Matthew Hakim Vs PlanetPeterson | Flat Vs Globe DEBATE
02:04:07 Share

Always know your car's worth with Carvana Value Tracker.

Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth vs. Low Earth and we're starting right now with Matthew's opening statement. Thanks for being with us. Matthew, the floor, it's all yours. Okay, thank you very much, James. I'm screen sharing right now. Can you see what I'm sharing? Yes. Okay, so first of all, I want to thank the Creator of Heaven and Earth for letting us have this opportunity. I want to thank our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

And I also want to thank Modern Day Debate for having me back. Thank you, James. And I want to thank Planet Peterson, Eric, for this opportunity. Okay, so let me begin. Polaris, the North Star, remains perfectly fixed in the night sky, always positioned directly above the North Pole. This unwavering consistency is absolute. No shift, no seasonal variation, no vanishing act.

and that fact alone destroys the globe model. According to the heliocentric theory, Earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees and hurtling around the Sun at 66,600 miles per hour. If that were true, then six months into Earth's orbit we would be on the complete opposite side of the Sun, supposedly 186 million miles away from where we started. That change of position

Plus, the axial tilt should cause our angle of view to shift so dramatically that Polaris would either move noticeably in the sky or disappear entirely from view for months at a time. But we do not observe that. Instead, Polaris stays locked in place, unmoved, unchanging, and visible all year long. That is impossible on a spinning, orbiting globe.

The reality of Polaris exposes the globe model as false and confirms with certainty the truth of a stationary flat Earth. No amount of theoretical gymnastics can explain it away. This is direct observational proof, and the truth speaks for itself. Now,

In the cultural theater of the modern age, few phenomena are as revealing of deep psychological tensions as the relentless, almost ritualistic attacks directed at the flat earth community. While we flat earthers have developed our own model rooted in observation and inquiry, a curious counter movement has emerged that seems less about defending a model of their own and more about targeting those who think differently.

This asymmetry is central. Flat earthers pursue their own path freely. Following a model that we believe in and love, our opponents, the globe defenders, or simply globers, do not show the same love for their own model. Instead, they define themselves by what they hate, and what they hate is flat earth.

The Flat Earth community is not driven by resentment or aggression. Rather, it is a constructive movement of a community of individuals who question inherited dogmas and rely on first-hand observations, scripture, and reason. We are motivated by the desire to understand the world in a way that aligns with both visible reality and the metaphysical order revealed in the Bible.

Flat earthers gather not to mock others, but to explore. Explore ideas we find meaningful, we discover old truths, and build new frameworks. Our pursuit is positive, creative, and in many cases, deeply spiritual. We have a model, we have reasons, and we have direction.

By contrast, the global subculture that opposes us appears not to exist for the purpose of understanding or expanding any cosmological model. One sec. Okay, yeah. Forgive me. It's just that the same slide has been showing the whole time. If that's the way you want it to be. Oh, yeah, no problem. Well, I just wanted to show what I'm talking about. Okay. But yeah, unless you wanted to just see me talking. No, no, no.

I just want to be sure in case you were once in a while, a guest is flipping through slides, but for some reason it doesn't update on the screen. Oh, no, no. Yeah. Yeah. No, thank you, James. I appreciate it. But yeah, this is what I'm showing. Okay. Anyways, but I appreciate it. By contrast, by contrast, the global subculture that opposes us appears not to exist for the purpose of understanding or expanding any cosmological model.

Instead, it focuses on one activity, attacking flat earth. It is not a movement of joy or inspiration. It is a movement of contempt. This results in a psychologically revealing pattern, the creation of a negative identity. Unlike a worldview that grows from affirmation, a negative identity is defined entirely by rejection.

The glober does not gain meaning from a passionate exploration of their own cosmology. In fact, most never speak about it except in the context of trying to disprove flat earth. This dynamic is psychologically parasitic. The glober requires the flat earther in order to feel superior. Their self-concept is built not on what they know, but on the illusion that someone else is wrong.

This is not intellectual. It is tribal. Such individuals project their own anxiety and uncertainty outward. They rely on mockery and repetition, not clarity or calm reasoning, because their own foundations are shallow. Without flat earth to ridicule, their identity collapses. They would have nothing to fight and therefore nothing to validate their own beliefs.

The most visible symptom of this condition is the obsessive creation of media content whose sole purpose is to deride flat earthers. From YouTube videos to social media posts, the format is always the same. Exaggerate, insult, distort, repeat.

There is rarely any sincere engagement with the arguments presented by flat earthers, only staged performances of outrage and derision. This behavior reveals not strength, but insecurity. The glober performs for an audience, not because they are confident in their worldview, but because they need others to affirm it.

Every laugh, every insult, every gotcha moment is a public sacrifice, a symbolic reaffirmation of group superiority. This ritualistic behavior echoes ancient scapegoat mechanisms. When a society feels unstable, it projects its disorder onto a symbolic target. In this case, the flat earther becomes the target.

We are not hated because of what we believe, but because we represent independence and a refusal to conform. That independence threatens the psychological safety of those who outsource their worldview to external authorities. Flat earthers do not need the Globers to function. Our community would continue without opposition. Our discussions, explorations, and spiritual inquiries are internal.

The global subculture, on the other hand, cannot exist without the Flat Earth. If every Flat Earther disappeared tomorrow, vast portions of the debunking ecosystem would evaporate. Their entire relevance is dependent on opposing others. This is a profound dependency, a psychological parasitism in which the critic cannot live without the criticized. In this light, over-the-top reactions to Flat Earth content make sense.

It's not about the ideas. It's about control. The flat earther represents the one thing the glober fears, a person who thinks for themself. And as time goes on, the hostility begins to eat itself. With no real love for their own model and no fresh insights to offer, the glober community begins to stagnate. Their content becomes repetitive, their tone more desperate, their jokes more hollow.

What was once framed as education now looks like obsession. The performative nature of their outrage becomes more apparent. Some of the more prominent figures in the space begin to crack, lashing out at critics, alienating their audiences, and even turning on each other. The parasitic model begins to fail because it cannot sustain itself on ridicule alone.

Meanwhile, Flat Earth continues to grow. People keep asking questions, making observations, and thinking. The movement is alive, not because it is popular, but because it is authentic.

Now, there is a fundamental difference between these two communities. We flat earthers pursue what we believe. We operate on a foundation of interest, observation, and boldness. We're not defined by opposition, but by pursuit. The globers, by contrast, have no real pursuit. They do not explore their beliefs. They only attack. They are not driven by love for the globe. They are driven by hatred for the flat earth.

And in that difference lies the truth. One group builds, the other tears down. One stands on conviction, the other clings to mockery. One is free, the other is dependent. What we are witnessing then is not a battle of ideas, but a contrast of spirits. One sincere, the other performative. One original, the other reactive.

One devoted to understanding, the other obsessed with control. This is not just about cosmology. This is about freedom of thought itself. And so with that, I'm done sharing my screen. So let me... Oh, don't worry. I already took it down for you. For my opening statement, thank you for listening. You got it. We are going to jump into planet... You're muted, James. They are not hearing me on Zoom.

Alright, thank you. Now, we are going to jump into Planet Peterson's opening. Folks, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up, including the one that you can see at the bottom right of your screen, Andrew Wilson taking on a posse prophet. If you are in Asheville, North Carolina, or even from far away, I'm in Las Vegas, and I'm going to fly to Asheville. It's going to be amazing, so come hang out with us.

That's on April 28th. But if you're like, hey, I'm wanting to watch it live, but I can't make it in person, well, hit that subscribe button as we are going to be... Let's see. Sorry. Someone said something really funny. Hit that subscribe button as we are going to be live streaming that debate. But thank you, Planet Peterson, and...

for being here as well. The floor is all yours. Thanks. I wasn't planning on sharing my screen, but I am going to share my screen here. All right. Can everybody see that? Perfect. Yep. Okay. Yeah. It looks goofy on my end, so I never know. But anyways...

So, I wrote a book on stuff like this over a year ago, and I wasn't planning on talking about this, but Matt brought it up. So, for part of my opening here, I'm going to talk about

Matt brought up the North Star and then he spent the entire time not talking about the flat Earth but people, the difference between people who think it's a globe versus not. So I think that's pretty telling. So anyways, he told us the North Star proves that it can't be a globe because the Earth is moving, it's spinning, and it's moving around the Sun, and it's moving through the galaxy. I've literally done the math on this. I'm not going to read the entire thing here.

But if we look at the bottom paragraph, you can see I've done the math. Even if we take the closest star to us, which the North Star is not the closest star, but the closest star to us would be the one with the greatest parallax. That creates an angle. I believe this is... If we take...

The numbers are based on the speed at which Earth is going around the Milky Way galaxy, which is an incredible 200 kilometers per second. It creates an angle of 0.000000017188 degrees. Obviously, the human eye cannot discern an angle that is that small.

And that's for one day. Even if we extrapolate this for an entire year, moving at that speed, with the closest star to us, we get an angle of 0.009 degrees. So Matt's saying that, oh, the North Star, it needs to be fixed, or it is fixed, and that can't work with the globe model. It absolutely can. You can't see angles smaller than that. It actually gets worse.

We do see that the stars do change their position. That's what this top paragraph is telling you. Here I have something that no flat earther will ever present, a scientific study backing that up. And then the other thing that Matt seems to not have spent any time looking into this, because it takes almost no effort to find out that there used to be a different North Star.

The star that we call Thuban today was the north star of the ancient Egyptians. And this is well documented and known. They kept very precise and detailed star charts. And we can compare their drawings to what we see in the mapped sky today. And we can see, oh, their pole star was different. Also, the shafts in the Great Pyramids.

Or one of the Great Pyramids. The Great Pyramid, sorry. It doesn't point to anything today, but it used to point to Thuban. So, Flat Earthers love to point to the pyramids as if that proves something, whereas the pyramids actually disprove this particular really horrible and dense talking point. So anyways, like I said, I didn't plan on going over that. So there that is.

But here's my opening statement. Is the Earth flat? Well, you'd have to either be lying, ignorant, insane, or stupid to think so. A middle schooler could prove that it isn't. And I'm not going to spend more than two additional minutes on this in the opening here. The southern celestial pole rotates in a different direction than the north celestial pole. That's literally all you need, folks. You do not need anything else.

In their attempts to explain why we see a particular phenomena, flat earthers always produce explanations that necessarily contradict other explanations. Or in the case of math, they don't talk about the flat earth at all. They just try to psychoanalyze people that aren't idiots, or sorry, that think the earth is a globe. So, for example, the necessary contradictions. A lunar eclipse is caused by a shadow object that we can never see because it's too close to the sun.

So during a lunar eclipse when the Sun and Moon are as far from each other as they get, the object that we can't see because of how close it is to the Sun is moving over the face of the Moon. Water always finds its level. Do tides happen? The Sun sets because it gets too far away to see. What's farther, the Sun or the stars? The stars? But we can see them at night? So this is the kind of idiotic shit you have to deal with when you talk to these people. According to the Flat Earth,

The Earth can't be flat. It falsifies itself all the time. It also has zero ability to correspond with reality. They didn't used to know this years ago because historically they're just too goddamn stupid to think. But then when the grifters started to realize they can't actually make the case that Earth is flat, they started saying, there's no model. We make no claim.

Nice try, dipshits. You do make a claim. You claim that the Earth is flat. If it is flat, then there are predictable results. So, for example, yes, you can use the sky to prove the shape of the ground. And they know it. They're just terrified. Luckily, as I said before, we don't have to go there because all of their explanations necessarily contradict all of their other explanations. And that's my opening statement.

Thank you very much for that opening. We are going to just give me one moment to do quick housekeeping updates, folks. It's going to be an amazing debate. We're really excited about this. And also, if you didn't know, folks, as mentioned, we have that upcoming debate shown at the bottom right of your screen. Andrew Wilson versus the posse prophet. You don't want to miss it. Absolutely.

Asheville, North Carolina. Tickets linked below. We're also doing, as you can see at the bottom right of the screen, a lens fundraiser. So for DebateCon and all of our other in-person debates, we are trying to fundraise for these lenses. We want to buy all four of them because that gives us four different angles to film each debate. And these are...

I should say the GoFund for these lenses is linked at the top of the live chat and at the top of the description box. Your support means more than you know in helping make these debates a reality, including both of these guys, Matthew and Planet Peterson.

have expressed interest in being a part of our upcoming, what we're going to call it is outnumbered. It's like Jubilees surrounded. Both of these guys are not too far from LA to where they have said, hey, I'd be willing to be in on that. And this is going to be another event where we'll be using these lenses for. So we'll be using them all the time. It's just a very good investment for Modern Day Debate to buy instead of rent.

And so please do help us make these debates and events a reality by checking out that GoFundMe. And with that, we'll kick it into the open dialogue. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. Well, all right, Eric, I heard what you had to say about Polaris. And so instead of relying on direct observational evidence, you just showed a theory.

I relied on direct observational evidence. We have historical star charts from people that lived in the past. Hold up. Hold up. Nice try. Hold up. And I didn't give you a theory. I gave you scientific empirical evidence. Instead of going back out like 20,000 years, think about over the course of one year. 3,000 years. Wait, hold up. Hold up.

Polaris is going to be in the same spot every night of the year. Now watch, that proves two things. That's testable and it's false. No, it proves two things. The Earth is not tilting at all because we would see Polaris shift. And if the Earth were going around the sun, hold up. If the Earth were going around the sun, we don't see stars during the day. So if the Earth was on the other side of the sun, Polaris would be invisible.

Now, let's we could talk about that. But please, no insults. It's so lame. You know, I dealt with that Craig fight the flat earth. And it's like when you're insulting the other debater, that means you lost. OK, one second. Please, no interrupts. I do want to quick interrupt just because.

couple of things. One is I want to make sure there's not too much interrupting. And so we might have to break it into two minute responses, like two minute little mini speeches. If there's more. And also given that Craig's not here to defend himself. All right. Redirect back to the topic. Go ahead. I think planned a planet. Peter said you had thoughts. What do you want to share? Matt, what's your, what's your issue with the math here?

The issue is that people can lie with numbers, and instead of looking at different theories and formulas, well, that's the issue. The math can be totally perfect. So there's nothing wrong with the math? No, watch what I'm saying. My point is this, is that the math can say one thing. Direct observational reality will prove the opposite.

No, the math here fits direct observational reality. We don't see the North Star shift. Why is that? Because the math bears out that you wouldn't be able to see it. Matthew, can you see, can you tell the difference between two points that are separated by 0.00000000171883? This is your assumption. This is part of some faith-based idea about cosmology.

The question is, can you see that? I mean, if something was that minute, yeah, you probably wouldn't see it. Thank you. So there's no contradiction in the model. Listen, my point is not, is your math accurate? My point is, does your math match direct observational evidence? Because the math tells us we wouldn't see a difference and we don't see a difference. So there's no problem. So in that part, we disagree.

No, we don't disagree. You said that the North Star... Eric, we disagree. We disagree. You think that according to a formula... We disagree that you think we would see a difference, but if you actually spend the time to think about it, you can see that, no, you wouldn't see a difference. Because even over the course of a year, for the closest star to us, it would change by an angle of 0.009 degrees. Well, you're assuming that the stars are a certain distance away.

That is our model. There's no contradiction in the model. You attempted to do an internal critique of the model and your internal critique fails. You think it's right because you don't understand how big things are or you didn't spend any time looking into it. That's another assumption. Eric, that's another assumption that you don't think I understand the globe model.

That's an assumption you have. How far away are the closest stars? Listen, listen. That's an underestimation that every glober has done that I've debated. Oh, God. Cry harder. I'm not crying. I'm trying to help you. I don't need your help. You guys underestimate that flat earthers know the globe theory. Okay?

Now, when you ask what's the closest car? No, I didn't underestimate you because I showed, demonstrated mathematically that your explanation is, or that your attempt to do an internal critique is completely unfounded. Yeah, and I countered your formula. We can move on to the next thing. I countered your mathematics with direct observational reality. No, you didn't. Yes, I did. How about every night look at Polaris? Every night look at Polaris.

And you tell me that it doesn't shift as is predicted by the globe-Earth model because it's extremely far away. So that's a contradiction. It's not. So the globe predicts that the Earth tilts. Simultaneously, the globe predicts that the Earth does not tilt. No, it doesn't do anything like that. And your explanation has nothing to do with why the North Star is fixed. The North Star is fixed. Do I get to talk or not? Yeah, if you want. Okay, I'll listen to you. Let's go one by one. Why do we have a pole?

Why do we have a pole star? Because the earth turns. So on there would actually be two of them. There just doesn't happen to be a southern star that lines up with the pole or whatever. So why do we have that? Because the earth turns. So that has nothing. So, of course, if you're turning, there's going to be one spot. There's going to be one spot where there isn't any circular rotation. Right.

Well, honestly, I'm not under the globe paradigm. I'm not asking you to believe that the Earth is a globe. I'm asking you to understand it. If the Earth is rotating, there's going to be one point where there is no circular rotation, right?

Um, like I'm disagreeing with what you said because you said it yourself. Okay, then I don't know how to talk to you. No, watch. You said there's no southern star. If you don't understand that something that spins has a central point where that spin doesn't draw a circle, it rotates in place. Do you, you don't understand that? No, you're talking about how Polaris... No, you don't understand that. So we can't talk about Polaris. What would you like to talk about next? Listen, you're talking about how Polaris would be the central nexus from which all the stars circle around.

And you said it yourself that there is no southern star that it rotates around. There doesn't happen to be a singular star where that happens, but the sky rotates. But we're not talking about the south. Now to get further into the celestial mechanics. Matt, I haven't made my point at all yet. Oh, please. Do you understand? One second. I'm going to jump in. Matthew, I need you to give Planet Peterson approximately two minutes.

Just to fully get it out without any quick little pithy remarks, even without laughing. Yes, sir. So Matt, do you understand that if the earth is rotating, there's going to be a central point where there isn't any circular rotation. It's just stationary rotation.

Okay, I could understand in theoretically theoretical terms if the earth were a globe and there was the star Polaris seemingly in One point above the North Pole and if the earth were turning like that it would look like that my argument My argument is this the axial tip tilt? Notion is disproven by Polaris as well as the idea that the earth goes around the Sun because like I said say this is the Sun and the Earth's over here pointing at Polaris and

Six months later, the Earth's going to be over here pointing this way towards Polaris, but it'll be during the day. That's my point. Hold up, Eric. That's my point, that the globe theory contradicts itself. Like you just said, the Earth tilts, but the globe model predicts that there would be no tilt in the sky. It's ridiculous. It's a dying paradigm. Dude, it's a religious view. It doesn't do anything like that. You need faith to believe that.

Okay, Eric, you need a lot of faith to believe that the earth is turning and that Polaris would stay in its spot. You're giving a sermon. I'm trying to talk about data. No, I'm not. I'm trying to share with you that if you're anti, what, you're an atheist, right? I used to be a Christian and I never thought the earth was flat. Okay.

Okay. Well, my point is that you have a lot of faith that the earth is a certain way. No, I have data. Well, the thing is, I mean, really, you have numbers, but you don't have data. You don't have observational reality with you. Yes, I do. You have mathematics, and I agree that you can make mathematics say whatever you want. You can make habits say whatever you want. You know you could do that. You know you can lie with numbers. Yes.

Sure. So that means all people that think the Earth is a globe are lying. So anyways, we're going to answer that question. No, I don't think people are lying. I just think people like maybe haven't even considered it because of the mockery, the outcast syndrome or whatever, the scapegoat ism that mainstream narrative does to anybody that's different. You imagine that anyone is different. You hear the horrible things people say about flat earthers.

Oh, another sermon. Terrible. I'm not just sharing with you, man. I'm sharing with you what's the truth of what this flat versus globe debate's going on. Isn't Eric Dubé an actual Nazi? I don't know, but I never met Eric Dubé. I don't buy his books. I'm not his friend on Facebook. Well, that's good. Why are people lying about the shape of the earth? Oh, that's a great question. To control people? Well, what do you think? Instead of me telling you my opinion, what do you think? Is it Jews?

Why are you saying that? Hey, that's kind of dangerous. James, can we get off? James, Dr. James, I'm going to have to say this is too weird. I'm not anti-Semitic. He's trying to mix anti-Semitic with flat earth. No more talking about the J community. Talking about the flat earth. Eric, dude, get off that. Get off that. Redirecting. Is it because of...

Is it some sort of like spiritual thing, Matthew? Like he's trying to understand like why, what's the motive? What does someone gain by saying that the earth is a globe when it's not? You mean like my opinion? Why do they lie about it? My opinion? Well, I don't speak for every flat earther, but I think they've lied because they hate God. They hate the Bible. They're atheists. Yeah.

So, and there's some weird thing about like lying about earth, lying about God, lying about the Bible. Why do they do lying about the origin? Because it's all satanic. My opinion is satanic. They hate God. They hate the Bible. I think that I'm satanic and I don't know you well enough, but you're not in control of the, of the powers on the earth. You're not calling the shot. Who's controlling the powers of the earth.

Are you kidding? As a Christian man, I would say Satan is controlling the earth right now. And who is he specifically manipulating? As any people that he can get to. Okay, so it can just be anyone. Okay. Do you know about the Bible? What do you think it says about that? Instead of just my opinion, share your opinion on that.

I don't, we're not here to talk about the Bible, so I don't really care about that. Why did you ask me, man? Okay, let's, we can move on if you want. Trying to figure out why you think that people are peddling the lie that the earth is flat, or that the earth is a globe would be the lie, rather. Like, well, I already answered that. Why would they do it? But individually, there's monetary factors. Like, people want to make YouTube content hating flat earth, and they can make a lot of money doing so. I've interacted with these people. I've

I've debated them. Do you think that I know the earth is flat? Do you know it? Yeah. You might, you might be lying to yourself at this point, but you probably do know it's flat because it doesn't require faith. I can look at the earth and without having assumptions, I can just say, you know what? Honestly, I could see way too far. And honestly, I, I feel that the earth is motionless. Oh man. I'm sorry that you hate that, but.

I don't hate that you believe the Earth is a globe. I'm not going to laugh at you. That would be disrespectful to be like, you're this, you're that. Let me insult you and laugh at you because of your cosmological view. That would be childish. Matt, have you ever been to the ocean? I could smell the ocean almost every day. I'm going to take that as a yes. Yeah, dude, we live in Southern California, man. When you look at the ocean, do you see a sharp horizon? It looks flat.

Do you see a sharp horizon? Well, no, the way the ocean is, there's lots of moisture. No. So even though it, you can't see forever in general, it's flat. I've not only at the beach, but ground level, seeing way too far, going tall buildings, going into the hills. This has nothing to do with my question. You just, you asked if I've ever gone to the beach and I'm like elaborating. Yes, I've been to the beach. Matt, what was the last question I asked you?

I'm not sure. It's just something about the beach and the horizon. Is it a clear horizon? And I'm like, sharp horizon, but it's flat. I mean, it's hazy. I didn't ask you if the horizon is flat. I asked you, do you see a sharp horizon at the ocean?

Man, how many other ways do you want me to say it? It gets blurry. You know what visibility is? It doesn't get blurry, actually. You know what visibility is? It doesn't get blurry. Sometimes in Southern California, I could see like 25, 30 miles away. Some days, I can only see like 10 miles away. It's visibility.

How sharp is that? What's the numeric value for how sharp my vision is of the horizon? I would not be able to give a clear mathematical amount for how sharp the horizon is. I can only tell you it gets blurry and it looks flat.

It doesn't get blurry. If there's fog or a lot of pollution, then it gets blurry. But on clear days, it's sharp, which is impossible if the Earth is flat. If the Earth is flat, the ground below you is always below your line of sight, and it extends out as a plane, not forever, but who knows how far it goes. Eventually, atmospheric scattering would obscure the horizon, like when it's foggy outdoors.

But on clear days, that doesn't happen. We see a sharp horizon at the ocean that is the top of the curvature. There is never a case where you should see a sharp horizon if the earth is flat. So I'm telling this to the audience because every time I try to talk about it, Matt starts talking about something tangential.

May I respond? Okay, so you think because we could see the distance more clearly, that's your proof of a globe. I don't know what the hell see the distance means. The horizon. A sharp horizon. I'm responding to your statement. You just said if on a clear day, right, you could see further, that's your proof of a globe. When in actuality, if you could see too far, if you could see too far,

That means it's flat. That's nowhere close to what I said. This is an issue of your faith right here. That's why this is so sensitive. You want me to believe the earth curse, and I'm saying, no, it doesn't. I don't have that kind of faith to believe that. Matt, what did I actually say about the horizon? What did I say about it? Play it back. You just said that. So you have no idea what I said. On a clear day, when you could see further, that's your proof of a globe. And I countered that by saying, no, if you could see further, that means...

That means it's flat.

What did I say about the horizon? Keep saying it. You're just laughing and looking ridiculous. What did I say about the horizon on clear days? Say it again. So we can hear you say it again. You're not even listening. So we can talk about the next topic. Because I contradicted you with your own words. You don't know my own words because when I asked you for them, you said, play the tape back. You don't know what I said. You're not even trying to listen or engage.

Eric, I'm trying to explain to you, you just contradicted your own model. No, I didn't. On a clear day, if you could see farther, that's your proof of a globe. That's not what I said. I think if you could see too far, that means it's flat. And then you just start laughing at me. That's not what I said. Okay, then what did you say?

I said you can see a sharp horizon on clear days. What would atmospheric scattering do to the surface of the water if the Earth was flat? It would blur it out to where there is no distinct spot where it ends, like when it's foggy out. But we don't see that. We see the top of the curvature of the Earth. That's what a sharp horizon is.

A sharp horizon is completely incompatible with the Earth being flat.

You say that, but that's not reality. Reality is we see a sharp horizon. Yeah, exactly. Explain how that works on a flat Earth. Okay, it's like this. On a flat Earth, if you could see really... Explain the sharp line between the water and the sky. Oh, you mean the flat line between the water and the sky? The sharp line between the water and the sky. The flat line between the water... The sharp line. Describe why it's a sharp distinction between sky and water. Eric, Eric.

The flat lines between the water and the sky? Shut the fuck up about the flatness. Right? Why is there a sharp distinction between the sky and the water?

Because as we're on a flat plane, just like you said, on a clear day, you would see further. And because of the atmosphere, it does get blurry. What is it doing? That has nothing to do with anything that I asked you. Eric, Eric, don't overreact. We're having a civilized conversation. This is not an overreaction. When I go hike in the hills and I look at Orange County, I look at L.A. County.

sometimes I can't even see 10 miles away on a clear day. That's great. Talk about the sharp distinction between sky and water on the ocean on a clear day instead of Orange County. You mean that flat line between the water and the sky? Yeah.

We are moving on to a different topic. You're incapable. Eric, okay. We don't have to talk about the flat line between the sky and the water if you don't want to. The sharp line, which you cannot account for in your model. It's called visibility, man. I don't know how to make it more easy for you to understand. And it's visibly sharp, which is incompatible with a flat Earth. How so?

I already explained it to you. How so? You're asserting it is. Again, you're not listening. Eric, if what you're saying is true, how would it be incompatible? I'm not going to address this point anymore. I've explained it already three times. So how is it incompatible on a flat earth? I explained it three times.

I'll just have to re-watch this then to understand your point. Let's go to a new topic. I'll re-watch it. Just to be sure, do we understand? I want to be clear because it moves so fast. In a nutshell, let's say in one sentence, what is the motive behind someone tricking regarding the shape of the Earth? Why is everyone trying to hoodwink us into thinking that it's a globe? Is that for me? Yes.

Oh my gosh, honestly, I have no idea the depths of what they're doing. I just know they're doing it. I'm just seeing what's going on. What's controlling this world. Basically, you're like motive unknown. Okay, you got it. I'm clear. I think I understand. It's like, watch, James, if there's someone murdered in a room, right? It's like, it is important to kind of understand what the reasoning was, but there's a dead body in the room.

I understand your point. Yeah, I get what you're saying. There are two distinct things. We'll kick it over to Planet Peterson. Any other questions that you had for your opponent? Yeah, I got some like geography things if I can share my screen. Sure. It might take a little while to go through. So in order to be charitable,

Matt, this would involve me asking you kind of a lot of questions. So however long this takes, I promise you can have the same amount of time where you ask me questions and I'm not allowed to change the subject. Does that sound cool? I would say let's just go with the flow. I don't want to make any promises and like get drawn into some long winded geographical, you know, distortion of reality.

Because it looks like you're going to bring up numbers and distorted maps that don't match reality. And you could do whatever you want. It's your time right now. Okay. So do you agree that Port Elizabeth is at these coordinates? Or do you think that that's fake? Never been there, man. I mean, it could be real. What does Google say? That this is from Google. Do you accept meridians? Well, it depends on the projection.

I mean, how some people project the Meridian lines, it's like it doesn't add up. I'm not really talking about the map. Just continue, man. Don't... Yeah, I'm trying to clarify. I'm not trying to, but I'm just talking about, do you disagree that Meridians...

Just like the sun appears directly overhead at a particular like solar noon or whatever. You accept meridians, I would assume. Wait, are you talking about the nature of the path of the sun above the earth? Nope. I'm just talking about meridians. Okay, continue. Do you accept them?

Just continue. I don't have to accept or reject them. You actually have to take a stance because I'm questioning you on this. No, I don't. I'm listening to you. Okay. Do you agree or do you think it's false that Port Elizabeth is at these coordinates? I don't know. I'd have to double check. Okay. Do you agree or do you think it's false that Cape Town is at these coordinates? Like my previous answer, I'd have to double check. I've never been there.

Okay. Well, people live there and they navigate using Google Maps and they know what time it is. So these meridians and their coordinates are established and backed up by that. It'd be really goofy to suggest that this is fake because people living there would have no idea what's going on. But anyways, they're both 34 degrees south of the equator.

You can just take my word for that, I guess. But if we take their meridians, their longitude, they're separated by seven degrees and nine minutes. So do you reject this? Do you accept it? Or do you just say, I'll take your word for it for now? Just continue. What is your stance?

These are the numbers you're preparing. I don't have an opinion yet. I want to see where you're going first. It's not about my... Yeah, more... Okay, mathematic. Yeah, got it. Keep going. So do you disagree or agree that a line of degree... This really only works for latitude...

is about 69.1 miles, or do you think that's fake? I'm recognizing this. That one degree, that's what those people try to say. They try to mask the eight inches per mile squared. I recognize those numbers. That's another fake thing, the eight inches per mile squared or one degree of curvature for 69. You just brought it up again. I promise you.

I promise you nothing I'm about to talk about has anything to do with the curvature with denying or affirming 8 inches per mile squared.

Okay, but I just want to say that I recognize the number play you're presenting immediately. This has nothing to do with eight inches per mile squared. It's okay. I'm listening. Literally, according to the flat Earth, if you travel north one degree, you have traveled 69.1 miles. It doesn't matter if Earth is a globe or flat, both of us...

Both of those models make this claim. So do you accept it or do you reject it? I don't make any claims like that. Holy. And I don't speak for all flat earthers. That's a mistake thinking that I stand for every flat earther. I am me. Never said that. So you're just agnostic as to whether or not one degree of latitude traveled is 69.1 miles? Well, I think that would pertain more to like...

The globe, but I mean, I'm just listening to what you say. You mean like away from the North Pole? Like one degree at a time is 69 miles?

Yeah, it doesn't matter where you do it at. If you go north or south one degree, you have moved 69.1 miles. Well, let's continue. What are you presenting? So he's not going to take a stance so he can just say no. I'm listening to you. I mean, continue. I mean, get somewhere. Cook with this, man. Both of these cities are 34 degrees south.

So what we can do is we can take the distance from the North Pole to where they are. It's 8,568.4 miles. So you can create a triangle to figure out the base separating these two places. Again, they're at the same latitude, different meridians. You can calculate ahead of time.

with your angle at the beginning there of 7 degrees and 9 minutes, which would be a 7.15 in decimals, 0.15. So the distance between them would be 1068.56. Or in other words, there's the North Pole, there's the meridian that Port Elizabeth is on, there's the meridian that Cape Town, South Africa is on. So we know the separation between them. We know how much distance there is per degree of latitude.

So we can calculate what would be the separation between them. Well, the actual distance, the distance Flat Earth tells us is over 1,000 miles. The actual distance is only 409 miles. Or you can look at a road. Again, you can just deny it, but literally people use Google Maps every single day and it's accurate. So you'd have to say that people that drive from here to here are driving over twice the distance of

that Google is telling them. And this would just be known. So the flat Earth predicts that as you travel south, you always diverge. The globe predicts that after the equator, you get closer together. So the flat Earth prediction here has completely failed. So what's your response? Can you show that the last slide where you showed the driving distance from one side to the other? I would be happy to.

Okay, next slide, please. Okay, yeah, I see that. Eight hours. And how much is that in miles? Forgive my ignorance of kilometers, but 469? 467, so that's the driving distance. You know what this reminds me of? That reminds me of driving to Vegas. It's like sometimes it could be like four hours. Some people have done it in two hours. The flat earth is telling us it's 1,000 miles away. Hold up, hold up. Like, look at...

That's what I'm saying. Like, I'm not sure we'd have to drive that, but that's what that reminds me of the distance and then the different times.

It's like the same thing, but I understand your confusion. You're trying to compare the different coordinate systems. Not confused. If the earth is flat and meridians are true, then we can predict what the distance separating Port Elizabeth and Cape Town is. And it's predicted over a thousand miles. It's only a little over four. Well, you're predicting that, but you know,

You know, the math, you know, people lie with numbers all the time. So that you're going to have to come up with better evidence than that. I mean, to convince me I'm on a spinning ball. You have to do, Eric, if you want to convince me I'm on a spinning ball, you got to do much better than that. Deny any of these numbers. I'm not denying it. I'm just saying it's your mathematics. So you're not denying it and it gives false data and your only choice is to say, ah,

Well, people could be lying about the satanic glober who's trying to control the world. I'm looking at what you show, and I'm giving real-world examples that the distances, the times. I mean, yeah, maybe the numbers are off a bit, but the times. A bit? It's like driving to Vegas. It predicts 1,000 miles. Listen, from where I am, where we are in Southern California, some people could get to Vegas in like two hours. Some people take them like four and a half hours.

Your model predicts over a thousand miles of separation. My model doesn't predict that. It's barely over 400. Yes, it actually does. We went over this.

No, my model doesn't make any specific claims about... Yes, it does. Meridians exist. Meridians exist. You're putting words in my mouth, and I reject that. I'm speaking for you because you guys are just dishonest and reject your own worldview. You accept meridians. You think I reject my own worldview because of your mathematics? Yes.

Well, that's your opinion. And I disagree with you on that. My math is your worldview. Okay, your math. You disproved it. Because sometimes when you go to Vegas, it takes longer than Google Maps says. You just said my worldview is your math. Yeah, my math is your worldview. That's a lie. It's not. Meridians exist. You just lied. No, I didn't. You said my worldview is your mathematics. I reject that. No, my math is your worldview. And you're a liar. Eric, you're a liar.

That's fucking cute, but I'm not. Meridians exist. You accept meridians. The North Pole exists. The separation between these two places is predictable. The predicted result is over a thousand miles. It's not. Your worldview is false.

That's based on your math, your theory. No, it's based on your opinion. That's your opinion. No, it's your opinion. It's your model. I don't make claims, specific claims about distance. See, Chad, what he did was, remember when he wouldn't affirm, deny, or even be agnostic on anything in the beginning? That's so that they don't have to make a commitment to anything because they know that their model can't describe anything.

anything. And now we get whatever this is in the end. The Cope. Oh, Cape Town is not at those coordinates? Port Elizabeth is not at those coordinates? It might be.

But if you're trying to say the Earth is a ball because of your mathematics, right? First, you have to prove that the Earth is a ball. You have to prove the Earth is a ball because we're observing the Earth as flat. I just proved that it can't be flat because it doesn't match reality. But then again, your mathematics do not correspond with reality. No.

Yes, because my math was flat earth math. That's the problem. So you just admitted that your math does not correspond with your own. No, it's your math. It's flat earth math. I didn't present any math. I know.

It's the math according to the belief that the earth is flat. This actually happens all the time. No, it does not require faith. You guys can't get anything right. Hey, Eric, there's no faith for me to look at the earth and say it's flat. What if the sun was above the earth? Well, then we could predict where the sun would be at different locations by doing trigonometry.

Oh, no, the errors go from three and a half to 10 to 21 and a half to 44 to 95 percent, whereas the globe errors are within one percent. Oh, of course. Which model accurately reflects reality? Eric, yes, your flat earth math says it's impossible, but your globe math says there is no way it could be possible.

Otherwise, no, the globe math. That's that's your your religion. That's oh, holy shit. You actually do. I actually thought you had a point there. No, that's your faith. Look at it. You predict your mathematics to say whatever you want. Matt, can you read?

Yes, of course I could read. What does that say? See, that's your assumption. All of that's your assumption. Well, yeah, it is an assumption. This is how you do science. So you admit you're making assumptions here. Oh, this is so cute. You want me to predict based on your assumptions, your misguided assumptions about flat earth. Matt, predicted angle. Right? This is like you're trying to falsify everything. I get it. It says predicted angle. Then what's the second one say?

You're saying it's the actual angle. Actual angle. I know what a lot of globers get confused about is how perspective actually works and how the light from the sun will go directly to the observer.

That's what a lot of this mathematical confusion comes from because the light is going directly to the observer just like this. I've literally modeled that here. Have you ever been on the beach or the ocean and seen the light on the water go directly towards you? Have you ever seen that? It go directly on the water to you. Have you ever seen that?

Are you asking me if I've seen the reflection of the sun in the water? No, I mean how on the water, the light will go directly towards the observer. I have no idea what you're talking about. You have to make observations. Go to the beach or even like a lake or something. Are these observations?

Excuse me, dude, what did I just say? You observe the light on the water going directly. Yes. So the question was, are these observations? Yes. My point is this. It is unique to the observer. Wherever the observer is, the sunlight will go directly towards them. Why are you doing that? Because you're running away from everything. It's so hilarious. The Olympics are coming to Southern California in 2028. Please do the 100 meter dash.

That's ridiculous, Eric. Come on. I'm answering your question with real world examples. And you're just like, you're absolutely going in, like throwing in little remarks. Who's the one running from the debate, man? The one that constantly is changing the subject. So I grilled you for a while there. I didn't time it. But go ahead. You can ask me whatever you want.

Let's talk about something interesting. I want to know more about your ideas about flat Earth. Tell me your understanding of how things work on a flat Earth without what's the word for it? Strong man. What's your best understanding of the flatter? The Earth is flat and the sun and the moon are above it. Awesome, dude. That matches observable reality, which is falsifiable. You mean you don't think the sun and the moon are above the Earth?

No, because if the moon were above us, then when two people look at it, they would see different parts of its surface. There would be some overlap, but they would see dramatically different parts of it. Yet when we look at the moon, we always see the exact same face of the moon. So flat Earth has been falsified. So no, it doesn't falsify flat Earth. What you're establishing is that the moon is a flat surface like a disk. The moon is not a three-dimensional object.

That's even worse. Eric, you just said it. That two people, they don't see like a different side of it. Yeah, exactly. What is this? Dude, I don't care. It's a circle. We're talking about the moon. It's a circle. And if you're directly below it. You just proved. Flat circle. No, let's go back to your comment. If you are somewhere else, it becomes anything. Yeah, exactly. That's what we do.

The moon doesn't do that. Exactly. Eric, you just proved it. The moon is not like a rock. We're looking at a flat surface.

disc in the sky. No, we're not. Because if you looked at that flat disc from anywhere other than directly below it, it would appear as an ellipse. No, because like I said about the sun, the light goes directly towards the observer. We never, like you just said, we never see like a different side of the moon. You just said it. We don't see like a different side of it. We only see the lunar disc.

So if you're somewhere else, the moon is not pointing directly toward you, but the light from it comes off of the moon and goes directly toward you. No, Eric, you're misunderstanding again. No, I'm not. That is what you said is happening. The light goes directly towards the observer.

Yeah, so that's exactly what I said. So if you're not directly below the moon, the moon is not facing you. Yet the light from the moon somehow bends directly toward you. How is that happening? Okay, I just told you, and I'll repeat it again. You told me that it happens. The light goes directly towards the observer. How?

Explain this. Dude, that's how God made reality. You want me to get into God's shoes and give you the nuts and bolts? How does the moon stay up there? Why is the sky blue? Is that your next question? Why is the sky blue? And then eventually it will become, why God, why?

I'm just explaining to you observable reality. God made it that way is not an explanation of anything. Dude, I mean, you didn't make it. You did not make this place, okay? Why are you running, dude? I'm answering your question. Now I'm moonwalking. Get it? Yeah, it's ridiculous. Dude, you're coming. It's like you're acting ridiculous, dude. Do you like my shirt, Matt?

Well, the globe is ridiculous. The evolution is stupid as hell. Yeah, if you don't evolve, you become a fly. Hey, you're an ape man. Hey, you're an ape man. Just to keep it on task. You're an ape planet, Peterson. I appreciate your impression of an ape or whatever that was. But to return. It's so ridiculous. The ape man thing. Oh, my God. We have to return to the topic. Yes.

Matt, I'll still give you the floor. We can talk about whatever you want. No, it's all interesting. There's a lot of interesting. How about the general disinterest in like NASA and fake Katy Perry stuff? And what do you think about that? Did you did you see any of that? That none of that has anything to do with the shape of the earth. It kind of does, because that's the mainstream narrative. That's what the government is feeding us.

That has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. You don't care about that? If humans had never been to space, that would have nothing to do with what the shape of the Earth is. Well, we've never been to space, man. That's fucking cute. What questions about the shape of the Earth do you have? What questions? I think we've been covering a lot of it. We could get into the general lack of curve or the overall lack of curvature, how there is no curvature on the Earth and how I can see way too far.

On street level. I got videos from street level of miles away. Wow. Miles away with zero curvature. Wow. Now, what's the explanation of that from the global side? Something, something, Satan, something, something, lying, something, something, numbers made up, something, something, global elites, something, something.

Well, actually, wow, that's pretty good. I mean, at least you're starting to put it together. It's an equivalent argument. You're starting to put it together that there's something bigger at play. I always want to ask Glovers, do you guys believe everything the government says? Everything. Is there anything the government says you don't believe? Yeah, the government lies. The government is the one farming all this flat earth content just to create outrage. So yeah, the government is lying about

The flat earth conspiracy is a government conspiracy. There, there we go. There's my explanation. That actually matches my observations too, that there has been infiltration in the flat earth community, which is interesting so that you recognize something that I recognize. So we're, we're getting somewhere. This is a productive conversation, Eric. I'm happy that we're having this talk, dude.

I want to see if I can find something for you. I'm not going to be able to find the video. Have you ever seen a demonstration where somebody takes a water level? So they take tubing, right? And it's got water in it. And that water will...

level out, right? I've seen things like that. Yeah, that's an interesting truth right there. I've seen people do this on the top of a mountain. They point the level at a farther away mountain that is of equal or greater height and it's below the level. That is confirmation of curvature.

What do you mean? Like if you had two devices like locked onto each other, like how land surveyors use like the two devices, one person looks at the other dot from like a distance and then they get the angle of how high it is away from it? No.

Not talking about that. You have two mountains. One's a little bit higher up than the other. There's a person over here on the lower mountain and they have a level and it's pointing at the higher mountain, but it goes over the top of the mountain. So level reads over top of the distant peak that is slightly higher.

That's positive affirmation of curvature. Well, you do need affirmation of your belief structure, but I'm sorry to tell you when things are far away. Watch, watch. I could look at a mountain far away and it'll be at my eye level. That does not mean the mountain is at my height.

Instead of relying on your senses, which are fallible, use scientific equipment. When something is far away, we can agree that when something's far away, it will look smaller. Does not mean that it actually is. We can agree about that. I'm not talking about how big things are. I'm talking about... Yes, you are. You said two mountains, distance away. One's a little higher. This one, looking at this one, they won't be like this. If they're separate, it's going to be like that.

That's the point. That's not the point. If someone was making an observation from a smaller mountain, it would not be angled up towards the sky. If the earth was flat, it would be. If the mountain was a greater distance, the more the angle would be down to see it. What are you on? If you have a flat base. Hey, dude, stop with the insults. I'm not on drugs. That's not what what are you on necessarily means. What are you on about is what I mean by that.

If you have two, if you have a flat base and you have two different points, one is higher than the other. It doesn't matter how far you separate them. The angle between the lower one and the higher one is always positive. If you have a flat base, always positive. The slope cannot become negative. What do you mean? No. Let me give this real world example. Instead of having a reaction, listen to what I'm saying.

Say, for example, you are standing underneath a streetlight. Okay? Say you're standing underneath a streetlight. Okay? And there's a row of them. You're standing under one, and you focus on the one, and you point at it. Right? Watch this. Directly at it. If you step away and you keep going, eventually that light that was above you will be at your eye level if you are far enough away from it. That's the point.

I don't know. I don't know. I'm going to try to drop. Watch. If you were underneath the streetlight, you would be pointing directly up at it. But if you walk away from it, eventually you'll be pointing down. It does not mean that the streetlight is at the level of your eyes.

That's my point. That's just, that's just my point. That is, that is not how, that is not how any of that works. I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to show you a pretty picture here. Oh, thank you. I love pretty pictures.

Nice. It'll be very pretty, just like you, Matt. Oh, I appreciate the compliment, Eric. You're a handsome man yourself. Thank you. And I'm not being sarcastic. It's okay. You're cool. You're okay. You see these two points? One's higher than the other? Yeah. Okay. And the angle going from the lower one to the higher one is a positive angle or whatever positive slope? Yeah, it looks like it. Okay. If I put this all the way over here...

It's snapped that there. And then I connect my line there. Exactly. That's what I was saying. Dude, you've just proven my point. When it's farther away, the angle goes like this. It goes like that. The further away. Matt, this is a positive slope. Look at it. Slightly. But the difference is more pronounced. It's less pronounced. Proving exactly what I said. No, I'm not. You said eventually. You proved exactly what I said. And then if you add that, how perspective works.

Think about how perspective works. Matt, when does this line get a negative slope? What do you mean a negative slope? Like pointing down? Line go down. Yeah. I would say when you increase the distance. If you increase the distance of the one you move, like if you did it vast, like a mile, you would be pointing down at it. No. Matt. Matt.

One of them, the taller one, always remains taller than the other one, which means the difference between the top of one and the other is always, well, how do I want to say this? You're getting confused. No, well, a little bit. I'm trying to figure out how to explain it to you. It's okay. No, I'm not confused. If they were right next to each other, this one would be pointing up. But if you take this one like that,

The further away it goes, the angle would be diminishing. And you prove my point. It never. We're getting somewhere, Eric. No, it's interesting. We're learning a lot today, man. This is great. This is great. I'm losing my marbles. This is great. Matt, the slope never becomes zero. It never becomes negative. You have to increase the distance. It doesn't matter. Watch, you proved it.

This is a, you don't think the earth, there's no way you can be saying this stuff and be genuine.

I'm not lying about what I'm saying. That's mean, Eric. That's mean, dude. Why do you say that, man? Do you hope this is the end of my internet career? That's hateful, dude. I hope you get a lot of success. I hope you get success. You're healthy. You're happy. Your whole family, man. Why do you say you hope I don't continue with my internet career? Because you're obviously lying.

Do something else. We're just disagreeing and I'm nailing it. You're getting cooked. I got you, man. Gotcha. There's no way this is it, Matt. You talk about whatever you want. No, I like what we're talking about. We're getting somewhere with this general conversation. I want you to know I'm not coming at you with hate. I'm not going to insult your intelligence because you're a smart dude. We're just disagreeing, man. That's all. And I'm honest about I don't hate you at all.

Now, one interesting question is, I know we talked about, it's interesting to think about why are there people that, if the earth is flat, would want us to think that it's a globe? Like, why the deception? But the converse question is,

Why is it? This isn't like a strong push for like, aha, look, flat earth is true. But it is an interesting like question to ask. Why is it planet Peterson that there are people like Matthew and Nathan Thompson and wits it gets it. And these other people online that are convinced the earth is flat. Like why,

Is it just as simple? Because it's kind of a little bit boring. It's just kind of like in some way an unsatisfying answer to be like, well, they just get the science wrong. It's kind of like, okay, well, I'm not, I mean, I'm a glober myself. So I'd agree that like, I don't want to gang up on what my point is. It's just not a very satisfying answer. Is there anything beyond just, well, they get, they misunderstand the science. Is there anything more than that driving this?

What I've seen in basically every single case is it is extremely zealous religious belief. Christianity has this rather poisonous concept that there's nothing that is not from God that is not simultaneously from the devil. And at different points in history,

The certain Christians have used that that logic to ban things like music. I mean, they've gone full Taliban before in history because music will people start to have a good time when they're having music and that's just going to make them sin. So therefore, music is bad.

And flat earthers ground the belief that the earth is flat in their interpretation of what the Bible says. So if you're saying the earth is not flat, you're against Christianity, according to the vast majority of them.

And so that's the motivation to, I mean, if you believe, because it's not, this is where it becomes something different. It's not right and wrong. It's good versus evil. And if you've convinced yourself that one is evil, then anything can justify it. And evidence sure isn't going to dissuade you in any way because you didn't use evidence to come up with the opinion in the first place.

Well, I'm a Christian and I was a Christian when I was a glober. And I realized that it does not require faith to see that the earth is flat. It does not require faith to say, you know what? The earth is not moving. The converse is true. It requires faith in unseen curvature,

faith in unfelt rotation. And then these dogmas accumulate. And then you guys have high priests like, you know, Neil deGrasse Tyson or whoever you guys venerate at the moment. But yeah, I would say it's like a religious thing for the globers. For Flat Earthers,

We are Christian or, you know, Jewish or Muslim. You know, there's probably even atheist flat earthers. So for me, that flat earth is not an issue of faith because the Bible does not say I have to believe the earth is flat in order to follow God.

The Bible does have things that suggest the earth is flat and stationary, but it's never an article of faith as a Christian to say the earth is this way or that way, because ultimately heaven and earth will both pass away, but God's word will remain. One thing that sometimes I've noticed, though, to give pushback on both of you guys in a way that's not very material, nonetheless,

There are a good amount of anti-religious flat earthers, too. I can't remember the name. There's one that he no-showed me. He's very popular. He had maybe 50,000 subs. So they are out there. And I guess this is an interesting point for both. Because, Matthew, this might actually be a challenge for you, though, too, because...

There's like one thing that a lot of, not all, but a lot of flat earthers might have in common, which is like this extreme skepticism of anything considered conventional, where a lot of them...

They like, they're like, yeah, yeah. Like the globe. That's like what every, the normies believe that bullshit. Not me. And then a lot of them are also like, I don't know if this is helping because they're also like, oh, and by the way, Bigfoot also exists. And also like all religions are like, you know, made up and based on, you know, they think of maybe quote things like, what was that show? The Zeitgeist, that old YouTube documentary that was like,

is they are like any convention they're just like oh yeah you know plus Loch Ness Monster exists and plus like they seem to believe in all conspiracies well a lot of them do is there some sort of personality thing like some sort of like disagreeableness where they're kind of like they want to reject the convention um

Well, to answer your question very simply, there's different types of flat earthers. We're all different. We're like in every group. And to show the example for globers, there's different types of globers. Some are Christians, some are atheists, some believe in the young earth, which is weird, but like, okay. But it's the same thing. Everybody's different and we're all different. But do you, I should have put it more succinctly.

Do you think that there's some sort of underlying hyped up

personality disagreeableness that's driving this like rejection of all conventions or not all but like some of these guys don't even believe gravity or space exists yeah I don't believe those things either those are fake concepts if you think about watch if you think about the theoretical power watch the theoretical power of the vacuum of space versus the theoretical power of gravity they contradict each other in big ways what does that mean both

Both space and gravity are fake too. No, no, no, no, no way. I'm not just, I'm not just dismissing it. I used to believe it. Okay. I used to believe it. Okay. But nonetheless, is there some sort of like driving, like they, like there's like some sort of like, they love the esoteric, like, Oh, like, yes, that stuff is baloney. And I have come to the point of truth.

I don't know. I can't speak for everybody. So I'm sorry it's a disappointing answer for you, James. But the only thing I could say is that everybody's different, just like with the globe side. The perfect example, there's globers that believe in young Earth. There could be atheists that believe the Earth is flat. You know what I mean? But underneath, it's probably just something about recognizing patterns.

Maybe that could be it, like recognizing patterns and then the patterns it collects. Like, okay, I'm recognizing these patterns. That's why for me, when I was a glober, I knew the globe theory well, but it just was not matching what I was observing in reality.

So there was something that I was recognizing that there was something wrong with that cosmology. And yeah, every flat earther probably did the same thing. They're like, there's something wrong with the cosmology and what we're... You're getting too much airtime here. We got to get over to planet Peterson. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Eric. All right. Are you on any...

I mean, I was going to ask Matt some stuff, but what's my thought about, is there a personality type that's consistent with flat earth or is it, is it something else? I mean, like, yeah, like, uh, so if you've heard of like the big five personality traits that Jordan Peterson talks about, um, this happens to be one thing Jordan Peterson's some pretty accurate on is that I got my PhD in psychology. That's why I'm talking about it, that there are these five traits. Agreeableness is one of them.

And there's even research, like empirical research, like papers that have found that flat earthers tend to be more disagreeable, which kind of fits. Like if you are the type that's like, hey, everybody, your views about this globe are baloney. Like you're plausibly a more disagreeable person. But the correlations are small, so it's not always that meaningful. What do you think about that, though, Planet Peterson?

With regard to personality types, I mean, I think it's highly predictive. I wouldn't call it the explanation. So what I was talking about earlier with being a

a zealous Christian. I think that's an extremely high correlation, but it's not the explanation because you can also, you can also say like, well, I don't really care that much for religion, but you know, people that just really, really hate institutions and the government for different reasons, but they're all flavored kind of in the same sort of way. But yeah, the neuroticism and the disagreeableness and the lack for openness to experience is,

Some of those are on opposite ends within the same personality trait. But yeah, I mean, but that's probably true for people that believe in random, well, not random, but different conspiracies other than the flat earth. And Matthew, I don't want to gang up on you, Matthew. So I want to just really quick, I'll give you a chance to respond, Matthew. And then I also want to kind of disqualify my own. I want to be clear that my point was not...

Because if I were to say like, aha, so like part of, you know, even part of the reason that flat earthers believe in this is because of their personality profile. Like to say that therefore flat earth is wrong or even like,

It would obviously be the genetic fallacy, namely like because you identify the source of a belief, therefore to claim that the belief is wrong. That's the genetic fallacy. So I want to be clear. I'm not trying to invalidate flat earth. I'm just like it's just an interesting thing. Like there are also like interesting things I'm sure about like globers. Like maybe there's a correlation between globe belief and.

And I don't know, maybe agreeableness. Like maybe people are like...

Every flat earth person I've had live streams with or chat with, they seem cool. The globers I've interacted with, they seem like jerks. All right, yes. On your show, well, Eric, he's pretty nice. I mean, he can talk a little trash, but he's an okay guy. But you've seen how some of the past debates have gone. People are just poisonous. You know, James, you've seen it. The globers are poisonous. Let me qualify myself when I say, when I'm talking about agreeableness in this conversation,

uh, example. I don't mean like how, uh, I'm talking about the sub facet of agreeableness in the sense of like, you're willing to go along with conventions. So kind of like, it's a little bit. Yeah. Okay. So it's like, you, if you, if you wanted Matthew, you could turn around and say, Hey, the globers, this, or the door swings both ways. You could say, Hey, the globers. I mean, if I, as a flatterer, I'm more disagreeable,

What if it's actually that like the Globers, there's a correlation between agreeableness and Globerism. You might say, James, you know, that's why you believe the globe is you're one of those sheeple. You're more likely to go with the convention. So definitely, sorry to interrupt you, but definitely, yeah, Flat Earthers, we're not just like blindly just accepting stuff. We used to as Globers, but

But flat earthers, now we don't. I notice a lot of people, they're making their own decisions, medical decisions, political decisions, everything. Flat earthers, yeah, I would say in that sense, yes, disagreeable. We reject people telling us what to believe, what to think. And the same way is true or opposite for globers. Yeah, they just agree everything. They want to, whatever the government says, that's the truth. And even when it contradicts itself,

Like obviously contradicts itself. It doesn't matter because at this point it's a religion for the globers. They have to agree with it. And flat earthers, yeah, we disagree with this globe religion that's put on humanity. Let's kick it over to Eric who's been patient. Eric, I'm sorry to sidetrack with my psychology stuff. It's just fun. But any last thoughts? We've got about an hour and 10 minutes or so still left for the debate.

You guys have any last thoughts from the debate that you want to touch on? I mean, I just wanted to continue with the back and forth, but let's do that.

Well, because Matt, you said the power of space is greater than the power of gravity or something like that. What did that mean? It's a theoretical construct that's necessary for the globe model. And I didn't come up with it. I just recognized the contradiction that if the theoretical power of gravity is one amount and you compare that with the theoretical power of the vacuum of space,

It doesn't it doesn't equal anything that there should be anything on the surface of the Earth. OK, so this is just under under that model. This is just a complicated way of saying that you can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. You are aware that vacuums don't suck. Pressure pushes. Oh, my God, dude. Come on. Vacuum doesn't suck. That's not my model. I don't believe it. I just recognize the contradiction.

You know what I mean? And you, you, you, you said it right. This isn't, this isn't, there would be need to be a container. You, you said it. The first thing you did was established. Yeah. There should be some type of container keeping air, water, people, if the earth was a ball in space and that's not my cosmology, that's,

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's your cosmology. We are because I never said anything about containers or anything like that. So you don't believe there's a vacuum of space? Me neither. Of course there is. I'm going to ask you the same question. Do you understand that vacuums don't suck? It's high pressure that pushes. So now you're calling it the pressure of space. No. I'm sorry. I'm not going to laugh. Continue, man.

Do you understand that the reason air moves from high pressure to low pressure is because the high pressure system pushes the air? That's within this Earth system. Yeah. So the vacuum of outer space doesn't have any suction power. That's not a thing. Because it's non-existent.

Eric, because it's non-existent. You just said it again. It has no power. No, I didn't. Dude, you got to rewatch this video, man. Rewatch it with a clear mind later. Listen to your responses. I didn't say what you're putting words into my mouth of that it doesn't exist. Nothing I said concedes that it doesn't exist or anything like that. There's no suction power in space. Suction isn't a force.

Yeah, there's nothing there. I agree with you. That's not what I'm saying. Suction isn't a force doesn't mean that space doesn't exist. It's just a recognition of physics. Yeah, gravity also doesn't exist.

Do you understand that low pressure systems don't have a pulling force within them? It is high pressure systems that have a pushing force? Yeah, within a system. Okay, so there is no force in space pulling anything. Exactly, because there's no vacuum of space. That's not what that means. The only thing above us is the firmament.

That's not what I that's not the implication of what I'm saying. Well, I don't I think you're avoiding that huge factor in order to maintain your globe faith based view that there is a fake outer space and there is gravity and Earth is a ball going around a fireball or whatever you think it is. Matt, what happens when you open a soda?

I know what happens. You open it from a contained... It's a contained pressurized system. When you open it, it equalizes with the air outside. Is the air pressure higher, lower, or equal many miles up in the sky? Um...

I would have to look over those numbers, but all of this would be happening inside a contained earth. I didn't ask you about that. Is the pressure higher, lower, or equal as you go up? Well, there would be less pressure, I would assume. Then why doesn't the air fly up?

Because we're inside an enclosed system and the air is more dense, like the oxygen is more dense than the other noble gases, which is why as they go up, there's less pressure. Listen, there's less. I know. Oxygen is more dense. It's down here where we are. Stuff like helium goes up.

The air above us has, if like, let's just take where airplanes are because that's not that far away. The composition of the atmosphere where the airplanes are is hardly any different than the composition of the air down here. 99% of it is nitrogen and oxygen. So density has fuck all to do with it. No, that's incorrect. The air should be flying up. No, it's not incorrect. There's molecular densities with these gases, which is why they stack.

Are you telling me that where airplanes are, the composition of the atmosphere is different? I don't make claims of that nature. I'm stating that there is density to the gases and that heavier, dense gases are down here more where we are, but there's other gases above. That is just false. There's different intermix at different heights based on different variables.

Where I'm rating, huh? Yes, you are. I'm sorry, Eric. It doesn't matter. I hope you get more after this. Like, at least just think about what I'm saying. Don't just disregard it. No, I will. I can think about what you're saying in real time. It's all quite ridiculous. The density of the air at sea level is different than the density of air outside.

a mile or two or five or 10 up in the sky, not because the composition of the air is different, but because the concentration of molecules per unit area is different. Do you reject that?

Well, what you're describing would also, if under the two models of globe and flat, it would still work from what you're saying. That would be a non-issue for flat versus globe. Let's just skip to the point. You can't have pressure gradients if you can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum.

So, yeah, there is no vacuum up there. So in a way, you're right. There is no vacuum. Yeah. That claim. Right. There's no explanation. There's no vacuum. There's no power. Stop putting words into my mouth. OK, I'm sorry. The explanation for why you can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum, which is that you can't have you can't have high and low pressure next to each other or you can't have a vacuum.

Or you can't have pressure and no pressure next to each other. It's the same thing as you can't have high, low pressure next to each other. But the atmosphere doesn't fly up to equalize in pressure. So your explanation nullifies... It doesn't fly up...

You just said it again. - Why not? Because you can't have pressure next to low pressure. - Okay, so imagine if the earth in outer space was like a soda can. - Okay, Matt, I'm sorry, but time out, time out. - Okay, watch, no, no, no, no. If the earth was like a can and you open it, where would the air go? If the earth was like a soda can in outer space and that soda can opened, right? 'Cause under globe model, there is no container, right? What would happen to that can of soda

in theoretical outer space if you opened it what would happen eric in outer space the gas would fly because there would be no massive or fly off like forever or whatever because there would be no massive object to hold it there so then the next part is you compare the power of theoretical vacuum of space versus theoretical there is no power in a vacuum vacuums yes there's no yes

How are you like this? How do you take what somebody says and then put words into their mouth? How are you like that? You're proving my point. No, I'm not. Yes, you are. This is just the most disingenuous shit I've seen in any debate I've ever done. No way. You're proving my point. No, I'm not. I'm not creating that model. I'm just sharing with you your model. I'm familiar with the globe theory.

Why is it that air doesn't equalize in pressure here on Earth? Because it's all contained. We have a firmament. There's different densities. Why doesn't it equalize in pressure? Why doesn't it equalize? It's already in an equilibrium state. Because of what?

That's the way of earth's homeostasis. That's the way intraplay of moisture in the air. Describe why it has the properties that it has. You mean how did God make the earth? The nuts and bolts of how God made the earth? So we're at work to this again. Right? That's the question you're asking me, really. Because God did it that way. Right? It's just how it is. Without a dome, right? How would anything stay? How would water, air, people stick together?

to the globe considering that the theoretical power of the vacuum of space is much greater than the theoretical power of gravity. For the brazillian time, vacuums don't have any force within them. Okay, so now we're back to my argument that you're proving my point by saying there's no power. Do you know that suction cups exist?

Oh, of course. Oh, wait a minute. So inside the suction cup, there's a vacuum. Oh, wait. But vacuums don't hold the suction cup against the wall. It seals. High pressure on the outside does it. So I just admitted that the interior of a suction cup doesn't exist. That's what I just admitted by your logic. Oh, my gosh. That's ridiculous. You know suction cups exist, and it creates...

According to your logic, the interior of a suction cup can't exist. You're making very good arguments for a flat stationary enclosed Earth, Eric. Thank you, dude. This is great. This is great, dude. Why does the Earth have pressure gradients in its atmosphere?

Because there's different gases, different molecular densities, different interplays of hydrothermal pressure. There's different parametric pressure. Why? And there's different processes taking place above us. And you want, why is it like that? You're asking me my opinion, why reality is the way it is.

It is because that is how God made this place with natural processes, energies, different types of matter, gases with different molecular densities. And they all it's a big interplay. That's how God made this place to have equilibrium, to have homeostasis. Do you agree roughly that the composition of the atmosphere is roughly 80 percent nitrogen, 20 percent oxygen where you and I stand?

I would have to double check, man. I don't make any claims about the gases where I am. Exactly where I am? At sea level, the...

Audience, at sea level, the atmosphere is about 80% nitrogen, about 20% oxygen. If you live somewhere like Denver, that's a mile above sea level, the air is less dense, but the composition of that atmosphere is still roughly 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen. What Matt's telling you about densities has fuck all to do with why there are density gradients or pressure gradients

in the atmosphere. He's trying to say it's because different gases of the atmosphere are in different places. You're arguing against earth signs. And that is not the case. You do find things like way, way up high where there's a concentration of ozone, but we're talking about within the first few miles of the atmosphere. Okay.

Matt doesn't get it. He can't explain it. That's why he keeps saying this. No, no, you're not arguing against flat earth here. You're arguing against earth science now. No, I'm not. Yeah, about why there's different amounts of gases up. I'm a credentialed earth science teacher. I know earth science. You don't. Okay, so now we know your motivation. Now we know why you have to defend this model.

But yeah, there's different intermix of the different gases. So you appealed to me not being educated on earth science, but if somebody has demonstrated their education in earth science by being credentialed in it, then that just proves that they're trying to peddle some sort of false narrative. Oh yeah. I've debated PhDs. You are utterly hopeless. You are wrong. I've debated PhDs. The most hopeless person I've ever talked to. I've corrected them. And it's not even close. PhDs.

Matthew, as Matthew said, Matthew has done body slams of PhDs and debates. Oh, yeah, brother. Now, let's see.

You guys certainly have chemistry. I really do like watching. Eric's great. He's on it, man. I like his responses. I like you guys. You guys are fun. All these PhDs that Matthew took on at the same time. He was debating all of these MIT cosmologists and it was tremendous.

Well, there's Dr. Blitz. He got a good education. PhD Tony. He's a real gentleman. I like PhD Tony. Whether or not you've actually body slammed them in debates, although I will admit it is true you debated. You actually did debate Dr. Blitz. And

But yes, what we want to do is any last thoughts before we go into the Q&A, before any final drawing together of the threads from this debate? Eric, you'd like to go first?

Almost every single time Matt tried to make an argument, he contradicted himself. And when he got cornered on certain things, his only explanation was God did it that way. This is somebody with absolutely nothing of any substance or value to offer. That's pretty mean. And he doesn't understand that a positive slope can never become a negative slope as two objects get farther away. That was the most tragic...

display of ineptitude I've ever seen on one of these. Okay, my final thing, I would encourage everybody to locate the star Polaris and every night, watch it.

That's a good analogy to figure out that the earth is not tilting or moving around the sun. In regards to things being further away, I know you disagree, Eric, but when things get further away, like I gave the perfect example of standing underneath a street light and where you would have to point directly above where it is, and as you move away, you would be pointing at it like this.

At a certain point, it would be at your eye level. But that's it. I think it's been a great debate. Eric, maybe we could debate again, maybe with less insults, because I don't want to ever insult you and say you're this or that, even though we disagree, man. That's it. Let's debate evolution next. Oh, that'll be easy. That'll be very easy. Ape man. You are an ape. I'm not an ape man. I am a man, not an ape.

Also, how about this? A man is a type of ape. Listen, this is a great argument that evolutionary people hate. I'll show you a picture. A white man and a black man. And you tell me who's more evolved. Okay? And I'll tell you how much of a bigot you are. We're going to jump into the Q&A. Who's more evolved? Matthew, you have to shut up. Amazing. Let's see. We are going to jump into the Q&A.

He actually said white people are more evolved. No, I said, I said, who is more evolved? If you believe in evolution, who is more evolved, a white man or a black man? I can't tell you the way that you think that way is just unbelievably disgusting. Yeah. When you answer that question, I'll tell you how much of a bigot you are.

Now I see what you're saying. I think Matthew is trying to do an old school creation tactic of saying that evolution means that some people groups will be more evolved than others. It doesn't mean that, but that's Matt's interpretation of it, meaning that's how Matt views it. So you don't think humans are evolving? Thank you, Eric. We're not evolving. Disingenuous piece of shit. Oh, Eric. Come on.

We're going to jump into the Raging Tomato. It says, Grid 1 said he will... Oh, we got that one. Sorry about that, folks. I'm...

Little bits. Oh, here we go. This one from Team Philip. Thanks for your support, says for the lenses. Oh, that reminds me, folks, we do have. That's right. The GoFundMe link is pinned at the top of the chat and it's also at the top of the description box. That is for these new lenses that we are purchasing for upcoming debate cons as well as.

upcoming outnumbered recordings as well as the debate between Andrew Wilson and Apostate Prophet which is going to be as you can see the bottom right of your screen on April 28th. These lenses are

help us make these events possible. So do encourage you, check out the GoFundMe. And if you want, like one thing too I want to mention, instead of putting in a super chat, if you're like, hey, could I make a donation to the GoFundMe? And it's like treated as a super chat where I can just put it in the live chat. I can tag you with at modern day debate, let you know my name. And basically I can just type in my question here.

Yeah, you totally do that. And so no matter how long your question is, that would work as that GoFundMe link is pinned at the top of the old live chat. So thanks for your support. We just crossed over 500 bucks about an hour ago or so. So thank you so much for your support. This one, next question coming in from Nick Brone says, what is your stance? We got this one. Simon Allen says, dancing dino.

Okay. God, guns, and glory. Thank you. This is for you, James. For the future. Let's see. Did I just get grifted? Because it's a flat Earth. They think flat Earth is unlikely. Dylan Dishner says, both panelists, please steel man each other's position. Planet Peterson, we'll start with you if you want to steel man Professor Matthew's position. Okay.

Um, the only explanation he gave for that the Earth is flat is that, uh, Polaris doesn't change its position. We went over mathematically how that's ridiculous, and, uh, we can see too far. That's really the only thing he did in positive, in an attempt of a positive affirmation of the flat Earth, and then he kind of brought up the vacuum thing, but...

Matthew? Okay. Eric was talking about how seeing the sharp horizon is proof that there's curvature on the Earth. Also, Eric was saying that there is no vacuum of space, but it's more of a pressure and that gravity keeps things to the surface of the Earth. You got it. We'll jump to the next question. This one coming in from

Isa Kabir says, good to see you, Matthew. We had a discussion about Flat Earth and globe models. We discussed aviation geography. How does that work for the Flat Earth model?

Thanks. Aviation. Okay. If you want to learn about aviation, geography, and flat earth, I would say check out my friend's book. His name is Eddie Allen Carr, and he made a book called 16 Emergency Landings Proving Flat Earth. He's better known by his YouTube channel, Flat Earth Banjo. So I'm going to give a big shout out to my friend, Brother Eddie. And yeah, his book nails it. It's a modern classic.

a modern classic. So if you want to learn all about flight routes and how that works on a flat earth, I would say check out his book. And I think it's even available free for download, but I'm not sure. I got the physical copy. But thank you, Isa. Shout out, Isa. Wow.

Bite Me XD says, Blessings from Modern Day Debate. 12-hour stream. Saturday is now complete. Thanks so much. And that is true, folks. We're going. We're hardcore over here. We're doing a 12-hour stream. So we've got another, like, I can't remember how many hours. But, yes, we're excited to be here. It's going to be amazing. Joseph Newton says, I am not a flat earther, but...

Planet Peterson is such a disingenuous debater. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, I know that was one of your sock accounts, Matthew. But go ahead, Planet Peterson, if you'd like to respond. I'm not doing that.

And it's not worthy of a response. I don't know what they're talking about. So, I mean, it would be one thing if they could point to a single example, but I never misquoted Matt or anything like that. So I don't know what the hell they mean by disingenuous. You got it.

Aloali Blue Vegan says, if you are not vegan, you are a dullard. And Matthew, and that means you are also, Matthew, you should go vegan. I should go vegan. Is this your vegan friend?

Well, I noticed when I changed my diet to just eat fruit in the morning, I did have a good health effect of that. So yeah, I don't know about total vegan because I do love meat. But maybe there is some truth to that, that just eating vegetables is superior. So I'll consider, maybe I'll increase my veggies for today or something. Thank you. Super chat. Wow.

Alawali Blue Vegan also said, Matthew and non-vegans are dullards. And then in all caps says, globe gang. That's okay. Whatever their cult says, vegan globers. Are they also atheists? Mutton Chopper says, how can the Big Dipper always be in view if we're on the side of the sun half the year?

That's another proof that the earth is flat and stationary and that the stars are above us. It's exactly true that the super chatter said is that... No, it's not. Watch. If we were on the other side of the sun, those stars would be invisible because we would basically have to look at them during the day. And you cannot see stars during the day. This would have to be...

You'd have to do this, like, in a diagram, and I started to draw it to... Ah, the light. The light takes forever to focus. But, no, the Big Dipper is above the Earth, is a weird way of putting it, but it's in the direction of our North Pole, or whatever.

At night, when you're shielded from the light of the sun, you can still see up and you can still see it. There's no problem. That's not seeing it during the daytime. Matt has this idea that like the sky absorbs sunlight or something like that. No, that's the only way you could make it make the explanation that the only reason you can see it during the day or during the night.

Like, you'd have to be able to see it during the day. No. Yes. When we're shielded from the sun's rays, we can still see in the direction of Earth's North Pole. You look up. There it is. It's extremely far away in space. You can see it at night. Well, that's an assumption. There's no sunlight hitting Earth.

It doesn't matter if it's an assumption, Matt. It does matter because you're trying to establish something that's not real. You're attempting to do an internal critique, but you don't understand the model you're critiquing. Well, that's incorrect, Eric. It is correct. For the reasons I just explained, people of sound mind will understand how that is. If we're looking at Polaris every night, that means we are not going around the sun. And if Polaris is in the same spot, that also means the earth is not tilting.

I literally showed you mathematically how that's not the case. Yeah, and I told you how your mathematics do not correspond with direct observational reality. Yes, they do. No, they don't. Based on the numbers I gave, you wouldn't see a change. We don't see a change. It matches reality.

And the reality is the earth is not going around the Sun and the earth is not tilting because now you're not saying no No, no, no, the proof is Polaris. I'm explaining it clearly if Polaris is in the same spot every night That means the earth isn't doing this and the earth isn't doing this right and

That's the point. I showed you how the math works out that you wouldn't be able to see a change. So the globe model consistently explains the fact that we see it in the same place. And the ancient astronomical records clearly show that Thuban used to be the North Star. So ancient Egyptians used to call Polaris Thuban? Yes.

That's what you're really saying? That's what you're really saying? This is why I keep calling you disingenuous. Because we haven't ever seen Polaris move in all of recorded history. We've never recorded Polaris moving. The only thing is you suggesting something about ancient Egypt, which I don't believe everything from ancient Egypt.

So, nuh-uh is your response. My response is your mathematics do not correspond with direct observational reality. Yes, they do. That's your interpretation. We don't see the North Star shifting as it's consistent with the mathematics.

That's what the math says, you fucking idiot. We don't see Polaris move, right? This is unbearable. And your mathematics says Polaris move. That you wouldn't see it move. The math says you wouldn't see it move. So the model's wrong. The math says you wouldn't see it move. You fucking moron. Do you want me to show you the numbers again? Tell me, if you're saying your mathematics says

Polaris shouldn't move. That means the model is wrong.

The globe math says it would create angles like this. You can't see angle changes like that. Yeah, like nothing. Yeah, so in other words, the globe math is consistent with reality. That does not represent 23.5 degrees tilt in any direction. And like I said, if the Earth were going around the sun, Polaris would disappear behind the sun, and we wouldn't be able to see it because it would be during the day.

Give yourself time, Eric. It'll work out for you're having a cognitive. I thought about this two years ago when I wrote the book. And despite having everything presented in front of you, what was called like stupid answers to good questions or what was it called?

rational answers to stupid questions that seems mean man why not just be what you're about instead of trying to tear down other people certain things we should have shaming in society certain people should be shamed people are bad people let's get into this people get into this sometimes idiots so you should you're into public shaming sometimes yeah talk about that if some i just did

This seems to be very important to you. So I want to understand your motivation behind you want to publicly bad people, criminals and sometimes idiots. Yeah.

Damn, what a waste of time. Be about something. Instead of just like you want to tear down people, because I know it's that about globers. They just want to talk trash about flat earth. They don't even want to be about the old model. I'm about flat earth. I like flat earth. I talk with other flat earthers. We share science.

observations. We have a great time. You accuse people who don't believe what you believe in as being part of some sort of satanic conspiracy. I don't think you necessarily are a satanic person. Great. The world system under which we live, yes, is definitely satanic.

Well, with that, we actually have run out of questions. So, folks, if you happen to have questions, this is your last chance to get them in. Otherwise, we'll let the debaters go pretty quick here. And then we'll have probably just because we've had fewer questions than expected, probably about an hour interval.

intermission between the end of this debate and the start of the next debate. So about an hour from now, I think it's made by Jim Bob, we'll be debating. Are you sure I've got this right? I think it's actually, is it two hours from now? Let me double check.

There were some good debates today, James. It's unfortunate that Andrew didn't want to make it because honestly, you don't just sleep in. That's kind of a cop-out. And I like that Mark stepped up and he still debated. Mark's a cool guy, but I feel like Andrew took lost. I feel like Andrew, he lost. He defeated himself. Wow. Okay.

Yeah, so in an hour it would be made by Jim Bob, would be taking on Craig, Fight the Flat Earth, on Evolution, on Trial. So that's going to be a juicy one. And yeah, so if you happen to have questions, fire them into the old live chat, folks. Otherwise, it'll be about an hour intermission. And when I say intermission, the stream will still be going. So basically, I'll get myself like I might.

kind of mulling over if I'm going to get a bite to eat or if I'm just going to hang out and wait to eat until the next one. Yeah, me too, James. I'm hungry. I'm going to go get a lunch too when we're done here. Well, probably, let me just say, oh, someone asked, they told me they asked a question about crepuscular rays that I missed. So let me... Oh, I saw that. It just said, ask Peterson about crepuscular rays. That's basically what it said. And then you guys could ask me about anti-crepuscular rays.

why did i miss that where is this but i think i saw it too i just don't know where oh yeah it says mutton mutton chopper sorry about that said i would like to hear what eric has to say about crepuscular rays um i wonder if i'd be able to find the video on this but probably not but i've seen this demonstration multiple times for example um

So crepuscular rays are just rays that appear to diverge, but parallel rays do that if you view them coming straight on from you. So I've seen multiple demonstrations where people take, for example, a row of

not exactly fence posts, but like those little concrete pillars they put in front of like Walmart and stuff to keep people from driving in or whatever. They'll, they'll have a, they'll show, they'll have a drone and it'll be showing those and they appear to be,

flaring outward or whatever diverging but then what they do is they have the drone go up and when you do a top down view you can see that all those lines are actually parallel to each other so the idea that crepuscular rays demonstrate that the earth is flat and that the sun is local literally it's really cute and ironic that the flat earther fails to understand this

Because it all comes down to something they say all the time, their favorite buzzword, perspective. May I counter? Yeah, of course. Perspective matters, of course. There is some truth to what you're saying, Eric, about how light behaves and how it will come directly to the observer and it kind of spread out as it's coming towards us.

But you're not taking into account when the sun is recorded as being in the clouds, illuminating outwards from the clouds and the subsolar point. That's kind of what you're missing there.

I got a photo for you, Matt, that I wanted to show you, actually. Oh, yeah, sure. Go for it. But another proof of the sky is the anti-cropuscular rays, how the opposite side of our perspective, the rays will seemingly converge. But that just shows perspective distortion within our observational grid.

I took this picture in my own backyard. How is the sunlight hitting the bottom of the clouds but not the top of the clouds? It's just glowing and the sun's far away. And remember how I described when things are far away, how we observe them?

Some light will appear kind of closer to the horizon, which means it'll be coming from this way. I see the same thing in my front room, how on some days when the sun sets, the light will come straight through the windows, straight through. It's just how the sun is situated and how we observe the light and how the light comes to us. If the sun is above the earth, the sun is clearly, even if the earth is flat, the sun is clearly higher than the clouds.

It doesn't matter how far away the sun is. The light cannot...

Be coming from the sun and not illuminating the top of the clouds, only illuminating the bottom of the clouds. Well, you got to remember, there is far away. It'll be far away. And we're not in a very wide, tall thing. And the sun is not as far away as you're imagining it to be. But just like I said, how we observe the sun, like I said, as the sun goes away, it appears to kind of meet the ground like that.

The sky is not at my eye level. It's all above. Just like you said, that's a perfect example. It's perspective. You got it. This one coming in from Martas says, For Matthew, there was a flat earther that quit recently due to a photo of a bunch of mountains that you could see above the horizon. Have you seen this and do you have any comments?

They saw a photo of a mountain above a horizon? I think it's saying, like, let's say the mountains were maybe, I don't know, like, 100 miles away, and they could see, like, the mountain tips, like, peeking up above the horizon, like... But it said they were a flat earther and they quit believing flat earth. That almost sounds like a flat earth talking point.

Yeah, it could be like a flat earth or just trying to put it out there to kind of mix it up. But yeah, the simple fact you'd be able to see these mountains at such great distances and notice that the horizon's flat. It's all flat. I would suggest to everybody start making panoramic videos. Gotcha. And then someone else asked about, they said, ask Matthew about Sonic the Hedgehog. Do you have some sort of...

So sort of fetish with this character? No. Damn, James, you're kinky. Why are you saying that? I'm not a furry. I'm not into Sonic that much. I played it back in the 90s. That's it. I never really played Sonic after that. No one's going to judge you. No, I'm not kinky like that. Now, folks, if you haven't yet, hit that like button. We do appreciate your support. And I've got to tell you...

Our guests are linked in the description box. That's right, Matthew, sorry. When I woke up this morning, I got your email. I also got the message at the same time that Andrew wasn't going to be able to make it. So I was like, oh, I was scrambling. So let me see here. Is...

That GoFundMe link is still pinned at the top of the old live chat. We appreciate your guys' support as we are raising funds for lenses that we will be using for this upcoming debate that you can see in the bottom right of your screen featuring Andrew Wilson and Abbas A. Bravitt. And then let me find your little email here, Matthew. Any last questions you guys had for each other before we do wrap up?

I think we covered a lot. I just want to say thank you, Eric. This has been a great debate. I'm happy to be back on Modern Day Debate. It has been a while. And I know that a lot of people love the flat versus globe debates, flat earthers, globers, people that don't even care. I'm sure a lot of people are enjoying it. And I'm glad to see that these debates are back. Thank you. And Eric, any thoughts? Yeah.

Not really about the debate or anything, I guess. But, you know, Matt showed up, he accepted, and he was a good sport. So all good, I guess. Cool. You got it. And then, Matthew, let's see. I'm going to put your links. Well, I didn't send you the links. I was saying, like, if you could link my YouTube and maybe, like, my books.

But I could send that later if you're like kind of busy at the moment. No, no, I've got them. I've got your, well, actually now YouTube's not working. I've got them in the description box, but do want to say folks, any last questions you have for the guests, let me just do a quick skim of the old live chat. Otherwise folks, we will be back in about 50 minutes.

What would it be? About 56 minutes. We would be back with our next debate with Made by Jim Bob. And God's Gone in Glory says, James, are you moderating all day? Yes, it is me all day. Adir Est Fasir says, James Coons, you the man. Thanks so much for your kind words. That means more than you know. And Avigo says, is space Euclidean or non-Euclidean in reality? Space? You being Euclidean?

Yeah, the way I understand it is... I'll probably screw this up because I don't have really the educational background in this. But we say things like space is... Like the universe is flat. It has flat curvature, neither positive nor negative. And that just means that the universe appears to literally go on forever. It doesn't wrap around back in on itself. Or it doesn't have any indication of...

of that. But we also say that, for example, like there is curvature in space, which would be non-Euclidean. And that would be because of things like GR, general relativity. So I think it kind of, the way I understand it, I think it depends on the perspective of

or like the scale you're looking at it. In local scales, there's curvature, there's a lot of non-Euclidean mathematics that you have to do. But on these, on the macro scale, it's more flat, which I guess you could say is more Euclidean. And that's weird. That's so weird. Because I used to know that or believe that. Like scientists would say the universe is flat. Scientists would say the galaxy is flat.

Scientists say the solar system is flat, but not the Earth. That's great. Wow. That's great, man. You're taking the words out of my mouth, Eric. You know, you guys, it's like The Odd Couple. You remember that old show? Oh, yeah, yeah. You guys would be just such a good, if there was a TV show about you guys just hanging out.

It would be great. Look at how excited Eric is. He's going to love it. That would be some great material. Great material. Right you are, Ken, says, I want these two back. They do have chemistry, don't they? They just are a couple of pals. But we are going to let them go. Thank you very much, Matthew and Planet Peterson, for being on here today. Seriously, we really appreciate it. I hope you have a great rest of your day.

Thank you, James. Thank you very much. And thank you, Eric. You're welcome. Thanks everybody. Keep it real homies and folks stick around because I'm going to be sharing some juicy, cool stuff about upcoming events. And also I'm just going to, it's going to be nice to just unwind here a little bit because, uh,

I have got a long... Don't get me wrong. I don't mean long in the sense of not enjoyable. I just mean long in the total hours sense that this is...

Now at Verizon, we're locking in low prices for three years guaranteed on my plan. And you can get a single line for just $45 a month when you switch and bring your phone. That's our best price ever on unlimited welcome with auto pay plus taxes and fees guaranteed for three years. Because at Verizon, we got you. Visit your local DC Verizon store today. $20 monthly promo credits applied over 36 months with a new line on unlimited welcome. In times of congestion, unlimited 5G and 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic.

Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Price guarantee applies to then current base monthly rate. Additional terms and conditions apply.