DEBATE: Flat Vs Globe | Nathan Thompson & Chris Vs @FTFEOfficial & Max | Podcast
03:44:53 Share

If your player scores the longest touchdown of the week, you'll win a share of the $250K.

BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21 plus only. This U.S. promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Available in the U.S. For New York, call 877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY-467369. For Arizona, 1-800-NEXT-STEP. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050.

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace.

Whether you have big goals for the new year or are crash landing into 2025, there's one thing you can do right now to prepare yourself. Invest in your mental health with therapy. The truth is, nobody knows what the year ahead holds, but a Talkspace therapist can help you get ready for what's next by building mental resilience so you can face life's twists and turns. Just go to Talkspace.com to be matched with a licensed online therapist. You can start messaging with your therapist right away and

Thank you.

and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Get $80 off your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code SPACE80 at

Talkspace.com.

All right, let's set up the share. One second. Let me make sure this will share the audio. Share sound. There we go. Share. All right. All right. Okay. Awesome. What is the shape of the earth? That's the debate today. And today I will explore my favorite argument, which is reciprocal scenic angles.

hypothesis on a flat earth all plumb lines should be parallel uh how can we verify this with the use of an instrument called that the other light or a total station and what we do is with um

two locations within line of sight of each other, we measure the verticals and we see what the result is. So we have two hypotheses. On the top left, if the Earth is flat, all those plumb lines would be parallel. And on the right, if the Earth is aglow, those plumb lines would not be parallel. They would diverge from each other.

So this is the main surveyor who did actually do these measurements. And the beauty of this is that anyone can do this. You can rent a theodolite in the US for about $35 on average per day. And I was supposed to do this measurement this week, but I got pneumonia, so I couldn't do it. As soon as this gets cleared up, I will be doing these measurements myself.

And what we always find out is that the addition of the reciprocal scenic angles, and we have a diagram here, the addition of this angle A and angle B always adds up to more than 180 degrees, giving us the conclusion that

the earth is not flat because plumb lines are not parallel. This works at any distance. This works if you measure from sea level up to the top of a hill, the top of a mountain, whatever, the method always works.

Then here we have Baron Rutledge who did this measurement in one of the "flattest places on earth", the Utah salt flats. Guess what? Same result. The addition of the reciprocal scenic angles added up to more than 180 degrees. This is conclusive evidence that anyone can do. Literally anyone can do. The only thing you need to do is just get the device and do the measurement.

So, um...

The other thing I will be talking about today is Antarctica and the final experiment. Here I have a screenshot of Akshay Nanavati, who is solo trekking Antarctica. So this idea, this stupid notion of we can freely and privately explore Antarctica. Yes, you can. It takes a shitload of money, but you can. Anyone can do it. Just the requirement is money. The same way that anyone can own a Ferrari. The only requirement is that you have the money to fucking pay for it.

So the final experiment has been debunking flat Earth before it even started. Here we have the route that critical thing took in a flight from Sydney to Santiago, impossible on a flat Earth.

Then on one of the first live streams that Jaron and company did from Punta Arenas, Chile, they were looking south. And while they were looking south at around 10, 11 p.m. local time, they were seeing that way over there in the south, there was the sunlight, meaning that there was already a 24 hour sun in Antarctica.

And then finally I have a short clip of Jaren right after touching down in Antarctica from his live stream today. Let's play that for you. But everybody we asked so far, we asked these employees, we're like, so what time is the sunset? They're like, what? What time is the sunset? They're like, the sun just goes around, bro. The sun just circles you. We're like, yeah, but what time does it set over there? They're like, no, it doesn't do that. Nice.

And you heard it. Even the ALE employees were telling the Flutterers, the sun doesn't set, bro. You heard it from Jaren. And with that, that's my intro. Hope to get more into it, the open discussion. Make sure to follow me on Matters Now, and I'll kick it over to Craig. All right, no worries. Let me stop the share, just one sec. Stop share, there we go.

Alright, thank you so much, Max, for your introduction. So just quick housekeeping. Welcome to Modern Day Debate, everybody. We're a neutral platform hosting debates on science, politics, religion. We do hope you feel welcome and you smash that like button. Help us out a lot and boost this algorithm up. Boost this up in the algorithm, I should say. My goodness, all tongue-tied already.

It's going to be a juicy one tonight, guys. So yeah, definitely keep your eyes on the screen. Share this out in those spaces you like having these debates. We are going to take questions at the end. So if you have a question, you want to grill one of the speakers on stream, get your questions in now and they'll be read nice and early. So with that, I'm just going to ask Craig to come off mute. You have up to six minutes and the floor is yours.

Okay, thank you for having me on once again. I very much appreciate it. For you on Metal and Database that don't know me, my name is Craig. I run the YouTube channel FTFE, where I debunk Flat Earth because it's fun and very easy. Check out my new video on Jim Brewer's channel, where me and MC Toon went on and destroyed Flat Earth Dave. That was fun. Right, so...

How do we know the Earth is a globe and rotating? Easy. We can use science. What do we do with science? Well, unlike flat earthers who don't understand science, we actually do it properly. And we start with making a simple observation. And the observation can be as simple as, oh,

When I'm at the North Pole, the stars rotate one way. When I'm at the South Pole, the stars rotate the other way. There's an observation. No one can disagree with that. And then you make a guess as to why that's happening. Literally just an assumption. That's what you do with science. So I'm going to make the assumption that I made that observation because the Earth is rotating. And we are seeing those things that we see because the Earth is rotating. And based on where you are on the Earth, you will see different things and feel different forces.

And then the next step with science is you make a prediction from that hypothesis you've just done. And the prediction would be something like, well, where you are on Earth would dictate how much force you would feel imparted from the rotation of the Earth. And then you can perform an experiment to do that. And it would be any experiment around Coriolis. Now, my main bit of evidence I'm going to talk about is the Coriolis force and the effect that causes it.

and why it happens and what flyers don't understand about it. Coriolis has, um, a couple of components. A component is, um, the mass of the thing that the force is being applied to the speed of the thing over the surface of the earth and the distance away from the center of the earth. Um, and you can use a calculation to figure out what forces should be applied based on how fast the earth is rotating and where you are on the earth. Um,

Now, there is different forces depending on where you are on the Earth. If you're at the equator, that Coriolis force is practically zero. The more you go to the north or south, the stronger the force is because the rotation of the Earth is imparting it more. Now, for instance, if you were on the equator in a ship flying a bit of artillery north, that bit of artillery would actually drift ahead of the Earth's rotation because what is happening is

the Earth is moving a thousand miles an hour at the equator. So the artillery shell that comes out is traveling with that velocity. And then as it travels north, it's traveling over parts of the Earth that have a lower tangential velocity than the thing that has maintained its velocity from the equator. So it's going faster than the bits of the ground it goes over and drifts ahead of the rotation of the Earth. That's why, if I could quickly share my screen.

Military have these things. They are range tables. There's a whole bunch of them. You can find them anywhere on the internet. But this is OP-770 range table for 16-inch .50 caliber gun. What they actually used in the Second World War. And as you can see, they are instructed to make corrections due to the rotation of the Earth.

If you don't take these corrections into account, then you miss your target. That's why on a recent world record shot they missed like 49 times and hit on the 50th time because it didn't calculate Coriolis into it. How else do we know Coriolis exists? Well, very simple. Coriolis cannot make hurricanes cross the equator.

Because Coriolis happens when something is moving compared to the surface of the Earth, as air moves relative to the surface of the Earth, it has a Coriolis force imparted on it. And that's how hurricanes are formed. And as this graph shows, over 150 years of tropical cyclones, no cyclone has ever crossed the equator because the force is zero and it cancels it out.

It's a very, very simple thing to see. And you can do experiments like the Foucault's pendulum, which you can use your latitude on Earth and the forces applied to that pendulum to calculate where you are on the Earth.

Now, just to put it from where time runs out, flat earthers will say things like, well, if a helicopter hovers, why doesn't the Earth rotate underneath it? Well, that's not the Coriolis force. Coriolis force applies to things moving relative to the surface. If a helicopter is hovering, it has no Coriolis force applied to it.

Things are only applied with the Coriolis force when they are moving relative to the surface of the Earth. Wind, planes, ballistics, they all have Coriolis applied to them, which is a very, very weak force, but over a long distance, that force can be greater overall.

Coriolis force shows that the Earth is rotating. It's used in aviation. It's used to calculate ballistics. It is a real thing that you can test in the lab to see that it exists, and there is no flat Earth explanation for it. Also, the final experiment is ready to debunk the flat Earth, so it's kind of pointless to have this conversation. Thank you.

All right. Well, thank you so much to Globeside. We're going to hand it over to Team Flat. So let's just get our speakers off mute. And I'm going to mute the other side just so we don't have any interruptions. Thank you so much, gentlemen, for being here. So who would like to go first on your side? I know we kind of got you guys flying on the seat of your pants here and we appreciate you being here. Are you good to go first there, Nathan?

Chris, yeah, I'll go first if you'd like. I know it's Chris's first time on Modern Day Debate, so if you want to hang in there six more minutes, Chris, we'll give you a little more time. Awesome, awesome. All right, well, Nathan, thank you so much for coming back to Modern Day Debate. We appreciate it. The floor is all yours for up to six minutes.

Thank you, Ryan. I want to thank the interlocutors. Chris, thanks so much for being here. Guys, go find this guy on TikTok. He's on there constantly debating this topic. He's one of the most knowledgeable people on TikTok. We actually took this debate five minutes ago. Both the interlocutors that were supposed to be here no-showed. So thanks for having us here. Modern Day Debate, always good to be here. Real quick, I want to give a shout out. I got a giant box today from the Tinfoil Hat Factory. That's where my new hat and my t-shirt came from.

fact earth is not a globe so check them out the tinfoilhatfactory.com if you haven't downloaded the flat earth sun moon and zodiac clock app i would do that my referral code is neo n-e-o like neo in the matrix now the um real quick i'll cover some arguments they had and then i'll get into my presentation they brought up reciprocal zenith angles now land surveyors are the ones using those theodolites this is a simple google search to the audience

Land surveyors assume the earth is flat for 100 square miles. Plane surveying is a method of disregarding Earth's curvature, treating it as a flat plane to make measurements. On top of that, we have the atmosphere. So that's why they do the measurements in very short distances. I met up with five land surveyors that had over 100 years of experience together, and we did a two-mile measurement.

And we had to leapfrog the entire time. Every time you move the equipment, you have to recalibrate, relevel everything. It takes forever. You can't just point a theodolite at a mountain 100 miles away and be like, oh, it dropped a few degrees. Guess we live on a globe. There's other things you have to take into account. That's why they only do the measurements in the morning or in the afternoon, because at high noon,

the temperature can play an effect with your observation. I saw this firsthand with National Geographic when I was at the Salton Sea. You can see clear across the lake in the morning. And then in the afternoon, when they made their observation, there was 110 degrees and there was massive amounts of evaporation over the surface of the water. This guy over here said, you can get the Seattle light. You can do these. You're not actually a qualified land surveyor. I'm sure Chris can talk about this, but Baron Rutledge, the guy he brought up,

He didn't know the international standard for land surveying, got embarrassed on that, pretending to be a land surveyor on TikTok. On top of that, we had him real time live set up at The Adelight. Well, I didn't. Fred did. And then when he finished setting it up, Fred pointed out that he hadn't even calibrated or confirmed that his equipment was leveled.

So these people are pretender clowns. I wouldn't trust them. I would test the earth yourself. That's what I've been doing for almost 10 years. You can use infrared. That's what I recommend. High power zoom cameras, telescopes, lasers. We did mirror reflection tests. We've rented helicopters. Like I said, land surveying equipment. You don't live on a cartoon globe.

On top of that, a video from Antarctica that some employees said the sun doesn't set. Like, why are you even playing that into the debate? That doesn't prove anything. Some dude heard from some dude that the sun doesn't set somewhere so you live on a globe?

You all have lost the plot. All right, a buddy said the Earth is rotating, we can feel different forces. Newton's physics and Maxwell's equations treat the Earth as an inertial reference frame. Einstein admits you can't optically measure the Earth rotating. The FAA trains pilots on a flat non-rotating Earth. Then he talked about it depends on your distance from surface. Well, the Red Bull space jump went up 128,000 feet and Felix Baumgartner landed back in New Mexico.

Now, if the Earth is rotating from the west to the east at 1,037 miles an hour at the equator, at that latitude that he was at, he should have been somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. But not only did he not land west of where he started, he landed 50 miles east of where he started. Because the winds in North America are actually going the wrong direction for the Coriolis effect. The Earth isn't spinning. They've never proven it. They've known this for thousands of years.

They hijacked science and told everyone, you're on a tilted cartoon ball. Go to work and listen to everything we say. It wasn't real, you guys. We've got to break the matrix. We've got to break out of the mind control. And we've got to shout it from the rooftops.

On top of that, he said a helicopter has no Coriolis. Well, the helicopter went off the surface of the air. And you said it depends on distance from the surface. So we're the only ones that can scientifically model a hurricane. So a scientific model is a representation of a particular phenomenon in nature. So if you guys can't show me a spinning ball with gas around it in a vacuum, causing vortices to be created at the equator, well, then you're cooked.

Richard Feynman says if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. So we're the only ones that can demonstrate hurricanes. You guys would actually get vortices on the axis or near the poles. They wouldn't just be generated at the equator. That happens on a flat Earth because that's where all the energy is being introduced from the sun and the sun is moving around polar center.

If you guys don't follow me on TikTok, I just uploaded a video intro to the flat earth model. Highly recommend checking that out. I don't have time to go over it right here, but we'll go into some long distance observations here with my presentation. If I could screen share, let me click that button. Sure. I think you still have one minute left.

Excellent. That's all I need. We're going to get 10 or 15 flats max in real quick. So the horizon isn't physical and geometric. This book right here says it's an imaginary line. So the picture on the bottom right, the horizon should be 1.22 miles away. For a one foot observer, it's past nine and a half miles.

Then we're going to go down here to the Chicago skyline. None of these buildings should be visible. I've made this observation from New Buffalo, then we took a helicopter from Kenosha and made the same observation with infrared. Here's six more lighthouses that debunk the globe religions. So now we've got eight debunks of curvature. Nine would be Mount San Jacinto from 123 miles away. Can't really see it, so I got to turn on the infrared. Should be 1.91 miles of curvature or drop

And here's the Canigou Mountains, 163 miles. According to the math, 12,800 feet of a drop. The top of the mountains is 9,000 feet tall. Here's a world record photograph, world record microwave repeaters. They have a Fresnel lens. They don't account for curvature in between, or not Fresnel lens, a Fresnel zone, Fresnel zone. That is time. Thanks, Ryan. Appreciate it.

No worries. All right. Appreciate you wrapping up right there. We can definitely explore some more of this and point back to it as we get through into our open discussion. But without further ado, let's welcome Chris to the show. Thank you so much for stepping in here, Chris, and coming out to Modern Day Debate. So if you want to start out letting everybody know where they can find you and what you're all about, and then I'll start your timer. I'll give you about like 30, 45 seconds to let everybody know what you're all about and where they can find you.

Chris Van Am, Flat Smack, TE Flat Smack on TikTok. It's really the only platform that I'm on. They did Mick Toon a couple of times and kind of did my piece with him, but I think it's going to be good. I don't really care for grit or fame or any of that nonsense. I'm here for the Flat Smacks, so...

Awesome. Well, let's get your six-minute timer started up there, and we'll let you present your case. Once again, everybody in our live chat, smash that like button. Make sure if you have questions, he's always got something going on there. All right. Make sure that you do, if you have questions for any of our speakers, get into a super chat. We'll ask that at the end of the debate. So, all right. This is going to be a lot of fun, everybody. Like I said, you're not going to want to miss this. So, Chris, six minutes on the floor. Thanks for coming on out. Yeah, for sure.

Okay, so basically, from what I'm understanding, the globe model makes three claims that Earth has curvature, that Earth has rotation, and that gravity holds it all together.

So what do we know first and foremost about the claims that are being made by the other side? Well, that we're using reciprocal zenith angles. The moment that we invoke zenith angles, we're invoking Euclidean geometrics. The five postulates of Euclidean geometrics completely demolish the globe.

If you guys do not know about the Euclidean postulates, we can look it up real quick. But basically there's a parallel postulate, the right angle postulate, the point to point postulate. There's a single point and you can draw a circle around that.

But when you consider the type of geometry we're using, we have to understand that first and foremost... We lost your camera. Oh, there it is. Sorry. Continue. I'm just speaking with you guys. So first and foremost...

Spherical geometry is nonlinear, and we're establishing linear relationship with distance. So, for instance, our scaling for distance equation, when we make an observation to an object, it's assumed to be parallel distance.

with our reference. So if we have a plumb line, the object that we're observing, regardless of the distance, has the same vertical reference from the horizontal reference. This is how it works. So when we incorporate the scaling for distance on our eyes, everything can be kind of played tricks on. But when we incorporate it with a camera and an actual camera,

optical focal length we can tell that 100 the moon isn't 238 000 miles it's much more closer so what else is going on well it tends to be ignored that we everything converges based on a rate a rate of our it's our convergence rate so we have a convergence a resolution limit and everything resolves at that rate including the stars including everything that we see

This is ignored. We have a doma perspective. We focus on the vanishing point, right? So when we get into the geometry, like I was stating before, we are using right angles. We are using the law of sine and cosine, which is the angle, the ratio that exists between the angle and the opposite side.

Right. We can't have that without a right angle. When we incorporate a curving surface, now all of a sudden we're introducing one nonlinear surface that would throw off the anterior angles like Mr. The first speaker was talking about. But this is where it falls apart. Astronomically, we're making angles of elevation over thousands of miles, assuming Earth to be a plane. That's just how it works.

We have a celestial sphere with quotations because that's our dome of vision. And we establish a plane surface. So everything that's going on here, we need to incorporate Euclidean's third postulate, which is a point and a circle around the point. Since we're using Euclidean geometry. And since we know that there's no actual Z-axis incorporated in Euclidean geometry, or the surface anyway,

We have to figure out how it's working elsewhere. So just a quick little couple debunks. I have Cambridge University talking about the cause and effect of reciprocal zenith angles, and it's due to observing in elevation through angles.

A medium, what would that be? Refraction. So it's the effects of refraction. And what I noticed, your variation presented by the main surveyor, who won't even acknowledge his actual name, is a deviation of 0.00149 degrees.

simply caused by refracting. So, Cambridge University goes on to tell us about 23 kilometer observations and they show us a little graph with the cartoon of the globe, but then they show us the data that supports their evidence. And what they show is that over our observations over 23 kilometers, they are assuming Earth to be a horizontal plane, right?

So one of the key aspects and one of the key errors of using a theodolite is if an object is tilted away from you, not vertical with a horizontal reference, if it's tilting away from you like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, that would be a cause of error in plane surveying. Everything's assumed to be upright from its position and your position, locally flat. Forty-five seconds.

45 seconds. Okay. So a good point against Coriolis. Obviously, we have the standard troy ounce. So if Coriolis effect changes with latitude, we would have proof of it with our empirical measurements of a troy ounce. It would increase with latitude.

All you have is supposed explanations why it affects certain things, which often invoke spin drift of the bullet. Fact of the matter is the standard troy ounce of a gold ounce doesn't change when you increase from the equator. Like you would have a really shit's nonsense.

All right. I think we've wrapped up there. Let's get back to our main debate screen. Thank you so much, Chris, for your introductory statement. We're going to get a chance to unpack some more in our open discussion, which we're going to move into right now. We're going to try to do our best there to make space for everybody to get their point across. We'll try to keep it as natural as possible. But if we have to move into muted rounds, we will. So I'm just going to warn the boys just right now, preemptively, before we go. So this is going to be a lot of fun. Once again, smack that.

like button you know you want to it's it's begging you for it get those super chats in they're already flying too honestly if you don't get it in soon i i don't know it might be one of those ones we have to gloss over because it it's going to be here a while so let's get everybody off mute

get ready to roll. So, uh, fight the flat earth, Craig and Max MXXD. I'll give you the floor to respond to some of what you just heard. And then, uh, Chris, Nathan, feel free to jump in, you know, when it feels natural. Well, um,

Hard to say what we just heard because of obviously the purposely crafted shotgun tactics talking about a bunch of completely unrelated things. Both of them went straight into rebuttals. None of them gave an opening for their case. So overall, your openings, absolute shit show. Uh,

Let's talk about RCAs. Both of you tried to come to me at RCAs. Nathan tried to say that land surveyors treat the earth as if it was flat, ignoring the curve for up to 100 miles. Nathan, that is plane surveying, and you can only ignore what is there?

So wrong on two accounts in one statement. That is absolutely a record. Love that. Keep it up. Can you make your argument more coherent, please? That didn't make sense to me. I would like you to stick to coherent arguments, please. I would like to give Nathan a chance to respond. Just one second there, Max. I would like to give Nathan a chance to respond where you've directly engaged with him. And then Craig, if you want to jump in after, that's totally cool. So go ahead there, Nathan.

So he just admitted that plane surveying is a method of assuming the Earth is flat, disregarding curvature, and measuring... Nathan, buddy, buddy, buddy, you can only disregard what is there. If it's not there, you cannot disregard it. There's no reason to disregard something that is non-existent. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

It's not 100 square miles, so it's actually 10 miles by 10. So it's not even 100 miles. Like I say, let's give Nathan a chance to respond. The expectation is that you guys are going to disagree with each other. So let's let Nathan say his piece and then give it back over to you, Craig. So go ahead there, Nathan.

Yeah, just to correct Craig, they don't actually do land surveying in boxes. They do it from the central point with a radius out. So it wouldn't be 10 by 10 miles. It would be approximately six miles with a radius out. That would be 100 square miles. I don't know. I'm not a land surveyor. I'm just educating you guys on how it works. You're not educating a puppy, Nathan. Come on.

Tony, you're not a bully. Tony, one second. One second. Hold on, Max. We're going to give him another 15 seconds just to wrap his point. And then I do want to hand it over to Craig. So let's let's just let Nathan wrap up his point before we inject.

So go ahead there, Nathan. I'll give you another 15 seconds to finish your thoughts. No problem. So if you spend the first three minutes on reciprocal zenith angles, I can show how the horizon isn't physical and geometric. I did in my opener. It should be at 1.2 miles for a one-foot observer, and it's past 9.5 miles. But like I was saying, plane surveying is a method of disregarding curvature.

on Earth's surface and treating the Earth as a flat plane, that's a simple Google search, for up to 100 square miles. If they move outside of that, they also assume it's flat for another 100 square miles. And if they move outside of that, they still assume it's flat. This is how they build railroads, bridges, canals, everything. All right, let's give Craig the floor here and then try to bounce over to Chris. We'll get back to you there, Max. Let you soak it all in. It's going to be great. So once again, smash that like and over to you, Craig.

Yeah, so Nathan attempted to debunk what I said by misunderstanding what I said. I didn't say distance from the surface of the Earth. I said speed relative to the surface of the Earth and distance from the Earth's axis of rotation. So the distance, you know, if you are just still over the Earth, if a helicopter is just hovering, it has...

has no Coriolis applied to it because, and I tried to make this very clear, Coriolis is applied when something is moving relative to the surface. So if that helicopter is just hovering above the surface, there is no Coriolis force being applied because Coriolis force was applied once that helicopter is moving relative to the surface. So if the helicopter starts moving north, then you can calculate the Coriolis force being applied

based on the helicopter's mass, its speed, and its distance from the axis of rotation. No, nobody said distance from the surface of the Earth, Nathan. You may have cotton wool in your ears. Coriolis is measurable in a laboratory using something as simple as a Compton generator or a Falkholtz pendulum. I'm attempting to pronounce that correctly because people always shout it. All right, let's hand it over to Chris.

If you don't mind. All right, Chris, did you have any commentary or Nathan on your side before we hand it back to Max there? Because I know Max is waiting to chop the bit here. Yeah, so just reading off the accuracy of determination of terrestrial refraction. This is from Cambridge University. When observing throughout the daytime, refraction changes by as much as 0.015...

from 013 midday to 0.25 at midnight. So that's quite a difference that changes during the day. And they're saying, well, this is actually an error. And that we, if we were to be a plane surveyor, would have to account for this error

and correct for the refraction bringing us to a true horizon, a true geometric horizon, so that our measurements aren't off by even the slightest bit. Do you guys understand that? So when you guys are invoking it, we need to understand the cause and effect and how we correct for it. They tell us, well, you have to correct for it because it's an error caused by refraction.

Uh-oh. You just said... You just said barometric pressure.

Hold on, hold on. With all due respect, Craig. So yeah, Chris thinks you... Yeah, so with all due respect, Craig, since you chose to interrupt me, since you chose to carry on and monologue... No, you were the... Don't whine. I was going to say, honestly, the only person that was interrupted, honestly, was Max, because I did say I wanted him to take the floor after. I know that there was... You guys were all engaging back and forth, but yeah, I'll hand the floor over to Max, and then we'll try to just keep going in a circle here, guys. Right.

So, yes, we know refraction happens. We know exactly how refraction behaves. This, that I'm holding right in my hands,

It's proof that we know exactly what refraction does. And I can bring you my contact lenses, which are little pieces of plastic, which allow me to see clearly. And we understand refraction so clearly that a doctor can literally carve out your eye with a laser and make you see better than you did before. So saying that refraction exists, it's not a thing. It's not a problem. And when you do our reciprocal scenic angle measurements, you take set angles.

of instructions, sets of measurements, sorry. And they usually deviate minimally from

each other and then you do the mean and that way with the quantification of refraction and doing the mean of a set of let's say five measurements then you have taken care of refraction so uh reciprocal scenic angles you still haven't debunked it you can anyone can do this you can measure the curve yourself so yeah

Okay, so obviously you're ignoring what science says, that it's an error incorporated in measurements caused by refraction. And you can simply hold up your glasses and say, we understand refraction, but ultimately we're observing refraction.

Through one medium, not two like your glasses are showing, and we have a horizontal incident angle. Key aspect when we're talking about Snell's Law, you can just spew out garbage, but fact of the matter is anyone who actually knows what we're talking about knows that you're just melting at this point.

Yeah, here's the thing actually, Snell's law isn't really appropriate for when you're talking about the atmosphere because it's a gradient with many, many, many, many, many changes. What you should actually be using is Fermat's principle of refraction, which talks about the changes of refraction. We're using many, many instances and simplifies Snell's law over- Can you spell that out for me, Craig? So I can write it down? Yeah, F-E-R-M-A-T-A-S, principle.

Fermat's principle of refraction. Thank you. It describes how refraction is affected by the fact that our atmosphere is also curved and of different densities. Can I jump in here for a second? I've heard you now say barometric pressure and then I've heard you say atmosphere so I'm just going to ask you just based on your knowledge in physics would you say gases take shape on their own accord?

No, for gases, we have to force it to the atmosphere. It is the atmospheric lensing. No, I'm just asking a simple question regarding the terminology you're using. No, but I have something to show you.

but let me let me hold on i'm just asking a simple question yeah like can we answer it does gas keep on its own accord hold on a second there craig let's let him clarify so just for our audience so they can hear you nice and clear uh state the question there uh chris and then we'll give you a chance to answer their uh ftfe if you're both talking nobody can hear you so uh go ahead there chris well what i said it was does

Gas takes shape on its own accord because we have a problem. First and foremost, you can't have gas taking its own shape. That's nonsense. We have obviously a container, Boyle's Law, referring to barometric pressure physics. And he stated, hold on, respectfully, I'm still... He stated that we have a barometric pressure decrease with elevation. We can explain that because of temperature and understanding the standard gas laws.

But we can't just let him sidestep points that debunk the globe. Like I said, Chris, sorry, just to backpedal, just to clarify the question. Once again, ask the question and then not keep talking. Does gases take shape on their own accord? On accord? Gases don't have will, buddy. So gas, like all matter, reacts to forces acting upon it.

Forces. Okay. So can you show me... Can you show me gravity? Alright, hold on. Let's let Craig make his rebuttal.

hold on hold on i want to let i want to let craig make his for example just because we're trying to respond to the question hold on max uh everybody's really chomping at the bit i knew it was going to be juicy super chats are oh yeah it's going to be busy so uh let's let craig finish up his point before we do derail entirely i don't want to sure no but it's going to be the same stuff gas like all matter reacts to forces acting upon it in the case of our atmosphere it is a force created by gravity

Hmm. What evidence empirically do we have to support that? And not involving a fallacy, which would be what? Reiteration fallacy? No, don't try the fallacy game. It doesn't work. All right. So you asked for evidence. Now you're going to need to shut it.

So this is a video and I'm not going to play it because it gets the channel demonetized, I know from personal experience, but I will share the link in the side chat for anyone who wants to check it. This is a gas, SF6, that is being held in a container with no lid and it has a little tin foil boat floating in it. Did you say container? This is gas pressure without containment

Exactly what you asked for. Thank you for trying. Wait a minute, Max. Did you just say this is gas in a container without a lid? Without a lid, yes. Don't you see it? Okay, but we know that there's... Hold on, hold on. We know that that gas specifically is more dense and it's being held by the container and... It's not being held by the container. Hold on, hold on. It's being, first of all, contained.

In the four walls, just like a lake. And then it also has atmospheric pressure, which is what? Result of gravity. Hold on. It's displaced by the more dense medium. This is Archimedes' principle. And it's not actually showing what we're asking for. Yes, it's showing exactly what you're asking. You're just coping, buddy.

I would disagree. So this is an evidence of gravity. Okay. This is an evidence of gravity affecting it. This is evidence of displacement of fluids. This is Archimedes principle, which predates the theory of gravity by 1900 years. Just because you can't comprehend it, Max, doesn't mean that it's not happening. Sure, buddy. Hold on. Hold on, guys. Like I said, Craig's trying to jump in here. I know Nathan's been...

You know, making some cues. So we do want to try to get some bouncing back and forth. I know there's all kinds of avenues we'll get into, but just try to hold on to that for a second. We'll get there. So, Craig, if you want to jump in there. And then, Nathan, I haven't heard from you in a few seconds or a few minutes now. So, yeah, let's get you in here, into the discussion. So go ahead there, Craig, and we'll bounce it over to Nathan after. Thanks, Chris, for being on the floor. Yeah.

Archimedes' principle contains the force of buoyancy which in this case is a result of gravity so when you invoke Archimedes' principle you actually are invoking gravity as well. Just because Archimedes didn't know that's what it was doesn't mean that that's not what it actually is. You are misunderstanding basic physics and science. Matter has to react to forces, it's just how it is. There is clearly a force acting upon the atmosphere otherwise we wouldn't have a gradient because

As flat earthers like to say, the second law of thermodynamics means that hot goes to cold and high pressure goes to low pressure. But that is not happening in our atmosphere. We have a gradient. And Nathan, you're wrong about the ozone. That's not a higher pressure level. I think I already acknowledged that point with temperature. We have a vertical temperature gradient. You just ignored that. Go ahead, Nathan. Sorry, bud. No worries. How long do I have, Ryan? Because I've been waiting like 10 minutes to say something. I got some notes here.

Yeah, okay. That's no problem. If you want to do like some cross-examination time, we can definitely do that. So Nathan, I'll give you the floor and we'll let the other side kind of respond to your critiques. What I would advise though, if we are going to do like a cross-exam is to start with the critique and end with the question. Because if you start with the question, people start chomping. So go ahead there, Nathan. We'll move into some new flow. No problem. So Craig made the claim that you have to be traveling to experience Coriolis. Correct.

All right, great. Well, I have a question about that, Craig. What are the three variables in the Coriolis formula? Yeah, I explained those to you when in my intro. Did you not hear? Can I get the three variables, Craig, or are you just going to waffle on about your intro? Oh, sorry. I guess you didn't hear then. Yeah. Mass, speed and distance from the axis of rotation.

So your latitude on earth. I have our mass, angular velocity, and tangential velocity. So as you go up-- That's one of the formulas, yes. There's a few form ways to calculate your Coriolis force. Yeah, that's one of them, correct. Are they done, Ryan?

Well, yeah, I'm majoritively giving you the floor to ask some of these questions. So let's try to cede some time. But yeah, no, it's totally fine if they want to just unpack a little bit on some of the questions. I'm majoritively going to give you the floor, like I say, to ask those questions. All I ask for is three variables.

I don't need anything else. Okay? And you actually got them wrong. It's mass angular velocity. Yeah, there's many more than just that one formula, just so you're aware. All right. Let's let Nathan respond to what you were saying there. Hold on. Hold on a second. These guys are both on camera, off camera right now. So, yeah, if we do have to move into muted back and forth, we will if we can't stop with some of the interruptions there. So...

I'm going to give the floor back to you, Nathan, to wrap up your point. And like I say, let's try to be respectful of each other's time. But if we have to, we'll move into those back and forths. I think we'll start two minutes. So we'll give it one more shot here, guys. Go ahead there, Nathan.

yeah it's all good i mean i'm sorry craig doesn't know his religion we call this emotional damage on tick tock you can cry as much as you like nathan it doesn't change the fact that there's more than one formula i will have to go into muted back and forth so now i i'm going to give the floor if you're going to go off yeah i don't know nathan are you still here

I was going to give the back of the floor to the other side just because you were interrupted. And then we're going to, yeah, let's do two minutes back and forth just to make sure that you guys are coming across and everything's fair. I got the double timer here. Hit that like button, everybody. We knew it was going to be a juicy exchange, a fun back and forth. So two minutes on the floor for Team Flat.

- Yeah, it's pretty sad that we can't even have a back and forth exchange. The other people have to be placed on timeout, like toddlers who had their ball taken away, which is what we're dealing with. Like I was saying, it's emotional damage. For 12 years, they were locked in a cage

And then they eat this globe religion into their brain for five days a week, eight hours a day. And then someone like me comes by handsome a flyer and I get arrested and I get put in jail. And then these guys troll me for six years saying I'm harassing the people locked in a cage for 12 years. Then you try and explain the truth to them. And it's just insults and interruptions. And they're absolutely losing their minds. So I got a couple of things to go over.

I'd still like a demonstration of hurricanes. So if the ball is rotating, causing vortices at the equator, demonstrate it. Richard Feynman says if it doesn't agree with the experiment, it's wrong. Science is that simple. On top of that, the formula for Coriolis, which Craig got wrong, was mass, angular velocity, and tangential velocity. So if you're in a helicopter and you leave the surface of the Earth going 1,037 miles an hour,

Well, conservation of momentum would state you're still going 1,037 miles an hour. So as you go up in altitude, you're increasing the radius from the center of the Earth. That would necessitate an increase in velocity sideways so that you could maintain that vector because there's a greater distance to travel as you increase the radius. On top of that, refraction is not what we're seeing in the atmosphere. Like Chris said, you're looking through your glasses.

There's no glasses in nature. So what we're talking about is distortion. Now, let me give you an example of refraction and distortion. An example of refraction is a straw when being placed in water. An example of distortion is looking through a curved piece of glass and seeing a distorted image, which is what we see when objects get 40, 50, 60 miles away, which is why sometimes you can't see the bottom of them. And globers will claim that's earth curvature, even though the entire building should be a object.

Can I get another 15 seconds, Ryan? I mean, I've been waiting forever. I got interrupted five times just to go through this. All right, 15 seconds, and then we'll hand it to the other side for two minutes. Again, for Matt's principle, deals with refraction. It says refraction at a flat surface. If an object is in the air and an observer is in the water, so again, that would be a flat surface. I googled what Craig was talking about. This is going through two different mediums. So this does not have to do with looking over large bodies of water.

At all whatsoever. So you cooked yourself, Greg. You cooked your own globe. You guys playing and all the emotional damage we've had to put up with.

We'll do two minutes for the other side. So the other side's on mute. Two minutes for you guys. Go ahead there, Max. Amazing. Nathan, who just Googled something, knows more about the thing that I explained to him. Basic Coriolis formula, simplest formula is Fc equals 2mv omega sine theta, where Fc is the Coriolis force. m is the mass of the object. v is the velocity of the object relative to the rotating frame, so how fast you are moving relative to the surface.

and the angular velocity of the rotating reference frame. So where you are on the globe, your latitude and the latitude where you are. So that's one of the Coriolis formulas. You can also use the Coriolis acceleration formula or the Coriolis vector form. Nathan doesn't understand math. He's read something on Google

saw that there is certain components and said, "Haha, I've got you" without understanding what those components mean. He does not know anything what he is talking about in the slightest. A helicopter that is just hovering there is not moving relative to the surface of the Earth, so has zero Coriolis force applied to it. Vortices aren't created at the equator. That's where there is no Coriolis force. That's why hurricanes do not cross the equator.

Everything Nathan is saying is wrong. Max, over to you. - Nathan said that glasses don't happen in nature. I wonder what the fuck I'm holding right now. Is this supernatural? Is this spiritual? Is this, what the fuck, Nathan? Glasses are absolutely manmade.

But man-made is still natural. We're working in the natural realm. You just don't know how words even work. And let me tell you how, back when we were talking about the curve, you conveniently misunderstood that in order to disregard something, it has to be there. You can't disregard what is not there.

That's time. So we're going to hand it back to the other side. I'm placing you guys on the mute just to keep it fair. And I'm going to ask the other side to unmute. So Chris, you have the floor first for the two minutes for your side. Okay, but I think I remember Nathan asking if we can demonstrate and replicate it on a small scale. What you can see here is how just invoking...

an electromagnetic current with a specific frequency, 432 hertz. So what's key in that is understanding the circle of fifths in music theory, how Earth has a Schumann resonance, which is also an octave off of this. So if we have an oscillating magnetic field like this,

on a spectrum like this, we would expect to see the same sort of movements in semantics, right? And we understand displacement of the gases. And the actual reason for hurricanes and tropical storms are because of the water currents

And the high and low pressure systems created. So this would explain all of this. And guess what? We're doing it on a plane, right? We're just showing it how it works. We would have one rotation here and opposite rotation here. We would have a center point, which isn't experiencing as much. Anyway, if you want to take over, Nathan, I showed you since I knew that the Globers wouldn't have been able to.

Again, if we're talking about the supposed... Sorry about that. Sorry, Nathan wanted me to unmute him. Carry on. You still have some time.

Yeah, like Chris is showing. I mean, we can model the hurricanes. We can model the ocean's currents with magnetohydrodynamics. We can model frictionless orbits with quantum locking and supercooled silicon wafers. You can also use pyrolytic graphite at room temperature. On top of that, we can model specular reflections over large bodies of water. They only work if the surface is smooth and flat. The incident angle has to meet the reflected angle. If you go to the House of Mirrors at a circus, probably where these guys work.

If there's any curvature, you would see distortion in the image. But there's no curvature on the surface of water. We can also model everything, pressure gradients. All right. So we're going to hand it back to the other side. Thank you so much. Fellas, we'll hand it over to Max. I think Max is ready to jump on the bit there. So go ahead there, Max. Yes.

Nathan has clearly never seen a chrome ball, so I'm going to share my screen for just a sec here. Let me try to find a good one.

Did you have anything to comment with there, Craig, while he gets that up there? Yeah, I mean, that's not modeling hurricanes because hurricanes aren't constantly happening and they appear in different places matching the temperature differential around the world. That's not in any way, shape or form modeling how hurricanes work. Maybe they don't understand what a scientific model is. I'm not quite sure.

you can get pretty much very nifty reflections and the closer you get to the ball, the reflections are like pretty much like a mirror. And this is a chrome ball. So this idea of specular reflections only happening on a flat plane is absolutely ridiculous.

Yeah, the curvature of the Earth is so large that the... One minute. The bend of the water would be so small that the specular reflection wouldn't be looking like if you were looking at just a ball in front of you. Nathan is playing the game of, oh, the Earth isn't as big as we think it is, so, you know...

there's no reason why when you're standing at the beach and you've got a body of water in front of you that you wouldn't be able to see like a line of sunlight towards the uh you know towards where the sun is on the horizon or something and the fact that that still appears when there's waves on the water you know it kind of debunks what nathan says the earth is extremely large um and we are very tiny compared to it so we don't see things as though the earth is small it's you know

Father Ted explained it best, Nathan. These cows are small. These cows are... Five. All right. Well, that was the wrap there. So let's hand it to the other side. Oh, sorry. What was that, Craig? I think I might have cut you off. I'm just happy to go back to a back and forth as long as Nathan understands that a back and forth involved, you know, a back and forth and he doesn't cry every time there's an interjection. Hey, come on now. Craig, all I heard you guys say just now is that it appears locally flat. No need for insult. Come on, throw up.

Throw up. Yeah. We're going to give the floor to Nathan. Nathan's sharing his screen. So let's let Nathan describe what he was showing the audience there. So go ahead, Nathan. And yeah, we do want to try to keep it fair for sure. So you guys just wrapped up your two minutes. So if you could just maybe give it 30 seconds before you pop in with an injection unless a question's asked. Oh, sure. Go ahead there, Nathan.

- So this is a specular reflection in nature. It looks nothing like the chrome ball that guy just showed us. There was massive amounts of distortion, which was pretty much my claim. If the surface of the earth was curving, you would see distortion in the images, just like these guys show us a super curvy lake

Lake Pontchartrain, they have one lake that curves and it's a swamp. They filmed it from a 17 story hotel building with a telescope zooming in on the horizon. So they're hijacking atmospheric conditions and thinking you guys are stupid enough to not figure this out, but we're figuring it out. If you look at all these examples of specular reflections, they're happening on flat surfaces. If the surface is curved, you don't get a specular reflection. We'll just go to lakes and I'll pass the mic to Chris

This is what we see in nature. This is nothing like that silly distorted ball image. She just showed us These are real specular reflections. The earth is flat ladies and gentlemen, welcome to flatter Yes, and then in addition to that that specific type of geometry we're using invokes a plane surface and

Thanks, guys. We have Euclidean geometry, all measurements of Earth, hyperbolic vision, dome vision. It's pretty straightforward. I used to study optics, and nowhere in the literature of optics you will find the azimuthal grid of derpitude that you guys invoke. It doesn't exist. Witsit invented that.

Wait, wait, wait. Are we going to move back and forth? Yeah, let's just talk. It's up to you. I'm okay to let the conversation go, so go ahead, Chris. Let me just at least embarrass Max right now. Let me do it. No, I know you think you will try. Okay, so he says that that word is invented by Twitsit. I've never met Twitsit, so how would he have...

shown that to me but i've i've looked at stellarium a bunch of times what does this say right here as a methyl grid so this is an astronomical term and you can laugh

You can laugh all day long, but that just proved to me... Yes, but it's missing the other half of the term, which is... So I'm in the middle of embarrassing you. One sentence, it's missing the other half of the term, which is... I'm in the middle of embarrassing you, and you're melting, to be fair. No, you're failing at it, buddy. Uh-huh. So you're melting. I just want to show something. You're melting. Sorry. Did you have to jump in on behalf of Max getting his flat mac? Let's just let Craig...

It's right. It's just kind of going on and on. You said it was going to be juicy, so... I just find it funny that Max doesn't really know what he's talking about. Oh, I do know what I'm talking about. You're just whining. It's okay. I'm just waiting. Before you play your video, if you don't mind, Craig, I just want to let Chris wrap up what he was saying, please. With all due respect, we did have the floor, and I was calling Max out for not lying. Can we at least finish up on this point without Max interrupting me?

Oh yeah, no, I just said that. Can I get the big screen just for one second? Thank you. Yeah, the floor is yours for sure. Okay. So he's screen sharing right now. I don't think anybody can see it. But when we put on azimuthal grid on solarium, it shows us our cardinal directions reference our zenith. That's our azimuthal grid. And what

Wits, it does. It's an ad on our vision. So would you agree on Stellarium that this is our vision? This is our DOMA vision. So just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Max. That's disingenuous of you.

Alright, let's let Max... 10 seconds, Max. Again, buddy, you just requested a turn to say the exact same shit you said before. You're missing the point that it's not as a modal grid. It's as a modal grid of vision. As a modal grid of vision. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Am I speaking right now? I'm sorry that my sentence interrupted your interruption.

All right, to the two of you, just one second. Yeah, Craig was trying to do a screen share. I did want to get over to him, but I said like 10 seconds if you can be really quick there, Max, just to address the point. And then I want to give the floor over to Craig. I just have one sentence. He just can't help himself because it destroys his argument. Stellarium and stellar observations work on an azimuth grid. Sure, that's how we map out the sky. But the concept of the azimuthal grid of derpitude or...

or vision, like you would say, that doesn't exist anywhere in the literature of optics. Over to you. - All right, over to Craig. Let's let Craig do the screen share and I wanna let Nathan respond here just to get all the voices in the room. So go ahead, Craig, when you're ready. - Okay, right.

Right, so they constantly say if there's any kind of curve then you're not going to get this specular reflection and they show pictures of the sun and the light coming from that to the beach when this is someone who has made a curved surface. You can see they've got this mirror with a pole underneath it and it's being bent and you can watch the whole video to check that it is actually curved and you can literally see the specular reflection on it

works the same way as it would if you know let me get to the right bit sorry so you can see he's got it down at the camera here so this is exactly what you see even if you say that it's flat you've got the line of it coming straight from the light down towards you even though the surface is quite clearly curved it's still a line towards you so the claim of you know if there's any bend then you get

you know, there's a problem with it, it's just not true. We go back to earlier in the video and he's showing that it's a bend in it but the reflections are still perfectly straight, almost like a mirror because it's a very, very, very small bend.

just like the water on Earth would have. If it was more, then it would look strange, but it doesn't because the curve of the glass is very, very, very small. Check out this video for yourself. It's on a channel called Gav Downs. He's got quite a few basic videos debunking silly flat Earth claims. Right over to you, Nathan. Yeah, thanks, bro. I just made a meme. Let me send it to my... Because I took a picture of what Craig was putting up there. I thought it was pretty ridiculous, so give me one second. Okay.

Okay, well you're doing meme creation. Let's hand it over to Chris then. Chris, just go ahead. I accept your defeat there, Nathan. It's fine. Don't worry. I'm not... I got to share my screen. All right, Chris has the floor, guys. So let's give Chris his time here and you can have the last half of this one. Okay, Nathan, go ahead there. Okay.

So it's just a circular argument, in my opinion. Fact of the matter is, based on the incident angle observed on a curving surface or a plain surface, and remember, we already established locally, it appears to be a flat surface. Plain surveying, right? Remember, back and forth, Euclidean geometry. It's just not curving. And we're not using any kind of curving surface locally. So just to simply say, well, it would work. It wouldn't.

Well, I can show you a diagram of how it could. Go ahead, Nathan. So this is what Craig showed on the left, this curved surface with the diffused reflection. Just want you guys to see this. I had to go make this meme real quick with some pictures. Cherry big frame. Dude, that's not a diffused reflection. That's glitter on top.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. You can respond just one second there, guys. I hate to put you on mute, but yeah, because sometimes I forget to take you off mute, and that's no fun. But go ahead there, Nathan, and I'll give you guys, yeah, I'll give you 45 seconds. We'll go back to two minutes back and forth. Go ahead, Nathan. I just need 10 seconds, and I just need these guys to cool it with their emotional damage, because it's not a good look for their global religion. It's not going to appear like they're winning this debate. So look at the diffused reflection over the curved surface. I took two screenshots, and you guys are

claiming like i cherry picked these this is from your video you just showed on the big screen so if you didn't want me to show it i don't know why you showed it um but here's reflections in reality what we see in nature is a smooth linear um and then when it sets the sun has a local light illumination a couple more proof yeah chris go ahead um let's hand it over chris i mean this

This debate's over. I'm ready for the Q&A. I was going to say, you still had 10 seconds there, so we'll try to do a few more two-minute back-and-forths just to look for some time. Can I quickly respond to that, please? Sure thing. I got... Ethan, could you put that back up, please? Yeah, one second.

No worries. All right, we're still screen sharing. So that's up and ready. Go ahead, Craig. And you saw not a diffuse reflection. That's glitter on it to show where the path of the light is. The image that Nathan has at the top there with the two lines is coming from, if you look above it, lines of light. There's many pictures of the literal sunlight coming and looking like the other ones that I've got on the left. He confused diffused reflection with glitter

which was, you know, a little bit silly. But he also missed the beginning of the video that I showed where it showed the same thing on that mirror with it not being bent. The point was that the mirror being bent or straight did not change what was shown. Can I jump in here, Craig? What I'm simply observing right now is that we have an incident angle on the one on the right

which is more horizontal. And what you're showing... What the fuck does more horizontal even mean? Hey, man, just chill, chill, chill. And then what he's showing is that we're observing it higher up.

which would first of all alter our incident angle, right? Simple stuff, Max. Can you go here and keep up? Yeah, but the problem is that you don't understand the basic meaning of words. What does more horizontal mean? Horizontal is an absolute word. Okay, so can we... It's out of logic. It refers to itself. Nathan, do you still have that loaded up for a second? It's pretty fucking straightforward, Max. English is my second language. The thing that you're actually involved in this debate and you can't understand...

or coherently take into consideration what i'm saying it's pretty straightforward when we're observing the sunset on the right max just so you coherently understand what i said we're observing it more horizontally

And you said, what the fuck is that word? You actually melted down in real life. That makes no sense to you. Does that make sense to you? Does that make sense to you? I just want an unbiased. Like what I said is we're observing on the right horizontally, more horizontally than what Craig shows, which is from above, which would change the incident angle. Does that make sense to you, host? Because Max doesn't seem to fucking understand English.

Oh, I understand English better than you, buddy. I speak two languages. How many do you speak? I will say what would make sense to me is if our audience has questions to get them in because Nathan's soon ready to move on here. We've got six minutes left on the floor for the open discussion. But yeah, I do want to hand the floor over to Max just because Max has not had a chance to respond to you there, Chris, on this one. So let's let you respond, Max, and we'll carry on. Stop sharing, Nathan. Let's see where we can go.

Oh here, I can end the screen share there, uh, right quick, just to be fair. Uh, go ahead when you're ready there, Max, and we'll give you the floor. Uh, yes, one sec, let me find it. All right, here. Uh, this is how we do celestial navigation. Uh, you can measure

angles and distances from a curve because all you have to do is trace an imaginary tangent line either to your eyes or to the surface of where you're standing so uh

That is not a problem. But I would like to change the subject for the last six minutes, given that we're living a historic moment of absolute flat earth destruction with flat earthers on the ice. And after you have said for many, many years, no one can go to a top

Antarctica we have flat earth there and they're about to see the 24 hour sun so my question is how do you explain that on your dirt pizza model is this back and forth you guys can respond to each other I think at this point we've only got a couple minutes left so let me see the big screen for a second

So what's going on here, Max? You need to understand, first of all, what's going on with your pathetic claim and a lack of understanding of geometry. So if we establish... I'm going to lead with a couple of points here. This is based on your model, pretty correct. So if we establish a tangent and we take an angle of elevation off the tangent, we're assuming the vertical reference to the Earth...

is parallel with us. I brought this point up. You guys didn't even have a response. You guys deflected straight away. Then you showed a cartoon and showed how it works. So in reality, if you follow the- - I show the diagram just like you're showing now, buddy. - Stop for a sec, stop for a sec. So in reality, if you could invoke that pathetic nonsense cartoon, you would understand that the geographical- - I show the diagram exactly like you're showing right now, buddy. You're just coping. - Okay, so you would understand that the geographical position

of the star to Earth would be tilted away from you. And based on your linear relationship that you've established, Mr. Glow Believer, we understand that it would tilt away from you 1 degree per 69 miles. Now this isn't what happens in reality because you do not have a formula that exists practically that can incorporate the vertical tilting away from you. Remember, we're using Euclidean geometry, right angles.

So, because the vertical does not tilt away from you, we know that that claim that you're making is utter garbage. Do you see from this, from the 30th degree parallel, we would establish an additional 30 degrees on top of our 90, right off the hop, we're not using a right angle. Then we have a 30 degree here and a 30 degree here, don't we?

interior angles equal 180 degrees except we must use this right angle law of cosine and sine straight up so when you're invoking that the plum would be tilted away from you that debunks your gravity your your geometric so

I'm not interested in your misunderstandings of geometry. Okay, so here's my... A lot of faces on the other side, so let's try to take 10 seconds and then hand the floor back to the other side. I'm just going to knock this out of the park, and I'm going to need about 15 seconds. If we go from Polaris to 45th parallel, right, and we incorporate the additional 45-degree tilt...

Of this 90 degree, that would be 135 degrees plus your 45 degree. That's 180 degrees off of two quote angles. What the fuck's going on up here?

You seem to think you can only do geometry with right angle triangles. That's because you know jack shit about geometry. I would like to speak about the final experiment for the last part of the debate, please. Alright, that would be great, but Craig has been trying to jump in here. Hold on, guys. Craig's trying to jump in. I don't want to do any more boots, but...

I'm good with you. I would like Max to deal with what Chris had just said there, but if he wants to go to the final experiment, I'm happy to do that. Yeah, I mean, we're not going to teach him geometry right now. He's just making really ridiculous claims about angles which he doesn't understand because he's never done celestial navigation.

Okay. So I'd like to move on. Can I? I think if we move on, it's because you're conceding the fact. Sure, you can think that I conceded, buddy. Let's move on. I don't give a fuck. So if I got the big screen, hold your horses and save your comments for the things that I present that are wrong. So if we're using the angles of all known angles of elevation formula, incorporate the law of sine and cosine,

The law of cosine and sine imply in Euclidean geometrics a right angle,

and the direct ratio that exists between... You're repeating yourself, buddy. Okay, so I just need you to understand, first and foremost... Can I ask you one question? Do you know what a tangent is? Yeah, tangent. So what I showed you right there with my little cartoon... What is a tangent? A tangent would be the dotted line established from your observation. It's the theoretical...

flat horizontal that you need as a glober to establish any of this geometry because you do and have to in fact invoke the right angle so why hold on hold on hold on i need you to consider when you consider the fact i'm gonna ask the question hold on craig you're melting

Melting in the fucking pot. Hold on, Chris. Just to be fair, Craig has been waiting. Craig's been waiting to ask a question for a little bit, so let's try to have a back and forth. We're great when you're not on screen, but let's carry on.

Hey, Globers have insulted now twice. In my opinion, they're losing. All right. We got to give Craig the floor just to respond here and then we'll hand you back over to the other side. I'm just going to put the other three guests on and give you the floor. Um, for some reason, Chris, you are keeping one tangent for each measurement, which is not how you would do it. Every time you do a measurement from a different point on that curve, you would have a new tangent that you take the measurement from. Um,

Now, your knowledge of how celestial navigation is done is obviously zero. And I'd be happy to talk you through that step by step if you want. But the fact that you seem to be trying to force angles based on the original tangent that you have once you're around the curve shows that you have no understanding of what our claims actually are. Max, you have anything to add to that?

Well, what I want to do, I want to hand it over to Nathan, actually, if he would like to add to some of what's been in the back and forth here. I'm also going to take Chris off mute if he wants to engage with you directly. But go ahead there, Nathan.

- Yeah, so the celestial navigation has been done for thousands of years by flat earthers. I'm like, Chris is just detailed. They're assuming the earth is flat, establishing right angles, and that all works just fine on a flat earth. - Don't assume the earth is flat. That's just a falsity. - All right, all right. - It's just not true. - I'm ready for closing remarks, just when you know. - Oh, you're ready. - Here's the thing. - Here's the thing. - Nate, let's be clear. This isn't your channel. You don't get to decide. Shut the fuck up.

Okay, but here's the thing though, Craig. - In three debates that you've cried so far live on air, Nathan, you're an embarrassment.

Yo, the only embarrassment I see here, respectfully, is you, Max, and it's fucking funny. Let's try not to make our back and forth so hot. Like I said, let's try to focus in on... Can we just drop this nonsense because you don't understand geometry. Why? Why are we dropping this? This basic concept is gracefully geometry, Max, and you guys are fucking melting.

Sure, but keep telling yourself that. All right, hold on. All right, to be fair, Max, if it is truly nonsense, then it should be easy to address. I'm going to let Chris... Just so Chris is aware, non-clinic geometry exists. All right, so we'll let Chris explain to our audience what he has on his screen there. If you want to move it up just a little bit there, Chris, just so they can see it a little bit better. But yeah, I'll give you the floor to describe what we're looking at there. Well...

This is our grid of vision, right? We're invoking a plane surface. When I brought up the tangent argument, like we're not using a right angle in this specific demonstration that would be more than 90 degrees relative to the position on Earth. So that, right, is not actually... Okay, so when we establish the angles of elevation, guys...

We're using the law of Euclidean cosine and sine. Buddy, you're repeating yourself nonstop. This is the thing. You guys need to acknowledge on the curving Earth's surface, even invoking the tangent, which is just a fancy way of saying Earth is fucking flat, but we don't want to actually agree on that. So would you at least agree? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Greg. Greg.

Craig, Craig, Craig, this question is directly addressed to you, so you can respond to me, but would you agree... Just say about a tangent being a proof of the flat Earth, can you just explain that to me? So, you're not going to interrupt me, so would you simply agree... I want you to clarify. Okay, would you simply agree that the vertical on a curving surface...

Its actual vertical would be tilted away from you. One degree per 69 miles based on the claims that you're making. Not when you take a tangent. So it would have to just because you establish an imaginary surface. That doesn't mean that the vertical...

Okay, so let's establish a right angle. Hold on, hold on. We'll give him 10. We'll give Chris 10 and then he'll respond. Okay, so this is why this argument doesn't make sense. I would like to answer the question that has been asked of me. Craig, you're melting. Ask me a question. I would like to respond. Please mute him. Okay, you're melting. Okay, Chris, it's my turn to respond. You've said something. I'm going to respond. No, you're just feeling garbage. Okay.

All right. So, all right. Let's just clarify the question that was on the table. So the question that's on the table, I'll let you ask a question and then we'll let Craig respond just to try to get to the end here. Cause we do have a lot of super chats.

Hold on hold on what is the question that has been asked I'm gonna hand the floor over because we're doing Chris

based on the geometry, if you were to assume you're taking a measurement 30 degrees away, that star's geographical position over Earth would be tilted 30 degrees away. Then we wouldn't be using right angles. No, that's not how that works. Stop it, Craig. Stop it. You just asked me a question. I went a step further, Craig. Let's try to have a back and forth here for just a second, guys. Okay.

Chris, what you're doing is asking a question-- - No, stop over-talking me. - I am now-- - We're trying to have a back and forth. - We're about five minutes. - Hold on, hold on one second, Chris. We're just trying to have a back and forth for like a little bit based on what you've been putting on the screen here. - I want to point out that I have been interrupted more than anybody else on this show by both Nathan and Chris constantly. They will ask me a question and then not allow me to respond.

because they just want to keep going up, right? So the question: would the geographical position be tilted away? No, it would not, because the geographical position is relative to that position. The geographical position is a vertical from that position. Each position on Earth is its own vertical. You don't have the one tangent and take all the measurements from those other tangents. That's not how it works.

that you are just misunderstanding how celestial navigation and angle of elevations are taken your misunderstanding of these things is not a demon you're poisoning the well and i'm embarrassing you i didn't poison the well once i responded to you very succinctly and explained why you actually overtaught me for two minutes straight

Chris, I'm talking. I haven't finished saying what I'm saying. Chris, can you mute me again instead of this guy who's been over-talking? All right, we'll do 10 seconds, 10, 15. No, respectfully, you muted me when you over-talked me after you gave me the floor and said, Chris, clean your room. Chris, stop crying. Hold on, hold on. And now I'm just calling out the host for being biased. Chris, be quiet so we can respond to you.

You just responded. You actually haven't finished responding for a long time. And now I'm talking, Chris, to be quiet. Is that how this show works? Yes. Once you talk, you allow this to over to over. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Yeah, we're not we're not going to be doing that. Everybody's been put on mute. Look, I can mute everybody. That's fine. I've done it plenty of times. We're used to this. It's not a big deal. Yeah.

It happens every once in a while. Yeah, that's right. It happens if we just can't wheel it in a little bit, guys. So, yeah, let's get into those super chats. I think a couple of the people on the panel might be ready for that. I know, Max, you get some other things you want to unpack there. If we can... No, you just let them...

ran away for 10 straight minutes. I wanted to talk about the final experiment and Chris just repeated himself over and over for 10 minutes to avoid talking about the Flutter destruction that is happening right now. Well, we do have Super Chats that are going to be regarding the final experiment. So, I mean, there are... Don't let them run away from this, Ryan. Come on, please. Give me five minutes. Put five minutes more on the open discussion timer.

All right, well, I will ask the other side. Ryan, we came here to debate the shape of the earth. We came last minute. We weren't the scheduled debaters. That wasn't the topic. So let's move to Q&A. And we have to rush through this, bro, because we came last minute. Not your show, buddy. And honestly, Ryan, you know 90% of the Super Chats are going to be for Chris and I. And so if you want to keep us here, like, let's move through this. Oh, run away, buddy. That's Max, please. Good boy.

Hold on. So I do agree. Yeah, you guys came in last minute. It's not unfair. Why are the glovers always so triggered? Why? Hold on. Hold on. We're going to try to move away from any meta debate. Hold on, Chris. Let's just go into those subjects. Hold on. People can call us triggered.

This is joy. Oh my goodness. You guys are just really giving it to me tonight. I swear. No, but there's, like I say, these fellows were brought in last minute. I don't think it's unfair to get into the super chats, but we are going to be fair. If you do need to head out, I will say once again, if any of our speakers need to head out, if you're in a hurry,

I'll give you one minute on the floor to close your thoughts on the discussion. That's totally fine if you need that minute and if it gets a little too late. So that's for all of our speakers on the panel. But yeah, let's try to ask those questions and actually unpack a little bit more based on what our audience is thinking and what they're seeing on screen. So I am sorry to any of our speakers on the panel who feel like...

Yeah, right just so you know, I'm in no rush each question I have a thorough discussion. It's not just the answer and get to run away I want to make sure each question has a discussion around it when they should Super chat LJ send that helicopter question buddy. I got you To be fair what I heard just now Craig willing to take a

all the questions thoroughly and he couldn't even hear me out. He actually overtalked me for two and a half minutes. All you stated though, simply, is that the vertical will not tilt away from you, geometrically. And that's geometrically not what your model would claim. Fact of the matter. Because the tangent would change, there would be a tilt to the object measured. And you can't concede that fact because you're intellectually... We are gonna...

You don't understand. Nathan, what are you doing? Are you taking cocaine? Nathan, if you need to leave...

I mean, no, no, no. Me and Nathan are in agreement on this. Let's ask those questions from the Super Chatters. All right. So Lord Illuminus. Wait, is there a chance we could just get a one minute break so I can quickly use the toilet, please? Yeah, me too. I'll be right back. Sure. You know what? If you guys need to use the washroom, I can talk to the live chat. So grab yourself a drink, grab yourself, you know, whatever you need to do. If you need to use the washroom, that's fine. Nathan, don't cry. I'll be back. Oh, my God. I was just going to help it.

You know what I know? They're full of insult, but they can't actually talk to us. It's fucking sad. Let's try not to do too much debate analysis here, but I will say that there's been quite a bit of interrupting, a lot of stuff going on. So we try to keep it as open as we can, but when we moved into the two-minute back and forth, it's hard to get back.

to normalcy once you get to that point, right? So, you know, I try to do what I can. I'm trying to make sure that it's fair to everybody on the panel here. So I think the best thing for us to do would be to go into the audience questions. You know, they, like I say, sometimes when you're on screen, you're not really, you know, you're living in the moment and the people in the live chat kind of, they get to back it up a little bit and maybe, you know,

chew and stew and ask their questions so we appreciate everybody who put their questions into a super chat we are going to ask the questions firstly for the side that they're for and then we'll give a chance for rebuttal and then we'll close with the side that was asked the question uh uh every once in a while thanks for the chat in there um every once in a while though uh there is uh opportunity for just a straight back and forth with a question so that'll be at the speaker's discretion if it feels like it's natural we'll let it go

But let's just wait for Craig to, yeah, every once in a while I'll say speak now or forever hold your pee. But I guess I didn't have to tonight. That was just unnecessary. I just wanted to say it anyway. Can you call a safety meeting? Sorry, what was that? Call a safety meeting for everyone in the chat. Oh, man.

All right. Well, we will get to the questions here shortly. Let's just review the poll while we wait for Craig to come back. So right now for our poll, we have the Earth is, and we have 890 votes. 54% have voted for globe. 34% have voted flat. And then we have 11% that are playing by the rules and say a loaf of bread. So that's,

They either don't care or they're just here because they just love it. They just love debate. So we appreciate you guys too. Let's get into those questions ASAP. I see you over there, Max. We're going to get everybody off mute and we're going to ask these questions. So Lord Luminous Poo says, If Thanos blipped 50% of all life, this would include the gut biomes of all survivors causing worldwide diarrhea. In this essay... I will...

Oh, what a luminous poo. You would say something like that. Thanks for being relevant to this discussion. No, it's fine. Thanos did specify it was 50% of Saint's life. So I think it's going to be... Nathan, if you need to leave, buddy, you're welcome. You can just go. It's fine. Did you get a 3-4-1 on those hats?

Yeah, I mean, if you really want to rush through the questions, Nathan, you can leave and we will answer them. It's fine. But let's be clear, this isn't your show, so you don't get to control the speed at which things happen. Why are you monologuing as if you're the ship commander, Greg? We don't care about your opinion. Hold on, hold on.

Hold on. So yeah, well, not-- Ryan, can I say one thing before we continue? That's the third or fourth time I've heard him say that. It's pretty pathetic. All right, what is it next there? Before we continue, there seems to be some really butthurt flirts that are worried that I'm timing people out. I am absolutely not moderating. We have logs for this. I am not touching the chat. I'm just typing in as a debater. So yeah, deal with it. I am not moderating.

That chat is flying. We are letting that chat fly. We appreciate it. I want to give it up for the Globers. They've really made an entertaining evening for me. Well, I'm glad you guys are having fun.

Let's ask that next one from... If you have a specific conversation about celestial navigation, buddy, I'll take you through it as a sailor with thousands of hours of experience with it. Hey, bro, you yourself established the vertical wind tilt away. Your model implies one degree tilt for 69 miles. Game over, buddy. Yeah, but that's because you don't understand how the measurements are taken, bud. That's the problem. Nathan, if you need to leave, you can go, bud. We don't mind. Are you in a hurry to go to your parole officer, Nathan?

It really, if you, if you've got, let's, let's, let's, let's go to the next question for sure though, because we don't really have a whole lot here. I think you should, uh, I think you should hold that to a standard. That's that shit's not necessary. A call for Max. If you're going to talk like that, Hey, listen, Max, if you're going to talk like that, you're a vile woman. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Both of you guys. Come on. We're asking the audience questions. Let's not just get right off into the weeds. No,

I've measured the rotation of the Earth.

my experience as a sailor would clearly point to the fact that the earth is curved the clear the observations that we make every day the forces that we have If you are smart enough figuring out the shape of the earth isn't that hard of a thing to do But yeah, there's a lot of things that do not make sense unless the earth is a globe Max what what about you? So it's funny how they put this and

Oh, you're being indoctrinated. But a lot of these religious flirts, they have been indoctrinated into their actual religion from birth. I wasn't indoctrinated into any religion. So I've been an atheist since I'm five years old. The globe is not indoctrination. It's education. I know that you guys are kind of allergic to getting educated. That's why Witsit is proud of having dropped out of college. That's why all of you

at most have a high school diploma. But education is good. Go get your education. The globe is not going to hurt you, LJ. Flat Earth is good. Your response was to insult the people asking? That's cool. Good job, Max.

Oh, you don't understand English. I get it, bro. If you can't handle insults online, maybe the internet isn't the best thing for you. Here's the thing, though, Craig and Max, both. The moment that you, in my opinion, have to resort to any kind of insults, you already lose the debate. You're showing a lack of impulse control, and you're just inherently being disrespectful. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. All right. Well, we're going to let that play out in the... Hold on there, Craig. We're going to ask that next question, but we'll let that play out in the sphere of the public eye. It's up to you to decide what you're seeing, how you feel. Nathan Thompson is...

Off right now. So I think, yeah, we will just move on. C-Line Prime says, can the FLIRFs explain how GPS trilateration works on a flat Earth? We know for certain that it works with the spherical math and distances slash speeds of the signal sources. It's free and open source.

- Okay. - 99% of data is moved through underwater fiber optics, submarine communication cables. They have towers, they put them on the tops of mountains. They don't adjust for curvature at all. They travel in a Fresnel zone, which means they go up and down, they have an apex. Is this how it's gonna go, the whole Q&A, Ryan?

Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on. We don't care about your feelings, Craig. Just impulse control. I'll be honest. I'll be honest. I don't mind little injections like that. You guys are free, like generally even during discussion to do stuff like that. But yeah, as long as you let the person continue to carry on, as long as you let them have the floor.

You are talking to me via satellite internet because I use Starlink. So it's thanks to the things in space we are currently communicating. Space is fake. Violation of thermodynamics and gas law. Which law? Well, second law, right? Entropy of a system would always decrease without work put in.

We need a container to hold gas pressure. Can you please tell me what the second law of thermodynamics is and what system it refers to? Without work put in, a system would tend to disorder. What system? An enclosed system, an isolated system. An isolated system. What is the only isolated system that exists? The entire universe. Earth. Earth. Prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong without your dogma. Earth is receiving constant heat from the sun, so it's not isolated. Thanks for playing. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to Earth.

Well, you can't just say it doesn't apply to Earth because I have a dogmatic position. Because it doesn't because the Earth is not an isolated system. So what else? Like physics is scalable. What else can you demonstrate? What other system can you demonstrate without...

containment. I can demonstrate an open or closed system, but the only isolated system that exists according to physics is the entire universe.

Nathan, don't worry. I just called the one violence. It's on its way.

Bro, you're pulling insults, eh? Show your little ego, Max. Your little tiny ego, Max. Eh? I'm sorry, what did you say? Stop it. I said your constant insults. Show your little itty-bitty ego. Wink, wink. Sure, buddy. Good job, buddy. Keep filling yourself up. Wrap this up. No, stop.

um just to just to clarify once again it's okay chris if you didn't know what the second law of thermodynamics was now you explained it pretty well you in fact incorrectly you just said it's isolated yeah you're right all right one second one second so nathan are you once again i have to ask if you're ready to get a move on i'd like to respond to the question

GPS and we've been off topic for five minutes. Can I get back to the question, Ryan? Well, no, Chris and I were having a conversation so you can wait. If you need to go, that's fine. But Chris and I were having a conversation. So be a big boy and wait your turn.

Well, we all understand the rules. Like I say, if you guys want to take a minute and, you know, do your closing statement, that's fine. But we don't want to try to rush through some of this back and forth chat because it's like I say, that's that's that's the bread and butter here. We love that. The audience is loving it, too, guys. Let's not discount the audience. That's their favorite part of this. I need your help, Chris, please. No, I'm just dying right now, bro. It's so easy. You're sorry, man.

I took the class- Once again, Chris, the only isolated system is the entire universe. It doesn't apply to the Earth. The Earth is a closed system, not an isolated system. Okay, Earth is special. Thanks for admitting that. At least we can agree on Earth being special. You don't understand English very well, do you? My stuff, though. Alright.

Let's move on to the next question. Let's go on. I would like to hear Nathan's response. Can the Globers just have a moment of impulse control? Thank you. As long as you feel like you and I have finished the conversation about thermodynamics, that's fine. Earth is special. That's what you said. I agree. I said the Earth is not an isolated system. If you think that means it's special, then that's absolutely fine. Nathan, what did you want to say about GPS? We finished our conversation. Now you can have yours.

So 99% of information is moved through fiber optics, submarine communication cables. On top of that, they have the Corona satellite balloon program that NASA runs. They launch thousands of balloons every week. You could look up the video. Logistically, they have data centers, a way of retrieving these balloons. Makes no sense to send things. What is going on?

- Yo, he's fucking losing it. I love it. - I wanna bring up electrodynamic tethers. I haven't met a single glober on TikTok that knew anything about electrodynamic tethers. They don't know where they're at. - Maybe you should get out of TikTok. - Yeah. - Okay. - Let's let Austin respond. - Gonna reply.

Can I just ask one question? Does anything that you said there disprove the existence of satellites? Just a simple question. Does anything that you said there, Nathan, disprove the existence of satellites? Or can those things exist alongside satellites? Oh, apparently Nathan doesn't want to have a conversation. I accept his defeat.

Alright, I don't know if you did my response. So, we are talking about... I think Nathan needs to leave. You might as well just get rid of him because I think he needs to leave. Oh, Nathan, don't go. You're doing fine. So, Nathan, Chris, shut your hole. Nathan, Justin, Bob, shut your hole, Chris. Not your turn.

- Hold on, no more shut many holes, okay? Let's go on. - Yes, his face hole, the one he uses to talk. Shut it for a moment. So Nathan just invoked

fiber optic underwater cables. Uh, Nathan, could you please map up the distances of those cables on a flat earth and the globe and realize that a kilometer of those cables cost $3 million. The distances don't work out on a flat earth. You are just wrong. Satellites exist. I have a personal friend, Brett rhetoric and astronomy live who had, uh,

who have both personally measured and tracked the ISS. You're just woefully incapable of having this conversation. Thanks for playing. Bye. Hold on, hold on, Max. Hold on. Don't make me put you on mute. I tried to. I just missed it. Anyways, so let's see here. We'll get back into the super chats. Enlightened Turtle said, get that moist bum tickler to keep it on point. I don't know what that means, Enlightened...

Let's just carry on to the next ones. So the poll is still up and running, guys. You have a chance to vote in that. We appreciate all of our support here at Modern Day Debate. We are doing DebateCon. It's going to be February 15th and the 16th. Lawrence Creston, Inspiring Philosophy. I've already been booked for the event. We've got other speakers who are going to be flying out to come to the DebateCon. So Craig will be there. Yeah, stay tuned. We're going to have an updated list here shortly for you guys. It's going to be a lot of fun. I'm going to be there as well.

Nathan's got a question. Ryan, can we get that second poll up about people's favorite debater? Oh, yeah, for sure. That's always a lot of fun, too, so they can let us know who has been rocking it the best in their corner. So Thunderstorm499 says, on the flat Earth, is the atmosphere similar to the oval slash round Earth model?

The atmosphere, no. On the round earth or globe earth model, the atmosphere is surrounded by a vacuum, so that would violate natural law. All the gas laws have a B for volume or C for container. Gas pressure is measured as force over area. So you could use pounds per square inch.

You could also use Pascals, which would be newtons over meters squared, but all of these formulas include surface area because you need something for the gas to press against. It's in the definition. Gas pressure is defined as the gas molecules pressing against the walls of the container, and it doesn't help that outer space is a cartoon, ladies and gentlemen. Going in at 20/25. Cheers.

So I would like to add on to that. The kinetic energy theory of gas includes the intermolecular forces and how the intermolecular forces can move in any direction, including upward, without any kind of

Force exhibited. That's your downward bias. That's Matt for gravity based on the interim. I'm Waiting hold on there second Craig max been waiting pretty patiently with his hand up So we'll let him have the first go and then you can of course respond and then we'll let them close it out So go ahead max. I love this you can't have gas pressure next to a container claim. I love that one Nathan

Question for you, direct question. Where is the container separating the difference in pressure between the bottom of Mount Everest and the top? Go. I already explained that temperature. We have a vertical temperature. I'm sorry. Are you Nathan? You don't like the answer because it came from me? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are you Nathan? You got a little ego. Are you looking for a hookup? I'm sorry. I don't do dumb. You got it. Yeah.

So I don't think we even need to hesitate. Nathan, question for you. Where is the container between the bottom and the top of Mount Everest? Go. Thank you for waving the white flag. We can move on. Craig. All right. We'll let Chris respond to your question there since he is ready to go there. So go ahead, Chris. Yeah, but I've already explained it like I told you, Max. You didn't explain Jack's shit. Hold on, Max. Do you want to give it a go? Max, Max, Max. Let's let... Where is the... Let me rephrase it just so it...

No, we have a question. Let's let him respond and I'll give you the floor. I got it. Why do we have a vertical pressure gradient? It's because we have a vertical temperature gradient. In Gailisac's law, one of the three empirical standard gas laws that we can prove. Okay, hold on. Stop your rant. Stop your rant for a second. One second. Stop. I'm still talking, Matt. Stop. Hold on. Give him 15 seconds. Just try to keep it on the subject. Let's not do it.

So what I think is more likely that Nathan isn't even entertaining you and your stupid questions because we already gave you the answer and you can't comprehend it. But maybe people in the chat can. That's what I think is more likely happening. Would you agree, Nathan?

So, no one is talking about the temperature. The temperature gradient is there. So you are admitting that you can have a differential of temperature without a container that debunks your original claim. Thanks for playing. What are you talking about?

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you don't understand English. Let me lay it out for you. Let me lay it out for you. The original claim is that you can have atmospheric pressure next to a vacuum. Now, my question is, where is the container between the bottom of Mount Everest and the top? And you just admitted that because there is a temperature differential, you can have a pressure differential on a vertical plane.

vertically. Are you done? No, I'm not done. So, if you're admitting that you can have a vertical, that means that you have high pressure next to lower pressure next to lower pressure next to lower pressure. That debunks your original claim of gas pressure without a container. Are you using that, Max? No. No? No.

Okay, can I get the big box then? I don't know how that works. All the, this is like one of my first or second zooms. We have Boyle's Law, we have Charles' Law, we have Giles' Act. I'll just sit here and do nothing then. I won't get a chance to talk. Did you not just hear him freak out?

You finished the point for Max, so go ahead. Remember, we have to meet one standard gas law. The temperature change. You keep talking instead of letting me respond. Yo, let's all acknowledge Craig's feelings for a second. No, no, it's just I would like a chance to respond instead of you just saying the same thing over and over. If you could just be quiet for a minute and let me respond, that would be wonderful.

That was your partner, Max, who spoke for you. Now I'm responding to him in your crying, as Max has said. I'm trying to gauge what's most fair here, guys. Let's give Chris at least 20 seconds here just because Max did directly address him. And then I'll let you jump in here, Craig, since you have had less time here on the panel for sure. So go ahead there, Chris.

Okay. So if you can see here, we have the three standard gas laws, Boyle's, Charles and Gyliss-Sachs. We know that gravity isn't included in any empirical observation we make scientifically. But what we do know is there's a vertical temperature gradient, which would have the direct correlation to both pressure and density. That's how it works. This is called thermal expanse. If you don't know about it, you should learn it. Max, in particular, I'm talking to you.

Let's let Craig jump on in here before you guys get back into another battle. You just said a bunch of nothing, so thank you. Yeah, you're in the understanding. Guys, guys, guys, hold on. We just, like I said, I don't want to put you guys both on mute, but let's let Craig jump in here before we get into the next Super Chat because there's been a lot that we've been unpacking. I know there's a lot of thoughts on the panel, and we do want the audience to hear you guys all fairly, so I'm going to give the floor to Craig, and I think that we'll carry into the next one if you guys are good with that.

Then place an anytime touchdown wager of $10 or more on the player of your choice up to one player per game.

If your player scores the longest touchdown of the week, you'll win a share of the $250K. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21 plus only. This U.S. promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Available in the U.S. For New York, call 877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY-467369. For Arizona, 1-800-NEXT-STEP. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050.

for Iowa 1-800-BETS-OFF for Puerto Rico 1-800-981-0023 subject to eligibility requirements. Rewards are unrestricted bonus dollars that expire in seven days in partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel. If you're a facilities manager at a university, you know students rely on the cafeteria for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and the occasional late night snack. So when a dishwasher breaks down and dirty plates pile up, the mess hall can turn messy in the blink of an eye. Enter Grainger.

With over a million industrial-grade products and fast delivery, the product you need now is never far away. So you can turn that dishwasher back into a lean, clean washing machine. Call, click ranger.com, or just stop by. Ranger, for the ones who get it done.

Yes. No one's denying there is a temperature gradient. Temperature and pressure are linked just because there is a temperature gradient does not change the fact there is a pressure gradient that exists without a container between each layer of pressure. To claim there is no gas law with gravity in it is false. The barometric formula hydrostatic equation contains acceleration due to gravity.

Gas laws are usually under, well, in fact, are ideal situations which don't exist in reality. Your claim of nothing contains gravically empirically is just false. It is the most empirically studied part of science in the world. You just saying things over and over and over and over, Chris, does not change the laws of physics, which you clear. No, I want a little bit more than five seconds. I've been waiting quite a long time, actually. So I'm going to have at least a minute. Thank you.

As long as it's not better. If you can give them something that they can respond to right now. I'm going to actually get on my point shot because I'm waiting very patiently to actually talk here. Oh my god. Craig and his feelings.

uh no i would just like to be able to talk the conversations need talking so you know if you want to keep your feelings to yourself right now that'd be wonderful yeah but conversations would have been talking over someone and then being like i guess

Hold on, hold on. I did give the floor to Craig fairly because, yeah, you have had less time, but I think that was fine. But I will say, let's try not to just talk about meta stuff. If you have a point, it's direct. Right, I'm literally not doing meta stuff. And then let them bounce. I am talking specifically about the claims that have been made. I agree.

Right. So, yeah, everything that was said by him is just false. And a straw man of how physics actually works is him not understanding physics. He doesn't get that all these gas laws are ideal situations which don't exist in reality. The gas law, which really applies here, is the barometric formula, which includes the acceleration due to gravity. And the fact

that there is no rushing up of the atmosphere towards the lower pressure shows that there is some kind of force creating an acceleration downwards, stopping gas rushing up towards the lower pressure areas. His misunderstanding does not stop that. Okay, so are you done poisoning the West, like a pathetic human being you are? I know that.

Hold on. I'm speaking. I'm speaking and I just listened to you for two minutes. Yeah. So I didn't invoke ideal gas law because I'm not invoking a uniform temperature or pressure. You are in defense because all we can do empirically is prove these three laws. Stop. Stop with your nonsense. Stop with your nonsense. You can make up a formula.

how it works in the atmosphere. But bottom line, empirically, these are the three that we can prove.

To say beyond that, to say that I'm arguing this when I understand full well that we don't have a uniform temperature, you're just being- And you're poisoning the well, and you're interrupting my pathetic numpty, and then you're projecting like a little child. Back to the matter. I got my point across. I'm the victim because my name is Craig, and all I do is over-talk.

All right, one second, Chris. This is... All right, so Chris, just... Last commentary between the two of you guys, and we're going to move to the next question. Let's just move to the super chat. These guys are intellectually disingenuous. Now is he interrupting me again? Chris, just to be clear... Oh, is he playing the victim again? Hold on. Hold on. I'll let you have the last word on this one. Go ahead, Chris. Chris, just to be clear...

What you have said, that we can only empirically prove those three, is completely and utterly false. That is just something that you have made up and made as a complete assertion. We can show that all gas laws hold true under ideal situations. And I didn't talk about the ideal gas law, I said those gas laws work under ideal situations.

So again, if you could just restrain yourself for five seconds and listen to what someone says. All right, we're back. It would be fine. I can't restrain myself. All right, I'm just picking. Sorry, Max. We won't have probably time to do another back and forth on this one. We do have lots of questions, I should say, coming in. My goodness. But yeah, if you want to give like a 10-second closer on that one, Chris, and then we'll carry into the next one.

Well, empirically, the only thing that we can prove affects gas pressure is volume, temperature, pressure, the number of moles, right? Empirically. To stay beyond that. And again, Craig...

to say that the downward bias is because of gravity when the intermolecular forces of gases dictate that they're free to move without bias in any direction. Prove that you are melting. Let's move on to the next Super Chat, Hope. We are going to move on to the next Super Chat. Thanks, guys. You guys are wrong. Once kinetic energy runs out, then that is done called true. So gravity is the thing that makes it. So you're wrong. We know that you guys agree you're wrong. But, Doug, I wouldn't...

I don't mind a little bit of back and forth, but yeah, we do have a lot of questions. Before you start the next one, someone please send a super chat about the final experiment. I'm going nuts.

Well, it's the very next one. After Shovelhead Steve said, flurfs equals a poop emoji. Shovelhead Steve always coming in to keep it real, but you know, Nathan loves the haters, so keep them coming in. That's fine. Megan Marie, to both sides, will you accept the results of the final experiment? So...

Yeah, if you want to start with that one, Max. 100%. Yes. So it's 12 p.m. local time. And here Will is live streaming. And we can't see the sun right now, but it's daylight as fuck. So I'm sorry. Flat Earth was dead. It was dead a long time ago. We're just waiting for you Flat Earthers to catch up. So thank you, Megan Marie, for that super chat. Love you.

Let me stop the share. There we go. All right. We'll keep it to the same side. So over to you, Craig.

Yeah, 100%. If they do not see what the globe predicts, then I will claim that the Earth is flat and join Globebusters because I stand for truth. And whatever the evidence shows to be true, I will follow. For absolutely years, flat earthers have been saying that there's no 24-hour sun in Antarctica. You can't go to Antarctica. It would disparately show that the Earth is a globe. But

They've literally come out of flat earth's mouths, but now it's happening. They're all running from the final experiment. They are down there right now disproving the claim that the earth is flat. We have flat earthers destroying flat earth, and my bet is that if there was no 24-hour sun, I will eat this Bible cover to cover and with the plastic... I knew you were going to say something ridiculous. We've got to let the other side respond. You guys had your fun.

All right, to the other side, Nathan and Chris, to both sides, will you accept the results of the final experiment? So Nathan, if you want to start that one. Yeah, I went out and tested the Earth eight years with telescopes, high power zoom cameras, infrared lasers. Can I respond? I'll have to put you on mute there, buddy. Sorry. I haven't said anything for 20 minutes, bro.

all right go ahead we're not getting through these questions at rapid rate at all whatsoever this is like a lot of meta and arguing and complaining and so

So I'd like to get to like the concise scientific questions. That'd be great. But will I blindly believe what other people show me they saw on Antarctica? No, I tested the earth for eight years. You don't need to blindly believe strangers about what the floor is. That's the nice part about flat earth. I don't need people to believe me. They can go test this themselves. That's how I know I'm right. I don't need to wait for other people to go to a restricted area and look at the sun in the sky to prove what the floor is.

That's not an experiment. It's not scientific. You don't have an independent variable that you're manipulating. You don't have an observation that's naturally occurring that you can manipulate. All you're doing is looking at the sky. Doesn't prove anything about the floor. Thanks for playing. Alright, let's let Chris respond to this. Get that copium into your veins, Nathan. Get it right there. Oh, Max, you would make me mute you. You guys are so much fun. So it's for the other side this time, guys. So will you accept the results of the final experiment? To you, Chris.

I align more or less with what Nathan's saying. I'm not saying that it would not be an observation to make, but I'm saying if the Earth is flat, we would have to ultimately make up different explanations than the cause being. There could be multiple different explanations based on an ecliptic path and how we would specifically observe that from one single point. And...

all right right so i would just like 30 seconds to just say something about this that nathan really doesn't understand that this is how science is done you make a hypothesis that the earth is rotating on a tilt and you make a prediction from that the prediction is that you will see a 24-hour sun during the antarctic summer and you go out and test that the independent variable would be your position on earth the dependent variable would be would would be if or not you see the 24-hour sun you not understanding how science works and

literally having it down to your dogmaticness about flat earth doesn't change the fact that they are there right now doing something that is impossible if the earth is flat you Nathan yourself has said you can't go to Antarctica you're wrong and you won't ever admit it did you want to respond there Chris or do you want to carry on sorry

I have nothing to say. I tried getting my point across. Regardless of their observations, right, they're going to still establish an azimuth grid and use Euclidean geometry, which proves a flat Earth. So ultimately, we would have to figure out, like Craig was saying, the truth. And the truth is that Earth is not curving in any kind of way.

So how do we... The predictions down there show that it is. As soon as I say that, it melts. It's buzzword, buzzword, coke, coke. Get it in those veins. Okay, okay. You guys are having fun. That's great. Next question for sure. You guys are having too much fun here. Quantum80 says, they, flurfs, still believe a model is something you can hold in your hand like a toy car model. They don't know what a scientific model is.

I think we're going to move on to one that's got a little bit more meat for us. Dr. Dino, thanks for coming out and participating in our super chats there. He says, Nathan, would you debate a paleontologist? Me, on the age of the earth. Not interested in a flat versus globe debate, just how old it is. So, Nathan, is that something that you'd be interested in, debating a paleontologist on the age of the earth?

Yeah, other than the relationship I have here with Modern Day Debate, if you want to debate me, it's $200. I'll show up anywhere, anytime. We'll flirt for money. All right, well, you heard it. If you want to have that debate, he's made his pitch there. So you heard it, Dr. Dino. You can get a hold of us. $200 in Bob's name, guys. I mean, Ryan. We got you for free, buddy. You can charge anything. Hold on, hold on, Max.

If they cry every time we say something, this is going to take forever. So can I say something? I mean, they were... Ryan, my time's up. I've spent 10 years looking at this topic. If they want to debate me, it's not my fault. They spent all their lunch money on NASA cartoons and can't afford a debate. Love that. Somebody will put in a super chat asking about CGI, I'm sure.

I'm gonna keep an eye out for it. I'm looking for LJ. Nathan came in and said download the Flat Earth app. Please do not download that app. You're better off spending $3 of meth than buying that app. It's leaking security. It's leaking security info. Personally identifiable information. Do not download Scammer Dave Weiss' app.

Yeah, Wits, it actually lost all its weight because of that app, unfortunately. Yeah, it's a shame. All right, let's get into the next one. My goodness. You guys, do you know the meaning of keeping it light? No, I didn't think we were going to tonight. I mean, they think they're bullies, so, you know. Yeah, Brian, I've got no hard cut off at all, so I'm happy to go for the next four or five hours doing these questions, mate. Hell yeah. Four or five hours. All right, well, we've got lots.

Until tomorrow.

Good. All right, that's fun. Let's see. Roland says, "Nathan, you really need to get your own line of salad dressings." Thank you, Roland. We appreciate you. I know. That's really helpful. All right, so Bruce asks, "Chris and Nathan, who is in charge of keeping the dome clean? I wash my windows and four months later they're dirty again." Oh, Bruce coming in with the imagery there.

LJ says... Those were the balloons that Nathan was talking about earlier. They're actually sent up there to scrape the dome and keep it clean using electrostatic tethering, which manifests as an ethereal plane that comes in and out and lets it charge up. I don't know, something like that.

Why is Craig saying for the nerfs? It's of course the penguins that clean the dome. Come on, guys. Next question. Next question. Well, there's not too much to engage with here, but that is, yeah, I was going to say, I'm glad that you guys were able to have some fun with that one. Thanks, Bruce. LJ says, why space travel keep getting delayed for decades for now? Money. Money. Money.

Yeah, but Elon Musk is doing a good job of making it go faster. He's now got reusable rockets and stuff that can be caught whilst landing backwards. I go back to the moon in a nanosecond. We're going to talk about that. Hold on, hold on. This question is for the one side, so I've got to be fair. I'm sorry. We'll just give the floor back to you, Craig, and we'll let you guys bounce the question up.

uh no one's going to say that nasa is a well-run efficient organization they are useless at what they do in fact they're practically pointless right now with spacex um but but yeah uh if we had the the ability to go you know back right now then we probably would but they want to make it safe and spacex is doing a great job at doing that you know testing by destruction it's getting there

All right, I'll let you respond there, Chris and Nathan. Nathan needs to leave. Do we need to address this? Nathan really needs to leave, I think. I'm just worried that he's missing out on his... All right, hold on, hold on, hold on. Lord knows what you're about to say. Hold on, Lord knows what you're about to say. All right, Chris, let's hand it over back to you to respond to something you just heard. I also think that we don't need to entertain redundant questions. I kind of am because I'm

Rolling Craig and max here, but oh you're failing me. Sorry buddy. You're not a bully Bruce I would never Yeah, because you couldn't possibly bully me you're not okay. Okay. Let's not let's not try to Do you live debate you live at the bacon?

Who are you talking to? Not me, surely. Nathan, if he wants to debate live at DebateCon, I'll cover that $200, no problem.

Let's see here. Isa Kabir, that does remind me, though, once again, keep an eye out for those updates. We're going to talk about the debate con soon. So, yeah, Isa Kabir says, we have an after show on Matters Now, Shadow of the Dead and XXD, my Tell Me That Story co-host, and our friend FTFE and Ryan. Also, feliz cumpleanos to me tomorrow. Feliz cumpleanos. Sorry. That's happy birthday in Spanish. Que muy insano.

Oh, okay. To me tomorrow. So yeah. Happy birthday to you, Issa. Happy birthday, Issa. Yeah. All right. I also want to thank Nathan Thompson and Chris too. Well, thank you to all of our speakers on the panel for making it. Jumping in at the last minute. It is. I do appreciate that.

Yes, I do appreciate that. You tried your hardest, you failed. It's okay. Tomorrow will be another day. Yo, are you congratulating yourself, Max? How pathetic is that? Do you not understand humor? Does that go over your head like English does? I understand.

How high are you, buddy? Haven Stalking. Haven Stalking says, Nathan and Chris just put on a master class in the Dunning-Kruger effect. Well done, guys. They'll be using you as an example for generations. I don't know if you want to say anything to Haven Stalking or if that's somebody that you know, but hold on. I know you want to jump on that one, but this is for you, Craig. Troy Unruh says, Craig, if you launch a non-running helicopter with a slingshot, would it have Coriolis?

If you launch a non-running helicopter with a slingshot, yeah, it would be a ballistic projectile. And, you know, anything that is moving relative to the surface, you know, so it has a velocity of more than zero compared to the surface. It's going to have on a rotating body, a Coriolis force applied to it.

So whether that helicopter is on or not, once it is moving with a speed relative to the surface, this Coriolis force is applied to it. Now, if the helicopter has its engine on, much stronger than the Coriolis, but if it's just being thrown by a big slingshot, a trebuchet would probably be better, actually, thinking about it, but if it was just thrown like that,

Over the very short distance, the Coriolis force would be very, very, very small, but it would be measurable because as Neil deGrasse Tyson said, the winning field goal was aided by a one eighth of an inch deflection to the right. He didn't say the Earth rotates under it like Nathan likes to lie and say. All right, Nathan, give you a chance to respond. Yes, he doesn't like conversations.

So you don't want to take a chance to jump on that one? I just spent an hour talking to these guys. I'd like to answer the questions from the chat, please. Yeah, it involves conversations back and forth, Nathan. That's part of what this is. Well, I guess that gives you guys the closing on that one, but yeah, we are going to try to bounce the questions as much as we can. I'll take the closing on that if you want. Sorry, you said... I think the close is done there, so Femalix says, Nathan Sankalc... Sankalc?

Oh man, what are they trying to make me say? Debunks your circling some biblical model. It also debunks the globe. Why don't you acknowledge this? It is said your... I'm not going to read that last part because that's just not beneficial. So go ahead there, Nathan. I mean, if it's insults to me, you can read them. Yeah, me. Can I respond?

The Ptolemaic model was unchanged for 1300 years. They had the or ray which predicted eclipses and transits of planets. It was a physical model. Then look into the Antikythera mechanism. Also look into astrolabes. Can I respond? Yeah. Excellent.

So they have multiple layers because there's different wheels in the sky and there's different movements in the sky. For example, the sidereal day moves faster than the solar day. And if you're just spinning in a room on a chair with wheels, everything above you would move in the same angular velocity. But the stars actually move faster than the sun. According to parallax, the sun, which is closer, should move faster than the stars. The Prague clock has been functioning for 610 years.

They didn't know anything about mass attracting mass. They didn't pretend bendy, warpy space-time was real. They didn't pretend time could dilate or that we were moving through an infinite galaxy with morphing star constellations. The pyramids were eight-sided. And even Einstein admits he has a kinematic equivalent so you could

Look it up, he's famous for it. You can explain the motion on a geocentric or heliocentric Earth. It's actually easier on a geocentric Earth because we don't have to invoke dark energy, dark matter, three body problems, horizon problems, Mercury problems, Hubble tension problems. So you're just going to waffle now? You've kind of ignored the question at this point. The question was for me, guys. I know, but you've ignored the question and just waffled. All right, well, I'm done, Ryan. Next question, please.

No, no, I'm going to respond. He's wrong. The sun and the stars both... Do I have the answer to respond? So, no, everything he just said was wrong. He doesn't understand that kinematic equivalence is literally just a mathematical description of movement from a particular reference frame and doesn't disprove or prove anything. So, I don't know why he keeps bringing it up. Practically everything he said there is completely and utterly wrong and a misunderstanding of physics. He doesn't understand parallax and...

the difference between a solar and a sidereal day and why they're important. Guys, do not get your physics information from Nathan Thompson. That's like trying to buy ice cream from a pizza shop. Okay. Can I respond to you now, Craig? Sure thing, Chris.

So in astronomy the ecliptic coordinate system is a celestial coordinate system commonly used for representing the apparent positions orbits and pole orientations. Now typically globers would say that there's no direction in space, but that's wrong.

based on what they claim of solar system objects. Because most planets, except Mercury and many small solar system bodies, have orbits with only slight inclinations to the ecliptic, using it as a fundamental plane is convenient. The system's origin can either be center of the Earth or the Sun."

then it goes on further to break it down. So we use geocentric references around Polaris. We do not incorporate any kind of z-axis in any of these measurements, including your 1 degree for 69 miles.

So because they provide us how it works dual model and we know that there's no curvature, this would be likely what's happening here. Pretty straightforward. So that also has a direct correlation to all Cartesian coordinates on Earth. When we go back to the trilateration or the GPS, that's actually geographical position coordinates.

On Earth. That's the origin of celestial navigation. And the thing of the matter is, Craig, I know that you just spoke. Last 10 seconds. Okay, last 10 seconds. We utilize the geocentric references. Facts. Game over.

That's just a handy reference frame because we are on Earth so we can compare things to our reference frame. But you can have the reference frame as anywhere. Just because we use a geocentric reference frame because we are on Earth does not disprove anything about the globe model. So you just... That part right there. That part right there. That's what disproves the model right there. It doesn't disprove the model. If you don't use and incorporate this...

Yes, that doesn't mean that the model doesn't exist, but you can use a geocentric reference for certain calculations because it's a handy thing because we live on Earth. None of that disproves the globe in any way, shape, or form. Well, the curving surface... You're strawmanning the globe. No, the curving surface being falsified destroys the globe. It hasn't been falsified. The curving hasn't been falsified. I've shown that there are curves.

The difference between they're both referenced on a plane surface, but this one has earth curving. Yeah. And we're not using that in our measurements. We're just plotting a point around Polaris. Right. A circle around Polaris. So there's no actual curvature.

Simple okay, okay, you guys had your fun with that one flat McGee says of the flat earth Sorry, the final experiment is dumb show a compass dip at magnetic poles. You can't oh Yeah, MC tune actually got a deep compass and he's been doing deep measurements of

all throughout his scales as he was going towards Punta Arenas and he will be doing the same measurements in Antarctica. All of the data will be published later. So thanks for playing. Yeah, it's been done. Being done right now. Everybody's doing the thing. See, that's catching on. Did you have anything to say on the other side? No, Nathan's having his little tick again. I think he needs his medication. I think it's a neurological thing. You know, you do get that. Oh, right.

Is it possible you owe me some copium? Yeah, you guys are coping. He needs to take his copium, doesn't he? Yeah, double dose, I think.

Don't be, yeah, as I say, don't be distracted by Nathan there. If you want to engage there, Chris, with the question and then... Yeah, for sure, I will. Breaking news, one sec. Hold on. There is a... Whatever. Greg, shut the fuck up. No, no, no, this is important. No, no, no.

This is not your show, Craig. Well, hold on. This is an emergency. Hold on, Chris. Unless it's an emergency leave. What's going on there, FTFE? Really quickly. Geronism, the biggest flat earther, has just admitted that there is, in fact, a 24-hour sun, which he said would prove to him the Earth is a globe. Geronism is no longer a flat earther, guys. So that's coming from Geronism.

That's coming from your mouth and that needed you to interrupt me. Cool beans, bro. Yes, yes. Very important. I thought maybe you had an emergency there, so just one second there. Well, that was an emergency. Not needed to be said. That was an emergency. Emergency.

I think we're proving our point. No, actually, you have a point. I do have a point. So Craig's been debating on the shape of the Earth for the last at least five years that I'm aware of. And the poll that started off saying that's 51, only 51 percent actually believe it's a globe. So I think you personally defending the globe hasn't been working in your favor in any kind of way, Craig. Kudos to you, though, for trying your hardest.

That makes absolutely no sense. There happens to also be flat numbers in the chat and I'm still winning. I don't know how you... Quantum80 has one for you, Nathan. It says there's four variables. Nathan forgot deg latitude. So any thoughts there, Nathan? That I forgot for what?

- DAG latitude, they say. - But when you're talking about Coriolis, probably. - Okay, well I have the formula right here and it's just mass times angular and tangential velocity. This is a simple Google search. So like embarrassing yourself like that and saying I'm wrong is what Glovers do constantly. They just snatch their own wig off. So thanks for playing. Next question. - Are you capable of deriving any of the terms if you don't have them, Nathan?

Or do you just regurgitate the formula? Are you able to actually do the math? Next question, please. Thank you for conceding. The basic Coriolis formula.

Um, is FC to MV omega sine theta F that Coriola FC Coriolis force M massive, the object in kilometer in kilograms. Sorry. Uh, um, the velocity of the object relative to rotating frame, uh, mega angular velocity, uh, the outline latitude of the motion. This is the basic Coriolis force formula you can, um, derive from that other

formulas like the one that you've got. That is a derivation of the formula that I have just shown, which is the base formula for the basic Coriolis force formula. Of course, there is many ways to calculate the Coriolis force. The way to get the most accurate one is to use the mass of the object, the velocity of the object, the angle of the velocity of the rotating reference frame, and the latitude of the motion.

This formula is used to bring the force acting directly on an object, traveling relative to the surface of the Earth. Let's wrap it there. Chris, did you have anything you wanted to add there, or Nathan to close this comment? Coriolis is debunked.

Remember, the centrifugal force would change the mass of an object north and south of the equator. It would empirically tell in our very fine measurements. Except we have a standard troy ounce.

Everywhere we go across the surface of the Earth. So that effectively debunks your time. So a troy ounce is a measure of mass, not weight. It doesn't change. However, the actual weight of things does change. Okay? It does?

measured in something which doesn't change based on latitude but when you change it to something like pounds it does change it's where its actual weight it doesn't change its mass which is in kilograms does change its weight which is in another unit um

used to actually have to be weighed on a locally calibrated scale because the difference in the gold would actually change the weight based on where it was sold. Had to make sure that the scales were locally calibrated. And to prove this, Critical Think on the way to Antarctica has measured a bunch of different weights at different places on his journey.

to show that the weight changes based on where you are on Earth, disproving your claim because it's being done right now. Okay, so guess what? You're 1 million percent false. If that were the case, it would create a 1 million percent. Host, can you just actually mute him until I'm done talking? Let's do that for just a second. Let's try to wrap up this question. So what we see here is centrifugal force.

It changes with latitude. Can you agree? You can't even speak, so I'll just assume you can agree. So it changes with latitude, but the gravitational acceleration towards the center of Earth is uniform wherever you go. So if we were actually, if this was the case, because weight is the gravitation times mass supposedly minus the centripetal force,

the force exerted outward off of it, right? And that changes, we would have a measurable difference just going 10 degrees north, 10 degrees north. And this would create an arbitrage opportunity for the rich and the elite since gold is measured in such finite scale. The fact of the matter is a...

Standard Troy ounce cannot be deviated from. It's 31.1034768 grams, regardless of where you are. All right. I've been waiting for you. I've got this. I've got this. You guys are actually going to win. All right. Let's let there be a response. Again.

Again, right? Gram is a measure of mass and not weight. Weight is mass times the gravitational acceleration. What you were just saying about there being a measurable difference is... Wait, what did you say? Gram is a measure of mass?

A kilogram? A kilogram? Where do we derive a kilogram? Grams is the measure of mass, not weight. No, you're entirely wrong. What is the difference between... No, I'm not. Grams is the measure of mass, and that changes based... The weight changes based on where you are. The mass never changes. What's the difference? What is mass? Explain to me what mass is, Greg. Mass is the amount of stuff.

The amount of stuff. If you want your physics term, mass is the resistance to inertia. That's how physics describes it. Resistance to inertia. So what's the difference between mass and weight? You need to respond. You need to stop talking and let me speak, right? You're entirely getting everything wrong, but I'm letting you carry yourself. When you're done discalloping, let me know when I got it. Just cheating.

We'll do 15 seconds. I know Max really wants to jump in. 15 seconds. I would like a minute, please, because I've been interrupted constantly. You have an end browser?

How fucking hilarious is that? Are you playing the victim? I've been interrupted way more than anybody else here today. Nobody's getting a minute right now, so if you can do 15 and then hand it to Max just to be fair. 30 at least, please. I'd appreciate 30 because I'd like to actually try and get my point across. Grab a measure of mass, not weight. The weight changes based on your latitude. That's why gold had to be weighed with locally calibrated scales, otherwise the thing that you said...

they would make more money would have been the case but they literally had to change where you know what the scales were locally calibrating them and what you said about the centrifugal force changing yes that's why you weigh less at the equator than you do at the poles there is a measurable difference this is an absolute fact that exists and has been it doesn't

doesn't change this are you done so based on the difference of centrifugal force at the equator at the 30 degrees north or south there would be a 17 percent change now i'm going to correct you hold on hold on we're going to give at least 20 to 30 and then max is going to jump in

Okay, so that's a 17% change just between zero and 30 degrees. Now what you don't understand, mass is an atomic reference to the amount of stuff, as you eloquently put it. So weight is actually the specific displacement of an object. We can demonstrate that with gravity, right?

Right? So when I weigh an apple in water, it's weightless. Crazy how that works, right? Weightless. No, it's neutral buoyant. It's weightless. Weight is mass gravity. That's what weight is. You're just wrong there. Atomic gravity.

No, it's not. It's not the direct relation to the atomic composition of the atom. No, it's not. You're talking about atomic mass, not mass. It is mass over volume, no gravity needed, and you can actually be weightless.

like an apple is weightless in water it's neutral buoyant no weight no observed external downward it has mass it absolutely has zero weight right chris you're wrong it's not weightless so what you don't understand about this unit of measurement and i need to just correct you i'm trying to explain to you but you need to listen i need you

No, no, I need you to listen very clearly. Chris, it's not weightless. There is a force of buoyancy. I need you to understand very clearly. You made a false claim and I'm going to hold you to the fire right now. You are wrong, Chris. Max, please, just leave this with me. Please. You're not understanding.

I need to understand, first and foremost, that the brain is a measurement of weight, not math like you falsely asserted. All right, let's let FDFE respond there. Okay.

I can still hear you even when I'm on my bathroom break. But yeah, Max has been waiting too long. I know you're really into it, but yeah. I want to finish this first, please. For sure. And then we'll hand it over to Max to do the math. Grams and kilograms are a measure of the actual mass, the amount of things there. That is a unit that measures mass. Weight is mass times gravity. Wherever you are on Earth,

the weight of something changes based on your latitude. You were wrong with the 17%. There is not a 17% difference in centrifugal acceleration. The centrifugal acceleration at the equator is 0.0003 meters per second squared. Right, Max, what would you say? Right, so Chris said something that

the gravitational attraction is uniform across the Earth, and as anyone who has been on this channel before has heard Ph.D. Tony say, that is absolutely false, and these differences in the local gravitational field of the Earth is how we find mineral deposits, oil, and it's literally the work of people like Ph.D. Tony, who

actually find stuff underground for a living with gravitometers and other mechanisms. So, Chris, you're on our roll. You're wrong again. You're spewing bullshit. Both you guys are just coping and fucking melting out the airs. So, would you agree, Craig, and this is just a simple yes-no, that the difference between 1037 and 898 is...

at zero latitude and 30 is a 17% change. Would you agree simply?

so you can say uh right i'm gonna answer you okay but i don't need a monologue let's let you respond nice and quick and then we'll carry on to the next question so there's too much when you ask the question you shut the up and then okay but it's a yes or no because you just press him straight up what is in the world

Now answer the question. Is that a 17% change? All right, hold on, Chris. We're just going to, let's just respond to the question, but without the open talking. He has the massive impulse control issues. He cannot. Everybody's having some massive, massive interruptions going on tonight, but let's just try to get this question answered so we can get into it. Ryan, let me respond.

There is a 17% difference in the speed. There is not a 17% difference in the centrifugal acceleration. That is where he is messing up here. It's very, very simple. Just because there's a 17% difference in the speed does not mean there is a 17% difference in the acceleration. Are we dancing? I mean, Nathan. I don't know. We're all having fun. That's why. That is where his misunderstanding of basic physics is coming from. Oh, my God.

This is something I swear. That main character syndrome will really hit you, huh? When it's not about you for five seconds, you get antsy like you're detoxing. Hold on. We can just ask a simple question, right? And we went into, let's mute the guy asking the question. Well, the guy who just monologued gets another minute. If there's someone responding and they ask a question, that's how it works. Shut the fuck up, Craig.

No, you shut the fuck up when you ask the question. So then you agreed after poisoning the well about me that there is actually a 17% change in centrifugal force. It's just not representative. No, no, no. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said there's a changing speed. Don't write your own bias for me.

I know that you're unbiased for me, Post. No, no, no, you lied. You just lied about me. I know that you're unbiased for me. And mute this guy for a second. No, he won't mute me because you just lied about me and I'm allowed to call out when you lied about me. I didn't say there's a 17 cent cent... So, Post, can you show the same sort of treatment? You don't get to lie about me. I don't know why we're spending so much time talking about... Just mute him. Just fucking mute him for a second.

Mute him. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, Craig. To be fair, I did put him on mute while he was responding. But yeah, we want to try to get some back and forth. It gets juicy. It gets heated. We don't mind it at Modern Day Debate. We want them to see how you guys really interact. That's worth something. But yeah, go ahead, Chris.

But this is the thing. He's making false claim after false claim and asserting that I don't understand. Now, we're using gram, which is derived from a kilogram, which is a base unit determined by the volume of water of a liter, right? Pretty fucking straightforward. This is where it's derived from, the weight of...

is the volume and the mass that's within that volume. You baselessly said, "I don't know what I'm talking about." But since we're using the measurement of grams, right? That's a measurement of weight, not mass. And you've been going on for fucking two minutes straight, triggered, melting out your fucking brains, and you can't comprehend or understand. That's a measurement of weight, not mass.

Alright, let's hand the floor to Max. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Before you go right on the chop there, let's hand the floor to Max. He's been waiting for so long. Again, Chris doesn't understand basic concepts like math, so it is pointless to go on this. He just repeats himself over and over.

with really clenching that security blanket and hoping if I repeat it just one more time, it will be true. You're just wrong, Chris. Can we move on to some next question? Well, yeah, if you got something to respond to... I'm just going to clarify it. Yeah, I'm just going to clarify, as the person with the degree in physics that tutors people to pass their physics GCSEs and standards,

I would tell people that grams is a measure of mass and not weight, and they would go and pass their exams. So who are you going to listen? This is for the audience. Who are you going to listen to? Someone who teaches people and they pass their exams and has a degree in physics or Chris who possibly had lead paint instead of formula. Let's move on to the next question there, guys. We got lots of questions and you guys really like I say, you really wanted to get into it.

We love that at Modern Day Debate. Smash that like button. Hopefully you guys are enjoying it as well. Let us know in the live chat if you're absolutely digging the back and forth. Nathan, you want to jump in right quick? I was wondering, we're at almost three hours, bro. Is there any way we can go? Hey, guys, why are you playing story while we're all chatting? I'm dating a first grader. What is that? I'm sorry. I was interrupted. I'm sorry. What were you saying? We're at almost three hours. Can we just go straight to the end?

like to whoever it's asked for that they get to respond because we're here for last minute bro i showed up with five minutes notice it's almost three hours into the debate this isn't like really productive i'd like to just cut through the questions how many do we have like a hundred left unfortunately you're not channel if you want to leave you're welcome i want to stay and answer all the questions well we will answer all the questions but as for like bouncing them back and forth when we do get a little bit later

I know I want to keep back and forth I want 100% have conversations around each of them I know I know you do I know you do but that's that's what your after show is for right so I'll have to I'll have to look into it I think we should have a proper conversation around this your conversing even includes interrupting the host Craig

It's self-evident. I mean, if other people were in protest... Hold on, hold on, hold on. I don't want me to do this. But if other people were in protest and they say, hey, Ryan, I think you're doing the wrong thing by doing that, then that would be one thing. But it seems like we've got... The majority are agreeing that we've got a lot of questions. We are going to ask those questions. We're going to make sure that each side gets to answer those questions. And if we get, like...

To be fair, if we get five or six questions in and they're all for one side, let's do a little back and forth. Let's not ignore that fact that that can be fun, but let's do try to bang out a few right quick. Thank you to our panel for your patience here. Let's see. I'm going to take you guys all off the mute, and I'm just going to rely on your good nature. Brian, why didn't you ask the audience? Don't abuse mine. I just told you, goddamn. Oh, you want to check the poll? Sorry.

No, I just wonder what the audience would rather if they would rather you rush through it and not have a conversation or if they would rather see a conversation as an audience member. I know what I'd rather see. Just just say. Yeah. Well, either way, if we don't have the speakers here to answer those questions just because they run out of time, then it's it's it's very much going to be moot. So but Chris, if you want to do if you want to do a little bit of engaging here, I mean, I.

We've got, I've got a poll here. So I'm going to ask the next question. I know that you got something you're looking up there. We're three hours into this, Chris. I need some help here. Not engaging with the donuts, bro, please. Yeah. Yeah. Welcome to. Sure. I am.

I'm telling you now, I'm having conversations around these questions. This is where I'm going to ask the host to mute your triggered ass. Because you actually got to... I'm going to talk and you're going to deal with it. Oh yeah, is that what you're going to do? So the host actually just gave me the floor. I don't know if you heard that. You triggered Donuts.

If I want to interject, I'm going to interject. I'm going to correct you because I had to listen to you insult me and claim that you knew more than me and that you pass out food. I do know more than you. That's a fact. Okay. So, host, can you mute this clown for a second? No, don't mute me, Ryan. Do not mute me. I'm having a conversation. I'm thinking about it. I'm thinking about it. We're not getting anywhere. Please don't mute me. I just want a conversation with him.

All right. Then let's let Chris bring up what he's got here. Again, the gram is derived by the unit of measurement that a cube of water, the volume and the mass or the matter inside of it.

Now each specific molecule has a mass, but the weight of the object overall, the kilograms is the weight. So you actually poisoned the well against me. Now I need you in your genuine position to correct your pathetic fucking position. You are just wrong. You are just wrong.

Mass versus weight. Mass is the amount of stuff, i.e. matter in an object, measured in grams, kilograms, or other units of mass. Mass doesn't change no matter where you are on Earth. Okay, originally defined in 1795 is the absolute weight of a volume of pure water.

- We are in 2020. - All right, all right, we're just slinging.

- Right, we are not in 1700s, we are in 2024. And in 2024, mass is the amount of stuff in an object measured in grams, kilograms or other units of mass. And mass doesn't change no matter where you are on earth. Weight is the force of gravity acting on an object's mass. - You're a straight liar. - I'm nearly done, I'm nearly done. Weight is the force of gravity acting on an object's mass. I'm nearly done, Chris.

The force of gravity acting on an object's mass measured in newtons, force units, weight, changes, depending on how strong gravity is in your location. That is from Oxford University, where they teach physics. Let's, yeah. Well, you don't know what you're talking about, you're a physicist.

Yeah. Let me just get back into these super jets guys. Uh, you guys really do want to unpack more. I'd like, I swear that, uh, we might have to get you guys back to have your own separate debate just cause, uh, just cause you guys really seem to be just chomping at each other. It's a, it's a lot of fun. Uh,

Let's see. It's been a lot of fun. Especially hearing Chris whining about how he insulted him and he just had a literal meltdown live on air. ...platform to you personally allowing these pathetic globe trolls, these quote... Oh, crying little... Yeah. ...little bitches interrupting and insulting. When I call them out... He's insulting me. I want to hear this. ...you don't actually agree with it.

I'm not insulting you. I'm saying you're allowing this kind of pathetic rhetoric to go on on your platform. It's fucking sad. You allow Craig to over talk whenever the fuck he wants. Then you mute the person asking the question. It shows a severe cognitive bias on your part.

And that's not an insult. Well, as I say, to be fair, I think everybody's been on mute quite a bit this evening, especially compared to what we have on Modern Day Debate. It's fine to have some back and forth. There's lots of cutting people off. I've got no problem with people that hold different views. It has everything to do with how they behave on screen. Like, I've got friends with – I'm friends with people across all the spectrums of Modern Day Debate, so –

But... Hey Ryan, there's been someone on my channel monitoring the amount of time people had to speak and apparently I've had the least time to speak out of everyone. So... I would debate you on that. I think it's been Max over there and thank you Max, you know, for... I've done what my objective is, is to show these fools that they are not bullies. So we're doing great.

But yeah, to be fair, I think the most that we've given a lot to Chris and Craig to unpack there. It's been a lot of fun having you guys engage with each other. Hopefully you've had fun as well. So definitely hit that like, hit that subscribe button. We don't mind at all modern day debate, the heat. It's what we're here for. We want to make sure that you're getting an accurate representation of how people engage naturally. My dog is barking. I just need to let him out quickly. I will be two minutes. All right.

See, that's the type of emergency you inject with. That's the one right there. All right. Just picking. All right. Thank you guys for your patience to see. Generally, E Shady says...

Someone could suck start a diesel truck. We won't say who, but generally shady. Thank you so much for being just awful. MTM says, oh, surprise, surprise. Nathan Thompson bitching and whining again about something. Nothing changes, I guess. No wonder he's irrelevant now. All right, MTM, I don't know if you know who that is, Nathan Thompson, but he's one of those haters. You know how Nathan feels about the haters. Yeah.

I don't know if you're thinking as well Nathan that you should have your own branded handkerchief for some of these people I've been saying often like I need we need our own modern day debate handkerchief just to and dry some of the oh yeah lots of crying going on no it's a it's all good George says George I can't say this is awful sorry has Nathan washed his hands yet

I don't know. Is this like that time that I said I have to go brush my teeth? I don't know. I have one person that pops in every time and says, Ryan, have you brushed your teeth? Just because he heard me say it once. So I try to remember. Eno says, please explain why spacesuits work in Marianna's Trench. Can we do a spacewalk in the same suit at that depth even though the space is the ultimate vacuum? No.

Alright, so in principle, if you build a suit with the structural integrity to take inside pressure, you could also potentially build it with the same structural integrity to withstand outside pressure. I mean, after all, pressure is pressure. So yeah, I don't see why not. Alright, we're going to keep it to one side, so unless you have anything to add there, Craig, we'll move right on.

I missed what the question was, I apologize. Commander Riker wasn't barking. Well, he was, but he was doing it in his sleep. It was cute. Hey, thanks for your add-on there. Yeah, no, dogs are fun. DJ Aboyte X says, can Flat Earthers please present positive evidence for Flat Earth that is exclusive to the Flat Earth? So I'll give you both the floor there, Nathan and Chris. This one is for you.

- Yep, fluid static states that any body of water at rest, the surface of the water is level and horizontal to its container. If we lived on a globe with a radius value of 3,959 miles, we would have a geometric physical horizon. That 1.22 times the square root of the observer's height and feet. We don't, I showed evidence of that in my opener. I would scroll back and watch that. And also we see too far, we shouldn't be able to see 60 miles across Lake Michigan with a half mile of curvature and look at buildings that are 500 and 600 feet tall.

So the globe's been thoroughly debunked. It's a cartoon. It's a religion. That's why we have to deal with all this emotional damage over here as this guy coddles his cat. And you say that you talk about emotional damage because of all the years of experience you have receiving emotional damage or all the years of experience you have in psychoanalysis. Yeah, let's be clear. Thank you for conceding, Nathan. All right, we're going to kind of do back and forth there, guys, even though I know he did directly...

I need to respond to a bunch of the lies that you just said. I cannot let lies go on. I know, I know, but that's what you're actually going to do. The audience wants to see it.

I'll have to check that audience. You let me know if you want to see back and forth in the audience. Honestly, I do want to do what is going to make the audience happy. There's no point. It's pointless just asking questions and running on. The audience want to see a back and forth. Nathan's just said a bunch of lies, which I can easily debunk. And that would be much more entertaining for the audience. All right. Well, if you can respond within like 20 to 30 seconds, we can keep doing back and forth. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. As long as we can get through it.

Nathan said hydrostatics mean that water is level when it's still. Yeah, he's right. Level means obviously conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of our surface and is perpendicular to

the gravity at every point on earth so level can be incurred that's absolutely no problem with that um so then he said a bunch of stuff about seeing too far every time he says that he ignores the variables like refraction and stuff which we have quantified and know how to take into account for he wants me to stop because he knows i'm debunking the lies that he tells every time and i've debunked many times before it doesn't take me 30 seconds to debunk his nonsense

All right. Well, any response on the other side or do you want to carry on? Craig just spews garbage. So remember, a gram is... Hold on, Craig. We're going to give them a closing. I gave you the response. He's going back to a gram. Yeah, because right here it's saying it's derived from a cube centimeter. That's Wikipedia. Hold on. You're on mute. Sorry.

I'm water. And remember, you're calling me out as being a liar. Oh, my God. He's going back. That's all I'm doing. That's that's all I'm simply doing. So you don't have any credibility in calling out what's wrong. And we should just roll by when Craig wants to interject.

Oh, my God. Can I get an oh, my God in the chat for Chris going back three questions? He's so hang up on that little issue. He doesn't understand. This is hilarious. Oh, my God in the chat, please. And now since I had to listen to your feelings, Max, and Craig's feelings, I'm going to say, how dare Craig call me wrong, say that I don't understand when I'm proving he's a lying piece of shit. So let's go.

Carry on. Thank you. All right. Let's ask the next question there. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Ryan. Sorry. He doesn't get to call me a lying piece of shit. Last word. No, he doesn't get to call me a lying piece of shit. And I don't respond. That's not happening. He's wrong about the gram. What he's showing shows that he is wrong about the gram. You can ask a third,

A thousand people that study and teach physics. Who is right about the gram, him or me? And every single one of them will say me. He is wrong. All right, we're moving on. Anybody calls anybody on the panel. I am not lying, piece of shit. I am the person that is teaching him because he is too thick to have learned in school because he spent the time chewing crayons and sniffing glue instead.

See, there's those in-calls again that you're gonna allow go. Anyway, right here it says originally... Are you gonna cry some more? Remember, I couldn't read this paragraph because you were so fucking triggered. What you need to do is go on a Facebook about Madison Williams. Good job, good job. So are you done being triggered? Because remember, I couldn't even read this whole paragraph without you eating your fucking marbles.

Originally defined in 1795 as the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of 100 parts of a meter. So kilogram, gram.

1 cube centimeter, 1 cube meter. So there's an established volume and there's an amount of matter inside that volume. That's your mass. That's the matter that's inside. So for you to continue supporting your fucking idea of the current definition of a graph, act of 2019, would you like to know the current definition of the graph?

So the current definition of gram as of 2019, a gram is defined in terms of the kilogram based on the Planck constant. The kilogram is officially defined as... Oh, Planck-Gaussian. Well, Gaussian law, good job. Hey, I would like to congratulate... Wait, wait, hold on, Matt. Just to finish, just to clarify...

conversations but max go ahead and congratulate oh yes i would love to congratulate shifty i shady who is one of the most honest flat earthers i've ever seen he just admitted that he was wrong that the earth is not flat it's a glow thank you shifty you're rock i hope you get that uh

situation that you have going on sorted out keep it up buddy we can always find individuals that believe different things from one day to another but we are gonna try to keep to the super chats but oh boy you guys like I say you're making me work for it it's fun I was driving like four hours today and then I just got back here it's uh hey Brian I got like another 10 or 15 minutes bro then I gotta roll out my dogs waiting to get walked and stuff I wasn't ready for this debate bro so

No worries. Bye. You can leave now if you want. Hey, hey, no, no, no. Let's not be disrespectful. Nathan came out. It was very fine of him to come out last minute. We appreciate you here at Modern Day Debate.

you know, sorry if we got you on the spot, but it seems like you picked your moments there. And Chris, of course, it was nice to have you come in and hold down some more of the fort there and unpack your ideas as well. So let's, let's do the 10 minutes. If you don't mind, Nathan, just let me know when you're ready to go and I'll give you your, your closing. So,

Jumes says, why does a shipwreck on the flat ocean floor disappear from the bottom up when viewed slash measured by sonar from a submarine moving away? Nathan, then reality.

Yeah, I don't know. I've never heard the sonar causes things that disappear bottom up. I always hear why do things disappear bottom up when you're looking over a large body of water, but they don't understand that the horizon is in physical geometric curve. It's an imaginary line. If it was physical and geometric curve, like I just said two minutes ago, it would be at 1.22 times the square root of the observer's height and feet. So six feet, three miles. That's been debunked. We have laser tests at over 23 miles and it's a three foot observer height. So not three,

23 and not six feet, three feet. So the globe's been thoroughly debunked. That's why we have a lot of emotional damage. Next question. - Again. - Actually, once again, Nathan is ignoring the variables such as refraction, which have to be taken into account when doing these observations. He's ignoring the fact that lasers are light and refract, which we have to take into account when they're doing these observations. - Five seconds max.

The horizon is a physical location. That's the only way you can get a refracted horizon because there is a physical horizon. All right, we got a Max in here as well. So Max, go ahead. Again, all I heard is buzzword, buzzword. Nathan just repeating his script. We have been debunked. Greg has worked with radar. You haven't. You don't know how radar works, Nathan. You don't know how anything works. If you did, you wouldn't be a flat earther.

Oh, and you mess with me about being with my cat and now you're with your dog. You're such a hypocrite. I like all the pets. You guys all have great, great pets. Let's move into the next Super Chat there, guys. Yeah, there's lots here. Nathan, are you staying for the Q&A or Wine Strange?

Like last time. Kango44, some people just don't have time, you know, and they want to try to answer as many questions. I'm going to be as charitable as I can be. You know, Nathan did come out last minute, so let's be kind. EarthIsLife says, Flat Earth, can we use a right-angled triangle on the surface of the Earth to determine the height of the Sun over the Flat Earth?

No, the size, the sun's speed and its position is all apparent. That's admitted on both models. That's why the sun appears to speed up towards the horizon when it's setting. So you can't accurately measure the distance to the sun, the size of the sun, and who really freaking cares? Because the Earth's flat and they're lined to all the children in the school. That's how you got arrested, dummy. He got arrested because I made a phone call.

All right, guys, come on now. Mott Mott says, I'm going to ask some of these ones here for Nathan and let him bang these out of the park so he can do his closing. Will Nathan share his geometrical analysis on the screen so we can all have a laugh? This is from Mott Mott. I don't know what you mean. Could these guys mute up, bro? So the questions for me, and they're just like giggling like schoolgirls. I'd really appreciate it if you could talk concisely to the questions while I'm here for 10 more minutes.

I've been here for three hours, guys, and I can't even answer a question as I'm trying to get out of here. So, yeah, geometry debunks the globe religion because if we had a geometric physical horizon, it would be a 1.22 times the square root of the observer's height and feet I showed in my opener. It was past nine and a half. All right. Can I just do my closing? We can't get these triggered funnies to mute up. I mean, you're ignoring the things that we tell you about refraction, Nathan, and just saying the same things over and over. Ryan.

Please. Yeah, if you want to do your closing, that's fine. I was going to try to bang out a few more that just came in for you there, but that's all right if you want to. I'll answer a few more questions. If they're going to mute up the entire time. All right.

All right, well, we'll give you a chance to respond. Nathan does have questions here. So let's ask these ones for Nathan, just so Nathan can take up the pop. If Nathan wants to rejoin, he's more than welcome. I'll keep it quick. But I totally understand if you're cashing out because, like I said, you came in last minute. So my dad left. Oh, that's a sad name. Nathan, show measurements of flatness using instruments like Theodolite.

So we'll do like the Seattleites only accurate to like 300 meters. I talked about how we leapfrogged. It took two days to do two miles. So you can't just point at the Adelaide. This is in the specifications and the limitations for a Seattleite. So next question, Ryan, let's keep them going. All right. Ryan, mate, please. Nathan's contempt for you. The debaters in the audience is deplorable. Why do you keep rewarding his disgusting behavior? I don't think I'm rewarding anybody.

I don't think anybody has any contempt for anybody. I see you there, Max. We're going to try to close this one out. Okay. So again, Nathan just lied. You can go in, look at the technical specifications.

All right. We'll let you respond, Max. I thought it might be something, you know, like we do have to let him go if he's got his last minute. So I'll let you respond. And then if you want to open up another can of worms, I'm sure we can get Nathan and you back in the same space eventually. But go ahead there, Nathan. We'll let you close your one minute.

- I never would have taken this debate if it wasn't last minute and someone I invited to come on bailed last minute, but I wanted to back Chris up. I wanna make sure he had someone, a worthy partner to come on and debunk this cartoon globe religion. So can we get real quick, a moment of silence for the globe since it's gonna rest in pieces. Thanks so much. On top of that, they couldn't demonstrate the hurricanes like I asked. He got the formula for Coriolis wrong. He talked about planes surveying in the Adelaide even though they assume it's flat for a hundred square miles.

Then you have refraction, which isn't taking place in nature because you're not looking through glass. You're not looking through two different mediums. What you have was distortion. And I detailed that. So I want to shout out all the hosts on TikTok. Rip, Shape Commander, Rekia, you guys are crushing it. Follow me, Enoch of TikTok. My videos on there are excellent, guys. I've actually been putting out really good videos. Be the Change is my YouTube channel. It's my backup. I don't pay much attention to it because they've censored me on Facebook, YouTube.

my yahoo account venmo skype zelly tinder everything gets erased when you're a flat earther but if you guys want to support my activism patreon.com forward slash nathan thompson i also have a bible and science flyers if you guys want and thanks so much for having me modern day debate i would have stayed a little bit longer but i didn't walk geo before i got in here and i have to do that for like three walk the dog and walk the dog

I tried. Thanks for having me. All right. All right. Awesome. Well, yeah, if you do want to rejoin, you're more than welcome. But like I said, I understand if you're cashing out. So, yeah, we appreciate you jumping in last minute. We'll see you again at Modern Day Debate. Oh, goodbye. All right. That's all. The dog must have started leaking out or something. I don't know. That's fine. So, yeah, thanks, Nathan, for coming out to Modern Day Debate. We're going to try to get through these super chats and maybe

get a little bit wait wait i need to respond to the last question because he fucking lied he says the other lights are only good up to 300 meters he lied you can go in to any technical sheet of any product and you can see the range uh he just lies because flat earth is just that lying

Yeah, yeah. He lied a bunch in his outro there. He lied about me. He lied about what I said. He's not here right now, guys. You guys are talking about him when he's not here. Yeah, that's not our fault. He just left.

Yeah. I don't know, Liam. Well, it is fair to respond to any arguments that have been brought forward, or if you think somebody lied about you. I mean, sure, you can say, I think someone lied about me, but that's, like, yeah. All you're lying about, Liam, is the Globers to spew this nonsense. You're lying. We caught Craig in a lie, and he still can't concede the fact. So, better. What does the lie do, Liam? Better. Macda of...

Chris, what was the lie you put me in? Am I saying that right? No, it's a fact of matter. Chris, what was the lie you put me in? Greg is projecting his own insecurities. Chris, what was the lie you put me in? Throw that security blanket. Where a gram's derived and how it's a unit of measurement. Yeah, but... The meaning of the gram's change in 2019, that there's a different meaning now than there was in the 1700s. Are you aware of that?

So I'm also aware in the year 2020, they changed the definition of the word vaccine. Crazy how that works. It fits almost a political agenda. Crazy, right? No, it's just... Next question. I'm not even going to engage with you. Today, what does the gram mean today? Now that it's 2024... You're talking about where it's derived from, traditionally. It doesn't matter where it's derived from, because...

We talk about what it's used today. What is the gram today? Next question, host. Just to be clear, he doesn't understand that definitions of things evolve over time, especially in science. And the thing that he was saying about gram was the case 400 years ago. Where did it come from, you dumb fuck?

Doesn't matter. Hold on. The definition has evolved. Guess what? The opinion went on to say that it's because of Planck's constant. Let's talk about that. Is that based on gravitation acceleration, you dummy? Or is that based on electrostatic potential on a Gaussian surface? Nobody said that it is. No, it's not. You fucking piece of shit. Again, how does this even know what the gram is?

The graph is based on what a plank lathe is. That's how you define the parameters.

Potential. Got it. Good job. Yeah, and then to get the weight times mass by gravity. The weight is coming from the electrostatic potential that exists within the volume. The mass is not the gravity. That's not actually gravity, my friend. Thanks. You realize. Thanks, Jeebunk. Fail. Would you like me to respond?

Let's go to the next question. I'm going to just respond because you already responded. Good job. Weight is derived from the electrostatic potential of the mass that exists in that volume.

- All right, all right, hold on a second. So I do wanna give Craig a chance to respond. You know, you did throw out some stuff there, Chris. So let's try to have some back and forth and not talk over each other too much. So give me the floor, Craig. - It's quite hilarious actually. Yeah, so the mass is defined by all that. That's what we're talking about. But weight is mass times gravity.

It's not weight. Weight is mass times the gravitational acceleration. He needs to understand the things he's talking about instead of trying to argue with someone with a physics degree. Sorry, Max, what do you want to say? I got a question. No, I'm fine. I got a question, but maybe we can go back to it in a second or two. You can ask the question once you've asked it, though.

Let me ask the question then. So how can you correlate temperature and gravity? What? How can you correlate temperature and gravity? Yeah. Who says you do that? I'm asking you how you can as a global believer. Why would I do that? Those are very different things, bud. Okay, so you're saying that me as a flat earther can't correlate quote "gravity" and "temperature"? That's what you're saying? You don't believe in gravity.

Why would you correlate gravity and temperature? Well, I know that things rise and that things fall because of Archimedes' principle, which predates gravity by 1900 years. No, it doesn't.

Let me finish off my point. I'm just simply asking how the Globers, the befuddled and bewildered Globers right now on the panel, can explain the direct correlation between temperature and, quote, gravity. There is no direct correlation between gravity. There's no reason why you would have to. There's no direct interaction between...

There's no direct interaction between gravity and temperature. There's no reason why there would be. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't affect gravity. Okay, cool. So can I do a science experiment for you, Craig? The physics teacher who's all about physics and gravity and temperature. Start at the beginning. So what's your observation?

My observation is that there is a direct correlation between why things rise and why things fall. When I stated the question, I specifically... No, that's not observation, that's a public observation. When I specifically stated the question, I did it with, quote, gravity. Okay. Okay.

So if you're going to ask a question and then interrupt the whole time, what does that say? I'm just trying to take you for it because you skipped the first part. So what's your observation? You don't even know what my... You don't even know...

what I'm about to propose because you're so fucking... All right, let's give Chris a chance to unpack here. But yeah, the audience, majority of the audience is pro-unpacking some more. So I do appreciate you guys taking the time. But yeah, let's give Chris the floor. Okay, okay. So I asked, what's the correlation between gravity, the downward bias that you globe believers have, and temperature? Befuddled and bewiddled,

bewildered

The quote science, the physics professor who hands out grades on physics doesn't understand. They're a mullet's pants. I teach people and they pass again. So here we have a demonstration of a Galilean inverted thermometer. Inverted. So I pour some cold water on it. What happens when I pour some cold water on it? Change the barrier. Because it's an inverted Galilean thermometer. No.

The little tube will rise up because what's happening-- Stop talking. Just stop talking. Tell him I'm done. Okay? So what's happening here, because we know that this is a sealed contained unit and that the mass of this cannot change. Not at all. It can't change because it's contained. It's sealed. But we have a little bit of gas which is compressible

and we have a liquid fluid medium right so we know that there's thermal expanse we know that when you heat something up the volume of it expands we know that the density is mass over volume so in this demonstration i'm going to make things rise

simply by decreasing the energetic input put into it. And these little bubbles go right into equilibrium state. So this is the... Yes, so Chris, what you're doing is you're changing one of the variables. Hold on, hold on. No, Chris, you've talked for a while. Let me speak now, right? What you're doing is you are changing one of the variables that is a part of in that. That's all. Other variables exist at the same time.

Which variable? You can't comprehend and you're about to melt. So which variable? If you would let me speak, I could tell you, but you don't have impulse control. All right. So what variable is being changed? Let's just ask that question. He asked you what variable is being changed there, Craig. What variable is changing? In this case, you are adding heat energy to the system.

Well, in fact, they would be taking away from. This is an inverted Galilean. That's cold water. I don't know if you can tell, but I promise. So you are removing heat energy from the system. There is an exchange of heat energy. Okay. So what is effectively the variable that's changing here? In thermal advance, I just bled you with water.

Chris, if you want to answer a question, you need to actually be quiet and let me answer a question instead of keeping on talking. Fair enough. Okay. No? Okay. You're going to keep talking instead of letting me respond. Right. Okay. I see. Fair enough. Let's let Craig in here for a second. Go ahead, Craig. You need to stop talking.

So what you're doing is you are causing an exchange of heat energy. That's it. That doesn't take away gravity. That is just one variable in that system. Gravity being one of the variables, the heat energy in it being another. So within that system, within that system there, there is a correlation between the heat energy and the amount of...

movement due to gravity. But the acceleration due to gravity hasn't stopped. There is just other forces moving

acting against that acceleration at this time. And when you have... Are you really a physics professor? When there's an exchange of heat energy, it changes the variables within the system, does not take away the acceleration due to gravity, just adds another variable to the system. What variable? What variable is changing? There's the exchange of heat energy.

Okay, which has a direct correlation to what? The mass or the volume? It has, in this case, a correlation to, well, not the volume inside there. It doesn't change the volume of what's in there. This is thermal expanse of the fluid. So we are directly changing. The fluid has changed. The volume inside the flask hasn't changed, has it?

Well, you know that thermal expanse dictates that the fluid will expand or contract. We have... The volume inside the flask hasn't changed. Craig, Craig, hear me out. Has the volume inside the flask changed? It's a yes or no. Yes. The volume... Are you saying the volume inside the flask hasn't changed? Craig, Craig.

The only variable that can change because this is a sealed unit, which I led you off like a fucking donkey on.

So you think the volume inside there changes? With the temperature. This is called thermodynamics. Do you understand that? Just to be clear, the volume inside that sealed flask, you think the volume inside the sealed flask changes? Increases with energetic input, decreases removing it. Pretty straightforward.

It's so funny. So this is melting and we're flying. So yes, thermal expansion. Did you know that the Eiffel Tower actually grows? Stop talking over me. I don't know who you're talking about. You're both talking over each other to be fair. Just trying to make sense.

The volume, thermal expanse, absolutely. Like, this is the thing. You claim to be a physicist and you don't even understand the direct correlation with temperature, pressure, and how that would be changing in this system.

guys guys he's trying to tell me how about physics whilst telling me the volume inside a sealed container changes just just take it guys it's beautiful okay well since the mass isn't changing can the glober donut please explain it without

fucking dish galloping around the volume aspect because we know thermal expanse happens and we know that convection of liquids happens and that the hot water rises and the cold water settles shut up for a sec this is also a fundamental principle of pascal's law which you don't want to talk about yeah i don't want to talk about it and how does it debunk gravity max i've been talking about gravity

real time for you right now i'm showing that i'm not changing the mass in any kind of way but because of the energetic input variable yeah okay so to be clear do you think the volume inside a steel container changes is that right just just to be clear the volume that is fixed that is based on the area inside that chamber

Let's educate a globetard. Let's do this. I need my facepalm protection, guys. I need my facepalm protection. You need your NASA helmet and your knee pads, bro. I love how you guys are getting into it. Let's keep going. This is fun. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm currently eating a snack, so I'll let you have this one. No, no. You keep that to yourself.

I'm absolutely eating the globe up right now. Dermal expanse of volume. Let's educate the self-proclaimed... Chris, can you stop talking for a second?

- Yo, suck it bro. So thermal advance, the expansion and contraction of liquid. Listen, listen, listen, listen. Clover Donut. Okay, you finish. - Let's let him do his injection, we'll keep going. - That would require a bit of a back and forth. You can just stop talking for a second and let's-- - Let's just avoid the meta. Craig, let's just make the response there and let's keep going.

Let's be clear the volume inside the container isn't changing the volume of the liquid inside the container is Changing because of thermal expansion the volume inside the container overall isn't changing. So now that I brought out the repeats you're changing your pathetic tone. Is that what you're doing you pathetic piece of shit? Do you want to listen? Are you done?

I've been trying to politely talk to you, but you keep talking. You're talking over me. You're talking through me. You're not talking to me. And at the same time, you're asserting some sort of intellectual... Hold on, hold on, hold on. We're both doing meta. You're both on mute. So, Max, I'm going to let you respond to what Chris just said there, and then... Oh, no, no, I'm more than happy. I'm finishing a sandwich here because

We should still put it to your sandwich, no worries. All right. We'll give these guys a cool off. We gave these guys a cool off second. So I gave... Hold on, hold on, Craig. Craig, last time I gave you the floor, so I'm going to give it to Chris this time. Okay. So basically what I've got on my screen here is the direct correlation between temperature and thermal expanse. And this is how it's represented...

So the volume would increase with temperature and decrease with temperature. The volume is the variable that's changing. You're actually losing your fucking shit claiming you know about shit. And the Globetart don't even know why objects rise and why they fall.

based on changing the temperature. Straight facts. That all happened within the last five minutes. Straight facts. Vermetha, Mr. Physics Teacher, you just got fucking fooled and owned by a flat earther. You disingenuous donkey.

Chris, it could be a good boy and just be quiet. Maybe you would- - So we can say that convection of water happens? - No, you're still talking. See, Brian, I've tried politely to- - Hold on, hold on. This is- - Yeah, would you say convection of water happens, Craig? - I wanna point out that I've tried politely to- - Craig, does convection of water happen? - Hold on, hold on. - He doesn't let me- - We've got the questions, so let's do the back and forth. Go ahead there, Craig. Let's just try to focus on that. - Just before I do, I'm gonna do a bit of meta because I wanna point out that I have tried

politely for the past five six minutes to have a conversation with him but he has not let me he will not stop talking to let me have a conversation with him no you absolute fucking donkey the volume inside does not change what changes is the volume of the liquid due to thermal expansion that is going to create a force in the opposite direction to gravity

It does not take away gravity. It does not debunk gravity. More than one force can exist at a time. But to be clear, Chris, the volume inside a fixed container...

Does not change the volume of the materials in it the amount of air versus liquid That can change because of thermal expansion So no you haven't debunked me you just didn't listen because you are unable to because you have serious Serious impulse control issues. Okay. Are you done?

an IQ smaller than your fucking shoe size. Are you done? I would challenge you to an IQ test, but I can see you're unarmed. Are you done? Yeah, absolutely. Do it right now. Let's get an IQ test and do one right now. Are you done? Can I talk? Let's respond directly, Chris. Yeah, I'm going to respond directly. So when I led off, post you would agree, I said that it's a sealed, contained unit.

That would imply I'm not invoking the volume of the container expanding, but it's simply the liquid that... Craig, mute him for me. It's just me against you. You can at least do me a favor and mute this fucking piece of shit. He's on mute, so he's got 20 seconds there. So obviously I was implying the volume of the liquid. And then I even went further to say there is a gas part that is...

that will compact, right? Compressed gas, but the liquids due to thermal expanse will increase and decrease in volume. The liquids within the system. So what I showed there in real time is how me changing the volume will cause an object to rise or to fall, which you as a glober, you and Max both were befuddled and bewildered about.

Yes, you were. Now I'm showing you. Let's go in again. Remember, I'll show you. Because I led off. Remember, I led off the fact that it is a sealed unit. So I led off the fact. I've been pointed to the top.

Before we just steamroll, let's try to have us back and forth. Just one second there, Chris. Just one second. I'll ask you to come back. This is what I mean. He does not let people actually respond to him. Okay. So Chris. Oh, see what? Hold on. We're trying to get some back and forth here, but if we do need to go back into the questions, we will. But, uh, uh,

Because, yeah, I don't want to have to keep policing here because it doesn't... It's not a good time for me, guys. Let's try to go home. Anyone I've ever spoken to, it's absolutely insane. And he cries victim. It's absolutely mental. Right. So, Chris...

you are creating an exchange in heat energy, which is causing the liquid in there to expand. That is creating a force in the opposite direction of gravity. That's it. That's all that's happening. It's not removing gravity, it is making another force.

No one said that gravity disappeared. You implied that the volume inside the container changed. No, it doesn't. The volume of the liquid compared to the air changes because of thermal expansion. No one is befuddled and bewildered. No, no, no, no. A bit more, please. He spoke for ages and I didn't get a chance to respond. What the hell?

You don't even understand science, bro. I didn't get a chance to stop to finish. Let's let him finish up here, Holland. Just you. 20 seconds. Let's try to move into the questions. Yeah.

He has massive impulse control issues. It's insane. So the thermal expansion of the liquid creates a force in the opposite direction of gravity. That's all that's going on there. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not remove gravity. It is just another variable that is happening.

And I've explained the science to you specifically. I actually sidewalked you. Are you done? See, you can't wait until I finish speaking, can you? You have to interrupt. You've been talking for two and a half minutes insulting me like the pathetic piece of shit you are. I didn't. I explained the science.

Oh, you explain science? Yes. You were scratching your head when I brought up temperature and the correlation to gravity and now you're also telling me the connection. Why are you lying? Or did you not agree in your pathetic gish gallop attempt of explaining it? Why are you lying? Did you or did you not agree?

your pathetic excuse of Gish galloping and that thermal expanse is a function of fluid mechanics no one did I or did I not state openly that this is a sealed contained unit so I obviously wasn't implying the volume of the container would change so why are you doing months of driving why are you taking

You're steaming out your fucking forehead, Craig. Why can't you comprehend the point that I'm going to bring up right now? Hey, hey, hey, hey. Chris, Chris, Chris. Hold on. This is where I'm going to ask. Hold on. Chris, hold on.

No, no. Let me steamroll this to this point. I heard you were flying. All right, you guys are making this incredibly difficult. So hold on a second there, Chris. You just had the phone there to explain your point. You told me to hold on in the middle of my point and let this fucking class go. You're going to have to mute him, Ryan. Okay. So show your bias. Go ahead, Ryan. It's my turn to talk. Yeah.

Did you not just talk for two and a half minutes? I'm starting to talk. Responding to you. So shut the fuck up now while I talk. All right, I'm just going to put you both on mute just to save myself the trouble here. Hi, Max. How are you doing? Hey, I'm doing great. Chris, the ambulance is on its way. Just hold on tight.

Keep stroking that security blanket, buddy. Don't say stroking on our stream. Oh my God. Anyway, I'm just, I'm just flicking. Honestly. All right. So we're going to go back to the audience questions. I think we've had more than enough back and forth. You know, you guys had a chance to unpack probably a whole additional open discussion there. So,

Yeah, I think we've hit an impasse. So let's get back into the questions from the audience. Toads in My Eyes, very strange name, says, Flurfs, if you are a real truth seeker, what physical possible demonstrable, demonstrations, sorry, what physical demonstration of gravity would you accept? Emphasis on physically possible. So I'll give that over to you there, Chris. Are you going to allow me to talk, Ryan? Yeah.

Do you want to just hand it over to Craig to over talk? You guys have had all kinds of talk to over talk. What is it, sorry? Bottom line is, when I'm speaking and you mute me several fucking times, Ryan, particularly, while he was talking to me,

I still haven't got my point across. There's no bias. Just answer the question. This is why I'm getting driven nuts here, honestly. It's like I said. It's one functioning brain cell gets stuck on one topic and can't move on.

When I asked the rovers, they didn't have an answer. Then when I try and bring up neutral buoyancy, like this is demonstrating and how if I weighed this with a Newton spring scale, which measures in Newtons, there is no observable force upward or downward. This is neutral buoyant. This is regarding the weight displaced.

because weight is derived from how much fluid is displaced. Facts. Even your model, even your nonsense incorporates buoyancy, which you will pathetically invoke a fixed variable. The fixed variable is not quantitative, meaning that it changes automatically

It's only a fixed variable into an already existing ratio, which was Archimedes' principle. The atomic mass of an object over the volume displaced or displacing of the fluid medium that it's in.

Yeah, thanks, gravity. So this demonstrates volume makes things rise, not the mass. And you melted real time. No one melted, apart from you, Chris. You got seriously triggered, dude. Ryan, what was that? Well, we got lots of questions. Let's keep them for the side that they're on. I get the air. I get the...

I get that you all are going to disagree with each other based on what you say, but yeah, let's try to answer the questions for the audience and avoid the other speakers that are on the panel as much as you can as far as like directly indicting them. Because if you do, if you do directly say something like Max and say, oh, well, Chris was saying this, then I'm going to give it to Chris or vice versa. If Chris says, well, you know, Craig said X, Y, Z, it's just the way it's going to go. So if you directly engage with the audience question, then we can move through them a bit quicker.

Skips says, I can't believe I'm watching a debate about the Earth being flat. Well, you sure are, and we have our poll up right now. Make sure you go vote in that. It is for who you found the most compelling speaker. I will do one regarding the final experiment before the end of the debate, so keep your eyes peeled for that. Dungo's life from Antarctica.

Very cool. Once again, smack that like button. You know you want to. Let's see. Quantum80 says, why can't these flat Earth geometry experts tell us, using FLIRF geometry, the exact altitude of the FLIRF sun? Oh, I know. They don't do math. Oh, that's funny. Based on the right angle and based on the geometry they tell us, we know that it can't be more than 4,000 miles, and it changes an apparent...

position based on our orientation and how far we are from this from the geographical position on earth pretty straightforward more than 4 000 miles we're using a plane surface and non-spherical geometry remember none of that made any sense in 1967 they measured the distance to the sun with radar um last word last word for chrysanthemum we're going to carry on

Okay, well, with radar, then you must know that the sun is a black body in astronomy, meaning that it eats up all EMF frequencies and you're lost in the space to us.

go ahead all right all right we will like i said try to keep them to the one side if we can because there are questions for both a few uh both sides of the panel and uh yeah we're it's only chris on the one side we do want to make sure that we don't have too much uh teaming up there you guys so let's just try to care about the black one thing it can reflect radiation there's like we're gonna try to carry on oh yeah thanks

But honestly, yeah, if you guys have more commentary, definitely let people know where they can find you. I'm sure that you'll have other things that you'll want to unpack that we weren't able to get to tonight. But once again, big thank you to the panel for coming out and getting their ideas on the table. Let's see here. Heven Stocking says, Flatties, why does a large triangle on Earth, let's say 1,000 miles each side, equal more than 180 degrees? Also explain two different polar stars.

I just asked you to come off the mute there. Oh, you're off. Hold on one second. I got a good explanation for both of those. So... Yeah, already starting, Craig. That's a prediction, buddy. That's what science is all about. Okay. Let's see what he's got here, guys. Okay, so how do we have... This is the aspect. And I actually drew up something with this first and foremost. Let's go over how the globe...

This was one of your opening statements, and I actually drew this up just recently. Pretty cool. So what you're making a claim on the globe is that because you're on different sides of the equator, you would expect different rotations, right? So we can see here that it's east to west, east to west, east to west, east to west.

Or is it west to east? You tell me, Glover, as you guys should know, right? So we basically have orientation. We have our orientation to the poles. This is our polar point and our anti-polar point or our south pole, right? So what you're saying is that we have two different motions. And you can simply...

You can see, first and foremost, that it would never be, it would always be the same rotation. It would just be how you orient yourself. And here, you're facing the south, right? On your model. On your model, you're facing the south. Yes. Okay. So let's talk about how that works on a plane surface. If we have the car coming in between us, and this guy's facing the south.

the car would appear from his right side and leave to his left side because he's facing north. Now, if he were to go past the equator and face the north, the car would still come from his right side and set to his left side until you go past the center point. Straightforward. For the lady, the lady's facing the opposite way. So for her, the star, the supposed star rotation is going to come from

what, from her left and set to her right when she faces south. But if she switched her orientation, the same as his, so this is what's, this is an effective perspective. And there's something called Orion, the celestial bridge, key aspect, celestial bridge, it has Mintaka, Mintaka is on the equator. It's an equatorial, one of 14 equatorial lock stars.

So all time, hold on Craig, and he's at all times situated directly over the equator. And what people will observe as it passes in between, she will observe in the northern hemisphere, head first to feet, based on perspective and orientation and direction, south or north. So opposite for this guy, he would observe in the southern hemisphere, feet to head.

This is indicative of perspective and how the six and the nine would be on the ceiling. And this is exactly why the moon inverts when it goes in between these observers. Facts. Got it.

Can I get this one, Chris? Yeah, there's a lot of questions for the flat side, so I do want to let Max respond there just while he's trying to inject, and then I'll let him close this one out. Chris, we're going to do a little thought experiment. If you put a clock on your ceiling, where in the room can you locate yourself to see that clock rotate the other way? Go. OK, I'll show you real time. Ready? Ready, ready, ready, ready, Max? Ready, ready, ready? OK.

So when I face the fan right to left, straight up, no problem, right, right, right? So when I change my direction, my polar point to that center point, now it's coming left to right. I didn't have to actually cross. It's still rotating the same way, buddy. So orientation matters. You've got to make this shit up. Bless your heart. Oh, my goodness. Right, Chris. Let me do another one.

- Let me do another one. - Real time. - All right, so while Chris gets that ready, we'll let you do a little quick response there, Craig, and then go ahead with the next example. - Number one, this doesn't work, Chris, because it's not just opposite directions. We see entirely different stars. So number two, if you stand at the North Pole, look directly up, the stars rotate around you counterclockwise. If you stand at the South Pole, look

directly up the stars rotate clockwise so are you wait wait wait wait wait in the north pole and the south pole there is nowhere that you can look that the stars would do anything other than rotate counterclockwise in the north and clockwise in the south

And again, they are entirely different stars. Okay, you went on with your gish galloping again. And you, right off the hop, established... I wasn't gish galloping. It was very specific and succinct. Okay, but right off the hop, before you started gish galloping, you established your orientation either towards the north or towards the south, like I was demonstrating. You started off with that point. Yeah, good job.

Good job for proving my point. No, the very first thing I said, actually, was that there are entirely different stars. So I'm ready for another real time. Max, are you there?

The conversation. Yeah, we did give the last thought there to Chris was what I had said. So we are going to ask the next question. OK, I got another. So if I were. Yes, you had another example. So sorry. I did say that was cool. Go for it. So if everyone can see here just next to and I know exact position of Polaris, I look at it almost every single chance I can get. You can't see it with the exposure from that light. It's right there.

right where my finger's pointing. So if I orient myself that way in the northern hemisphere 42 degrees north, the stars will come from the east over my head where the moon is and set to the west, right? That's because I orient myself towards Polaris. Now without crossing the equator, I orient myself south, the stars are now coming from my left

and overhead to my right. It's still repeating the same way. Yeah, yeah. So I don't actually have to go across the equator to demonstrate how that happens. This is just a fact. The North Pole looking directly up, they take counterclockwise. Have you ever been to the North Pole? Have you ever been to the South Pole?

I've been to Antarctica. When you're at the South Pole and look directly up, they rotate clockwise. And they are entirely different sets of stars. You did not address that. You just said something particularly dumb. I showed you how that works. Several real life examples. Can we move on to the next question? Yeah, let's ask that next one then, guys. We've got lots of questions. Come on now. Let's get into it.

Thank you so much to our live chat. We appreciate you guys. It's been a lot of fun. We got all kinds of more questions to get through. So yeah, definitely keep your eyes on the screen. We appreciate it. Smash that like button, help boost it up in the algorithm. We're having a lot of fun here on Modern Day Debate.

Yeah, we're letting a lot fly tonight. We're letting a lot go. It's really fun. We are having fun. I hope you're having fun. I don't know. I'm going to stop saying fun because people are going to be like, you're becoming a record there, buddy. A broken record. Remember, guys, in about 10 minutes, MC Toon goes live from Antarctica. Just saying. Can you see my screen there, Craig? Yes. Oh, good. Good debunking. Good debunking there. Thank you. Where can you point out

where this alleged rotation change happens. Easy. The ones to the left there. To the left there? To the left there?

That's the right, buddy. Yeah, to the left there. One way and the ones on the right are rotating the other way. Okay, but here we can see if this is our east-west meridian, right, which is a term in astrology and astronomy. This is our... Which is rotating, yes. Yeah, so this is our east-west meridian. All the stars...

All the stars would be simply going east to west over top of us. No actual change in rotation when we face east or west. Right, Craig? The ones to the left are rotating one way. The ones to the right are rotating another way. Okay, like I just demonstrated, when I face Polaris, the stars will appear to come from my right.

And when I face up, they will appear to come from my left simply because I'm establishing a polar point and an anti-polar point.

Simply because I established orientation and how the stars come towards me and set. It does not change the way the stars rotate. So like I was also saying, when Orion rises off the horizon, an observer here... I get that, but knowledge comes off the horizon.

So an observer here would observe, due to perspective, the head first, the bow, the belt, to the fleet. Just waffles. I just love how this question throws flat earthers for a tailspin every single time. This does it for me. You want to talk about the stars. I love talking about the stars. You guys are foaming right now. You're spiraling, buddy. You guys have a preconceived belief that it just changes because you're on a planet.

Curving balls, baseball. But this, alone, shows that they can go east to west. And we orient ourselves north and we orient ourselves south. And that changes our actual world. I can't believe this. You guys are just this intense.

Let's get into that next question there, guys. We have another debate that we can host between y'all for sure if that's something of interest and try to unpack more open discussion because it seems like there's a lot that we want to engage with here, but we are supposed to be...

I could get a lot of clips for a good episode of Flurfs the Idiot, so I wouldn't mind that. Oh, you would say something like that. Well, thank you so much for being here, Craig, Max, and Chris. We appreciate the whole panel and Nathan, who is no longer with us. But if you're out there watching, Nathan, we appreciate it. So, Evan Stocking says, Flaties, why does a triangle... Oh, we asked that one, sorry. General E. Shady said, Natalie is useful as... Actually, I didn't address that single point of that, but we can go on.

Sure thing. Here's the first part of the question. We kind of got derailed. Large triangle on Earth? Yeah, let's do that. Large triangle when you incorporate how we get our bearing, right? What the fuck is that? This is called a...

And if you can't comprehend, we're invoking, quote, spherical excess, but it's actually just circular excess. So if I were to pull out my protractor right here, it's so funny, Max, is it? Max, little ego guy. So if I pull out my protractor here on a circle, right, just segmenting a pi section. You measure the other way. So we can see that this would actually be going backwards.

You measure the other way, buddy. Flip the protractor around. Yeah, thanks, buddy. Flip the protractor around. I know you dropped out of high school, but...

That's not how you use a protractor, buddy. This guy doesn't know that you can flip it any fucking way? That's fucking hilarious. Yeah, but that's not how you measure. Because I'm showing the angle. Listen, listen, this is basic stuff. Because I'm showing the angle. Why would I flip it the other way, Max? That's just stupid.

Keep on keeping on. We're loving this. So it's funny, but you can't actually comprehend that a protractor has multiple dimensions. And when we measure the angle down from this surface, that's how we would orient the protractor. Max can't even understand. Bullshit.

Sure. Like fucking grade four stuff, Max. Are you going to be okay? Okay. So let me address the points to the comments and maybe we can just, since it's addressed to me and I don't even care for engaging with the guys are laughing and constantly. Why are you even here? Run away like Nathan. Um,

Hold on, we're answering audience questions. Like I said, we can't cap it to one side if that is a choice by any of you guys on the panel. Well, if all I'm going to get from Max is a lack of understanding of geometry or protractor. Oh, sure, buddy. Nonsense. Hold on there, Max.

I do want you to engage earnestly there. So, Chris, I do want you to finish up your point. And then, Max, if you could engage and explain why you're having your reaction that you're having, that'd be, I think, fine. So go ahead there, Chris, and then we'll hand you the floor there, Max. Okay, perfect.

Why I'm orienting it this way is because I'm demonstrating the straight edge. You see, if I were to connect point to point and make a triangle, that would make 180 interior degrees. Because we are using a changing circular bearing to the north. We have a radius from the circumference to the north, right? That would indicate a pie being cut out.

Exactly like what I'm showing. There's circular excess because we're actually following one of the edges being a circular dimension. That's what's going on. Facts. Now, what do you even have to say about that? I don't think you know what spherical excess actually is. They measure triangles with total stations to each other and then measure... On a flat plane.

on the flat add up to more than 180 then there's spherical excess which means that there's spherical triangles which can only be on the surface of a sphere um no i'm so they actually establish a triangle on a flat plane no they don't fear it's not as fair there's spherical excess though they measure it and then there's more circular excess and you're trying to invoke

You've spoken for about three years. Just be quiet for a second. Right? Chris, you've spoken for a long time. Just be quiet for one minute. All right? The question is oriented towards you. All right. Chris is making a space. Let's just stop doing that. Go ahead and answer the, like I say, let's just try to engage with the topic if you're going to respond there correctly.

like i'm trying to but he just won't stop talking oh my god should you do it again okay go for it greg it measured triangles and then they measure the angles of those triangles and then they add up the angles and if the angles are up to more than 180 then it is a spherical triangle that is what the spherical excess is it is anything over the 180 degrees max anything to add

No. All right, go ahead there, Chris, and respond. We can move on to the next question. Like I say, I don't like-- Oh, that map's been debunked. Oh, that map is dead. That map is absolutely dead. Yeah, good job, guys. Good job. So what I'm clearly stating here is that showing you the difference that exists when I connect point to point in a circle

would also give us an excess of angles. Because it's not actually connecting point to point and it's following the bearing of a circle path. Excuse me, Craig. Excuse me. Craig, shut the fuck up. I'm asking you, I'm trying to have a conversation with you. He really meant that one, Craig.

Oh, man. Chris, you need to take a chill pill, buddy. I know you're triggered. It's okay. Are you implying that the leader is not... I'm speaking honestly to you. When I'm talking, you disrespectful, condescending...

whenever just shut the fuck up this is what it is whenever i'm speaking he will not stop talking i would ask the question i'm talking i am talking chris be quiet yeah yeah but i was asked a question and you felt the news all right all right hold on hold on craig i don't want to let you respond but in a natural way let's let chris wrap it up 15 seconds maybe four i know but i

Yeah, there are a lot of questions for the team flat side, so it's just natural. But yeah, I'm trying to explain why he's wrong. And it's 2v1. You're a highly disingenuous piece of shit liar, Craig. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Tell me how you really feel about him. We have been doing a lot of that too, so let's just try to wheel in some of the direct insults because that's not going to help us out. Just give me 30 seconds to respond. That's all I want. Maybe even 10 seconds. That's all I need.

All right, you do your best to be quick, but I'm going to be more hammering down on the bad behaviors there, fellas. Let's try to wheel it in. So go ahead. I'll give you 15. Right. So Chris is implying here that the Earth is a pizza with a slice missing, and that's the only way that what he's saying could make any sense at all. No. Spherical excess is a triangle. You add up the angles. Anything over 180 is spherical excess, spherical triangle. Done. Okay. Okay.

What's the next question, Ryan? No, hold on. Hold on. He's so stuck. He feels stuck. We're being fair to everybody here. You guys want to carry on and you want to respond, then we're going to let him respond too. So it's up to you when you want to end this circle because I think as far as memory serves, this is his question. So if he doesn't get last word, you want to respond, he's going to keep bouncing. Makes no sense.

So what I'm demonstrating real time is how if we were to connect point to point... Demonstrating that Earth is not a pizza. Alright, who did you find the most compelling on the panel tonight? 45% lead Craig from Fight the Flat Earth has won the poll. Following up behind was 27% Nathan Thompson. Now we have 15% for Max and then 13% for Chris.

All right. Felix coming in with one last one saying everyone is looking extra spiffy today. Take care. Ooh. Thank you, sir. Oh, yes. I moisturize. All right. No, no. Yeah. Yeah. Nothing against that. Let's see. Then no worries. I'm just checking out our live chat. Just doing a quick comb, a comb over here. I see you. Don't worry.

But no, I will, like I say, leading up to after the final experiment, I am looking to host another debate. So if you are interested in engaging in that discussion, you can definitely message me or James. Definitely. Yeah. ModernDayDebate at gmail.com. Send us a message there if it's something that you'd like to debate.

But yeah, in the meantime, we're going to let our speakers go. It's been four and a half hours. You know, lots of fun. Very interesting. Couldn't ask for much better, honestly. It's Modern Day Debate. We give you, like I say, hopefully the most honest representation of the personalities that are out there and what people believe. So without further ado, hit that like button, hit the subscribe. Don't forget how YouTube works. And we will see you next time for more Juicy Debates. Cheers, everyone.

Hey, football fans. BetMGM is giving you the chance to win up to $250,000 in bonus bets. It's all part of BetMGM's Longest Touchdown Jackpot, where you'll be able to split the grand prize with anyone else who bet on the longest touchdown of the week. Log in to your BetMGM account today and opt in to the promo. Then, place an anytime touchdown wager of $10 or more on the player of your choice, up to one player per game.

If your player scores the longest touchdown of the week, you'll win a share of the $250K. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21 plus only. This U.S. promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Available in the U.S. For New York, call 877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY-467369. For Arizona, 1-800-NEXT-STEP. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050.

For Iowa, 1-800-BETS-OFF. For Puerto Rico, 1-800-981-0023. Subject to eligibility requirements. Rewards are unrestricted bonus dollars that expire in seven days. In partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel. America's energy future begins now. More American oil and natural gas means more jobs, more security, and more innovation. America's moment is now. Learn more at LightsOnEnergy.org. Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.