Dr. Blitz masterfully employs rigorous empirical data to dismantle pseudoscientific delusions, proving that fundamental physics leaves no room for flat-earth fantasies. This debate serves as a necessary exercise in intellectual hygiene for the modern age.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
FLERFS vs. SCIENCE - Debate Dr. Blitz [5/25/2026] [H]Added:
All right, we are live. Uh, it's just going to take two seconds for Tik Tok to go live because I didn't set it up properly like I usually do. So, that's my fault. But, it'll be ready in a second.
All right, we should be all set to go.
Howdy howdy. All right, we are ready to go.
Let me just start to get some things set up and we should be Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Here we are.
All right.
Didn't think I'd be live today. Why wouldn't I be live today?
What? What? Why wouldn't I be live today?
All right, let's bring up our first guest. Our first guest is Sober Squared. Let's see if that lives up to their name.
I don't know why I can't talk. Let's see if they live up to their name. Sober Squared, how's it going?
I don't know why I can't hear you.
Oh, well, maybe I can't hear him because >> Hey, hello. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me?
>> I can absolutely hear you. How's it going?
>> Okay. Sorry. All right. So, um I I'm going to be completely honest with you.
I am not opposition, but I did have one question. I thought it was okay since you just started up.
>> All right. Make it quick.
>> Okay. Um so, I hold to uh the white hole theory and that it falls into a false vacuum and then it starts up quantum fluctuation and so on and so forth. I was wondering if that's a valid view or if it doesn't.
>> I haven't seen any papers about it.
>> Oh, okay.
>> I'm not familiar if that's even like a thing that people take seriously. Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but I haven't seen it.
>> Okay. I just wanted to know if it was cuz uh I thought if it worked for black holes we discovered mathematically and if it works vice versa, then I wondered if it could be the case. You know what I mean? But okay, I just wanted to get your opinion on it. Appreciate you, man.
>> Sorry.
All right, let's bring up Sully.
Sully, how's it going? What's good, man?
>> Not a whole lot. Sully, what ship do you think the Earth is?
Oh, it's not a sphere. It's definitely flat, bro.
>> All right. Why do you think so?
>> Uh, measurements, microwaves, particularly microwaves are um pretty compelling evidence. Before, can I ask you a like not a personal question, but not a nonsequiter at the same time? Do you ever debate off Tik Tok?
>> Uh, like on like modern day debates or something like that?
>> Yeah. Would you ever consider something like that?
>> I have before. Um, it'd have to be a really I'd have to have really really compelling reason to do it just because I'm already so busy as is.
>> Okay. I was just going to put the offer out there, but we can move back onto the the subject. Um, so microwaves travel line of sight, right?
>> Well, they can surely.
>> Yeah, they typically do. Um, they're actually according to NASA.
>> I mean, they also refract, right?
>> Like all electromagnetic waves refract >> according to NASA. They're not affected by rain, sle, snow, clouds, smoke.
They're not really affected by that.
>> You do understand that they're electromagnetic waves, so they refract.
>> Yeah, they're on the electromagnetic uh radiation spectrum. Sure. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, they they refract. They can reflect like all electromagnetic waves.
>> So, so if we have world records of up to like 4,000 kilometers.
>> Mhm.
>> Right. the and there some that are even farther than that, but I couldn't actually when I tried to trace the call signs to and fro, I couldn't really find um like that that you had to log in to get that information. So, I couldn't access that. But I've gotten distances from like the coast of Hawaii uh some some island in Hawaii, I don't have all of those memorized, to all the way to California, which is about 2500 miles.
>> Sure.
>> Um what would be a logical explanation for that, do you think? Well, I mean like look depending on the frequency and microwaves and radio waves are similar but depending on the frequency you can have bouncing off the ionosphere, you can have atmospheric ducting. So like this is uh my view on microwaves and generally on using electromagnetic waves like light to try to figure out where we are. I mean like flat earthers like to say that you know you can't look at the sky to figure out what the ground is.
Well, I don't think that you can look at things that bend to figure out what shape the ground is either, right?
So >> well >> my my general view is we should appeal to things that don't bend that don't have these extra variables that can confound our experiments. Right.
>> Well that's the that's the dilemma that I'm having is that I'm finding it difficult to believe that it would bend.
>> You don't think that electromagnetic waves you don't think that electromagnetic waves can interact can refract can can reflect? These are >> the dilemma that I have >> the the dilemma that I have right is that if you look at like link planner or path loss >> I have no idea what that is >> when >> it's where they model these out mathematically okay >> when they after the >> is are these like websites or are these like manuals like what are they >> it's websites right for for m you can actually there's actually like amateur websites where you can you can plot out your own microwave transmission before the fact and what you do is you fluctuate the value of K your coefficient of K and that effect >> mean coefficient of refraction >> agreed that is what it should be yes >> sure >> but what it actually does in the mathematical model is it changes the radius of the earth they don't bend the light in the modeling >> do you understand what K is doing in the equations >> it's alleged to be it's actually it's funny because I have a whole PowerPoint put together because I get conflicting answers when I looked into like did Do you do you would you admit or are you aware that the value of K can be infinite?
>> It could be quite large. I've seen it measured up to like 10 or 15, but I have I don't know if it's ever been measured to be infinite.
>> Yeah, there is a um there's a formula that you use to derive it. You take your atmospheric refractive index, your n, and you divide it by your denominator would be um the true radius value of the earth 6371 km. And if that is if your refractive index is effectively zero, which sometimes it can be, you can't divide by zero, right?
>> Uh no, your refractive index can never be zero.
>> And also 0 divided by the radius wouldn't give you infinity. It would give you zero.
>> Maybe I do misunderstand because it is something that I've been looking into for a couple weeks, but effectively there is a value. If you even just Google K equals infinity, you get all kinds of information on it. It's very interesting stuff. And that effectively means that they make the radius value of the earth infinite.
>> Making the radius value of the earth infinite according to the formula that you just gave me would make the k value zero.
>> It would make it negative >> the coefficient of refraction divided by the radius of the earth. If the radius of the earth is infinite, then your coefficient of refraction or then your um that ratio is zero.
>> Have to I would have to pull up the slides. I'd have to boot up my laptop and show you. So maybe we could do this on a different day. I can I can always come back because I don't want to take up all of your time. You're >> whatever.
>> So this is the thing that's measurable, right? Like we can measure K.
>> We measure uh the atmospheric refractive index. Yes.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so it can be quite large. Like I'm looking >> for that. It's like I'm not talking I'm not talking about a formula. I'm talking about just making direct measurements.
Um I'm looking at a table right here that has direct measurements of the of the uh index or of the coefficient of refraction. And it peaks at like 15 in this graph.
Well, are you looking at big K or little K?
>> It's the coefficient of refraction. I don't know what convention you're using for the naming for the naming.
>> There's one for like standard refraction that we use in like plane surveying. And there's another that we use which is a small small K, not capitalized. And we use it for microwave.
>> Yeah.
>> One sec.
>> And that value can go up to >> So, so this is this is for optical refraction to be clear.
Um, so we're talking vis we're talking visible wavelengths of light. We're not talking microwaves.
>> But well, no. I mean the the one that I'm telling you about. Um, let's be clear. The phenomenon is the same, >> right? It's electromagnetic waves.
Electromagnetic waves bend when the medium is changing.
>> This is the dilemma that I have, right?
Is that it is claimed to be a refractive index bending the light the transmission, right? But when they model it out in path loss, they don't bend the transmission around. Like you would you would agree that it's the the radius value of the globe would always consistently be 6371 kilometers.
>> Sure. Whatever >> minus like sort for for the semantics. I I understand it's not a perfect sphere, right? Whatever.
>> What whatever the number is about 4,000ish miles, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. And but they use uh the metric system for this. I >> I understand.
>> Yes. Absolutely. Um so that would be your constant, right? So when they fluctuate the value of K, that should always be you're fluctuating the refractive index, not really fluctuating it, but measuring it and then incorporating that and bending the frequency around a constant of 6371. But when they model it out mathematically, I can link you to sources that show this.
No, they don't do that. Please don't interrupt me.
>> It's because Well, I'm I'm answering cuz I know what you're saying.
>> The point is is that there's two ways that you can there's two ways that you can model >> flatten the earth underneath of it, sir.
There's two ways that you could model this. You could either solve a very complicated differential equation which would involve a changing angle. Sorry, >> take the derivative of the derivative of >> that's that's not the complicated angle the complicated differential equation that I'm talking about. You can either take a complicated differential equation around a curved earth and use the changing index of a fraction of the air around the curved earth or you can just and and you can check that these two things are going to be formally equivalent mathematically equivalent or you can set the index of fraction to be constant and just treat the earth as larger and those are going to give you the same answer. It's just one is much more numerically numerically challenging.
Do you see how that doesn't exactly build confidence in someone trying to find out?
>> It does. You just actually have to look into the mathematics here, right?
>> I have. I' I've looked into the mathemat quite thoroughly and yes, you do use calculus.
>> Can you detail what differential equation you would have to use to solve for the path of the of a light sorry the path of a ray like an electromagnetic beam >> on a curved surface with a constantly changing angle of refraction.
Yeah, you would take calculation of you would take the derivative of pressure and temperature respectively output over input and compare that to the elevation, right? You take a derivative of Z, >> right? And then you need to map that on.
>> You only have like one you only have like one extra variable.
>> You No, then you have to map that onto a spherical coordinate system. And that's tricky because solving those differential equations, especially if they're second order nonlinear differential equations, they can get really >> complicated. Spherical. So they take it from a hyperbolic coordinate system and they change change it into a uklidian system.
>> Well, it's still it's still non uklidian or it's still cartisian, right?
>> No, not necessarily. Not if they're using spherical coordinates or in this case polar coordinates.
>> Well, we map it out using uklidian and and three and 3D cartisian. Yeah. So it looks and and actually this is actually a good point because when you have a what's the correct word here?
>> There are certain differential operators that show up in and they have different representations in different coordinate systems in cartisian coordinate systems leloian operators certain differential operators are particularly simple because the coordinate system doesn't change as you move from place to place.
It doesn't turn it doesn't bend.
However, if you take that same differential operator and you try to use that differential operator on a curved surface, that operator or rather in a curved coordinate system like in polar coordinates, spherical coordinates, whatever it might be, that differential operator can become a lot more complicated, which is why one of the things that you learn when you're taking a class in differential or in differential equations is you learn certain coordinate transformations that can make solving the differential equation easier. So, >> I completely agree. the way that we take measurements, the way that we evaluate things uh in or the way that we yeah the way that we take data often is using cartisian coordinates. You're right because you know we live in this threedimensional world and it's just convenient set of coordinate systems.
However, if you want to then solve solve for a trajectory on a on a curved surface which is you know allegedly what we live on, you have to take that data coordinate transform it and then solve a complicated differential equation across the surface of a circle.
My point is that my point is is that there's two ways you can do this. You can either solve the complicated differential equation or you can get the exact same answer out just by treating the differential equation as an algebraic equation which is what happens if you treat the coefficient of refraction as constant or sorry the coefficient of the refractive index as constant and then just treat the earth as larger. They will give you the same answer. One is significantly more numerically expensive than the other.
>> Numerically expensive. It's literally one extra >> soling. I let you I let you finish, sir.
I did. I let you finish. So, it's not actually that much more complicated.
It's an additional variable, right? It's it's actually not that much more complicated. And if um this is just concrete as I believe it to be. It's it doesn't like I said, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence when we quite literally extend the radius value of the Earth theoretically in concept to be infinite in value. And if you would agree with me here, if you have a sphere with an infinite radius value, it can't exactly be a sphere anymore, now can it?
Because it's not even any shape really.
But the surface of that shape would objectively be flat. So they do flatten out the Earth. Even when they incorporate 43 >> what?
>> Yeah. Even when they incorporate 4 over3, like standard refraction, what they claim to be standard refraction 1.33, they still flatten the earth underneath the transmission.
>> When you say flatten, it doesn't make it flat. It makes it >> bigger radius. That's That's what you mean. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So to be clear, um >> are you familiar with solving differential equations?
>> Like is this something that you are >> to some extent?
>> So would you be able to write down what the differential equation is for a electromagnetic wave in a on a curved surface?
>> No, not with electromagnetism. No, not necessarily.
>> Which is which is what a microwave is.
So you have an electromagnetic wave on a curved surface with a changing index of >> refraction. The problem that I have is that I'm no expert, right? But these people are alleged to be experts. So why are we simplifying just for the sake of simplicity sake?
>> Because you get the same answer. Why why would you bother solving a harder problem when you can get the same answer?
>> You get a radius value that is infinite that is not the same answer.
>> The answer that you're trying to solve for when you're doing these kinds of calculations is like where is the microwave going to end up when I go this far away? That's the answer. The answer is not the radius of curvature. That's used as an input so that you can get the amp the answer correct for when you want to figure out where the microwave will end up 600 km away. That's the point, right? You're not you're not actually like we're not saying the radius is actually changing.
>> 2500 miles.
>> I I know. I was just giving you an example. I was just giving you an example. We're not saying the radius isn't actually changing, right? What's happening is that you're you are modifying your model so that you can capture a complicated feature with a simpler feature.
Does that make sense?
>> Okay. So, can I give you a thought experiment? Right? Like if you have a location like from Hawaii to California where we had to make the radius value of the because in cases of tropospheric ducting, they always use K equals infinity. This is objective, right? They always they always don't >> that is objectively true. If you do if you do a little bit of research into it, you will find that is objectively true.
Um, and then if you if you have one location from from California to Hawaii where tropospheric ducting is used and K equals infinity there and then you have another location like outside of Perth to Australia, right? Like then you have another location where the radius value is infinite, your model is not exactly a sphere anymore. Does that does that make sense?
>> No, I mean it is still a sphere as long as you have a as long as you have a non infinite radius. And by the way, I'm not actually seeing that they use a co that they use an infinite coefficient of refraction. I'm not seeing that anywhere.
>> I will I tell you what, bro. If I had my laptop, um it's at like 30%. I don't feel like booting it up. It's going to die.
>> That's fine. We don't We don't I mean, we don't have to go over that now. So, >> have time. I will show you if you have time.
>> Uh I mean, you have time.
>> I don't I don't have like two hours, but if I have some time, I have like 10 minutes, but I don't know how long it'll take. The point is is we like I can just grant you that this is contentious for you, bro. I can just grant you that this is contentious, right? That there is apparently some sort of contention between flatearthers and globe earthers here. So what we could do is instead of using things where like clearly electromagnetic waves are things that bend and like they do refract. This is something that's well understood. Uh and the question is how much do they refract and what kind of effect does that have?
Instead of using electromagnetic waves, why don't we just use something that doesn't refract to try to figure out the shape of the earth? That see that seems like a way of eliminating this extra variable which is causing contention. Oh no.
>> Well, see, according to NASA, these things don't even tend to refract. That was my original argument.
>> I don't It's obviously the case that all electromagnetic waves refract. This is like well understood physics. It's been well understood for 150 years. I don't know.
>> Possibility. You're highly focused at like >> I don't know which NASA you're talking of like 10 cm. Crazy claim >> with Oh, I can show you. With a wavelength of like 10 cm on a on a such a highly focused potent beam of electromagnetic radiation traveling in a straight path, it's not going to tend to refract. Here I have the source right here. Microwaves penetrate haze lane light rain, snow, clouds, and smoke. Uh, this is from science.mnasa.gov.
>> Doesn't say anything about refracting.
>> Okay. Unlike lower frequency radio waves, they cannot pass around hills, meaning they cannot defract. They cannot pass around hills or mountains and are not refracted.
>> The same thing as refraction.
>> Go ahead. Continue.
>> See, you're not letting me finish now.
And are not refracted or reflected by atmospheric layers.
>> Okay. So, they don't have to be refracted by atmospheric layers, but they can still refract, right? Like if I just Google microwaves, >> do microwaves refract? The answer will be obviously yes. Yes, microwaves do >> refractals infinity stuff.
>> I mean it do you agree that this is contentious?
Do you want to see the K equals infinity stuff?
>> I mean, sure, if you want, but I mean, the point is is this is going to be contentious, right?
>> I mean, it feels like you're just want you don't want to talk about it. That's what it feels like.
>> Well, I mean, look, there's clearly like a gap in the understanding that's perhaps going both ways. Like, I don't know a lot about microwaves. Like, I'm not a microwave technician. Um, I do know a lot about like electromagnetism.
So, like there's clearly like a gap that we're that there's causing some contention here. So instead of talking about something that is contentious, >> I'm trying to dissolve that. I'm trying to dissolve that and just source my claims.
>> Okay. Big box me.
>> I can't box you. You're on four platforms and it won't show up on all platforms.
>> Okay. Well, here >> you can give me the source, though.
>> You're not going to be able to you're not going to be able to read it.
>> Can you give me the source?
>> Way to model this phenomena is to >> like where can I find it?
>> Uh, it's a long one. Westernstates forum.orgdocucc.
>> Wait, hold on. westernstatesforums.org That's fine. 2006 doc slashd documents 2006 >> the states forums documents 2006 slash Yeah, sure.
>> 2006 2006. There's two 2006s.
>> Yep.
>> And then a percent symbol 20 ws tiff.
Forgive them. uh band of uh micro motorcycle people.
>> Write your audio is cutting out. T U R N What?
>> You there?
T N U L LF T U R T U R N E L L.pdf >> B U L L PDF.
>> Sorry, your audio is just cutting in and out.
>> Big boxing me would make this so much simpler about what the four platforms >> literally on four four platforms. It'll like break all of the live streams.
>> So, can I just read it to you? So it's 20 accepted way to model this phenomena is to use a coefficient of k that modifies the mean it's percent it's percent 20 t u r b u lpdf >> how about I just >> I don't know why I don't know why I can't just I feel like there's got to be >> over this with me >> just western state forms but documents/206/206% 20 ws tt i f percent 20 tur R B U L.pdf.
Is that correct?
>> T U R N T U R N B U L. You only made one typo. That's really good, actually.
Congratulations.
>> Saying that the site can't be reached.
>> That's actually really cool.
>> Westernstates forums.com PDF, bro. I understand you're not going to reach it.
>> It's Is it accessible on the internet?
If so, I'm going to re I can reach it.
>> Well, I will send it to you. How about that?
>> Okay. Yeah, sure. That's fine.
>> Okay. And I'd like to read something that I found on this and I can give you a different source if that one if you'd like to verify a second.
>> The reason the reason why the reason the reason why I want to take take a look at this is because like I don't know this source like what is western states what is western states forums? Is it a is it like a reputable source? Is this just like a slideshow put together by some rando? Like that's that's the question.
And so I'd like to take a look at the source.
>> What about urgentcom.com?
>> I have no idea what that is.
Communications.com.
>> I have no idea what that is. Mhm.
What about evangolutions.com?
>> Do we have any like any scientific studies or edu sources or anything like that?
>> This is the efficacy of how microwave transmissions work. This is just the efficacy of what you will find if you just Google K equals infinity.
>> Okay, Google.
>> Okay, just Google Kals infinity.
>> Microwaves.
>> Okay, so I see microwaves 101.
Uh that may or may not be it. So the name of contact here here.
>> So apparently the stability factor is used is capital K.
>> Planning a microwave link. It's not just line of sight. Try that.
>> Okay.
Planning a microwave link. It's not just line of sight. Sure.
>> There's a semicolon in there, but I doubt you'll >> Yeah, it's fine. Okay. So this is from Evans Engineering Solutions. So this is like a guy I I don't I don't even know what or PE is, but that's fine. Um he's giving a Okay, so this is some sort of engineering thing. So he says >> Hold on. I just I'm I'm just going to pull it up for both of us. Okay. So we can look at it together. Can we see it?
So this is what we're looking at.
>> Yeah.
>> You're going to want to go to page 11.
>> But this is the document, right?
>> Yes. You're going to want to go to page 11.
>> So I'm just going to scroll through if that's okay. Okay, so we have some theory. Making sure you have a clear zone account for propagating conditions.
Setting your fade merch and adding up against blah blah blah blah. Okay, so type of radio wavelengths. I'm sorry.
>> What does that say?
>> This is a um satellite looks like.
>> What What's that right there?
>> Yeah, that's a cartoon. Why don't you scroll down to page 11?
>> So why does your own document say that these waves are can be refracted?
Hold on.
>> You're cutting out again, >> you're cutting out again, >> bro. I'm I'm going to turn off your video. Hopefully the uh connection will be a little bit better.
>> One more time.
This isn't just me, right? Chat, you guys can confirm.
>> Yeah, probably isn't the best.
>> Okay, it's not just me. Chat can confirm that your audio is like cutting in and out really, really bad. I can't understand anything that you're hear that you're saying.
I got nothing.
>> I don't know what you're saying.
>> He hit his lag switch. That's so funny, though.
>> Can you turn your Wi-Fi back on? Plug your Ethernet cable back in behind me.
That was real convenient timing. I'm actually curious what it says through the rest of it. Consider consider a signal from a transmit point to receive point. Okay, so there's some free space path loss. Okay. Uh for frenel for frenel clearance of the microwave link, we consider the calculated first frenel zone. Frenel zone is basically the region, if I remember correctly, it's the region in which Oh, he left.
It's a bummer.
The path in Fresnel's should be plotted on a terrain profile graph with earth curvature. Huh?
What? Why would we do that?
>> Oh, he's back.
>> What does it say on page 11?
>> We're going to scroll through the whole thing and read it. So, we have Earth curvature here, which is interesting.
What is this K factor in path studies about? The K factor takes into account the refractivity in the atmosphere which bends the beam either up or down. It is the effective earth radius divided by the true earth radius. In effect, the bending of the beam up or down makes it appear as though the makes it appear as though the radius of the earth is less than or greater than the true earth. A k factor greater than one means the beam is bent towards the earth. Less than one means the beam is bent upwards. K factor considerations. For k greater than one, the radial horizon is longer than the optical horizon which allows shorter towers. K factor of 4/3 is used in most case most cases for planning a link in wet coastal areas. However, K can be as low as.5. Lower K requires higher antennas. Interesting. I didn't know a lot of this stuff, so I appreciate you bringing this up. Going back to our SDL path with K equals 4/3. Okay, we have a we have a new path with the curvature of the Earth included. Path is redrawn for K equals 1 true Earth radius. So we have more curvature and less curvature, I suppose. And so I guess the point is is that you can get like it you have to you aim higher. So that's interesting. Now plot it for K equals infinity. They would never use They would never use >> flat earth. Okay, so here we have a flat earth.
>> What does it say after that?
>> It says flat earth. K equals infinity flat earth. It's also possible to plot microwave link in Google Earth.
>> Can I say something or are you going to like monologue through this and act like you don't understand?
>> Wait, you wanted me to read it. So we have flat earth, we have true earth radius, and we have k= 43.
>> I'm going to I'd like to This is This is you becoming extremely uncomfortable in front of an audience of 700 people. Bro, >> I'm actually wildly comfortable because they outside of >> Yeah. Great. A cartoon. Uh, when we model that out in >> Do you think they're refracted waves?
>> Do refracted waves do my ref to model that out in reality. We have to change the value of K to model that out in reality.
>> So, why did you say that? Most of the time they use Kals infinity.
>> What's four over three? What's four over three? Blitz. We talked about >> 1.33 repeating. It's a number.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah. So, you would divide four or three by four, right?
>> No, you divide four by three.
>> Four by three, right? Four by three. I I spoke it right the first time. So that would be your assumed earth radius divided by the true earth radius. Yeah.
>> Right.
>> As a result which gives you which gives you 1.33 of the actual radius value of the earth.
So they do not keep the earth the earth radius constant. They never use it tells us what k is >> k is the k is the effective. can't use K equals 1 cuz that would assume there is >> it's not explained that before you asked me to source it >> it's not the physical >> you act like you didn't learn all of this from me before you brought up the document now you're learning >> I mean this this guy better explained it than you did I guess so what does the K factor say it takes into account the refractivity where I got all the information which bends the beam up or down >> so wait a minute actually I'm kind of curious why would they ever use K lower than one.
>> There's a thing called um Okay, there's a thing called uh sub. I I haven't actually they would use two over three >> um says as low as 0.5, which is smaller than two over three.
>> Oh, so somebody in your comments knows it better than us. Okay, >> I'm looking at the This isn't from the comments. This is >> I've never seen that, but I've seen two over. the document that you told me question and not let me finish it. Are you really winning?
>> How have you never seen this? It's in the document that you told me to >> not let me finish.
>> No, I've never seen that. Dude, are you answering? Are you going to give me a chance to speak?
>> Go ahead. Please explain why >> I've never seen that actually be used.
>> Okay. Are you a microwave technician?
>> I've never seen it actually be used.
I've never seen it actually be used.
>> Are you a microwave technician?
>> They use 2 over3, which would not be.5.
What would 2 over three be? But it would be 66, right? It's 666 repeating. Yeah.
Are you a microwave technician?
>> Yeah. So it's not.5.
>> I'm sorry. Are you a microwave technician?
>> So when the actual like efficacy of using these I thought >> are the actual efficacy of using these as low as two over three from what I've >> Are you a microwave technician?
>> Right.
>> Are you a microwave technician?
>> Appeal to credentials automatically. Are you losing that bad?
>> No, I'm not appealing to credentials.
Just answer the question.
>> Are you losing that bad? all of this that I had to teach.
>> This isn't this isn't an appeal to credentials. I'm asking you because you said that you've never seen this done.
Now I'm asking what you mean by see this done. If you're a microwave, I've never seen I've never actually like seen what do you mean seen? Did you actually go out and like see how the calculations were done or did you are you just looking up like the documents and then monologue through it? Bro, >> you you actually have to answer some questions sometimes.
>> Listen, let me >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, please.
>> I am. I'm trying to. You're not allowing me to. All right. It's so crazy, bro.
You're actually getting cooked so hard.
>> Oh, this is so embarrassing.
>> If you look into the different formulas that they use, and I will I will source you different formulas that they use.
I've never seen 05 be used in any of the uh specific transmission links that I've looked into. I've seen 2 over3. I've seen four over three. I've seen infinity. And I've never seen one.
Right? Because you can't actually use one. You can't use the true Earth radius value because we do have an atmosphere.
>> Now I have a question.
>> That's what the claim is. So they can't actually model it out. Was this all for modeling? You understand that, right?
>> I have a question solely. So what do you think?
>> This is all for modeling, right?
>> Solely solely question. So what do you think is the what are the conditions and clearly you know you know about this.
What are the conditions in which you would use 2 over3 >> if it was refracting upwards? I'd imagine you'd have to have low pressure and on the underneath and then like high pressure above.
>> Okay. And what are the conditions where you would use 43?
>> The opposite.
>> Okay. Now, is there a smooth gradient between low pressure above and high pressure below and vice versa? Is that a smooth gradient?
>> All you're doing is giving credence to me not seeing point five uh visible in reality cuz we >> areing the question.
>> No, I'm answering your question. You answered your own question.
>> It was a yes or no question. see.5 in reality because the pressure gradient decreases as you go up.
>> I'm not getting at that. I'm asking you a question. Is it the case that there's a smooth transition between high pressure here and low pressure here and vice versa?
>> Typically, yeah.
>> Okay. So if there's a smooth transition and it's that it's that uh pressure gradient according to you um if it's that pressure gradient that causes this and there's a smooth transition in the pressure gradient the intermediate value theorem from calculus would indicate that the K value there is some atmospheric conditions where the K value is exactly one or that's what you would use.
>> We would never I've never seen K equals 1 be used.
>> Okay. But you understand that if there are conditions where K equals where K is less than one is used and there are conditions where K is greater than one is used then the conditions between >> I've never seen a condition where K equals less than one.
>> I'm just asking I'm just asking you to think logically here right if there if we know that there are conditions where K is less than one >> give me an example of K equals less than one >> please please use your new Wait you you've already given me an example where K is less than one.
>> Yeah that doesn't happen in reality.
Wait, you don't think that they they ever use K is less than one in reality?
Didn't you just cite an example?
>> No.
>> Wait, you said that you've seen them use K is 2/3. That's less than one.
>> I've seen them state that it is >> it is viable >> for intents and purposes.
>> They don't use it in reality.
>> You're never going to Okay, this is where you have >> What do you mean they don't use it in reality? We're talking about modeling.
modeling and reality are like like you use numbers in model. You have to let me speak. You have to actually listen sometimes. Okay. You >> have to let me speak. You have to have to let me speak. I'm actually going to address what you said.
>> I have to listen to you. You can't ask me a million questions and then not let me answer any of it.
>> Okay. I'll just turn you down. I'll just turn it down instead. So, look, the point is is that you don't use numbers to make measurements about reality. You use numbers to model reality. So, of course, you're not going to see K is less than one in reality. you're only going to see it in modeling because that's where the that's where the numbers are used. Model numbers are used in modeling. So you've already agreed that you use K is less than one in modeling. You use K is greater than one in modeling for different atmospheric conditions. And so there will be some atmospheric conditions where you would model that with K equals 1. And that follows directly from the intermediate value theorem of calculus.
Go ahead.
>> Can I speak now?
>> I did just say go ahead, did I not?
>> Okay, cool. I couldn't hear you. So in modeling, yeah, but remember that the refractive index is supposed to be the value of K and that they don't actually change the refractive index when they model it out. They change the radius value of the Earth. They flatten it out and sometimes they even bend it up depending on how it actually, but I've never actually seen that be used, but they can actually bend the radius value to make it uh convex or concave rather concave.
So just to be clear, >> that is literally what K does. It changes the it changes the radius value of the Earth.
>> Yeah. It's Yeah. Yeah.
>> So in reality But in reality, this is where this is where you have to interrupt me, right? But in reality, >> microwaves travel in a straight path. We model them in a straight path. We flatten the earth underneath of it. it every single time we have to flatten the earth underneath of it regardless of what modeling mumbo jumbo mathematical nonsense we have to do doesn't matter what the like would you agree to that you just got cooked bro please hilarious >> turn this around on me >> it's crazy to me that you think that this actually demonstrates that refractive that that microwaves don't bend that they don't refract because if you use any K value that's not infinity that implies bending and you've already agreed that modeling is used where K is not infinity You use K values, you use K values of 4/3 and 2/3 according to >> according to I don't care how frequently it's used. Please don't interrupt. They do use 2/3 and they do use 4/3 according to you which means that it must bend because the Earthlight is slightly smaller using you said those things. You said that they use that in modeling which is what we're talking about here. They're trying to model a real world thing. This is where you have to let me finish cuz you're misrepresenting.
>> You were you were interrupting me in the middle of my sentence and you're accusing me of not letting you finish.
I'm sorry. Please try again. So the point is is that if there is any non if there is any mute you again my argument.
>> Okay then you can correct me when I'm done. If there is any >> if there is any K that accurately represents the world around us that's not K equals infinity that implies that there is some degree of bending. Go ahead.
Okay. In modeling, they use anything from what I've seen from 2 over3 to 4 over3 to infinity. They never use one, which is be which would be what you would use because they claim that one is when it bends perfectly around the earth. Even though that what is what you claim is happening, they don't actually use it.
>> It follows the true curvature of the earth. One is when it follows the true curvature of the earth. Yes.
>> No, no, no, no. It's that's not when it follows the curvature of the earth.
That's when it that's when it travels in a straight line and the earth is and it doesn't bend at all and the earth is just curved underneath it.
>> One would be representative. What's what's 1 / 6371?
>> It's 1 divided by 6371. It would be some tiny number.
>> Yeah.
>> Negrab that's happening here.
>> Okay. Like if you take K is if you take K is equal to one that means the effect of Earth radius is equal to the true Earth radius.
>> Do you understand that? Which means that in that case the light would just travel straight. The microwaves would just travel straight and the Earth would curve underneath it and it wouldn't follow the curvature of the earth if K equals 1.
>> You understand that?
>> One is one is attributed to a true Earth radius. Right? When k equals one, the effective earth radius and the true and the true earth radius are the same.
>> That's the Yeah, that's >> that's what it means when k is one.
>> So that would mean that if travel if it were to travel >> go ahead.
It would it would follow the if it were to okay so if you have two trans a transmitter and a receiver 100 miles apart okay you transmit a link and those connect okay and you have a k factor of one that means that it followed the true curvature of the earth that is what should be used >> that's not what k equals 1 means no >> I mean we can go look at the plot right okay so now it's not >> so look at the plot so here here in green >> scroll back up scroll back up scroll back up yeah k equals No, down down.
>> Yeah. Yeah. The here. Yeah. Yeah.
>> To the diagram right there. True Earth radius. Wow.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, let's look. Let's look.
Hold on. So, here we have if we if we emit at say 2500 and then we have straight line trajectory, right? That's the green. Green is a straight line.
It's just the path of light taking a straight line. Not uh just just taking a straight line as if there's no refraction at all. Then the final position is 20 m higher than the initial position. That would not be following the curvature of the earth. That would be going straight while the Earth curves below it, therefore ending up at a higher altitude. It This seems like it's backfiring for you cuz I I just don't think that you understand like >> when they model literally flatten the earth, bro. That is >> That is literally the argument. When they model it out, they flatten the earth. And that's because microwave microwaves will bend down in some scenarios. And so it'll be like the Earth was larger. They will travel as if the earth is larger because of the refraction.
>> Oh, the joker laugh is not a good look.
If you're trying to not be not be thought of as crashing out >> so much so it'll be so much larger that it has an infinite radius value in some cases.
>> If you have total internal reflection then yeah.
Do you know what total internal refropospheric ducting which is when this is used?
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's what total internal ref total internal reflection is.
It's It's used in tropospheric ducting.
>> Do you know what total internal reflection is?
>> I'll take that as a no. Look, so I agree.
>> No. And I'm breaking up again.
>> I can hear you just fine.
Doesn't sound like you're breaking up.
>> You're breaking up then. I Well, I have red bars.
>> I don't see red bars on your connection, but it's possible. I can't see the red.
For some reason, I can't see when you have red bars anymore. Um, but look, I mean, this is a totally totally um >> I think it's fixed.
>> Okay. So, I'm glad that >> I answered your question. I said no, by the way.
>> Oh, that that you don't know what total internal reflection is. Total internal reflection is when you have a medium where uh where where you have some medium and then some external medium perhaps where the index index of refraction is sufficiently different between the inside of the medium and the outside of the medium that you can't have defraction sorry refraction according to Snell's law to leave the medium so it just reflects and that's you would call it tropospheric ducting. Um now look we can agree we can agree to disagree on this.
Why don't we just go look at something that doesn't have any refraction at all and we can agree on that. Then we can just go look at what shape the earth is using that kind of uh that kind of method of taking measurement data.
>> Would you would you agree that the only variable that they actually use and fluctuate is r?
>> I don't know why you're ignoring what I just said.
>> Well, I just want to like be on the same page with you for once, right? I'm trying to be, but you didn't answer what I said.
>> The only variable in Oh, you're going to like you're I'm trying to like I'm trying to level with you, bro.
>> I I literally question and you're just ignoring it completely.
>> You're not the only variable in the equation.
>> If the only equ if the only variable in the equation that they actually change is the R value consistently, whether it be in plane surveying, they do the same thing with plane surveying. They use 7 over 6R as well.
Then that's your that's not a constant.
You can't claim that the radius value of the Earth is constant. You literally have to fluctuate it to make transmissions work >> mathematically.
SHUT UP. SHUT UP. SHUT UP.
>> Why can't you just answer my question?
>> Why can't you agree that the only variable in the equation is the R value?
>> I'm not going to agree to anything. I'm not going to answer any of your questions until you can answer mine.
>> Sorry. Like if you want to engage honestly, you have to be willing to answer questions on occasion.
>> The R value.
>> That That's a cool claim. Now, you want to address my question?
>> The only variable in the equation is the R value.
>> Oh my god, it's like a broken record.
Somebody poured water on him. Like, what happened? Do you want me to ask it again?
>> Proceed, but I'm not going to change the stop. You want to run away from this.
That's what's happening. You want to run away? I'm not letting you. The only variable in the equation is the R value.
Why is that?
>> He's like a broken record. He just keeps saying the same thing over and over again.
>> Why is it the only variable?
>> When does the R value become a variable that you want? It's lovely that you want this question answered. To be clear, I have actually answered this question already in the past 15 minutes, but I guess you didn't pick up on it. I asked you a question and you are >> hilariously running from it. You're like, put on your running shoes. got onto the track and you're just sprinting away from it as fast as you can because you know that you'll lose if we talk about anything besides microwaves.
You know that you'll look even worse than you're currently looking.
>> Like I I've now spent like all that bad I think I taught you quite a bit >> to be clear. I've now spent 40 minutes with you talking about microwaves and you I still know more about it now than you did coming in because apparently I can actually understand these equations much better than you can. You thought that when K is one that meant that the effective Earth radius was one and the true Earth radius was 6378 or whatever.
That's not what it means for K to be equal to one.
>> Division of the two.
>> Yeah, clearly. And an effective Earth radius does not mean an an effective Earth radius of 6378 does not mean that the electromagnetic wave would follow the C the curvature of the Earth. That's not what it would mean.
What in fact the K value says it like it describes it right here for us. In effect, the bending of the beam either up or down makes it appear as though the radius of the Earth is less than or greater than the true radius. That's because of the bending. It's not actually greater than or smaller than the actual radius of the Earth. It's that the bending of the beam makes it look that way.
>> So that's why the effective radius is changed in the equations because it's that's how it appears to be due to the bending of the beam.
Now we have we have spent model it. You don't bend the beam.
>> You can do one of two things.
>> I know you like answered that already.
>> You you you can do one of two things.
You can either make the earth baker and not bend the beam or you can keep the earth the same size and then bend the beam. They will give you the same answer.
>> Why don't we do the ladder then?
>> Because the ladder is much more complicated numerically.
>> Much more difficult of a formula.
>> It really Okay. What's the formula for it? Tell me.
Like I said, you would take your derivative of P uh over your derivative of temperature. Probably. No. Right.
>> Or derivative of height. Maybe derivative of height.
>> Nope.
>> Pressure over height.
>> Nope.
>> Then you tell me.
>> So first, so there there's a general way.
>> You would have to know the frequency.
>> There's a I mean mildly, but we can even ignore that. There's a general way that we can do this. You would take the coariant derivative which is in in this case in spherical coordinates or in polar coordinates if you want to work in two dimensions of the index of a fraction times the path variable and you would set that equal to the or I'm sorry you would take the yeah you would take the coariant derivative of the path length the the path length vector like dx d lambda or something like this times the index of refraction which is a function of position and you would set that equal to zero. Now, that is a nonlinear partial differential equation.
Good luck. Uh, good luck solving that. I mean, it's doable. You you could solve it numerically with an annoying with an annoying uh like a numerical calculator, but it' be a pain to do when you could just multiply the the true Earth radius by a single number and then solve it as you would normally do it with while treating the index of a fraction as constant. Like, it's makes it so much easier.
>> And yet, you're saying, "Oh, just solve a partial differential equation. That's so much easier than just solving a like a an ordinary OD. I guess an OD is already ordinary.
>> Well, of course, but my my claim is it's not >> Don't Well, of course me. You don't know what either of those things are.
>> Original or ordinary differential equation. Yes, I know what an OD is.
>> Okay.
>> Let's slow down here, bro. It's like >> Have you ever solved one level map?
>> Yeah, I had to do it when I was doing this. Yeah.
>> Okay. I was doing OD which OD did you solve? I'm curious.
>> Uh for atmospheric refraction just simple ones.
>> Oh refractive index.
>> So the the atmospheric refractive index.
So you solved the uh Okay. Yeah, sure.
But you didn't solve. You're going to get me off. You're going to get me off guard here. But it's like 776 times pressure over temperature. And then you either add I think you add three.
You have to get the water vapor uh divided by the temperature squared and then you need a derivative of temperature and over height. Temperature and output of temperature over input of uh height.
>> And how did you solve this differential equation? What method did you use?
>> It's math, bro. I did not actually do it though.
>> Oh, you didn't?
>> I filled in the blanks with like arbitrary like 30°.
>> Okay. So, you didn't solve the differential equation.
You just plugged in values and you didn't actually solve it.
>> Yeah, that's how math works, bro.
>> No, it's not. Do you >> you do plug in values and you do just solve things. That's >> solving a differential equation isn't just plugging in values. There's actually like a process to solve a differential equation. There are things like you can use uh integration. You can use constants of integration to solve second order differential equations. For example, you can integrate both sides if you want to solve a first order differential equation that's separable.
Like there are methods. I was just asking you what method you used, but I don't think that you actually solved the differential equation at all.
>> Okay.
Does that make the earth a ball?
>> Well, it makes your critique a little bit, you know, kind of fall on deaf ears because if you don't know what you're talking about, I'm not really sure why you should care about >> I increased your viewer count by quite a bit. I'm not going to lie. I mean, people love to see me cook, but you know, um, also to be fair, you did join.
You did join right as I started, so like people were going to trickle in anyway.
Uh, but like, look, >> pretty sure I haven't seen you with anywhere near this many views in months.
>> Um, I had,200 views last week when I was live doing the same topic.
>> Okay, >> so that was 300 more. But, um, >> well, so only when you debate flat-earthers do you get views. That makes >> people like the flat earth the flat earth content more than the uh um more than the creationism content because creationists tend to be fewer and far further between >> um and people don't like philosophy very much. Uh that's a shame. Look, so um you know what would be great and you know what would make things a lot easier. So um hopefully you now grant that solving the differential equations involved for a spatially changing index of refraction for a particle of you know a beam of light traveling through the air is can be fairly complicated and you don't like that they use it that they just make the earth change its size miraculously to account for that fact. So instead of doing that why don't we just work with something that doesn't have any refraction at all.
Dude, if you want to change the topic, you can. You can.
>> We're still going to talk about We're gonna We're still talking about beams.
We're still talking about figuring out the shape of the the shape of the Earth by the way that the beams travel. It's the same thing. It's just we're we're just going to use something that is, you know, a more controlled variable, if that's fair.
>> I mean, sure, bro. You're desperate.
You're desperate to bring up something that you have overwhelming confidence in. I'll give it to you.
>> I mean, I I now have overwhelming confidence in this. Not because like I'm an expert microwave technician, but because clearly you have way less knowledge than you thought you came in with and so like I'm confident that I can come to the conclusions correctly.
>> About less than a month of research into this topic, I'm pretty well I'm pretty well planted in my feet. I would argue that I did pretty well for someone who's been studying this for about >> Not really.
>> No, I was able to go toe-to-toe with you and you this is your profession and I was able to go toe-to-toe with you, but I didn't do very well.
>> Mr. Cool, man.
>> Okay. Anyway, so >> I had to teach you what K what the factor of K is. Yeah, that's cool.
>> Well, you didn't tell me it right. This website did >> you thought it was you thought it was little K. You thought it was little.
>> You thought it was index of refraction.
By the way, actually, just as a check, um the refra the uh the refractive coefficient that I that I was using, which is referred to as little K that I was referring to uh is the same quantity by the way.
So this is a paper that I was referring to where they measured the index of refraction >> K versus K >> here. Uh so here's a table you have.
>> What is what is it you're saying?
>> So this is this is so they call it little K, but it's the exact same quantity that you're calling big K.
>> It's the effective Earth curvature radius divided by the by the true Earth curvature. So So little K and big K are identical in this setting.
>> Formulas to derive them.
>> No, it's the same formula. I mean like it's effective earth curvature radius divided by true earth curvature radius.
Yeah, sure >> where >> uh back down.
No, you scrolled past the part. That's interesting.
>> Little bit more. Oh no, no, no, that's not down. Oh, now you're lost. Now you don't know where you are.
>> Here. Where do you want? Do you want Do you want further?
>> There's a graph there somewhere.
>> There's >> Right above it. Right above it.
>> Oh, the one part that you won't show.
Isn't that interesting? I I have no idea what you're talking about. Which part do you want me to scroll up or down?
>> Can't even make most of that out to be honest. It's a little blurry.
>> I can make it bigger. You should have said something.
How's that?
>> Go up a little bit.
>> Hold on. Let me Oops. Uh, let me just make this slightly bigger on the other streams as well.
Uh, there we go. Okay. Up a little bit.
rolling.
>> This one, this graph, >> what is this representative of exactly?
The value of K.
>> Yeah. Well, not this graph, the ones further down that I showed you just a minute ago.
>> No, the these are just measurements.
>> Measurements >> of the value of K.
>> There's a lot of ways to derive K.
>> These are measurements.
like standard refraction you don't um >> these are measurements not not >> standard I'm sorry plain plane surveying you do different >> yeah so like >> what was your other topic >> yeah yeah we can we can talk about that um yeah so have you ever heard of nutrinos >> yeah have you ever observed one >> uh no I also have never observed like a bacteria but you know I know they exist >> oh well I've never observed the curvature of the Earth and I don't think it exists either. So >> I didn't say that. I don't think it exists.
>> We're going to bring up something that's not observable.
>> Well, I mean like we can detect them. We just can't see them with our eyes, >> right? There are a lot of things we can't we can't see with our eyes.
>> The probability of them. You detect the probability of them.
>> Oh, this is going to be really awkward for you. No, you don't detect the probability of them. You detect them directly. They smash into things and you see light that is emitted as a result of them smashing into things.
>> You sure?
>> Yeah.
>> How do you know it's a nutrino?
>> Because we can measure the charge of the things that come out. We can measure the trajectory and its influence on the electric magnetic field where it's coming from.
>> How do I know what's c? Well, you can turn off the source and when the source turns off, the detector stops detecting things.
>> Do nutrinos have charge?
>> No.
>> And then how does that work?
>> How does what work?
>> How do you detect light from something that doesn't have charge? How does it how does it transfer energy?
>> So, they smash into things and they interact via the weak nuclear force.
Based on what evidence?
>> Basically all of particle physics starting in the 40s up till today.
>> Like physics is entirely so just to be clear, you want the you want the evidence that they interact via the weak nuclear force. Do you want the evidence that um nutrinos exist? What do you want the evidence for?
>> This is your claim. I'm wondering how it even proves that the Earth is a sphere to be honest.
>> I'll show you. I will show you. And then you're going to try to nitpick it and that'll be fine. We'll have fun doing that. Okay. So, um >> do you mean I'm gonna ask you questions about your claim?
>> Questions are fine.
>> I didn't realize we were going to debate.
>> Questions are fine.
Uh let me just find the right chart and let me find some useful diagrams that will be instructive. This is on section section 3.3. One sec.
I'll show you in a second. I just want to pull them up.
3.3.
There it is. Okay. So, there is a particle beam. There's a particle collider in fact at in Firmeny Lab. This is near uh near Chicago. It's just outside of Chicago in Betavia. Um it's called Firmay Lab. Surely you've heard of it.
>> It's a pretty big deal.
>> No, >> you haven't heard of Fermy Lab. Okay.
Well, it's >> not that big of a deal. No.
>> I mean, it was a several billion dollar project, so you know, I kind of assumed that.
>> Yeah. So is so is child trafficking.
>> Okay. Anyway, um so there's a it's a national laboratory in uh just outside of Chicago. They they have particle colliders. They run a lot of different experiments, but one of the experiments they run is something called the Minos experiment. Um and what they do is they they produce a beam of particles that decay into nutrinos and then they shoot those nutrinos across a very long distance to a place called Sudan in Minnesota. It's 7 what? 730 km away.
Something like this. Yeah, 730 km away.
Now, the reason why this is relevant for the shape of the earth is that if the earth were flat, you would think that you would just have to let's say that your uh your beam of nutrinos started out on the surface of the earth and your detector was also on the surface of the earth, you would think that you would just point it straight, right? you would just point it straight along the ground and then you detect them at the detector. Now, if the Earth was curved, what you would expect is that you would point it you would point your beam down into the ground and then your detector would pick them up coming up from the ground.
And indeed, in order to make these detections happen, the particle beam has to aim into the ground at roughly a three°ree angle. And the particles are detected in Minnesota coming up from the ground at a roughly three degree angle.
So the particles are going like this. If the earth was flat, the particles are traveling straight. If the earth is a globe and the funny thing is nutrinos, they don't refract at all. Uh they don't they're not charged.
>> They travel in a straight line. Right?
So um if they travel in a straight line, we need to explain why it why it is. You have to point them down into the ground.
in order to be picked up coming up from the ground somewhere else 730 km away.
And this experiment is like a thing that exists. I have data for you here.
>> Can you show me my nutrino?
>> Is that is that the going to be the sum total of your argument? No. Like you can't see nutrinos with your eyeballs.
>> Yeah.
>> You can't see nutrinos with your eyeballs. They're not photons. You can only see photons with your eyeballs.
>> You're breaking up again, by the way.
you there?
>> Yeah, I know. Um, photons may or may not exist. Also, >> you can see them directly. So, they definitely do exist.
>> How did you prove that it interacted or does not interact?
>> Sorry, one more time. You cut out.
>> You see lights. How do you prove that it interacts or does not interact?
>> That nutrinos interact or don't interact.
>> Do not interact.
>> Well, so they do interact. They just don't interact via the electromagnetic force.
>> They don't have charge.
>> They they interact via the weak nuclear force.
>> It's just rare, >> right?
>> I don't know. This seems pretty trust me, bro. I'm not going to lie, man.
There's not a lot of like What are you showing me?
>> I'm showing you data.
>> How does this prove that the Earth is curving?
>> This right here. So, and I'm happy to explain this. So this is this is the data for this particular experiment. Um and so we can just look at the actual thing. So this is this is collected data. And then we can have look at the uh the nutrino background here. That's the NC.
That's that see those uh those gray bits there. That's what they that's what they expect and that's what they measure when the nutrino beam is turned off at Firmeny Lab, which is you know over in Illinois. And then when they turn it on, they get all of the it's the black dots that are fit with the red with the red lines, the red bars. And so clearly there's a correlation between doing something in Firmayab and something being picked up in Minnesota, they turn one off, you get no signal. You turn you turn it on, you get signal again. So there's a correlation there. And regardless of what >> correlation, establish causation.
>> I I I wasn't done.
What this is doing is it's establishing that there's a relationship >> in this case. Yeah. Because you have controlled you have you have a way to control the correlating factors, right?
>> When you turn one off, the other one does turn off. Sorry.
>> Any chance you can send me this?
>> Yeah, it's I mean it's freely available.
Uh I can just I'll just show you the link. You can take a screenshot if you want.
>> Hold on. Let me get a Can you zoom in?
There you go.
I'll I'll show you the link for the other thing, too. Um the other one has a little bit longer of a URL, but so I have to make it a little bit smaller, but one sec. How about that?
>> Yeah. Zoom out a little bit. Yeah, >> got it.
>> Okay. Invisible things don't prove the Earth is curving. I will say that >> lots of things are invisible. Do you think that Do you think that you can see wind?
Can you see the ether?
>> Yeah, you can see the effects of wind.
>> You can see the effects of wind. You can't see the wind itself, right?
>> You can >> you can see the effects of nutrients.
>> You can see um well, technically speaking, technically speaking, like if you have fog, right, which would still be an effective wind, like you would have fog moving, but Yeah.
>> Yeah. But you can't be detected like a four four kilometers per second.
>> I'm sorry. Can you see it or is are you just seeing its effects? Because what we're seeing here is we're seeing the effects of nutrinos.
>> So do you believe in ether now? So do you believe in ether?
>> No, I don't I don't believe in ether.
>> No, I don't believe in ether because we have scientific experiments that rule that.
>> Oh, but it can be detected.
>> I don't think it can.
>> But it can be detected.
>> I don't think it can. I think that you think it can.
>> Really? Like what?
>> But even in your >> like what?
>> The entirety of special relativity and all of the evidence in favor of it.
>> We ruled out ether. How did we rule out ether? How did we rule out >> special relativity?
>> How did we rule out ether?
>> With special relativity. All of the experiments that are in favor of special rel >> All of the experiments that are in favor of special relativity are evidence against the ether.
>> But look before we and we can talk about the ether if you want. But my point is >> No, no, no, no. You want to talk about No, I want to talk about this.
>> We can talk we can talk about it in a second. I just want to put a pin on this. Is that okay?
>> What disproved?
>> I I just want to put a pin on this really quick.
>> I just want to put a pin on this really quick. So the point is is that we have the like we agree that there are things that exist that you can't directly see and instead we measure their effects like with wind and in your view what you think the ether is right we measure the effects of these things and then you can infer that they exist and so what we're doing here is we're measuring the effect of the nutrinos and through the last 70 years basically we have inferred that these things exist they have certain properties we know how they behave pretty well there are still a few questions but we know how they behave pretty well and so now this particular experiment wasn't about proving the shape of the Earth. It just happens to do so kind of just by accident because they have to shoot this nutrino beam into the ground at a 3° angle. And when they detect it, it comes up and out at a 3° angle. And nutrinos aren't the kind of thing that bend. They don't they don't refract at all. And they can pass through solid solid material of thousands of kilome thick. So, we need to account somehow for this fact that somehow the nutrinos seem to be bending despite not actually ever bending in any experiments we've ever seen. If the Earth is flat, alternatively, the Earth can just be a sphere and they're traveling in a straight line as we know that they do.
>> I let you put a pin in that.
>> You want to talk about the evidence for relativity? What disproves the what?
>> The evidence all of the evidence for special relativity is evidence against the ether, right? The two are incompatible.
>> I need specifics.
>> Okay.
>> Um, so are you familiar?
>> I agree that they're incompatible. I actually do agree.
>> By the way, it for some reason it says you're teacuped, but I can hear you.
>> Uh, can't call it, bro. Tik Tok's weird.
>> Okay, one sec. Let me pull something up.
Here is a >> I promise you I'm looking at your face.
You're looking right.
>> Just checking.
>> You were.
>> Um, so here is a nice uh summary. It's a nice web page that has some Let me just zoom this in a little bit. It'll make it easier to read and it'll take up less space.
So, this is uh maintain maintained by Tom Roberts.
The name doesn't have to mean anything to you, but it's just the name. Um, sorry, I'm just getting the sizing right.
And so, so here's a page that has all the experimental evidence in support of relativity. And we can just go find one that's And by the way, these are pre-1905 experiments. We can go scroll this particular ones. If you want ones of uh time dilation, for example, there's a really famous one. Um, or wait a minute, this is this is the one I was thinking of. I still was thinking of the one that involves muons, which I think I have somewhere. Made a video about it.
Uh, but so, uh, oh, no, no, I'm sorry.
It was this one. It was the measurements of particle lifetimes. So, um, here they, uh, they actually made a movie about this, which is really neat, and it exists on YouTube where they actually like go over what the experiment is and what they showed and what how they collected data and things like that. Um, I can pull up the video if you want.
It's like it's available. You can watch it on YouTube. Um, >> just so people can take a screenshot.
>> Um, lifetime experiment. I have no idea what that is.
>> Oh, I'm sure you do. Actually, somebody's probably brought that to your attention before. It actually gets into >> it gets into relativity pretty good. It gets into like Hubble tension and dark matter and dark energy cosmological finetuning problems like the called the principle 2014.
>> I've never heard of it.
>> You know what the capernac principle is?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It it talks about that.
>> So, it's okay. So, so this is a documentary from 1962. It's 35 minutes long. It's fairly short. Um and >> it was basically made as part of an experiment. So you have some scientists that were running this experiment. And I think that they had like an undergrad student or maybe it was a grad student that said, "Hey, you know, it would be really cool if we also made a movie out of this so that, you know, we can kind of teach people about this strange thing that we're measuring." And so they did.
And it's it's actually like like it's just really well done. It's from the 60s, of course, so things are a little bit slow, but uh I would definitely recommend people check this out. It's a really well done really well done documentary. And it explains how they're actually providing evidence for special relativity. That's what's uh that's what what's in question here. In particular, there's a certain kind of muon or a certain kind of particle. They thought that they were mess at the time.
>> Everybody watched The Principle 2014 by >> Okay, >> I would recommend the 2014 principle, the the principle 2014 as well.
>> You see how this is like we could go for on YouTube videos.
>> Well, look, the only reason I gave you this is because people like often flat earthers don't like looking at scientific papers. They prefer YouTube videos for whatever reason. So, this is a YouTube video where they explain all the entire scientific process.
>> Scientific papers. We talked about scientific papers.
>> No, we didn't. Are you talking about this? This isn't a scientific paper.
This is a PowerPoint by like at some like engineer sources from NASA. Bro, >> you didn't give me any sources from NASA. I'd love to look at that.
>> I gave you I gave you a NASA source.
>> You gave me a quote that you said was from NASA.
You didn't give me any sources >> when the conversation first started. But anyway, so >> I can bring it back up. If you want more evidence for relativity, this is the place to go. There are literally hundreds of papers uh and dozens of types of experiments that demonstrate the validity of special relativity.
Like it it just goes on for so long.
>> We get a chance to talk about the dark the dark matter and dark energy problems that come with relativity.
>> Uh those aren't problems for special relativity.
are they're not >> no >> missing mass missing energy problems for special relativity. I have a feeling that you don't know what special relativity is.
>> How do you how do you remedy them then?
How do you remedy?
>> Special relativity doesn't care about mass at all. Special relativity doesn't doesn't include gravity. I guess you don't know this.
>> Well, general relativity superseded it.
So, you're not even on board with this.
>> General relativity could be wrong.
Special relativity is not in question.
And special relativity is the thing that dismantles the ether.
>> Still, you have >> Okay, but you still have missing mass, right?
>> That's a cool pivot away from special relativity. It's completely unrelated.
>> Well, you didn't disprove the ether, so you pivoted away as well. Like >> I I gave you an entire web page. I gave you an entire web page that And you know, you can prove it.
>> You didn't read a single source.
>> Do you want me to go Do you want me to go pull one up for you? I can pull one up for you if you want.
>> Yeah, let's read Let's read what they say on Michael Morley. Let's read what they say.
>> Oh, why are Wait, do you want me to provide you the evidence that I think is evidence for special relativity or we I mean we could go look at Michaels and Morly, but that's just for >> talking about disproving the ether. So, I would imagine going to a source that has to do with ether would be a good place to >> be clear the what we're talking about is we're talking about providing evidence for special relativity.
>> Are you scared to show Michaelson Moley in front of a thousand what's going on?
>> Let's read this together.
>> Yeah, let's do that.
>> Hold on. I'm going to zoom in a little bit just so then it's bigger so then we can all see what I'm reading.
Is this big enough? Can you guys see it?
>> Relative to the luminiferous ether. Yes.
>> It was intended to measure Earth's velocity relative to the luminiferous ether, which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and other experiments to actually observe motion.
>> The failure of it and other early experiments. Wait, you sorry. You told me to go read about what it says about the Michaels and Mory experiment. I'm doing that. So, please don't interrupt.
the failure of >> assume a dynamic or a failure of it and other early experiments to actually observe Earth's motion.
I'm going to read this I'm going to read this like you asked me to. Okay, >> this is your request.
>> I wanted to look at muon lifetimes but you have questions about it. Right.
>> I'm in the middle of we can talk about it afterwards. I'm in the middle of >> you did they did they assume this is a very beginning this is very beginner.
>> Why don't you just let me read the thing that you >> Why don't you answer my question? Did they assume a stationary ether? So in the case of Michaelson Mory, they were investigating whether there was an ether wind.
>> Assume a stationary.
>> They were investigating whether there was an ether wind.
>> They assume a stationary.
>> They didn't assume anything. They were looking for an they were looking for an ether wind >> and they were trying to see if the measure they were trying to see if there was any sort of detectable ether wind.
And the answer is apparently no.
>> The failure of it and other early experiments the failure of it and other early experiments to actually observe its motion through the ether. Okay. So I'm going to take out my headphones and I'm going to turn you down so that I can finish reading this. Okay.
Um, so the failure of it and other early motions this has taken up too much of Einstein's theory of special relativity as it was appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach via symmetry was more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other approaches those of Maxwell Herz Stokes Fernel Lorren Ritz and Abraham.
The following table comes from Rsh Shankland at all and here's the citation which includes references to each experiment resolution limit on the ether from the original sources. The expected fringe shift is what would be expected for a rigid ether at rest with respect to sun and earth's orbital speed 30 km/s. So the michaelelson morally so they they expected a 0.04 fringe shift and they measured a 0.02 apparently they didn't provide an experimental resolution that sorry that was the michaelelsson morally expected a 0.04 fringe shift and measured less than 0.01 with an upper limit on the on the speed of the either of 8 km/s. Uh and then we have a whole bunch of other experiments morally mory miller uh we have Thomas we have Miller again this was a reanalysis done here we have Kennedy Illingworth picard style Michael and Juice so uh apparently before 1950 it was common to not perform a detailed error analysis and not and to not record error bars or resolutions. Now um now that I'm done reading that do you want to say something? Oh did I turn myself down? I may have turned myself down. Rest in peace. Oh he ran. I also turned myself down. Wow, that's so cringe. I can't believe I turned myself down.
Apparently, I must have cooked him really hard.
Feels bad that I turned myself down, though. Um, aren't I aren't I uh like obviously professional? No, no, I know, but YouTube didn't hear me. Um, well, that was kind of embarrassing for him, huh?
Let's see if he uh joins back in the live. I mean, like, I'm happy to cook.
It's uh you know I may not cook in the kitchen, but I definitely cook in the live stream. Um but he definitely ran away pretty pretty quick when I started reading.
I mean look like I get that he may thought he may think it's rude that like I didn't let him continue talking um while I was trying to read the thing that he asked me to read. But I like you have to let me read the thing, right?
Anyway, um there are so the just so just so you guys know just so then we can make this at least valuable education wise. The relevant thing that I actually wanted to bring up which is fascinating is uh this particular one which was done by who was it done by uh Fr and Jame Fresh and Smith and I think that there's a paper. Yeah. Yeah, here it is.
Um I think it's this one.
Uh so here's the paper. Uh so this is the paper that this um that this documentary is based on or the documentary films the recording of the data uh for the paper.
Um so here's the paper. It says measurement of the relativistic time dilation using muons. We now call those muons. An experiment has been performed to demonstrate the relativistic time dilation at a as a large effect using only comparatively simple equipment.
Mumezon incident incident on top of Mount Washington, New Hampshire were selected to have speeds in the range of N995C and 99954C um sorry 9954C. The number of these which survived to reach sea level was measured in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The number expected without time dilation was calculated from the distribution of decay times of these mimons. i.e. the mean lifetime is measured in both this experiment and others and from the known distance of descent. The observed time dilation factor is 8.8 8 plus orus8 to be compared with the effective time dilation factor calculated for mezons of these speeds in our detection geometry of 8.4 plus orus which is to say uh and and I can just summarize what's going on here because it's a fascinating experiment and it's really really well done. Um so which is to say you have these things called muons. They come down from from the sky they rain down um and uh they only last for a certain amount of time if you make them on Earth which you can in particle accelerators.
If you make them on Earth and they're really really slow they decay in about 2.2 micro. Now, if they started out very high up and they rain down, um, then you'll detect more higher up than you will Oh, please turn your volume down.
Oh, turn your volume up. Oh, okay. This is really delayed. Um, the volume should be fine, though. So, uh, hopefully.
Anyway, so the point is is that you'll detect more on top of a mountain than you will at sea level because some of them will have decayed as they go down.
And so you can predict how much more you will measure at the top of a mountain compared to at sea level based on that decay rate, right? Uh and so if you assume that there's no time dilation, you will get some ratio. I think that you'll detect like what a thousand like a like a thousand times more at elevation than you would um without it.
I' I'd have to go rewatch the the documentary again. But if you do assume time dilation is a real thing, then you expect like a factor of eight difference, like you you only you only expect to lose a few. And lo and behold, what you find is that actually the muons, they decay more slowly when they're raining down from the sky, when they're going at 99 and a half% the speed of light.
So this experiment actually demonstrates that the the internal clock of a muon is much much much slower when it's traveling very very quickly. And that's time dilation, right? That's that's evidence of special relativity. Anyway, let's read some super chats and we'll bring on our next guest uh from Jack Feder with the $5. Sy got destroyed the other night by MC Tune with the same derp. He's a teu physicist. He just makes up science to suit after a chat session. That checks out. Yeah, it seems like he didn't understand what a differential what solving a differential equation is.
Seems like he didn't understand what the coefficient of refraction is. He didn't understand what refraction is really.
So, that kind of checks out. Uh, from LA's with the two with the two heroes. Oh no, the Flur Wi-Fi strikes again. Yeah, it's like he unplugged his Ethernet cable.
Um, from Jack Federer with the $5.
Sully, you were fully shut down the other night with the same argument.
Physics didn't change to suit your understanding since then. Sorry, bro.
Fair. Maybe I'll go watch that with MC Tune. MC Tune's a good guy from Jack Federer with the $2. If I were Sully, I would have stopped at Curved. Yeah, I don't know why he brought up like I mean it's the what? It's the first law of flirt that the uh the flurf all the Flurf sources actually say the other say the opposite from Ellie L's with the two. They never read their own sources. No, it's the first law of flurf. Um from Jack Feder again with the $5. Sully just went full wits it. You're getting totally cooked, bro. Your daddy Flurf would be so proud of you. True from Sher brother with the $10. Sully is one of the dumbest people I've heard in a long time. What an absolute mouth mouth breather. Dr. Blitz has an Dr. Blitz has is an excellent communicator and this idiot refuses to step away from his flirt dogma. Yeah, because if he does then he'll lose his friends and he's already probably lost his family and his other friends from it. From Tim Bimadil with the $2. Imagine calling mathematics mumbo jumbo. I mean, look, it's it's just a thing that they got to do, right?
From Ellie L's with the two. Please admit you got cooked. Yeah, he was really begging for it there, wasn't he?
He was really begging for it. Um, um, from Jack Federer again with the $2.
Sully goes into his Riddler laugh when he reboots.
Maybe the Riddler laugh will be the intro for the YouTube video. Um, from uh, Shirt Brother with the $5. Sully, you sucked. You didn't go toe-to-toe with anything, but as you died yourself huffing your own farts, what a [ __ ] Yeah, I mean going toe-to-toe doesn't just mean showing up. You actually have to like make make convincing arguments and you know win the rhetorical game or something, right?
Uh from gravity hits hard with the two Australian dollars. Quick sie explain explain Minos away. Well, yeah, he's just going to say, well, how do you prove that nutrinos exist? Like, I mean, obviously that's their move because they don't understand these things. Uh from young with the $5, can you please just admit you got cooked? My flur friends flur friends are watching. Yeah. Yeah, from Jack Federer again with the $2.
Okay, Sully, your time is up. Come play again. Sigh.
Well, I mean, he ran. I didn't I didn't know what uh why he ran. I was just doing what he asked. From shirt brother with the $2. Solely is dumb as hell.
Being dumb should hurt. Probably. It should. Yeah. From Mr. Po with the $20.
Turning yourself down is just the flat earth debate version of Goku training in hyper gravity. Yeah, that was cringe. I I moved the wrong bar. My bad, G.
Um, and from uh Half Fiction with the two connect box little Ethernet cable.
That's funny. I didn't even do that on purpose. Um, somebody in the in the Tik Tok comments, by the way, said you can make a documentary about anything you want to. Yeah, you can, but it's the content of the documentary that's relevant. In this case, they go over the data analysis. They go over the techniques. They make it all seem very very intuitive. And so, like you don't have to read the doc, you don't have to watch the documentary if you want. You can just go look at the paper. The paper is freely available. Um, you know, but flat-earthers don't like to read.
They would rather just look at a YouTube video. Hence why I brought up that there's a documentary that you can watch because then you don't have to read.
It's not even a long paper. It's only 14 pages. And it's also an old paper. So like it's written in a way that's very understandable. But you know, I guess I guess what are the Yeah. What what is that reading as woke?
What happened? Slowly I just got cooked.
He ran away. He ran away in the middle of me doing what he asked me to do, which is kind of awkward.
Um, okay. Let's bring up our Wow, that's quite a name.
I can't believe I turned myself down.
That's so rough, man. I'm so bad at this.
And I couldn't even see see my mods telling me that I turned myself down because I had something up covering my Discord chat.
Anyway, um let's bring up just random up.
Just random up.
>> Good.
So, >> what shape do you think the Earth is, bud?
>> I think it's uh flat. Okay. Why do you think it's flat?
>> Because I don't really believe in gravity. And somehow people on the bottom is are not falling.
>> Why would they fall if gravity if there is no bottom in space?
>> I mean, I don't know.
>> Look, so down is towards the middle of the earth.
So if they're on the bottom, they're still being pulled up towards the middle, >> right? So there's not really an issue there, I don't think.
>> Well, I don't know.
>> So now that I've cleared up why they wouldn't fall off the bottom, do you believe in gravity now?
Yeah, I'm just trolling. Dr. Bits, I'm a big fan of you.
>> I don't like that. Please never do that again.
It's not funny. I don't enjoy it.
Like, if you're going to troll, you at least have to be good at it, right? You have to be good at it, and it has to be funny. It can't just be talking and monotone slowly and tired. Like, it's not funny. Uh, from the guy who does, how's it going?
>> It's going all right. What about yourself?
>> I'm doing okay. So, the guy who does, what shape do you think the Earth is?
Concave.
>> Concave. Okay. Really? Why do you think so?
>> Why do I think so?
>> Yeah.
>> Well, so you you use general relativity, right?
>> I you mean like in my professional work?
Sure.
>> Uh well, like ju just the general scientific body, right?
>> Sure.
So if we if we take a look at the equations, you can actually make concave earth work because uh you >> h Yeah, >> mods block him for I don't know a Trolling has consequences.
>> Nicholas, >> hello my friend. I am not a troll and I'll be honest with you, I'm absolutely not a flat-earther. So why are you here?
>> Because I just want to state that I think being a flat-earther is intellectual psychopathy.
>> I agree. Thanks for being here, Nicholas.
Let's talk to Brad.
How's it going? Uh, >> going pretty good. Could you explain that word to me, psychop that that word he just used?
>> It just means that like it's a descriptor for psychopaths. Now, be rad.
What shape do you think the earth is?
>> Well, round. Okay, >> but I was >> Next person who joins up who thinks that the Earth is round is going to get blocked permanently, by the way, just so you know. So, if you're in the guest box, you think the Earth is round and you get caught, you're going to get blocked forever.
Okay.
>> Hello, >> Nook. How's it going?
How's it going? I just had one question.
Does um does this ruin your faith in humanity doing this?
>> No.
Nanuk >> and the earth is flat.
>> Nanuk was not a flat earther I don't think.
>> Mizix, how's it going?
>> What's up, man?
>> Mix, what shape do you think the earth is?
>> I think it's very round. All right, mods. You guys know what to do. Instant block. Bye forever's the consequences.
It costs me. Viewers don't care. I don't want you here.
If you come up to troll, you get blocked. If you come up just to, you know, complain about something, you get blocked. If you think the Earth is a sphere, you get blocked, so don't come up. Okay, Kac, how's it going?
>> Negger, >> you also get blocked if you do that, by the way.
Um, let's bring up Player.
>> Player, how's it going?
>> Yo, what's good, man?
>> Player, what shape do you think the Earth is?
I know it's flat, bro.
>> Why do you think so?
>> Look, yeah, uh today I was at the beach.
Um >> I was basically at uh water level uh maybe 10 cm 20 above sea level.
>> You must be real short.
>> Yeah, I'm real. I was directly watching uh through the beach level about 30 km longer, right? I could see the whole um I don't know how to say it.
Basically, I could see the floor from 30 km away at uh 10 cm above sea level.
>> The floor >> it's about far. And now go and see the refraction thing. Come on.
>> Wait, you can see the floor of what?
>> Of the of the city.
>> What city?
>> It's called La Fernal here in Valencia.
>> Okay. So you can see why should I believe you?
>> Right. Don't believe me? But if what I saw is real because it is, what would you say?
>> Well, I would I would be very very perplexed because you know I have all I have a ton of evidence that the Earth is a globe and you're trying to say that well there's not there there's some observation that we have that supposedly true that would contradict that. So I mean like look if this was like a demonstrable repeatable thing then absolutely I would be like yeah that's a good point. We have some we have some investigating to do.
>> But I have a feeling that you're just now now player. What if I said >> that I was at the beach and I could only see the top half of the tallest skyscrapers at the city across from me.
What would you say?
>> Right. Yeah. The atmosphere effect for sure.
>> Ah, okay. So, when I present you with evidence, you're just like, well, there's some there's some atmospheric effect, but when you present me with evidence, I'm like, well, let's look we should look into it.
How do you know it's an atmospheric effect if you haven't looked into it?
>> Yeah, because you can see the atmosphere. But anyways, >> you can see the atmosphere.
>> You you would say it's refraction, right?
>> I mean, it it would maybe it's because the Earth is actually flat. If that data is real and there's no refractive effect, but I would have to look in I would actually have to look into the the claim here. And all you're telling me is just like just believe me. What would you say if it was true? So, like, you know, if it was true and there was an obstruction, then you'd be right. I just don't think it's true.
>> I I actually lied. It was like 20 27 27 km. It was not 30.
>> So, yeah. Yeah. So, it was 27 km and sorry, what could you see? You could see the floor.
>> I was inside. I was I was inside of the water, right? And I was like my head was outside and I could see all through till the city basically.
>> So, why is it that like I can't see um ships? Why is it that like when I'm looking at a ship on the horizon, it eventually just disappears regardless of how much I zoom in?
>> Right? Because there's the atmosphere uh effects.
>> Why couldn't I just say the atmospheric effect is causing what you what you saw?
>> Because you cannot see through uh infinite space because the air is distorted in the image.
>> What?
>> That's why you cannot see clearly at maybe 120 km.
>> What? What are you saying?
>> The air, the air, the atmosphere air, you know.
>> Okay. Yeah. What about it? Why couldn't I say that it's an atmospheric effect is causing what you were seeing?
>> No, I mean you can say it and you can still believe in that that you're of nothing that you came from nothing and going to nothing. You're you're free to do it. Do you believe in God, bro?
>> I don't.
>> Yeah. No. No [ __ ] You don't, man.
>> Well, most flatearthers >> believe in God. Sorry, let me rephrase.
Most most globearthers believe in God.
Yeah, because the humans are are meant to believe in something. But anyways, >> so it's not it's not really related. Whether or not you believe in God is not doesn't really affect your probability of believing that the earth is a globe. Not really. I know some young creationist >> I know some young earth creationists who are globe earthers and they actually argue with flat earthers even though they think the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the Bible is literally true. So like it's not it's not really related. Um, what is the case is that overwhelmingly people who are flat-earthers are also Christians, occasionally Muslims, because they think that their book says that the earth is flat. But unfortunately, the evidence says something to the contrary. Um, so what do you make of sunsets, >> right? The the sun just disappear beyond the horizon.
>> How how does that work?
>> He moves. No, I mean like like how far how far away does the sun have to go before you can't see it anymore?
>> So far >> how far?
>> I don't know exactly, but so far as we can see in the sun because like if I'm standing at sea level, I'm I'm a pretty tall guy. Um so you know the horizon is 4 and a half miles away from from me.
Right.
>> Right.
>> Um >> which is so that's four and a half miles. Right. But the sun >> at at sunset, the sun is, you know, I'm in the southwest of the United States.
And so when it's uh when it's sunset for me, it's going to be roughly noon, maybe a little bit maybe early in the afternoon in Hawaii, for example. Now, Hawaii is I don't know 2,000 mi away.
How far is Hawaii?
Um 2 2,900 miles. Just about 3,000 mi away. So, how is it that I can still see the sun when it's at least 3,000 miles away if the horizon is only 4 and a half miles away?
>> You can see depending on where you're uh on where you are. The Earth is so big.
It's really big. So, if you're you said 3,000 kil No, how how much far you say?
>> Around 3,000 mi. So, that's around 4,700 km. 3,000 miles. It's so much uh kilometers to to move and have a a different point of view of the sunset.
But yeah, if you are in a road, you're not going to be able to see till the end of the road. But uh >> no, I'm just confused. Right. If it's going behind the horizon and the horizon is only four and a half mile four and a half miles away from me, you know, that that'd be what, like 7 km or something.
Why is it that I can see something that's 4,700 km away if the horizon's only 7 km away?
There's no correlation between what is above and it's moving through the horizon and where the actual horizon is, which is not at 7 km. If you're sitting at the beach and pointing uh forward, you're not only going to see 7 kilometers, you can see way more. And there's a lot of observations that disproves that claim.
>> Oh, so you think that the horizon is further away than 7 km.
>> It is. Yeah.
>> Oh, okay. And this is this is from like 8 ft above sea level, by the way.
>> Can you talk in meters?
>> Two and a half meters.
>> Two and a half. Yeah. Right. So there's this uh for example, my own observation which I was 10 cm above sea level. I could see 30 kilometers away. How does work? Well, I I kind of think that you didn't. Um, >> okay, don't believe me, but just act like I did because I know I did.
>> All of the all of the data that I've seen to the contrary is that if you're 10 centimeters above the sea, then unless you have very very special atmospheric effects, you're only going to see maybe a kilometer or two.
>> Uh, I can go back to the beach and make a video for you. I was going to make it, but uh, I mean, that'd be reasonable. Like, look, we can talk about photos. I will make a video and hop on here and I'll >> We could just talk about photo. Like we could just go look at photos if you want.
>> No, I'm just proving you what you said I didn't, which I did.
>> Okay. Well, next time take a picture instead of just making a claim, I guess.
Um, so >> I'm telling you, if you don't want to believe me, don't. But if you're going to go with the hipper mega super hipper refraction, saving your glove as always.
>> Sorry, one more time. Super what refraction?
>> Super mega hipper super big refraction.
You don't need particularly large refraction in order to see anything substantial.
>> Uh, sorry. Just I I just got to take care of something really quick.
>> Okay. Lou, you have been dubbed Sir Lou.
Actually, Lady Lou.
Siru sounds better, but I don't want to misgender you. So, you've been kned. Um anyway, so look, the point is is that like you can even ask flat earthers and they'll be like, "Ah, well, yes, the uh the horizon is 3 miles away because of the, you know, the angular resolution of the human eye, blah blah blah blah blah." Like even flat earthers say this, so I don't know why you're rejecting it. The point is is that on a normal day, Damel, yeah, there you go. On a normal day, you can only see a few miles. Um, and you know, ships will disappear once they go beyond that distance. Boats will disappear once they go beyond that distance. you will start to see only the the bottom like the top half of >> um of buildings beyond that distance and so on. So I'm just asking why is >> why is your observation so different from literally every other observation I've ever seen?
I'm not saying it's different, but I'm saying depending on how the atmosphere fraction and all that, how is that working? You see longer or you see shorter, but >> the ships and the buildings disappear from bottom up is not exclusive to a globe.
>> I'm not saying it is. I mean, it is exclusive to a globe, but the point is is that it's at least exclusive to a horizon existing.
>> Yeah. To a horizon and an atmosphere.
And your horizon >> is not 30 m away when you're or 30 km away when you're 10 centimeters up. But I mean like we can we can just go >> I saw I it was it wasn't even 10 and maybe it was five.
>> How do you know that you were seeing the bottom of the buildings?
>> Uh how did I know what >> how do you know that you see >> I know the buildings I I passed through them uh when I go to my other house. I pass through them and I know how tall they are. I could see the beach. I could see all >> okay >> I know what I'm watching. Your eyes are so good that you your eyes are so good that you can see the beach from 30 km away.
>> Not the beach, but you know the >> I thought you I don't know the word I don't know the word in English but hold on all the bottom of the city.
>> I just I just got to check. Did you or did you not say >> literally every other observation I've ever seen.
>> Hold on. Let's Let's just know what >> how do you know that you were buildings?
I I passed through them. Uh when I go to my other house, I pass through them and I >> All right. My English is not my main language. I'm trying to but um >> Okay. So then you agree that you can't see the beach.
>> I I shouldn't even be able to see the buildings. That's the problem.
>> Why not?
>> Because they should be below the curvature.
>> So to be clear, we're now agreeing that you can't see the beach.
>> I could see the bottom of uh not directly the people walking in the beach, but uh >> Okay. So you couldn't even >> in English the line horizontal line in the beach, you know.
>> I don't know what what horizontal line on the beach.
>> Yeah, I don't know the word in English, but uh I pull my camera to show you.
Let's say, you know, here's my city, right? And >> this right here, >> this right here, let's say this is the city, right? And there's buildings and [ __ ] One taller, one smaller. But at the bottom, this thing right here. I don't know what how is it called.
>> I I don't >> Horizon maybe. I don't It's >> There isn't like a bottom of the city.
Do you mean the shore?
>> There's a lineal a lineal at the at the bottom all all the way through the buildings.
>> Is it a wall?
>> Not a wall. The beach would be basically I I couldn't directly see the people walking in the beach, but I saw it in the far.
>> Okay. Okay. So, if you couldn't see the people on the beach, how do you know?
>> Yeah, the street, the horizon, the Yeah.
>> So, >> the ground.
>> So, you could see the street. You could see the street.
>> I could see the ground at at the same eye level as I was.
>> And so, you're telling me that you can see the ground from 30 km away with just your eyes. No, 27 km away with just your eyes. No zoom. No zoom or anything.
>> No zoom.
>> Okay. Now, >> we can just work this out. Um, how uh how big do you think the thing you were seeing was?
>> Do you mean the buildings?
>> No, no, no. The ground that you were seeing.
>> How big it was?
>> Yeah. Like how tall is this? How tall is this like embankment of ground that you're seeing?
>> Maybe it's 400 m long.
>> I'm not asking how long it is. I'm asking how tall it is. Like this.
Oh, I don't know. It was like pretty >> got to be pretty short because you're looking at it from the side, right?
You're not looking at it from above.
>> All right. But I know the buildings and they were >> Hold on. We're not talking about the buildings. We're talking about We're talking about the the shore or the beach, the something that you saw, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Exactly.
>> So, how tall was that? How tall was the lowest thing that you saw? What is it?
>> You You want me to say how many meters was I seeing exactly at the bottom?
>> No. So, like look, if you're seeing the beach, how tall is it vertically from the from the sea to like where the beach stops being beach and just starts being the ground or like the sidewalk or something?
>> Uh, maybe >> 10 m >> from my point of view.
>> No, I mean you've been there. So, how you've been there? So, like how tall is it actually?
>> I I've passed through >> through the uh carera. How is cara to the road?
Maybe you can just actually tell me where you were and what you were what direction you were looking and we can just do this like live. So, where were you if you don't mind me?
>> For sure. Wait. Uh, put my camera on.
>> Well, you can just tell me where it was and I can go find it.
>> Sure. But I I can I can pro I made a screenshot from where I was sitting.
Look, there it is. Here I was.
>> I I can't see what you're showing me.
Can you just tell me where you were?
Like what what city were you in?
>> Yeah, Valencia, Spain.
>> Okay, you were in Valencia. Got it. And which direction were you looking?
>> I was uh pla wait here. I let me go on the PC and check on Google Maps exactly. But I was on >> right next to uh C A B N Y A L C.
And I was inside of the water >> and I was looking through I saw La Pa Fernal at to the left and then to the right I saw Sagunto the bottom also.
>> Okay. So, uh I'm just going to pull something up for you. Um and then you can direct me. Okay. Um because it's hard for me to see what you're looking at.
>> I'm not looking up nothing. I don't remember.
>> So So you were right about So So I'm I'm I'm on Google Earth here. So you were right about here >> somewhere in this. You see? Wait. Go down. No, more down. More down. I was closer. No. No. Like there where you were. Go. Go again.
>> Here.
>> But a little bit more down. More down. A little bit. A little bit. Right there.
Yeah. So yeah, right there. Right there.
>> Okay. I'm going to put a I'm going to put a pin right here. Okay. Like right there. Now, what what were you looking at?
>> All right. I was looking uh go up. No, I mean down. No, go down. Go down. Uh, scroll into it so I can tell you.
Go up, up, up, go up.
Keep going. Keep going.
>> Keep going. Yeah, this is La Pabla.
>> Okay. So, what were you looking at? What were you seeing?
>> Oh, all of it. All of the buildings like through the left to the right.
>> So, I mean, these don't look like they're particularly tall buildings.
>> Uh, they are. So, what was the what was the like you said that you didn't see the beach, but you saw >> Are you talking about the pier?
>> Is this the all of the all of >> Okay, I'll just plop one down there and then we can we can measure the distance.
>> No, I could see more. I could see more.
Go more.
>> Go up. No, go to >> Okay, you want to make this worse? Okay.
Um, >> worse.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Go up.
>> Sorry, one second. I just got to click at it. Um, >> it's exactly Yeah, right there. Grow.
No, to the right.
>> Exactly. Yeah, but I didn't know inside of it. Yeah. You see these four things?
You see these four big things in the right? I was seeing all like >> my computer's freezing >> or three from my point of view, but because the other were hide by the others, not because of the curvature of the earth.
>> Sorry, my computer's freezing. The browser is >> No worries. No worries.
>> Uh let me just close out of this.
And let me reopen.
It just really didn't like that.
>> Right.
>> Okay. Um, we're back. Okay. So, where is it? It was like here.
>> No, to the right in >> here. Oh, these things.
>> Yeah. Yeah, these things.
>> Okay. So, let's let's let's just take those two locations. Let's measure the distance just to get a correct distance.
>> So, we have from here to here, it's about 20 km. A little bit less. GPT told me 27, but okay, I will say he was wrong.
>> It's 20.45 km. No.
>> Oh, that's so cool that it gives us an elevation profile. That's the coolest thing. I had no idea. Um, that's super neat. Okay, so that's so cool. Okay, let's see if we can plop down a person here so then we can look around.
Let's just plop down a person right there and then we can see. Okay, so this is where we're looking. You were looking at these things, right?
>> Exactly.
>> Okay. Now, how do you know that you were looking at the bottom of them?
>> Because they they look like that, right?
Like that like you're seeing.
>> Okay. Now, let's let's go to um I'm going to take us all the way back to where you where we started from. And I'm going to plop a person down over there.
>> Sure.
>> From like uh actually we we'll just be like there's a beach location right there.
Huge, >> right?
>> Yeah.
Now, any of this look familiar?
>> You can see you can see in the mirror.
>> What am I seeing? Are you talking about these?
>> Yeah, these are are the things. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, we're talking about these little things now.
>> Right.
>> I just want to verify that this is indeed the uh so this is we are pointing I would like to show heading.
I just want to make I just want to get I I want to verify that those are actually the things. So, we are currently pointed uh tell me the direction please.
>> I was looking to the >> Okay, so this is the Well, cuz I would like to see like the line drawn so that way then I can see that it goes to the right place, but I guess I guess that that it might not want to do that.
That's fine. But so plausibly those are the things that's I mean it's plausible. It's a little bit it'd be a little bit farfetched, but I don't know what else you would be seeing. Okay, now let's go figure out what are those things. Do you know what they're called?
Uh, no.
>> Okay. I don't know what they're called either. Um, >> we can probably figure it out though.
>> Do you know what that Do you know what that whole thing is? Um, >> I know. I I I don't know. My friend told me, but I remember. It's like a build something. I don't know.
>> Okay. So, this is what's this place called? This place is called Growl Towers.
>> Um, and we want uh No, they're they're not towers. Uh, what's this? Uh what's this called? This thing. It's the industrial port. Um >> industrial port.
Uh what are they called? Tanks.
Sorry. Um so I'm just trying to see if we can figure out how cuz those those are like oil tanks or something, right?
I'm just trying to figure out if we can figure out how how tall they are.
Um, but they're they are they are really really big, right? In fact, we can probably get an estimate as to how big they are based off of how tall they are or based off how wide they are. So, they are almost 100 meters across. They're 83 m across.
And so, if we just go um and so that would be the same distance this way, right? 83 mters. Um, and so if we go to [ __ ] >> we're we're going to we're going to do this, don't worry. If we go here, >> I'm sure >> and we look.
So they are 83 m this way. So they're going to be like 50 m this way, right?
At least, >> right?
>> Not they're not quite as tall as they are wide, but let's say let's say it's 50 m. Now, >> uh, from a distance of 20 km, what we're going to do is we're going to go to the advanced Earth curve calculator.
Sorry, I have to clear my throat. What we're going to do is we're going to put in a target that is 20,000 uh 20,000 kilome or 20 thou sorry 20,000 m away.
The target size is 50 m tall and we're just going to lower you to be 10 cm off the ground. Well, then you would expect to see the top half of them, >> right? So, it's actually not surprising and it's entirely consistent with our observation over here. Uh, wherever it is, it's entirely consistent >> with our observation here that you can see a little bit of them. You can't you certainly can't see all of them. You can see a little bit of them, right?
>> Yeah. But I saw it was a very clean day.
It was >> Well, yeah. Yeah. I mean like obvious obviously on obviously on this day it's not as clear but the point is is that like that's that's expected on the globe that you should be able to see them at least a little bit >> right here is from the beach this is one meter away I was inside of >> I know I know but I I understand that but the even on the globe we would expect you to be able to see the top half of those storage tanks even if you're only 10 meters above the water >> 10 cm you mean >> sorry yeah 10 centimeters only even if you're only 10 centimeters above the water you should be able to see those storage tanks the top half of them.
>> In the top half, but I was seeing them entirely.
>> How do you know what percentage you were seeing of them?
>> Because uh they were looking really really uh >> there's no way they were looking big because they're very very small from that far away.
>> In fact, you can hardly see them at all.
>> I know. I know what I was seeing.
>> And like there's no way that your that there's no way that like your eyes are like better than like a zoom camera, right? I'm just I'm just trying to find So these pictures are taken at different times. I'm just trying to find a day where it's clear. So like >> I don't even see them anymore. Uh >> let's maybe there's a more clear picture from the road.
>> There's a curvature drop of like 30 m or something.
>> Yeah. So there you can see them. There's no way you can tell what percentage you're seeing of them just by looking at them like this cuz they're so tiny.
>> Well, my eyes were they're pretty good.
You know, >> your eyes are better than my >> eyes observation. Your camera >> uh better longer distance observation, >> right? But you're not seeing longer distance with your eyes from 10 centimeters above the water. That's the reality.
>> What can you repeat?
>> And now, okay, don't bring up Chicago.
You've never been there and made those observations yourself, >> right? But it's real anyways.
>> Okay. Well, I can tell you about the real observations of not of being able to see cruise ships disappear, not as a result of atmospheric effects, but just because they get lower even on clear days, >> right? But when they are about to fully disappear, the the top disappears also.
It's just the reflection of >> No, no, they disappear bottom up slowly, >> right? But when you're about to get it fully, I I saw different videos from the ships disappear. And when they are about to fully disappear, it's like the top uh unifies with the atmosphere effect on the horizon and it's like disappear.
There's a big big line in the middle.
It's not only >> I don't know what you're referring to.
So what you're I think what you're referring to is a mirage.
>> No, not a mirage. Yeah, but just at the end, not when it's disappearing.
>> So, >> you can go watch a video for >> I mean, we can we can pull one up, but like >> look, so do do we agree that there are atmospheric phenomena >> um that like you know, depending on what the on how clear the earth, how clear the day is, you can see more or less and like you know there there's a lot of variables here.
>> Sure.
>> So why don't we just why are we using something that has so many variables when we can use something that has so few variables? We can just for example >> Sure. Sure.
>> Like we can just uh I mean I could bring up nutrinos but nutrinos are probably well maybe they're they're too much but like we can just think about the sun, right?
>> So the sun regardless of the atmospheric effects, right? This is always true. We always see the sun disappear below the horizon, right? Every unless it's like really cloudy, right?
>> Ships. Ships.
>> Well, right. But but this is this is regardless of atmospheric effects, right? This happens every single day unless it's really cloudy and then you can't see the sun at all.
>> Right?
>> So my question is why is it that the sun gets lower in the sky but it doesn't get smaller like the ships do?
>> It does sometimes.
>> Does it? Are you sure?
>> Yeah. I've seen bits. Maybe you got to be not at eye not at sea level. You got to be on maybe on a mountain or something. But yeah, you can see how it uh >> lower >> for sure.
>> Oh, this is not the one that I wanted.
Um, this what I wanted that that's just a sunset video. Sunset videos are nice, but like you can see that it's like it's it's size. It's getting smaller this way, but it's not getting smaller in the horizontal direction. It's just getting lower. But what I wanted to show you was this video. So, here we have uh so we have a camera pointed at the sun with a solar filter on it. So, it filters out all the glare and they're recording the size of the sun over the course of an entire day from sunrise to sunset 12 hours. And they're just going to calculate this the diameter of the sun over the course of that 12-h hour period. Uh, by the way, this is by Icy Spin, so credit where credit's due.
I'm just going to speed this up a little bit because it's kind of annoying to watch. So, right now it is 7. Sorry, it's like 8:30 in the morning.
Uh, I'm just going to skip ahead because it's very uninteresting, right? It's it the size is completely So, just to be clear, between 8:30 in the morning.
So, here this is this is 8:30 in the morning. Come on.
>> Okay, this is uh yeah, here is 8:30 in the morning. The size is 684 pixels. And then if we go to noon, when the sun should be closest, the sun is 684 pixels. So over the course of 3 and 1 half hours of the sun traveling towards you, right? That's what that's what you think is happening.
The sun should be traveling towards you for three and a half hours and the size doesn't change at all.
>> Apparently it does.
>> We're looking at it right now at 8:30 in the morning. It's 684 pixels.
>> Right. And then over the course of the next 3 hours, three and a half hours, it size doesn't change at all.
>> This it does not prove that the floor is curving. No, but it does prove that the sun isn't getting further away.
>> Does not pro >> It does prove that the sun isn't getting further away.
>> Because if the sun was getting further away, if it was getting closer and then further away over the course of a day, >> I'm back. I'm back. I got I got disconnected. I got disconnected. Can you repeat? Sorry.
So, if it were true that the sun were overhead and it was far away and then it got closer and then it got further away again, >> then the sun should be changing size over the course of a day.
>> But it doesn't.
>> Maybe if there was no atmospheric effects, maybe you're watching a ship disappear over the horizon.
>> Do you see any atmospheric?
>> Do you see any atmosphere here? This literally fil it's it's filming through the atmosphere.
>> Well, yeah. So why would the atmosphere make the sun appear bigger in the morning and then not appear like why would it make it so that it appears exactly the same same size across the entire day? It's only once we start getting to late late evening that we start to see it shrink this way not horizontally. It shrinks this way.
>> So sun moving >> apparently not apparently not. See how it's getting smaller this way. That's the atmospheric effects. See that? See how it's like kind of squished this way but not squished horizontally?
>> See how it's kind of squished? That's the atmospheric effect. The atmospheric effect won't change the horizontal size.
So why is it that the horizontal size is effectively unchanged throughout the entire day if it's getting further away and closer?
>> If it's getting closer then further away.
>> This doesn't prove the floor curving.
Yeah, she's proven. Keep reciting that.
Keep saying that.
>> Address what I'm saying.
>> Address what I'm saying.
>> Yeah, but that doesn't prove a globe.
>> Great. Address what I'm saying?
>> What do you mean address? What's address? Why is it that the sun isn't get isn't changing size in the horizontal direction throughout the course of a day? If the sun is in fact traveling overhead, zooming along as the day progresses, it at noon it should be closest to us. In the morning and at night, it should be furthest away from us. And yet, it's the same horizontal size the entire time.
Why? Why doesn't it change size? When things get far away, they're supposed to get smaller, right?
It moves on top of us.
>> Why doesn't it get smaller as it gets further away?
>> Should not be getting smaller. The ship does not get smaller horizontally. Also, >> things don't get smaller as they get further away.
>> Apparently, with the eye, yes, as the sun, if you go on top of the moon like I do, >> I'm going to I'm going to do a demo for you. So, look. See how see how my fist is as wide as my head here? So, it's as wide as my head.
>> Sure.
>> Right. I take the camera picture and and show how if >> See how See how it's not as wide as my head anymore? It's horizontally narrower.
>> Yeah. I'm telling you. I'm telling you.
>> See how it gets wider and now it gets narrower, wider, narrower.
>> If you get the same camera and do the pixel thing, it's going to be the same big on your video.
>> This is a camera, by the way. So, currently my finger is as wide as my head. And now it's only as wide as my no or it's not even as wide as my nose.
What's Why is it that if it gets closer, it gets wider. If it gets further, it gets smaller.
>> If you take the same camera with the picture like you did it with the sun, like you're showing me 684, if you that with your hand, it's not going to change size. It's going to still the same pixel.
>> No. No, it won't.
If the sun was actually getting further away, it would get smaller.
>> And it does.
>> But it doesn't. Not according to the video I just showed you. All right. If you zoom into it and put this pixel thing, but if you go on top of the mountain, make a time lapse, you will see how it gets smaller.
>> How do you know that this wasn't done on top of a mountain?
>> Huh?
>> How do you know this wasn't done on top of a mountain?
>> All right, just let go on top of the mountain. Grab >> How do you know this wasn't done on top of a mountain?
>> It doesn't matter. You're zooming in.
>> The the zoom isn't changing in this video. You know that, right?
But you're zooming in anyways. You're not looking from un normal position.
>> Yeah. So zooming in just makes everything bigger, right? It makes it bigger horizontally and vertically.
>> It just doesn't change size.
>> It scales up every zooming in scales up everything, right?
>> Like your hand. As I said, if you film it with the video, it's not going to change size. It's going to be, for example, >> in your view. In your view. So the camera the camera's fixed. It's just it's just pointing in a different direction depending on where the sun is.
In your view, the sun starts out here.
Sorry. It starts out far away and then over the course of the day it zoom it zooms overhead and then it goes further away again. It should be changing size.
But it doesn't. We just watched a video showing that it doesn't.
>> It doesn't. It doesn't prove anything.
>> It proves that the sun isn't getting closer or further away over the course of a day.
>> It is. You can see it rises from >> Okay. So, you're telling me that it does get further away over the course of the day. It just doesn't change size.
>> It moves on top of your head >> and it's pretty pretty far away. And there's atmospheric effects. Uh there is a dome and you know the floor is not curving.
Earth is flat. God is real. Um >> amazing.
>> Flat earth is only good things for your life. Nothing bad. You just blowing from stupid town >> and don't take vaccines also.
>> Oh brother, >> now you can you can you can go next if you want. Sir, I'm going to go to the gym now. And don't forget, bro, there is this flat man.
>> Do not come.
>> Fascinating.
I hope his uh arm muscles are bigger than his brain muscles.
Fascinating. All right, let's read some super chats and then we'll move on to our next guest.
By the way, to everybody who donate, who sent super chats, you guys are very much appreciated. I do appreciate you guys.
You help sustain the sustain me, sustain the live stream, give me reason to keep doing this. Um, from relax with Russell with the $5. Here's five bucks. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
Um, from Lou with the 10 Australian dollars.
Yes, you've been modded. Uh, you I mean, you deserve it. You've been here long enough. Um, >> uh, from the guy who does with the $5.
No, you just don't understand the EF and Abdul Kater. Sorry for the troll. I figured I should donate as an apology and because I got spawn camped. I appreciate I appreciate the apology. You can get unbanned from sker with the 10 connect box. All you have to do to prove the earth is round is travel from the northern hemisphere to somewhere above the equator. You will find that Orion is directly above your head and not at a 45 degree angle. That's true.
That's a good point. You can also notice that the north star gets lower and lower and disappears once you go past the horizon or past the equator rather. uh from skates air again with the five kuck bucks. Where does flat earth even come from the Catholic church? No, it comes from this guy named Samuel Robotham in the 1800s. He he started this whole thing in the 1800s and it's basically all based on everything that he said.
And of course he referenced the Bible, but that's people weren't really flat-earthers before him. I mean the people were flat earthers like thousands of years ago, but like it was his fault that this exists in the modern times.
All right, let's bring up our next guest. Let's check to see if we have any We don't have any guests on Discord, so we can bring up a guest from YouTube.
Let's bring up Ahmad.
Ahmad, how's it going?
>> Good. I'm glad you're >> Ahmad, what shape do you think the Earth is?
>> Uh, let me just show you the evidence.
I've got the evidence that the Earth >> First, I want I want to know what shape you think it is.
uh flats.
>> Okay, great. Why do you think it's flat?
>> I got evidence. Do you want me to show you?
>> Yeah. I mean, like I won't be able to pull it up for all the guests, but you can tell me about it and I can go pull it up and we can look at it together if that's okay.
>> Yeah. So, I'm just going to show you.
This is the evidence.
>> Trust me.
>> Mods. Ban gone forever.
Gone forever. Uh from Nuktuk with the six. Maybe the sun increases in size as come to the noon time and gets smaller at night. That's why it's the same pixels on video. Yeah, that would make sense except there are different people from different places that see it at different times, right? Oops. No, I get I get that it was a meme.
Uh, let's talk to Gabe.
Most intelligent flat earther I've talked to all day.
Let's talk to Tai Atlas.
Ty Atlas, how's it going?
>> Oh, good. Thanks, man. Yeah, well done for this doctor. Wow, cool. What's your PhD in?
>> Ty, what shape do you think the Earth is?
>> Oh, okay. You asked the questions. Uh, what shape? I I am more inclined to think it's sphere, but NASA always makes stupid videos, so I'm a little bit confused with the budget and cameras.
Like I don't really understand why they don't just obviously stick on a decent camera on a rocket and have it streamed live. It's very easy if you can make phone calls up there. If you've seen that dog god awful movie called Gravity, you realize something is up.
>> No, I didn't see that movie. Uh I I just I just the only reason I asked is because I just didn't want to go down a rabbit hole before I knew that this was a conversation worth having. I have a PhD in physics. Um >> beautiful. Well done.
>> Right. So, so look there you do know that there are 24/7 live streams from the International Space Station with cameras pointed at the Earth, right?
>> Space station. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, like why isn't that enough?
>> Uh because it hasn't cured the pandemic of ineptitude across the board.
>> Well, I'm not asking why. I'm not asking why it's not enough for other people.
I'm asking why it's not enough for you.
Because I'm still skeptical about man's competence to do anything beyond pursue its own ego. Really?
>> Okay.
>> We skepticism. I mean, there there's evidence against the skeptical claim here because we do have a 24/7 live cam from the ISS. We have photos taken every 10 minutes from weather satellites that are tens of thousands of miles away. Uh, and you can go check that the weather satellites like they have pictures of the Earth. you can go check that the clouds that they're seeing are the clouds that you're seeing. Um, so it's just not so clear why why you would be skeptical of this unless you have some like underlying motivation.
>> Underlying motivation? Well, it it doesn't really do anything to help the world's problems really. Um, >> that's that's not related to whether or not it's real.
>> Yeah. With all the astronauts going up there saying when they look back at the Earth, they realize it's all just one big blob and we should all care about one another. That's quite a holy message. It's quite like a a profound message of >> Oh, I'm getting I'm getting told that um >> that you usually sound like a southern guy.
>> Southern what?
>> What part of the world are you from?
>> England.
>> What part of England?
>> Uh born in London.
>> Born in London. All right. Londoners, if you're watching, confirm that his accent is a London accent. Um anyway, >> well, somebody in the comments has suggested as much. I just want to verify.
>> Well, that that I could be a shape shifter.
>> Yeah, indeed. Um >> uh the only What time is it in London, by the way?
>> Uh 7.
>> Okay, I believe that. Um yeah. Okay. So, look, um sorry. It's just, you know, people are people give me some degree of skepticism because a lot of people come up to trolls. So, look, it it just >> I'm not trolling you. I and genuinely I I'm a learned man uh in the spiritual sense. I spent eight years playing traveling the world because I was able to understand liquidity grabs from market. So >> I I spent a lot of time in conversation with people and I it's bizarre how people >> I believe you people don't know.
>> So you think the earth is a sphere >> and yet you're skeptical of the NASA >> doesn't really do anything for me. It's not going to it's not going to stop me from sleeping at night. I I have no bearing >> and yet you're skeptical of the NASA stuff.
>> So what kind of evidence would you look for money that's spent the amount of money that's spent there and what's happening to the state of America politics is just shocking.
>> Why are you skeptical? So do you think that the amount of money is not enough or do you think it's too much?
>> I don't think America knows how to look after its people. It's quite embarrassing.
>> Do you know how much money is spent at NASA?
>> Oo, a lot uh per year.
>> Yeah. Do you know how much >> in the in the billions I would imagine 60 let's say 60 billion 30 60 billion >> depending on the uh depending on the administration of course.
>> How about you tell me it's something about it's around $20 billion. Now that sounds like that sounds like a lot of money right >> I was out by 300%.
>> It sounds like a lot of money. That's like >> $65 per person >> per year. Per year.
>> Yeah.
>> Because the GDP of America is >> No, no, no.
I'm just taking the total population and dividing the budget by the total population. So each person spends about $65ish per year on NASA. Compare that with the average taxi.
>> That's hilarious. Wow.
>> Some fool said on AI. That's >> So So compare that with the average tax bill of, you know, the middle class or whatever that is, and you'll find that like >> $65 per uh per American is actually remarkably low as far as the total costs go. I would spend it on healthare. I would spend it on >> $20 billion would be a drop in the bucket on healthare if you want to. I I agree. Yeah. 20 billion $20 billion would be a drop in the >> big difference between million and >> I said billion but it it may have just you know at least I thought I said billion the comments will decide but all I'm saying is that $20 billion is a drop in the bucket for the healthcare required for the United States. I think that it's been estimated that it's like 10 trillion dollars would be required for a healthare program in the United States. Um which is a lot. Now, here's the thing. Lots of other countries have space programs, and they all come to the same conclusions that NASA does.
>> So, it seems like that this criticism that like, oh, you know, they're spending a lot and they shouldn't be.
I guess I just don't even understand what the criticism is. It's not a large fraction of the US budget. It's not enough to cover really anything important. Um, >> most of the conspiracy theories come out of the Americans.
>> Well, and I've spoken to a lot of British people who are flats.
>> Really? Oh, we I've not met them, but maybe Burning Man. I saw a couple of bizarre people. Yeah.
>> But it just see it just seems like your skepticism here like what where is the skepticism originating from? Like the skepticism about NASA? You said that they came out with a whole bunch of funny videos. Like what where is that skepticism coming from? Yeah, just uh just the astronauts seem dumb. They don't seem like they they're not versed in public speaking.
>> There's there's an ear of, you know, that Arteimus the Arteimus Perry bizarness of not having a camera inside.
>> Cameras inside.
>> No. No, it didn't. It didn't. And the way that >> What do you mean? No, it didn't. We have There are cameras inside. We have videos of them speaking from inside the capsule.
>> Uh yeah. Yeah. For a period. Yes. And then when it went up, it was just sound.
>> What are you talking about? Like we have videos of them the like while they're going around the like like making their way to the moon. We have video of like like all this stuff >> with with uh the camera showing >> the camera the camera being inside. look pointed at them like they they did like interviews and stuff >> with with them pointing the camera at the moon. I I didn't see that.
>> The camera's inside pointing at them.
>> Yeah. With the moon in the backdrop, right? To to determine where they were in location, you know.
>> Oh, I suspect I suspect not. If you want to see things in space, >> then you have to turn off the lights because the lights are really bright and so you're probably not going to get a good video of the astronauts and also be able to see what's going on in the backdrop in the backdrop, right?
>> I Oh, sure. But when you point a camera in the pod at the moon, you'll see the moon, right?
>> Yeah. I think that there there's like photos and videos of this.
>> Oh, I've not seen them. I I saw some news channel give feed with interviews and the way in which it was >> there was a thing that Hank Green put together.
>> I don't I don't do a lot of live streams so maybe I've missed a website that was depicting the live feed of it.
>> Let me see if I can find >> this is just information that I saw on the news and the news seemed bizarre.
>> Let me see.
>> Let's see.
>> You are a physicist. I can tell.
>> I don't know what that means, but I'll take it.
Um, here we go.
>> Super fast with a keyboard.
>> Oh, that's not a physics thing. That's just a I grew up with playing computer games. So, here we have some photos. And in particular, this is what I'm looking for.
>> Where are these photos? From the Optimus.
>> Yeah. Here you go.
>> Yeah.
And I guess that comes from a video, right? That seems so poor quality. It's a snapshot. I actually don't know.
Yeah, looks poor.
>> This This is just a photo.
>> Yeah. I didn't realize there were women and men on the journey.
>> I thought there were five females or however many females. I didn't realize.
>> Wait, you didn't you didn't pay attention to any of it. There were three men, one woman.
>> How did you How do you not know this?
>> The the Artemis Katy Perry thing.
>> Artemis was not Katy Perry.
>> What was she? What was it called?
>> I was like I don't I don't know. She didn't even She didn't even go into She didn't even like go She didn't go to the moon.
>> Oh, wait. Hold on. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Jeff Basos.
>> That's not Artemis.
>> No. What is it?
>> I I don't know.
>> Oh, are you not aware that came from >> No, I know. I I just don't know what it's called. I It's like I know his company is called Blue I know his company is called Blue Origin. I just don't know what what that mission was called.
>> Um does anybody know what the mission is called? Oh, Blue Dragon. Somebody said >> Blue Origin.
>> Well, Blue Origin's the name of the company. Um, >> Blue something. Yeah, that there you go.
That's what I'm talking about.
>> New Shepard, maybe.
>> I can just look up Katy Perry.
Blue Origin NS-31. New Shepard.
>> Okay. What about What about that? They didn't even like they they didn't orbit the Earth or anything.
>> No, but they went up, right? They went up.
>> That wasn't That wasn't NASA. So I thought we were talking about NASA. You were talking about like all the sketchy NASA stuff. That wasn't NASA. That was Blue Origin.
>> The sketchy NASA stuff would be the videos and the bubbles and the >> So then why did you bring up Blue Origin >> green screens? Oh. Oh, the same thing.
Uh there was something not >> NASA.
>> There is a It's a rocket, right? It's about >> rockets are NASA.
>> We're still talking about flat Earth.
No rockets or NASA.
>> Uh we're talking about flat Earth.
>> Yeah.
>> Let's go let's go back on topic. We're not talking about a particular >> to be back on topic. But your skepticism when you first came up, you said that NASA does all of these funny videos, right?
>> Let's go back to why I'm skeptic.
>> Skeptic.
>> Am I Am I correct in saying that you think that NASA has all these funny videos?
>> Uh NASA does and so too did I think that blue video. I thought there was something quite bizarre about >> Okay. So, can you give me an example of like a NASA video that you think is funny and not compelling?
>> Okay, I'll drop the Katy Perry. Uh, the green screen glitch like feeds that you get on these collection videos of people trying to collection videos.
>> Yeah. You know, you know when there's a famous one >> conspiracy piece.
>> Yeah. So, there's a famous one where uh like a thing is drifting in front and then you see like a glitch on like the thing. You know what I'm talking about?
There's like a little It's like a stuffy a stuffy doll or something like that and like there's a green screen that like appears on the stuffy doll's like um like body. You know what I'm >> actually you you probably know this as a data statician or physics man who has access to research. How many people believe in a flat earth against those who don't?
>> Depends on where you are.
>> Like >> in the United States it's about 10%.
>> Wow. That's little Is that >> That's enormous.
>> They make quite fuss.
>> What?
>> Uh for as little as 10% of the population, they make quite uh they make >> They're loud.
>> Yeah, but they're >> Yeah, that's bizarre. I wonder what they're drinking.
>> That's a good question. But look, I'm going to let you go because it you're not a flat-earther. And I I hope that I've at least given you some information that you can look up for yourself to assure yourself that these funny videos are probably not actually funny videos.
But thanks for being here, Ty.
He was he was pleasant enough. It's definitely the British accent. It's just it entrains me. Um but let's bring up uh the Crypto Bros.
Oh, let's read some super chats first.
Sorry. Then we'll bring up the next guest from Mr. Kiki with the $5.
So, we're just using the uh we're just used to hearing from the unemployed flurers. The Memorial Day weekend is bringing out all the employed ones. And it's somehow worse. It is somehow worse.
Um from Seabar with the $2.
Thoughts and prayers. Much appreciated.
From SK with the two connect books.
Propaganda is why we are here indeed. Um that's what the Brits call it when you take a good look at something.
From Karen with the $2. Today is about the real heroes. Yeah, not the flat-earthers.
10% of the US is crazy. Yeah, it is.
That is crazy. And I can show you the poll for it from SKer with the two connect bucks. Maybe he means the movie Hidden Figures. Who knows?
Um from Jim Daniels with the $10. Very much appreciated. Congratulations, China, on your successful launch of the Shenzh 23 spacecraft. Safe journey to the three tyonauts on the way to the Tyong space station. I didn't even hear about that, but congrats.
It's a global effort, right? We shouldn't take national uh we shouldn't take national disagreements to be proud of the human race.
From SKer with the two connect bucks, show him a pick of the pillars of creation from web.
I can, but I don't know if he'll find it compelling. And from game master flash with the $5, Tai called you physics man.
Are you actually physics man? Take off your glasses and let us all see the truth. Thanks for using your powers for good. All right, here we go. We'll take off the the glasses of hypnosis.
I look the same.
Turns out I look the same. All right, let's bring up our next guest. Let's talk to the Crypto Bros.
The Crypto Bros. How's it going?
>> Good. Good. How are you?
>> I'm doing all right. Crypto Bros. What shape do you think the Earth is?
>> I think it's uh flat.
>> Why do you think so?
Well, when I look at the cosmology of every ancient culture, >> they all have a similar cosmology.
>> Okay.
>> The only one that's different is the heliocentric.
>> Yeah. And then so when you look at like modern cosmology that's driven by data and the scientific method, you get something that's different from that. So why would we trust these ancient cosmologies rather than, you know, modern cosmologies that use the scientific method and data analysis?
Well, I I think a lot of these institutions are lying.
>> Sorry, what institutions?
>> Uh, the institutions that are recording the data that we're going by.
>> Sorry, which institutions would those be?
>> Well, okay. So, first and foremost, I think that uh NASA is lying.
>> NASA doesn't record cosmological data.
>> I think um let me you asked me what institutions. Well, yeah, you said these were these were the institutions that were recording the astronomical data, which is what we were talking about, >> right? So, presumably, you're going to give me some institutions that you think are lying for reasons about the cosmological data.
>> What what what I think is that whatever institution records the data is that they're lying. I think that's >> why do you think that these are even institutions that record this data?
>> I'm sorry. Could we repeat the question?
>> Why do you think that there are institutions involved at all?
>> Well, there needs to be institutions >> to do science. No, there doesn't.
>> Well, people want to know. People are curious. I think that there are >> you don't need an institution to >> do science.
>> Well, institutions are for control.
That's that's >> But we're not talking about institutions. The you can record this data without institutions.
How? Well, I mean obviously >> you can have your own telescope.
>> Well, yeah, but institutions what they do is they have historical records and they, you know, they log everything.
They record everything. So, it's a lot more efficient than just one person.
>> There were so instation and recording.
>> So, in the what was it the 1500s or no, I'm sorry, it's the 1700s. Um, in the 1700s when Capernacus was doing his thing, I think it No, I'm sorry. It was the 1500s when in the 1500s when Capernacus was doing his thing, there were no institutions.
There were no there was no bureaucratic state. There was like a king. Um, and you know, Taiko Brahi, Tiko Brahi, however you pronounce his name, he owned his own telescope and he recorded his own data >> and if you knew I >> think it was Kepler, not Kepler. But but but if you knew history and you knew what was going on in that time, the Roman Empire, they fell in the mid400s.
The Moorish Empire fell in 19 uh I'm sorry, in 1492.
And so there was a lot happening in the world around that around that time. But there still were institutions because at that time the kingdom the king not >> and their men they they acted you know in the churches they acted as what institutions do today.
>> Okay. So Tiko Brai he was just a guy a fairly rich guy but he was just a guy who owned his own telescope. He had a few assistants and that's how they collected data. What where's the where's the institution?
>> You can go back data is how we got to the capernic or is how we got the uh the caparian model that we you know now use. It was it was from Tiko Brahi. That's why I'm referring to Tiko Brahi.
>> But but if you go back further I mean >> why are we going back further if we're talking about >> like Kepler's laws of motion and you know elliptical orbits.
>> This is what you well but this is this is what you brought up. What I'm talking about is the cosmology. Well, the cosmology the heliocentric cosmology really goes back to like the 1500s.
>> Exactly.
>> Maybe maybe the 1600s or so. But the point is is that there there were no institutions in the way that um No, you're right. He didn't even use a telescope. He just used his eyes. That's you're so right. Cuz the telescope wasn't invented yet. So bro just looked at the sky and recorded data.
That's so true. I forgot about that.
You're right. So like where's the institution here?
prior to pri prior to the 1500s.
Remember what prior to the 1500s fell Rome fell in the mid400s.
>> That's cool and irrelevant.
>> The point is is you're saying that you it's relevant.
>> I can I can explain why I think it's irrelevant. Your claim is that the institutions are lying to us and so we can't trust the institutions and it's from the institutions that we get our data. But Tiko Brahi and his assistants, one of whom was Yiannis Kepler, they didn't they weren't part of an institution. They were like a scientific duo >> and they were just looking at the sky and recording that data.
>> And that's how we got the Kepler model, right?
Because because what modern institutions do is they take the data and analysis of past people that had great minds such as Newton such as the person that you're talking about and many others and they put that as the staple in the institutions which is why vote like when you measure votes is named after the guy vote which is why we say >> the nonian point is is that Johannes Kepler used the data that Taiko Brahi came up with to confirm his helioent his version of the heliocentric model.
>> Right?
>> This this isn't something that somebody a 100 years ago or 50 years ago did that involves modern institutions.
>> Agreeing with you.
>> The the the heliocentric model of Kepler came from Kepler >> 500 years ago when there were no institutions around to like that were you know governing their whatever right they were they were just like two guys and some assistance of course. Um >> who is he funded by?
>> Who who is Tiko Brahi funded by? Well, originally he was funed >> who was who who was backing him?
>> Originally he was originally I guess he was funded by uh the king of Denmark, >> but then he was forced to leave Denmark and so then he was invited to Prague and then he then he worked in Prague.
>> The king >> and he built an he built an observatory.
No, no, he was forced to leave Denmark by the king.
>> The king forced him out.
>> The king forced him out.
>> Well, at one at one point they they had a connection.
So that's still going to >> I mean that's not clear to me. I I don't know if that's true >> because that's going to amp up his credibility.
>> I I don't know if it's I don't know if it's true that they actually had a connection. But the point is is he made these observations himself, right?
So where's the institutional lies?
>> Okay. So that was the history of it.
What institutions do is they take historical figures and they use their data in the in the institutions that are now um that are now uh existing today.
>> Okay. But they knew that the earth that they knew that the earth went around the sun 500 years ago 500 475 years ago.
>> Yeah. You keep saying 500 go prior go that I'm saying look my point is it doesn't matter what's going on today and it doesn't matter what was going on 2,000 years ago. We collected the data as a species. We collected the data about 500 years ago and that's what led us to the conclusion that the earth goes around the sun.
>> So are you telling me that you believe that institutions do not lie?
>> I'm not I never made that statement.
What the institutions say is irrelevant to whether or not we go around the sun.
>> It's a we need to start back from ground zero. Prior to 500 years, every culture, their cosmology did not >> Well, that's not true.
>> What?
>> Yes.
>> If you go back, if you go back maybe 2,500 years ago, sure.
>> But starting starting around uh when Jesus lived like around the first century, we see that um you know uh we see globe models.
>> I've done research on this globe cosmologies.
>> Yes. Look, but the what I'm saying is that it looks like it looks like a snow globe. The bottom is flat.
>> No, no, no. I mean, like prior to like prior to maybe 2500 years ago, that's true. But after around the turn of the millennium, around when Jesus lived, we start seeing actual globes, not snow globes. The Vic texts are far far away >> than 2,000 years.
>> Look up the Vic cosmology. Look up the Vic cosmology. Look up the Chinese. Why are we why are we only going back like more than 2,000 years? Why don't we look at anything from the last 2,000 years?
>> Well, that was the Vadic, wasn't it?
>> The Vadic stuff is far older than 2,000 years.
>> You said you want to go back I don't I'm asking why are we only looking at things that are more than 2,000 years old when we can look at stuff that's more recent that is obviously going to be more accurate.
Because because because this is my point is what I'm trying to what I'm trying to explain to you is that about 500 years ago that's when we have been con we as in humanity.
>> Well no I mean humans have known that the earth is a globe for around 2,00 2,500ish years.
>> No that's not true.
>> It is true. Yeah.
>> No according to that's according to the history that you believe.
>> Oh okay. And you have you you have your own version of history right?
>> No. No. Look look look look just here.
Can I uh can I show you something?
>> Steve Steve Jobs Yeah. Let me just say one thing please.
>> No, just let me just say one thing.
>> Seems irrelevant.
>> Steve Jobs said that the most >> Steve Jobs said that the most influential person is the storyteller because the storyteller he has the most influence over everybody. What is history? History is a story. Everybody gets different versions vers versions of it. And Do you know who Ply the Elder is?
>> I'm sorry. Repeat that.
>> Do you know who Ply the Elder is?
No, I don't.
>> So, Planned the Elder is one of the one of humanity's most famous historians, right? Um, okay. He was Greek. He lived, you know, a few decades after Jesus did.
Uh, so this is, you know, during the Roman era.
>> And this is this is his book. It's of course it's translated to English. Um, this is one of his books that he wrote.
Uh, it's called The Natural History of Ply.
And then here's the people who translated it. So, I'm going to go to a particular page.
>> Okay.
>> Chapter 2, of the form of the world.
Again, this is a guy writing about 2,000 years ago. That it has the form of a perfect globe, we learn from the name which has been uniformly given to it, as well as from numerous natural arguments.
For not only does a figure of this kind return everywhere into itself and sustain itself, it also or also uh also including itself, requiring no adjustments, not sensible of either end or beginning in any of its parts, and is best fitted for that motion with with which as will appear here, it is continually turning round, but still more because we perceive it by the evidence of the site to be in every part convex and central, which could not be the case were it of any other figure.
So, this is a historian, one of the most respected historians of all time, talking about this the Earth being a globe 2,000 years ago.
Now, I would say that that's credibility right there. But then I can also throw something back at you and say that there are maps that are drawn from credible people as well. And on those maps, they have creatures and mermaids and things like that, which I know you wouldn't believe. So just because he has credibility, >> this is a Roman poet from uh from around 70 years earlier than that. Abed, you've probably heard of him if you're familiar with literature. Um so here is uh this is the metamorphosis.
Uh we're this is describing the creation of the earth. And so we have book one uh book one of the metamorphoses. This is sentence 32, section 32. It's not really verse 32, but you know, it is what it is. Um, so when whichever god it was had ordered and divided the mass and collected into separate parts, he first gathered the earth into a great ball so that it was uniform on all sides. Then he ordered the seas to spread and rise in waves and the flowing winds and pour across the coasts of the encircled land.
He added springs and standing pools of lakes and contained blah blah blah blah.
So this is right this this is while Jesus was alive.
>> This is talking about how how God whichever God made it created the earth into a great ball.
snow globe. It's flat. It's flat at the bottom round on the top. It looks like a snow.
>> No, no, it's it's a ball, not a not a snow globe. And it's uniform on all sides. If it was a snow globe, it wouldn't be uniform on all sides. H >> how about you read something from the Vic or something from the from the ancient Chinese because when we look at when we look at history, we only look we only western point of view.
>> Here's the reason why I'm bringing up Avid and Ply of the Elder. The reason why I'm bringing up Avan and Ply the Elder is because Avanly the Elder lived in a Greor Roman uh Greor Roman culture and it was the uh as far as I know it was a particular Greek person named Aristoineses who provided the first compelling evidence that the earth was a globe and this would have been about 250ish years before Ply Elder or Avid lived and so it's going to take time for these ideas to spread which is why we have Greo Romans talking about this only a few centuries after this evidence was first presented. Now, if you want to go back 3,000 years, everybody thought the Earth was not a globe because they didn't have the evidence that it was a globe. The first evidence came around about 2,300 years ago. So, if you look before that, then nobody's going to believe it's a globe.
>> So, you bring up Greek So, you bring up Greek literature and according to Greek literature, someone in it, they said that Atlantis existed. So, are you saying that Atlantis? Are you talking about Are you talking about Plato talking about Atlantis existing?
>> Yes. So he was So you know what that was in an allegory, right?
>> And >> he was he didn't say Atlantis was a real place. This was an allegory >> based based on based on the way that it was said.
>> Have you Hold on. Have you have you have you >> we we can bold the document if you want.
Have you have you read the uh the Plato like Plato's work that involve >> long time ago? Long back in like >> which book which books were they in? I don't I don't I don't even recall it to be honest with you. Long time ago.
>> I don't think that you read it. For for what it's worth, I haven't read it either. I've just read Snippus.
>> I just told you I just told you that I did regardless what you think. I told you.
>> Well, okay. But then you would probably know uh you know what at least what book it's in. I'm going to lie to you. So it's mentioned in apparently it's mentioned in >> um apparently it's mentioned in Tomas and so um and as far as I as far as I can recall this is like a story that's being told being they're musing about what a perfect society is right this is like well this is what a perfect society would be like.
So there's a reason why we know that Atlantis wasn't something that people thought really existed, right?
Whereas >> the stuff that the like the um like Planet of the Elder, Planet of the Elder was a historian. He's one of the most reliable historians that we have from that period.
>> And you know, he's talking about how it's obvious that the Earth is a globe.
We all know it's a globe.
That's because of who you believe. You only believe Western information. And and that's and and if you were to look up many cultures >> the the Chinese common denominator, >> you would see a common denominator.
>> Hold on one sec.
>> I I bet you I can find within 30 seconds an ancient Chinese source that says that the Earth is a globe. I bet large sums of money.
Look, I have here on chat GBT right now what it says about >> chat famously a reliable source >> and what Plato said about Atlantis.
>> I'm I'm not I'm not here to debate Chachi for what it's worth.
>> Okay, fine.
So look, all I'm saying is that it seems like you're dismissing sources that are known to be reliable >> and then you're agreeing with why you why did you dismiss plane of the >> Elder I'm no what I said is that you can bring up anybody from that time and and say that they have credibility and that's the reason why I brought up Plato and then I asked you do you believe what he said right wasn't a historian The discussion of Atlantis was about like a utopia so like a utopian society.
It wasn't it wasn't described as like a real place.
>> But but Plato is someone that has credibility.
>> Yes. And his cred his credibility his credibility is not in history. His credibility is in philosophy and in the works in which he's talking about utopia or sorry Atlantis. He's not talk like this is a story that he's telling to convey an idea.
>> You want me to tell you what Chad GBT says? really care what Chach says. No.
>> Okay, then fine.
The the thing is that there's a common denominator being with all cultures and the cosmos.
Not all cultures. No.
>> Prior prior prior to about prior to about 500 years ago, >> I just gave you an example about one from 20,000 years ago.
>> Well, I've done extensive research with many many different cultures. So, the Greor Romans of the Greor Romans of the early Christian period, that's an ancient culture. That's 2,000 years ago.
They knew the Earth was a globe.
>> Do you find it strange that Antarctica is blocked off?
>> It's not.
>> Have you ever thought about that?
>> It's literally not blocked off.
>> Well, it's blocked off to the to regular people and it's blocked off to to commercial vehicles going.
>> You can't take any trips down here.
>> What's your evidence for that?
>> Vehicles. What's your evidence for that?
>> I I I I watched a documentary on it yesterday.
>> What's the evidence? You can just say you watch documentary. What's the actual evidence?
>> Well, okay. Let Let me look it up on chat JBT right now. I haven't read >> Oh my god.
>> Okay. So, ju so just so you know, are are you aware of the Antarctic Treaty?
>> You familiar with that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, the Antarctic Treaty, I've read through the whole thing. It doesn't say anything about you're not allowed to go there if you're a if you're a civilian.
It's freely available. You can go read it yourself. But you won't, >> right? Because it's not just an AI summary, right? No.
>> Okay. You're abs You're absolutely correct. I stand corrected. The information that I must have gotten must have I must have been uninformed or informed. So, yeah, you're right. In fact, not only can you go to Antarctica, there was a uh a team of flat earthers and a few globe earthers that went to Antarctica about a year and a half ago.
I I think it was at the end of 2024. Um in December of 2024, they went to Antarctica to see if the Earth was really flat because if the Earth was flat, they shouldn't have been able to see the 24-hour sun in December. Um that was the idea. And there are a lot of clips of very famous flat-earthers who before this happened, they are on record saying they will never let us go to Antarctica because we won't see a 24-hour sun because the Earth is flat.
If the Earth is a globe, then we will see a 24-hour sun. If the Earth is not a globe, we will see we will not see a 24-hour sun. And what did they do? They went to Antarctica. Flatearthers went to Antarctica.
And when they got there, they saw the 24-hour sun. They recorded the whole thing. And at least one of the flat earthers is no longer a flat earther because of it.
>> Interesting.
Interesting.
Let me ask you a question because I know you're about to let me go. Let me ask you a question really quick.
>> I have 20 minutes if you want to stick around.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Are you religious? Do you have a religion?
>> No.
>> Uh do you believe in God or anything like that?
>> No.
>> Okay.
So, you're strictly scientific. Do you go strictly by the scientific method?
>> Yeah, at least I try to. I mean, not nobody's perfect. Um, so, you know, there are things that obviously that I could be better about, but yeah, I try to do my best to believe things that we can provide evidence for.
>> Observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, conclusion.
>> Yeah. Do you do do you believe do you believe that in order for us to come to an understanding at first we have um let's say something like insight and then that insight leads into data and then data leads into information and information knowledge and then perhaps wisdom from the knowledge.
>> That sounds like a bastardization of the scientific method. So it's close but like there's there's some testing that needs to be done, right? That's where the data comes from >> because because what I'm getting at is when we see patterns, patterns would be the insight and then we would derive data from those patterns. So if I'm looking up many different cultures, many different walks of life and and there's a common thread, there's a common denominator, >> that would make me scratch my head and that's why I am thinking the way I'm thinking because I used >> we should absolutely ask why is it that these ancient cultures, you know, prior to like 2500 years ago, why is it >> that they thought the earth was a certain way? And if we think about it for even half a second, >> it's because it looks that way and they didn't have any better better method to figure out what shape it actually is.
>> That's why that's why they all believe that cuz it looks that way.
>> But this but this is why this is why I don't believe it. And and this is because whenever a civilization is conquered, all of their books and everything gets, you know, torn up, burned, whatever. It's true.
>> That's not true. But the thing about well most of the time right >> no >> you don't you don't you don't you don't think that uh when a civiliz a civilization is conquered that the conqueror's um what do you call it the language and their uh religion gets instituted into that >> yeah famously not I mean like the Mongolians famously let people practice whatever religion they wanted to practice as long as they paid their taxes >> and they like conquered like half the known world.
>> Similarly, so did the uh so did Alexander the Great.
Like you could be whatever.
>> So So this was so this would just be some religions.
>> It sometimes happens.
>> I mean I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Not religion. Some uh countries or >> It sometimes happens that some conquerors will like burn everything to the ground sometimes. But I don't think that's the norm >> be >> because I find it fascinating that a lot of the Indian stuff is preserved and the reason why I think that is because of Gandhi and he, you know, got the British out of there before, you know, they mostly came but they didn't stay too long.
>> Well, no. I mean, they were there for a really long time. Um, the point is this.
The British conquered them, >> right? It was a very weird kind of conquering. It was like an it was like an economic conquering with like soldiers backing it up. But no, that's neither here nor there. the British conquered the Indians and didn't burn down all of their uh all of their records. So, that's a perfect example of stuff that's against your claim.
>> Well, no, no, that's that's what I'm saying. I'm using that to support my claim. And what I'm saying is >> your claim is that they get rid of all the books and stuff, but that's not true.
>> No, but yeah, but but I'm saying it has not happened in India and that there's stuff that's preserved and that when you really look at it, when you really dive into it, like I'm inviting you to dive into it. Like look my >> I've read the I've read the Bhagavad Gita.
>> Well >> I've read some of the Vic texts.
>> Okay. Okay. Good. Good. I mean dig dig a little bit deeper. Look into the Mahabarata. Look into the um upupan.
Look >> I've read the I've read the upanishads.
>> I read them I read them in college.
>> Cool.
>> They're they're interesting stories.
They're they're interesting and in some parts very deep, >> but they're not they're not there to make scientific claims.
Yeah. But when you look at their cosmology, did you take a look at that and the way that they describe it with the that has 14 levels?
>> Look. Yeah. Yeah. The point is is that they had they had a cosmology based on their religion rather than based off of the evidence in the world around us.
>> But isn't it interesting that they had levels and then when you look at other cultures, they had levels as well too.
saying saying that the earth >> having hierarchy is having hierarchies is very normal in human society. So it's not surprising that there would be some sort of hierarchic system in their cosmology >> but in but in but in every but in so many cultures across a long period of time that's that's a pattern.
>> Yeah. And then we can investigate why and it turns out it has a sociological explanation.
And what is the >> the sociological explanation that humans crave hierarchy?
>> No. No, not every culture. Not every culture. Not like >> Give me an example of a single culture that doesn't have hierarchy. That doesn't have hierarchy.
>> Then then how come our cosmology is the only one that's different?
>> Because we're relying on data rather than sociology and, you know, human nature.
>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, I understand that we're not good at uh um >> like why are you averse to using data and like using the scientific method to figure out the facts of the world around us?
>> Because because I don't trust these institutions.
>> You don't have to trust institutions.
We've been over this. There there are no institutions involved in the early days of the heliocentric model.
>> You should just actually look at the data rather than just believing what people long dead people said.
I've looked into it and I'm not too good at >> I'm I'm not too good at explaining things, but I have a beautiful mind when it comes to me just internalizing. But but when it comes to me explaining it, I do better with writing it down.
>> Okay.
>> Honestly, that's just the way I am.
>> All right, Crypto Bros. I'm going to let you go, but thanks for being here.
>> Thank you.
By the way, just to be clear, because somebody was pointing this out in the comments, it's it's absolutely the case that there are a lot of cases where uh conquerors did destroy the cultures of the conquered people. That's just not that just did definitely didn't happen every time. I'm not even sure if it happened most of the time. Um there are just very famous examples of it happening that you know we have historically documented.
All right, let's read some super chats and we'll bring up our next guest from SKSayer with the five kuk bucks. The institution was the church before the printing press. They were the only ones that could read the institution. So, um, famously Galileo was put in house arrest because he defied the church.
So, he was fighting against the institution with his heliocentric model.
Right.
From Hercules with the 11-year-old regarding ancient civilizations, the Greek knew the Earth as a globe since about 300 BC. And we can see that in depictions of the god Atlas holding the globe. Weird how flat earthers did not mention this, right? I that that's exactly what I brought up. I didn't bring up the statues, but like this is like clearly what they what they thought.
Uh from Jack Feder with the $5. Tupac, Tupac, Tupac, Tupac actually referenced the Pythagorean theorem in the track in the track I ain't mad at you. Freaking propaganda from the corporate machine, right? Tupac is part of big math from Carl Grimes with the $20. Very much appreciated. I appreciate you so much.
It's big donations like this that help keep the channel running. Black men are prime targets for the flur political movement. White supremacists know black men have been targeted by our institutions. Historically, they are seeking to exploit that for their own anti-science goals. Shame. Yeah, that is true. It's it's absolutely the case that um you know the United States especially but much of the western world has done unmentionable things to you know the black population with living within their borders in the case of the United States black Americans and this you know and so on and so there is some natural distrust there which is reasonable but keep in mind the distrust is in the the distrust should be in the CIA it should be in the FBI you know the FBI Um, it was the FBI that killed Fred Hampton, right? It wasn't NASA. So, like NASA, as far as institutions go, probably pretty good from Jack Feder with the $5. I just found out we know of alien structures.
That was from the movie 2001, A Space Odyssey. Ah, you got us. You got it.
from Gain with the $10. Helioentrism is far older than the Capernac revolution.
Greek astronomer Aris figured it out 2,300 years ago. The idea didn't catch on, but he was still way ahead of his time. Yeah. Well, sure, but I mean, the Capernac revolution is what made it kind of spread everywhere.
From Gretchen with the $311. I've done extensive research with many different LLM. Yeah, let's not from skates with the five bucks. All these callers need to smoke a joint and watch web images. Maybe from skates with the five connect box.
Are you serious? Look at Africa and the Americas under Euro influence. Yeah. So, the colonial period, the European colonial period from like I guess that's starting in like the 1400s and going until like the 1800s, maybe early 1900s.
That is probably the most um explicit example of uh an invading power kind of destroying the cultures of the communities that or of the places that were invaded. But like that's not all of human history, right? Like human history is far far broader than that.
From SK air with the five bucks, the Spanish alive entire continent and called them human sacrifice people.
Well, look, okay, so obviously it's not the entire the entire continent. Let's not be hyperbolic. It was a lot of people. Um, but we know it wasn't the entire continent because we can see the genetic ancestry of like like what happened is really that there was mixing between Spaniards and the indigenous people and that's how you end up with you know like like I don't know like the Hispanic ethnicity basically. It's Hispanic isn't really an ethnicity, right? Like it's there's Hispanic, there's Latino. It's it's confusing. The the ethnicity that's present in Central and South America and to a lesser extent North America is different than what's present in Spain, right? And like you can just you you can see like there's there's a whole spectrum of people, right? You'll see people that look very obviously European in Central and South America and you'll see people that look very obviously indigenous and you'll see everybody in between. And it's because there was a mixing that happened.
um from Dawan with the $2 confirmation bias isn't researched. That's true, too.
Wait. Oh, okay. Uh all right. Let's bring up uh Lana Del Pork Sphere a salad.
>> Hello, >> Lana Del Pork Sphere.
>> Yeah.
>> How's it going?
>> Good. So, >> the sphere is >> I think it's flat. So, I've been listening since uh the British guy was in here, and I wanted to do his argument justice because he mentioned he had distrust with NASA, and that's perfectly perfectly reasonable considering all of the all the [ __ ] that they failed to make look real. So, one great example is if you look up NASA dark side of the moon video on YouTube, >> it'll be the first video by ABC News from 10 years ago. And you can just tell this video is it's fake as [ __ ] >> And um >> from ABC News, you say?
>> Yes. From 10 years ago.
>> So it's NASA Dark Side of the Moon, right? Is what it's called?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> NASA Dark Side of the Moon.
>> And in this video >> from ABC News. Okay, I see it.
>> Yeah. In this video, >> we're going to we're just going to put it up right now.
>> Yeah.
>> I can't I can't have the sound on, but here we go.
>> That's fine. That's fine. Right here, you'll see.
>> These are photos, by the way. These are just photos that are put sequentially.
Well, well, the way you can tell it's fake is that the clouds don't move at all over a period of what should be hours of the moon rotating around the Earth on that model. The clouds don't move at all. They're the exact same shape. So, this is clearly a digital animation that NASA is putting out there and trying to pose as being real. This is not real.
>> Do you think that this is taken over?
>> It doesn't matter. It will actually it would be taken over hours if this >> because the moon is rotating around it.
>> No, no, This this could also be the perspective of the spacecraft moving, right?
>> Yeah. But the clouds will be moving like from Earth, we see clouds moving all the time, >> right? But they move slowly on a global scale, right? They move at like 5 or 10 miles an hour, which we wouldn't notice here.
>> I'll tell you what, they don't change the same shape and the shape the the way they move, it wouldn't it wouldn't be as if you're just rotating the Earth.
>> Well, I I don't know how long this was taken over.
>> Also, keep in mind, >> we can go we can go see if we can find that information.
>> No, go back. Well, I'm I'm going to go I'm going to go see if I can find like where like you know cuz these are photos. We'll have time stamps.
>> My second my second point with that video >> Okay. So, you don't you don't want to go deeper, do you?
>> No, you can. I'm fine with that. But my second point with that video >> my second point with that video is that on the on the so-called dark side of the moon, there is less craters than from the front side of the moon. That does not make any sense at all. And if it was the case >> because how would there be how would there be asteroids and meteors hitting from our side of the earth our side of the earth to the moon >> rather than the back side? It makes more sense.
>> Oh, so you just don't understand how gravity works. Yeah. So the earth has a lot of mass. So it's going to pull stuff towards it and it's going to pull but not everything that is pulled towards the earth is going to hit the earth.
Some of it will just pass by, swing by and then crash into the moon.
>> Also, sure, sure. But there's there's still like barely any craters on those images on those those.
>> By the way, there's craters there there's so many craters on the back side of the moon. They're just small. They just tend to be smaller.
>> Well, also that the quality of that video is [ __ ] right? I think you would agree with me.
>> I mean, you know, okay, it's it's like eight stills over the course of uh by the way, it was taken by the discover satellite. Apparently, that's where the images come from.
>> Do you accept the possibility that it wasn't taken at all and it was just an animation?
>> Oh, I think that you I think that your burden of proof is pretty hyped for that one. Also, apparently, so so those photos were taken over the course of uh less than four hours >> and but the clouds don't move at all from >> Yeah. How? So, hold on. Hold on. Just to be clear, just to be clear, hold on. So, clouds move, I don't know, depending on where you are, >> 5 to 15 miles an hour. I don't know.
>> Oh my gosh.
>> Right now, over four hours, that would be somewhere between 20 and 60 miles.
Now, do you think that you can see the scale of 20 to 60 miles on that on those images?
>> I think that there should be some at least some So your incredility is not an argument.
>> I think there should be at least 1% movement of these clouds. So we don't see any >> look at it. It's just the orientation.
>> Look at Just look at it. Well, yeah.
These are large scale structures. Large scale structures move slowly. Small clouds move quickly. If you're looking at large scale structures, then of course it's going to not change quickly.
>> From from when I'm like outside, right?
I can stare at a cloud and the the shape it'll make it'll change shapes and I my brain >> Do you know how big the clouds that you see outside are in this image?
>> Yeah.
They're minuscule one pixel. You wouldn't >> I understand you couldn't even see them.
I wish that this would like pause so that I could look at a given image.
>> I think I think that like if you don't have the intellectual honesty to just admit that this looks more like the orientation of the Earth is just being moved in a digital digital computer. I mean, your vibes are just not a particularly compelling argument. I'm sorry.
>> I came up here to defend the British guy cuz he didn't he didn't he couldn't set examples of NASA putting out fake [ __ ] >> Well, you have the burden of proof is on you to show that it's fake.
>> Just saying look at it is not evidence.
Sorry.
>> You really believe you really believe there's a camera out there behind the moon that that captured all that in one piece? Are you [ __ ] kidding me?
>> By the way, and and I just want to show you something just because we can look at it. We can just look at it, right?
Um, so I I I just I've only been looking at this for like two seconds. So, God, I wish I could pause this. Uh, wait.
>> Also, wait, look at that green outline.
That neon green outline of the moon.
>> What neon green outline?
>> If you pause it right there, there's a neon.
>> Pause it. I'm trying to figure out how to pause it.
>> Okay, we've also they have this photo on their website.
>> There's two photos that I want to compare. So, we have cuz >> Yeah, right there. Go down. Go down.
zoom in on a picture.
>> So, I'll I'll illustrate what I'm trying to get at. Um, so there's like a cloud.
See this cloud structure here?
>> Uh, >> I can't I don't I don't really see where your cursor is at.
>> Here. Now, now you should be able to you can see this, right? Okay. So, see big long cloud structure there.
>> Uh, and it's down here, right? Big long cloud structure. Now, notice that there's like this little thing at the tip of it, like this little bunch there.
See that?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, >> I'm trying to track it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, if you look at the beginning, there's a cloud just off to the left of it. Right. So, right here there's a it it it'll appear right here in a second. There's a little tiny cloud right off to the left of it. Right.
>> Um >> let me Oh, hold on. Just give it a sec.
Give it a sec.
>> I think you're looking too far into it then.
>> Oh, so now I'm not supposed to look too closely. Look right.
>> No, go ahead. No, go ahead. No, >> look right where my mouse is. Right at the beginning.
>> I just I don't see a little cloud.
>> There's a little cloud right next to that horn. It's a little tiny one just hanging off the edge. Right.
>> Oh my god. So it's right there. You can see it in the first few frames.
Right there. And then after the moon passes by, that horn doesn't have that cloud there anymore.
>> Mhm.
>> So like this is an example of the clouds changing. It's slight change, but it is changing.
>> On your model, this would be over like probably eight hours.
>> This is actually over four hours. Less a little bit less than four hours.
>> Okay. Can you can you go back to that the website though? Cuz the photo below it, you can see the neon green outline of the so-called photo.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Zoom in on the moon on the right corner. The right outline of the moon.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. You mean you mean this? You mean that?
>> Yes.
>> That's Yeah, that's digital compression.
>> That's >> You really What do you think it is?
>> I think I think that it is just digital artifacts.
>> Yeah, it is a digital artifact. This is a digital photo that was sent from that was sent a million miles. They have to compress it.
>> Oh my gosh. So, where do you think the photo who was what what object? What is it? The space station. You think >> it was the discover satellite? No, the discover the discover satellite is a weather satellite. It's about a million miles away.
>> What about bubbles in space?
>> Okay, that's a cool pivot.
>> Well, no. I came up here to defend the British because he mentioned the bubbles in space.
>> Shut up. SHUT UP. SHUT UP.
He mentioned bubbles in space and you didn't you didn't even give him an answer.
>> Did he mention bubble bubbles in space?
>> Yeah, I mentioned bubbles in space.
Maybe I just didn't hear it.
>> It was in the Yeah, you can check the VOD. He mentioned that. You didn't say anything about that.
>> Yeah, I mean so like maybe I didn't hear it. What about bubbles in space?
>> Yeah, in in these videos um in these videos where like they have astronauts inside the space station, you can see bubbles coming up >> astronauts outside the the space station. Okay. Where are these videos?
>> When they're when they're like tethered to the to whatever spacecraft >> bubbles space station >> outside YouTube.
>> I don't know if people will find it on YouTube because YouTube >> So then where can I find it?
>> Well, I know for a fact it's it's mentioned in the the level documentary >> from Mr. Flatter documentary. Gotcha.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But um the reason why I you can't find it when you look it up on YouTube is because the YouTube algorithm has been intentionally tampered with to suppress flat earth videos and evidence flat earth proof videos. I I swear I I swear to God they they did this. It's in a they >> there's a bubbles in space.
>> Um >> yeah, >> one sec. Um >> also >> I want to show you something.
Uh, I want I want it to I just want to find the right clip.
This the right one. Yeah. Okay.
>> I mean, there's multiple clips. This is a this is a common occurrence.
>> No, no, this is this is something else.
So, this is from the Tong space station, by the way. Why does the candle look like that? Why does the flame look like it's just surrounding the What What's going on there? Well, I I I believe that there's definitely a zerog effect, but that's because they're in they're in a plane really high up and then they're dipping down, which is >> Do you know how long that lasts?
>> Uh, and I know how long they claim it lasts and I believe they can go longer.
>> Why do you believe that they can go longer?
>> Because that's how they're doing these videos.
>> Wait a minute. So So you understand that your argument is >> Yeah. Let's see if we can formalize this. Well, no, of course we can't because it's not valid. But your argument is They are on the the explanation for why the candles look that way is because there's a zerog effect.
>> Yeah, >> we know that the zerog effect must be able to last longer than say 45 seconds because we know that they must be on a zerog scenario.
>> Well, you're you're making a circular argument. You're saying we they're on we can explain this fact because they're on a zero g effect and we can know that they're on a zero g effect zero g flight for longer than 45 seconds >> because of this video.
>> Let me it could just be that they're in space.
>> Let me give you a counter question.
Okay. If they're really in space, why do they need to wear harnesses in these videos? Why have we seen their harnesses uh clip in and out of the out of the view on these live streams before?
>> Yeah. So, I've heard that claim. They're always easily explained via like look like there's not a harness harness or somebody just poked somebody there.
There's like the one of like the guy that looks like he's like grabbing him but he's just touching him.
>> So he doesn't exist. We're just >> No, they're Yeah, you are you are just wrong. Yeah.
>> How do you know? Are you there? Are you up there with them?
>> I mean it's pretty easy to see what's going on. And like if if it were the case look do you know what fascism is?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. One of the things that fascists do this like in the playbook is they simultaneously believe that the enemy is incredibly strong, so they must be defeated, but also that they're incredibly weak and degenerate, so we're so much stronger than them, so we can defeat them, right? It's a it's it's a weird like internal contradiction that fascists hold that like like you know if you're a Nazi you both simultaneously think that the Jews are like so strong that they can control everything but they're also like vermin and they they should be stamped out by the by the righteous arens right like that's that's a fascist thing is this not a is this not a pivot >> no no I'm making a point um so this is a fascist thing now what I've noticed is that this is a similar thing happens for flat-earthers namely on the one hand NASA is this incredibly powerful organiz organization that's capable of hiding everything from everybody for, you know, for decades and, you know, every time.
Yeah. Every single space agency. It's it's all this like they're so powerful.
And on the other hand, they >> have evidence for those as well.
>> And on the other hand, they just like fail to, you know, fix their green screen because they're incompetent.
>> Well, >> so which one is it? Are they are they are they so ultimately powerful and they can control everything or are they incompetent? Which one is it? I think I think that the like the henchmen they have working for them at NASA like they're not they're not very smart.
They're just, you know, put there for the numbers.
>> Yeah. NASA people definitely don't have to be smart to get a job there.
>> Well, they Well, the reason why I say that is because one time they were caught using a blue screen, but then they tried to play it off like they use them all the time for their for their experiments. Do you know what a blue screen is?
>> Well, yeah. I mean, we usually call them green screens nowadays.
>> Well, no. No. This was a blue screen and they were caught red-handed using it and then they later NASA NASA >> when >> H I have it again. I have it in the documentary. I can find the time.
>> Well, I think it was like a couple decades ago, probably 10 or 20 years ago. But they were still caught red-handed using it.
>> Now I can show you using it. You Well, so look, like in any media production, like if you're if you're if you know if you're if you're trying to do >> media production, >> please let me finish my sentence. Like if you're trying to do like a PR thing like you know you know uh when CNN is like they're recording like um like their morning news or whatever they have a green screen behind them so they can show the city. So like often you'll have like announcers talking and they're obviously on the ground and they're not claiming to be in space and then they'll have like something going on behind them just to like illustrate you know whatever it is they're talking about. Of course they're going to have those kinds of media productions because NASA is a government organization. They have to sell their work uh they have to sell their work to the people. So they're of course they're going to do that. Now the question is is did they actually use green screens to produce everything that we see that comes from NASA? And the answer is like obviously no.
>> I this is what I found. I found it. I have my camera on.
>> Okay.
>> So he should not be following like this if he's >> is that is that person No, they're not.
Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, here's the part is coming up. Uh this is how they do their zerog live streams. from these planes that they >> How long do the planes stay in uh stay in the zero g environment? How long can they >> um pro at least a couple minutes?
>> So, you know that that would mean falling for a couple minutes, right?
>> Yeah, they go up extremely high.
>> How high do they go?
>> Probably like 100,000 feet up.
>> 100,000 feet up. Can you give me an example of a plane that can fly that high?
>> They're planes. Look, there it is. Right there. You see it?
>> I don't know what I'm looking at.
>> Look at the blue. The blue screen right here. Uh I got That's a blue screen. And look, look, look, look at the person in there.
That's the exact same clip right here.
>> Uh, I don't think it's the exact same clip.
>> No, look, look, look.
>> I'm looking I'm looking I'm looking closely. Why is his hand in a different orientation if it's the same clip?
>> It's It's coming up. It's coming up. But as you can see, this is this is the exact same person. They have the same hairline, the same face, the same shirt.
It's the same person.
>> They don't look like they're the same person, but sure, maybe they are. Here's a here's a diagram of how these blue screens work.
>> Wait, why? What? Hold on. So, to be clear, you know, if you have two different colors, >> you can't have uh a blue like a green screen effect, right?
>> Let me turn my brightness up so you can see better.
>> You know that, right?
>> What do I know?
>> That if you have two different colors, you can't green screen it away.
>> Well, they're using a blue screen, not a green screen. A green a blue screen is just what a green screen used to be called because they used to use blue screens instead of green screens. But if you have a if you have a checkerboard on top of the blue the checkerboard won't disappear.
>> All I'm saying is that >> do you know do you know how check how green like green screening works? It's called chroma keying. Do you know how that works? Apparently that's a cargo net.
>> You think this is a cargo net? Is that what they told you? Is that what they told you?
>> Apparently that's what it is. It's definitely not a not a blue screen.
>> Well listen Blitz. The fraud can tell you any explanation. It doesn't mean it's true.
>> How do you know how you know it's blue screen?
>> Okay. All right. I guess we're going to do this.
>> Do it.
>> Yeah. Somebody said it was a coconut, which it could be.
>> Why don't you bring that person up and we can >> I don't know who it was.
>> Well, whoever it is, they're a fraud.
>> Okay.
>> Um, let me let me just >> So, do you want to know what a blue screen looks like?
It's just a blue screen. There's no checkerboard on it.
H the blue screen method was developed in the 1930s at RKO Radio Pictures. They used an early version of the traveling map to create wipers, blah blah blah blah blah. The name chroma key was RCA's trade name for the process. Uh, for decades, traveling mat shots had to be had to be done locked down so that neither the matted subject nor the background could shift their camera perspective at all. Um, meteorologists on television often use a field monitor to the side of the screen to see where they're putting their hands. Some films make heavy use of Okay, that's fine. So, apparently, I don't actually know when they switch to green screens. Um, but >> I don't know why it's not many years.
point our point is that they should just be transparent and not use this kind of >> and my point is that that's not a chroma keying background.
>> Okay. Well, what what we've seen we've seen this this person in this angle with this ball in his hand. We've seen that before, but there was behind him there was the actual space station. It wasn't this blue screen. That's what we're saying.
>> Okay. So, where did the uh where did the where did this blue screen with white check mark or checkerboard on it? Where did that come from? It came from this live stream where they accidentally had it up without without turning it on.
This is this is from NASA. I'll show you.
>> Okay, let's go. Let's go see if we can find the actual the actual video >> rather than just like something from this documentary of yours, >> right? Like so they're obviously unprepared. They're they're wielding someone in a wheelchair away. But in the background, they have this clip left up there with the blue screen >> and the guy >> What color is his What color is that thing on his shirt? The NASA logo.
>> It is. Looks black.
>> Wait, I'm I'm going to show you the side by side.
>> In fact, >> here it is. Here it is. Here it is.
>> In fact, do you know what color the NASA logo is?
>> Yeah, it's a snake's tongue.
>> Here, I'm going to show you something really quick. This is the NASA logo, right? This is what he's wearing on his shirt.
>> Yeah.
>> Now, this looks awfully close to the blue color in the background. So, if they were chroma keying it out, why can't we see through his chest?
Just want to show you guys this. NASA's logo is a snake's tongue.
>> Yep, definitely. It's a snake's tongue.
Now, why can't we see see through his chest if they're chroma keying out blue?
>> Um, well, you don't know. You don't know for a fact that that it even is.
>> His shirt is blue. Why isn't his shirt disappearing?
>> They could have used a green screen in this clip. Like, they might when they're wearing blue. It's >> Are they using a blue screen or a green screen?
>> They use Bro, they're using everything.
They're using harnesses. evidence. Give me evidence.
>> Okay, I will. But do you want the evidence of of um them using harnesses as well? We have all this. We've done it all. We've done all the homework for you guys.
>> I'm sure you have. And why is it that they've all been debunked? Every single one of them.
>> They haven't.
>> So, wait. By the way, hold on. Go back.
>> Here's what it looks like. Here's what it's not It's not the NASA logo.
>> It's blue.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> So, why why can't we see through it?
>> If they're chroma keying out the blue background, why can't we see through it?
This is This is more cyan than blue, but >> it would still be chromied out.
>> It's clearly the same person.
>> Why can't we see through his chest?
>> Because they're probably using a green screen after they got caught using the blue screen.
>> Wait, wait, wait. So So the screen behind them is not what they're chroma keying out.
They're they they got caught for it.
Look, they got caught for it. But here, >> how do you know that that has anything to do with what we're seeing on the right? Because when they're showing us like the astronauts playing with balls in zero g in zero g environments, what we're seeing is the back of the so-called space station. We're not seeing this blue screen.
>> Okay. So, if so, if it if it's a blue screen, then we should be seeing through his chest.
>> Well, they what I'm saying is this this probably comes this was before they got caught using it.
>> Right. Right. But if if the thing on the right is the same is the same thing. If it's the same recording, they just green they just blue screened out the background, then we should see through his chest.
>> I think I think I think this is a future recording. This is a past recording.
They're using a green screen in this image. That's >> Wait a minute. So then this is not evidence that the thing on the right was uh green screened or blue screened for that matter.
>> Why are they using why are they h why are they having these astronauts play with balls in zero g environments with a blue screen behind?
>> I don't think it's in zerog on the left.
>> They look they got caught using it. They >> What do you mean they got caught? I mean I mean in this live stream in this clip nobody knew. Let me unpause. Sorry. And this in this clip nobody knew prior to this clip that they were using this kind of technology.
>> How do you know?
>> Because it was it wasn't public knowledge. After they were called out by it from people from flat-earthers they changed it and then they started.
>> So So this is the narrative. The narrative is that nobody had ever seen this bloop. By the way, you still haven't explained why there's a grid there. Uh, I suspect what's happening is that they're using it as a measuring as like a measuring tape basically so that they can figure out how far things go for how far things move and how quickly they move.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Here's a 3D animation explaining >> Oh, why are you showing me a NASA animation? It's so fake. Why don't you show me the real thing?
>> Because they tried putting out these animations later to try and play it off like it's like this is this is how they do their experiments. Look, now they have it in the background like it's nothing.
>> So th those those grid markers could be used to measure distances.
Okay.
>> Why do they have footage of that guy standing in front of the green screen?
Not or the blue screen, not the like the the blue screen with the grid. Not this one. The one that you were just that you were just looking at.
>> Because that that comes that comes later on after they were caught. They tried to play it off.
>> Why do they have this footage?
>> Because after they were called out, they tried to play it off like this.
>> Oh, it's alternatively they were just telling the truth and it wasn't some big old conspiracy.
>> Look, look here. Here's an example.
Here's one with the blue screen and one without.
>> That sounds like an Wait, how are you getting rid of the white?
>> I don't know how they do.
>> Also, is is that a is that a real person?
>> Yeah, this is this comes from Bring it up closer. It just looks like a bad render.
>> Okay. Yeah, it was just because it was far away.
>> Broadcast.
>> So, how So, how how are they getting rid of the uh the white the white marks?
>> I don't know, man. I don't know how they do this stuff.
>> Okay, cuz that's not that you can't get rid of those with chroma keying without getting rid of his hair, too. So, I I think that you should probably look into how chroma keying works.
>> Um, I think you should look into more the videos that we have of there's there [ __ ] glitching out. Like look, he's hold he's touching his harness. Look at this.
He's flipping over the guy right beside him. He's grabbing his harness.
>> He just he just reaches for the microphone which he thought was there and he misses. He misses.
>> Man, you're so gullible.
>> You can't be this naive, Blitz. Okay.
So, what do you what do you make of the uh what do you make of the fact that like we have video from the moon from 1972 where we have video that's allegedly from the moon rather it's from 1972 that so this is before like Photoshop and this is before AI and all of this stuff right we have video that's allegedly from the moon that is incompatible with the laws of physics on earth >> it's fake >> how is We've de we've debunked the moon landing in so many different ways.
>> How is it faked?
>> It was filmed in a studio.
>> Okay. How did they get a uh how did they get a vacuum chamber the size of several football fields and also reduce the gravity inside the vacuum chamber?
>> They didn't reduce the gravity. What were you talking about?
>> Why does the dust fall at 16 the rate that it would on Earth?
>> Yeah. Yeah. You're I know. I knew that was what you were going to say. The reason why it falls like that is because they slowed the video down, which that's why the effect gives away.
>> Slowing slowing the video down doesn't account for why it's why it's in a vacuum chamber, right? We also know that it must be in an enormous vacuum chamber.
>> The dust falls eventually in >> the important point is that it falls with no aerodynamic resistance.
>> But if it's in a zerog environment, it shouldn't shouldn't it not fall at all?
>> It's not the moon isn't zero G. The moon is one sixth gravity.
>> You're right. Yeah. Yeah. That's my Sorry. Um, what I meant to say is that the the way that they make it look like that is just by slowing the video down.
>> Slowing the video down won't won't make the acceleration go from uh non zero to zero.
>> That's a that's a cope. And you know it.
And we can >> literally not a cope. Slowing the video down will only scale things. It won't make something go from non-zero to zero.
>> We can pull up that clip if you want to.
But the other way there's no aerodynamic drag. So it must have been done in a giant vacuum chamber.
>> Splits blitz. I need you to like really critically think about the moon landing for a second. Do you do you actually >> cool pivot? But sure.
>> Do you actually think that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars to plant a [ __ ] flag when we could have just easily faked it on Earth in a studio for much cheaper?
>> It's not easy to fake it. In fact, the Soviet Union congratulated the US on it.
even though they would have been the people that would be most likely to want to call the US out if there was even a like a cintillaa of fakery or of trickery, right?
>> Um well, I mean, >> why would the Soviet Union join us on the lie if they were our enemies?
>> Because they thought they looked believable for the time. But that was before the internet. That was before people came together to truly >> brain rot. You're right. You don't think that they scrutinized it more than you have?
No, not at all. That was before the internet. That was before you could easily access files.
>> They had telescopes and radios that were analyzing it while it was going.
>> Um, well, yeah. I mean, the rocket obviously went up a b people saw that.
That doesn't mean that they went hundreds of thousands of miles to the [ __ ] moon.
Um, so there is a and fortunately we can just pull this up. There is like a whole slew. This is lovely. I I love this. I love that this exists. Third party evidence for the moon landings independent evidence. So each of the countries mentioned in the section has its own space program built builds its own space probes which are launched on their own vehicles and has it own deep space communication network. So we can just look at other photos taken by other other organizations but in particular I want to look for um >> I have a question.
>> Yeah question about it but um do you believe the India India went to the moon?
>> Yeah obviously.
>> Oh obviously so >> yeah.
>> Okay. Well let's just pull up the footage of that while you get that up.
>> Oh I don't think that we have video footage of it landing.
>> Well they do. And if you can tell it's fake as [ __ ] >> Oh no no no. You have there's a like a telemetry animation, but that's not footage. Nobody ever claimed that was footage.
>> Let me pull that up.
>> Oh, you don't know that? You didn't know that that was telemet a telemetry animation?
>> It's been a while. It's been two years since they they faked it. So, I got to remember how they what they did with them.
>> Why couldn't the Indians go to the moon?
>> No one can go to the moon. It's not it's not it's not it's not like a racial thing like they're too stupid against No, it's just no one can go there. It's it's not real. It's a fantasy.
>> I mean, that's cool, but unless you have evidence of that, then I don't know why I would believe it.
>> I do. I do. I have this this great video from two years ago from Mr. Dubet.
>> You know, Eric Dubet is like a Nazi, right?
>> I don't know anything about that and I don't want to know. All I want to know is >> Oh, he is a Nazi.
>> Okay. All I want to know is what he how he um Yeah. Yeah. This is the footage. This is the official footage they >> Right. That's not at the landing.
>> That's That's the orbiter. Yeah.
>> No, this is them. This is them when they're approaching the surface supposedly.
>> This is all This is official footage.
>> Hold on. I don't think that that is Let me pull it up.
>> It's It's from the ISRO. This is >> Yeah, that's that's from the orbiter, right?
This is No, this is when they supposedly went on the surface.
>> We don't have Okay, so there's >> I think I know what you're referring to.
Are you referring to this?
>> Yes.
>> Yes, that's a telemetry animation.
Nobody ever claimed that Nobody ever claimed that this Nobody ever claimed that this was footage.
>> That's fine, but Well, yeah, because it's fake as [ __ ] right? But >> it's an animation. It's intended to display information. It's not intended to be a like a video. Blitz, don't don't run. Don't run. This is This is them when they're claiming to >> This is an animation of what's happening based off of the tele telemetry.
>> Blitz, I'm talking about what's on my screen. What's on what I'm showing?
>> I'm I'm looking I'm looking for that for that particular footage.
>> Then if you want to pull the exact clip, you're going to have to go to Mr. Dubet's channel.
>> No, I'm sure that this is available elsewhere.
>> Okay.
>> I don't have to patronize a Nazi in order to see the Indian the Indian landing. Blitz, Blitz, Blitz, Can you just stop running cuz I have it pulled up on my screen. This is what we're looking >> I know. And it's very small.
>> It's the rover. This is the >> So, so we want the rover. Okay, let's pull the Let's see if we can find the rover. Here we go. Ah, okay. Here we go.
Is this what you're referring to? Uh, so we have Yeah, here we go. So, we have this, right?
>> Yeah, that's what I haven't been I wasn't talking about the telemetry animation. I've been talking about this.
>> So, is this what you're talking about?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. These are just these this is just video from the orbiter. This is not from the rover.
>> No, but then the rover they have the rover is in the same it's from the ISRO.
It's from the same source. Yes.
>> Okay. What's the issue here?
>> Do you actually believe that?
>> Yeah. What's the issue?
>> You believe it?
>> What's the issue?
>> The issue is that this is the only clip we have of it.
>> Okay.
>> And that could easily be faked in a studio.
>> Why should I not believe it?
>> Um because >> what's the evidence? Because all it would take is all it would take is for them to point a a [ __ ] the camera at the moon at the earth from the moon with the rover in it. Get >> Why should I believe that this is fake?
Why should I believe that this is fake?
>> Because this could easily be faked in a studio.
>> Lots of things can be faked. It doesn't mean lots of things are fake. Right.
>> Don't you Don't you agree that they could just easily point their camera at the Earth if they're really on the moon?
>> Lots of things can be faked. It doesn't mean they are fake.
>> That's not what I asked you. I asked >> they could they didn't. How does that make sense?
>> So why didn't they?
>> Because they weren't concerned with flat-earthers.
>> Oh, that that's a cope, dude. If India really went there, if they were truly on the moon, you could get the most magnificent, beautiful shots of Earth on that surface with the lunar lander.
>> You would call them fake anyway.
>> Well, we would we would scrutinize the evidence and see if >> you would just call them fake.
No, not necessarily.
>> Look, I I can I can go find you plenty of lovely photos from the moon or from near the moon of the Earth, and you'll be like, "That's fake. That's fake.
That's fake. That's fake."
>> No, Blitz, you're you're being disingenuous. You're not being honest.
>> I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to make a prediction here. One sec.
>> Blitz, >> one sec. I'm I'm going to make prediction here.
>> Your your argument you brought up.
>> I'm I'm going to write Actually, you know what I'm going to do? Uh one sec.
I'm going to write something down.
>> Blitz. Your argument was that if there's all these different space agencies >> here, I wrote something down. This is this is going to be I'm going to predict that this is your response uh to what I'm about to show you. Okay.
>> Oh my gosh, this is so performative.
>> Well, I shouldn't be able to predict your or read your mind if you're genuinely examining the data. Now, what's the deal with this photo?
>> Lovely photo from uh on the way to the moon, right? So, is this real?
I don't believe it's real.
>> Why not?
>> Well, because I am I am a flat-earther.
I can't believe this is real. Now, if >> Why do you not think it's real?
>> Well, I wasn't.
>> Rather than doing confirmation rather than doing confirmation bias, why do you think that it's What is it? What do you think that it is? That's fake.
>> Of course, of course, you're predictable. anything any any image I show you, any photo I show you, you're you're obligated to believe it's fake because your ideology that the Earth is flat comes before the evidence for you.
>> You're you're being so disingenuous here. And the reason why I brought up the Indian Space Station is because you said that if there's all these different space agencies, the chances of Earth actually being flat and and all these pictures being fake of the of the Earth from the moon, the chances of that going >> That wasn't why I brought up the other space agencies. Actually, I can go over that if you want. I can tell you why I brought it up.
>> You said you said that it would be it's much more likely that it's real if all these different space.
>> That's literally not what I said.
>> What I was citing is I was citing the other space agencies providing evidence that the United States landed on the moon six times. I was providing evidence of that that there are other uh you know competing space agencies who are not geopolitical allies like the Chinese space agency the USSR space agency these are organizations that already agreed that we landed on the moon >> that's fine that's fine >> they are they it is in their geopolitical interest to show that the United States was fraudulent and yet they don't >> that's fine >> so why don't they why why do they do the opposite of what is aligned with their geopolitical interests >> because I think if if they were to shatter the whole idea that we've been to the moon that we can leave this world domain then it doesn't look it doesn't bow well for their country either because as you can see these other countries >> they're in on the conspiracy right >> well they they want to get they want their country to look good in front of all these in front of the world and say we went to the moon we can go to space we got all this advanced technology they don't want to just come out and admit that no it's all fake none of us can do that it's not real. They don't want to admit that.
>> So, they're in on the conspiracy, right?
>> Of course they are. And and this is why I showed you this video. This is why I showed you this video from the IRS, the ISRO. All they would have to do and by the way, keep in mind these are the only two clips we have of the actual so-called landing of the moon from India. This is it. This is it. These all they would have to do is all they would have to do is whoever was on that craft as soon as >> Nobody was on it.
>> No one was on it. It was unmanned.
>> Really?
>> Yeah.
>> So, okay. That doesn't change the fact >> this looked into this.
>> That doesn't change the fact that all they would have to do is take one of their cameras and point it at the Earth from the moon. They didn't do that.
These are the only two clips we have.
>> Yeah. Why would they do that? Like they're they're not appealing to flat-earthers. That's not their job.
>> They would they should do it because they they they shouldn't India want us to really believe that they went to the moon? They Okay, so by the way, there's a galaxy there there's an entire gallery that they released. Um, we can go find the >> like >> we can go find the photos.
>> They can take some >> We can go find the photos and I'm sure there's plenty.
>> My point is they can here's an image gallery.
>> Well, these are these are from Earth, right? Um, here's Images images.
>> So, is there is there is there a single one from the moon looking at Earth?
>> I have no idea. Have you Have you looked into this? Because it doesn't sound like you have.
>> You You didn't even know that it was unmanned.
>> Okay. My point is that even if it was unmanned, they could still attach a photo to the rocket and get some photos of Earth. They didn't.
>> But you haven't looked into this. How can you say that they didn't do it if you haven't looked into it?
>> Blitz, you just pulled up the [ __ ] gallery. There's no photo.
>> Not the full gallery. That was like eight photos. That was like a a sample of the gallery.
>> If you if you want to pull up the full gallery and if you're right, then I'll admit I'm wrong.
>> But you full gallery first.
>> I bet you won't.
>> I'm just I'm just seeing a whole bunch of photos from individual places. I want to see the actual gallery.
>> And by the way, me admitting I'm wrong is me admitting I'm wrong about there not being a photo of the earth from the moon supposedly. Right. It's I'm not I'm not admitting that.
>> Look, I don't I I don't know why they would take a photo of the Earth when their goal was to do science on the moon >> because it would be a glorious photo. It would be beautiful. Magnificent.
>> That wasn't the goal.
>> Oh, by the way, also apparently there are way more videos.
>> More than just what you showed us.
They're just not very interesting videos.
I'm I'm looking through them now to see if we can find Yep. So, here here's another video. By the way, why are you lying to me about those two being the only videos?
>> Let's see.
>> Here's another one.
It's not the same video that you just showed me. It it's it's the same kind of [ __ ] though, right? It's just a picture.
>> It's from the same camera. It's a different video though.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But it's just a rover on a rocky surface.
>> So, why did you lie to me about there's only being two videos?
>> I didn't I didn't I didn't lie. I didn't I It's not I lied. I didn't know that.
>> Okay. So, you admit that you're um ignorant of this stuff.
>> Blitz, that other video, it still doesn't show [ __ ] It's just a It's just a rover on a rocky surface.
>> What this demonstrates is that you haven't looked into this at all. You've only you've watched a documentary maybe by Eric Dubet and then you just like believed it. I guess >> that's your that's the entire that's the entire ethos that you have here.
>> No, what we're saying is that it's so easy. It would be so easy for them to be be vindicated and prove to us that it's actually >> they're not looking to appeal to flat-earthers. You wouldn't believe them anyway.
>> By the way, here's another video from the orbiter.
>> Oh my gosh.
Man, you believe anything a fraud in a lab coat tells you.
I mean, I I need to show you something.
>> Is this another video?
>> No, that's just pictures.
>> That looks like an animation.
>> These are just pictures.
>> Um, >> here's another video.
This is the uh this is viewed from the moon during lunar insertion. This might be the first one that you showed that that we looked at.
Maybe. But look, check this out.
>> So look, I mean, you would just call everything that I show you fake, >> which is like really a shame because we can just do private launches and we can see the curvature of the Earth from them.
>> Blitz, this is what this is what the stars at nighttime with when there's no light pollution. This is what they looks like >> with long exposures. Yeah.
>> The thing is >> Yeah. So I've I've actually been in such a place it doesn't look like that.
That's what it looks like with long exposure.
>> Okay. But the point is, we never see this in in any of these space live streams.
>> In real life videos, >> you can when there's no light pollution.
>> I've been on top of a mountain in the in pitch black darkness specifically for the purpose of stargazing in Hawaii where there's basically no light pollution and it doesn't look like that.
That's what it looks like with long exposure. The secure.
>> So, so which which one is real? What what which of these photos looks real?
Are any of these real? Are they all fake?
>> I don't know what you're there. Long exposure doesn't mean fake.
>> Okay, >> long exposure is just a specific kind of thing and you can't take a video with long exposure.
>> The point I'm making is >> The point I'm making is that you never see this in any of these live streams from space.
>> That's because those are long exposures.
And that one's a panoramic, by the way.
>> It doesn't matter.
>> You cameras don't work that way. No, but but the thing is what we see in these live streams is it's basically pitch black every time. But here's the thing.
If the room >> Okay, take take your next next time you can take your video camera. Take a video camera and then point it at the sky while the lights are on inside and then see if you can see any stars.
>> Look, the thing is from their live streams, it is always pitch black. Yeah, that's not a real that that's not a raw photo. That is a long exposure and it looks like it's been color corrected, too. Because that's not what the sky doesn't look blue at night, >> but it sure as hell ain't pitch black.
It ain't pitch and if it if they're really up there is >> when they're up there. When they're up there, they're they're not the lights from Earth are not obstructing. It's not causing light pollution when they're up there.
>> The lights inside are inside the capsule.
>> That's fine. But surely they can go to it.
And >> one sec. Let me show you something.
>> You are so disingenuous today.
>> I want to show you something.
>> You're not normally like this, man.
>> Here. Do you want to see something neat?
>> What? What's so neat?
>> See the stars? This is from the >> Yeah, there's a couple there.
>> Yeah. So, you can see the stars. It's not pitch black.
But the thing is if every 12 hours they should have the perfect opportunity to take a photo of the night sky without any light pollution from Earth and >> every 12 hours. Do you think that they're not on Earth? You know that they're not going they're not spinning at the same rate of the Earth, right?
>> That's fine. But surely there's times when the Earth is obstructing the sunlight where they should be able to get a perfect beautiful shot.
>> By the way, this photo is the Earth obstructing the sunlight. You can see the Terminator line here.
>> Yes, you can. So this is an example of the earth and this is what you see. You see stars and actually you see plenty of stars. All things >> that looks like so that looks like Africa there. So if this if there if someone's in a rocket >> this is like you see like plenty of stars by the way.
>> Not nearly as much as you can see from Earth when there's no light pollution which is very odd. That should not be >> you actually can see plenty. But the point is is this is a long expos this is a long exposure photo but it couldn't they had to turn down the what is it called? ISRO not ISRO. Uh there's a camera setting so that basically the Earth wouldn't wash it out because even despite the Earth being pointed away from the Sun, this is still super super bright compared to the distant stars.
>> Here's the point we're making, right?
And you can see like the amount of stars.
>> Sorry, it's not >> the amount of stars in that image of of that you have on your screen. Can you go back to it?
>> Sure.
>> It's what you would see like right here.
You can see a few, but not nearly as much as you can see here from Earth with those >> long exposure photos.
>> But this has never been seen on any that's not how that's not how the world actually looks. That's not how space actually looks. That's long exposure.
>> You should at least be able to see like the halfway point between this photo and this photo from space when there's no light.
>> Why is it just your intuition is your your intuition and you get wrong about it? Sorry, that didn't make any sense.
Is it just because your intuition says so and therefore it must be true?
>> Yeah. Well, I'm sorry. Your intuition is wrong about this. Clearly, it's wrong about a lot of stuff.
>> I think that you just >> at this point, >> I think that you just believe what these frauds are telling you because >> I think that I believe things that have sufficient evidence for them.
>> Blitz, I got to ask you this.
>> Is there, >> let's say you found out the earth was flat by doing whatever experiment, right? You just you came to the conclusion it was flat. Y >> would you have the intellectual honesty to admit to your audience that's flat or are you too audience captured?
>> Of course. Of course.
>> Are you sure you're not too audience captured?
>> Yeah, I would become the biggest flatter. I would I would be so proud of it because I would win a Nobel Prize.
>> What about all the donations that you would stop getting?
>> I would get so many more don you know the Nobel Prize you win a million dollars, right?
>> Okay.
>> I would rather get a million dollars than get like $100 maybe. Well, all I'm saying is like right now I think that you are audience captured because the explanation you gave, >> it's not sufficient, man.
>> Well, it's not sufficient for you because you have some extreme cognitive biases that are preventing you from accepting what is obviously the case.
>> I'm I'm using common sense and coming to the conclusion that if you're up there, if you're in space, you're not you're not you're not um the light pollution of Earth is not affecting you in any way.
You should be up there closer to the stars, which means they should be brighter, which means that you should be able to see more than them. That's not >> Okay. So, you realize that you're not any substantially closer to the stars when you're a thousand miles away from Earth than you are when you're on the Earth.
>> Sure. Not on that model. Sure. Not substantially closer.
>> And you realize that the photo that you're showing on the right is high is long exposure.
>> Well, it's not fake. It's just it's just a way that cameras can function for photographs, but you can't get video that looks like that. And you can't make your eyes do that either cuz your eyes don't have a long exposure setting.
>> Sure. I guess they can't get a video of that, but they can take a photo from >> They could do a long exposure photo, I suppose. Yeah, but they of course they would have to mount the camera on tripod.
>> Don't you think it's suspicious? Never done that.
>> Actually, you know what's funny? They have done that. They're called space telescopes.
>> Let's see. Let's see.
>> They're called space telescopes. We have several.
>> Let's see. Let's see if it's if it's because I just it was very odd that you can get more impressive photos of the night sky from Earth than >> Hold on. Let's let's go see if we can find some um raw Hubble data.
>> Isn't Hubble on Earth?
>> No, it's orbiting.
>> Okay.
Here we go.
I just want to make sure that this is legit. Yeah. Okay. Here's a run day image.
>> Okay, let's see it.
>> Where is that?
>> That's the Horse Head Nebula.
>> Why can't we see this from Earth?
>> You can.
>> You can. I mean, I I can go pull up pictures of horse from Earth if you want.
>> You should You should get it side by side.
>> Yeah. Okay. Well, yeah. Yeah, sure.
I I just want to make sure that I find some that are actually like I >> Why is it Why is it in black and white?
>> Because telescopes use filters. They like filter out all but the red light.
They filter out all but you know, the green light of certain wavelength. So, they So, they just because it's a scientific instrument. When was this photo taken?
>> That one? Um, that one's old. Uh, let me see if I can find when it was taken.
>> So, before the internet.
>> Well, I don't know if it was before the internet. The internet's pretty old. Uh, looks like it was in 1995.
>> Yes. So, before the age of information.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> All right. That that is a little bit >> nebula. It's the pillars of creation within the Eagle Nebula.
>> My bad.
>> That's a little bit problematic. But >> why?
>> Well, it was it's before people, you know, before we could start sharing information at instantaneous rates.
>> Yeah. It's also before AI and it's before Photoshop was widely widely used.
>> Yeah. I mean, that that obviously bolsters its case. It doesn't that's not a definitive proof.
>> Okay. Let me let me show you a picture side by side though to see if it Yeah.
Yeah. I want to see I just want to see an amateur uh like an amateur thing because otherwise you'll just say that it's probably big. Um, so this is I I think that this is a color corrected photo. No, that's that's the Hubble. Um, I want to see if there's a want to zoom in. God, what is this website? I mean, I can show you other pictures of it, but they're going to be like here.
This is these are like other pictures.
This is another one. Um, >> so you you but the >> but I'm using amateur ones for you. So >> wait, hold on. The reason you gave the reason you gave for it having me black and white was they're using filters. But in that photo, >> so so this this is this is composited with several this will be composited with several different filters.
>> So you take you so so the image that I showed you was one of three. Um, where'd it go?
>> This is one of three, right? So there's there's three different filters.
>> Oh no, I'm sorry. This is this is just contrasted. This is just changed.
>> But you said that we've been able to take a photo of this nebula from Earth before.
>> I I'm absolutely sure. I can go I can find you then. It's just a matter of finding which telescope did it.
>> So in other words, there is no proof that that picture comes from space and Hubble >> other than they say it comes from Hubble. It could just be a picture from Earth that they're claiming.
>> Okay. So see that's exactly that's exactly my point. I knew that you would say well like so so you asked me for a for a Okay. So here's what would have happened if I found you. If I if I said no, there are no photos of this from Earth, you would say, well then it's fake. How can you prove that it's real?
And if I said that there are photos from Earth, you would say, ah, well, how do you know it's not taken how do you know that it's not a photo taken from Earth?
Right? Like there there's no there's no there's no way there's nothing I could have given you that would make you think that it's real.
>> Well, you confirmation bias, by the way.
>> You you originally brought this up because you said that >> we've seen these, you know, these beautiful >> This is This is taken from a different different telescope, by the way. So here we have an invisible light. Here we have it in infrared.
>> Yeah, but it can be taken from Earth as well. You just said >> probably. Yeah, that one wasn't.
>> No, not probably. No, not probably. You >> I haven't I haven't found any. This one's taken from the Hubble.
>> You said definitely. You said definitely. We have >> I haven't found one yet. So like I I would believe it if if we could find it.
I just haven't found it yet.
>> This is This is backtracking, guys.
>> So, um let's see. Amateur telescope. I'm sure that somebody has it. It probably just won't look very good. Um, okay. So, this person says Hubble verse me. So, Hubble's on the left and then their amateur telescope is on the right.
>> Yeah. So, so in other words, this this has nothing to do with this is not a proof of space. It's not a proof of of >> Well, I think you would just reject it, right? Because like you're just going to like regardless of the answer that I give you whether or not we have images of this thing from Earth or not. It's going to be the case that you'll reject it for one reason or another, which is how I know that you're engaging in confirmation bias rather than actually trying to be objective.
>> No. No. Because I asked.
>> No. No. Yes. Of course you are.
>> Blitz before I asked you if it was from Earth. Like I I was accepting possibility that you were going to say that there are no telescopes that have captured.
>> If I had said that, what would you have said?
>> Well, I would have you know obviously I would have to scrutinize it more and like that's what anyone should do. But the fact that there are is >> I would actually be interested to see if you could find any photos that are that high resolution from Earth.
>> But the but it can be done though and you can take >> composite. No, it cannot be done. Not that high resolution. You can find you can find images of the the >> You just admitted >> You just admitted we can composite multiple photos and put them together to create >> This is what it looks like from Earth, by the way. Apparently, this was taken from a guy just outside of Los Angeles.
This is what it looks like from Earth.
Right.
>> Yeah. So, you you could do that, but if you if you got a bigger >> if that's probably that's probably a [ __ ] homemade telescope. That's probably like a telescope for one person.
>> Yes, telescopes are have one eyepiece, right? I mean, they're also digital telescopes, of course.
>> No, with a with a bigger telescope from Earth, you could get that same angle, same image. It wouldn't It's not proof of anything.
>> Yeah. And what you know what you won't see? You won't see this. Uh I think that this is from James Webb. So, this is an updated updated image from James Webb.
You won't see this >> which is on which is on Earth, right?
>> No. Also in space, you won't see this.
You will never find any telescope on earth that will produce an image this clear of the eagle of the uh pillars of creation.
>> You if with a big enough telescope on Earth, you could absolutely do that.
>> No, there's too much distortion from the atmosphere.
>> If you went to a if you went No, some of these telescopes on Earth, they they're they're purposely made in places where there is >> I know there's still too much atmosphere. Look, um let's see if there's a K telescope image of uh Pillars of Creation. Let's see.
because KEKE is on that's the telescope that I've been to um or that I was very close to when I was which is supposed to be super super dark um super super that's James Web uh super super clear that's James Web >> this this isn't proof of any model though >> the the what it is proof of is that you can't get an image like that in um that resolution from ground.
>> That's a that's a claim.
>> Okay. Well, do you want to provide something that's that good?
>> Well, what I want is I want these these so-called astronauts.
I want them when they're when the sunlight is not in their way, like when they're covered by the Earth, the Earth is obstructing the sunlight. I want them to show us beautiful photos of the night sky with their iPhones with whatever >> smart don't take good photos of the night sky.
>> They can under if you change the settings of to the right settings you can. But the point is I want they these astronauts if they're really up there they sure as hell got their >> You mean like in the ISS >> wherever they are in any any any kind of space space ship if they're really up there all it would take is for them when the every 12 hours like when this when the Earth is supposedly rotating around the sun on that model >> Why do you keep saying every 12 hours?
Do you not know that they're not on the Earth rotating with the Earth? Their orbit is different. Yes, but I'm saying when on that model when the sun >> every 12 hours >> whatever time it is surely that surely there's a time when the earth is obstructing the sunlight they can take a beautiful photo of the night sky >> here. Do you want an image from Don Don Petit? Is that how you say it? Petit here's an image from Don Petite >> of the same guy who claimed that we can't go back to the moon.
By the way, >> look at all those stars.
You know, do you know that guy claimed we can't go back to the moon because we destroy the technology?
>> I know that that's what flat earth like to say say. He said >> that's that's a quote.
>> That's a it's a cool pivot though.
Here's an image from Don Petite and look at all those stars.
>> Yeah. Um >> so that's exactly what you asked for and now you're not going to change your mind because you're I know that you are you accused me of being audience captured but I think that you're you know uh worldview captured, right? If you change your worldview, you will all of a sudden lose your friends, lose your community, and that would be devastating.
>> It wouldn't be it would not be that hard for them to just be able just for them to just prove that it's really >> by the way, >> it's not that hard.
>> This this is exactly what you asked for, by the way. This is exactly what you asked for.
I don't know enough about these specific images.
>> I [ __ ] knew it. I [ __ ] knew it.
>> Do you think that this photo is real?
>> I don't know.
I I look, Blitz, Blitz, I go I go into these conversations and debates with the expectation that I could always be proven wrong and it I could be I could be convinced that that it's actually a sphere.
with this photograph which shows an obvious curvature with and by the way this in this case it's almost certainly barrel distortion but um we see exactly what you asked for as far as the long exposure photo from space seeing plenty of stars like you can see on Earth this is exactly what you asked for and now you're like I don't know it's dishonesty >> I think you've been dishonest.
>> I have you have pulled up so many pieces of evidence. So, >> I'm not I'm not saying you've been dishonest the whole time, but but certain stuff you definitely haven't you haven't been as honest as you could be.
And this is why I saw your audience captured because no matter what evidence a flat earther gives you, it's not enough for you.
>> So then what's your excuse?
Well, the first thing I would say is this this picture, the way that the lights are distorted from Earth supposedly, it looks like this. It's >> long exposure.
>> Okay. Well, it looks like whatever spacecraft this is on is going extremely fast.
>> This is a long Yeah, the ISS goes extremely fast. It orbits once every 90 minutes.
>> Okay.
That that is problematic.
>> Why is that problematic? Because if it's really going that fast, then the chances of it hitting another satellite up there are pretty high. But that's never >> space is big. Space is big. The orbits are stable.
>> As long as as long as nothing is crossing the orbits, they won't collide.
Space is far bigger than you think.
>> They can track these things. It's this is a this is a rescue device that you're currently trying to employ so that you don't have to admit that this is a real photo.
You said once every 90 seconds.
>> I said 90 minutes.
>> 90 minutes. It's still very fast.
>> There's a lot.
>> 16 times faster than the Earth rotates.
>> Yeah. They claim there's a lot of a lot of satellites up there.
>> Yep.
>> And with every every other satellite they supposedly send there, the chances of it hitting that >> Yeah. It's kind of Kesler syndrome. And we're not currently in that pro in in that scenario because even though yes there's like 15,000 satellites or something like this up there. Space is very very big. The average and I calculated this once for a flat earther on a live stream. Um the average distance between satellites is like thousands of miles.
>> Okay.
What um it would be the sun would be on the opposite side of the earth in this image, right?
>> I think that this is nighttime. Yeah.
So, it would be on the opposite side of the Earth.
>> Well, I don't know if it's exactly on the opposite side or maybe they're approaching dawn. I don't know.
>> So, my question is if if if this is real and they're able to get these these shots of the night sky whenever the whenever it's nighttime.
>> You good?
>> I have a meeting.
>> All right. It's tomorrow. I'm sorry.
It's tomorrow. We're good.
>> Yeah. If it's nighttime and they they're able to get these awesome shots, uh why is it only in this one image that it's it's visible?
>> This is a long exposure image.
>> Is that going to be your cope every time?
>> That's just how lights. That's just how optics work. It's how cameras work.
>> This isn't cope. You should just learn how cameras work.
>> Why Why can't they just Why can't they show us more long exposure shots when they're up there?
>> So now you want more?
>> I can go look for more if you want. I want what I want >> is a is a astrophotographer.
Like that's one of the So he's good at this. Not every astronaut is.
>> This is this is not like just some this is not just like some random thing that is easy to do.
>> He also claimed that the technology from the ' 60s it can't be replicated today.
>> That's cool. That's cool. You can keep repeating that. It's you can keep repeating that as you as you cope with the fact that they're obviously able to see the things that you wanted. By the way, here's another um actually, let me just see. Long exposure photograph from space astronaut. If I just type this in, I guarantee I will find so many. And you've never even looked here.
Here's one.
You know how it's long exposure? Because you can see the im the after images of the stuff that's uh of like the stuff that's passing by in front of them.
>> Let's go. Let's go see if we can find another, shall we? That's the same one.
Um, here's another one. This is one that we just looked at. This is from Don Petite.
Don Petite. Very like obviously exactly.
Actually, this is a different photo, but it looks like from the same time. Um, very high, very long exposure. Um, probably can see thousands of stars.
Let's keep looking, shall we?
Here's another long exposure. This time they didn't stabilize it, so you can see the star trails, right? Right. You have to stabilize things in order to see the star trails or in order to not see star trails.
>> Um, here's another. You can see more star trails here.
>> I So, yeah, there's plenty. You can just Google it and you haven't.
>> I'm the reason why I'm still skeptical is because this is these are all pictures. Why can we get a video like this? A video >> can't be long exposure.
>> That's not how Okay. Do you understand that in order for a video to work, you have to take a a video is just a like a normal camera and it takes 30 or more photographs per second, right? You understand that?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Now, that means that each photograph can only take at most 130th of a second, right?
>> Mhm.
>> Long exposure means that the that the photograph takes a long time, like 1 seconds, 2 seconds or longer.
So, you can't have a video with long exposure.
Okay, that makes sense. Um, but I mean I I I get that you can't see the amount of the amount of stars on a video as you would be able to with a photo with long exposure, but surely you can see some stars on a video with like taking a video. Surely you can see some.
All I'm asking for is a video like that from >> You've said all I'm asking for like a dozen times now and then I've given you the thing that you're asking for. You just keep reaching and reaching until you find the one thing that I just I just can't find on a live stream.
>> The reason why the reason why is because >> no amount of evidence would convince you. If I showed you a video stars in in the in the sky from space, you still wouldn't accept it.
>> You you and I both know that that a photo uh an an image a still image is easier to fake than a video. I think we can both admit this.
>> An image is easier to fake.
>> Easier to fake than >> Why did you ask for a photo in the first place?
>> Why? To be honest, I didn't I I've never seen these photos before.
>> Because you haven't looked. Because you're not curious. You're just You're captured by your ideology.
>> So are you.
>> I'm I'm sitting here providing you with evidence. By the way, um >> two hours three hours ago, >> just to be clear, you wanted a video of stars from space.
Hold on. I I just need to see one thing.
Three hours ago, Soul, I think that was his name. He came up here and he he gave you a document um about >> Oh, I don't have it up anymore.
>> Yeah. He gave you a document about I think it was >> was about radio waves.
>> Yep. And I pulled it up and we looked at it together.
>> You disregarded what he said. I pulled it up and we looked at it together and he showed his he showed his ass to the entire live stream because he clearly didn't understand what he was reading.
Now, >> you wanted a video of the stars from space, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> What is this?
>> A video of stars from space.
This is from NASA's Gateway to Astronomy Photography of Earth contest or not, sorry, not contest. This is just that's where the images come from.
>> What is that? The atmosphere?
>> Yeah, that that's what you're seeing.
You're seeing the atmosphere in the bottom half. Let me go find you more cuz there's plenty. And here's more, by the way.
I mean, that's cool, but >> And now you're not Now you're going to be like, "Well, that's that's not enough to convince me."
>> Look, all I'm asking for is now what is it that you're asking for next?
>> Well, why isn't it a live stream?
>> There it is. All I'm asking for is it's that it's a live stream.
>> I mean, >> do you not hear yourself? I do, but >> this is like incredibly disingenuous.
Every single time I give you the evidence, you're like, "But what about what about you? You just ask for more and more."
>> Look, look, look, look, look.
A photo is easier to fake than a video, but a video is easier to fake than a live stream.
>> And you'd call the live stream fake, too.
>> The the ultimate proof that you could give would be a live stream with exactly what you just said.
One sec.
So, I just found a still from an ISS live stream showing some stars. Um, now I want to go find the actual live stream itself that that's that that comes from.
And by the way, you've never looked at this. Why is it my job to do your looking for you when I found every single thing that you asked for with a simple Google?
Um, every single thing that you've asked for with a simple a simple Google I've seen I've found. Right.
>> Oh, I mean Huh.
What's Sorry, I'm just I'm just scrolling through scrubbing if you will. I want to scrub to the night part. So, obviously, by the way, found this is from an ISS live.
This is from an ISS live stream.
They're obviously over the day part of the Earth, but what are those two things off in the distance there?
Those are stars.
Obviously, this is barrel distortion, by the way. This is a very fisheye lens, but um those are stars.
>> Yeah, that's cool.
>> What about What about at night time?
Every single time I give you what you ask for, the goalposts shift.
>> Well, if there really >> every single time like it >> I don't know how you can't see that you are the one who is not willing to accept any evidence.
>> Listen, if you if you if you if you get it at night time and if you're right, if it's there, I'll I'll I'll just, you know, I'll accept the feat today and I'll move on.
>> Okay. Okay, let's see if we can go find it.
Oh, that was easy.
Hold on. I just want to make sure that this is that this is a uh just going to One sec.
Um person in the chat, I'm not going to admit that it's a globe. I'm just going to admit what I see on the screen.
>> Oh, okay. So, nothing will convince you?
No, I mean if what would convince me there's only a few live streams that >> What would convince what would convince me is if if they really set me up there and I got to see it for myself.
>> Okay, I need to find I need to go find a live I know that there is one live stream that points not directly down.
>> Um >> but I have to find it because there's only a few live streams.
if they if I got to, you know, go up there with them and I saw it was really what they say it is, I would I would just renounce flat earth. But like me seeing a live stream, me seeing a clip of a live stream, that's not going to prove that the earth is around.
>> It's just going to prove what Blitz is saying is is really there. Like they they have >> No, this this is an animation.
>> This Oh, it was an animation because it's dark. It's hard to see.
Let me speed this up.
This is an animation, obviously.
Here's the actual live stream. I just want to see if this if I just want to see if this live stream actually um >> Oh, that's not looking it's not looking good.
>> I want to see if this live stream actually doesn't point straight down, right? Because a lot of the a lot of these live streams are just pointing down >> and so >> Oh, wait. Hold on. Here's here's >> uhoh.
>> Oh, no. No. This This one's pointing straight down, too.
>> Wait. Do you think >> there's no stars?
>> This is This is pointing straight down.
This is This is the ground.
>> No, wait, wait, wait. Go back.
>> That's That's the ground. It's just dark.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. This This is This is just the ground. Um I think that this is just a fixed camera. See? Odd how there's no city lights in that image.
>> Well, maybe they were flying over the ocean. Cons. Ever consider that?
>> Yeah, that's possible. But >> in fact, um they are flying over the ocean. You can see it in the bottom where they are. They're over the ocean.
>> Where?
>> Off the southwest coast of Argentina or of Chile rather. They're they're down here.
>> I'm pretty sure Argentina has city lanes.
>> They're over the ocean. They're hundreds of miles over the >> So why don't So why don't So why don't you skip to the part where they're over Argentina? Well, it'll that'll be that'll be daytime.
>> No. Why? Really?
>> Yeah. Because So, you're saying look, it's entering daytime. Oh, what's that?
It's daytime. Look, it's daytime and they're over the ocean.
>> All right. All right. Yeah, you're right. You're right. But this this is >> And now they're now they're over land.
Look. Look at the land.
So, this is >> this is a fixed camera. Uh, so >> let's skip the night time. Let's skip the night time again over a continent.
>> Okay. Here. Actually, they're going to pass over like a really populated part of China.
>> Oh, >> here.
>> Okay. I I did see I did see some lights.
>> See, look at all those lights.
>> Oh, wait. Sorry. You can't see those there.
>> I mean, all that would take is an opposite pointing camera at the >> night. So, so I I don't know if the ISS has a has a live stream for the pointing at nothing part of the uh of the ISS. I I just don't know. But I did find you pictures, videos even from space that would daytime. Sure.
Daytime videos from space. And you were like, "Not enough." But I But you're right. You found the one thing. You found the one thing where I can't find a live video at nighttime of a camera pointing at the stars from space. I can't find it. Therefore, the Earth is flat. You got me.
I'm not saying that that would prove it's flat, but you know, I'm not saying that. But, you know, it's clear that I'm making you upset.
>> I mean, it's just for being wildly dishonest, so like, yeah, that is kind of upsetting.
>> I think that I think you were being dishonest earlier with Soul. You basically just dismissed all the evidence he brought up.
>> Well, I I corrected him because he was wrong. That's not dismissing the evidence. That's just pointing out that that you're wrong. I didn't I didn't see I didn't see the full debate. Did he actually admit he was wrong? Are you just saying >> I don't know if he admitted that he was wrong?
>> Okay. I suspect that he he won't admit that he would never admit that he's wrong.
>> You haven't admitted that you're wrong despite being proven wrong. Like now >> what I what I admitted is that you have a live stream of what you what I admit is that you you had pictures and you had a video and then you had a live stream.
Isn't it weird that you kept asking for different things when I kept giving you what you asked for?
>> Doesn't that concern you?
>> Do you bother you?
>> Don't you have like the intellectual honesty to admit that those things could be fake? They could be. Not saying they are, but >> they could be fake. You could be a brain in a vat. That's not good evidence, >> right? So >> that's that's not a good argument.
That's not how we come to conclusions.
You don't just get to keep moving the goalposts every single time that you get proven wrong, that your evidence is given to you. That's just not how we do science. It's not how we do honest investigations. But you're not interested in that because you're ideologically captured.
I kicked him. He was here for long enough. And I'm way past my I'm way past overdue. We have been streaming for a long time. But don't worry, that'll go up on YouTube if you missed the beginning. So, um, y'all, I'm going to uh let's read some super chats, shall we?
Oops. That was me getting pushed away from Sebar with the $5 Blitz. Can you please turn on super stickers? I don't always want to send a message with my donation. Um, I'll work on it. I don't know how, but I will write it down. I'll tell myself turn on super stickers. So, I'll try to figure out if I can I'll try to figure out how it works. Uh, from SK with the five bucks. We have no idea what clouds are going to do. Climate change has pumped a ton of humidity into the atmosphere. That's true.
from relax with Russell with the $5. The church is the institution we should trust the least. We know we trust the least. We know for a fact in church history they killed people who question and burn books. That's true. Or they sent them to um house rest which is what they did to Galileo from Steven Andre Shisen with the seven kuck bucks. That is an artifact of how the image was taken. The RG&B channels were taken separately and the moon moves between them. Oh, that's a good point from Christopher Sanford with the five pounds. The blue screen checkerboard is a scale to provide measurements for an experiment they were recording. That makes sense. From Echipo with the €2.
It's actually an ESA t-shirt. Oh, you got me.
Uh, from Dr. Joe with the $10. Is the dress blue or green? Never mind. That's the longest, most unpleasant nothing sandwich I've consumed in a while. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. You did great.
You paid attention. You did great. From Jim Daniels with the $5. Another flurif that we landed on the moon six times.
Good grief. Yeah, it's a lot of times, right? From Pensive with the $20. Keep cooking. Very, very much appreciated.
Love it.
From Game Master Flash. Wow, I'm 32 and my voice just cracked. From Game Master Flash with the $10. Holy [ __ ] Please take more of my monies for having to deal with these ignorant jackasses. The India Lander should have taken a glorious photo of the Earth from the moon so he could say that's fake, too.
Right. Every single time he just asked for more and more from Dr. Joe with the $2 with the $5. Please give Please give the guests two $2 of this to buy another SAT word so I don't have to hear disingenuous again. Oh no. flat earthers know that word.
From Gretchen with the $3, I'd still give you $311 super chats every stream.
I appreciate that. From Echopo with the 5. I hope for the future when we can grow brains for this po for these poor folks. I don't know if that'll ever happen. From Necta with the $2. Dude wants a magic roller coaster ride through space. It's impossible. Right.
From Ger with the $5. All I'm asking for is to be personally launched into space.
N sensory inputs were fake, too. Right.
That's that's where it would end up.
It'd be like you put a video on the window from relax with Russell with the $2. Actually, I need to write down um just a note. Um goalpost is on the Falcon Heavy. Holy [ __ ] [ __ ] True.
Uh those goalposts are moving at faster than the speed of sound from Von Doodle with the five pounds. Excellent work today, Dr. Blitz. It's very much appreciated. I'm just going to double check and make sure I didn't miss any miss any cash apps or any other donos.
you guys are super generous. Um, it looks like I didn't. So, uh, just double checking for stuff. All right, so that's it for today. I should be live tomorrow. I'm not sure if I'll be live tomorrow for forever for the normal time. That's why I ran a little bit late today. Um, because I have some stuff to deal with. Not some stuff, I just have to pack because I'm leaving.
And so, uh, I will see you guys tomorrow for some more debates. We're going to postpone Ask a Physicist because, you know, we want to make sure that we get as much debate content before I go on vacation for 2 weeks. So, guys, thank you guys so much for being here. Let's go see if we should raid anybody. Oh, by the way, before I let you go, if you like to support what I want to do or what I'm doing, try becoming a member on like YouTube, become a super becoming a super fan on Tik Tok, a subscriber on Twitch, you get access to some nice debate notes, perks, and also it's a good way to support me. Anyway, let's go see who we should raid.
No one. You should raid no one.
Everybody just go to my page.
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
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
Nobody Expected This Lava Reaction 🤯 #faits #facts
TendzDora
28K views•2026-05-30
Soaking Wet, Freezing Tonight
RamenTheBest
229 views•2026-06-03
The Difference In Charged And Neutral Particles
heavybrainspace
959 views•2026-05-29
The Silent Memory of Glass
UnchartedScienceworld
146 views•2026-05-30
