DEBATE: Flat Vs Globe | Tacori & Matthew Vs PhDTony & Professor Phil Bell
02:48:46 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.

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. 89% of business leaders say AI is a top priority. But with AI tools popping up everywhere, how do you separate the helpful from the hype?

The right choice is crucial, which is why teams at one-third of Fortune 500 companies use Grammarly.

With over 15 years of experience building responsible, secure AI, Grammarly isn't just another AI communication assistant. It's how companies like yours increase productivity while keeping data protected and private. Designed to fit the needs of business, Grammarly is backed by a user-first privacy policy and industry-leading security credentials.

This means you won't have to worry about the safety of your company information. Grammarly also emphasizes responsible AI, so your company can avoid harmful bias.

See why 70,000 teams and 30 million people trust Grammarly at Grammarly.com slash enterprise. That's Grammarly.com slash enterprise. Grammarly, enterprise-ready AI. Hey, everybody. Tonight, we're debating Cloud Earth versus Global Earth, and we are starting right now with, as you can see, Tony and Phil's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us, gentlemen. Phil, the floor is all yours for your opening statement. Thank you. Thanks very much. Okay. Get my...

Okay, so let's go for it. First of all, hello everybody. That means all the fence sitters and the flat earthers as well, and the normal folk. Well, the shape of Earth is not open to debate. Humans have known that the Earth is a globe for over 2,500 years. Now, before I continue, I'll just share my screen so that we can follow this with it. All right, okay.

So, James, if you could just zoom in on the relevant section there. You bet. There it is, crystal clear, ready for you. So over 2,500 years, we've known that the Earth is a globe. Okay. All right. So contrary to lies from the grifters, the longitude and latitude coordinates, we're using spherical geometry by Hipparchus.

as early as 2160 years ago. So it's not a recent event. Now the final experiment expedition which includes both an assortment of flat earthers and normal people also included 16 or so experiments and observations that categorically falsify any version of flat earth particularly the one that's referred to as the azimuthal equidistant prediction.

so naturally russet on victims and grifters of the flat earth community are running around like hairless chooks with chickens proffering any absurd conspiracy theory to discredit the final experiment but more about that later in the show so why am i here i could traverse all the moral imperatives however my objective is not to convince these typical people that earth is flat the earth is not flat

but to talk directly to those fence-sitters on the verge of becoming victims, to one or more grifters chomping at the bit to relieve them of their hard-earned money in exchange for misinformation, science denialism and flat-earth snake oil. Now, firstly, we're appealing to what is left of your sense of self-respect and your dignity, because victims of flat-earth eventually possess neither of these.

Secondly, if you do not detest being mocked and marginalized by acquaintances, by your friends, by family and workmates, because you openly proselytize and parrot absurdities like Earth is flat and space is fake, then our message is directed squarely at you. Thirdly, do you really want to cheat your own children out of the opportunity to participate at the cutting edge of science just to protect a fragile ego?

to that end we cannot save everyone so we are appealing to those rare few amongst you who would credit yourself of having some basic intelligence and a normal human capacity developed from birth to make simple deductions and evaluate the consequences of those deductions as they apply to reality

If you are an authentic fence-sitter in this space, then please listen carefully to PhD Tony and me and ignore the misinformation, trickery, semantics and effusive tactics that ensue in this discourse.

So without doubt you will have heard these two claims being chanted incessantly. One, the Earth is measured flat. We see no evidence of that. Two, celestial navigation, the nautical almanac and GPS works on flat Earth. So let's use these two claims to build a model that flat Earthers are pretending to disavow. If Earth is measured flat, then celestial navigation works. Then the following are undeniable.

Okay, Polaris determines one's latitude and the distance between each degree of latitude is 69.1 statute miles in concentric circles around the North Pole. I'm going to try and share my particular slide so that you can see it. Okay, so you can understand exactly what I'm talking about. All right, so you can see this here over here as an example. Okay, let's get back here.

Okay, the furthest north that the Sun tracks the North Pole in a circle in late June is 23.4 degrees north, being the Tropic of Cancer. During the equinox, the Sun tracks the equator at zero degrees latitude in late March and late September. In late December, the Sun tracks 23.4 degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn, 24 degrees south around the Tropic of Capricorn,

as per celestial navigation and the nautical almanac. Now GPS coordinates also show that latitudes extend as concentric circles away from the equator as far as 90 degrees. So from the North Pole 180 degrees times 69.1 miles is 12,438 miles of alleged flat earth. Longitudes extend radially from the North Pole to 90 degrees south.

Remember, fence-sitters, the claims that you have no doubt heard, loud and clear. The Earth is measured flat and celestial navigation works. So to you, fence-sitters with a normal aptitude for deductive reasoning, here is the undeniable consequence of the two initial claims constantly parroted by Flat Earthers. So let's complete it. Let's see what all of that would actually look like with all those concentric circles. In fact...

It would look just like the equidistant, the azimuthal equidistant map. Okay, so now that we've established that the Sun tracks the Tropic of Capricorn in December, then people like me and Fluxoid who live south of the Tropic of Capricorn could never see the Sun while facing south, not at sunrise, not during the day, and not at sunset.

On a flat earth, the sun would approach from the north of east as a tiny bright dot, travel horizontally throughout the day,

never overhead, and then progressively get smaller and disappearing as a tiny bright dot north of west. In fact, anyone who lives south of the Tropic of Capricorn, including Flatsoid, who actually measured the sunrise bearing, he measured it at 160 degrees or 185 degrees south, will attest to the fact that in December, the sun rises south of east and sets south of west.

This completely and utterly falsifies any version of flat Earth that also asserts the celestial navigation works. Fencidus, with simple powers of deduction, this falsification of flat Earth must be a no-brainer for you. Even Dave from SSUM agrees. We'll listen to his spiel later on. I'll talk to you later. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that opening. We will take it over to PhD Tony. Thank you so much for being with us. PhD Tony, the floor is all yours. Oh, I think we have you on mute. Let me just double check that I've got you. Oh, sorry. I don't know. Okay, there it is. Just let me share my screen with you. Is that coming through? Okay, sorry. All right. So, yeah, this isn't...

Okay, flat earthers like to say that they don't see curvature and I think that's because they don't really understand what curvature is. Curvature is the change in the angle of a tangent or normal vector to the surface as you move along the surface.

This is exactly what we see on the Earth. When you move a fixed distance towards or away from the ground point of a celestial object, the elevation angle of that object changes by a fixed amount. This is the definition of curvature, radians per kilometer. On a flat Earth, that doesn't, that wouldn't happen because the tangent function is nonlinear.

The other effect of curvature is that objects come into view top first and bottom last. This is what we see with ships, for instance, going across the horizon.

Flat earthers claim that we see too far. How far you see is a function of two variables. One variable is optical conditions due to the atmosphere and the other variable is geometry. Just because one variable affects how far you see does not mean that geometry doesn't exist. That's not a valid syllogism.

The other experiment that flat earthers like to appeal to are laser sightings where they shine a laser over a salt lake and they pick it up on a mirror and they claim that therefore there can't be curvature. What they're overlooking is that the

laser beam disperses as it moves through the atmosphere and is much wider than it was when it started. So this experiment actually lacks the ability to distinguish between the two hypotheses, which is sad because they put a lot of effort into it. So let's look at a data set that can distinguish between the two possibilities.

If we know the latitude and longitude at two points on Earth's surface, then we know how far each of them is from the North Pole, a simple matter of 111 kilometres per degree, and we know the angle that they subtend at the North Pole. Using this data, we can solve for the length of the third side between them, and we can also solve for the bearing from one to the other.

We can also do the same using a spherical triangle. This is the spherical triangle formula and you will see the formula here, which is that middle red one, shows that the distance is simply the angle in degrees times 111 kilometres or 69 miles. This is exactly what we observe.

We can confirm this by looking at physical phenomena like the propagation of earthquakes. Here, for instance, we're looking at the Macquarie Rise earthquake from 2004. We're starting at five and a half minutes after the earthquake, and you can see the earthquake is radiating outwards in a roughly circular pattern, and it has made it all the way across Antarctica within 10 minutes of the earthquake occurring. Now, if the

azimuthal equidistant map were correct, that would mean that it skirted around the edge of the azimuthal equidistant. You can see that little blue dot at the bottom of South America. That's completely unphysical. There's no physical mechanism for that.

Another consequence of the azimuthal equidistant map, which is the only map that gets distance from the North Pole correct, so it must be the flat Earth map, there is no alternative, is that distances along arcs of fixed longitudinal width increase in length as you move southwards.

Whereas the globe model suggests that the length of these arcs decreases as you move away from the equator. So we can test this. We can look at east-west railway lines, one in Australia, one in the US. Both are approximately east-west. They're at approximately the same latitude, north and south, and we can see that, if anything, the length per unit difference

longitude is shorter for the southern hemisphere rather than the northern hemisphere. This directly contradicts the flat earth model. We can confirm our distance calculations by looking at plane flight trajectories, the length, the fuel use of intercontinental shipping and the way that they navigate. We have been using spherical trigonometry to navigate intercontinental

in intercontinental craft for more than 300 years. This is a sailing manual from the 17th century. We can also look at the lengths of submarine cables, which are very expensive. So if you get the length wrong, somebody is out a lot of money. Here we can look at the submarine cable connecting Sydney and Seattle, and we can see that the cable length is just a bit longer than the spherical distance. But it doesn't agree well with the

with the flat Earth distance. We can look again at the earthquake data and here we can see on the left, it's spread out in a roughly circular pattern from the epicenter and on the right, it's converging on the antipodal point in a circular fashion. And indeed, this is a pattern that is widely observed

in rally waves, which are a type of surface wave. They get picked up by the receiver on the first, then they go all the way around to the South Pole and then they come back, they are picked up again at the receiver and then they cross again. And for large earthquakes, this can happen half a dozen times.

I'm going to move on now to another claim the Flat Earthers like to make, which is that there is no evidence of rotation. This is untrue. In the early 19th century, Ferdinand Reich dropped her balls down a 160-metre mineshaft near Munich.

and he was able to observe an average eastern deflection in very close agreement with the theoretical value. Leon Foucault developed the Foucault pendulum, but he also developed a mechanical gyroscope that he used to measure Earth rotation. He sped it up to 200 revolutions per second using this gear system,

Now, a gyroscope on a rotating body will experience tilt, but it will also process. Both of these are observed. In the early 20th century, Compton developed what's called the Compton generator, which is a glass-filled, which is a water-filled glass toroid, which you spin along a vertical axis, and the water starts moving. If Earth was stationary, that would be unexplainable.

You can also, in the later 20th century, they developed superfluid gyroscopes that measured the rate of flow of liquid helium through the aperture in the toroid. This again confirms rotation. Magnetically levitated balls appear to rotate relative to the laboratory and in very close agreement with rotation. You can use microelectromechanical gyroscopes

have been used to measure earth rotation.

The most popular one nowadays is the ring laser gyroscope where the path length of the counter-propagating lasers produces interference patterns. Here's an example from Germany. You can see at the top, the model predictions are in red, the observed predictions are in black. You will notice that the rate of rotation is changing. This is because of Earth's

This is because of an annual signal in Earth's movement, but also there are tidal effects that have a duration there of two weeks. This is a larger facility, the Romy facility in Germany. It's got 15 metres on a side. But you can also use matter wave gyroscopes to detect Earth's rotation as well.

Another observation that demonstrates Earth's rotation is the use of gyrocompasses. These are machines where the flywheel is held at high speed by an electric motor, and the flywheel will orient itself so that it points, so that it is parallel to Earth's axis of rotation. These things have been used in shipping for over a century. They align themselves perfectly north-south. They are not affected by magnetics.

So they're very useful if you're on a metal ship. Another demonstration is if you look at a weather map here taken from earlier last year in the US, you will notice these little wind markings. And you will also notice that there's a high pressure system in the south, warm pressure in the north. Now, if you map these up, you will see that the wind flows parallel to the isobars. But that's not what we would expect. We would expect that it would flow...

directly from the high system to the low system. But instead, what we observe is that as the wind travels, it is deflected to the right in the northern hemisphere, to the left in the southern hemisphere. And this is why our tropical storm systems go counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. We can see the same phenomenon in tropical storm paths. They tend to deflect to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the south in the southern hemisphere.

And we see the same behaviour in ocean gyres. Here you can see in the northern hemisphere, the ocean gyres go clockwise. In the southern hemisphere, they go counterclockwise. More than that, we can see that the currents on the western edge of the oceans are systematically stronger than the currents on the eastern edge. This is true for the Gulf Stream, the Currushio Current, the Agulhas Current.

So what that tells us is that there's a strong deflection effect in the north and a very weak deflection effect in the south when we're in the northern hemisphere and a strong deflection effect to the pole and a weak deflection. So if we look at the mathematics of how this works, we can see that the Coriolis acceleration tangential to...

orthogonal to a body's motion is proportional to sine theta. So it is largest at the poles and small, vanishingly small, near the equator, exactly in agreement with the observations. So this is evidence that Earth does rotate and that we understand well that it rotates. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much for that opening. And folks,

Before we jump into the openings from the flat earth side, I want to let you know, if it's your first time here, I'm your host, Dr. James. We are a fully neutral platform at Modern Day Debate. We want you to feel welcome, no matter what walk of life you are from. We are glad that you are here. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button, as we have many more debates coming up in the future. And with that, we will kick it over to Matthew. I think I accidentally deactivated you. Let me just fix this here. Matthew, the floor is all yours.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I want to give thanks to the creator of heaven and earth, the Messiah, and everyone involved here with Modern Day Debate. Thank you, James. Thank you to Corey, PhD Tony, and Professor Bell for all being here. And I would like to just get right into it about this Flat Earth versus globe. And I appreciate the openings from the two gentlemen representing the globe.

But I feel the only thing wrong is they need to put that onto a flat, non-rotating plane. And then everything about what they're doing would make more logical sense and match the observational data. But yeah, I respect you two gentlemen. I look forward to our conversation. And I would like to get into more about this flat Earth. And I would like to make a big shout out to all the real flat Earthers out there.

I don't know what it is, but flat earth seems to be the biggest threat to the new world order. And I just absolutely commend every real flat earther. I'm amazed at you guys. I'm amazed at all the videos you're making, exposing this alleged final experiment. You guys are great. Flat earthers, just keep doing what you're doing. Keep doing what you're doing.

I don't know the controllers of this world, PSYOP agents. I don't know why there's so much censorship against flatter. I don't know why there's so much hate speech against flatter. I don't know why flat earthers are getting harassed so much and getting threatened and stuff like that. To me, the best phrase to describe it is you get the most flattery

flat when you're above the target. So I say, I don't mind coming to these debates. I don't mind getting treated bad by these people, but these gentlemen are going to be nice tonight. But yeah, other flat earthers are getting treated worse than me. And whatever the thing is, flat earth is the biggest threat to the new world order. And I just absolutely want to make that the biggest point of my presentation that

keep doing what you're doing. Of course, we disagree about little things. We have different ideas about the lights above us and what's happening. Yes, of course. But the one thing that is uniting us is that we're all honest enough to say that the earth is flat and it's not moving. I don't know why that's such a threat. If it was so stupid,

What would it matter? Like if I say that, yeah, you know what? I think the earth is flat and I don't think it's moving. Yeah, I think NASA's lying. What would that matter? Why would people be so upset that presidents and leaders, world leaders would be mocking flatter? What would it like to me if it was just some dumb issue? I wouldn't even bring it up.

But I think that's the main thing. I think I just want to say flat earthers, just keep doing what you're doing. Do not be discouraged. And I can understand why you do not want to be on debate shows or do anything like that associated with Globers. You've seen how much hate they have, how they want to mock you and humiliate you publicly on live streams, how uncalled for it is.

Imagine if it was against black people or Catholic people or vegan people. Could you imagine how quickly any of these social media pages would be shut down immediately if they were to attack any other group? But you have to ask yourself, what is it about Flat Earth that is such a threat?

Right. The thing uniting people. And I think it really is God uniting the people against the new world order, because people that are still believing the globe. I don't know what to tell you. I mean, we have to find the curvature, of course, that eight inches per mile squared. We could try to find that. We could try to find that thousand miles per hour rotation.

I've never felt that in my life. I've never felt like I was going 1,000 miles an hour. We could look for that tilt, that axial tilt that doesn't exist. We could look at Polaris every night, every night of the year for decades. We could watch it in its place. But yeah, I respect the Globers. I'm not trying to hate on any Globers. I'm not trying to throw disrespect on any of you guys because I used to be a Glober.

I'm honest about that. Okay? So it's just the paradigm is over. With the best technology, all of the best latest equipment, everything, the best computers that we have, unfortunately, it turned out that the Earth is flat and stationary. All right? I mean, wouldn't it be awesome to go to the moon if the moon was a place that we could land on? Guys,

I would go. I don't like flying, but if I could get to the moon, I'd go there or whatever outer space. We could go float around in outer space, right? But it's not real. The earth is a closed system, right? And I don't need to rant on this forever. I don't need the whole 10 minutes. So I think I'll pass it over now to Corey, if that's okay.

We're ready for you, T'Cory. Is that all right, James? I'm going to pass it over with whatever time I got left. James, you're muted. We're ready for you, T'Cory. Okay, can I get a screen, sir? Yes. You just have to do that on your side, though. There you go. Okay, cool. Okay. Perfect. You hear my voice? Do you hear me clear? Yep. Okay.

Okay, so here's the problem with the globe earth model. The globe earth model has a lot of inconsistencies with it. Like I give you the prime example. You literally have different type of inconsistent measurements for different type of continents on the earth that's inconclusive with their maps. Like here's one of Antarctica right here. As you can pay attention, Antarctica is not even big as South America on their model, but

But yet on this one right here that PhD Tony just showed, we could clearly see Antarctica stretching all the way from South America all the way up to North America. So how big is Antarctica really if your map is going conducive with your model? Is it

bigger than is antarctica bigger than the north and the southern hemisphere combined or is it smaller than south america which one is it you cannot have an inconsistency with your model so here's the thing they also talked about the four i mean not the coriolis effect but the

focus pendulum and a focus pendulum is not due to the rotation of the earth the focus pendulum is actually due to oscillation and oscillation is a back and forth motion that happens when objects are displaced that they get away from that equilibrium this is why you would never see a globe earth to actually take the focus pendulum and actually start it off at its equilibrium and let the motion of the earth

actually move. Mind you, they only had one experiment in 400 years for one type of motion of the Earth, but they didn't have it for the other motions that deal with the revolutionary speeds of the Earth or the motion of the Earth that is actually moving through our space. We actually have anemometers that actually detect wind speed that will have to account for the Earth's curvature that

that doesn't actually show 1,000 miles an hour of moving winds. If the Earth is rotating at 1,000 miles an hour and the atmosphere is supposedly moving with it, we should be getting 1,000 miles an hour winds moving constantly. Not only just that, but everything will be displaced from its equilibrium to one side because the Earth is constantly

constantly spinning at one side of the earth. But yet we got Focux pendulums that's constantly rocking back and forth. And if you in a certain position of the earth, the Focux pendulum is not going to even move conducive to the map. I mean, to their model, because their model is only moving in one. Yeah, their model is only moving in one direction to the east. But yet you've got the Focux pendulum moving west and eastward. Now look at this. Here's a swing. This swing is constantly, it's not even moving.

Now, if the earth was moving, wouldn't you think the earth would be moving at swing? But the earth needs our help to be able to make this move. I mean, this sun swing. But I guess the earth's motion, which is at a thousand miles an hour rotating, 67,000 miles an hour. Y'all hear me?

Yeah, so, okay, my bad. So we see this swing right here. It's not even moving, but yet the motion, the earth is moving at three different speeds and they are at 1,000 miles an hour, 67,000 miles an hour, and 400, I mean, 483,000 miles an hour with three different movements, but yet the swing ain't even moving. He also talked about the focus, I mean, he also talked about the Coriolis effect. Here's an effect.

experiment you can do at the house with a sink. Here's what we see of the focus pendulum rotating. I mean, not the focus pendulum, the sink draining from pound to clockwise in one sink

And here's another one right here. Draining counterclockwise. Two things. I guess both of the sinks is in both equators. I mean, on different parts of the equators, he must have a real big old sink. Here's the part of the sea right, I mean, of a river right here where you can see the ocean, I mean, part of the river draining from clockwise. And you can see both of these parts, one draining clockwise and another counterclockwise. And we can see the whole video. I

I guess both of those parts are the different parts of the equator, I guess. I guess one part is the northern hemisphere and the other part is the southern hemisphere. Let's continue. Now, Ph.D. Tony showed this. As you can clearly see on the curvature objects and people behave as they are out of balance and tilted forward, but yet he is showing different type of things over obstructions over curvature.

that is not off balance or not tilted. So he have to explain how untilted object the fan level on a curved ball, which is crazy. We also got laser testis. Here's a laser test right here that was done. And this laser test was done 10 miles from Owens Beach Point Defiance Park all the way to Southwater Park at

At 10 miles, you can see the laser is actually moving straight. We're about to show you. Here's the laser detect right here, 10 miles. We're not even supposed to see that. This person is 10 feet off the ground. I mean, not 10 feet, 6 feet off the ground. And we're seeing this laser right here. But yet that curvature is supposed to be blocking that laser. But they're going to say that the laser is bending. That's what they're going to say. They got to prove that. Look at this right here.

The curvature calculation of our height of seven feet of 10 mile distance, I mean, at a target distance, we will be seeing, we are missing 32, I mean, 33 feet worth of curvature. Look at this. And here it is right here. As we can clearly see here, the laser right here, we see it 10 miles away like it ain't nothing. Here's the laser being activated and shooted across the lake.

10 miles away from each other. So here's the different types of laser testings that we've done and that we did repeated experiments on that debunks Erastasian's work of how much curvature we should be seeing at certain miles because he used statias. So let's continue. If we're missing 8.5 feet and 10 feet mile distance, then we are missing 30. Where's the other 30 feet of curvature? Look at this one right here.

Yeah, look at this one right here. If we 10 feet and the target is 10.3 miles, where's the 27.55 mile curvature at? But we could clearly see the laser 10 miles away from different feats. We put the phone down into the ocean. If we still saw the laser 10,000, I mean, 10 miles away, and it's the laser light right here. We also got spirit level tests where we can fly plane.

planes for actually more than 20 minutes and the and a spirit level bubble never shipped to the side or completely to the side which we should actually be seeing almost every minute because of the account for the curvature so look at this is it six minutes and 38 seconds the bubble still ain't move all the way to the side from no angle here's the eight minutes and 59 seconds the

the bubble still ain't moved to the side. We should have been, that thing should have been moved all the way to the side. The bubble on the spirit level test should have been moved all the way to the side. 20 minutes later, it's still at the middle of the, at the middle of the spirit level. In conclusion, it ain't,

321 cruise speed, 515 miles per hour, 23.75 minutes, 515 miles per hour, roughly 203.85 miles along the Earth's surface. The pilots should have dipped the nose to compensate for over five miles of curvature. But nope, that's my conclusion.

Very nice. Thank you very much for that opening. We are going to jump into the open dialogue. A couple of quick housekeeping things. Folks, if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and you didn't know, DebateCon 5 is going to be in New York. Come again? Hey, I'm going to log on to my phone. Sorry about that. I had myself muted on Zoom. But I am here and want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here,

I want to let you know this conference in Newark, New Jersey is going to be huge. The link for tickets is in the description box. Check it out right now. It's two days of debates live and in person from Newark, New Jersey. You don't want to miss it. If you are in the Newark, New Jersey area, check out that link below. Gentlemen, thank you very much. The floor is all yours for open dialogue. I'm going to log on to my phone if that's okay with y'all. You got it.

Alright, hey I wanted to ask you guys a question, Tony and Phil, you guys are Australians? Yes, that's correct. So you guys are upside, are you guys upside down right now? No, because gravity acts toward, up is the direction of maximum increase in gravitational potential, down is towards the center of the Earth.

I've got a presentation on the evidence we have for gravity and the instruments that we use to measure it and the industrial applications that we use it for. Would you like to see that evidence or would you just like to ask questions? Well, there was something that I wanted to ask you about, gravimeters. Yes.

So gravimeters negate the effects of electromagnetics and electrostatics, and then the rest is attributed to gravity, alleged gravity?

Yes. So in general, you'll find that gravimeters are inside metal containers that act to reduce any electrostatic effects. There are many different styles of gravimeter that use different types of observations. For instance, the cold atom gravimeters, they use individual, they use clouds of atoms and

and they measure the change in the wave function of the atoms. Now, the atoms are neutrally charred, so they are unaffected by electric fields or magnetic fields. How is that, though? What I wanted to really ask you mainly about that was, what is the reason to negate the effects of electromagnetism and electrostatics

And then have that last part... Hold on. Just have that last part attributed to gravity. To me, I think if they were really going to establish gravity

whatever they were sensing, why would they negate such powerful forces? Well, you want to isolate physical phenomena from one another. You want to minimize confounding variables in your experiment. So I've got...

I've got a presentation on this, actually. Just a moment. Well, yeah, but my question is, like, why exclude such powerful forces and then attribute...

- Well, because-- - The rest to alleged gravity. That's my, 'cause honestly, I don't believe gravity, you know? - Okay, well, that, I mean, you're entitled to not believe stuff, but why should people listen to you? We use gravity-- - It doesn't ask you questions like why exclude electromagnetics and electrostatics

Because we want to isolate, we want to isolate. So you seem, you have to let me answer this question. Okay. Okay. We know we can demonstrate that the mass outside of the gravimeter affects the reading inside the gravimeter. We can demonstrate that to be true. If we move a mass near the gravimeter,

Sorry, I just need to find this. But we can measure, we can put a mass near a gravimeter and we can work out that it is changing the acceleration. So now we know that mass is having an effect

on what's happening in the gravimeter. So in order to isolate that effect, we want to minimize the other forces that are acting because if we say, look, this is all due to gravity, but we haven't removed the electrostatic and the electrodynamic forces, then we've introduced an error into our observations. And these are very precise observations.

that a lot of money rests on. Mining companies use gravimetric mineral exploration to find deposits of oil, gas, any minerals. There's a good chance that the oil in your car is a product of gravimetric surveying. There's a good chance that the minerals

the metals in your computer are a result of gravimetric surveying. So the claim, and can I just share for a moment? Can I just share a screen for just one second? Yes. Okay. So here's the example that I was talking about. Here you've got a kid who has been, there's a pit in the floor, there's a superconducting gravimeter in the pit, right?

and they sat a 45 kilogram kid on the pit. And you can see on the right there, he's had an effect on the gravity measured by the gravimeter. His mass is reducing the downward acceleration experienced by the proof mass.

by, you know, two and a half nanometres per second squared. So we can show that just having a mass there, just having that kid's mass on top is influencing what's happening in the instrument. So we want to isolate that and control for and measure it. And that's why we exclude all of these other organisms

on all of these other forces to the best of our ability. - So the kid has weight? - Yes, the kid has mass. - Okay, I think as the globe model gets reworked under this kind of new paradigm or whatever,

I think it would be beneficial for you guys to just not even talk about gravity and maybe introduce electrostatics or electromagnetics as a better alternative for how... No, listen to what I'm saying. You know, like a balloon, if you get a balloon and you generate the static electricity, things will stick. So just, that's what I would say. And you know, we disagree about this, but I would just say like,

Just putting it out there, maybe globers need to just get rid of the idea of gravity because it failed and just be like, okay, electromagnetics, electrostatics, it's kind of a better reason for something sticking to a ball. Can I respond? Of course, of course. It's just not what I believe, but the model will work better for you guys by not excluding anything.

these much powerful forces. I don't even know how much more powerful electromagnetics is to alleged gravity, but why exclude it? I think you guys would be better just putting it in your model and getting rid of the past stuff that didn't work. Can I help you, Matthew? Please, Tony. Well, yeah, sure. Off you go. All right. So you think about this. The gravimeter was designed especially for

to discount any possibility of electrical interference or electrostatic interference. It was actually designed to do that. It was designed to accelerate based on the knowledge that when you bring a mass that's close to it, when you change the mass that's around it, the acceleration will change. So gravity, so Earth has a gravitational field.

This is how we know that it has a gravitational field because we can measure the gravitational field using acceleration. So acceleration is the tool that we use to measure the strength of the gravitational field. Now, the instrument was designed especially to do that and then it does it. It's not by magic that we find these minerals underground.

The instrument was not built with electrostatics in mind. It was built with gravity in mind, and there you go, it finds the minerals. Do you think that it could be magic that the minerals are found deep underground?

Can I respond to that? Yeah, of course. Do you think it's magic? No, I think it's just like PhD Tony said. They're just getting rid of these other factors and they're trying to isolate anything and weight seems to be one of them. Perhaps you guys are locking on to something else like minerals underground by negating these other forces

and just finding a thing. Not so much alleged gravity, but like how there was the kid or whatever on a weight. Like, yeah, it's going to feel that. Or if, say, you were pointing these things into the ground, like, oh, there's something here based on how these sensor readings are changing. But like I said before, I think you guys would be better off just

getting rid of gravity and redoing the whole thing. It doesn't matter what you think we'll be better off doing. Why exclude data? Why exclude that? Let me finish. Yes, sir. Yeah, go ahead, Tony. Well, I'd make two points. One, neutrons, beams of neutrons fall under the effect of gravity. Beams of neutrons are not affected by gravity.

magnetic fields or electrical fields. So you saying, Matthew, your assertion that gravity fails, no. The electrostatic explanation fails because neutrons and neutrally charged objects

fall under gravity. Therefore, it can't be electrostatic. It can't be electromagnetic. Your hypothesis is falsified by simple observations. And if it were electromagnetic, we could fly planes by simply putting a charge on them. We could get them to levitate by putting a charge on them. And that isn't true. No, it won't work.

Because gravity, you're assuming that your model is correct and then saying that'd be a great idea. We don't do that because it doesn't work because your model is wrong. So, you know, you seem not to be responding to the fact that we have observational data that has precluded your hypothesis.

And it's interesting to me, I presented like five minutes worth of direct observations of Earth rotation. And you just instantly said Earth is stationary. Why were my five minutes of evidence stationary?

not persuasive in any way. Why did they have no effect on you? Okay, why they had no effect on you? Can I? I was going to answer. If you want to answer. You want to answer, Matthew? No, go for it before I want to hear from you, man. Okay. The reason is because it really wasn't observed because we know that anytime objects move at a certain speed, they're going to create that wind speed also. And that wind speed would have to be...

No, they're not. That's a complete misunderstanding. The atmosphere has the same angular momentum as the planetary disk from which Earth formed. So the atmosphere rotates in an approximately synchronized fashion with the rotating planet. So no, there should be no wind speed.

So are you saying objects with motions don't create wind? I'm saying that objects that are moving relative to the atmosphere will create wind, but the atmosphere is not moving relative to the surface, or at least not moving significantly apart from local weather patterns. And I want you to think about this.

What you are saying is that every scientist of the past 2,000 years has looked outside, seen that there's no 1,000 mile an hour wind, and simply overlooked it.

No, you are wrong in suggesting that this is a consequence of the globe model. It isn't a consequence of the globe model. And so suggesting that we don't observe it, therefore the globe model is false, is not a correct syllogism. This is not a consequence of the globe model. Your understanding of the physics involved is incorrect.

Yeah, here's the thing. Actually, because if we turn on a fan, that fan going to produce a lot of wind as we turn the fan, as the fan move faster. That's just what it is. Just just what it's going to do. If I turn on my one of my fans right now, it's going to blow my papers off my desk. So how much wind would the earth produce rotating that fast with a mass that it has? How much wind speed? How much wind force? Force the wind pretty much.

It moves together with the Earth. So you're saying it's zero, right? They're all together. They move together. The atmosphere and the Earth move together.

What causes planes to be able to get to their location with a ground spinning three times faster than it, around 200 times in revolution speed, and over 3,000 to 4,000 times the speed it's moving as it goes throughout the universe? What's keeping that plane...

from not being left by that earth because when a plane is off the ground it's no longer relative to the earth motion. No, so when the plane is in contact with the ground it has the momentum of earth.

So it has the same momentum as Earth. It has the same velocity of Earth. The fact that it is stationary on the ground and not moving means that it is moving at exactly the same speed as Earth. No, I'm talking about as it gets off the ground. And when it gets off the ground, it maintains that momentum. There is no physical mechanism that takes that momentum away. So it sounds like you're saying that because of the Earth's motion,

It'll give the plane that motion, too, to keep up with the Earth, right? So you're pretty much saying that it's pretty much like tossing a plane pretty much to get to its location. No. That's not facts, bro. That's not facts. That's not what I said and misrepresenting what I said. Okay, well, if that's what I would do...

So I'm actually speaking and you are just misrepresenting what I said and then saying well you're wrong, therefore the earth is flat. I didn't say that it's just throwing, what I said was that at rest relative to the earth it has the same velocity, it has the same angular velocity and it has the same linear velocity

as the Earth that it is resting on. Once it leaves the ground, it still has that momentum, that angular momentum and that linear momentum that the Earth has. But it can modify its momentum using engines. So it can direct itself towards its destination. Does that make anything clearer?

So how fast would the plane be moving in order to get to its location on Earth that's spinning at 1,000 miles an hour, 67,000 miles in revolutionary speed, and 483,000 miles across the-- throughout space? How fast would the plane be moving to go to one location-- Again, again, the plane--

Again, the plane has all of the velocity that Earth has when it's sitting on the tarmac. You have that velocity. You have that angular velocity. So if the Earth is moving at that speed, the plane is already moving with speed enough to keep up with the Earth as it rotates and with the Earth as it moves through space. It already has that momentum.

So are you saying that it's moving at 551,000 miles per hour with the earth throughout space with the spin and the revolution added to it?

Yes. So, so hold on, wait a minute. Planes are really moving at 551,000 miles per hour. According to you. Motion is relative. It depends on where the observer is. If you're an observer on earth, then you are moving at the same speed as the earth is. So the plane probably has a ground speed. You know, if you're talking about large commercial plane probably has a ground speed of about 900 kilometers an hour or 250 meters a second. Um, but, uh,

But if you're an observer who is somehow magically stationary near the cosmic, well, near the galactic centre or, you know, in some invariable position, if you're magically in that frame of reference and you can magically see the plane, yes, the plane is going to appear to move with all of the velocities and all of the motions that the Earth has.

So let me get something straight. So you're telling me if I go up to a plane that's stationed right now and I use some type of speed reader to read that plane's motion, are you telling me that that plane ain't going to be at zero miles per hour? Because that's what the meter would read. It would be zero miles per hour. No. So what would it read?

I am saying it would read zero miles an hour. Your question was, are you saying it would read zero miles an hour? No, that is not what I'm saying. Again, that is an observer on Earth. Tony, we're on Earth, dude. We're on Earth.

That's the point. Can I say this really quick? When it comes to what I think Corey's trying to say here is that these speeds that the Earth is allegedly rotating, we're not seeing it. I think we can all agree that. I literally just presented evidence. No, PhD Tony, we're not seeing clouds move 1,000 miles an hour. A plane flying south on one longitude line

The earth does not move beneath it. That's what the point is in this debate, that everything about the earth rotation, it's all like a theory. It's irrelevant. I do want to give a chance. Oh, my bad. Sorry about that. It sounded like Tony was saying that he

It had said that he did give evidence for the clouds moving at that rate, if I understood right. Tony, did you want to mention that? Because that way Matthew, Tony could say, hey, here's what I did mention on that. It wasn't the case that I didn't give any evidence for it. And then we can engage directly with that topic. They're not 1,000 miles an hour. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Hold on, Tony. They're not 1,000 miles an hour. This is Matthew. But does that sound... Guys, just relax for a second, please. Is...

It sounds like Tony had something in mind where I think he was, as he understood it, you were saying that there is no evidence given for the clouds moving at their rate. And I think Tony's saying like, I just gave it

very uh recently i want to be able to give him a chance to present it and then you can directly engage with it well no that isn't so again the the idea that the cloud should be moving at a thousand miles an hour relative to the ground is um a misrepresentation on multiple levels one rotation is not measured in miles per hour miles per hour is a linear velocity um

The rotation is measured in radians per second. And the number of radians per second that Earth is moving in is 2 pi divided by 86,400. So it's a very small number. That's an incredibly small number. That's 2 pi, a complete rotation in 86,400 seconds, which is one day.

So, having dealt with the clouds, the fact that you don't see the clouds moving at a thousand miles an hour is not, that's not what a rotating globe would predict anyway. So the fact that you don't see it isn't germane to the conversation. The evidence I presented was from gyroscopes of various different designs and various different physical principles that all detect the same rate of rotation.

But you just contradicted yourself, Tony. You just contradicted yourself. You said we're on the earth. One sec. I do want to... I'm sorry. I don't like to turn, please. Yes, go ahead. Jump in. Okay, thank you. I just want to explain this. So those people who are listening to this conversation from out there, the fence sitters, as I call them,

If something's on the ground, as Tony said, they will have the momentum of the Earth. As the Earth is spinning, those things that are actually on the ground, like an aeroplane, like a helicopter, will also be spinning at the same rate, obviously. Now, as they come off the ground, no force acts on them.

No force acts on them that makes them change what they were doing already. They were already spinning, just like if you were in the back of a truck and you jumped up or you threw a ball up. If you were in a train, the ball will come straight back to your hand, even though that ball is moving 160 miles per hour in that train.

Actually, it wouldn't because you can actually tell it wouldn't because the way the direction of the smoke that's moving on the train, and if the smoke is moving on the train towards the north, it's going to produce air that blows to the opposite direction. That's why you see smoke on that train moving to the opposite direction. Bullet trains don't have smoke. I'm talking about trains, period. I'm talking about the bullet train. No, no, listen. Can you just let me finish?

I thought he was finished. Let me finish everything I'm going to say. Then you can ask me questions. Okay. All right. Let me finish what I'm going to say. Then you can ask me questions. I'm actually talking to, I'm actually talking to other people. So, so, so let me finish what I'm saying to them. All right.

Okay, so to Corey, I'm going to be talking to other people, all right? All right. Okay, so if you jump up and down in a truck or if you jump up and down in a train or you throw a ball in a train, there's no smoke in the train, okay? We're talking about a train that can do 160 miles per hour. We're talking about a very fast train. So you throw that ball.

That ball will come back to your hand. Have a go at it. Pressurized cabin. It's called a pressurized cabin. The same reason why if you're in a plane, you just want to give it up. It will come back in your hand. Because Phil was so patient, I do want to give Phil a chance to finish because he's been waiting. I've been very quiet up till now. Just let me finish. So if you throw the ball up and down, the ball will come back to your hand. So now...

This is what's meant, even though that ball is actually moving with the train at 160 miles per hour. This is what we mean by conservation of momentum. Okay? Now, when you're in a helicopter, the helicopter is on the ground. It's also traveling at the same speed that the Earth is moving. As the helicopter picks up, there's no lateral force that causes that helicopter to change that velocity that it already had.

as it gets higher and higher, unless the engines start moving that helicopter one way or another, that helicopter will just stay in line with the Earth. A geostationary satellite, for instance, that's a satellite that stays, that is in one spot all the time. For instance, let's look at the Hamunwari 8. That's almost directly over Australia.

So that's looking at Australia. That's always looking at Australia. That's because it's moving at the same speed that the Earth is moving. The Earth takes one day to go around. The satellite also does the same thing from its orbital position. So this is what we mean by conservation. Now, I stopped thinking about...

Stop thinking about ways that you can try and make your agenda work. Listen to what I'm trying to tell you. All right. Listen to what I'm trying to tell you. And take something from the lesson. And take something from the lesson. One sec. Pardon my interruption. Just to be sure. Hold on one sec. I just want to any last concluding words from Phil before we jump back over to Matthew, I want to give you a chance as well. But just because Phil had been so patient.

I do want to give him just the last points that he might have had. Any last thoughts, Phil, before we do pass it back to the other side? Yes. All right. So seeing that the airplane or whatever aircraft already has the momentum of the Earth, when it moves itself laterally, that momentum of the Earth didn't suddenly go away.

So it maintains that momentum of the earth. Now, I know that's a struggle for you.

I understand it's a struggle for you. And I'm happy to go over that over and over again. Or there's thousands of videos that you can watch that will explain that to you in detail. Okay? It's not a laughing matter. It's actually quite sad that this principle is not understood. Because if it did, that would wipe away a lot of your concerns and your concerns

You know, you're thinking that the earth is flat because that would certainly stop that thinking from going on. OK, so I'll turn it over to whatever question else you have. All right. That's enough of this topic, I would think. Well, I mean, if you're done with the topic, I mean, we're having a debate, so you don't have to stay in the debate if you don't want to talk about it. I think you have the last word on it, Matthew.

It's getting nowhere because you don't understand. You obviously don't understand what's happening. What's the point? I think I do want to just be sure because I know that we have limited time and we do want to cover other topics. So what we can do, Matthew, is I think Phil is just saying that

He's ready to cover other topics that you guys have maybe brought up in your openings. So if you want to have a quick last word on that, Matthew, but then we'll jump into a new topic, which is fair because we've got plenty to cover. Okay. I understand James. Okay. Just to put a quick bow on it.

Think about someone inside a train going fast, right? Say the train's max speed, right? There's someone inside a train trying to flip a coin, let's say, right? Let's think of it like this. Someone trying to flip a coin inside the train. That coin's going to go up and it's going to come down in their hand.

But if you have someone, let's say, sitting on top of a train going max speed, what's going to happen to that coin when the person tries to flip it? Hey, what's going to happen to the person sitting on top of the train? I think that's the problem a lot of globers have when considering this issue is that, yeah, they say, look, you don't go to the back of a train, but

That's how I would put a bow on it. It's like you have to not just think you're inside a train. Imagine what would happen to the person, right? Sitting on top of a train trying to flip a coin. The converse position is that's the problem flat earthers have because there is no wind relative to Earth's surface.

The atmosphere rotates with the globe. So there is no wind. So except that I showed instrumental measurements of

of Earth rotation. I showed more than half a dozen. I showed physical examples of Coriolis force in effect. Then why is the Earth not moving? If you can show all of that... So, I just did when you were asleep during my presentation. No, I was watching and enjoyed it. I enjoyed it. But I showed multiple instruments using different physical mechanisms

all recording consistent results for Earth rotation. And again, I come back to the question, you're just saying Earth doesn't move, but when we use these instruments, we can detect rotation. Why do you persist in saying we don't detect Earth motion when I've shown you studies in which we do?

I think people could make all kinds of studies to say anything they want. They can make studies to say people are some type of ape or whatever. I don't believe that either. But the point is, in reality, yeah, the earth is not moving. People could say what they want, come up with theories and formulas and specialized expensive devices, specialized expensive devices that will corroborate what you're saying.

You're entitled to believe that, Matthew, but the radio, we're talking to those people sitting on the fence. Listen to what VHD Tony has said. I have another question for you. I showed that in the northern hemisphere, winds deflect to the right.

And in the southern hemisphere, winds deflect to the left as viewed along the line of their motion. Okay. What is the explanation for that? We explain it using Coriolis. Why, if the Earth is flat and stationary, why does the air not flow directly from the high-pressure system straight to the low-pressure system as physics demands that it should? Okay.

What I understand is there's many different jet streams going in different directions at different speeds. And you know what, PhD Tony? The fact that winds can go in different directions at different speeds proves the Earth is not rotating. It's the wind that's moving. That is...

logically null. What you just said, it isn't a demonstration of anything. It isn't a syllogism.

Tony, it's fact. It's not a fact. It's fact, dude. It's fact. Okay. What is a fact? A fact is something that the subject matter experts agree is true. You have just stated something that all of the subject matter experts... No, truth is beyond what the experts agree. Let's give Tony a chance to finish. I'm still speaking, Matthew.

the subject matter experts say that you're wrong. So what you are asserting is not a fact. It's something you have asserted. Tony, can I speak to you for a minute? Yep.

Okay, so basically we have explained it. You have more than adequately given, provided evidence that the Earth is moving. And you've explained it extremely well, how the conservation of momentum works, as have I. Now, it's apparent that Matthew is not going to get it. So that's okay. It may not be his fault.

I understand it. I reject it. Professor Bill, I reject it. I understand it. Of course you reject it. Of course you do. Okay, thank you. That's what I want to say. We need to be sure. Let's move on to something else now. Excellent. Thank you.

To Corey, this is a great opportunity because I know you have to leave soon. So I do want to make sure that before you do have to leave, any new topic that you wanted to cover before you did have to take off, to Corey. Corey is here, folks. He's just invisible. So, Corey, the floor is yours if you had anything. You might be. Let me check if you're muted. He's in the chat saying he has to go to work. Okay. To Corey, no problem. We appreciate that you made it tonight. To Corey, we hope you have a good rest of your night.

And my apologies to Corey. I did a lot of speaking and you didn't really get a chance to talk. So my apologies for that. Yeah, shout out to Corey. Sorry. Yeah, hear me? Yes. Yeah, I was trying to say I got to get ready and go to work. Yeah, definitely. Well, have a great night, Corey. All right. Thank you for being here. See you, Corey. You're a great partner, man. We'll have to debate again sometime. Yeah.

All right, Dean. I appreciate the time. Thank you for coming on tonight, Corey. Have a good night. I'm going to have to adjust the screen here, folks. So just give me a moment. Matthew, if you have any new topics in place of Corey, if you were to read his mind and guess what topic he might want to have covered, do you have any thoughts in terms of a new topic we haven't covered yet?

I think we're covering some pretty good ground. I think to get into some new territory, I'm not sure which way to toss it. We could talk about anything that these guys want, really. I could love to answer questions that they may have about how the flat Earth reality may work versus the globe imaginary reality. I'd love to share. I would like to do that.

Okay, so what kind of questions do you guys have? Okay, so you heard in my presentation, Matthew, where I said the sun tracks the Tropic of Capricorn. Do you agree with that?

I think a better understanding would be to track the subsolar point from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn. I'm talking about in December. In December, Matthew, do you agree that the sun tracks the Tropic of Capricorn, especially on December the 21st? The subsolar point, yes. Okay, good. So right. And you agree that the Tropic of Capricorn is 23.4 degrees south?

uh yeah yes i think that could be accurate okay excellent all right that's that's excellent now i live south of the tropic of capricorn okay you live north of the tropic of capricorn in america okay yes all right now so for me to look at to look at the sun i need to face north if i look if i face south the sun's going to be behind my head

According to the Flat Earth Comment. Do you understand that? Yes. Well, what's happening with the lights actually covered... No, no, just say if you agree with me. No, no, I hear what you're saying. Matthew, we need to go one step at a time. Yeah, I know what you're saying. What's wrong with what I said? What's wrong with what I said? I covered this in my book about how south of the equator there appears to be a great perspective distortion that takes place in the sky.

Now, instead of just going directly to the south, I look at the equator first, where an observer at the equator can simultaneously witness two different star rotations in the sky at the same time.

We're talking about the sun, Matthew. Matthew, can we just stay with the topic, the sun? Don't forget the stars. We'll come to that. We're getting to that. The next step is to look at the analemma. Research the analemma. The sun's figure eight path in the sky. Matthew, that wasn't my question. My question was about the sun. To bring it to the sun. Yes. What's happening with the sun?

The sun is a light in the sky. Now, if you listen to what I'm saying, there is a perspective distortion that takes place. That is why there is an extra star rotation south of the equator. But you have to understand all of the lights do this. Our own observational field, like how we observe reality, is like a dome.

Matthew, are you just capable of just answering specific questions as I ask them? Okay. Okay. Well, you were talking about... I don't want you to ramble on. Just answer the specific questions that I ask them.

Okay. The sun is going around. The sun is to my north. I would need to face north to see it. Do you agree with that or not? No, because like I said, there's perspective. How could I? If it's going north of me, if the only way that the sun is going around the Tropic of Capricorn north of me, because I'm south of the Tropic of Capricorn.

I have to turn around and look north to see it. Yes, you have to study like what I'm saying. That analemma, anticorpuscular rays, and dual star rotation at the equator. Once you see how these things together, our perspective will warp the path of the lights above us.

then you'll understand. These things all work. It's in my most recent book. It's easy to read. Except that these observations, sorry for interrupting, Phil, but these observations, the two diverging star parts of the equator, the anal lemma, and these are all explained if Earth is a rotating spheroid, right? No, no. They are perfectly...

Why not? The reason it does not is because we observe there is no axial tilt. The fact that, so can you define the axial tilt for me? If we look at the sky, we could see that Polaris stays in its spot. If we track the subsolar point, we see that the sun moves from the Tropic of Cancer in my summertime to the Tropic of Capricorn in my wintertime. Yes, that's true.

That would be the definition of axial tilt relative. Can you let me finish? That would be the defining observation that gives us Earth's axial tilt relative to our orbit around the sun. But it's disproven, though, by Polaris.

I went over this with Craig. We talked about this for four hours. He used his best computer programs. He could not demonstrate how Polaris stays in its spot if the Earth is going around it and tilting, or the Earth is going around the sun and tilting. We went over that a lot. Your failure to understand an explanation does not constitute a debunk.

That's an assumption. You're assuming that you have understood the explanation. Polaris is very distant, so that Earth's motion around the Sun has very little effect on its apparent position in the sky. So it's another irrelevant thing, right? I'm still speaking. Another irrelevant thing. Earth's pole of rotation is aimed at approximately Polaris. But are you suggesting that stars...

don't move, that they don't exhibit proper motion. Because that's false. No, no, no, no. I agree with you. The stars move. The Earth does not. So how do you explain precession? The precession of how the constellations work?

I talked about this in my book also. I cover this in my book. The methodology is track, it's two things. Every day, track Polaris in its spot and measure the approximately one degree regression of the celestial disk every night. And the beautiful way God made that system is that after one year, the procession of Zodiac, just like you mentioned, it goes back to its original spot.

Yeah, that's a demonstration. So what's actually happening here is Earth completes one rotation relative to the star field every 23 hours and 56 minutes. Wow. Yes. No, you have to establish first that the Earth is moving. You're just turning this into a movement. Approximately anyway.

You can't establish the earth is moving. Yes, we can. And we can establish. Yes, we can. Can I finish what I was saying before? Yes. Sorry. Please do so. All right. Thank you. So I'm going to keep on with this because if I am standing south of the Tropic of Capricorn, I must face north to see it.

I could never see it if I'm facing south. Now, if you don't believe me, I can share my screen and I'd like to show you another prominent flat earther saying exactly what I just said. Do you mind if I share my screen please? You might enjoy this. Okay, let's let me set it up. Take me a second to set it up. Okay.

And I want to let you know, folks, if you haven't hit like, we do appreciate your support. You can also find our guests linked in the description box. The guests are the lifeblood of the channel. And I got to tell you, we do appreciate them. They have been super flexible tonight.

We just appreciate them. So I do want to encourage you folks to check out their links in the description box right now. What are you waiting for? Even if you disagree, there's so much value in hearing from the other side rather than hearing what someone says the other side says. Okay. All right. I'm ready to go. And then I'll press the play button as soon as it's shared. Okay. You bet. I'm ready for you. Thank you.

Please pay attention to this, okay, Matthew? All right? I know you like the sound of your own voice. I'm sorry I have to say that. All right? Oh, look at Will Duffy. He's a liar. I exposed him already. He got exposed. Okay. So let's just say that you'll just pay attention to what's going on over here. Okay, yeah. We're not off to a good start. I don't trust that guy. It's nothing to do with him. There is. Okay. Okay.

Is it helpful? Yeah, go on.

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 877-8HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY-467369. For Arizona, 1-800-NEXTSTEP. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050.

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them?

Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you.

Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of 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. I called 988. I told them I'm lonely. I even told them I felt overwhelmed.

I even told them I take up too much space. Existing feels hard. And the person said, I understand. And they said, you are not a burden. I want to listen. Text, call, or chat the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Compassionate counselors respond 24-7 with no judgment, just help. 988lifeline.org. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. I didn't do that. I didn't choose that. Okay. Yeah. Hopefully.

Oh, no, this is just... This would constitute fair use. Yeah, okay, all right. Look, if you're worried about it, I won't share it, but I'm not sure where you said that. I'm looking for this box that you said that where it says share that. It's just got... Just paraphrase it. Like, instead of playing the video, just say what... All right, okay. Say what they're talking about. All right, okay, all right. I will do that. Okay.

I'll stop sharing and then I'll do that. So the video that I was about to play for you was, do you know Dave from SSUM? What's his? Sovereign Soul. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I like him. He's cool.

Yeah, okay. I'm glad you like him because then you trust what he says too, don't you? I don't trust what anybody says. I just want to think for myself. But he's cool though. Of course you don't. And yes, he's so good. I'm glad you think he's cool. All right. So what he said was that he said exactly this. If the earth was flat, then objects would come in from the north, would come in from the northeast,

Go across your vision and then go away in the northwest. He said, if that happens, Earth cannot be a globe. I 100% agree with that. Well, you could debate him if you want. Now, listen, just to finish. He's not here. And then he went on to say this. If it comes in from south of east,

and then disappears south of west, he said this, it must be a globe. That's what his words exactly... I'm not sure what you're talking about. What are you talking about? Like the sun movements or something? What are you talking about? It's not that hard. May I bring up a slide? Yeah, it's like who cares what other people say? I'm here right now debating. Talk to me. Okay.

So here we've got a diagram of sunrise on the day of the equinox. Okay. So we know that at sunrise, the sun is above...

The sun is above the horizon for 12 hours. So we know that it rises six hours before noon and it sets six hours after. So we know that the sun moves at 15 degrees an hour. So we know where the sun is. It's 90 degrees away from the observer on the ground. And so we can put it on a map.

And, you know, we have observers that are directly under the sun who can confirm that the sun is directly overhead. Indonesia has a large population, more than 100 million people. So we know that there are people there. At the same time, an observer in South Africa does not see the sun rise in the northwest.

they see this map tells us that the sun should appear to be north of east but instead it's

Everybody on the equinox sees the sun rise directly east. Okay, that's fair. That's fair. And I did a demonstration how it is possible on a flat plane to have an observer north and south on one longitude line be able to have a sunrise at 90 degrees angle. It's on my YouTube page. I know people were getting upset thinking about it, and I'm like, let me just...

demonstrate it okay i use a glass dome magnifier i used a flashlight at a distance representing the sun right and i moved the glass dome magnifier up and down and the light stays listen the light stayed in the same spot as i moved the glass dome magnifier up and down so it's possible

So your argument now is that the firmament is full of glass. No. Well, that's what you just did. You used a glass dome that is full of glass. No, I didn't say that. That doesn't occur. Look, I'm still... Just to be sure, gentlemen, just to be sure that we can hear both of you. I want to maybe jump into one minute interval. So maybe 60 seconds for one person and then 60 seconds for the other. All right.

All right. All right. So so your your demonstration relied on the fact that your dome was full of glass and that your light was outside the firmament, whereas the sun is inside the firmament, according to your model, not outside of it. And the firmament is not full of glass. So whatever demonstration you did in your in your experiment bears no relationship to reality as we observe it.

Okay, the reason it does is that I use glass dome magnifiers to represent our own personal dome of perspective, our own unique observational field. And yeah, the light, it shows that wherever the observer is on this longitude line, as long as it's not too far north or too far south, the observers would see it at that angle.

And I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's there. So everybody has a personal dome of perception that is made of glass? It's not made of glass. It's just how we perceive reality. We perceive reality as though the light is passing through a dome of glass. No, that's incorrect. I think I might be explaining it incorrectly. You know how we observe, how the eye observes?

Think about how the eye observes. Think about if you look in any direction, there is an extent.

to how far you could see in every direction. That extent is your personal dome of observation. That's not true. That's literally untrue. I can see stars that are billions of light years away. That's an assumption.

Yes, and your claim that it is untrue is similarly an assertion. You have no evidence backing up your... No, I said you're assuming. Tony, I said you're assuming the stars are that far. And you are assuming that they aren't. And you are assuming that we have a dominant perception. No, I made no assumption. You have not demonstrated it. I'm just observing them. I'm observing. No, that's not observing. That is interpreting the observations in a particular way.

Yeah, I don't have to guess.

to substantiate your position. It's not a logically derived conclusion from observational evidence. If it were, you would be able to give me the observational evidence and you have failed to do so. I don't think so. I think actually the observational evidence is on my side for this because it's actually how the celestial navigation works. Like we could see how our own

Our own celestial sphere works, whether you're in the north at the equator or the south. You can't deny that.

There's absolutely no way to deny. I mean you can if you want, but if you want Beyond record denying how observational reality works, please PhD Tony. Let's give Tony a chance now for 60 seconds I am denying that a Flat Earth model, that in any Flat Earth model celestial navigation would work

And in particular, I am denying that distance calculations on a flat Earth will ever be universally accurate as spherical distance calculations are. There's no way they can. Pardon? There's no way that you could take a flat plane and say, you know what, I'm going to put a spherical coordinate system on this and expect it to be accurate.

That's why they had problems with the Bermuda Triangle when they started doing that. That was before the computers started taking over. The Bermuda Triangle is a myth. It was a navigational error. It was a myth. There is no unusual occurrences in the Bermuda Triangle. They suffer the same rate of accidents as any other equal area of ocean. They thought they were playing over a ball.

That's the problem. That's a non... That's... Tony. I'm still talking. Yeah, they thought they were flying over a bottle. I'm still talking. I'm not going to let them interrupt me. Just relax. Okay, just take a deep breath. I'm going to complete. You're right, you're right, you're right. Okay, so... Let's go 60 seconds to PhD, Tony, and then we'll come back for 60 seconds. Yep. Thank you. Okay, so...

I'm so flustered I've almost forgotten. But the distance calculations, the spherical distance calculations demonstrably do work. We can compare the spherical distance calculations for that train track in Western Australia and they almost exactly match the track length. So the spherical distance is like 1,250 kilometres and the track length is 1,280 kilometres. So you're saying that it's impossible.

But when we look at it in practice, when we look at the length of a physical object, it works. So it happens. You're saying that something is impossible that actually occurs in observable reality. So you're wrong. This directly contradicts your position. So are the train tracks in a perfectly straight line? I don't know anything about what you're talking about. Some train tracks in Australia prove the Earth is a ball?

James, can I have a word? Yes, of course. Okay, thank you. So, Matthew, just so that I can continue with this tack over here. Matthew, if you had a longitude and latitude coordinates of one place and a longitude and latitude coordinates of the other place, how would you determine the distance between them? How would I determine that? Yeah.

Most likely, I'd probably just use my phone and check Google. You would check Google? Google uses spherical jib. How would a flat-earther? If I'm in Southern California, how am I supposed to measure the distance to New York or Florida or Russia? You know what I mean? You want me to use some possible stuff.

So, Matthew, in fact, I'm talking to the fence sitters. So you can hear what Matthew. Professor, you can hear me, Matthew. We just have to have one person at a time, like 60 seconds. I hope you're listening. OK, I need you guys to hear what we're going to do is we're going to change this up a little bit is we'll have 60 seconds of one person.

And when they're ready to hear from the other person, but remember when you ask the other person a question during your 60 seconds, they oftentimes want to answer for longer than you want. And so if you ask them a question, consider it like you're seeding over your 60 seconds, because if you cut them off and you're like, all right, well, let me finish by 60 seconds. It's like, I would just say you get 60 seconds and then you can say when you're done, you pass it over to the other person. Go ahead. Okay.

All right, great. So pilots, ship captains, navigators all have to know the distance between two places that they're going to go because they need fuel. They want to work out the costs, you know, all sorts of reasons why and the direction that they're going. They all need to know the distance between places. They know the GPS coordinates of this place. They know the GPS coordinates of that place. They now calculate the distance between them.

They calculate the distance between them. Can you please tell me, as a flat earther, as a flat earth pilot, or a flat earth navigator, or a flat earth shipping company owner, could you please tell me how you would calculate the distance between two places so that you can work out how long it'll take you to get there and how much fuel you're going to use? Can you please tell me how a flat earth pilot, shipping company owner, navigator would do that?

Go ahead, Matthew. Oh, you were talking to me? You first said you were talking to the fence sitters. Well, you know, I'm not I'm not I'm not a pilot. I'm not a commercial shipping. You can you can say I don't know, Matthew. Is that is that equivalent to saying you don't know?

No, I'm saying I'm not what you just said. Anything what you just said. So are you asking me a question or are you asking the fence sitters a question? I'm asking you. Matthew, why would he be asking them when they can't respond because they're watching at home without a microphone to respond on? He's talking. He's wanting a response from you. Why would he even address them? James, why would he want a response from you? Matthew.

Okay, I would say I'm not a pilot or a shipping magnate. I'm not any of those things. Address me. I'm right here, not people out in the audience. Address me, please. I'm right here. May I briefly present something? Go ahead. It's just a few. I think I've made my point, so go ahead. Yes, you have. Okay, is that showing? Yes.

Again, sort of this is the flat Earth. If we know the distance to the North Pole, we know the angle subtended at the North Pole. This is the formula for the distance along that red side.

Similarly, this is the... We can construct a spherical triangle, and this is how we do distance calculations. This is how we calculate the fuel needed for ships, the fuel needed for planes, the amount of food that early explorers needed. This is how we do this, and, you know, I...

In the original presentation, you know, this is Captain Bly's journey of, you know, nearly 7,000 kilometres. He had to... And he wanted to do it without making landfall because they had trouble being attacked by natives. We've got this journey from more than 1,000 kilometres to...

by Shackleton and his crew when they were stranded in the Antarctic. And this is the example I was talking about before. So the spherical distance estimate is 1,242 kilometers between Tukula and Kalgoorlie. The track separation, the length of the track between the two is 1,280 kilometers.

The flat Earth distance using the formula that geometrically must apply is 3,039 kilometers. The flat Earth formula is wrong. The spherical distance formula is right. You said that this was an impossibility. You said that this couldn't happen. Yet here it is, and it happened. So what is your explanation? May I speak?

Okay, yeah, I think maybe there's just something probably wrong with your formulas. And when I look at the map you presented, it doesn't look like a straight line either. So there could be some sort of difference about the lengths that you're trying to present. So you want to say that because of your equation, somehow the Earth is a ball because you can say, look at this train tracks in Australia. Look at these, look at this diagram. Look at all these numbers. And it's like, well,

The numbers usually don't add up to reality, okay? Like that eight inches per mile square that seems to be so elusive, okay? But I appreciate your diagrams, Tony. I'm just not convinced. Of course you're not. That's okay. I appreciate your diagrams, but I'm not convinced. Of course you're not, Matthew. Thank you, Professor Bell. Okay.

So, looking over my notes, most of them were for Tikoris, but it honestly feels like regardless of the evidence that is presented, regardless of the form that evidence takes, and regardless of the nature of the explanation, that ultimately Matthew is just going to say, well, I don't believe it. And vice versa.

And I don't I don't know. Normally in a debate, both sides are under an obligation to substantiate their claims and present evidence or logical arguments in support of their claims. And I feel that Phil and I have done that.

But it leaves me at something of a loss as to where we can go from here or how worthwhile it might be exploring topics. Well, maybe if you had some better evidence for a globe, I might be convinced. I'd like to ask Matthew if he thinks space is fake. You mean the space between us?

No, you know, it's a common thing that flat Earthers say. Space is fake. What altitude do you mean? You mean the other side of the firmament? He means above 100 kilometers elevation. Let's say, for instance, the 400 kilometers that it takes to get to where the ISS is or the 36,000 kilometers that it takes to get to a geostationary satellite. Is that all fake? Yeah, I think a lot of what is presented to the public is just meant to manipulate us.

I don't think anything's going on. What do you mean? How is it wrong? There's a lot of reasons why it doesn't work out in reality. For example, a lot of the satellites that you think are in space, they're actually on balloons. And a lot of our telecommunications is undersea cables, so forth, and using towers that transmit. Outer space?

So Matthew, you said that you just made the assertion that satellites are on balloons. When we observe the satellites, they streak across the sky and it takes about an hour and a half to get around the world once.

Just once to get around the whole world, to get around just once. Matthew, they're traveling at 10 times faster than any known fighter jet. They never need fuel. They're shaped like a soda can. They have no aerodynamic flights.

Matthew, listen for a change. You might actually learn something. These objects have no aerodynamic flight surfaces, no aerodynamic controls. They carry no fuel. And they don't exist. And they don't exist. You just said they exist on balloons, Matthew. Not in outer space.

You just said they don't have fuel, they don't have this, they don't have that. I'm talking about you agreed that they exist. You agreed that they exist and you said that they were on balloons. They're not in outer space. They don't exist in... I don't care where you think they are, Matthew. You said they were on balloons.

You said they were on balloons. There's video of those satellites on balloons coming down, crashing into people's yards. So, yeah, that's true. That's a category fallacy. I just want to point that out. That some that some that some satellite that some satellites exist does not matter. Satellites are satellites.

And you couldn't even stay silent long enough to hear basic logic explained to you. That some satellite observations take the form of satellones does not mean that all satellites are satellites. And that's an invalid syllogism.

It proves what I'm saying, that they are on balloons. No. There are satellites on balloons. We can agree that. So you are claiming that all satellites are on balloons. No, I think... And your argument is... No, not all. Not all. Your argument is because some satellites are on balloons. Well, what proportion of satellites are on balloons?

I don't know. I'm not in the... Is it more than 50%? I'm not in DARPA. I'm not part of the Space Command. I actually... The fact that there are satellites on balloons, okay? I actually... You cannot deny that. Yes, I can't deny that, but I can deny that all satellites are on balloons because as Phil pointed out, at about 400 kilometers, the velocity of a satellite is 7 kilometers a second.

a roundabout. So, yeah, balloons don't move that fast. They can't move that fast. Yeah.

And you can photograph them. You can film them doing their transits. And you can also film them falling out of space and reentering Earth's atmosphere. So the claim that, you know, this isn't observed, it's all made up. There are literally thousands of photographs of satellite trajectories. Why don't you accept them?

All that, because honestly, everything about space, we should have already been having colonies on the moon if the moon was a rock, like the globe theory says. People should have already been living on Mars. We should have already had Star Trek-like space stations. We don't have any of that. It's all like a fairy tale, guys. Sorry to tell you.

Can I share my screen again? I would love to go to the moon. What's stopping you? What's stopping anybody? The moon is not a physical thing like a rock. It's a lander. It's a light. So here are some time-lapse images of satellite trajectories above Earth.

Here are some photographs from the ground of the Discovery Space Shuttle on one of its final trajectories approaching the International Space Station. Here's a photograph taken from the ground of a spacewalk taken by a

a European observer. Here are images of geostationary satellites, time-lapse images. So you can see all of the stars are moving, but the geostationary satellites remain little dots of light because they're stationary relative to the background. - Oh, so they're not moving then. They're just basically hovering above the Earth. - They're not moving. - Oh, that's, hey, Tony, you just gave another flat-earth proof.

that the stars move and but the earth and these geostationary things they're not moving. Thank you Tony. As was explained to you as was explained to you previously their orbits are synchronized with earth's rotation and again you won't be silent long enough. They're not moving relative to their ground point.

They are remaining roughly stationary relative to the ground point. - Just to hear one at a time, hold on Matthew, if you can just let Tony finish. - Okay, got it. - They are moving around Earth, but their position relative to the ground point is remaining fixed. There's no contradiction there that is not a flat Earth proof as you claim. - Matthew, what do you see on this screen? - This looks like a bunch of lights on a screen.

That's a Starlink constellation. There's about 60 satellites in that group. They streak across the sky more than 10 times faster than any fighter jet known.

Okay, so maybe they have some really advanced technology that they're not letting the people know about. You think that's 60 balloons flying in single file? No, they're not all balloons. I think they could have things that are like, they're not technology that we can really imagine. I think they have things that... You think, Matthew? You just asked me a question. You just asked me... I mean, are we having a conversation, Professor Phil Finnell? Go ahead, Matthew. Go ahead. Okay, they could have things like high-altitude planes, jets...

Things that are faster than what we know about, what the public knows about. I mean, do you know in the United States, the government, they're trying to push the UFO agenda on the people? They're showing videos of this stuff. I don't believe it either. But they're saying there's crafts that outperform the best things that are known. So I think maybe the government is like, I really do think the government has this technology.

So what you're showing, yeah, I think the government has this technology, but they're not letting the people know that they have such advanced stuff. That's possible. You actually believe that, right? That the government has stuff. Tell all the spend-sitters out there that you actually believe that.

I'm not talking to the fence sitters, I'm talking to you Professor Phil Bell. Yeah, yeah, but you too, but I'm letting you know my opinion. If you ask me what I think, I'll say it. So Matthew, let's finish this. Let's finish this. Okay, so you said that, so you agree now these can't be on balloons, right? Because nothing on a balloon can travel faster than a fighter jet, right?

Do you think that if something was to travel just as fast as a fighter jet, never mind 10 times faster, that it would have to have aerodynamic flight surfaces and maybe even aerodynamic controls? Excuse me? Do you know what aerodynamic flight surfaces means? You mean like how it flies through the air? No, like wings, for instance. Well, I mean, it depends on what type of thing this is. I mean, I'm not sure that's even a physical object I'm looking at.

I'm seeing light. I don't see any physical things. I just see light. But they weren't there before the rocket went up, and then they're there all of a sudden. You think God put them there? You think God put them there? Light can be projected from the ground. I don't know.

You think that aliens put them there? You want me to believe that these things are in outer space? And I'm saying, no, they could be, like, I don't know how high up in the sky. They don't have to be in outer space. I don't. You just said something. Please explain how they are out there without flight surfaces, without aerodynamic flight surfaces, without any fuel. And look, there's the date there, 2019. Yeah.

How on earth can something be traveling 10 times faster than a fighter jet without fuel? Dude, the United States government is on that. They're asking the same questions. You need to convince all the people out there that are watching this show that you actually believe that. I don't believe any of all this.

You actually know that. You actually know about some government programs. You know about a government program. Professor Phil Bell, I'm not the government to be releasing these UFO files. I'm not Congress to be holding meetings about this stuff. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm looking at lights. You're showing me a picture of lights. You expect me to believe they're in outer space, which I don't believe. I don't believe outer space.

Matthew, they weren't there before the rocket went up there. They were there after the rocket went up there, released them in a single pile, and then they're up there. So there's something up there. Yeah, Starlink. You want me to believe they're in some type of outer space when really those could just be like at the level of where the clouds are. What?

Where do you think, where do you, do you think they're in the air? Do you think they can travel 10 times faster than a fighter jet in the air without fuel? Do you think that's what our government is showing us? Our government is showing us like Navy footage. Listen, they're showing Navy video and I don't believe it. Okay. But the government is showing Navy recordings of pilots interacting with these things. No, they're not.

Not these specific lights, but not these specific lights. Go ahead, Tony. Maybe you can help him with this. Yeah, help me, Tony. Help me, Tony. Go ahead, Tony. So the topic turned to belief. Believe. You want me to believe. Yeah, you want me to believe this. No, I don't. What I want to do here is to present the available evidence. Whether or not you believe the available evidence is your choice.

You can choose to disbelieve it all you want. But your reasoning here, you've made up your mind before you see the evidence. I've shown you evidence of earth rotation that you've never seen before and you just decided to disregard it. I've shown you evidence from earthquake trajectories. I've shown you evidence from distance measurements.

and you've just rejected the door because you've decided you've got a belief that

And anything that contradicts that belief just gets rejected. And that isn't a good epistemology. It's not a good way to work out whether or not something is true. In order to work out whether or not something is supported by the facts, you have to be capable of accepting new facts and incorporating and working out what level of confidence

you should assign to them. And what you're doing is you're saying I have zero confidence in all of these scientific results, in all of this scientific methodology, but I've got 100% confidence in my own observational capacity, my own logical capacity, and my own belief system.

And again, I just don't think that that is a good way to get to truth. You are basically just gatekeeping and saying this. Yes, you're gatekeeping your own belief system. If there's any evidence that contradicts your belief system, I'm still in the... I got an interjection. Tony is still talking, Matthew. You didn't care about anything I said. Tony, a chance to wrap up?

I'll give you a chance to respond, Matthew, in just a moment, because I know that Tony has... I was just about to wrap up. You are basically filtering what you will accept as real or not based on whether or not it agrees with your presupposed assumptions. And again, I just don't think that that's a valid epistemological approach. What's up?

Go ahead. This is a great opportunity. Matthew, what were you about to say? Okay. Yeah. Hey, PhD Tony, everything you just said that actually applies to you this whole time. I don't think you cared about anything. I said, any argument I made, any counter argument I made,

And every evidence that you brought up, I'm just asking questions. And it seemed like you didn't care about anything I said. So your statement, actually, you need to take your own advice, take your own medicine, right? Because if you got good information, I'll consider it. But all you guys shown like diagrams, formulas, you know, it doesn't... Actual photographs. Yeah, of lights in the sky.

And the ISS. Well, you know, we've got to establish first that outer space exists. We haven't established that the Earth moves. We can look at diagrams of how the Earth moves.

but we cannot observe the earth moving. Except that I have presented. So here's the argument, Matthew. The reason why I have confidence in my epistemology and you present stuff that I think is just fundamentally, factually and logically flawed. That's why I reject it. And I can make that argument to a neutral observer and they will agree with me.

And the fact is that the only people you're going to get to agree with you are people who are so inclined. I don't think that's a good system. I know...

based on my life experience that I can correctly interpret sensory information, that I can correctly interpret technical information, and that I can relay my understanding of this to other people, and that I can correctly assess when there are holes in the logic that's presented to me. I've been tested on this, and I've had it confirmed that I can do this quite reliably.

And so, and I know a bunch of other people who have similarly been tested and are similarly reliable when they undertake these tasks, Phil being one of them. My question then is why should I have any confidence in stuff that you say is logical when I and everybody else whose opinion I trust as a reliable observer of reality is

disagrees with you. Because I encourage people to think for themselves and not just take other people's word for what reality is. That's...

Yes, I quite agree, except that there's a limit to that. The sum of human knowledge is so vast that one person cannot master it. I agree. One person cannot know everything. So we have reached a point where

where we have to have experts in particular topics. In particular, there is a branch of science called geodesy, which is the study, which is the scientific study of the shape of the earth. And it's been around for more than 100 years. And so the claim that, you know, scientists haven't been looking at this, there's a bunch of evidence out there that you are ignorant of.

You haven't studied this field of knowledge. You too, Tony. You too. Yes, there may well be, but I know more about the shape of the Earth than you do. I know more about satellite orbits than you do. Yes, these are facts. You can claim that they're not, but these are facts.

And your assertion to the contrary, what evidence do you have? Have you undertaken a course of education? Are you capable of any real-world analysis? Do you hold any credentials? Have any subject matter experts looked at your work and assessed it as well? You want to get who I am personally versus what I'm talking about, like my ideas and my arguments.

We're not talking about me personally, who I am. You need to back up your arguments with evidence. And you know what? I also, I would say, Tony, I wanted to respond, but I just was listening to you talk. It doesn't matter if 99.9999999% of the people believed a lie for 6,000 years. It doesn't matter. It's time for the truth. Except that you've no evidence except your own misinterpretation of physics.

You don't understand how momentum works. You don't understand how wind works. You don't understand. Wait, wait, wait. I don't know how wind works. I told you wind goes in different directions at different speeds. It proves that the Earth's not rotating. No, that doesn't prove that the Earth isn't rotating. Wind goes in different directions. Look at the jet streams. Look at the way the air. What causes it, Matthew?

What causes air to move? There's probably some type of thermodynamic principles at play with the hot and cold air and the pressures involved with moisture. I'm not a scientist of that. But the proof is that wind goes in different directions at different speeds.

Yes, yes. We all accept that that is true. Where we diverge is you say, therefore, Earth can't be a spinning ball. True. And I say that is not a logically valid construction. That does not make sense. That does not logically follow from your axiom. But how so?

Because the Earth doesn't predict that winds can't flow in different directions. The globe model doesn't predict that winds can't flow in different directions because the Earth is largely stationary relative to the surface of the Earth. And therefore, temperature fluctuations and pressure differentials can cause winds to blow in whatever direction. Tony, you said it. You said it. You said it.

You were talking about how the air above the earth, it's basically stationary.

Relative to the earth. And the earth is not moving. That's the reason. Except that I have produced evidence that it is moving. You just reject that evidence. Yeah, it's unsatisfactory evidence. No, it's unsatisfactory to you because you have decided it is unsatisfactory because it contradicts your belief system. No, the reason it's unsatisfactory, it's not comparable to reality. What?

What you're saying happens is not, when I look at reality, it is not what you're saying is happening. Yes, but this is the weakness of your epistemology. The epistemology that 99.999999% of people disagree with you. So how would you go about curing a delusion? Suppose you were deluded. How would your delusion be corrected?

And you've got no technique. Well, we'd have to look at the evidence. You won't. I'm still talking. You won't listen. You won't listen to any evidence that contradicts your position. You have absolute faith in your observational and logical abilities and absolutely zero faith in anybody else's honesty.

So anyone who tries to correct you from a delusional position or a counterfactual position is fighting a Sisyphean battle where you just reach it after 30 seconds and say, no, I don't believe that. So this is why I think your epistemology is fundamentally flawed. It can end up with you trapped in an in a unreal and fantastic interpretation of reality.

Can I ask Matthew a question please? Yep. So Matthew, you know just recently a group of people went to Punta Arenas, that's where they started, right? They started this journey. At Punta Arenas, while they were there, it was around about midnight, they were looking directly south.

You know something? They noticed that the sun was down there directly south. Now, we all agree that the sun is all the way up at the Tropic of Capricorn. So how did they see the sun? Well, at Punta Arenas, which is right near the bottom of South America, how did they see the sun in the southerly direction when the sun is completely north of them?

Okay, may I respond to this? In the middle of the night, they could see the sun. I got you. Don't get upset. Don't get upset. I'm not. Can I respond to this? Matthew. I debated this with Craig. Fight the flat earth. We debated this issue for nine hours. We'll give you a full 60 seconds, Matthew. Okay? Okay.

Go ahead, Matthew. How did they see the sun? Right down facing south. Okay, Craig, the Flat Earth and I, we debated this issue for nine hours. We established in the first part that it is impossible to see that. It's impossible for there to be a 24-hour sun in Antarctica. I didn't ask about 24-hour sun. Hold on. The next part, we established two things.

that Austin lied and Will Duffy lied. Viewers, you see how he deflects? No, I'm answering your question directly. No, he's not. On this show, we debated, is the final experiment fake or not?

And all that happened was just hate speech, and that was all the Globers could do. And just to put a bow on it, I think it was all fruit of a poisonous tree. I think all the anomalies, glitches, mistakes, and how the Globers were discrediting Austin before and after was a huge mistake.

blunder, but just as an observer of the final experiment, I reject it. It's contaminated and I call it Duffy's failure. And how did they see the sun while they were facing south at Punta Arenas?

in the middle of the night? How did they see the sunlight? They lied, dude. They lied. They didn't. They had photographs of it. They actually did live streams. They actually did live streams of it. They had a bunch of videos and pictures of the alleged moon landing. That turned out to be fake, too. But again, we've run into the problem of your epistemology.

You say we established that in your debates with... Yeah, we did. No, we didn't.

You came to that conclusion after those debates. That is not the same as establishing something or demonstrating something to the satisfaction of a neutral observer. What your most recent debate established for me was that Craig was incredibly rude to you. And, you know, I let him know and he has apologised today.

to James and to Ryan. I don't know if he reached out to you to apologize yet, but I feel you deserve one. - I appreciate that Tony. - But even as rude as he was, I didn't think that you did establish

I don't find your arguments persuasive and that probably doesn't come as a surprise to you. But we're kind of back to the, when you say we established and you say that as a fact, it's your interpretation of what happened and it's not necessarily shared by neutral observers, I would argue. So I would just caution that when you say something like we established, you conclude it.

Well, it's there. I mean, you could, if you can stomach it, watch those debates.

He uses best computer programs to try to show how that observation could take place, but he could not. That's my point. It's not just me saying it. He used his best computer programs to try to show how it could be possible, and he couldn't. And then in the next one, we talked about all the mistakes. Okay, we don't need to get into all that, but about final experiment, just personally, yeah, it's a lot of work.

Like they could have done better. They could have hired better people. They could have hired like better Hollywood CGI people. You know, that's how I feel. That isn't really the topic of the conversation. So let's bring it back. Okay. So you think the photos that they took of the sunlight facing south while they were at Punta Arenas were all CGI? Yeah.

No, I think some of the videos and pictures came from Will Duffy begging people to

They weren't from Philadelphia, they were live streamed. No, listen, some of that was, but not a 24-hour live stream. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the sunlight, the sunlight viewable from Punta Arenas in the middle of the night facing directly south. How is it possible for the sun to be directly south

We've got to make those observations. I would have to go look at those for myself. It was a live stream. Would that change your mind if you saw it? Well, I mean, for me personally, sure. Of course not. But I mean, I would have to go check it out. But honestly, anything about climate experiments... I'd be glad to help you do that.

Yeah, anything about final experiment? No. I'm not talking about that. We're just only talking about the sunlight from standing at Punta Arenas looking directly south

at midnight and you can see the sun the sunlight directly south it at midnight but i mean but are you saying you're seeing sunlight or daylight some type of light so to more accurately describe this they saw the sun go down to the southwest and then they saw it um you know travel and sort of

You know how sometimes you can see sort of sunlight over the horizon? There's a sort of a pre-dawn glow or something like that. Yeah, glow. Yeah, so they saw the glow of the sun disappear and then move below the horizon back towards the southeast where the sun rose the next morning. So they were able to see the glow of the sun below the horizon.

So it disappeared then. At midnight. Yes, but they were able to see the glow of the sun over the horizon. And yes, the sun did disappear, but they could still tell that the sun was south of them because they could see the glow over the horizon. I think we need to get some more observational data of people not involved with final experiment. I think that would be a lot better. That's just my opinion. Don't hate me for not believing that. The live streams with CGI? The live streams with CGI? Yes.

The live streams, they could all be good. To me, and it's okay if you don't like my answer, all of it is fruit of a poisonous tree. All of it, top to bottom. Green screen, right? Green screen, malfunctions. Deflection. This again is a case of...

It's very easy to come up with excuses for just rejecting a body of evidence outright because you don't like the person who did it. You don't like the, you know, they lied once. And these are logical fallacies. Even if somebody did lie once.

that doesn't mean that they are always lying. That's a logical fallacy. And the idea that you reject evidence just because of the people involved in collecting the evidence, that's called the ad hominem fallacy. An argument is not true based on who is presenting it or who collected the evidence or whatever. Observations are valid if they are procedurally correct and correctly interpreted.

Okay, that's a problem. I don't consider that it's legitimately collected data. I don't think that they legitimately collected it. Considering all the mistakes, nothing should be considered legitimate of it. We're going to jump into... I think we should get on with the stupid superchats. He's right. We're going to jump into it right now. I do want to encourage you folks, a couple of things. As you can see at the bottom right of your screen...

Modern Day Debates crowdfunds now ship internationally. Check out that link in the description box. That helps pay for the hotel nights and the flights of the speakers. Namely, Indiegogo is a crowdfund platform. You get cool perks if you help support the project of DebateCon 5 next month. And we ship those perks globally, as I mentioned. That thermometer on the right side of the screen shows you our goal. And we are 15% of the way there. We have about 27 days left.

And we are going to crush that goal. But I want to say thanks for all your support. That's linked below. I'm not offended for not being invited. No, that's okay. We are going to... Eventually, we want to get our Australian friends over there. We have... We are excited that Craig, Fight the Flat Earth, will be there. So he's coming from across the pond. And we are... No joke. We are...

Australia is so far. It is. It's so far. That was a joke. It's also much more expensive to get to pay for air flights. But, you know, just putting my name out there, if the money does become available, I'll do it for you. You could go to Santiago and then go north from there. The walking, you think? Yeah. Okay. Okay.

This is going to be a tremendous Q&A, and I appreciate your guys' enthusiasm. Folks, thanks for your questions. This first one coming in from Thunderstorm said, Since the Earth is a beautiful living organic misshapen oval covered in water with a thick atmosphere giving a fishbowl create flat data and Earth reference as round instead of oval, give pause.

It's a little bit hard to understand. Okay, so the ellipticity of Earth is not that large. So it's about 0.3%, you know, 1 in 300. So the radius of Earth at the equator is about, I think...

20 kilometres larger than the radius to the North Pole. Something like that. But it is practically a perfect sphere. If you had a pool, if the Earth were the size of a pool ball, it would be smoother than an actual pool ball is. So, yeah. But

I'm not sure I correctly interpreted the question, but yeah, there's no problem.

I have something to add to that, Tony, and that is he did say that the atmosphere was thick. It's actually not that thick. The bulk of the atmosphere, about more than 90% of the atmosphere exists in only 30 kilometers. And beyond that, because it's exponentially, it gets exponentially less and less. By the time it gets to 100 kilometers, it's practically none of it left.

Yeah. Even so, like we have to consider drag effects on the satellites that we use, which are at about 400 kilometres. But yeah, exactly so.

But the decay of pressure as you move higher, and I will just mention this, is exactly in agreement with the atmosphere being a hydrostatic fluid. That is that it's a fluid where the pressure is due to the weight of the overlying material under the effect of gravity. That is exactly how pressure in Earth's atmosphere decays. It gives you a roughly exponential term.

And Matthew, we wouldn't know this except that pilots, that airplanes, they know how high they are above the ground because of the change in pressure. Okay? Yeah. That's how they know. Barometric pressure. That's their instruments. Their instruments actually, their instruments, the instruments that measure pressure is what gives them, what tells them their altitude. Amazing. Yeah, I know that. I know that. Barometric pressure, right? Yeah, I got that. Yeah.

We don't have a problem with that then. Might be an opportunity to jump into the next one. It's got nothing to do with gravity at all. Yeah, that's right. Thunderstorm says, if the earth was a loaf of bread filled with meatballs and cheese, would you take a bite? Hell, I would. I'd take two bites. Thank you for that. Megan Marie, thank you very much. You're super excited to go to DebateCon for the first time. That, folks, is in Newark, New Jersey next month. If you're in that area, go to DebateCon.

Check out that link in the description box for DebateCon 5. It says, Can't wait to meet everyone. Earth is a glazed donut. Thank you for that, Megan. And Sunflower says, Flat earthers are mostly people who, basically, they said, you became fixated on technicalities in an attempt to contribute to society in a meaningful way. Let's see. This is kind of a cynical approach there. Matthew, what are your thoughts? He says that you're trying to

contribute to society by just picking out these like little technicalities that aren't really meaningful. What's your response, Matthew? I think that's a ridiculous response. I think I'm addressing some really important things here that actually prove the earth is flat and stationary. And to say that, oh, it's just nothing. It's like, well, if it was nothing, there wouldn't be such a huge censorship and movement against flat earthers and all the hate speech that we suffer.

If it really was that meaningless, why would they care? You know? And so I think you get the most flack when you're above the target. So yeah, keep fighting flat earthers. Keep doing it. Keep doing it. Respond a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah,

One of the things that I do notice in this is that there are a lot of people on the globe side who are only on the globe side, um, in order to yell at flat earthers. Um, they feel like, um,

And that's what they're in for. They don't actually understand the data. They don't understand the model. And oftentimes, they're more ignorant about the discussion than the flat earthers are. But they see flat earthers as somebody that they can essentially bully.

And I think that that is reprehensible. And I think that, you know, we should be coming into this discussion to present the best evidence on both sides and leaving where possible character assassinations aside, you know,

I have had interactions with flat earthers that became quite heated, and indeed I'm famous for it, but I feel like that was in very different circumstances. I think Matthew's been very civil, and people shouldn't attack flat earthers in the way that they do. They should focus on presenting the evidence because the evidence is overwhelming. Thank you very much, Tommy. Let me add something to this. Some beautiful words.

Let me add something to this. And so, Matthew, nobody hates you and nobody hates the flat earthers, but what we do disagree with is the idea behind what you have. And one of the problems with that, Matthew, is that a lot of the flat earthers actually have a great deal of influence over children. Okay? Now, if they start telling children that science is stupid

not to be believed on gravity is false space is fake there's no satellites balloons can move 10 000 10 times faster than we're actually turning our children into should i say it morons okay that's not fair at all i'll give you the last word matthew hold on one sec i'll give you the last word matthew because this super chat was aimed at you but then we got to go to the next one

Okay, just to put a bow on it, I mean, who cares if a kid's a flat earther? Let them think for themselves. You know, I went over this with other people in the past. Like, yeah, would you, like, punish your kids if they were flat earthers? You know, disown them? No. But they could think for themselves. I mean, I was forced to believe the globe theory. What does that tell you? Let's jump to LJ's question. It says, why doesn't Earth spin under a hovering helicopter?

This question, every single time this guy wastes his money on this question, because the atmosphere is moving at the same rate as the underlying Earth. Therefore, there is no relative motion or very little relative motion between the helicopter and the Earth underneath.

This has been asked and answered in every single Flat Earth debate. It is not a point in favour. And I want to go into the mindset again. What you're requiring is every scientist that has been born in the past 70 years since the invention of the helicopter has looked at a helicopter and...

Just failed to put two and two together because every scientist for the past seven years is that grotesquely stupid that you looking at a helicopter or as to Corey was saying, a swing can see something that the world's greatest minds can't come to grips with. It's nonsense. Anyway.

I would not call those people the greatest minds if they're thinking. I do want to give, hold on. I do want to, forgive me, but I do, I want to keep it so that we give the last word to the person that the super chat was directed to. LJ says, show us a fully working and physical globe model.

So I don't, this idea is nonsense. I can't give you a physical model of an atom. That doesn't mean that atoms don't exist. I can't give you a physical model of mountain creation. That doesn't stop mountains from being created by geological processes. So the claim that scientific models have to be mechanical is

ludicrous. It's a non-point and it's a non-question. And I know that Witsit has been going to it with increasing frequency, but it's just fatuous. Sorry, Phil, I'm monopolizing. You're quite right, Tony. That was well put. The

What you need to do is when we talk about a model, we're not talking about physical things. We're not talking about a like a model train or a model car. OK, a model is like a like a whole bunch of ideas in which you put inputs and you get outputs from them. So in other words, how how an equation works.

For instance, pick any of the equation, the force for gravity, for instance, F equals Gm1m2 over R squared. That's a model. That's because we can put inputs into it, we can make predictions out of it, and then we can use the outputs from it, exploit the outputs for the good of what we want to do. That's what the model is for. This one from Burnham says, Flat Earth Sides.

Please derive the 9.8 meter per second squared downward acceleration without using mass attracting mass. Are they asking me, like, why, what is the reason there is a down? No, they're asking you why is it 9.8 meters per second squared? Because there's something about weight and density, how things fall like that. I'm not God to create it. I don't, let's see.

I think they're going to say they want more detail. Why is there a down? I don't really understand the question. They're asking why is down going at a certain speed? Why is the downward acceleration, why does that have a value? Okay, I understand. Listen to what I'm saying. Gravity says that greater the mass, the greater the force of attraction.

So when we see things of different masses falling at the same rate, we can know that gravity is alive. Then we'll jump to the next one. Hang on. We got that. If it's an insult, folks, we're going to slip past it. LJ says, what's the proof of Jupiter's mass, size, and gravity? I'd like to answer that question. Yep.

Okay, so basically a very long time ago, so in the times of Kepler, for instance, was meticulous at measuring things, was able to determine that the planets actually moved around in an ellipse, for instance, around the Sun, and their moons moved in an ellipse around them, and they could work out. So in other words, these orbits were happening. Now, they didn't actually understand exactly why that did happen. However...

Thankfully, we had Newton come along and have a look at those same orbits and very, very carefully derived equations that

that gave, that told us why those things were happening the way they do. And that's basically gravity, gravitational field. So in other words, those things have gravitational fields, which is the reason that objects orbit around them. A satellite, for instance, orbits around the Earth because that is an equilibrium between the centrifugal motion, that's a force that's happening,

In other words, something that's moving very fast has a centrifugal force, a force that's likely to take it away, except for the fact that there's something else pulling it towards the Earth, and that's the Earth's gravitational field. So because those two things are in balance, the satellite is able to move 10 times faster than a fighter jet with no fuel, no flight surfaces, and no flight controls. There's one coming in from...

Burnham says, now for the globe side, please derive the 9.8 meters per second squared downward acceleration. Yeah, so the formula there is gm over r squared. More fully, you should take the integral over the entire ellipsoid because Earth's gravitational field is not uniform.

And so, you know, the fact that the that would be the acceleration g times the gm for Earth, g times the mass of the Earth divided by the radius of Earth squared would be a good approximation. And that fits out to 9.8 meters per second squared.

I just want to add to this as well for the benefit of everybody. And that is when we talk about, when we talk about this, there's two different things. We talk about the Earth's gravitational field strength and we talk about the means by which we measure that field strength. So what we notice that this gravitational field has an effect on things. It causes them to accelerate.

So one of the ways that we can measure what this gravitational field strength is, is by the magnitude of the acceleration of how much they accelerate. They're not the same thing, though. There's a gravitational field and then there's the means by which we measure the gravitational field. So when we're talking about gravitational field, that's the newtons per kilogram.

Okay. When we're talking about acceleration, that's, that's meters per second squared. It's often confused between the two of them, but they are different things. Okay. We'll jump into the next one. This one coming in from do appreciate it. LJ says, we got that one. Which gets it says Tony and Dr. Bell. Do you both agree that conceptual abstractions cannot have physical properties?

I think that that's a flippant question.

It's obviously true that abstractions don't have physical... Well, it's not even obvious that that's true because if I conceive of an abstraction, it has a physical existence in terms of the neurochemical processes inside my brain. So I don't... I just don't see how this is a meaningful question of any sort. So...

There you go. Phil, maybe you can make sense of it. I was having trouble. I would say that if you, so, so if you had a, if you had a dream about, about a building, you know, so you, you had a dream and so you were conceptualizing a building in your head. There's lots of things about that building, which you in, which you, which you would put together that would make because of your experiences in life,

You wouldn't make a building ridiculous so that it couldn't stand up because your life experience would force you to build things in a way that they would. A ship would look like a ship in your dream. A building would look like a building in your dream. Okay? So these are conceptual things.

But these conceptual things match real things on the outside. They must, because you wouldn't be able to conceptualise them in the way that they do so that they structurally sound unless you had those sort of experiences that you put together. So your question...

Your question actually doesn't have much meaning in that sense. It's interesting philosophy. It sounds to me like a scripted question where he wants to direct the conversation into something about scientific principles and their relationship to reality. But regardless, it's meretricious nonsense. I actually wanted to hear the question again, if that's possible, James.

It's really more for the other guys. I do want to, forgive me, it's just that I want to get through as many questions as we can. Okay, no problem, no problem. Hangover44 says, let's see, it's just an insult for Witson. They also said though, did the Flat Earth folks watch the video of the 24-hour sun in Antarctica? The sun is still set in New Zealand during the filming of

of it, that means that a flat earth is impossible. Whitsitt was there. He could tell you about it. Matthew, it sounds like you are digging your heels in. You think that the final experiment was a hoax. You think that wasn't, but is it, I hate to, just to get your take on it, not to take sides, but what's your take on the fact that you've talked about how this is kind of like a divine thing that the people who

are flat earth or kind of like, that's like they're kind of more faithful to God. But Patrick Duffy is a pastor. Isn't he a pastor? No, Patrick Duffy is an actor. Patrick Duffy was on Step by Step and other sitcoms. Will Duffy is the guy. Is he also a pastor? You're thinking of Will Duffy. Will Duffy is the pastor.

But they're not mutually exclusive, right? So, like, is he also a pastor, though? No, no, James, you said the name Patrick Duffy. That's a different guy. Oh, sorry about that. That guy's an actor. And Will Duffy is the pastor, alleged pastor, who did the final experiment fiasco. Go to your, Matthew. You're right. Patrick Duffy was the father on the hit podcast.

Comedy sitcom, step by step, if I remember right. That was a great show. But Patrick Duffy, on the other hand, okay, he was a, isn't he a pastor? Or no, no, no, Will Duffy. Sorry about that. Yeah, he teaches his congregation that the Bible says it's okay to lie. Don't go there, Matthew, because you know that that is true.

So wrong. You know that he's saying that it's okay to lie to save someone's life. You know that. We got to go take a look at that again. And there are stories in the Bible that convey the same message where people do lie. And in fact, God lies when he tells Adam and Eve that eating from this tree will kill them. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. That turns out not to be true.

Before we do the critique of the...

Old Testament. They didn't die. Really quick, really quick. They were going to have eternal life. That's how death and sickness entered the world. Tony, you got to read the Bible, man. Okay, but okay, well, we'll just skip the Will Duffy thing. K044 says, did the flat earth, we got that. Bernham says, for Matt, since everything can be faked, can you only assert the earth, quote, might be flat, unquote, since acquiring evidence is impossible?

Well, I think people should just think for themselves. And I mean, yeah, I used to believe the globe theory, but over time it just turned out to be a lie and I could see way too far. And I realized the earth was not moving. So that's important. This one from Jay Bones says, why...

He says, why are so many flat earthers hurting on each other? All right, let's get into the juicy drama in the flat earth world. Is this true? Well, it turned out that there were shills. There were agents that were manipulating public perception. Matthew, are you sure? Yeah. No, no, no. Watch, watch, watch. You don't think so? You think they're all legit? How they all just magically started mocking flat earthers and becoming globers?

You didn't see that was weird. You didn't notice how over the summer those guys changed. What happened over the summer? Bro, I don't know about you guys. I get people who ask me, they say, you host those Flat Earth debates. Are you for real? And I, you're for real right now.

I don't, James, I don't understand why you think I'm trolling you, dude. I just, I look at the final experiment like it's just a production. It just looks like a... So, let me... You don't have to hate me for that. James...

Just to explain for James's benefit. So Matthew is saying that the final experiment was fraud. It's a fake, that everything in it was not real. Therefore, his conclusion is that the flat earthers who participated in that and who are saying it's not fake must therefore not be real flat earthers. So Witsit, Jaron, Lisbeth and is it Malcolm?

are not real flat earthers, that must logically be Matthew's conclusion. Well, I mean, I don't know Lee's Beth. She's very beautiful, but I don't know who she is. Never heard of her before. Jaron has a history of being involved with mockumentaries. He's got a history with that. And the thing with Witsit, yeah, he changed. He changed over the summer. It's just what I'm observing. When I put all of this together,

Wow, there's something very big. There was a big deception that was being put on the people and it failed. You just want to believe that, don't you? I said on this show, I will consider anything they produce. No, you won't. I said it on this show. But what they produced was green screen glitches, other anomalies like no shadow effects.

being passed from the mountain then some videos it does have it it was it's just bogus do you want me to prove that you just said something untrue to us all

You said that you would consider it. I did. I did. I watched the video. That's not true. You won't consider it because Tony gave you ample evidence. I gave you evidence. I told you about the sun visible south of Pointe.

...at midnight. I told you about that. I described how the sun goes around the Tropic of Capricorn, and yet I can see it while I'm facing the southeast. That's impossible. All those things are impossible, and you will not consider these things. You will not consider that those Starlink satellites are moving 10 times faster than any fighter jet.

No fuel, no flight surfaces, no flight controls. What the hell? How are they doing that in the air?

Listen, I just told you the government is going videos of that. I did consider it. I consider everything you said. When you were talking about the sun, I told you that south of the equator, there is this perspective distortion that takes place. And our own observational field will warp the path of the lights above us. I

That's what you said. No, it's not. You're trying to dismiss what I said. But it has to be, that distortion happens in the northern hemisphere too, right? Because the same argument can be made. No, no, the observers that see Polaris. I was still talking. I was going to explain my point. If we have an observer who's north of the Tropic of Cancer,

Right. They will see, at the summer solstice, they will see the sun rise in the northeast and set in the northwest. So the same distortion has to be happening in the northern hemisphere, right? Okay, well, what happens, the observer in the north will see the distortion as the sun crosses the equator. During that time of the year, if you study the analemma,

you will see that the Sun does like a flip, like some kind of fake flip almost. Do you accept that there must be a distortion in the Northern Hemisphere for Northern Hemisphere observers to rise in the Northeast and set in the Northwest?

No, what happens is it happens at the equator. If you're on one longitude, if you're, say, at the North Pole, you'll see Polaris directly above you and all the stars making... That's immaterial to the question that I asked, but let's move on. Let's move on. I just want to... I do want to point people to our guest links. Folks, this is just the beginning. Modern Day Debate is not meant to be...

where you make up your mind about these things. This is like just a first step in a huge journey of researching these topics. You can research these topics. You can learn more about these topics. You can check out our guest links in the description box.

right now. And that includes the podcast. We put our guest links in the description box at the podcast too, because folks, if you didn't know, Modern Day Debate has all of our debates uploaded to the podcast within 24 hours of them being live. So check out our guest links. We do want to say they are the lifeboat of the channel. We appreciate their flexibility. We appreciate them being here. We do like sincerely, I appreciate you guys, Matthew, PhD Tony, and Phil. Thanks for being with us tonight. That's actually the last of our questions, but so thank you gentlemen.

Thank you so much for having me. And I understand that we sort of talked over one another a little bit at times, but overall, I thought this was really civil. Thank you, Hakeem. Thank you, James, for organising it. Thank you to Corey for turning up and thank you to the audience. Much appreciated. So, yeah. Right. My turn. So, so basically, yeah,

For the people out there who are the audience and especially those people who are in danger of actually becoming victims of Flat Earth, I want you to consider what was heard tonight. I want you to consider all the things that, you know, you heard some evidence.

or evidence, okay? Tony is a serious person. I'm a serious person. We've got no business trying to troll you or tell you things that are not right, okay? So listen to the arguments that were made tonight. Listen to how the counter to those arguments were nothing but just beliefs. Maybe it could be this. Maybe it could be that.

Oh, what could those Starlink satellites? It didn't matter that we were told that these Starlink satellites were put there by a rocket. They weren't there before the rocket turned up. And then all of a sudden they're there. Oh, but they balloons. Oh, but they just mysteriously. Oh, but we don't know what they are. We don't know what the lights are. But hang on. The rocket took them there.

So people, those people sitting on the fence, consider these things. Okay. Consider these things when you, when you, when you're reflecting back on, on this debate, because this debate is about providing information. Okay. All right. I hope we've done that for you. Thank you, James. Thank you. And Matthew, I'll give you a very quick last word since you don't have a partner. So we'll get a last word.

Oh, James, I have one thing to say for Will, by the way, if you can let me finish it at the end. Yeah. OK, so. Yeah, you go and then, James, if you if you address me at the end, please. You better just keep going. Just keep talking, dude. You got I think it's like it's unrelated or it's less related. So it's unrelated. He wants you to go ahead and wrap up because yours will be more central.

Oh, yeah. I just want to say, yeah, big shout out to all the Flat Earthers out there, all my friends. Keep doing everything you're doing.

People borrowing air. Thank God they're still breathing. Yeah, I just want to say, Flat Earthers, keep doing what you're doing. Keep making videos, demonstrations. I want to see more Flat Earthers on this show. Okay, get on the show. Debate. Flat Earth is the biggest threat to the New World Order, to this whole corrupt, satanic, reptilian, fill in the blank. You know what I mean?

all this evil stuff, Flat Earth is the thing that is uniting people across the board. It's uniting Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, there's even gay people, trans people. Flat Earth is uniting people, and it's all honest people that are rejecting this narrative, this satanic narrative to trap your mind.

on a stupid spinning ball to tell you you are an ape man on a spinning ball going faster than the speed of sound whirling around. And yeah, I'm sorry to the other debaters, but yeah, I just disagree with you guys. I disagree with everything you said. I appreciate that you guys were polite with me and I hope I was polite with you guys and

That's it. Much love, James. Thank you. We'll jump to Phil. I think Phil had something to say about it. Yes, I do. So this is really important for everybody because you know that those people that did go down to Antioch

actually had some very historic moments there. And I seriously mean that, though, historic things that have never been done before, especially some of those experiments. I mean, one of the best, one of the most amazing ones was the ones done by Wes Wally, by MC Toon, like the... Critical Thinker. And the one by Critical Think, just absolutely fantastic experiments done

So now these things are being highlighted by Pastor Will Duffy on various shows. So he's making a series of shows. Please have a look at these shows. Please follow them because you in the...

awesome time in history where so much is happening in science. And then even underlying all of that, we had some very, very basic experiments that show you that, you know, that show you why there are so many people, why so many people over so many thousands of years have believed these things. So I encourage you to follow Pastor Will Duffy's

videos that are coming up soon. Thank you very much, James. And thank you very much for having me. Sorry, I did want to say something in terms of a final thought other than just thank you. Is that okay, James?

it'll be sure i i mean i i was going to give the last word to uh matthew because he doesn't have a partner here yeah but if you want and then it's just it's just it's just that um if you know that somebody is wrong before they've even presented the evidence that's a very dangerous mindset um

If you think that somebody is lying before you've assessed the quality of the evidence they have for their conclusion, I think you're in a very dangerous mindset. And I would just advise people in the audience, don't

to follow Matthew's advice. Keep an open mind, assess the evidence objectively rather than basing your judgments on who or what or, you know, what their properties are. Just follow evidence and it'll work out for you.

Matthew, if you want a quick last word, a final last, a second last word. Yeah, a second last word. Okay, James, I'm looking at your shirt. Is that Kevin Sorbo Hercules? As a matter of fact, it is. Thank you for noticing. That's pretty cool. And you know what I remember about the end credits of that show?

Do you remember about the end credits? There's a company called Flat Earth Production or something. Like if you watch the end credits of that, I think it's like a New Zealand company, like a production company. It says Flat Earth at the end of it.

That's pretty interesting. I will. I mean, I guess that proves it. We might as well. A checkmate, PhD Tony and Professor Phil. It's a checkmate, guys. But for real, folks, check out our guests. We do appreciate them. They're the lifeblood of the channel. So we do check them out. I'll be back in a moment to let you guys know about folks in the audience about the upcoming conference. So stick around. I'll be back in about 20 seconds.

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 into 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 877-8HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY.

For Arizona, 1-800-NEXTSTEP. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050. For Iowa, 1-800-BETSOFF. 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.