Scientific evidence from multiple independent disciplines confirms Earth is a sphere: seismology shows seismic waves propagate through Earth's interior in patterns consistent with a spherical shape, including P-wave shadow zones and Rayleigh waves that converge at antipodal points; GPS technology requires time dilation corrections based on relativity, which only works if Earth is spherical; the horizon exists at a specific distance in all directions and rises with elevation, which is impossible on a flat surface; and geological dating methods (cosmic ray exposure, radiometric dating, amino acid racemization) consistently show Earth is billions of years old, with multiple independent techniques cross-verifying these results.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
A Flat Earth "Debate" - FTFE VS Rod "PHD"Added:
Welcome everyone to another flat earth debate. Today we are debating Rod PhD.
Uh a flat earther that I've found on X that wants to challenge me on some things including red shift and the passage of time and other things around the shape of the earth. Um for once the flat earthers actually turned up. So at least respect to them for that because we know a lot of them run away when they meet the big old bad FTFE. Uh do me a favor guys. Make sure you smash the like button, subscribe if you're not already, and hit the notification so you never miss any of the fantastic shows that we put on. So, let's going to get we're just going to get straight into it. Um, we're going to play an intro. So, if you're watching this as a VOD later on, there's like 90 seconds of music. You just skip forward. But, if you're here watching live, you don't get a choice.
You've just got to watch and then you listen to the music. So, there's a rule.
The rule is that you dance. If you don't dance, I'm going to send Daniel Pratt to your house. If you do dance, then I'm going to give you a cookie.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
HEAT.
HEAT. HEAT.
HEAT. HEAT.
We're living on a disc floating through space with a tiny sun.
>> Hey everyone, welcome back. I hope you're all doing well. Sorry to ruin the the end of the week by, you know, subjecting you to flatter stuff, but that's what's going to happen and that's what you're here for. You know how it is. If you haven't shared the stream already, make sure you do that. Just like grab a brick, um, write the URL to the channel on a bit of paper, wrap it around that brick, and then stand on a bridge, and just throw it at a car. I mean, it's going to probably get you in trouble, but at least someone else might join the stream. So, hey. Yeah, we have Rod with us today. Let's just get Rod on and let him introduce himself. Rod, hello. Welcome to the channel. How are you?
Hey, Craig. Happy to be here and uh hoping to have a productive conversation with you tonight.
>> Well, like I explained to you beforehand, the rule is very simple. I let you decide how the show goes. If you're decent to me, then I'll be decent to you. Well, at least less of a [ __ ] than normal, I guess. So, you know, it's it's totally up to you. If you're if you're good and you're you're respectful and you you want to engage honestly in conversation, then that's how it will go. Why don't you just take a minute, introduce yourself to everyone, um and let us know how long you've been a flat earther.
Hey, I'm Rod. I uh this might sound funny to uh appear with this map behind me, but I actually I actually do reject the title flat earther overall. Um but I do I do also reject the Capernac model to you know to the highest degree. um there's too much about it that is based on presupposition and uh I'm I much more land on the philosophical uh side of things than the scientific side of things. But I'm going to make a case why physics doesn't say uh well especially why physics doesn't tell us that red shift proves the passage of time. But also that these these presuppositions qualify the solar system as a lie entirely. um because because it's not it's not honest. It's not that everyone who's repeating it is a liar, but it's not it's not based on the truth. So, it's a it's a beautiful guess is what it is.
>> And how long have you held those views?
>> Um little over three years. I think it was it was a a gradual kind of thing, but it was about probably about three years ago where it felt like an epiphany.
>> What is your educational qualifications?
Um I am completing a bachelor's degree right now >> in in environmental science.
>> In in environmental science. Cool.
Right. Um actually globe stuff in that.
So that'd be interesting. Right. Fair enough. So um everything you've said there I can very easily disprove. But uh we'll get to that. Um why don't I just give you the mic for a while uh and let you give your best bit of evidence why you think the Earth is is not a globe.
um which would I guess leave some kind of topographically bumpy flat plane um and uh then we can discuss what you bring up. So yeah, over to you. Give us your best thoughts.
>> Yeah. So I I have uh a a philosophically based argument here uh to begin with uh supporting my argument that the solar system is a lie. Uh this is from on the revolutions of heavenly spirits by Nicholas Capernicus which I think if we're talking about the history of the solar system you would agree this is a firsthand you know primary source.
He says and as far as hypothesis go let no one expect anything in the way of certainty from astronomy since astronomy can offer us nothing certain lest if anyone take as true that which has been constructed for another use. He go away from this discipline a bigger fool than when he came to it. farewell.
And I find that a an appealing argument for why heavenly observations do not translate to our world as we as we see it. Um that especially the idea of Doppler effect and red shift being obviously the same. It's not not the case. They're they're specifically classified separately uh for good reason.
Um, so the example, the reason I told I told Craig in a tweet form that the solar system is a lie, he said, "Be specific why that's a lie." I said, "I would have to define the lie." So that's let's uh establish that. Uh it's not that everyone is in on the lie.
It is if if I lied and said, you know, my name wasn't actually Rod. I'm Craig as well, and then he was calling me Rod, that doesn't make him a liar. that makes him repeating the lie. He had good reason to believe what I was telling him. Um, and that doesn't doesn't incur a wrong when when you repeat something that you've been believing in in good faith. But the reality is that uh astronomy just simply does not there's no case that translates into natural science into any anything that ends up being smacked with that label of scientific theory. it it's because it can't be disproven by the scientific method and it's manipulated to say that because it can't be disproven such as gravity because there's no way to say that that's not what's happening. We call it a theory at the end and say it must be true because this this also must be true. Um >> that's not >> example in this context with sorry >> that's not what a theory is in science but >> right I I understand that I understand the academic definition of theory is you know is different I'm familiar it's just that they could have chose any word they wanted and they used the one that says we really can't know for sure and you know we would agree that the utility of the word theory is that you can add later you don't you're not anticipating that anything you know is wrong so far but you can add later and and you don't get to reserve that freedom to add later, but also say that it's perfect and complete. Now, do is that is is music fake because I studied music theory.
>> Music is subjective. Uh >> music is not subjective. Music is a fact.
>> Is is what about driving? When I when I studied driving, I took a driving theory test.
>> Okay. Good driving is rather objective.
Good music. Do you enjoy every genre of music?
>> Whether music got good is good or not is subjective. But the theory of music is, you know, a fact. I.e. you put these these notes together, you get this chord, you can harmonize this with this, you know, >> but the fact that, you know, a good musician doesn't need to stick to those to those uh parameters, you know. They do. Otherwise, it doesn't work. You can't mix notes together that don't work cuz it just doesn't sound correct. You can't have chord without putting your finger on G, A, and G, and G, you know, it just doesn't work.
>> Yeah. I mean, subjectively, right? I mean, some people listen to music that I don't consider very musical, but um >> carry on. I was just a bit shocked that you completely misused theory. I do apologize. Carry on.
>> Theory? Yeah. Well, I I don't think it's a misuse. I think they know they know the word. Are are scientists just like poor at at choosing which word best represents their argument? Because there's a lot of things that that the argument is that they don't like it means something different in science like well there's another word like fact is a word not you don't have to call it a theory to imply that it's incomplete which is actually why they call it a theory because like I said they reserve the right to change it later right is that that's why it's a theory and not a you you tell us that it's a fact >> yeah that's not again that's not what a scientific theory is you're using science a scient like a scientific theory is a a repeated it contains all the information about a thing that that's all. So you know it contains all the hypothesis all the experiments all all the knowledge that we have about a thing. It's the highest accolade you can give something to say we know what that is like like someone in my in my chart in in my chat is saying music theory is not subjective. It's the fact that a major triad is the first third and fifth degrees of a major scale. You know these are just factual things. That's that's true. But when you're writing a song, you're not just you can't just use all the conventions. It's not going to, you know, you have to you have to put your own style on it.
>> But that's not again that's not what music theory is. It's a you cannot have a G chord on a guitar without putting your fingers in a certain position on the fretboard.
>> Sure. Right. Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. As far as far as formal formal music theory with the chords and and that Yeah. That's that's well established >> that and that's what a theory is in science. It it's not the common vernacular usage of the word theory. A scientific theory is not a guess. It it's a completely different thing that that's you you just I'm I'm sorry to interrupt your your opening gamut there. I just I I want you to not run off in the weeds with using the words in incorrectly. A scientific theory is not a guess at all. It contains all the hypotheses, the all the experiments, all the knowledge, all the maths, all the proofs.
>> Would you So would you call it a verified claim or an unverified claim?
>> It's as verified as it can be. The fantastic thing about science is we understand that we don't understand everything. But it a theory is basically all of the knowledge that we have about a certain thing in science. It's not just, oh, I have a theory about this.
That that's they're different things. So just make sure you're using the words in if you're having a scientific conversation.
>> Sure. Right. No, I disagree. I think there's a dishonest framing. Sorry, I don't want to interrupt you.
>> It's what is dishonest?
>> I think there's a dishonest framing to the idea that you need to repurpose the word theory. There are c is there not a better word if you have to what's the purpose of the word theory if not to say that you >> language is malleable? Um, and you can change what words mean as as language evolves. And you you whether or not you don't you you disagree with the fact that they use the word theory, you have to accept that in the world we live in now, a scientific theory is a very different thing than just a theory, >> right? Yeah. I would say it's a it's a theory that they're obstinate about.
It's not uh >> No, no. Again, it it's it contains all of the knowledge that we have about a thing.
>> Music theory is not subjective. You can never argue with the fact that, you know, uh to you, to make a D chord, you have to hold your fingers in a certain position on on the on the fretboard and harmonize a note. You can cut a note in half and get the harmony of it from from two waveforms. You know, these are >> these are not objective things. So again, I I'm going to let you continue, but I just want you to make sure you're using the words correctly rather than just going off in the weeds of using the words wrong.
>> Right. Yeah. I think that is a a big part of the argument as well for your side is that I can't say it the way, you know, you get to mandate the language, tell me what it means, and tell me if I don't agree with it, I'm already wrong.
Um, I I understand that you your argument is that the the word has been thoroughly repurposed, but I just I think there's a there's a better word for thing when we know it's not it's not theory. But um as far as the passage of time being proven by red shift uh is I was surprised I I'm sure you have something uh to hit me with here because I was surprised that you would I I found that to be a circular reasoning kind of question in the first place. U because does not the does not redshift presuppose the big bang?
>> No. Red shift I guess presupposes the expansion of the universe not necessarily the big bang >> right so you're >> and the hover constant shows that we know the universe is expanding that's some that is is very easily proven within science that that you know the maths clearly shows that the universe is expanding >> right so uh I did mention also um that I'm doubtful of your definition of science would you mind telling me how you define science >> science is the um exploration of the natural world through um um testing it basically through uh observations and experimentation.
>> Okay.
>> And that is how we define science. It's not my definition of science. It's the definition of science. Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation.
the where I find the inconsistency is that you'll simultaneously call science a process uh for finding the truth but also a database of knowledge because I I don't think it can with your definition provided it's it's not both right how would you do you see what I'm >> I wouldn't say it's a process for finding the truth it would be a process for disproving things sc in science there is no such thing as scientific proof all right yes proof exists in science in sense that we can use maths to prove that 1 plus 1 is two. But there's no such thing as scientific proof. Um, if you're doing science and you're following the scientific method, your aim is to try to disprove a hypothesis, not to prove something because that's not what you do in science. We are fully aware that there may be a better explanation for for what we understand that will come along. But that's what you do. you try if you can't disprove a hypothesis then you accept that hypothesis as the current best explanation for something >> right so so you agree that a hypothesis is supposed to be falsifiable um that the scientific method specifies a controlled experiment so that you understand that the cause when you've isolated your independent variable you can say with a high degree of confidence that the cause is what you were testing for agreement >> well you're you're you're talking about the high school version of science scientific method. Of course, there is countless different versions and applications of the scientific method throughout industry and different aspects of science. If we're talking about what you learn at high school, then there's five steps. There is you make an observation and using that you you you guess something. Your you know your your hypothesis is is your guess, right? So you you observe something and you ask a question. That's step one. And then step two is you guess. You make an assumption. That's your hypothesis. Step three is you use that hypothesis/assumption to form a prediction. Step four is you use your prediction to design an experiment to test your prediction. And then step five is you analyze your data and then go back to the start if you need to. That that's but again that's what you do in high school. You find when you actually advance past high school that there's a lot more to the scientific method. you don't even necessarily need independent variables and dependent variables and all that stuff because that's not how the world works exactly every time you're trying to do something. Um, and what you can use as an independent variable might be very different to how you wrote it down in your textbooks in your science class, >> right? Yeah, I understand that your argument relies on that that uh the scientific method is I mean I guess is there another instance of something that is taught in high school that's like ultimately unhelpful and irrelevant because >> oh it's not it's not unhelpful and irrelevant but it's half of the information like you learn in high school you might learn about gravity by saying well we can measure the acceleration towards the earth.
>> Um but then in higher education you learn that there's a lot more to it than it just being acceleration. here's the reasons why it happens and how it happens. Then you get to even higher education and you find out it's actually warping of spaceime etc etc. You know, school teaches you half of the stuff.
School teaches you well this is the the kind of the base that if you can get a grip with this then you can actually go and learn what it actually is.
So the uh the astronomical unit do you you agree that that is a key part of of understanding uh red shift blue shift and >> well astronomical unit isn't really red shift isn't really useful for the astronomical unit because that's just a different the the distance between earth and the sun and over that distance the um the red shift is going to be so minute that you you you couldn't even really detect it.
Red shift is much more useful for things like the light from distant galaxies because >> as the universe is expanding, >> light is traveling through that expanding universe. So let's say there's um light that comes from some hydrogen stars in a distant galaxy, right? We've tested the fingerprint of hydrogen light in labs, right? We know what light that has passed through hydrogen. It has a very particular fingerprint, right? And then we can look at the light from distant galaxies and we can see that fingerprint has moved towards the red because it's moved through space that has been stretched. So that fingerprint has moved towards the red spectrum which indicates that it has traveled through space and time. Um so that's when I say that yeah we can use red shift to see that the passage of time is a thing. We know the universe is expanding because of the Hubble constant and then we can look at the fingerprint any light that we have. sodium, hydrogen, you know, we we know the fingerprints of light when it's gone through and interacted with certain things, right? And then we can see that that that fingerprint has shifted towards the red end of the spectrum because it's been stretched as it goes through expanding space. But in the astronomical unit, which is the different the distance between Earth and the Sun, that that red shift is insanely minute. you know, it would order like probably say 10 to the negative 37 or something >> it would be ridiculously small. So, no, when when we're using even, you know, close stars that are like, you know, four, five, 10, 20, 50 lighty years away, we would rather we'd probably use the parallax of stars to um figure out the distance to those. Yes, there will be a red shift, but it's so small as to basically be unusable.
Yeah. So my question more specifically I was trying to get to is uh the the math the math behind red shift uh is it assumes the astronomical unit as the basis just like parallax right it was >> no no it doesn't assume the astronomical unit the astronomical unit is just a measured distance between the earth and the sun the the math of red shift is is based on how much the fingerprint of light has shifted towards the red end of the spectrum Okay. So >> the equation if you want um so >> for example hydrogen um line should be at 500 nanometers. Um so if it's shifted by 50 nanometers the galaxy has a red shift of 0.1 because it's that far away. Um and we can see based and that will give us an indication of how far the light has traveled because of that amount of red shift. um we know that over that distance the universe would have expanded a certain amount. So you know red shift really isn't useful for looking at things in our local part of the galaxy. It it just wouldn't be used for that.
So I I think maybe you're operating under a a misconception of what red shift is actually used for.
>> So all right uh yeah maybe maybe I uh was a little crooked on that one. the the astronomical unit is is the basis of basically all the space math, right?
That's why it's called an astronomical unit. It's how how you do parallax. It's how how all the distances out there are what they're relative to.
>> No, it's just one measure. Again, the astronomical unit is just the distance between us and the sun. That's all it is.
>> Right.
>> And it it's just one useful thing. But we don't have to use that. you know we can we can use any units that we want.
Yeah, we can say that it's you know this many AUs but again the distance between us and the sun is 93 million miles but if we want to say how many astronomical units is it from us to Alpha Centuri that's not really useful because the astronomical unit is so tiny compared to interstellar space >> light years. Sure.
So um as far as the the establishing of the astronomical unit, you agree that initi most initially it was the observation of Venus passing in front of the sun.
>> Yeah, I've done that myself. I've measured the um uh you I've measured the distance to the sun by me and a friend um in a different part of the UK both measuring the the angles that we find when we measure you we look at the transit of Venus going across the sun um and then we compare our notes and we compare the angles that we both got and then we can you use that to do some basic trigonometry and figure out the distance to the sun um and when I did it I got um about 92.3 million miles which wasn't exactly what we have but you know I didn't have exactly accurate incredible brilliant um you know equipment but it was extremely close you know it's 93 million miles and roughly because it changes slightly obviously throughout the year but yeah we can we can use the the transit of Venus um observed from two different locations to extremely accurately calculate the distance to the sun but there's much better way >> two locations >> uh well I was in Bristol and my friend was in Liverpool when we did it Sorry.
Venus was passing over what? You had a frame of reference for it.
>> Venus was transiting in front of the sun.
>> Okay. Okay. And that >> I was in Bristol. My friend was in Liverpool. We both you know measured the angles that and stuff that we found and they you know compared and then did some trigonometry to figure out well that's you know obviously this is making the assumption of how far we are away to Venus etc. But that's also been measured by radar. But that's that's old school you know. Um, since the 50s, we've been bouncing radar off the sun to accurately get echoes back and tell us how far away it is. So, we don't need to do that anymore.
>> How often does Venus pass in front of the sun?
>> Not very often.
>> Okay. U, so the >> I think I did it >> establishing the distance. Sorry, >> I'm just saying I think I did it in 2003 maybe.
Yeah. No, maybe it was sooner than that.
I can't remember the date exact date I did it, but yeah. Um, but like I said, we don't need to do that anymore, you know. Um, since the 50s, we've been bouncing radar off of the sun.
And it takes about a thousand seconds, which we know the speed of light is 183,000 miles per second. So, a,000 seconds would put the sun at 93 million miles away.
>> Sure. So the uh the establishing So you're saying that the the Venus Venus passing in front of the the sun is is basically irrelevant. It's not not uh useful um measurement tool anymore because of rad.
>> No, it it is useful. Uh and it's an experiment 2004. Yeah, that was when I did it. It is useful. Um, and you know, it is a tool uh uh to do a fun experiment, but it's not, you know, it's not something we need to do anymore. You know, it would have been a probably one of the only ways in the past to to accurately measure the distance to the sun, but now it's we don't we don't go well, we know it now because of the the the transit of Venus and measuring it from two locations that I mean, yeah, we can do that, but we've got much more accurate ways to do it. For instance, we've sent the Solar Parker probe, which is currently flying through the sun's chronosphere, um, at 483,000 mph, the fastest moving object made by humans ever.
>> And when you say we, which which organization specifically that >> just humans in general? I mean, you you know what I'm saying, right? Which >> Well, NASA sent the solar parker probe.
Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. Yeah. All right.
>> But when I say we, I mean humans. We have done that.
>> Sure. So I guess this is this is where you know my the uh non-scientific end of the argument comes back around is like what if if science is a process that can get rid of a bad hypothesis. You say that a a governmental agency that you're not affiliated or are I assume you're not affiliated with NASA. Oh, uh, I've got a bunch of people in my chat that, uh, probably work for, well, there's at least one person that works for NASA that gives me money, >> but you know, I'm not affiliated with NASA. Well, I say to give me money, they're trapped in my basement and don't really have a choice, but that's irrelevant.
>> Don't Don't tell the police.
>> Oh, I would uh sidetrack for a second to just say that in my uh preparation, I did watch I watched a few hours of your show and I I I see the appeal. You run a good uh good operation here.
>> That's right.
>> Um specifically, I watched uh you were talking to this former Scientologist uh >> Chris. Yeah, good guy.
>> Yeah, I was I was impressed by a lot of what he had to say. One thing that I thought that that really jumped out to me was that uh he he talked about an an aspect of a cult is is punishing descent. and he talked about I can't remember what it was something something pretty unusual that the uh Scientologist did to to denters and you were like uh you you seem pretty shocked. You were >> Yeah, I did. I I mean I've I've lurked uh lurked I've you know I've um I've looked into Scientology a bit, but I didn't realize that they had like punishment camps and stuff within Scientology. I've more looked into what happens to people when they leave Scientology. I didn't realize that within Scientology itself, you could literally be put in Scientology jail, you know, and forced to like clean toilets with your toothbrush and [ __ ] like that. I was pretty shocked by that, but you know.
>> Yeah, fair enough. Yeah, that's certainly a unusual treatment. But I guess I would just point out that by your own uh mission statement here on this channel, your purpose is to, you know, humiliate people that don't agree with with what it is you believe.
>> No, no. Uh, I humiliate people that act like dicks.
>> Um, and attack globers. Um, you know, I the videos that I make are purposely chosen from very specific types of flat earthers that are that will attack globers in a very specific way and I do it back. But when I have conversations online, um, 95% of the time, if I'm in a good mood, I let the flatearther decide how the conversation goes or or at least the the science denier, as I would say.
>> Sure. Yeah. I Yeah, I appreciate that.
I'd rather be and and that's only because we don't agree on the uh the definition of true science because another another part of my claim would be that anything any exclusive claim to essentially go against traditional religion is not subject to a true scientific experiment. What you would call I guess high school science, >> right? Yeah. Religion is is um I don't I'm an atheist. I don't believe in a god. But I hold the very simple position that I cannot disprove a god. I cannot disprove that we're in a simulation. I cannot disprove that the flying spaghetti monster made the the universe in five days whilst drinking heavily and his chosen people were pirates. You know, these are outside of science. What I can do is I can use science to show that the earth is quite clearly a globe that rotates in a massive wonderful expanding universe.
>> And by science you mean the collection of knowledge, not >> Yes. The the the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. That is the def you know there is no other definition of science. That is the definition of science. The study of the natural world through observation and experimentation.
Anyone else that says science is not that is wrong.
>> Okay. Well, so then what do you what kind of definition do you use for supernatural? Because I think there's a strong >> outside of science. That's what it means. It's supernatural. It's you you >> science is about the natural world.
supernatural.
>> So when you make claims about the the molten magnetic core of the earth and the ever expanding universe and you can't you can't isolate your independent variable.
>> You can I there's an entire science around that called seismology. um you we we can literally uh you know if you want an independent variable for that it would be the the you know what are the waves that travel through earth um after experiments if they're a certain thing you know and you know you can say my independent variable would be to get P waves or V waves based on what the composition of it would be um you know and you can test those things and there's seismic stations all around the the earth that are able to detect the passage of waves through certain things and waves that don't go through certain things which allow us to determine what the composition of the inside of the earth is and the Hubble constant has measured the expansion of the universe.
>> Would you agree that we don't have any type of useful predictive model for earthquakes? We can we can monitor what's happening but we don't have predictive power other than >> well we have some predictive power. uh we we can know that when the earth mantle's moving in a certain way that that would eventually give us a um an earthquake, but we don't really have the ability to go there's going to be an earthquake in in x amount of minutes.
You know that because it doesn't always work on schedule just like you know I can look at the weather and it says it's going to rain in three hours and then it's actually more sunny than we've ever had in Scotland.
>> Right. Yeah. that well I think that's another good example um ties back to does red shift prove the passage of time does not science seem to indicate that time is not a linear thing >> time what do you mean by time is not a linear thing >> there's no scientific indication that there has been a continuous stream of time from from however many billion years >> thermodynamics would disagree with you the second law of thermodynamics is basically the arrow of time.
The second law of thermodynamics that entropy will always increase within uh an isolated system is the passage the arrow of time. It shows us that time goes from here to here. Um now does time travel differently? The does the passage of time work differently depending on certain things? If you're going very fast or if you're near a large gravitational mass, that changes how fast time changes compared to another position. But, you know, time will always move in one direction. So, we're not Doctor Who. We can't jump in our TARDIS and, you know, time be a wibbly wobbly. There there is the arrow of time dictated by the second law of thermodynamics.
Sure, we can we can measure uh you can start measuring and then have say that was 11 seconds, but you don't if you if you haven't done anything any measuring then referencing 11 seconds ago is largely irrelevant or even you know what what do you know about 2010 really once scientifically speaking what >> we we recorded what happened in 2010 >> we know that was before we know that We can't go back to 2010 because that's that's previously happened. The langalers have eaten that bit.
>> So you with with the relativity and gravity manipulating the speed of time, you think is is not the the common consensus is that time is is a solid a unit, not not a >> what we think time is really humans. We gave time a unit. We we we've broken time into units so that we can measure it. That doesn't stop the passage of time being a thing. Um and and we know that um you know if satellites orbiting Earth for for them time travels differently than for us here on Earth because you relative to us they're moving at a much faster speed. So if we were from Earth be a being able to look at a clock on a satellite, it would be ticking slightly differently to a clock on your wall here on Earth because we know that time dilation is a thing based on speed.
>> Is so is that just some g- whiz information about does that so sorry I'm trying to think of the best way to put this out. If a satellite is in orbit for 30 years and it it's going through time faster, how would you say that it practically had aged longer than that or would >> Yeah, it's aged differently to things on Earth. Uh, and we know that because time dilation calculations are literally built into GPS.
If we didn't put the time dilation because of distortion of time due to speed into the calculations of GPS, that GPS wouldn't work. And you can look the source code for GPS is open. you can go and check for yourself that time dilation is part of those calculations.
>> And I don't know about you, but I I I use GPS to get where I'm going.
>> Yeah, it does. It does work. Uh is it not true that most of GPS is a is groundbased units? Like over 90% of the >> No, GPS is not GPS is purely satellites.
Well, you you need to have line of sight to a to a tower though, right? Or >> no. No. GPS does not use towers. It uses satellites. No towers. You're thinking of mobile phone signals. Mobile phone signals uses towers. GPS is not a mobile phone signal. GPS is direct line of sight to a satellite orbiting the Earth.
That's why when I was in the Royal Navy, I would use a satellite phone to to call my family. And we would use GPS because we we weren't connected to any towers.
GPS does not use towers on Earth. You know, if you're in your car using GPS, that's directly talking to a satellite above you.
>> So then when when uh you're in a mountainous area, do you have generally poor connection on GPS or not?
>> Well, no, because you can always see the sky.
>> As long as you can see the sky, your GPS is going to work.
You might have fewer satellites because some from your, you know, if there's a mountain over here and you're here, you know, you can't see the satellites that are there, but you can still see all the satellites that are there. You know, wherever you are, if you're outside, you can see the sky. And if you can see the sky, you're connected to a satellite. So there are satellites that uh such as for satellite TV you you point the satellite once and you set it and then >> yeah satellite TV uses geostationary satellites not satellites that are moving relative to the earth. They use satellites that are in orbit like 230,000 miles above Earth where do you know what a geostationary orbit is?
>> Meaning that it's it's uh appearing relative to the surface it's not in motion.
>> Yeah. So it a geostationary satellite is orbiting earth at the at the same speed as earth is is rotating. So it's always directly above a certain point on earth and you have to be a very specific distance away from earth to get a uh a geostationary uh orbit. So satellite TVs if you look at every satellite >> dish for TV it's pointed in the same direction. If you're at the equator they're pointed directly up. All my satellite dishes around here are about 45° because of the latitude that I'm at.
They're all pointing at the same spot above the equator. Um, but GPS satellites are about the same distance above us as the ISS and and Starlink, like you know, just a few hundred miles.
And they're moving around Earth uh relative to the surface about 17,000 miles an hour.
>> So, what what would be >> 22,000 miles, not 200,000, sorry, it's 22,000 miles for a geostationary satellite. Yeah. So if if the earth were stationary, what would be different about these satellites? If they appear not to move by any metric, right?
There's no you can't detect motion of them.
>> Well, they're they're rotating with the Earth. They are orbiting Earth at the same speed that Earth is ro rotating.
They take one day to orbit the Earth, >> you know. So they they they stay relative to a a position on the ground.
But if if I said that's not that's obviously not moving, would what what would you say to invalidate that claim?
How do you know that it's moving just because of the presuppos?
>> Well, because the earth is rotating when we've measured the rotation of earth.
So, uh any satellite that is remaining relative to a a fixed point on earth is rotating with the earth because we know the earth is rotating. I've measured the rotation of earth myself. I know it's rotating.
>> Okay. Which which method are you referring to that you >> I used the pendulum to measure the rotation of earth and the shape.
>> Okay. Yeah. I don't have a ton of knowledge to spew about focal pendulum.
I am I am familiar. Um I don't I don't tend to agree that the idea it it sounds like the consensus is you have to conduct it in such a particular way and in like you like I said this is one of those instances where high school science doesn't work.
You can't isolate your independent variable.
>> Well, you can your independent variable would be your position on earth because if you change your position on earth then you get a a measured drift that is different.
So your your dependent variable will be the measured drift. Your independent variable will be your position on Earth, your latitude. Um, Fogot's pendulum gets a different drift off of a straight line path depending on your latitude. So you just change your position on Earth, which is your independent variable, the thing you manipulate, and you get a your dependent variable, the drift, which then you use focal sign law to calculate your latitude.
So in a you would do you uh use the term true scientific experiment? Are you are you familiar with a true the term >> that's not a hard and fast term. The a scientific experiment is a scientific experiment if it follows the what it is.
But okay, so would you would you grant that a true scientific experiment if we're by the book to the letter is testing a falsifiable hypothesis with a controlled you have you have your uncontrolled and your controlled group where you would fully isolate your independent variable.
>> Okay, that's the high school version of it. You there's a lot more to it once you get into higher education.
>> This is kind of feeling like a bit of a science lesson rather than, you know, a a debate. Do you do you before I answer more questions, do you have any evidence of the Earth not being a globe?
>> I'm I'm happy to just turn this into a you um a physics lesson. I I normally charge to tutor um you know I tutor high school kids are doing their exams but I'm happy to do that. But if if you have any evidence that the earth isn't a globe that we can discuss that would be wonderful.
>> Yeah. Common observation. I I would like uh one thing that I wonder why hasn't been done is uh I don't remember the name of the theodolyte they use to measure measure the curve. Why why hasn't that been done over a body of water? That's always >> it has. Um do you want me to show you his website? Just go to jessequazolski.com >> um or he took one measurement over a lake. I'm saying okay >> the main surveyor has done a bunch >> um it's been done many times.
>> Okay. Yeah, the ones I've seen typically center around like a a mountain range or like a hilly area where >> Jessica was specifically used a um a lake that about a mile over a body of water. Uh the main surveyor has quite a few observations over water um >> specifically does the theolyte do to what is it modifying about what you're seeing?
>> It's not modifying anything. It it's measuring angles.
But so you can't you couldn't do that with a telescope.
>> Well, no. A telescope doesn't measure angles. No. A theodolite is specifically it's got, you know, sights on it and stuff and and it's designed and leveled and everything. A telescope isn't a telescope is just a big lens and a mirror. That that's all.
>> Okay. Yeah. Um the uh the main my main motivations toward uh rejecting the the capernicanin model like I said are more philosophical. I would I would argue that you don't have true evidence because you're not talking about the the scientific method as it applies to like pharmaceuticals. I understand your argument is that uh you know obviously the scientific method simply can't we can't >> you do know we don't use the capernac model right we use a barentric model >> right it's the basis of the solar system was >> back then not anymore we use barentric now not capernac >> sure but the the the revolution of of this the revolution that flat Earth was was put away formally in favor of of a heliocentric model was brought on by Capernicus. That was when it was kind of a government >> hundreds of years ago. Yeah. We we've moved on from there. We don't use that anymore. We use a baracentric model and current measuring methods. We we don't need to refer to Capernacus or anything like that anymore. It's not really relevant.
Well, that's interesting you would say that because uh Capernicus in his introduction here on the revolution of heavenly spirits talks about uh how no man would uh come to this knowledge without it being a heavenly >> You do know that he didn't write that um actual bit right that that was written by somebody else >> was it?
>> Yeah. Uh what was his name? The preface was not Capernicus actual argument. Um >> the sources No, they actually contradicted Capernacus's own precision.
That was Oleander's unauthorized preface trying to soften helioentrism as a calculation trick. Capernicus himself argued earth moves. Um uh so quote mining a book from 1543 and using the preface that wasn't actually written by Capernacus really doesn't help your argument here.
>> I don't see any indication in this book that that is uh the case. I'll take I'll take your word for it. Uh, I attempted to, uh, >> yeah, >> let's go back to, like I said, I'm I'm more than happy to make this a physics lesson, Rod. Um, you know, I'm not trying to call you stupid or anything, but it's clear that you're not educated in in physics like like that. Um, I'm I'm more than happy to turn this into a a physics lesson. Um, which is kind of one of the things that I do. But I I would rather >> you give me some evidence that shows that the Earth is not a globe >> because I have experiments out the wazoo to show that the Earth is a rotating globe in an expanding universe and that there you know it is what we say it is.
So let's just stick for a minute to you giving the best evidence that the Earth is not a globe.
I'm so like I said I I really don't call myself a flatearther. I don't belong to a community. I don't like talk to people about it. It's really more about the philosophical ramifications of kind of stepping out.
And I I do think there's legitimate uh problems with the idea like the the Nicholson Mley experiment. I wasn't impressed by the way they had disregarded the ether by by presupposing the vacuum of space. Is that >> Well, the the Maxi experiment didn't it disproved the aether. It it showed that you the aether didn't give the results that you would expect if there was an aether there. That that's all it did. And then they didn't really understand why uh until relativity explained it a lot a lot better. But the Mugs and Morty experiment was a test of well if the aether exists then as we're traveling as the earth is moving through the aether because they they absolutely understood that the earth was a globe in space that orbited the you know the center of the solar system that wasn't in question. They they were just trying to test for the aether wind. Like if you stick your hand out of a car when it's moving the wind's going to move your hand back, right? It was the same as the earth travels through the aether there would be an aether wind. So when you have apparatus set up for one direction versus another direction going through the wind, there should be a a fringe shift of the light pattern um that you would be able to detect. They didn't detect that. The only fringe shift there was was within the you know the experimental equipment's uh margin of error. Um so that the Mugs and Mley kind of concluded that there wasn't the fringe shift expected for Earth moving through an aether and that's all it was.
Right. So the uh if if gravity were put up to the same scrutiny as the aether in that in that example.
>> Gra gravity is probably one of the most experimented and tested things in science, >> right? Well, you you name it gravity, but there's no particle similar to ether.
>> You don't need a particle. There's no there.
So then how how can you say in in one moment that uh something that's not scientifically disproven is is valid like the big bang but then something like the ether is scientifically disproven by not being detected.
that doesn't follow.
The the the big bang is just when you look at the evidence of the universe around us and the fact that we know it's expanding because the Hubble's constant and you go back in time from that, it would show that at one point all the energy in the universe existed in in a single point. That that's all it is. Um and uh you know that that doesn't follow on to what you were saying about gravity. No one says you need a particle for gravity. I don't know where you've got that from. Gravity is the warping of spaceime as shown by the editing experiment of 1919.
>> Right. But not not in like a controlled >> what?
>> That was a very controlled experiment.
Yeah. And it's been repeated multiple times.
>> That how so how did they manipulate uh the >> the position on Earth and the time were both independent variables.
But they didn't control for gravity, right? Because that would be impossible.
>> You that you don't control for gravity.
You you you you control the things around the experiment.
>> Like you're you're >> okay.
>> You're not understanding what a controlled variable is versus dependent variable versus an independent variable there. But that again, that's all very irrelevant. Now, Rod, you might not call yourself a flat-earther, but you don't think the Earth's a globe, therefore you're a flat earther. Doesn't matter if you don't like the connotation of the word. That is just how it is. You're standing there with an edge of equidistant projection map behind you.
You know, you argue against the earth being a globe. So, you are a flatearther.
>> So, you must have some evidence for that.
>> Well, the the evidence for your case is that you get to define everything and tell me what it is and tell me what I am.
>> Well, no, I haven't defined it. We we've defined it through repeated scientific experiments, >> right? But not well. I guess my my sticking point, like I said, it's ultimately what your argument boils down to me is that your religion, your belief system, which I think if you would allow I know you would tell me you're not religious. I get that. I'm not trying to uh make make that an issue. I know your belief system, the way you see the world has superseded mine. And it's an insult to an insult to you that I would continue to believe it. Even though I would give the concession that anything that is detectable in a true scientific experiment, I would I would give a high degree of credibility to that and you know a high school scientific method experiment. I would give that uh >> again belief is completely irrelevant. I base my position entirely on logic and evidence and all of the evidence suggests that the earth is a globe rotating traveling through space.
But for you to hold the position that it's not, >> we don't need to talk about beliefs. We just need to talk about evidence. You must have some evidence that you can present to me >> to show that the Earth isn't a globe.
Like an experiment that shows it, an observation that we can talk about.
>> It fits it does fit all possible observation. When you talk about taking taking measurements of the sky, it does fit all possible observation. That is true. But there's no there's no possible negative reading.
>> Huh?
>> What what fits or observations?
>> Uh the the presuppositions of of the globe model are fit by observations, but there's no there's no possible contrary.
There's because you can never you never there there's every contrary that you know we could say the the earth is it you know a donut shape or or square or the shape of Mario from Super Mario Brothers but that's easily falsifiable through experimentation that that's what I'm saying I've got experiments and evidence and observations and you know everything that can show that the earth is a rotating globe. I understand how physics works and we can use physics to test these things. So you must have some evidence to back up your position otherwise other than your well I don't like what you say which is basically what you're doing here Rod. You're just going I don't like what what you're saying. I don't agree with that so I'm not going to accept it. And I'm I'm not not trying to be rude but that's because you're very ignorant of how science works. You've got all the buzzwords in place. hypothesis, independent variable, you know, but you're not really using them correctly.
>> The uh another example of something that uh I I always was dubious of this as as a kid. They told us I saw a diagram. I would have probably been 14 15 when in earth sc an earth science class and they show you what's all the way down to the earth's core. And I just I >> again the science of seismology shows us that it's not a presupposition.
>> There was an assumption made at the beginning and then but that that's what science is based on assumptions.
Everything is we that's what a hypothesis is. A hypothesis is just an assumption.
>> But then you make a prediction and you test it with an experiment.
>> And the entire science of seismology can let us know what the composition of the inside of our planet is.
But do would you agree that to a large a large extent all these theories do rely on each other as corroboration like >> yeah because they cooperate each other >> that that's the thing the model that we have of the earth being a globe in a barentric solar system every bit every different experiment matches and cooporates it and that's why we hold to that model because the model explains everything they all corroborate each They all suggest the same thing.
>> It's all It's all what would be considered circumstantial evidence because >> No, it's not none of it circumstantial.
It all it is literally screaming at you that this is what it is. None of it is circumstantial. It's all tested with experiments and and it all matches.
Everything matches. Every single bit of science matches the Earth being a globe rotating in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe. Which is why I keep I'm going to keep pushing back to this rod.
You must have some evidence against that other than you not liking that the evidence points a certain way. You as someone that thinks the earth is flat must have evidence of that.
Otherwise, it's just a a pure religious belief that you have which is outside of science.
I apologize for not better preparing a response to that in particular because like I said I I really the main reason I don't call myself a flat earther is like I don't belong to a community. I was really uh I found your talk about cults and such with the Scientologist former Scientologist guy very interesting because it was reminiscent of my time I suppose explo I I did seek community in flat earth for for a short period of time but I realized that uh there's not something >> I wouldn't do that it's full of saint potatoes >> potatoes >> barely saint potatoes there was a lot of good people don't get me wrong there was a lot good people. I just couldn't uh >> There's maybe one or two good people in flat earth. The rest are um puddings.
>> All right, >> let let me show you what flat earth does to you. You don't like the truth and I want to know. So then that was my other question.
Why does the truth bother you? you globies out there, the uh the uh AI generated person himself, Craig Flat fight the flat earth, he is an AI generated person. He's not an actual real person. At least that's my theory.
And he >> So that's what flat earth does to you.
It makes you think that right now, Rod, you're talking to an AI.
>> He might he might have a point.
>> I mean, I'm definitely not AI. I've met a bunch of people in my chat. I've got children. I've been married for 20 years. I'm I'm running this stream. I don't think an AI could do it.
>> Yeah, I understand. I understand.
There's a lot of eccentric people. Uh there's a lot of >> Oh, I think the reality is you have to be comfortable stepping away from the majority, stepping away from like if you don't need to agree. Uh, I guess the thing that made me really dig my heels in because at the first point I really was just asking questions, but I ran into uh I I found the defense mechanisms of of scientism offensive the way >> define scientist.
>> So you're thinking uh the the web of of theories that are not based in you know observational sciences. science. Scientism is just >> um when you base your entire life on science and nothing else that that's that's scientism. I think again you're using words incorrectly.
>> Sure. Okay. Okay. If you have a strict definition of that what that to me that is what when you say when you make a positive claim about the creation of the universe you are comfortable using science as your entire basis for life and >> no I use logic and evidence.
>> Sure. So you you call it that but you also call it science don't you?
>> Well science is something that I I use as a tool but my position is based on logic and evidence >> is there there's logic and evidence in philosophy is there not?
>> Yeah but all of that also points to the earth being a globe.
>> Philosophy does too.
>> Yeah. Everything does. Every bit of the universe that we exist in every bit of language every bit of science. Every bit of philosophy, every bit of everything suggests that the Earth is a globe. It's literally screaming at you. You go outside and look at the world around you, Rod, and it's screaming in your face that the Earth is a globe. You've got a horizon. I live right by the sea.
Every day I see the horizon. You can't have a horizon unless you're on a globe or or at least a curved surface. You can't have a horizon if the Earth is it wouldn't exist. I would dispute that because how so you would assume that on a flat earth there are no limiting factors to visibility.
>> You you c well yes the the atmosphere would certainly dim it but there wouldn't be a clear defined predictable horizon. I I wouldn't be able to go to the beach and look out and see that extremely defined line. If the earth were flat it would be an un you know it would be an indistinct blur in the distance. It would not be a clear defined horizon. The horizon is literally a bounding circle around you.
It it's, you know, the limit of what you can see around you because the earth is curving away. That's why it's the same distance in every direction and that's why it gets higher as you go in elevation. That none of that makes sense if the earth is flat. There's there's absolutely zero reason for there to be such a defined predictable distance to the horizon. If the earth is a globe, you radar has a horizon, >> but there is a variable. There is a variable as far as where the horizon is, right? We we would both acknowledge that.
>> Well, no, the horizon is where it is, but the the the apparent position of the horizon changes based on refraction. But we also understand refraction. So, as long as we're able to measure the temperature and density of air, we can then say, well, actually, the horizon is apparently moved this far based on that.
It hasn't actually moved, >> but you know, light obviously travels through a medium that has refractive properties. But then you look at something like radar which yes refracts but not as much as light we see and and radar has a horizon that is defined by the limits of the you know the geometry of our planet.
Uh if the earth was flat then radar wouldn't just stop at a certain point on the ground.
>> And how how would you falsify that claim? What what about a flat earth are you presupposing that there would be no limit to radar. So because it gets a return >> because refraction works in very specific ways and radar uses a frequency which isn't as affected by radar as the visual light that we see. It is affected slightly because all electromagnetic waves are affected by by refraction slightly but radar not so much. It's, you know, so if the Earth were flat, then you could have radar stations that were very low that could see a lot further than the radar horizon that you have.
You know, it's not like we are unaware of how refraction works. I'm wearing glasses because of our knowledge of refraction. We understand that the medium of a density and how that medium changes affects refraction. And if the Earth were flat, radar would not have a defined circle around it.
>> Would you agree there's a difference in the scale between refracting light into your eye and and what is supposing what you're supposeding is coming over the curve of the Earth >> that that >> so different in scale as to be a different concept?
>> No, that doesn't make any sense. you see light coming to your eye. Um, and we know how refraction makes the path that light travels change.
Uh, and we can even do calculations. We can say if the atmosphere is x density, then it makes the apparent horizon x distance away. We we you know um just look at the MC West refraction simulator which literally uses our knowledge of refraction and the geometry of the earth to accurately model observations that we have in reality. We wouldn't be able to do that if we didn't understand these things. Flat Earth has no answer for for that you flat earth has no reason for there to be such a defined horizon.
It just doesn't make any sense.
>> That that's that's another thing that I find really invalid. It's that is facious reasoning to say that because because I have no alternative which fallacy particular >> I have to believe the appeal to incredul say >> no I don't have an appeal to incredility it's I um I'm not saying I don't understand I'm saying it makes no sense I understand it completely an appeal to incredility would be well I don't know how that works therefore it's not true but I'm saying I'm not saying I don't understand it I'm saying it makes no sense physically that's not an appal increduity. That's That's >> But you're presupposing that you would know how things were if it was different. That's that's >> Well, yeah. I I I'm not presupposing that. I know because I've got a degree in physics.
So, I'm not making a presupposition about how the world works. I know how the world works because I've studied it and tested it. Uh, you know, I I've been at sea. I've used radar. I've I understand refraction. I've got, you know, I've I've applied my knowledge so much that I've got two BSC's, you know, so there there's I'm not presupposing anything. I understand these things. An appeal to increil is saying, well, I don't understand that. Therefore, it, you know, you can't use it. It's not that does not.
>> You're saying you >> Okay, sure. You're saying that you understand the circumstance that you're saying doesn't exist. It's not doesn't logically follow. But even if I were right, I'd still be wrong is basically what you're saying when you >> But you're not right. That's the thing.
If if you were right, there'd be evidence that you were right. Only one of us has evidence of their claim here, Rod. And it's me.
>> All you have is questions, which again, I'm not going trying to be rude here, but all your questions are based on incredility. You don't understand how it works. Therefore, you've got these questions because of your lack of knowledge. You are ignorant. And that's not an insult. It's just a straight up fact.
So let let's just let me push back once again and just ask you what evidence you have. Try not to talk about what you think the globe should do. Just try and give me some evidence that the Earth is flat.
>> How do you use a bubble level? Why why are we using water to calculate what's flat and what's >> Because of gravity.
So, >> and that that bubble that that water level um you you're in you're in America, right? And I'm in the UK are we've both got local horizontals.
If I hold a a water level here, it's not going to be the same for you here. It's local to gravity. That bubble sits in the middle of that level because it's being pulled downward by gravity.
Uh, and you know I I I've shown I've explained to you how we know that water curves because Jesse Kazowski and the main surveyor have both measured the curve of water.
>> So water is it would you agree that water can never be flat?
>> Water is never flat. No, there's not a time when water's flat.
>> So >> that kind of goes against physics.
>> Sure. So the because of because of gravity the water has a curve at approximately that same 8 in per mile squared. Is that the idea?
>> 8 in miles squared is a drop from tangent. It has a curve of 1 degree per 69 miles.
>> Sure.
>> So again let me let me keep pushing back because you you keep just saying it's not understanding. What evidence do you have that I I really want to talk about the flat earth evidence. the evidence that that there's that you have that the earth is flat, not the physics that you clearly don't understand, the evidence that you can present to me about the earth being flat.
>> Well, the physics that you're claiming that I don't understand, you you're trained on on actual physics that we can observe. But when when you're talking about what's going on in the heavens, you're making you're assuming like a spectroscope where where does the spectroscope take its reading at? It's taking the reading locally, right?
because it's not projecting out into space to go.
>> Yeah. But we've in a lab, we've tested the fingerprints of light. So spectroscopy is just the study of how light interacts with matter.
And we have in labs tested how light interacts with matter. And then we can look out into the universe and go, well, these are the fingerprints of light that we know happen when it interacts with matter. Oh, look, the we're getting the same fingerprints here.
When you when you spectroscope the sun, you're you're presuming that you're taking a reading of the light particle from 93 million miles.
>> That's not a presumption. We've measured that distance with radar and we've sent probes there. It's there not it's not a presumption.
>> Uh it's a known fact. We don't need to presume it because we know it's a fact.
>> And we is is who again?
>> Humans.
>> Yeah. Humans. Okay. Well, >> so you I heard >> in 1959 Stanford used radar and we know that light travels 183,000 m per per second and we in 1959 Stanford used radar to get an echo back from the sun that took a thousand seconds. So if light traveled for a thousand seconds that means it traveled 93 million miles.
Light doesn't randomly change speed.
We know how fast light travels.
Therefore, >> but there's no there's no falsifiability to that claim. There's no >> Well, there is. If it didn't travel for 1,000 seconds, if if the echo took less than 1,000 seconds or more than a,000 seconds, it would have falsified the claim of the sun being 93 million miles away. That's what they were doing. They they were they were trying to falsify it, but they failed to falsify the hypothesis because they got the echo back at a thousand seconds, >> which which is not the same when you're when your hypothesis can't be ruled out when you present.
>> That's what I'm Rod, you're you're you're not listening. They used radar and it took a thousand seconds to get the echo back.
>> So So >> if they didn't get an echo back at 1,000 seconds, it would have falsified it.
It's entirely falsifiable by not getting the echo back that took a thousand seconds.
>> But what evidence do you have that you're bouncing that radar off of the sun specifically?
>> Because they pointed it at the sun >> and it went 93 million miles.
>> It took a,000 seconds whilst traveling 183,000 m per second, which equals 93 million.
It's basic maths. You just take one, add it to the other, get an answer.
>> No. Yeah, I I understand that the the map supports your case. I think I it goes back to Pythagoras to Capernicus.
It's a >> But again, this is just me explaining physics and science to you, Rod. I want evidence that the Earth is flat.
>> You have to have some. And and I'm sorry to say, but you don't have a knowledge of physics, but you must have some evidence. There must be an experiment that you've heard of. There must be a video that you've got. There must be a measurement that you can site. There must be something evidence that you have that the Earth is flat that I want to discuss because all I'm doing right now is is I'm teaching you some physics. And like I said, when my I charge my students, I I currently I charge £45 an hour, right? So, we've been going for just over an hour. So right now you you would owe me about £50 because all I've done is I've taught you physics, right? And I I don't want I'm not I don't want to be doing my physics ting job right now. I want to be having a discussion with a flatearther, which would mean the flatearther, you would bring evidence of the earth being flat.
>> I mean, I'm sure you said you did uh 2,000 of these. I'm sure you have your uh preconceived notions about anything I might bring up. Well, I've got answers to everything that you might anything might bring up, but I'm maybe you made it seem on X like you were um you know, a nemesis for me and you would have the the stuff that would destroy me.
>> You know, I I think I'm going to quote you here. And you said, well, you don't want to do this to yourself.
>> Uh which made made me think, oh man, this guy's going to bring the big guns.
He's going to bring the evidence. So, let's get to that, Rod. Give me the evidence. Give me the big guns.
>> Yeah. Well, um, yeah, I was I was having a good time talking smack on Twitter. I um I I do is my understanding is that your your explanation of time being linear is is a minority opinion that >> No, it's not. That's a majority opinion.
Anyone that um understands science understands that the second law of thermodynamics is is also known as the arrow of time. Time is linear. It travels from A to B. It's not wibbly wobbly. We can't go back in time. Uh well, technically the Einstein's math says that we could go back in time. We had a wormhole with negative energy, but those things, as far as we know, don't exist.
>> But time is linear. It goes from A to B.
So when what about the passage of time is is experimentally when you're telling me that the the universe is is infinitely expanding and and you have to find a date, you know, an approximate time period when that happened. What about that is scientifically testable? And why why is it that uh my claim about creation is is, you know, superseded? I suppose that's that's where I take issue is that the idea >> there's no evidence of your claim.
>> Simple.
>> What what's the harm? So this is this is where I guess the thing that uh drove me like I said at one point I really was just asking questions and I was observing like the behavior of the people making these claims and they're telling me calling me awful things because it's like he's trying to believe the Bible.
I I >> the Bible's irrelevant. The Bible's full of contradictions. The Bible was written by sheep herders thousands of years ago.
It has no relevance to this discussion.
>> The Bible was written by people that lived in a very limited area in the Middle East and did not understand the geometry of the planet.
>> Um, and they really didn't care.
>> Simple as that.
>> Right. So that and I find, you know, you were just we were talking to this was another portion of your show I watched. you're talking to the flat earth guy that had just uh left his group, whatever. Anyway, uh he he said, "I I think you you seem to both agree on this. I think religion is great. Just, you know, don't don't shove it down my throat." So, I guess >> I don't think religion is great. I think religion is stupid.
>> Um but if you want to have religion, that's all that's all good for you. Just don't try and force it on onto me. But you know, religion 99.9% of religious people in the world still understand the earth to be a globe.
>> And do you find that uh I guess that's that's not something I first of all I don't think that's true.
I think there's plenty of uh people >> No, it is true. It's 100% true. Most of the people in the world that are religious understand that the earth is a globe. It's a very very small minority that take the Bible extremely literally or any any other holy books extremely literally and say that the earth's flat in any way. But the modern depiction of flat earth doesn't even match what the Bible would describe as flat earth.
They're not even compatible.
>> What's what's your understanding of the biblical conception of flat earth? Uh, I would suggest looking up the discussion I had with Kip Davis, one of the world's leading biblical scholars, um, who explained to me why the Bible does say that the Earth is flat, but it certainly doesn't match the modern conception of the Earth being flat. It's very, very different. They thought it was literally just kind of the Middle East, but that's just because that's all they saw.
>> And that's why that's another reason why I say I'm not a flatearther because I I don't know that it looks anything like that. I know there's problems with that.
I just I also know that there's like an example the latitude and longitude was was presupposed in your maps you you >> no latitude and latitude presupposed it was um calculated and created as a way to put a coordinate system on a sphere >> right but you this the coordinate system is >> who told you that because that I don't know where you got that but what you've just said is completely wrong >> there's no presupposing They knew the earth was >> mathematically when you calculate it mathematically that is you're assuming the shape and you you put these lines >> again we they they know that the earth was a globe the coordinate system was made whilst they knew the earth was a globe. There's no presumptions. There's no assumptions. They just knew the Earth was a globe. And they wanted to make a coordinate system so that you could figure out your position on Earth anywhere and then take that coordinate system and then put it on a flat map as well. And it would still be able to say, well, you know, we know that we're at this point based on the coordinate system. There's no presuppositions, there's no assumptions, there's no trickery. It's just they know the Earth's a globe and they did a thing.
Guys, if you've got in the chat you've got any questions for our guest Rod, uh feel free to hit me up with the super chats. Um uh you may maybe you guys can can ask Rod some questions about the flat earth. Um and and that that can help. Um Rod, we don't need to talk about the Bible. We know the Bible got things wrong. The Bible says that pi is three. Therefore, anything the Bible says about science is incorrect.
>> Sure. Yeah. That that's that's I guess where I like I said my sticking point is that I believe in the things we can touch, the things we can see. I believe that if you're trying to tell me that I'm stupid for not agreeing with you on the creation of the world or or the governing of the way things are.
I I can't wrap my head around why that would be a convincing argument.
>> So you believe in things you can touch and you can see. Do you believe in a god?
I'm saying that I'm this is where I agree that religion is separate from science. Uh you can't touch and see gravity. You you can drop something. We have an average reading for what that happens. But the idea that it's caused by everything being spinning balls in in a near vacuum.
It's it's a far-fetched to me. And it copernicus agrees.
>> That is an argument from increity there.
You have just done an argument from increity. It's farfetched to me. It's I don't believe it that you've just done the argument. I've not once done the argument for you, Rod, are doing the argument for infidelity. You don't understand it. You don't believe it.
Therefore, you don't think it's true.
>> Whereas I have tested the claim. I don't just believe what I'm told, right? I test the claim and I've me I've tested the claim by measuring that the Earth is a globe that rotates using known physics that have been shown to be true. of I mean would you agree that to some degree the uh well of course you would is silly question but the the default position everybody is is taught it's not something they would be confident about if they were not taught but everybody is taught in from a young gen a very young age really that you know that >> the earth is a globe yeah because we know the earth's a globe system little kids >> yeah I taught my kids that the earth was a globe and and solar system. One of the first things my my son ever did was name the planets and stuff. Um, so I've got a super chat from a guy called Kuros who is a cgrapher uh for $10. He says, "I'm a cgrapher. Did Rod just suggest that latitude and longitudes have been presupposed?" Rod, are you confused or do you believe that latitude and longitudes don't actually represent a real location on the surface of Earth?
When I say presupposed, I'm talking that it was mathematically calculated that it had to be symmetrical. I mean, no. Tech technically, no. I agree that, you know, I mean, I know where the 45th parallel is relative to me. Like, I understand that it's a it's a named convention, but I'm saying that if if making your map fit the latitude and longitude is is the top priority, that's what the maps are going to do. Well, no. The the maps are just a projection of the globe. Every single map that exists >> that we use today is just a projection of the globe. That behind you is called the azamoth equidistant projection globe centered on the North Pole. That's what it is. Douglas Jenkins for $5 says, um, I told my congregation, I think it might be a vicar or something about people thinking the earth was flat. They laughed.
I don't know where you got. You said you don't think it's true that most religious people think the earth is a globe. Where did you get that from?
>> I don't think that uh non-western nations are as worried about like you know >> they might not be worried about it. They still think the earth's a globe.
>> If if you're well my point is that it's not something they have to spend any time worried about if they're not formally educated which there's plenty of places where they're not. It's not, you know, >> and yet they still know the Earth's a globe.
They believe it, right? Yeah. They they >> Yeah. I guess uh I was hoping to find some common ground in the idea that we don't have a better choice than to believe what what seems reasonable, what what's been presented to us.
>> We do. We can test the the choice is to not believe what you're told and test it.
which I did.
>> Yeah. I I don't I don't find mathematical proofs compelling. I think there's something there's something >> that's another argument from in just so you're aware.
>> Uh Balfazar 499 asked Rod, "What's on the other side of the flat earth? Is it four elephants who are standing on another four elephants or or a turtle maybe?
um my understanding the way I envision it in my head if I were to try to it's like a figure 8 as above so below magnetic field you know I'm sure you've seen diagrams I um I'm sure I'm sure someone has presented this argument uh to you numerous times the idea that the uh the magnetic field is above and below and it technically I think the globe could be still an accur Accurate. No, you haven't. You never heard that one.
>> Are you trying to talk about a toid?
>> Toroid. Not familiar with the uh >> I think that's what you just tried to describe. Um the Copian Emporium says, "Question for Rod. Do you trust air traffic radar?
>> Do I trust air traffic? I'm not going to Oh, no. Not a toid." No, no, no. Um, no.
Like a figure eight up and down like um >> you're describing a toid.
>> A toroid is like a like a donut. That's what I'm seeing here.
>> Yeah, pretty much. Which is kind of what you're describing above and below.
Do do you do you trust air traffic radar?
>> Yes, sure. Sure. I uh that's entirely based on the globe.
based on the curvature of that or what it want >> based on it being superimposed onto a globe and planes getting where where they where they where they go.
>> Um I mean planes pilots use what's called the Havsign formula and all modern pilots use a software called forflight which is literally a globe.
So, every pilot in the world that currently flies is flying based on the knowledge that the Earth's a globe and planes are quite regularly getting to where they're supposed to go, as far as I'm aware.
>> Yeah. The uh Yeah, I don't know.
Yeah, my my like I said, my my argument is is on the philosophical end. It's that if if you say don't >> What do you mean your argument is on the philosophical end?
>> That that those are just words that are practically the line. I draw the line at at where science ends. I think that there's, you know, Carl Carl Pauper put forth argument 70 years ago or something that uh psychology is not a valid field of science because it's it's not a falsifiable concept. And that that's kind of where I get based this argument from. And by by his death, he had I guess got >> we're not talking about psychology.
We're talking about physical reality.
We're talking We're talking about things we can't touch and feel. We're not talking about >> we can test things. We not might not be able to touch gravity, but we can test.
Well, in fact, you know what? Like this one is um from Nick Wolf for £5. Rod, put out your arms and hands horizontally like this. Hold them for as long as you can. Eventually, you will feel gravity.
For better effect, add add books like your um your toilet paper. Sorry. Uh your your Bible. Um >> yeah. See?
Yeah. I I don't disagree that that there's a force going down. I just don't think that it's the molten magnetic core of the ball.
>> Yeah. The science of seismology would disagree with you. We know how things interact with matter. We know how waves propagate through matter.
We these things have been tested in a lab.
>> Yeah. I guess when when we grant >> would you like to talk to a PhD with seismological training?
I can bring them on now and you can have a talk with an actual PhD who you know his actually his um his PhD thesis was uh using a flat earth model to model seismic waves >> and it only worked over a certain distance.
>> I would be curious to know I mean yeah I'd be curious to know how he modeled that. What what presuppositions?
>> Well, would would you like to speak to I I I think if you're not going to give me evidence for flat earth rod, which I don't think you are going to do. Um then I you know beyond you know booking you in for an actual tutoring session, you know, it's it's kind of we're just going to go around in circles about you not understanding how science works. So maybe I if I bring on an actual scientist um with a PhD that you know works within seismology uh that that might be a little more helpful for you. So just give me one second and I will send them along.
>> Yeah. I would like to point back to the fact that I originally said I would debate you about uh red shift.
>> Yeah. And I did that very quickly.
>> Yeah. the uh the passage of time is is not a a scientifically certain concept.
It's it's >> No, it is. That's again the second law of thermodynamics is the arrow of time.
>> Yeah. Further explanation into quantum mechanics is likely to >> quantum mechanics doesn't dis disprove the the the second law of thermodynamics. They're entirely compatible. PhD Tony, I've just sent you a link on Discord, bud.
Yeah, quantum mechanics is just about waveforms and you know the fact that things exist in a superp position that doesn't disprove the passage of time.
Uh Mr. Eman says for $5, what keeps the sun in the sky and moving if the earth is flat?
Uh the firmament is uh the container for >> Yeah, there's no firmament otherwise we wouldn't have been able to fire radar 93 million miles, >> right? So you you presuppose there's no container by by what evidence scientifically speaking.
>> Well, there's no presupposition.
Gravity. We don't need a container.
Gravity does >> gravity, right? Gravity explains explains every possible loophole with no falsification with no gravity is entirely falsifiable.
It's there's no possible negative finding. It matches all possible observation, right?
>> Yeah, because we've tested it. Of course, it it is how falsifiable. It's never been falsified. Tony, hello, my friend. Welcome to the the chat. How you doing?
>> I'm well, thank you. How are you?
>> Uh, not bad. Have you been banging your head against the table?
>> Um, no, not really. It's been a very reasonable conversation so far. So, >> I've tried. I've tried, but um, would you just like to introduce yourself to Rod? explain who you are and what your expertise are.
>> Hi, uh Rod. I'm uh my name is Tony. I've been a uh a ge mathematical geoysicist for 30 more than 30 years, which means that I've been full-time, 8 hours a day, um 5 days a week studying the shape of the earth, earth's gravitational field and its rotational um and its rotation in in um space. Um uh in particular my response is the um my particular discipline started out as changes in sea level that result from changes in surface load. So between large ice sheets or um you know that sort of thing. And there's a common misunderstanding about my PhD thesis. My PhD thesis involved taking a technique, a flat earth modeling technique from seismology and adapting it to model um load defamation um uh you know so this was for small scale ice sheets like the the Swiss Alps ice sheet and that that sort of thing um was the intent.
So that's what I've been doing. And so I'd just like to address some of the things that you've said um if that's okay.
>> Sure.
>> Okay. So you keep on acting as though science is dictating to you in terms of none of the results can ever be falsified or questioned. And that's not what science does. Um I understand that some people will present science to you as though that's what it is. But what science is is um establishing the confidence with which we can hold certain things to be true. So what is the evidentiary support we have for particular um conclusions and what conclusions can we say aren't true? So science doesn't necessarily prove what is true. It proves what can't be what can't be consistent with our observations.
Would you agree that that's an accurate assessment of what science notionally is about?
>> Sorry, repeat the last part. I thought >> Okay. Science isn't about what proving is. Science isn't about science is not attempting to prove what is true. It is taking hypotheses and testing whether or not they are true and proving that some hypotheses are not compatible with what we observe.
>> Right. Right. Yeah. Rules out.
>> Yeah.
>> And that those demonstrations only hold for the evidence that we have accumulated to date. So it could be the case. It's logically not impossible that all of the evidence we have to date suggests that the earth is foidal and then tomorrow we wake up and all of the evidence suggests that the earth is flat. We can't say that that's impossible. All we can say is that the evidence we've accumulated in the past leads us to think that that's extremely unlikely and we have very we should not entertain that as a serious possibility.
Would you agree that that's a reasonable conclusion to come to >> that the evidence as we can perceive it will change tomorrow? That >> no that the ev that the evidence will that the evidence that most likely the evidence available to us tomorrow will be roughly compatible with what we've got today.
>> We don't expect reality to change dramatically on a day-to-day basis.
Would you agree that that's reasonable?
>> I do.
>> Okay.
So um you were talking the where do you want to start? Do you want to start with gravity? Do you want to start with seismology? Do you want to start with um the the shape of the earth?
>> Uh seismology. I would like to hear what you have about that.
>> All right. So so seismology. So do you so seismology is the propagation of sound waves, right? um effectively pressure waves and shear waves through a solid medium. So um do you do you understand what a pressure wave and a shear wave are?
>> Not off the top of my head, but >> so a pressure wave if if I imagine there's a block of there there are two blocks of matter. A pressure wave works like this and the pressure wave comes from um one side. It hits this block, that block bumps that block, and then returns and so on. And so it's like a bunch of It's like a bunch.
>> It's like a bunch of That's okay. That Do you want to Do you want to deal with >> Yeah. Give me one second.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Bless.
>> Just >> Sorry. So pressure wave is is impact based and uh >> yeah it's it's it's impact based and so sound is a >> sound sound is a form of pressure wave >> um and um so the sound waves that are impacting your eardrum they hit the bones inside your ear they create nerve impulses and that that and your brain interprets those. Um, so it's it's how sound propagates is pressure waves. And then there are shear waves. And shear waves are like if you imagine a rope attached to a tree and you shake the rope from side to side and you'll see little waveforms go down the rope. Those are shear waves. They're side to side.
So they're shearing. Uh, and similarly if you do it up and down that or diagonally that's that's another form of shear wave. So we've got these two types of waves and we can experiment with them in the laboratory, right? Um so we can make sound waves go through solid objects and we can tell the properties of the solid objects from the sound waves that travel through them. So we use this for instance to detect flaws in um engine components on air aircraft, right? We we propagate sound waves through them to check their structural integrity in case there are any cracks or that sort of thing. Do you agree that that's a technology that we have and that we use?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um similarly we use sound waves in pregnancies um to um to investigate the shape of the fetus inside the mother so that we can tell that it whether or not it's developing um normally whether or not it's got the whether or not it's um its heart when its heartbeat starts um whether or not its heart is operating properly. Do you agree that that's a tech technology that we we can we can um that we have access to?
>> I do. But I would like to add real quick before you continue that I there's a big difference between the fact that we get to observe you know if if that metal is broken there's there's findings for that if that you know that the accuracy of an ultrasound there's observation that is going to verify whether or not that's true.
>> Yeah. So so keep that in mind. Keep that in mind. So now we can now we can move up to um uh now we can move up to exploration of oil fields. Okay. Um so we can use um sound waves generated by either vibrophones or explosives on the surface. We can propagate them into an oil field and we can investigate the structure of the oil field. Where is the oil? Um where are the where are the mineral deposits in this field? and then we can um we can analyze them. And it's not always the case that we can get an accurate answer, but in many cases we can get an accurate answer. Um and we can accurately determine where the minerals are and we can we can test that by drilling in the location that's suggested and seeing if we find minerals there. Do you agree that that is an appropriate test of control as to whether or not seismic waves give an accurate insight into subsurface structures?
>> How how deep uh yes, how deep are you claiming that this that this is happening?
>> Um so for drilling I think for um for oil drilling I think it's down to a couple of kilometers. So um uh but you can also but we can do another we can do other tests right. So um uh we can um we can you use seismic signals to determine sort of the structure of sub well to hypothesize the sub subsurface structures. Right? And some of these structures are very specific. Um there you you'll have plates of material that are grinding up against one another. um and and sometimes when the when the stress has accumulated there'll be an earthquake and a release. So we can identify these these regions and then when an earthquake actually occurs we can say okay where was that earthquake?
Was it at the depth or near the depth where we think that boundary is? Um and very often we're confirmed to be right in our conclusions about the structure of the interior. So again, we're accumulating knowledge. We're not saying, we're not dictating to um to anybody, look, you must believe this hypothesis, but we are gaining confidence each step along. We're using So you're you're right. With a with a with a fetus, we could do an invasive procedure if we wanted to. If it was necessary to do an invasive procedure, we could do an invasive procedure. We could test if the if the fetus needs surgical intervention, we we could do that. Um, if there is a crack in the in in the rotor, we can we can look at that. If there's a problem in the oil well, we can look at that. Now, you know, we're using the same techniques on the same physical phenomenon and we're saying, okay, um, this is where we expect the problems to be. And when there is a problem, that's where it is.
So, we're building confidence in our model um, more and more as time goes on.
Would you accept that that is a reasonable way to accumulate knowledge?
>> Of course. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, um uh now we're at the now we're at the so we understand how seismic waves propagate because they're basically just like sound. And again we we've developed very sophisticated um mathematical models explain that that we can show are accurate in in both the laboratory and in the field in oil fields. We can show that we've got a very accurate understanding of how these waves work.
Um and now we're going now we've got very large events. Some of them are natural like um a large um asteroid impact or a large um or a large earthquake and some of them are artificial like uh nuclear tests um or um or other events actually um during CO when they shut down the traffic there's a lot of seismic noise the traffic generates and when that stopped um uh we could actually tell something about the structure of the earth by comparing ing the seismic signal when all the traffic was running versus the seismic signal when none of the traffic was running. So we could actually get an idea about that that's called passive passive seismology because there's this constant you know waves are hitting the the beach every that that produces seismic a seismic signal that we can analyze. So there are all of these seismic signals that we had sometimes we get some control over. Um and we can we can rec we look at these waves and how they travel and sometimes we notice patterns. For instance, the the pressure waves when they travel out, there's a distance from the epicenter of the earthquake beyond which the the the pressure waves they don't get that you don't get a single pressure wave hitting um it it slows down remarkably. Perhaps could you mind um looking at a presentation? I've got a presentation on this if if that would be helpful.
>> Sure. You should be able to see.
>> Craig, do you want to I've just got to look for I've just got to remind myself where this is, but uh so can you talk to him for a moment and we'll >> Yeah.
>> to this.
>> Yeah, Rod, I I I do appreciate you being so amicable. Um I I I do think that, you know, and I don't want to be rude. A lot of your positions just stem from not really understanding how we do science.
um a and you know what science is actually trying to achieve. Um you've heard a lot of the buzzwords and and that that's about it. Um if you're doing a degree in environmental science, then you're probably going to have to change a lot of the way that you're thinking to if you want to get through that correctly. Um if anyone in the chat got any questions for Rod, uh feel free to to shout out.
Yeah, >> I do want to say that uh I had a lot of when I was uh talking on Twitter with you about this, I did have a lot of enthusiasm to come in all fired up, but when my in my preparation watching your show, I just I was like I kind of like this guy. Not going to go in like I guess I I trusted that we were going to have a productive conversation.
I'm sorry if I uh had less information off the top of my head, but I I find the case of the idea that if my argument is I don't need to believe what you believe about what's miles beneath me and miles above me to do what I'm doing here today.
I don't I don't see it as some destructive force. like I'm not going to um bar my children like I will teach my kids uh you know what the conventional thought is about things. I'm not I'll tell them you know that I have questions about it. I don't I don't think it all adds up but I'm not going to >> There's nothing wrong with having questions. Questions are important, Rod.
Questions are the most important thing.
You should always ask questions. You should never just believe what you're told.
>> But you also shouldn't ignore the answers, which is what you were doing when we were talking on X.
>> Okay. So can you guys can you guys see my screen?
>> Yes, we can. I will make you full screen on um on the stream so everyone else can see it properly as well.
>> Yep. So this is a so this is a plot of data from the McQuary rise earthquake of 2004.
Um so the the epicenter of that earthquake is the red star on the left.
I'm showing it in an azimuth equidistant projection that's above the epicenter. So the that red star is the center of of that map. On the right I'm showing an azimuth liquidistant projection above the north pole. And what we're we're now 3 minutes after the earthquake occurred and we've got our first arrival signature which is um at a seismic station in New Zealand. I think that's Wellington. May maybe it's Oakland. It's hard to tell. Um, so we're going to we're going to move forward now at 4 minutes past. We've we've picked up the seismic signal in um Melbourne.
We've now picked it up in what looks like somewhere near Adelaide. Not exactly Adelaide. Um that's Adelaide and Brisbane. Um now we're getting uh Antarctica and Fiji. So, we'll just keep on stepping through and we'll get up to Okay, here is an interesting point. So, you'll see that the on the left the seismic wave is being picked up in a in a station in Antarctica. in the map on the right, the seismic signal has had to go all the way around the edge without hitting any of the any other seismic stations um in order to be in order to be picked up. So that map on the right, the map that you've got behind you requires some very unusual behavior for seismic waves. This is not how we expect seismic waves to behave at all.
And now it gets um even worse. You've got a seismic station on the Antarctic Peninsula. Now, you can see on the left that the seismic wave seems to be spreading out in a circle like it just seems to be spreading out from the from that center point in a roughly circular pattern. Um, and we'll keep on going because that's going to become even clearer when now.
So you can see all of these seismic stations seem to be on the edge of a circle right around around the epicenter. But you can also see something curious in in the right hand figure. In the right hand figure it also seems to be a circle but it's actually converging on the an antipital point the point that is opposite um the epicenter.
So the the the wavefront is spreading out from the epicenter on the left and it's converging on the opposite point um on on the on the um on the right.
And if we keep on going now we've entered now we've entered this thing that I was talking about which is the Pwave shadow zone. So you'll notice that there are no new arrivals. There are no new wave arrivals.
And we keep on going for a bit and then you we see that one. That's a bit of an outlier. But then we suddenly we suddenly get this cluster of arrivals like what happened? What happened to that energy? Why did those waves take so long to get there? Why were they so much slower? Why is it that when you get close to opposite the the epicenter, why are those waves suddenly really really slow? What is it that is it magic? And and it turns out that wherever the earthquake is, doesn't matter. As soon as you get um close to the um the the antipital point, you'll always see this shadow zone. You'll always see this delay.
um which indicates that the physical properties of what the what the stuff is traveling through are very different.
They're not a little different, they're very different. Um and that's the end of that.
Um another Okay, another thing that we can look at are what are called rally waves. These are surface waves um that uh the P waves and the S- waves interfere with one another at the surface. Um for waves that are sufficiently large and sufficient and and in the right depth range, you don't get them for all earthquakes. You need a large earthquake that's not too close to the surface but not too deep. So an intermediate depth large earthquake and what happens is these surface waves end up trapped near the surface and they spread out like this. like this is going to show. So, we've got the blue wave that's going um clockwise, the red wave that's going anticlockwise. Um sorry, went the wrong way. So, and this is our receiver. So, that's these are called rally waves and that's the first arrival of the rally wave. Okay?
and they go round. They go round to the antipital point and then they come back.
And again, we would have receivers all over the earth. So we we would be able to see these waves go out and we would be able to see them come back. We've just picked one receiver. Um and there's R2. There's the there's the wave coming um counterclockwise um uh around.
And there's R3. It's the it's the it's the rally wave that it's the first rally wave coming back round sometime later and this this actually continues and that's R4. Now this beha the and and sort of you can get up to you can get up to sort of six times. The same behavior is observed in atmospheric pressure waves. So so you may say look there's something going on in this interior. I don't know what it is. Um, you know, perhaps there's some weird weird thing that makes it look like these waves are going around, but we see them in the atmosphere in large volcanic eruptions like uh Tongatapu um which um the we can see these atmospheric pressure waves go around the earth um uh and they keep on going for days. Like this is three days later. You can still see the pressure wave. It's it's decohered quite a lot, but these go round and round um up to a dozen times.
So for the Tongata earth earthquake and for the um for the Crakatoa earthquake um it's interesting Crackkrakatoa at the time it was very fashionable for people to have barometers in their in their parlors and people noticed there's a big bump in in my barometer and usually they're very very smooth. What what was that? And um and uh so the Royal Society actually had to do a study and they worked out it was due to the Crakatoa the Crakatoa eruption. Um so um so what we see consistently are seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that go out from their source. They go round to a converging on a point on the opposite side of the earth and then they go back to the original point and they do that multiple times. Would you agree that this seems initially not to be consistent with a flat earth that it seems consistent with a spheroidal earth?
Well, I don't think that the other model as you point you know this the north pole projection map I don't think that's the steelman for the idea of the flat earth but I agree that it suits it suits your section second suggested model much better for sure.
>> Yeah. So this is one of the strands of this is one of the strands of evidence that I would I would tend to use and it's not a strand of evidence. Now you were talking earlier, you you and Craig were talking earlier about um uh about confidence. There are scientists who have spent their entire careers and they're much much smarter than me um uh dedicated to studying the earth's shape um earth's gravitational field, earth's rotation, um the the the propagation of seismic waves. They understand the physics behind these phenomena. they understand the the um uh what's going on here vastly better than than I do. Um and and I don't feel qualified to tell them that they're wrong. But it's interesting to me. We are taught in high we are taught in primary school the earth is a sphere.
Here are some basic arguments, right?
And in fact, if you look closely at the logic of those arguments, they're not that strong. Right? Would you agree that the Aeritosines experiment it's only a single point? It could be explained in other ways. Um, you know, so but and so when you're an adult and somebody says, "Well, the Earth is flat." And you say, "Well, I know it isn't flat. Look, I I've got this stuff I was taught in primary school." But you weren't actually taught that much in primary school. You weren't taught the detail of how we of why we're confident that the earth is foidal. Um you weren't taught the detail of why we think that the earth rotates, how we measure it. Um the precision with which we measure it. You weren't taught these things in primary school because they weren't relevant to you. But there are people whose job it is to investigate these phenomena. Um and they have very persuasive evidence.
um provided that you're technically um uh you're technically adept enough to understand the evidence.
>> Sure. Yeah, I understand the uh the appeal of the idea that we have everything nearly explained. I think uh like I I get what you guys I mean >> I I don't I don't I that that isn't my claim at all. I don't think we have everything explained. I mean, you know, is there a god? I don't know. Um, is there um, you know, um, uh, you know, there there are lots of things that we don't know. Does dark matter exist? We don't know. Um, is dark does is dark energy constant? What does it actually represent? We don't know. Um, how are gravity and um, quantum mechanics um, reconciled? Don't know. Um, like there's lots of stuff we don't know. And that's what makes science interesting. We shouldn't you should please don't imagine that we're we're robbing any everything of um mystery. Um we're just saying there is stuff that we have confidence in and the shape of the earth is one of them.
>> Sure. Yeah, I I get that. I understand how you came. I think that was that was something uh something that gave me uh the confidence to take on the the idea of red shift because it seemed to me like Craig's argument was simply that I don't understand the function. I understand that it's it's an extrapolation of the idea of the Doppler effect and it >> that >> well it's it's it's an extrapolation of it but it's also a um uh the the fact that the red shift is due to um the um there is Doppler shift involved because some of these galaxies are moving away from us but it's the inclusion of the expansion of of space like because spacetime is expanding That's what causes the red shift. It's not just Doppler shift, >> right? And I guess so two two things I I would honestly say there's no chance I would have uh dove as hard into flat earth fanaticism had I spoken to someone that presented the ideas like this. But that wasn't the reality that I was seeing >> flirt so you think there's a god. It's like I I had no choice. I there was no quarter offered to me. You if you get what I mean.
>> No, I I I can I well certainly I get what you mean because I think that there are a lot of people on the globe side who have not paused to think about how logically inadequate the stuff they were presented in primary school is. They've accepted the stuff in primary school and they will yell at people who don't accept the stuff in primary school. Um uh but but and that is isn't valid and that isn't fair. Um a lot of flat-earthers do think in detail about these things and they think well that isn't design clad you know aeritosines experiment that's only one point um you know the there there are there are configurations on flat earth that would make that work um you would need to do that with lots of different points um uh simultaneous observations um in order to make the case and people have done that updated form of the experiment and then you get into this um elaborate conversations about well is there some pattern of refraction that might explain the the apparent elevation of these celestial objects? Um might that be an alternative explanation? And um and so you get into these and then you start getting into these very technical very um confusing discussions about you know the propagation of light um refractive indices. Some people deny refraction sometimes, some people, and then turn around and deny it other times. It gets it gets very very confusing. I think it's unfair to attack somebody because they're unfamiliar with geodetic arguments because most people aren't.
It's not your job to be able to prove that the Earth is round. That's not your job. That's my job. Um uh and you know, my colleagues jobs. um it's not your job to um to demonstrate that gravity is real. That's my job and my colleagues jobs. And you know, our findings are generally they're in peer-reviewed papers where we've analyzed the crap out of this using very sophisticated methodologies and it's not designed for the general public at all. So, if you just come on to YouTube and you hit on a you hit on a flat earth video, it seems like there's no counter to flat earth arguments, but there very much are. Um, and the arguments that flat-earthers seem to find persuasive are completely unpersuasive to people who who have studied this discipline in in any detail.
>> Yeah, I agree. And I think uh the way I look at the the like I um I didn't substantiate it very well but the uh when I say I have the philosophical argument it's that I I believe the main purpose of the organization of the the product of science is is to promote naturalism and I don't meaning that there is no supernatural that it's that everything is mundane. Oh, so I think that's a mis I think that's a misstatement. Well, a naturalist would deny the existence of of the supernatural. They would deny um emphatically. Now, I'm not I'm not going to deny that there's a God. I'm not going to deny that there's a supernatural. What I will say is that those questions are outside of science.
the that the existence of God um you know if there are any supernatural phenomena by definition they're not really scientifically addressable.
>> Come on Tony we know the existence of God is disproved by the existence of witset. We know that. Come on.
>> Well I think that I think the existence of a benevolent god >> yeah is disproven. Um >> did you >> did you talk to wit about about theology at some point?
I was supposed to debate Witet about the existence of God, but he was banned from modern day debates. Um, so that didn't happen. But my argument against God was going to be the fact that Witset exists.
So, >> well, there there are there are logical there are logical inconsistencies with the with the God presented in the Bible.
Um, and so you have to sort of relax some of the biblical claims in order to establish in order to establish that God. I was a Christian myself for 30 30 plus years. Um, I'm no longer a Christian, but that needn't concern anyone here. And and I was a scientist for most of that time as well. So, um, uh, so I there's no incompatibility to me with saying God created this universe, which is an awesome and wonderful thing. God created people who, but the mechanism by which they got to their current configuration doesn't concern me. Um, the evidence suggests it was You know, there was a there was a a hot dense state about 14 billion years ago, a large expansion. Um there were slight inongruities that resulted in um in uneven mass distributions eventually star formation, planetary formation, um a biogenesis, um you know, and God could have intervened at any or multiple stages stages of that or could have just kicked it off and leftum and removed himself. It doesn't change whether or not a god exists. Um, so I'm not going to claim to you that u um I I know a god doesn't exist. I will claim that there are things in the bible that I know to be false. Um Noah's flood in particular. One of one of my academic specialtities is the study of paleo sea level indicators. Um which in as I say they involve defamation, changes in rotation and changes in gravity.
from the paleo sea level data and the geological data. No, there was never a global flood. Um it's it's it's simply incompatible with the evidence that we have. The flood the biblical flood as described didn't occur. I think there was an analogous event. Sea level rose by about 130 m over between 20,000 and 12,000.
Yeah. 20,000 and 12,000 years ago. Um and and in particular the the Persian Gulf was inundated. Um sort of sea level rose to the point where the water started flowing in and anybody who was in there would have been flooded to flooded almost instantly from their perspective out of out of there. Um so there were this is why >> what uh time scale does that uh you said 20,000ish years ago. But how far back does this time scale assume that time goes in general?
>> So the so the ice core data goes back um uh goes back 880,000 years though I think there's a an ice core in preparation now that goes back about 1.2 million years. We've got speliathem data. Speliathems is just a fancy name for the formations you get in caves.
Stallites and stallctites. the general classes speliathem. We've got speliathem data going back um millions of years.
We've got ocean core data going back um uh millions of years. We've got sea level data going back millions of years.
We've got um uh magnetic reversals going back um hundreds of millions of years.
We've then got radiomet um we've got amino acid rasmization techniques. They go back millions of years. We've got um cosmogenic exposure age dates. They go back billions of years. In fact, we've got um exposure age dating of um interstellar particles that are embedded in the merches meteorite. They're they're 7 billion years old based on >> what reason do you have uh for confidence in that figure?
>> Okay. So, um that's based on the rate at which cosmic rays um hit uh um hit the um hit objects. Um and co a lot of cosmic rays uh particularly partic well the vast majority of them in um uh in interstellar space are from you know outside the solar system. But that number seems to be reasonably confident uh reasonably constant. The reason it it does vary a little bit on Earth because our magnetic field changes. Earth the the strength of the suns and the earth's magnetic field varies over time. So the rate at which these cosmic rays which are charged particles impact earth varies. But for interstellar dust and you know for a meteorite that isn't the case. um they're outside um uh they're outside um Earth's magnetic field and they're um they're far enough from the sun the variations in the sun's magnetic field aren't going to be significant either. So it's just on the rate of at which cosmic rays um seem to be produced and seem to have been produced through time.
>> Can you understand why that type of a claim to me is pretty borderline supernatural to say that cosmic rays demonstrate to you in a scientific capacity that there was certainly time linear time 8 billion years ago?
>> No. No. I don't I don't see that as supernatural because I I have invoked no supernatural hypothesis.
>> I have said that the um I have said that the state that the laws of physics um and the physical state of the universe have have um remained reasonably constant through time. You on the other hand in order to in order to explain the same data you need to invoke either these things were created with an abnormal these things were created much later and there was an abnormal intervention to change to insert helium 3 isotopes into them um that um uh to make it look like they were exposed or you're going to have to say the in order to maintain the young earth creation timeline you're going You'd have to say that the um uh that the uh uh that all of these cosmic rays occur that the rate of cosmic ray inundation was billions of times larger um for some undefined period and then for some reason slowed down by a factor of a billion to its current rate. You're the one who seems to be invoking multiple physical mechanisms that you have no um that you have no um reason to believe exist. Um uh and um are you trying to argue for a 6 to 10,000 year old Earth?
>> No, because I'm so I'm specifically attempting not to make any positive claims. I'm saying I'm entitled not to.
But you but you are claiming that somehow you are claiming that somehow this excess helium 3 got into these samples. How do you imagine that happened?
I'm saying that there's no your your explanation fits the the evidence, but there's no you know that's mathematically based on >> well no it's not >> there's no evidence um it's the the passage of time you're using an equation right is the law >> but I but I can compare that but I can compare so I can compare cosmogenic um exposure ages against radiometric ages and they give consistent values. So now we've got two completely different physical mechanisms. One is based on the weak the weak nuclear force which governs the rate of radioactive decay um and one is based on the rate at which um the the the rate at which cosmic rays um you know the the flux of cosmic rays um onto the earth. So now we've got two completely different physical mechanisms and they give results that agree with one another. Would you not agree that that um that that provides evidence substantiating the the um both claims?
If there if there if there are errors in both of these techniques, they have to be completely in physically independent, but they have to conspire to give consistent results. And while since we're on the subject, there is a there is an alternative um geocchronological technique called amino acid rasmization.
When um in your body, all of your amino acids are left-handed, right? The there are two isomers for the for the amino acids in your body. One is left-handed.
One has a left-handed um orientation and the other one has a right-handed. All living organisms on Earth have left-handed amino acids. Now, as soon as you die and your metabolism stops making everything be left-handed, um some of those some of those um uh amino acids are going to spontaneously start turn on the impact of photons. They're going to spontaneously start turning into right-handed isomers of themselves. And so, if you've been dead long enough, you'll have 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. So um by looking at how much left-handed um amino acid and how much right-handed amino acid there is in an organic sample, we can tell we can approximate how long that sample has been dead. Um so um and those give ages of millions of years. So now we've got three completely different um uh three completely different um physical uh mechanisms for dating samples and they all give consistent results. We can look at erosion. We can see we can see Hrien's wall for instance which is 2,000 years old around about um slightly less than.
And then we can look at the erosions of the mountains. We can look at the erosions of the of the great dividing range in Australia. We know that at one from we can look at the amount of sediment that has washed off the great dividing range and is on the continental shelf and we can reconstruct what the volume of those those mountains used to be between 5,000 and 8,000 m tall.
They're now um less than 2,000 m tall. Um, so we've had weathering that has removed three to um, sorry, four to six, sorry, three to six,000 m of rock. Um, that doesn't occur quickly. Um we can look at the the there there's a sea level um curve in Wanganui where that is 5 km thick um where you've got um 100 meter units of of um of of of sediment and then the same block repeated over and over again um through 50 through 50 different cycles. These are glacial cycles. We've got um there's for instance in Oman Oman has 2 km of um glacioenic debris so glacial till um in it. So when was you know in how how long do you think you need a glacia to be there to produce a 2 km th to produce 2 km of of glacial glacial debris? These things aren't fast. um hence the term glacial slowness. Um so we've got these multiple strands of evidence that all um confirm um that um geological geological time is deep. Um and we've got these we've got these mechanical process these physical processes that give us exact numbers for them. And you know, we've got the number of layers in in um in a in an ice core that goes down to, you know, more than a million. Um the the there are vav chronologies. So vavves are just seasonal layers. Um in in winter when the when the ice is melting, there's lots of there's lots of water coming down the river and so it can carry much bigger rocks. in um in summer in summer when there well in winter when there's not so much um it's carrying very very little sediment. So um uh so so you get these seasonal variations in the Green River um in the Green River um formation in Washington state we've got like 3 million VAV layers. So just by counting we can we can see that there are that um you know the the time scale of millions of years is is commonplace. We've got multiple indicators that give us millions of years and we've got multiple indicators that tell us that's billions of years. Um so no I don't I I and and this is getting back to it.
You're not an expert in these disciplines. So it may seem to you like, well, they just made that up. They haven't confirmed that. That's just an they've made an assumption there and and sure their their hypothesis fits with that assumption, but they haven't verified it. They haven't done any independent testing. Whereas the fact that where whereas the fact is that we always take this data and we we cross-check it. We cross-check it against magnetic reversals um which is magneto strategraphy um chemical changes. So the rate at which cosmic rays comes into um earth's atmosphere varies with the strength of the magnetic field. So we can look at the abundance of these um cosmogenic isotopes and we so even if we've got nothing else we can look at that year-to-year variation and we can say ah okay we know where this wiggle pattern fits into um into our overall record. So, we've got multiple techniques for constructing this geocchroninology. And we always go back and check, is it consistent? Is it inconsistent? What the hell is going on here? So, um, and and you're not a specialist. You don't need to know this stuff. you you you know it's okay that you don't need this stuff but I would really advise you that if you're curious about this stuff your first po point of call might be either an expert in in the discipline or some or a textbook on the discipline so you have some idea where the evidence is coming from be and I understand you may you may think look a textbook is just propaganda obviously they're going to make it sound persuasive if it's in a textbook um but it will give you some idea of what we think the evidence is. Um whereas if you just come at it through YouTube videos, there's a very real chance of you getting thrown off by hitting on something and going that's interesting and it turns out to be unsupported [ __ ] that can be readily proven wrong. But YouTube is going to feed you more and more of it um until you until you find simply simply the weight of repetition persuasive.
And I I think we're going to um start calling it for for today for now. Um because we've both Tony and I have given you a lot of information, Rod. Um you didn't come with any flat earth evidence. You you've you've come and actually just been educated by by myself and one of the smartest people that I know. Um and I think that there's a lot that you need to go away and think about after today. Um how do you feel after the conversation with both me and Tony? Do you do you feel like you you have more knowledge than you started with?
>> Certainly. Yeah. I've never I this is the most um never have I been met with a reasonable response to the fact that I'm doubtful about the solar system. I've never I've had I've had people say terrible things.
You know, that's why I I guess I was trolling on Twitter uh because just the response I tend to get. Um, I put I put PhD in my handle because I was starting to get replies from uh someone who also who had the properly formatted PhD in their handle and he was kind of pestering me telling me I'm stupid and my comments smell bad and so I changed my name uh to mess with him. So yeah, I I don't I don't consider myself an expert. I have admit that my reasons uh any any reasons that I ultimately found compelling were based in in religion um and not science and that it was a wholesale discrediting of um what I consider you know I'm I'm not conceding that I the idea of 8 8 billion years ago is to me still so abstract the the burden of proof for that would would be tremendous and I I am willing to look into the things you presented and I'm I have the most faith that you presented it in good in good faith. Um like I said I I would not have when I began to believe in the firmament. I retreated to like fundamentalist Christian that was the only uh avenue that I saw and I spent some time there and that didn't work out for me.
Uh, and so I don't think um, you know, I see I see how the the Christians I I don't consider myself a Christian or a flat- earther because I because I'm not in a community. I don't have uh enough common ground. And uh, I guess for a while I felt like the the globers were the ones I had the least common ground with because I am convinced of the existence of spirits. But uh yeah, I would I was honestly coming planning on coming with more fire, but I ended up I ended up uh doing my due diligence. I was like, "Man, this car guy is kind of cool." So, I do appreciate your time.
>> Yeah, I I do appreciate your time.
>> Um if I if I had to um just say what what I would have hoped to communicate if I which I realize you guys you did just kind of tell me about physics. I thought I'd have more to say than that. But if there's something I hope to communicate, it's that I think it sucks the way you guys look down on people who just aren't getting it. Or assuming you're 100% correct, right? I'm just not getting it right. It's it's like what's what's wrong with me being wrong. It's not like I'm not going to cause a plane crash.
>> There's nothing with you being wrong, Rod. And that's the thing, right? You've come and you've been extremely reasonable with both Tony and I, right?
You've listened to what we've said.
You've you've actually taken on board some of the information. And Tony and I don't have a problem with that. Both Tony and I can get really, really angry when people just refuse to listen and refuse to actually take on board anything and just act like their nuh-uh is just as um as good as our years of studying. You know, Tony's got a PhD.
He's he's worked, you know, a big portion of his life for that. I've got two BSC's. I studied. I was in the military. I was an engineer. And we worked hard for those things. And we can get pissed off when flat earthers come on and just act like they're smarter than us because they know the earth is flat. But you've not done that. You've come here and you've listened. You've taken it on board. And I think both Tony and I can actually appreciate that. And that's why Tony hasn't gone cracker Tony and I haven't gone FTFE.
>> Yeah, Tony. I'm grateful. When you said the word, do you want to talk to PhD Tony? I was like, oh no, what's this guy? I don't know. I wasn't sure what to expect. But no, I'm glad. I think uh um I appreciate you guys time. Like I said, I appreciate the information you presented. I will I will look into it uh to a much higher degree, especially now that this like the concepts. I mean, I'm not going to pretend like I could spit back out everything you just said to me, but I I understood the meat and potatoes of it.
I I I understand what you're trying to impress upon me. Um, so yeah, I just think that if if I had been uh greeted with something like this when I was like, "Hold on, I really do. It does look like the horizon's flat, guys.
What's up with that?" Okay, the just a couple other things that maybe just fun fact that that were compelling to me in the beginning was like I Google the word satellite and it's like two pages of things that are obviously not satellite like cartoons basically like just >> that's because the majority of the pictures of satellite are artist impressions because it's pretty hard to get a photo of a satellite in space >> because that means having another craft near that satellite to take a photograph. So, of course, the majority of the pictures of satellites on the internet are going to be impressions or CGI or or >> But if I'm looking But if I'm looking for one and I can't find it, that >> But there is there is some I I could send you hundreds of actual pictures of satellites because there is a lot of them, but the majority of them online are going to be CGI because there's more CGI pictures of satellites than real ones.
>> Can I can I actually recommend something to you, Rod? Um, try looking up groundbased photos of the ISS >> because there are some spec there are some spectacular photos of the ISS um during space walks where you can actually see the the astronauts >> um uh and um you can you can correlate um sort of the footage from the spacew walk with the photograph from the ground. Um uh you can you can see that one of the older um photographs you can see the space shuttle docked um with the ISS. So there are some groundbased um uh photos of the ISS and they can achieve some extraordinarily some some extraordinary resolution on those. Um also um back when the back when um uh the space shuttle was a thing they repaired multiple satellites. Um so um the there may be some photos of some of those events. Famously they repaired the Hubble telescope. Um so uh yeah um I I will say I am rather infamous for my bad temper. If I think that I'm talking to somebody who's being intellectually dishonest um or or is being insulting, I I have very very little tolerance for that. you've been um but um but if you if you enter with honesty um and and you know at least some openness you know I don't expect you to believe me because I've just said stuff I've shown you stuff you need to go away and you need to investigate and see whether or not you find you you shouldn't believe anything just because I say so you shouldn't believe it because Craig says so you should go away and have a look at the have a look at you know the the the the corpus of scientific knowledge, the entirety of it and see if you still still find it um persuasive. Um so I'm not asking for a beance, but I am asking, you know, to to at least look, this is this is where we're coming from.
This is the evidence. Please don't just blanket deny. Please don't just ask stupid pointless questions. At least engage with the data being presented.
You haven't done any of those tricks. On the other hand, I would say being on Twitter, Twitter makes most of its money from just being a forum where people shout at one another.
>> Yeah, it's most likely in in >> text and and it's it's not a forum for um it's not a forum for scientific explanation. It's not a forum for for having open and honest discussions. So, I I would I would it basic even on YouTube, a lot of the YouTube users are just here looking for people to yell at.
um they don't know any more than you do.
They're just here to yell at you because you you you're saying, "Look, I have questions." Um and it's unfair and it's and and it's rude. But as soon as you start getting dishonest with me, as I think some some flatearthers have, and which it is foremost among them, I will I will lose my cool very very quickly because they're being, as far as I can tell, dishonest or extremely delusional.
>> It's always glorious to watch though, Tony.
Uh well, thank you. Um it's where the if you read the comments, if you read the chat, you you may notice um lots of Crackeratony references. Um that's when I erupt um when I absolutely go off. Um and I I apologize for talking so much. I have dominated the conversation. So my apologies.
>> Well, as as always, Tony, I appreciate your expertise. That that's why I bring you on because there's certain things you can explain infinitely better than I can. Um, and when I find someone like Rod who I think bringing you on is worthwhile that then I I I do like bringing you on because I think both of us have helped Rod today. So, um, I want to thank you, PhD Tony, as always for your expertise and for coming and helping with the channel. And I want to thank you, Rod, for an actual very honest and decent conversation. Um, and I hope maybe we can continue it in the future.
>> Sounds good. Thanks. Thanks a lot, guys.
Have a good night.
>> No worries. I'm going to shut down the Zoom now. So, thank you very much both of you and I'll speak to you all soon.
Have a good day, Tony. And, uh, have a good night, Rod.
>> You, too.
>> Bye.
>> Bye.
>> Well, guys, that actually went very different than I imagined. Um, I did not think that Rod was going to be as amicable as he was because we were very fiery with each other on X, but it I think it's been quite quite a good conversation and I hope you guys have enjoyed it as well. Um, I am very tired, so I'm going to read the super chats and go to bed. Got another debate tomorrow with Vince. And then on Sunday, we're going to have a bit of a community stream. I'm going to get a bunch of you on, and we're going to rank some flat earth memes. That could be a lot of fun.
Uh, so yeah, that's what Oh, also, we've just released episode 81 of Flourish Idiots, so make sure you do check that out. Uh, we have Mr. Tffies became a member. Welcome to Scrappers. We've got you are mopped. He's been a member for 28 months. says, "Oh [ __ ] 28 months."
Then sends a $2 super chat saying, "Let's get things started for our boy. I appreciate it." Bill Tetley, $5 says, "Hi, I'm Craig and being of sound mind and body, hereby release Rubik's from being my captive without any condition or prejudice effective immediately." No, don't be silly. Rubik for $2 says, "Earth is obviously donut shaped." Um, Vegas uh Iraqi been a member for 15 months says, "What university is the guest currently failing? I find it hard to believe someone who can't understand basic physics will actually graduate.
Maybe we've helped him. Um, Borg wants me to announce the start of season 3 of Star Trek Endurance. Yes, next Friday we will be starting my Star Trek nerdiness again over on top hats off. Make sure you don't miss that. Nick Wolf for five pound says FTFE. You cannot ask that question to a flur. That's why I asked them for evidence. They have never had evidence. Just stupidity and regurgitating scripts from Papa Flurfs.
David Woodmiss. Uh, David Woodmanc for9.99 says, "Say say it with me everyone. The Bible is not a science book." No, it's toilet paper. And the Mojek 199 says, "No evidence, just ever dense as normal." Rubik's for $2 says, "I think PhD Tony wanted to chat with Rod." Yes, he did. And that went very well. Larry Scott for $4.99. Let's go with creation. Earth is still a globe.
Globe. We can touch it, navigate it, map it. God made Earth. Okay. God made a globe. Well, yeah. Uh, even if we're in a simulation, it's a simulation of a [ __ ] globe. Baffazar for $4.99 says, "Must be turtles." Uh, the turtle that flies the disc world around. He has turtles all the way down, mate. Hugh Arch has been a member for 49 months says, "How can two people uh talk when one is stubbornly wrong and the other is demonstrabably correct? Because I set up the streams." Philip Craft for5 says, "Why did God say the earth has ends north, south, east, and west above the circular? What only matches the globe earth model from above a compass circle?" God never said anything because God didn't speak in the Bible. But I do think the Bible says the earth is flat.
Thank you, Kip Davis. Larry Scott 499.
First came shape. Shape divided by angles. Then came dimension.
Aeritosines. Then came navigation. Then came Well, you get it. Yes. Thank you very much. Beep boop to you, Ra. I do appreciate you.
We've got David Woodman. C999 said, "Thank you very much for the super chats, guys, by the way. You've no idea how much I appreciate it." He keeps saying presuppositions. I don't think he knows what that means yet. He had a little issue with not really understanding words correctly. The Copium Emporium for $5 says, "Rod seems nicer than many. Maybe we can work with him going forward." Impossible savior there. I reckon we can save him like we're going to save Robin and maybe even Stoops. We'll see. Basar $4.99. But did you pick up a seismic signal near the fish poster in your shed? Well, that's where it started. What you on about?
Addison Aviation $5. Aeritos needs a new Earth shape. His measurements will determine the size. Love from Oz. Hello, Australia. Uh, stupid global. Do we have the other side? Illusion for $2 says, "Flur intelligence equals glacial slowness."
I I I I fully agree. Balfazar for $9.99.
I will never not find it funny that Craig has a leg up on his competition.
Get out. Um, the bag, who's been a member for 69 months, says 69, dudes.
Mr. email original who's been around for 36 months says flat earth evidence equals negative one to the power of 0.5 that's not very much and then Robert pimp a lot for who's been for 13 months says woohoo when I feel heavy metal well thank you very much uh guys that has been a most excellent stream I really really do appreciate it uh I'm going to get out here and go to sleep um make sure you checked out episode 81 of Flurs Are Idiots going to keep going every week at Friday at 10 p.m. bringing out the episodes. Uh, episode 100 should be a big special one. Um, I'll see you soon. Remember, stupidity is not all right. Fight the flat earth.
Related Videos
Is dark matter real? - Why can't we find it? - physicist explains | Don Lincoln and Lex Fridman
LexClips
1K views•2026-05-30
Nobody Expected This Lava Reaction 🤯 #faits #facts
TendzDora
28K views•2026-05-30
Saptarshi Basu - Spectacular Voyage of Droplets: A Multiscale Journey to Extreme Flow Conditions
DAlembert-SU-CNRS
152 views•2026-06-02
A 6.0 Just Hit Hawaii — And It Came From The Wrong Place
TerraWatchHQ
115 views•2026-06-03
The Split-Second Mistake That Made Bouncing Bettys So Deadly
NoMansLandChannel
253 views•2026-06-02
The Silent Memory of Glass
UnchartedScienceworld
146 views•2026-05-30
The Difference In Charged And Neutral Particles
heavybrainspace
959 views•2026-05-29
A380 vs Every Vehicles Crash Test Challenge | Which One Win?
BeamLap
163 views•2026-05-29
