it that you guys stole and used as flat earth evidence. That's exactly how that made – You're conflating two things. I'm talking about the latitude and longitude system, not this model. The Graticule is not this – You mentioned the model. Just keep in mind the latitude and longitude is not – Hold on one second. I'm almost done. I'm almost done, man. Just let me finish. I mean you read this before. Before you go –

Yeah, this is a rehash. We'll give you a chance to wrap up Alan. I'll give you a chance to wrap up Alan. So hold on, are you going to throw out NASA too? Because NASA is saying the same thing the solar panel is saying, which is saying the same thing the astronomical book from the 1920s is saying. So if you're going to throw out the 1970s solar panel book,

NASA says the Earth is a globe. There's cherry picking that. Super. Awesome. That's how things work. That's how it works. What's in contention here is optical phenomenon and how we observe them, not is it a globe. This specifically is how we observe the heavens. This is independent of both magnetism

models what i was showing here is that this azimuthal grid here is the same as this one here that was used and shown earlier you guys like this one same exact thing real sun over here apparent sun projected relative to your latitude you don't see anything and nobody's seeing oh that's right i'm sorry oh that's a real shame i'm so sorry about that but that is the you guys saw it at the beginning but anyway that is there's no difference between the two

Yeah, the equivalent, right? So we see the heavens the same in either model. You guys just use those observations to build the globe as a model. And by the way, the reason that it is is because the celestial sphere and the graticule are aligned. They did so by taking right ascension and declination, matching it to longitude-latitude, which means every star for every specific time has a ground position, right? That's how they get the...

The zenith gets the ground position, which means for every point on the graticule is mapped on the celestial sphere. For every right ascension, this declination point, you're shooting yourself in the foot. The two models are the two spheres, right? If you read Ptolemy's geography, the first book about cartography, he says people have to accept the two sphere model. Either you accept that it's, you know, a sphere, which he uses longitude and latitude, and he matches it to right ascension declination. Those two models are just one model built from the other.

And either one is model independent because neither one has measured the Earth. My goodness, that was an excellent first law of FLIRF. Thank you so much, Shane. The celestial sphere is a concentric sphere to the surface of the Earth. Awesome. Geocentric around the observer with the sphere of infinite radius, which is made up of infinite. Around the Earth, not the observatory. It's a concentric sphere. You just read it yourself.

Awesome. That is the assertion. It doesn't follow the observer around the Earth. And it is a non-projected coordinate system. Non-projected. And you know what? If that non-projected coordinate system were true, the star occlusion timings would be completely different. And if the flat Earth were true, then one measurement would work

But none do, like the one that I did that Shane was incapable of correcting me on. Even though he said I did it wrong, he was incapable of showing the right way to do it. The 39 measurements that we presented here. No, no, no. The specific one, the two degree elevation, slightly more than two degree elevation of the stars have to be 140,000 kilometers away.

But you said that was wrong, but could not correct it, could not provide the right way to do the geometry. I'll correct you. Were you trying to draw a star to like, does your triangle complete at the physical location of the star?

Yeah, just like reality works. Yeah. Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. So here's the conflation. So the latitude and longitude system is based off of setting, you know, basically how far away you get from Polaris before you can see it. So that defines everything at an equidistant. It's exactly what it is. That's how celestial navigation works. No, it's not. I can do celestial navigation. You can't. I've done it. You've never done it. You can be upset he's interrupting you, but you just said some nonsense. You're just wrong.

It's not based on the elevation of Polaris. James, James, if I'm trying to make a point and they, and then they're both going to interrupt me, like, well, yeah, they can just do whatever I think is how it works. Cry a little more about it, Alan. You're stupidly wrong. To be fair. Let's give Alan a chance to wrap up his point. And then we'll go back to you guys.

I can't remember what my point is now because... Your point was where you were claiming that all celestial navigation is based on the elevation of Polaris. I'll be here reading through my solar panel pamphlet they gave me.

It is. That's why the angles aren't mutually exclusive to either. Notice how fast I ran from the argument, though. That's why we introduced the celestial theodolite to tell the difference. Oh, look at that. I got a book on celestial navigation. You know what it doesn't tell us? You know what it doesn't tell us in here? That this was based on the elevation angles from Polaris. It doesn't say that in here. Why are you guys so scared of mutually exclusive evidence? Do you know what they're all reporting, though? Elevation angles of Polaris. Isn't that weird?

They comport to elevation angles of every star in the celestial sphere, concentric around the globe. It's beautiful. This is all globe-based geometry, no flat Earth geometry in here at all. Spherical coordinate system geometry. I'm projecting. There you go. Awesome. You're restating my premise. We got two people that can do celestial navigation against two people that can't. I want to be sure, Alan, that's a chance to wrap up this point. Go ahead, Alan. It's a globe.

I can find one too. So the celestial navigation uses the celestial sphere, which sets everything at an equidistant web to one another in order for the geometric relationship for Polaris to work. For example, as you walk away from it, 69 miles per degree, you would have the exact same relationship.

So what's that? So again, it's a globe, but it disappears. Well, no, because in order to do that trig function, right, you have to set that elevation angle to 62, 18. So you're, so that triangle sets an elevation of 62, 18. We're not doing triangles. Hold on. Let's just let them have a chance. You're, you're referencing a triangle that goes to the true position of the star out at infinity, basically. No, we're not. Which, which is not referencing anything physical. No triangles. Yeah.

That was his... Just Euclidean or... Not a triangle. One angle. It's an unangle. Unangle. One. Let's go back to Alan. Okay, you've said that many times. Let's go back to Alan. I asked you specifically if it was a triangle. It's not. Yes. No, celestial navigation is not a triangle. I'm not talking about... Ah, one angle. An unangle. Hold on. Let's give Alan a chance.

All right. Tell us about how we use triangles. That, that angle, right? Do you know what that also is equal to? Planar elevation angles of Polaris as you get 69 miles per degree. Yeah. Good, great job. How do you get those on a flat earth? Only works on a globe. The,

The trig only works on a globe. You are the one that said, are you suggesting trig is an unreliable witness that only works on the surface of a globe? It does not work on the surface of something flat. Ooh, it absolutely does. If the curvature is fake. If the curvature is fake. You've made a hypothesis. Got it. Show us the math. Run us through the math. I gave you guys three citations.

No, you didn't. Run us through the math. Alan, do the math. You say it's possible. Show us the math. If an astronomer says that we see the hemisphere of the sky projected... They didn't... Hold on. You...

I read it verbatim, dog. You're going to interrupt me as I read it verbatim to say that that's not... You're citing globe sources again. Can you please show us how the math works? Show us the step-by-step math of the globe. I think we've reached the maximum. How do you measure the angle? I'm ready for questions. Start at the North Pole. The stars above you are 90 degrees. You walk away 69 miles. How much does the star drop in the sky? One degree?

Depending on what degree. Does it do that at the equator? If it's a precisely linear 69-mile-per-degree when it's half a mile above the horizon, or does that break down? Do you need corrections for refraction after that? Do you need a correction table that applies corrections based on a certain threshold? Are you allowed to use angles below 15 degrees? 15 degrees, is it linear? Can it be partially linear? If it's not linear at a certain port, is it actually linear? All-globe-based, thank you. Isn't it weird how you can't?

Show me the math to how you come up with that on a flat earth without using a globe. Do mile. Don't do mile. Don't do the equator. Show us mile two. Sorry, degree two from 69 from 70 right to 140. Show us that math. How about that one? Whenever you're ready to move on to questions, James. I'm ready. Let's go.

So the math doesn't work on Flutter. We'll jump into the Q&A. I want to say, folks, we are thrilled to have your questions. We're going to try to move fast as we've got a good amount of him here. A couple of other great housekeeping things. Folks, thanks so much. We did meet that goal of...

We got a new Facebook follower. In fact, I think we had more than one. So thank you for that pity follow. It means more than you know. Appreciate you guys for being so supportive. And not only that, but thanks for your super chats, which we're going to jump into right now. The Q&A is beginning with this first question from Hangout44. It says, okay, some of these are...

Mildly insulting. Said, shame, nice... Okay, I think they meant Shane. Nice neckbeard. You're amateurish, fumbling around, trying to explain relatively earlier debates was super embarrassing. I think they meant relativity. Maybe tuck a book or two under your... Okay. Tangle44 says, Shane...

Well, we'll give you a chance to respond to that. You might as well finish it. You might as well finish it. Does it go on? I mean, hell, if you're going to read that, you might as well keep going. Where do I put the book that I'm reading? Where do I store it? It could get worse in terms of where you place the books. But go ahead. We'll give you a chance to respond to that.

Yeah, that's a great question, and I thank you for it. You should see the videos that we have on this exact topic at adl.place and spaceaudits.com. You can check out how we have the answers to yours specifically, spaceaudits.net. Sorry. Also, you should check out ko-fi.com slash spaceaudits and get yourself a sweatshirt. Then I'll answer your question. Juicy. This one coming in from DoAppreciatedCamel44 says, Shane only has a script, so he can...

So how can he do a live opener? Well, we got that live opening, so no problem there. Basil, problem says Shane. You are a unique combination of low information and soy boy. Okay, geez. Next, if you want to respond. That really hurt my feelings. What am I going to do? Yo, James, just read all the insults with a straight face. Don't pretend like you didn't see it.

or that you're going to filter them or feel bad. Just get in there. Well, to get the feel bad, I'd have to mistakenly assume that I value the opinion of neutral observers on the internet, which is a stretch, right? Well, some of these, I admit, I'm like, oh, I hate reading because they're just mean. And I'm like, you know, folks, even Lord says... It's words on the internet, dude. If people have to be mad about super chats, it's whatever, dude. Even Lord says, do you praise the creator of the white devils, Jakob?

That one's almost as bad, to be honest. I don't know what that means. Carl Slagan says, Anthony Globe Whistle. Even Lord says, can you hunt and eat penguins in Antarctica? Nope. We didn't even see any. Wow. No penguins? We were hundreds of miles inland. It's because you weren't there, to be honest.

No penguins in the studio, McToon. No, I'm just kidding. We were we were it was a little sad. People like, you know, I didn't see any. It's cool. I mean, it's awesome. Awesome trip was super neat place to be. But there's no life there where we were. No, no trees. It was always bright. It must have sucked to be honest. It kind of sucked at like 3 a.m. Putting a sunscreen on to go outside. It looks it looks unnaturally bright, actually.

Yeah, almost as if he was in a studio. Very reflective. This one from Basil Problems says, Alan, Terrence Howe believes the Earth is a globe. Do you know more math than him? Terrence? Oh, yeah. You can find more about my Terrence Howard opinions on spaceaudits.net. It's up or down on that, Alan.

up or down on his on on alan it are you are you up or down on on what on it terrence oh dude to be honest with you people ask me like you know terrence minster d3 you mentioned you know they're like what does he say about it don't give a shit i i i haven't i haven't watched a single interview or anything i i couldn't speak on it i have no idea

Basil Problems says, oh, we got that. Even Lorde says, do you praise the creator of the, we got that one. This one from Kango for Forces, the channel. Tunnel, the London Underground, the Boston Big Dig, the Gothard Tunnel, the Trans-Siberian Railway.

These projects had to take the curb of the earth into account. I find Alan and Shane blatant lying sad. Get a different grift, assholes. Well, if they buy a sweatshirt, then we'd be grifting. So then we optically took it into account. Was that a super chat for us? Yeah.

so i pulled up a survey from a london project where they were saying that this subway system was contract was made with globularity you know explicitly whatever right so i pulled up what they had asserted for um their public plans or whatever and what they did was they drew a meridian line through the center of the project you know where it would be the straightest and then they said you can ignore all curvature here and so like i don't know like when they say accounted for curvature like what exactly does that mean

for the project because when you get into people making the assertions of like bridges and such well the bridge expands you know thermally more than the asserted curvature that they would have accounted for so how could you ever know like what does that mean

You got it. This one coming in from, by the way, thanks so much for your likes, folks. We're one like away from 150. Please, MC Toon said he will send photos, feet photos in particular, to your email inboxes if we hit 150 likes. Even though it says, can troglodytes, like Neanderthals that live underground, live without experiencing sunlight? Good point.

I don't know what this means. Mike, 1986 dude, says, please explain the Sam stars in the night sky. I don't know what that is. Wow. Same stars, maybe? They capitalized the S. Maybe he was talking about my thing I brought up at the Southern Cross. What did you bring up? I saw the Southern Cross at the same time from Australia and South America on a live TikTok live. We did it.

Both looking south-southwest, right? So they both saw the same stars. Maybe that's what he's talking about. At the same time, on a globe, that makes complete sense because you're both looking in the same direction. On a flat Earth, it does not. And you can't take coordinate systems as an excuse here. It's physically 90 degrees apart from each other on a flat Earth.

Gotcha. Yeah, my answer to that is that the observation of where the position of the bodies would be is not what's in contention, right? The physicality of them, like who knows, right? All we know for sure is where they're going to be and how fast they're moving. When we use something like it, when we introduce a way to manipulate the independent variable of where they're going to be, i.e.,

a mountain peak, we can test the difference in timing predictions of when that star should disappear. That was an awesome deflection over to your other observation. It was a direct answer to a non-mutually exclusive claim. Position and timing doesn't tell us the shape of the Earth. You said you don't care because when you can measure it over here, it doesn't matter. Ajax says Shane and Alan can't do algebra. You guys probably disagree.

Algebra is where I tapped out. I can do some algae. Well, you know the good old mass equation where they do gravitational forces and centrifugal calculation where the mass drops out. It's pretty fun. That's a nice algebraic trick that we like. This one from Alejandro Vallejo. Thank you very much. He says, oh, you like trigonometry, Alan? I'm sure then you would have no problem answering a simple question by showing us how you do the trigonometry math to solve a simple question.

They said, here is the question, Alan. If I'm standing at the peak of Everest and the sun is 15,000 miles away, how high above the horizon should I see the sun? Feel free to input your believed height of the sun.

That's a great question. I would go to a trigonometry calculator and figure that out. Not going to do it live, but I don't claim to be a trig master. I use a spreadsheet and references, and I ask other people for verification if it's correct or not. So I'm not a math wizard. I'm not going to do math tricks for you. However, we do have videos of Alan doing math tricks. Any questions, comments, based on it? Juicy, to say the least. I have the answer. Answer 11.3 degrees.

Nice. Even Lord says there are many ancient monoliths and temples that are aligned with certain stars and constellations, but they are now inaccurate. Why is this the case? Well, which ones are you citing specifically? I am not familiar with any. The only one that I really know about was the Georgia Guidestones, which was destroyed. So like, I don't, I'm not familiar with really any other ones.

This one from Basil Problems says, Shane, which Walmart do you work at? To what? Which what? I actually have a video choosing which Walmarts I have worked at at abl.place and spaceaudits.net. You got to check that out. Wow. Tango404 says, Alan and Shane, can you please go into detail about your educations, which degrees and PhDs and what subjects you hold? Yes. I dropped out of high school and got a GED. I went to DeVry for about half a year.

That's it. I dropped out of that as well. I got bachelor's. In what? English and minor in computer science. This one from Noah's Ark, Kansas. Says, my girlfriend wanted to use laser measurements to prove me wrong. I wasn't happy. What is the benefit of measuring with lasers?

Well, that's a great question. That's why I prefer the with respect to what is your measurement being taken, right? Because if you don't have some external reference for verification or a set threshold, right, because we touched on refraction earlier. Well, if you use the equations for refraction, there's actually no limit, right? And you can introduce different ones, different coefficients to fit any observation. So you would have to set your own personal threshold to determine that.

So I think I think you missed the point of it. He was talking about like his claim is eight inches and he's actually in the measurement with lasers came out to four inches. Oh, gosh, gosh. Sorry, I missed the joke. Thank you. That's a good one. That's a good one. There's one coming in from even Lord says this debate supports physiognomy. I don't know how to say this word physiognomy unintentionally.

Physiotomy, I know I can't say it right. I don't know how to pronounce it. But the idea that you can look at a person's physical features of, for example, Melvin's MC Toons upturned nose, his perky nose suggests that he's intelligent and sensual in nature. It's just optical. It's just an apparent hotness or whatever.

Sweet. Folks, thanks for hitting the like button. That got us to 162. Oh, we got down to 161 because I just said that Melvin is sensual. But thanks for your support. MC Toon will be sending his sensual feet photos if we get to. Actually, just Mikey Smith's feet photos. Wow.

Noah's Ark, Kansas. Do you get a discount for... Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Noah's Ark, Kansas says, Flat Earthers, how has this knowledge changed your life? I would also like to ask the same question to the Globe Earthers. Has it changed how you perform your professional work or your interpersonal relationships? Any benefit? We'll start with Alan.

Oh, okay. Well, I was going to pass it to Shane first. But yeah, so for me, it was evidence that there was a creator because it's self-evident. If this place exists, it's flat. It's not moving. It didn't come out of a cosmology that's born out of something coming from nothing. Then the logical implication is that there's a creator, and that was very significant for me because...

The way that I understood cosmology and the world around me was through the mainstream paradigm of like, you know, we're an accident living in a Goldilocks zone, et cetera. And I didn't have any room for God or spiritual connection or any sort of purpose like that. And now I have a more fulfilling look on life because I, it's like, I take it as evidence that there's a creator. Yeah. Yeah. It goes, let's see. So it goes like, if it's false, then it kind of predates a certain mentality. So you have things that, you know,

The first is isn't a globe, then you have no rotation, right? No rotation, then no orbit, there's some moving around the sun, then no gravity, no heliocentricity, no Big Bang Theory, no evolution, and then you're not randomly here, which you in a special place in the universe violates the Copernican theory, which science is currently masquerading, you know, as philosophy, right? The philosophy that is the science, the Copernican principle, the fear that they are at the center.

So the point would be after you get all that, you end up at intelligent design, God creator, right? So it's a much more different perspective on the world that it leaves you with. That's, that's why. Um, wow. I mean, I've learned more about the psychology of it all and I've learned a lot about the globe and doing this as well, but, um,

um what it's the fascinating part for me now is the psychology behind science deniers and how far they will go to deny reality and science and and so scared to to uh admit they were wrong about things and then what happens when they do admit they were wrong i mean uh perfect example is what's going on with jaron over at jaronism right

crazy stuff the science denier cult has has has led to and that's what it is it's a what happened to jaren's channel he's he's not a flat earther he's not a flat earther anymore oh he he left the cult and has been ostracized and shut MC Toon um well I uh

I take the exact opposite view. I think the Flurf God is pathetic and weak. He can only create a prison with an imaginary dome over the top. He couldn't make a massive, expansive universe like the Christian God can, like the Abrahamic God can, where we... The claim is that of all of the amazing, vast universe, that each individual one of us is still something important to him.

that's a significantly more important thing than the pathetic flurf god that made a prison. Interesting. And folks, please, no more insults. We don't want to read, we're not going to read insults that are just nasty. Unless you pay James $10 and then you can insult us. This one from Kang044. No, I'm talking about the super chatters. One came in that really laid a good licking on you, but I'm saying that I don't. It's a dollar, you know. I asked for that. That's for trying it.

Two bucks. Come on, folks. Yeah, at least make it worth the man's time to read it. Like, we'll sit here and listen. Like, you guys want to throw tomatoes, we got you. But at least put in some effort, man. Show you care.

I don't understand. Why would you want people to insult you? Is it some sort of masochist thing? Why do you take so much pleasure in that? No, I'm saying I don't care. We're saying that if people want to be cheap to insult, they should give you more money. It's to promote you. Yeah, I feel like if you only want to give us $2 to make fun of us, you don't want to make fun of us that bad, right? It's kind of like a weak little impulse. You're not even trying. That's super low effort. You could do better. Hang on, hold on, hold on.

The modern world is built by people that have studied and take that education and make stuff. The internet, cars, computers, MRI machines. Question for Alan and Shane. Can you please name something you have contributed to?

I've contributed to a great research in scientific suppression of measurements that led to a false merger of cosmology, philosophy, and physics known as the heliocentric model. And I chronologically go through that, right? The history of ether physics, the history of interferometry on my YouTube channel, Space Audits. And you can find out more about that on spaceaudits.net.

Yeah, I'm just a regular dude. I work a regular 9-to-5 job. I just work here. I just work here, man. It's fine. This one from Isa Kabir says, what was your opponent's weakest argument and why? Well, pretty all of them because they were all positions of objects in the sky with respect to time, which was our premise.

That was their conclusion. So the difference there is that they don't have anything mutually exclusive in terms of what can the sky tell you about the ground without making assertions. Now, what we introduced was evidence where we have timing differences that comport to specific geometry, right? The calculation angle is going to be different if the Earth is a globe versus if it's flat, which is going to give you a different timing that the star vanishes.

So you have a guilty, not guilty scenario here. And every time it shows up, the measurements comport with a flat Earth prediction. What's the weakest argument from your opponents? The one where you're like, man, that's just garbage. I would say it was the bringing up FeCore, which he talked about refraction. He specifically claimed refraction. I brought up the actual refraction and showed how it was wrong. That was the weakest.

I'd say it's the general premise, which is the Earth's a globe. It appears to be a globe. Everything's a globe. Everything in the sky moves like a globe. That's just how we see. This one from Alexander Ells. As for Alan, are all photos from space fake? The ones that are asserted to be from space? Yeah, I would say so.

Right. We get into a chain of custody issue for verification. So how would you how would they know? One of them might be real. We don't know. That's a tough assertion. Could be a real one out there. David Villar says, Alan, you are violating the 45 degree rule. Look it up. Will do. I'll check it out. Isn't there a video of you looking up the 45 degree rule? Oh, you can find that video on Space Audits.net, I think.

basal problem says alan please explain the units in the question attitude underscore peak equals negative tangent ellipsis the units so the relative elevation of the guy the elevation of the p or the distance to the peak so we add those together and we take we multiply that by the angle that we uh calculated from the earlier calculation distances in meters angles and degrees is that what he's asking

I think he was saying like to find the variables and what they're doing. I don't know. This one coming in from Alexander L says, Alan doesn't understand E10 math at most. He passed algebra. Correct. Tony Coriolis says, is the Zodiac 12 or 13? Ooh, good question. Good question.

It doesn't matter. It's just arbitrary things that people have assigned to different positions in the equatorial region of the sky. So you can define 34 of them or 75 or 27 of them and just define however many constellations you want.

Well, the question is how many, though, because there's 12 or 13 people. There's an argument to be made for 13 to match the lunar calendar of 13 months and do a whole big thing. But I'm actually not sure what the 13th constellation is. It's completely arbitrary. Some people say 12, some say 13, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't change any geometry. It's just, hell, somebody else picked a different group of stars that they think looks like some shape. Okay. This one coming in from, do appreciate it.

earthly skeptic says Shane's angle from the ground works out to be tangent. Carrot pointed up minus one. I'm going to just repace this in chat too. Uh, and then parentheses, 2,704 kilometers divided by tangent is what you're looking for to say. Thank you. Yeah. Is I just put it in chat in case you want to even be able to decode it more for me. Uh, uh,

Divided by 50.7 kilometers. And folks, that's in the live chat. I just put it in there. Equal to... What was the first number on the top of the numerator of that fraction? Let's see. Inverse tangent of something over 50.7. Yes. 2.074 kilometers over 50.7 kilometers.

Equals 2.34. I can't tell the symbol. My eyes are too old. I think it's degrees. Or two degrees, 20 degree arc minutes. Not two degree 31 little line. I can't tell if it's an apostrophe or not. So wrong in all caps, even without considering observer height.

Well, he's using the wrong figures, so I'm not sure what's going on there, right? So he also has some unit disagreement, right? So you want to do altitude in meters or, you know, kilometers. He did them both in kilometers. He did. And then the distance 50,700 meters, right? So the tangent of 2,226 over 50,700 comes out to...

2.51 degrees, but then you translate that to arc degree, arc seconds, two minutes, 31 arc, two degrees, 31 arc minutes. That's how it comes out, right? So I don't know. Oh, did he have it in decimal degrees or something? I think he might've converted it wrong. I made that mistake once. It happens to the best of us. I remember my first time doing this type of math. Dude, I got the wrong number and I was like, what? What does this even mean? But the issue was me.

Well, Kangofor4 says you also have other issues. In particular, they said, Alan and Shane, can you please post the Facebook link of memes that you obviously learned all your science facts from?

Absolutely. So the link is spaceaudits.net. And if you click that link, if you go there, right, you can click on a link to the coffee shop, right? You can go there, you can buy a hoodie right now. And if you buy a hoodie within 24 hours of this debate, you get 30% off, 33% off your next purchase. It could be a hat or a hoodie. Wow. This one, I'm on my way. We actually do have a published database and PDF library as well on spaceaudits.com, as well as t-shirts and hats.

problem says alan please explain the trigonometric tangent function i.e what does it mean geometrically what are its input units what are its output units it's the ratio of a length of the opposite and adjacent angles of a triangle so okay there's one from i think

Floyd, Jesse found the Blodgett peak data is closer to globe than flat, and Greenhorn reading was off by 2,000 feet. Toon, check Discord DMs for lewd and lascivious photos. Ooh, fantastic question. Shane, I'm going to screen share on Discord. Can you screen share on...

Yeah, did Linux break your screen sharing? Yeah, just relay it for me. All right, I got you. Yeah, it's not working for me on Zoom. But yeah, we'll address that real quick. So let's see. Quote, unquote, close to globe. It doesn't mean anything. Oh, you know what? Well, I'm on. Oh, you're just going to share it through Discord. I'm on Discord. Just screen share what I'm sharing on Discord.

While they are doing this, there we go. Thank you very much. Let's see. Quote-unquote close to globe. Doesn't mean any first. Oh, wait. Oh, you're just going to... All right. They can see your Discord now in case you have anything lewd and lascivious. It's echoing a little bit. Are you good? I think we're good. Okay. Okay, cool. So...

Let's see. So for Blodgett Peak, close to globe doesn't mean anything, right? We can comport... That's why Mike made the... changed the calculation here to do altitude of peak is equal to altitude observer plus the distance to the peak times the elevation angle. So we can derive what the actual elevation angle would correspond to because sometimes the angles look ambiguous. But as you can see here, let's see, when we go to Blodgett Peak, none of them correspond to the globe, right? Like you're either...

You're either later with that threshold or you're not. There's no close to the globe. That doesn't mean anything. And then secondly, the Greenhorn Mountain observations were done at the longest distance that this has been tested at so far, which is about 80 miles. And what has been found is that the peaks that are between and behind Greenhorn and North Peak are

compressed and occluding right there. It's hard to tell what's what. And when Mike realized the area that he was recording was in the wrong, was in the wrong spot and he would need to find out which peak is occluding to differentiate the stars because the calculations, you know, give a,

they don't comport to the trend that we're seeing here where these are all like reasonable, you know, plus or minus within a couple of each other, right? And then we have this anomalous thing here. But I think this is a product of optical compression at this extreme distance here, and we're analyzing the wrong peak. So Mike is analyzing that right now for those measurements.

So in the big indicator that this is not the correct peak that's doing the occluding, so attributing this to Greenhorn, the reason that this isn't applicable is because Greenhorn is higher than North Peak by 489 meters and they're 1.5 kilometers apart. But in the videos that you're going to look at in this analysis from Jesse,

Greenhorn appears to be slanting upwards to North Peak. That's geometrically impossible. So the spot that he thinks he's identified as Greenhorn is not the correct location. We are waiting for better viewing conditions and a further analysis from Mike to determine the discrepancy there. But irrespective of that, right at this extreme distance, we have distances between 20 and 50 miles where this where everything like where it works just fine.

Yeah, and that argument would mean that 38 measurements match ours and one measurement would match yours, even if that was correct and confirmed. And that's still a very weak position, I think. Thanks for bringing it up to our attention. Well, for reference, Jesse, Path of Light is wondering about a debate with you, Alan, and would love to do that maybe, maybe.

James would be interested in hosting that or somebody else. I see him every Monday for the Celestial Theodolite update that we do weekly on Geos. I don't personally like Jesse and I won't be interacting with him other than that. So he can see me there. Wave the white flag. I like that. And...

This one coming in from Even Lord says, Alan and Shane, do you think that the WW2 Germans Antarctic colony, New Swabia, is still around under American control? Do you think the final experiment was overseen by those colonists and American government? Is that a real base? I have no idea. That's new. Wow. Wow.

Yeah, I don't know. Never met her. Antarctica, Binanti, Germany, between 38 and 39. Schwabenland. Dude, maybe. I mean, no, I'm just kidding. Honestly, that's the craziest question I've heard. JSS Tiger says, can a flat earther tell me what the tangent of 45 degrees is? Thanks, guys.

Yes, the answer to that question can be found on spaceaudits.net. And if you click on the coffee shop there, you can check out the Ether Cosmology limited time merch. Tangent to 45 degrees. One unit circle is how they did it before Calculate. The question was for us, McToon, I believe. Yeah, you're diverting. Got it. I'm answering a question that was directed at me and not you. Your commentary is unnecessary.

Got it. Thanks a lot. Divert. Divert away. Alejandro says, we all know why shame Saint Plagier. Plagier. Plagier, yes. Plagier. Is that saying it right? Refuses to answer. He has multiple times admitted he uses the globe for all calculations of his quote unquote model.

Yeah. No, it runs on sun azimuth and elevation, which are model independent. I've looked at the source code on your webpage. It includes the radius of the globe and the distance from the Earth to the sun.

Luckily, we talked about how that was derived in the equivalence there. It doesn't change anything. You use a globe, you admit the Earth is a globe. All of your geometry on your website uses the globe. Oh, the solar panel manual from the 70s, I forgot. It's equivalent.

I forgot. The solar panel manual. The pamphlet from the solar panel that totally debunks all the geometry in its own website that's globe. You're not going to reference NASA. You're not going to reference the astronomy manual. Sorry, NASA says the Earth is a globe, too. Sorry, I should have referenced NASA, too. I generally don't, but I'll go find if you want. NASA says the Earth is a globe.

They got pictures. They sent back hundreds of pictures a day. Hey, one second. Stop. Everyone just stop. James, why are you letting this happen? We're doing super chats. We're having a full back and forth talking over each other. Are you going to do something? Would you like to go to the next question? I can't understand if your concern was that you want to go to the next question.

Are we spending too much time on this? No, my concern is that when everyone's talking over each other, you specifically are the one that's supposed to be like, hey, this isn't, we can't do that. Sounds like audible dog shit. Nobody can hear or talk or get a point across. So there, of course, will be different thresholds for when people are like, okay, that's enough. But in the obvious case... Am I allowed to actually answer your question, Alex? I disagree with everybody. Sorry. Is that...

There's at some point, some threshold, even like you and I would actually agree where it's like, you don't have to jump in yet. Like if it's just like for a second, then obviously you just let it go. And then some people will say, oh, but if it's two seconds, then you jump in. Mine's pretty laissez-faire. So it is kind of like modern database is pretty much, it is kind of blood sports here. But if you want more moderation where we move to the next question, for example, we can do that. I was sure your concern was more about...

the being interrupted or wanting to go to the next question rather than keep going on with this one or both. Well, both, right? Because one, the question was for us to talking over everyone. Nobody could hear anything. Now, nobody, now all that time that was spent is gone. Nobody can decipher anything and we should just, you know, we should just move on. And if it comes to something like that, where everyone's talking over each other, like he was about to do, just be like, Hey, we're next question. I let you go there. But in our defense, um,

when you answer the question with plugging your website and t-shirts, I think that opens the door for other people to jump in. Yeah, I'm going to jump in when you do it. Go to the sales presentation. It actually doesn't open the door for that. I think it does. I'm going to. Promise. When a sales presentation comes up in a debate about science, I'm jumping in. Are you going to jump in? One second. I got you, Brody.

This one coming in from JSS Tiger says, the Haversine formula uses angles from the center of a sphere for latitude. Flat Earth latitude is a distance measurement, not an angle. That's true. Very true.

All of it's always calculated. No one measures it. Latitude is synonymous with elevation angles to Polaris in the Northern Hemisphere. What do you mean? It's only... I was in. I was in South America, and I didn't see Polaris. That's supposed to be talking and answering questions and moving on. We're not here to continue the debate after the fact. We're trying to move on. So continue...

Oh my gosh, wah. The whambulance is on the way, Alan. No one has answered. He's trying to answer a question so we can move on. So don't do that, McToon. Shut up, Mike. This one from JSS Tiger says, the Havers, we got this one. This one from Basil Problems says, Alan, let altitude underscore observer be X and distance to peak be Y and true elevation, parentheses, holded star, be a multiple of N,

asterisk i'm gonna put this in chat just so people can look at it ki divided by two where n is equal to one three five what is altitude peak is it infinite i'm gonna put that in live chat too just so you can see the question yourself if you'd like alan because i know that's a mouthful yeah not sure all right this you know you could plug your t-shirt though

Do you want to do that? Not every time. This one from Buck Sod Buster says, Shane, you like to take shots at my people hiding behind your keyboard, huh? Tishmore Alhagavlok. Well, I mean, I take shots, whatever, you know, taking shots at Mike right here. That's fine. That's all in good fun. No one's upset. Hazel Problem says, Shane, what are your grooming recommendations for that magical neckbeard?

Shave it once every two weeks is what you do. It's a standard issue cleanse, they call it. Use the same width as you do your head because it's easier. David Villar says, Alan, coordinate system, quote unquote, corrections don't make people teleport across the vast southern flat earth distances.

That doesn't make any sense. The coordinate system is symmetrical. The projection makes it appear as if it's not symmetrical, but it's referencing the same thing. The distance is the same. It just looks different. So the correction actually shows you what the actual distance would be because a lot of people will draw a straight line, right, on a Gleason's, which isn't the right one, right? When you do the corrections and apply it correctly, it makes a curved line that's the same distance as it is in the north. You got it. This one from Alejandro says...

I think they know. I think he's selling shirts. Yeah.

I think he's pushing traffic to his website selling shirts. They had this in their presentation a bunch of times, but when it comes down to it, they're like, oh, no, that's not what we think the Earth actually is. But they won't say what they think the Earth actually is. Well, he just said he knows it. It has curved lines, curved longitude lines, he said. So why not draw it out? Make yourself famous. Yeah, just, yeah. Make it work. This one from EarthlySkeptic.

Flat Earth predicts polaris elevation is equal to 30 degrees at 12 degrees north latitude. Globe predicts 12 degrees. Measurement equals 12 degrees. So agrees with Globe and disagrees with Flat Earth. Hypothesis, null hypothesis. Got it. Globe confirmed. All right. Richie says, Alan provided zero evidence. Dot, dot, dot. Idiot.

I don't know if they're asking if I'm an idiot or like if it's directed to Alan. It's ambiguous to say the least, right? So there's a non-zero chance he's talking about you, man. We'll split it. There's definitely a video about how we brought that up in the beginning when we said we brought measurements and evidence of laser test FV4 plus 39 measurements of star occlusion times that agree with the Flagler perspective. But thanks for affirming what we predicted in the beginning. But what if those measurements are shit?

Well, they're not. Don't forget that. It could be. What if your collimator is broken, but you still do the observation anyway? What if the time never matches the glow prediction because the elevation angle is actually planar? This one coming in from David Villar. It says, Alan, you call all optical alignment an illusion. Well...

There is a spatial field and there is a visual field. When things are close to you, like for example, my cup on my desk, it's pretty linear. So the chances that I misperceive where my cup is at is pretty low, right? But as things get further away and then based on their size relative to you, that scaling is different and different.

as you get at the extreme distances to the horizon, that's where the effects become the most extreme. This is noted in all the citations that I talked about earlier, where people were proposing different theories and different curvature rates optically to explain mechanistically in a unified theory of how we perceive things and that difference, because it is a known difference. It's just that if you start applying it, you're going to have to explain why...

feel like like you know surveying measurements aren't accounting for any sort of perspective uh in regards to the geometry of how we see this one coming in kang 044 says quote so we see in a dome of vision unquote does lidar am i saying right see in a dome of vision

Does time of flight cameras see in a dome of vision? How about a pinhole camera? Does radar see in a dome of vision? This was very embarrassing. Well, it depends on the radar system and how the wavefront is being propagated. Like it's going to spread out spherically. So, you know, I'm not sure that like that's kind of a malformed question.

You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. JSS Tiger says, I would like to see a diagram of the latitude angle for Havocene for the flat Earth. Something that shows an angle with a vertex and two rays. Awesome. I'd love to see that. Great question. Can't answer it, then you can see there's the globe. This is coming in from...

Buck Sod Buster says, MC Toon, who do you think smells worse, Shane or Arwen? I don't understand. Why do they spell Alan as Arwen? No, it's Arwen. Arwen is a different person, and the answer is Arwen. Who's Arwen? Arwen's a flight earther from the Netherlands. Oh. Part of the Oakley crew when he got ostracized and was looking for a home recently. Yeah, he's got a crossbow on his wall. All right, well, let's move on. I don't know about none of that.

Poor Arwen. This one from Desmond Smith, says, I honestly don't understand how this is still a topic. Flat earthers are clearly lying to other people or lying to themselves. This is crazy. For sure. Thank you for your question. You guys know the answer though, right? Was that a question for us? I can't remember. I think it was a statement. Oh, gotcha, gotcha. Just by giving us the dollar amount so we can decide how much we want to answer. Yeah, that determines the effort, how much.

How much effort? So read off the dollar amount if possible. It's actually five bucks. That's decent. That's decent. You wipe your ass with $5 bills. Is that what you're saying? I'm going to tip the pizza man five bucks. You know what I'm saying? I mean, that wasn't even a question. You get an insult. We said $10 for insults. Desmond Smith says, oh, we got that one. Dr. Heckle says, why do they use stars as proof for a flat earth when they don't believe stars are real?

Ooh, great question. So whether or not, whatever we conceptualize a star as being is not important. What's important is when the star is there and when it's not there. And that time you can derive specifically angles that correspond to either planar trigonometry or what the globe would predict, meaning the time would be different. It would be, it would be, it would take longer because the star has to get lower in the horizon. So it doesn't matter what they are, what we believe they are. What matters is, can we see them or not?

And it's mutually exclusive to, you know, disprove the globe every time. This one. Okay, sorry. This one coming in from Noah's Ark, Kansas, says the only thing this debate has convinced me of is that anyone who cares about the shape of the Earth is gay. I'm surprised James sat in on this. I would leave if not for the Q&A. Anyways, amazing. Zero seven.

I don't know what that means. Fair enough. Touche. Salute. Very gay bunch here. Dr. Heckle, thanks for your question. Al Capone MMA says, explain gravity gradient measurement on the flat earth model. You soy boys.

Gravity gradient measurement. With what tools are we talking about here? It didn't list anything specific for us to talk about. No, it would be with a gravimeter. The gravimeters measure a reduction in the magnitude of gravity with increasing elevation. Ooh, gotcha, gotcha. Yeah, I don't know. I have to think about that one. It's a good question.

You know where you can find a video of Alan thinking about that? Where, Shane? Spaceaudits.net. What's there? Well, there's a playlist of you doing just that and also, you know, hoodies, t-shirts, and hats. Nice. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Lasal Problem says, MDD, please confirm with Alan, parents Tao believes the Earth is a globe. Does Alan know more math than Terry Tao, not parents Howard? We don't know who either one of those people are. I don't know who

either one of those people are. Simon Allen, thanks for your kind super chat. Appreciate it. Tyson Dog says, if celestial navigation is based on the angle of elevation to Polaris, what is the angle from Sydney, Australia sailors use for nearly 200 years? What? No one said that? Yeah. Okay. You guys did.

Jack Fetter says. Sailors do celestial navigation in the southern hemisphere, but they can't see Polaris. You said it's based on the angle to Polaris. And every star in the sky comports to the same relationship in the northern hemisphere, yes or no?

Yes, and that relationship is a linear difference with the same distance across the surface of the Earth, completely matching a globe and contradicting anything flat. It needs to be an asymptotic relationship if we're flat. But it's not. It's linear. Shane, what was it about the correction angles at the...

At different elevations with respect to how far things are away from you. Right. If you're looking like... Not asymptotic. Please do not interrupt, sir. We are trying to wrap this up. And if you're going to interject on my question, then remain silent while we answer.

Don't be rude. If you're getting distances based on optical angles, the further it are, it seems to as it compresses into the horizon, it approaches a logarithmic scale. Right. And the atmospheric corrections for that would be a inverse of those of those observations. So the atmospheric corrections actually straighten it out the further you go as it recedes into obscurity. Right. That's when I would love to see. I would love to see the math applied to that. But you won't. You don't. You can't.

That's why it's not linear, right? Because past the equator, when you're seeing Polaris... I'd just love to have you show it to me. And you have a calculation for how far it would be based on its proximity to the horizon. A degree above the horizon isn't going to give you a linear relationship. So it can't be partially linear. It certainly can. The globe predicts that. It does. Flat Earth does not.

So you can be confident about it when they say right after everything they say to. Right. You can you can reference the correction angles in almanacs, though, for that and traverse tables with respect to. But they're not asymptotic. They're not asymptotic corrections. Your conclusions are premise. They're not asymptotic. They must be asymptotic for flat Earth. That's not a get out of jail geometry. According to an application of geometry, they have to be asymptotic.

Our premises that we see in a curve, we see the exact same thing. It's your baseless assertion. Your conceptualization. You say that that's how we see things, but you, but you're, it's an affirming the consequent. I was asked number one. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to continue to speak here. So you have singular Zenith measurements of stars when trigonometric functions were completed to traverse the ground and then take it

the zenith measurement. So you have a deviation from where it's expected to be. That's all you have for an explanation of curvature. We have mountain timing occlusions that are mutually exclusive to us using the same star occlusions, stars that you believe are only working on a globe imposing straw men of isentopic conditions that saying that we can't have that. It has to be linear on the center. Well, guess what, dog? We see in a dome of vision, what does that create? A logarithmic scale of change. No, it doesn't. That's exactly. It creates a linear scale.

It's a linear relationship. The next question, now that I've answered the question that was asked to me, and I'm not being talked over by McToon like that. So next question, please. We'll jump to the next question. This one from Jack Fetter says, the level of flurf derp these guys spew is exponentially stupid. You guys are wasting your lives on something a seventh grade math student can prove.

Well, a seventh grade math student proved that using star time occlusions, you can differentiate between the shape of the Earth using mutually exclusive occlusion timings that have thus far only shown evidence for a flat Earth. We don't look at the sky to prove the ground around here, okay? No, we don't do that. Was our question.

This one from Earthly Skeptic says Terrence Tao has degrees. Hey, real quick before you move on to the next question. If they're going to interrupt and interject on the back of every question, I'm just going to leave. I will stay for every question, but I'm not going to be harassed. Every question is for you, then leave. Then leave. The reason I'm trying to chime in right now is if he has something to say, like he's not acting like an asshole.

What we can do is because I actually agree with you that if you get asked the, let's say someone raises an objection to you, you answer it, then it would be like, all right, like, you know, they equal each other out or balance each other out. Okay. So shut up for a second. But then if you have MC tune, who's like, oh man, that was so stupid because of X, Y, and Z, I agree with you. Then it's like, well, you should get a chance to respond to MC tune before we go on the next one. Cause otherwise it's like, you're being teamed up.

by both the question asker plus MC Toon, and you only ever got to respond. You only got your say once, but there was two responses from the Globe side. So let's have you...

And with some of these where you get the last word. In fact, like let's actually have it be where from now on you get the last word. So if it's a question for you, you'll get the last word, including if MC2 and org, would you rather just be like, hey, like no more rebuttals because this is just going to take forever. No more rebuttals. It's going to take forever. Here's an idea. Wave your hands when you have a question for me. I'll just talk to my chat until then because...

Here's another idea. I'm getting bored. It's not our fault. Nobody cares what you have to say. No, they're poking fun at you, idiot. You are stupid and they're asking you questions they know you can't actually answer. I don't appreciate that.

Right. When you get asked a question, am I am I going that's stupid? Am I doing that? No. All right. I'm silent. Just wave. Wave when you're ready for me, James. I don't care about your hand waving method, dog. We're not doing that. I'm not having a back and forth with you endlessly on questions. He's asking a question. I give an answer. We move on to the next one. If you have a question, if someone wants to ask you a question, they can donate to James with a super chat directing it to you. Please do not talk and interrupt me like that. It's uncalled for.

Let's do it where we do give the last word. We're either going to give Alan the last word in terms of the person asking the question, or it sounds like he'd prefer, like, hey, let's just go through a number of them without a rebuttal. Because otherwise it is true if we have everyone having a rebuttal. Otherwise you have to at least be okay with him having the last word if you do get a rebuttal. That makes sense, right? Okay, this one from Jack Fetter says, the level of, we got that one, Earthly Skeptic says, Terrence Tau has degrees and is from quote-unquote Los Angeles.

I don't know what their point is. Yeah, well, that's awesome. Do you have any other factoids about Terrence Tao that we could learn about before we wrap up here? Because I think there's a he probably went to high school somewhere. Where did he go to high school? Because I think I might have. I think I might know Terrence Tao. You said he was in Los Angeles. What year was that? Yeah, we'll have that guy super chat and ask him to figure it out.

Alejandro Vallejo says, so shame and Alan love to talk about trigonometry and science, but are too dumb and too coward to do either of them live. Classic flat earthers. I just use a calculator, man. There's actually, there's videos of us doing math at adl.place and spaceautist.net. This one from Basil Problems says, Shane, since you have a minor in computer software, what's your favorite programming language?

Ooh, I learned Java and I learned then JavaScript, but now I'm into Python, which is cool and easy to use. Child of Yahweh MD says MC Toon standard refraction doesn't account for vertical temp gradients at surface. Genius. Refractive coefficient at surface found to be minus 2.7, not 1.3, making surfaces, i.e. mountaintops, appear shorter during the day.

I don't know if he's talking about the Fe core measurement or not, because that certainly wasn't the case. And the pressure differential from the ground where the vantage point one to the vantage point two is a reduction in pressure. And so it's only at the lower levels of the air that the temperature is the critical point. Once you get above that, it's the pressure that's the dominant one.

Okay. You got it. Some people are getting so pissed at, okay, Child of Yahweh MD says, gee, seriously? I don't understand why they're like, this one from Dr. Heckle says, how does Shane, oh, you're right. I mean, it is blood sports here. And we say we'll let people say anything that's within YouTube terms of service. So how does Shane washes multiple necks?

With a... What's a gay scrunchie I can name? I don't know. Whatever that water bath thing is. What was the dollar value? Hold on. That one was a dollar. I wouldn't even have given that one. Come on, dude. Bro, you know the rules. $10 for a response.

It's not about the money. It's about blood sports, which is where you let strangers on the internet say whatever the hell they want. It's a loofah, by the way. Now I'm going to mute again because I don't want to interrupt. Thank you. Noah's Ark, Kansas. Oh, wait, go ahead. Somebody want to say something? Sorry about that. Was that Shane or McGlobe face? I was just interjecting with that's a loofah and I only know that because I have one. Wow. Because I can't.

You guys are going to both be insulted by this. I can't tell the difference between Zane's voice and McBlobe's face. You have literally the exact same voice. I literally hate you.

I'm sorry. But look at Shane. Shane looks kind of proud. He's like, oh, okay, I'll take that. Well, no, I was laughing at Globy's response immediately. He was like, fuck you. I was like, oh, that makes sense. That makes sense. I couldn't even tell who said that. I mean, I saw Shane's mouth moving, but I was thinking, this sounds like it's McGlobe face still talking. All right, give us something both to say real quick, and we'll do it side by side. I enjoy the loofahs.

I enjoy the Lufas. I enjoy the Lufas. Okay, it's not exactly... It's not even close. Yeah, you changed it, globe face. You changed your voice. I did not. Dude, Mandela? He used to sound like Shane. I remember. Noah's Arkansas is Alan, so you could not believe in God without creation being flat. It is the same with a globe. Shane is beyond lost. He won't understand.

Well, a big thing for me was the logical contradiction of everything coming from nothing. Like I just didn't have room for any spiritual meaningfulness, right? I could, I just didn't interpret it that way. But you know, after you, you know, change cosmologies, right? You you're like, Oh, well it's logically, it logically tracks that it was created, right? Like no one's ever seen a DVD player that wasn't made by another man. Right. So somebody obviously made this place. Now,

And obviously mainstream doesn't, you know, necessarily say that there's no God or anything like that. Right. But I'm saying the way that I internalized what was being put forward cosmologically, I was like, oh, well, I mean, you know, how could there be a God if my boy Jupiter's out there weighs this much as a gas giant that came from the sun, you know, ejected as a, what do you call it? I can't remember the word for when a planet's born or whatever, but yes, same thing. But yeah, so it just didn't leave any room for me in that regards. Just couldn't see it.

You got it. You got it. Thank you very much. And if you forgot to subscribe, folks, I just flipped on that subscribers only chat mode. This one coming in from Noah's Arkansas says, Alan, so you could not believe in God without creation. We got that. Jack Fetter says, by the way, folks, you won't regret subscribing. I've got to tell you, we have a tour planned for Modern Day Debate this year that you'll be like, James, how? Like what happened? Well, this is like game changing. It's seriously going to blow your mind.

In the words of MC Toon, it's going to be orgasmic. This one from Desmond Smith says, it is a cult. These dudes know they're lying. Wait, what is a cult? The globe, obviously. Oh, well, that's very confusing. Flat Earth is a cult. No, no, I mean like a cult, like O-C-C-U-L-T. Oh, is that what they said? Yeah. Well, there is some of that in Flat Earth for sure. A lot of that.

This one from Jack Fetter says, do FLIRFS, in all caps, realize when people talk, they use inflection. Sometimes they have varying pitch and introduce pauses, and sometimes full stops when talking. I was not aware of that, no. Never met her.

You guys, this one from Desmond Smith says, dude, forget you guys for judging my $2. I low-key, I'm never going to watch this channel again. And I had to pay $5 just to make this post. Forget you. I'm sorry, James. I meant for that to go the other way, to be honest. This one from Noah's Ark Kansas says, the globe earthers never answered how it benefited their life. Maybe I missed it. The sweet, sweet NASA money.

All of zero dollars so far. But it's counting. It's going to go up logarithmically. It's made my hair gray and made me tired because I stay up late doing it. So I don't know. I don't think it benefits me at all. Other than entertainment. It's fun.

That's sad. This one coming in from Noah's Arkansas said the globe earthers never end. We got that. Child of Yahweh MD. This person has been triggered by me all night. Citation for refraction in chat. I can't post here. I get what you're saying. So Tony Coriolis says, what is everyone's favorite constellation? Like Orion's belt or the big dipper. Yeah. I like the big yipper. Hmm.

I like the DeLorean. It's at 42 degrees north latitude. You got it. I like octans. That's a good one. Tony Coriolis says... Oh, we got that one. Anybody else? Earthly Skeptic says... Shane, don't act like you don't have a favorite constellation, bro. Get in there. Aquarius, probably, right? Oh, Aquarii 31 or whatever it is. Or 39? This one from...

Earthly Skeptic says Flat Earthers curious where the quote 2,226 meter unquote figure came from. I had a peek from Google Earth plus the observatory, I think. He used a globe for that, by the way.

The gratitude, right? You can't distinguish the gratitude from the globe. No, it's not the gratitude. Well, it seems like we have a situation here where someone who wasn't asked a question is now chiming in as if they were asked. So that should probably stop, and we're going to move on to the next question. Well, there, we already covered that. So the fact that you feel you need to keep reintroducing that every time means that you're scared and afraid. So just shut up and don't talk, and let us get through the next questions.

This one from Child of Yahweh MD says, MC Toon, will you debate origin of life slash intelligent design evidence? No, I don't debate that. What I do when I debate, I make the other side take the factually wrong position. So that topic, I don't know the factually wrong position there. Sarcastic Warlock says, if the earth is truly flat, then why does Australia exist? And why are the people there nothing but criminals and savages? Well...

It's, you know, they're white, so you can say that. You know what they say about the Australians? Yes. Go on. James. No, you know what they say. Yeah, he just said they're all criminals and savages. And it's okay because they're white. We can say that. No, you were talking about it earlier before the show started. Oh, yeah. It's in their bloodline. The Australians are like that. This one from a, let's see. By the way, why can't I say honky? Because I don't see why that's so bad.

Or what's the other one that I'm not supposed to say? Cracker? That's like, if it's supposed to be something that we... Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot MC Toon is streaming this too, and so is Mick Globase. Well, I should be able to say that! It's not...

You say whatever you want. You're good. From Jesse says, Alan, why do you lie? Don't worry. The algorithm will think I was talking about food. Why do you lie? I showed you that topography and star azimuth angles prove it was Greenhorn Mountain. That's why you won't debate me.

No, I won't debate you because you're just honest. I specifically went over the relative elevation difference in the distance between them and how it would be geometrically impossible for the slope to be going upwards from a peak that's physically geometrically lower in reality. Obviously, the error is in the analysis and we'll have to wait until further measurements and analysis come through with like primarily better viewing conditions. Because as you know, from analyzing the video, the weather conditions were super poor.

So why don't we wait and re-examine it? Or you could try and re-examine the other 39 measurements that don't comport to a globe, right? The reason I won't debate you is because this level of dishonesty is sickening and I can only tolerate it in small doses. That's why I'll see you on Monday and nowhere else. So if you want to talk about this on Monday, I'll see you Monday at EA, but not here. I want to keep super chatting and chiming in like you got me. You are making a claim where the elevation is

It's geometrically impossible. I'm not super worried about refuting you or following you around the internet to reply to everything you do. Slithery says, can we donate CC's hair? Is that conspiracy cats? I don't understand. Who's CC? Can we donate their hair to Shane, please?

Shane, you have lovely locks. Don't listen to them. Noah's Ark, Kansas says, I'm out. Keep moving forward, brother. Thanks for your kind words, Noah's Ark, Kansas. Who is CC, though? I'm looking in chat. It's another flat earther. Right up. This one from, let me just load the old two seconds. Oh, here it is. Basil Problem says, MC Toon, who smells worse, Alan or Mikey? MC Toon? We must know.

It's Mikey. His foot is rotting because he's got gangrene. Poor guy. He should see a doctor. He's in Canada. It's free. He doesn't see him well enough. Oh, no. PhD Tony, who's from Australia, says, good to see you, Tony. Says, does MC Toon agree that Alan has zero peer-reviewed work, zero formal qualifications, zero real-world qualifications? All he has is...

is, quote, we should believe what he says because he says so. That is correct, Tony. This one from Sleeper Spartan says, given the flat earth, Alan, this is your chance. Jump on him. You know, there were rebuttals before, so to be fair, we can give you a rebuttal. Do you want to jump on him? No, I don't care at all. PhD Tony is retarded. He gets drunk on stream and yells at people. This is what he thinks is irrelevant. Not Tony. I meant jump on MC Toon.

Tony's not here to defend himself. I know, but in response to what Tony said to Toon to give him too much to drink, it's like aggravating. Can you make fun of MC Toon instead of Tony? Because MC Toon's right here. Look at him. Look at his self-satisfied face over there. I like McToon more than Tony.

No. This one from Sleeper Spartan says, Given the flat Earth hypothesis that Antarctica is an ice wall, why do expeditions have to turn towards the South Pole to stay on course? Flat Earth would require that you turn away. We actually have footage of an Antarctic expedition on spaceaudits.net. Explains all the answers to that question.

You got it. This one coming in from Dr. Heckle says, how is, oh, come on. We just keep asking it. They need an answer. They say, how does Shane wash his multiple necks? They put it more than once. I can't. Well, now I know it's a loofah. Thanks. Thanks, Globy. Oh, yeah, that's right. We totally answered that already. What's this guy's problem? Sleeper Spartan. I think we just got his right. Yeah. Yeah. Jimmy Madison 42 says for Shane, why have tides been predicted ever?

been predicted accurately over 43,800,000 times in the U.S. over the last 20 years, two years in advance by using the global model.

Well, no, they use dynamic tidal theory to make tidal predictions, which is the other sinusoidal interpretation of the main constituent M2, which is the harmonic analysis. But really, they pretend that they're using the equilibrium tidal theory, which is derived from Newton using gravity and constructive gravitational interference from the sun and the moon, which we're supposed to interpolate to get the highest high and the lowest low. So, no, actually, that's not using the globe. Equilibrium tidal theory isn't used.

because the Earth isn't hula-hooping through a giant tidal bulge of water as it oscillates around. That's not what's causing the tides. There would be a direct relationship if that was the case, that the moon would be directly pulling the tides. There wouldn't be a 90-degree offset in the highest high. Anyway, also there's many videos about it at ADL.blogspot.

definitely the sun and the moon the argument isn't that your argument is the gravity we're saying that is there well it's there are other effects right you got electromagnetic and electric effects yeah oh it doesn't make any sense though well that's how we argue gravity right you argue gravity right electromagnetic is the same principle but it's definitely depends on the proximity of the sun nope i want to move to the next one poor alan is in europe alan wants to go to sleep alan you're in europe right

Negative, Ghost Rider. Okay, we're going to keep you here all night. Earthly Skeptic says, Flat Earthers, when does an angle nearly equal its tangent? That's an indirect implication of our lack of knowledge of the small angle approximation, I think, which we do have videos for at ADL.placed and SpaceAudits.net. This one from Noah's Ark, Kansas says, Alan is such a... What says it? Asterix.

You talk over me, quote unquote. Go watch, they say, I think they're saying that you say that, Alan. That you say, oh, you talk over me. They say, go watch the last connect, connect, connect, debate, connectly debate. I don't know how to say their name. Alan is such a baby. Don't over talk me. Sounds like my wife. Well, if your wife doesn't appreciate you,

being spoken over in a formal debate. And I could see that. She seems like a smart, intelligent woman. Next. JimmyMadison42 says, I asked my Tides question on other stream. Okay, we already read it. Don't worry, Jimmy. Noah's Arkansas says, Everything coming from nothing is dumb. Nothing to do with each shape. So, so, dot, dot, dot, PayPal is below. I don't understand.

But maybe they put their PayPal in chat. Child of Yahweh MD says, MC Toon, you're right. Temperature is more important than pressure for refractive coefficient making. A negative K value near the surface making things shorter, not taller. But generally there's not a negative K value. So I don't know what the issue is. And the examples from FeCore had a positive K value.

You got it. Let's see. Leo Phileas says, do we time out for racism? Yes. Except for me being able to call people honkies and crackers. That one is okay. Why can't I say it about white people? That's like, isn't it like how certain words can I, can I just specifically,

Measurement 5, 11.4 degrees Celsius at water level, 13.3 degrees at 2 meters. That is a positive K value. I don't know what he's talking about. I'm going to put it official in chat. No racist slurs except calling people donkeys or crackers. That's a rule. So for real, don't say the other ones like that's not okay. But do feel free to use

the ones that I mentioned because MC Toon looks so sad I don't understand if I'm thinking about white people Mutton Chopper says MC Toon I think they're saying is like a boy

like a child. It's flat. Period. How is the status of the celestial Theodolite? Let's go Shane and Alan. Woo! The Earth is flat. That sounds like a great question. How much was that one? That's how cultist acts. That one was like 20 bucks. Well you see, that's what we're talking about. This one from... Yo, real quick, how many Flat Earthers superchatted to insult the boys versus us?

Was it zero? Was it less than zero? Is there an average that we can get? Is there a coefficient? Anyway, continue. Basil Problem says, Shane, I'm worried about your blood pressure. Okay. Your blood pressure. Please check it soon. Okay. Well, that's sweet if you think about it. This one from Noah's Ark. I can't tell if that was Shane or McGlobeface. Who said that?

Did you start that rumor yourself, James? Is that what happened? You need help, James. I can't. Okay. It's hard for me to tell. Let's use our logical brains. He said he is not sure he believes in blood pressure. So would that come from a flat earther or from a guy in a nice coat? That's a great point. You can't be serious that you don't believe in blood pressure. You're just trolling and being funny. You're joking, right? Yeah. Yeah.

It's funnier if you don't know whether I'm trolling or not. Noah's Ark, Kansas says, Modern day blank blank. I can't say that. It ain't but a thing. Globers having no meaning behind their debating is kind of sad. Go spend time with your family. Why try to convince people of a globe earth if you have no answer to the previous question? I think that they had asked the question about

If it brings you meaning, like what positive benefit does like arguing for the globe earth give you? I might be wrong. They also brought up the idea of like an idea of a world coming from nothing. I don't know. These guys are doing 4D chess on me with these. They say, go spend time with your family. Who can disagree with that? There's an artful Dodd Jr. Says tune slash globe face. How did CC not place in top left?

Yeah, CeCe was the two-year reigning champion of top left, so he's disqualified from running again, of course. He can only win once. Current top lefty and champion is Flatsoid. Plus my boy Fred placing top three. Oh, yeah. Fred, good showing. Calling you out, Fred. Good job. Coming out of nowhere. He just rushes the stage. Amazing. Rushes it. The flat stage. You got it. This one coming in from...

Noah's Ark, Kansas says, previous question, what was the globe earth or refuting flat earth has done for your life slash family? I already know Alan and Shane have nothing, which is why I don't ask them. Oh, come on. Jimmy Madison 42 says, Shane, now do inertial tide on the opposite side. That'll be good. Anxious for this.

You're talking about the solar and lunar tidal acceleration with the, you know, the moon exerts two point one more forces, gravitational forces than the sun. Is that what he means? I don't know. We can keep talking about tides, but it really doesn't matter because what controls it are amphidromic points, right? The tidal nodes, points of zero tidal amplitude around which the tidal amplitude oscillates. That's not the cause. That's what directly is causing the high and low tides. That's it. You said it was the sun and moon before. Yeah.

So it's causing neap and spring. So highest high and lowest low is directly caused by the sun and moon proximity. But on the daily tidal amplitude of high tide is amphidromic points. Topography, winds, that sort of thing. This one coming in from...

PhD Tony strikes again and says, MC Toon, if tides are not gravitational as your idiot interlocutors claim, why are they detected by gravimeters? What causes solid earth and ATM tides? And that's it. That's a big, that's a big challenge. Gravimeters are able to detect the varying gravitational pull associated with that match tides. So it's, it's a,

you know, confirmation, you can set up a hypothesis, null hypothesis, and it will definitely confirm gravity exists. The earth is a globe. Tides are caused by the moon and sun and their gravitational pull. Submarines navigate using a gradiometry, gravitational gradiometry. The differences in the gravitational waves.

By the way, we do have a few more questions, but folks, Mick Globeface and MC Toon and Shane and Alan are all linked in the description. Folks, if you enjoy these topics, there's value from hearing even from the opposite side, straight from them.

you can go check out their channels right now. They're linked in the description box. It's even hyperlinked. So it's so easy. It's just one single click and boom, you're at their channel. You can check out their content right now as we go through these last few questions. This one from Jesse. Alan, I'm going to debate you on a neutral platform whether you show up or not. You cannot run from your lies forever. You didn't go over stuff as said.

No one cares. Jesse's ignored. No one gives a shit what Jesse says. Being a despicable individual doesn't give you license to repeat shit like that. ChildofYahwehMD says, I put the peer-reviewed source in the chat showing negative K value at surface. Peer-reviewed by other flat earthers? I don't know what he's talking about because I...

Are you talking about the Fe core measurement or are you talking about something else? Anyway, you can go to my website, mctune.net slash refraction. I have a large list of empirical measurements of refraction, but I'll look at the chat so you can find the citation you're talking about. This one, last one, TheManRespectX says, if you were eating for your life, how many hot dogs, clean with the bun, could you eat in five minutes? Ooh, man.

maybe like 20 before i got disgusted at the idea of eating that many hot dogs like hot dogs in general just like i'm not a big what are you a skinny asian lad what the hell dude but like the mental thing like they're gross i don't i couldn't have 20 of them inside of me and then like keep them down i would i would reject it oh nobody nobody clipped that audio

Don't do it. Don't do it, anybody. How many hot dogs you can keep inside of him? Child of Yahweh, FakeMD, I couldn't find your citation. You can email it to me, MCToon at MCToon.net if you want. Or post the, I don't know, post the ID. This one coming from, oh, I think we got that. Because, yeah, what is it? Like Joey Chestnut? He's still the champ, right? Like 10 minutes he ate. What's the most recent?

He's got the world record, right? On the 4th of July. I stopped following it just months ago. I was so into it. He was so close to keeping up on it. If that's not fun and entertaining, I don't know what is on the 4th of July. What's more American than that? Bob says, I missed the debate. Who won? We'll put a poll in the chat.

That's a mutton chopper says, ask MC tune. If he knows what an in forometer is interferometer. Oh,

Yes, they did say that. And they said, if he knows and ask him who measured the contraction, that special relativity completely relies on. I do know what an interferometer is. And the answer then to the next question is who measured the contraction? Well, the contraction would be that special relativity relies on. That would be Lorenz contraction. So you need to ask him the dynamic cause of the Lorenz contraction, I think.

He asked who measured it. You got it. Yeah. So the Loresque interaction was confirmed in the muon tests. This one coming. Okay. We got to, let's see. We've got a poll in chat. So folks, this is your chance. This is like the great big poll because we've basically read all the questions and

We've certainly gone through like all the open dialogue and all those opening statements, etc. Like this is it. The final poll, the one that counts for all the marbles while we are letting people vote. Oh, it's actually it's closer than you might expect.

Check out our guest links in the description box. Seriously, the guests are the lifeblood of the channel. And folks, for real, this channel just wouldn't exist. It's not that it would suck. It just wouldn't even be. It wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for our guests. Like, they make this fun. Huge thank you to them. Even, like...

MC Toon, you know. So we just appreciate them and watching. We're longtime friends, so it's okay. But yeah, yeah. The poll is active right now. Folks, also, if you do check on their links, which I encourage you to do that right now, that's at the podcast as well. Folks, if you didn't know, I hadn't mentioned, all of our debates end up on a podcast, our podcast, and it's available via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, you name it.

If you haven't checked out Modern Day Debate, the podcast, it's amazing. And it has way less ads than YouTube. This one coming in from Lene Lene 2 says, Suggestion. Watch Ed Horb Movement of the Earth. Okay.

I can answer the, I didn't know who I had to look it up. So who did the, measured the contraction for the muon test that was published by David Frisch and James Smith in 1962. That's the one that I'm specifically, I've used in references before. People did it before, people have done it since. Okay.

All right. We're going to wrap up here. The basal problem just said, Shane, have you ever been with a woman? Okay. Well, the answer is there's actually three videos about that that I have on my channel, but you need a lifetime membership to the VIP access to get the EtherCAUSE bundle, right? To get the sweatshirt at spaceaudit.coffee to get the hat and the t-shirt. And then you can get the answer to that in three videos, three video form.

I desperately want to know the answer to that question. I just signed up as you were saying that. And I'm still, yeah. So, folks, I can tell you, you know, if you want to know about Shane's sex life, what are you waiting for? Just click on that. But, yes. You subscribe to his OnlyShanes? OnlyFans comes on the premium package, I think. We should have said that.

Let me, there's the last question I think I missed. This one was from Child of Yahweh says, no peer reviewed. No peer reviewed by Journal of Geophysical Research MC Toon card. All right, well send it. I don't see it in my inbox right now. So, I mean, you can post the DOI link or just the DOI in the chat because you can't do links or email it to me. There you go.

Okay, I think that's it. And the poll, I'm going to look over the poll right now, folks. Now's your time, your chance before I close the poll. And this is going to end up in the live chat, which will be preserved for eternity. Okay, here's the conclusion of the poll. Team Globe with 66% was voted most persuasive tonight. Flat Earth got 33%.

Freemasons. Obvious Freemasons. I think that's just how many people of the viewers were globe and how many were flat. I think that's all that tells us. But okay. Congratulations, fellas. That's probably true. Thank you. Now, Child of Yahweh MD says that I skipped their last question. No, I just read this. They said, no. It was reviewed by Journal of Geophysical Research. MC2 had already answered it. Just scroll back. Like, what?

like 120 seconds you could find it I want to say thank you so much yeah I did add McToonTard sorry about that MC Toon you're my boy all good all good this was fun thank you guys I'll let you go folks check out our guest links in the description box we appreciate them thank you guys it's been a pleasure to have you Alan Shane McGlobeface and MC Toon

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures.

Did he know that the majority of progress the U.S. has made in reducing emissions over the past decade has come from the oil and gas industry? With more electrical power generation now coming from natural gas versus coal, the air we breathe today is cleaner than it has been since the '90s, according to a report from the EPA.

Clean burning natural gas is also a reliable source of power for more than just our electrical grids. It is also used to power data centers, hospitals, schools, and so much more. Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.