The video provides a sharp, empirical dismantling of pseudoscience, proving that measurable facts will always triumph over baseless assertions. It is a necessary public service that highlights the vast chasm between scientific literacy and conspiratorial delusion.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
A Flat Earth "Debate" FTFE VS Michael Aftias MASSIVE DUMPSTER FIRE
Added:[clears throat] Hey everyone, welcome back. Today we're having a good old flat earth debate. We have with us um let me get you told me earlier about pronounce it wrong. Uh Michael AS uh who is going to be representing the flat earth side. It's nice to be in the room ready to go more than most flat earthers managed so far.
So thank you for being here. If you haven't already, make sure you like the stream, share with your friends, go in the street, scream at some random that they should watch FTFE or you'll take their family hostage. Don't do that.
You'll get in trouble. Uh, so we're about to do the thing where I play an intro, right? So if you're watching this as a VOD later on, you can just skip like the next I 90 seconds. But if you're here watching live, you don't get a choice. And there's going to be music.
So the rule is that you dance. If you don't dance, I'll send Daniel Pratt to your house. If you do dance, I'll send you a cookie.
[music] [music] Heat. Heat.
[music] Heat.
[music] [music] HEAT. [music] HEAT. HEAT.
[music] [music] HEAT. HEAT.
[music] [music] We're living on a disc floating through space with a tiny sun.
>> Hello everyone. Welcome back. Hope you're doing well. Happy what is it?
Monday. Are we on Monday already? Yeah.
the neck. Uh I've been very busy over the past week with the school holidays, the kids, uh taking up a lot of time. Um so sorry if I haven't been here as much as normal, but we are back with a flat earth debate to just ruin the beginning of your week. Sorry about that. We've got with us Michael Aas uh who contacted me himself on Facebook, which is a rare thing to happen. Um thank you Nick for the super chat. 499. Remember to call out double standards and hypocrisy any chance you get, which will be the whole debate. Well, we see I like to give people the benefit of the doubt to start. You know how I work. They decide how the debate goes. They're decent to me. I'll be decent to them. They act like a dick. I bring out FTFE. Um, and appreciate the super chat support. If you want to help support the channel, of course, super chats will be read out at the end of debate. Questions for Nick.
Um, I will put to you. Obviously, I'll try and get through as many as possible.
If you super chated, they're the ones that go up first. So, if you want a question for the flat earther, feel free to super chat and ask. But we're getting on to say hello. Michael AS, welcome to the channel. How you doing?
We're doing well.
>> All right. Thank you very much for joining. You contacted me on Facebook.
Normally, it's me um trying to chase down the flatearthers that are scared to come and debate. So, it's nice. Uh you said this is the first time you've done a live debate.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Um Oh, so but you how long have you been debating flat earth?
>> About 10 10 [clears throat] years or so, I guess. just kind of with friends and family and people that you know found out that I don't believe in heliocentric theory anymore. It just doesn't always turn into a debate, but I've had people ask me questions for 10 years. After a decade of it, you know, it kind of a lot of them do, you know, it challenges their core beliefs. So that uh you know kind of upsets a lot of people even just finding out. It's it's kind of odd but not so odd when you understand how know the core values and everything factor into it.
>> Right. So you you've been a flat eartherer for 10 years. Um um do you just want to just take a minute introduce yourself tell people what exactly your position is on the earth and the the shape and the motion and space etc. to tell everyone exactly what your position is and then we'll just uh get into showing some evidence for it.
>> Okay. Uh I know that I live on a flat and level plane in an enclosed electromagnetic field.
Um I don't believe earth moves. I think it's completely motionless.
Uh and that obviously you know the sun and stars everything moves above us. So, >> oh, is that it?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, and you say you have evidence for this?
>> Uh, yeah.
>> Excellent. Um, are you Well, I said I'd give you 10 minutes to show evidence.
So, have you got things you want to show on screen? Um, how how you going to present your evidence?
>> I'll just explain. It should be I mean, this is evidence that anybody can observe with their own two eyes. So it's not very hard to con, >> right? But you're not actually going to present any science, any physics, any studies.
>> I could demonstrate as well check.
>> You just >> Yeah, I can demonstrate it here.
>> Okay. Well, all right. I'll give you I'll give you 10 minutes. Um, so if you want to start uh in the next 3 seconds, you'll have 10 minutes from then.
>> Okay.
Um well the physics of water you know the the surface of any large body of water is flat and level. I mean you look at a swimming pool surface is pretty flat. The idea that it would curve at some distance uh I mean this something you really got to believe because no one's ever measured it. Um, you know, there's a a big uh misunderstanding about, you know, how your eyes actually work when they look at a horizon over the water.
And, you know, people see something sink from the bottom down. And that's just perspective. You know, something's above your eyes. As it moves away, it appears to get closer to the horizon. And if it remains above your eyes, you know, the bottom of the object is going to compress for before the top of it. And that's just due to the angular resolution of it and its angle between your eyes and the object. Um, yeah. And I guess the other part is uh Earth is definitely motionless. There's no speed to Earth uh rotating or moving through any kind of void in space. No one's ever measured the speed of Earth because to measure speed, you have to observe an object move a distance over time.
Uh that's pretty well known as far as you know how speed how we calculate speed is you have to observe something move from point A to point B over a period of time and then you can break that down to miles hour kilometers per hour. Um nobody's ever observed Earth go from a point A to point B ever.
So, you can't measure the speed of something if you can't observe it move over time, move a distance over time.
And that's just a fact. I mean, you could speculate and use relative motion as an as an excuse, but you you simply cannot measure the speed of something if you don't observe it move from A to B. That's just a reality in in my opinion. And I know we all have different opinions, but yeah, I guess that's about it.
>> Well, that's two two and a two minutes 27 seconds. And I haven't seen any >> I could go I mean, I could go on for for hours. But I think those two are really the only ones I need.
>> I mean, to to be clear, you haven't given any evidence. You've made some claims.
Claims aren't the same thing as evidence.
So, >> so you see how the surface of that water is flat.
>> It's level.
>> You see how it seeks its level, right?
>> Yes.
>> And a large body of water requires a container and it takes the shape of the container.
>> It doesn't stick to the outside of the container.
>> Again, claims, not evidence.
>> You're I'm you're you're observing this right now, though.
>> That's not a large body of water.
>> This is not a claim. I'm I'm I'm demonstrating it for you so you can see of the surface >> that that's not >> level >> not a large body of water. That's bottle of water in a >> it's water in a bottle in a small amount.
>> It's the same fluid.
>> Yes. Um but did you measure the surface of that water?
>> I guess the better question would be how does the distance affect? Well, it it >> how would the distance affect it?
>> It it will curve more over distance. Did you measure >> how let's just you made the claim that the water in that bottle was Hold on. You made the claim that the water in that bottle was flat. Did you measure it to to check any evidence to back up the claim that you made other than it looks flat? Did you check with any precision? What instrument did you use? What units are you measuring? How many decel points are you?
>> I could get a ruler.
>> Yeah. And and how accurate is a is a ruler compared to the distance, you know? So, let's let me let me try and help you out here. Sorry. Let's assume >> that um the the water in that bottle when it's still curves with an arc matching that of the curve of the earth.
Do you know how much curve it should show over that diameter of that bottle?
the 8 in per mile squared.
>> No, that's not curved. That that's drop from a tangent.
>> You're trying to minimize it down to the bottle.
>> Well, yeah. So that you can check what it should be.
You know, when when you say, well, that's flat here. Look, it looks flat.
Evidence then is the measurement to show that it's flat because anything can look flat if you're not able to over a certain distance perceive the the the you know the amount of curve there is but you check that's why machinists have to check like down to the you know micrometer precision when they're doing things.
>> So you think the surface of a swimming pool is curved somehow?
>> Well, this is your evidence. I'm not giving my evidence right now. I'm just asking for your evidence and you've made a claim >> that the water is always flat. No, you you demonstrated it looking you demonstrated it looking locally flat, but you haven't checked measured to check. You've just said a thing and made a claim.
>> To what margin of error is that flat?
>> You're suggesting that people aren't capable of observing a flat surface.
>> Not to any precision. and your eyes couldn't tell the difference between 0 and 0.000000001 degree.
>> You you need tools to measure when your eyes aren't good enough to see something that minute.
>> That's why I asked you because because that's your evidence because that Yeah.
When I get to my When I get to my evidence, I can show that. But if you're using a bottle of water, you need to do two things. One, provide the prediction that my side claims. So what would my side claim is the curve in that bottle of water to how many degrees? You don't measure curve in 8 in per mile squared.
That's a drop from tangent. But if you you're measuring curve like how many degrees how many radians is it should it be if the earth is a globe and that water is curved and then you do a measurement to compare it to our prediction because that's how science works. You try to disprove a hypothesis and a prediction from that hypothesis.
So, if you're using that as your evidence, what does my side claim is the curve in that bottle? How many degrees?
>> So, you're trying to use a claim as a basis to compare against the already observed evidence. No, I'm trying to do science with you, which means you have to make a prediction using a model that like like like the my model says that there should be a curve equating to X degrees over the distance of that bottle that you showed. What does my side claim about the water in that bottle? How much should the water in that bottle curve?
you know, comparing it. You're talking about the same fluid.
So, if it doesn't curve, if it's if it's that flat in the bottle, >> but how flat is it? How flat exactly is it in that bottle to to what you know to the nearest 0.00001 degree? How flat is it, >> brother?
You can get any container of water and move it around.
>> This is a claim.
>> When it's at rest, the surface is flat and level.
>> That's a claim.
>> Up for debate.
>> Well, it is. It is up for debate. You're making a claim about it. Therefore, it's up for debate. Do you have a measurement of water in a bathtub?
What's the cord length of of that zagita that that forms? You know, the the the hump that would be there. you know what what's the arc length of that? H how how what drop over tangent would you expect of that point? And how would you determine that? How many degrees of curvature is there? To what radians could you measure it?
>> As flat as you can get.
>> That's not a number. To what margin of error are we talking here?
>> Okay. Oh, if you had like for instance 0.00 0000001° is pretty flat, but it would still eventually form a sphere even though it's close to flat. So, how flat are you talking? Because for your claim, it would have to be an infinite zeros never with a one.
And how have you tested?
>> Never with a one. It couldn't be 0.00001.
>> No, because then eventually it would form a sphere.
might be a very big sphere, but it would still form a sphere.
>> Might be way bigger than, you know, 8 in per mile square.
>> So, what what are you claiming the Earth is? Are you claiming the Earth's flat or just a really big sphere?
>> We live on a flat and level plane. So, >> that's a claim. You haven't given any you Well, your 10 minutes is up and you provided no evidence. You just said water is leveling.
>> I demonstrated the physics of water. No, you you showed water reacting to the force created by gravity. That saw understand >> but you didn't you didn't present me required a container.
>> Yeah, because it was has to be away from the other container that that's trying to pull it towards it. Yeah.
>> What other container?
>> Well, the Earth.
>> So, you're saying the Earth is an enclosed system?
>> No, the Earth is a container because the force created by gravity holds the water to it.
Gravity.
>> Yeah.
>> Gotcha. Which Gravity do you subscribe to? Is it Is it Newtonian or >> Which Xbox do you play Call of Duty on?
Is it the Xbox 360 or Xbox One?
>> Xbox.
>> Okay. Which I'm asking which which PlayStation do you play Call of Duty on?
PlayStation 4 or PlayStation.
>> They're two very different ideas.
>> No, no, no. Which one?
>> Just so we're on the same page. I'd like to know.
>> Which one? They're not different ideas.
One is one is simply a um a an upgrade to the other one.
>> It's a sup it superseded it. But Newton's gravity worked perfectly on a local level. And what is Newton's gravity? Do you know?
>> Yeah.
>> What's the >> Are you talking about measuring the the gravitational force of an object on Earth?
>> I'm I'm asking Well, Newton's law of gravity is what we would normally talk about. So, what is Newton's law?
>> Acceleration. Are you talking about >> No, that's that that's force. That's just for a force. What is Newton's law of universal gravitation? Yeah, I'm asking you uh to calculate the gravitational force of an object here on Earth.
>> No, just what is the universal law of gravitation?
>> M1 M2 divided by the distance to the center of each object. Is that what the one you're talking about?
>> Squared. Yes. Yeah. So, uh that works perfectly on a local level. However, if you want it to be a lot more accurate, you use Einstein's much more accurate version with his tensor equations for um you know relativistic things, extremely massive objects and things traveling really fast because then Newton isn't accurate enough. They both do the same thing. In fact, you can derive Newton's law of universal gravitation from Einstein's 10 tensor equations for gravity. So, they do break down to the same thing. However, Newton didn't know that the gravity traveled the speed of light. He assumed it acted instantly which for all intents and purposes us because the speed of light is so fast still works on a local level. That's why engineers calculating the force created by gravity when making a bridge would use Newton's universal law of gravitation and not Einstein's tensor equations.
>> Okay, we know Einstein's idea of the whole time space thing is mathematical >> space time space time. Yeah, it's just math. It's not >> it's demonstrated to be evidence in experiments but again you're making claims you you didn't do any evidence.
Do shall I show you what presenting evidence is?
>> Sure. Well, let's go back to your gravitational uh you know the formula for calculating the gravitational force of an object here on earth which Newton's formula would suggest that the mass of an object determines the amount of gravitational force would be on the object.
>> Yeah. That's why if you drop a 20 kg on your weight, it's on your foot is going to hurt more than dropping a 5 kg weight on your foot because one having more mass has to have more force applied to it to have the same acceleration.
>> You could have two objects that have the same mass and different densities and when you set them on the surface of water, one is going to sink, one's going to fall because they both they could both be a thousand kg. Buoyancy is a thing.
>> Kg rock this big and a,00 kg boulder that's just ginormous. You know, you get one's going to float on the water, the other one's going to sink straight down due to >> correct. That's buoyancy which is a result of gravity.
>> No, Archimedes calculated buoyancy way before.
>> No, no, he just said this is buoyancy and he didn't Yeah. Yeah. He didn't calculate >> saying buoyancy is reliant upon gravity when it was already calculated. No, he he didn't calculate row VG.
>> It came around.
>> He didn't he didn't use acceleration.
>> No, he didn't calculate buoyancy. He calculated the displacement amount.
>> Archimedes.
>> Yeah. To calculate buoyancy, you need the downward acceleration created by gravity.
>> You don't you could actually calculate it just fine without throwing in that gravitational constant which is just a number.
>> No, it's not a gravitational constant.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. It's not a gravitational constant. It's the acceleration created by gravity which is different depending on where you are on Earth.
>> Oh, so it's a number now. Gravity is a number.
>> G it the force the G in the buoyancy formula isn't the um un isn't the um the gravitational constant. It's the G for the acceleration due to gravity. You do realize that different letters can represent different things in different formulas, right?
>> You know that's like the same number when they reference G.
>> No, it's not the same number. One one is the universal one is the constant the gravitational constant big g next to m1 m2 and one is little g which means the acceleration due to gravity on earth.
>> How can something be simultaneously a force and an acceleration?
>> I didn't say it was big G is not a force either. Big G is the gravitational constant.
>> How can there be acceleration due to gravity while it's a force acting on it?
It can't be the force.
>> No one said that gravity is a force.
>> Gravity's You're saying gravity is not a force.
>> Gravity creates a force.
>> Oh, so gravity is a force.
>> No, gravity creates a force.
>> The force of gravity is the force created by the gravitational attraction.
>> So you're saying, >> right, so let's I think what we need to do first of all is explain to you the difference between the things. Hold on. Yeah, like an engine creates a force, but an engine itself isn't a force. One thing creates the force, right? But let's You seem to be confusing units here, right?
>> The engine makes the horsepower, but it doesn't horsepower.
>> You're you're you're confusing units here. Let's let's be clear, right? G the first G is when you have F little G next to it. And that just stands for the force of gravity, right? As in the force created by gravity. The next G in the formula is big G which sits next to M1 M2 which the gravitational constant which is the ratio that they use to convert one thing to another. The next G that you're talking about is the little G that we use to define acceleration due to gravity on Earth. These are three different things and you're talking like they're the same thing. So you need to understand the difference between them because you're getting confused with the most basic of things which is why you failed to give any >> suggesting that gravity is a and an acceleration.
>> No, I literally just told you gravity creates a force.
>> So big G is gravity and little G is gravity. Right?
>> Big G is the gravitational constant.
Little G is the acceleration on Earth due to gravity.
>> Big G is not an acceleration. It's a constant.
>> When you type A constant is in a formula.
>> Yeah.
>> Tell me what a constant is in a formula.
>> It's a constant. It's the same number.
>> And what if the other numbers change?
What happens to that?
>> It remains the same.
>> Right? Okay. So, you understand that that won't change big G because that's a constant. Whereas little g acceleration due to gravity on earth changes depending on where you are on earth because of the variations in the gravitational field.
>> Okay. Now when you use that formula and you put the object the mass of object one which would be m1 in the formula or you know because the other one m the m2 is going to be the the mass of earth because that's where you're going to you're trying to calculate the >> m1 gravity another one. Yes. So that would go you know you the the radius at the bottom of that equation the r squared that is uh going to go that's the distance between you know the p the object here on earth and the supposed center of earth 2,000 mi bel that's supposed to be 2,000 mi below us which is a wild claim considering >> the deepest we've ever been into earth is only 8 miles to know what's going on 2,000 mi below seismology is a Yeah.
Yeah. Um, do you know that we can look inside a human and see what a baby looks like?
>> And you could totally look inside of Earth.
>> Yes, it's the same concept.
>> Yes, it's the same concept.
>> Really? I'd love to see those X-rays of Earth.
>> Cool. Uh, it's not Well, um, a sonograph isn't X-rays. It It's bouncing sound waves into the belly to to, you know, image the thing, which is what we do with earthquakes. There's an entire science around it called seismology.
>> Yeah. And you bounce these sound waves 2,000 mi below us into Earth.
>> Sorry, what was that? I mean, you still haven't. Right. Anyway, you failed to give evidence, just so you know. I'll show I'll show you what giving evidence is because you made claims. You didn't give any evidence. So, if you bear with me, >> let me finish the part about your your formula on gravity and how you know >> you don't understand the mass.
>> No, I do. I I'm I'm explaining you didn't understand the difference. mass of object and the mass of object two.
>> Yes.
>> The higher the mass of object one is should give it a higher gravitational force.
>> Yes.
>> When you when you calculate it, right?
Yes.
>> You can have two objects with the same >> m one. You can they could both be a th00 kg for mass one.
>> But one will sink through water and one will >> I told you that buoyancy is a result of gravity. So how so you see how the gravitational force that F >> doesn't doesn't >> again again you're buoyancy is a force >> why does one have one why does one have a stronger pull than the other >> it doesn't bo I've said it several times buoyancy >> but they have the same mass >> I've said it several times buoyancy pulling buoyancy which is a you know a result of the medium and the downward acceleration due to grab I'm talking >> right Yes, they're both being pulled down with the with um well with a stronger or bigger force depending on the masses, but the same acceleration.
Right. Let me let me finish. Don't I'll let you know when I when you can talk.
Okay. I don't have to mute you. Right.
They're both being pulled down with the same acceleration but different forces because they're different masses. Right.
>> But um then it also depends on the medium that they're going through and the resistance that that um gives thanks to the acceleration due to gravity. When there's a bigger medium like in water, there's a higher buoyant force acting in the opposite direction. Are you aware of the concept of summation of forces?
It's a yes or no question. Are you aware of the concept of summation of forces?
>> Yeah, you could you could put all the forces together and and and come up with whatever calculation you want, >> right? Okay. So there is the force created by gravity pulling it down.
>> Then there is the force in the opposite direction of gravity due to buoyancy as a result of gravity >> which is going the opposite direction.
So overall >> the one with the higher mass actually has the higher buoyancy as well.
>> Well with the higher density sorry has has the higher buoyancy as well because it's a result of the medium and the thing putting it down through the medium. So if you got a thing with a bigger surface area or you know that's um you know less dense overall it will have a higher buoyant force acting on it because there's more fluid being displaced right and that's what buoyancy is. It's the medium is being pulled down with a stronger force than the thing because of the density which makes a force in the opposite direction. So, yes, but that's why you can use a vacuum chamber and drop a feather and um a 10 ton weight and they both hit the ground at the same time.
But anyway, you failed to give evidence.
You you failed to give evidence and you >> failed to demonstrate you have any knowledge of physics. So, I'll show you how it's done and give evidence of the shape and motion of of the Earth and the claim that we make.
>> You're not going to let me finish my point, are you? But you finished.
>> We've established that two objects with the same mass >> I just explained it for you.
>> Yeah. No. Yeah. They'll have the same But they have the same gravitational force.
>> No, they don't. They have a different gravitational force because one is bigger than the other.
>> Okay. Here's M1. Let's say it's a thousand.
>> Oh, sorry. You're saying they've got the same mass, but they're different buoyancy.
>> Yeah, they have the same mass.
if they have the same mass.
>> Again, if it's if it's got less density, it's bigger overall. And like I said, that means it's displacing more fluid.
And the buoyant force depends on the amount of fluid displaced as much as it does the mass of the object and the acceleration [clears throat] pulling down.
>> If there's more fluid being if there's more fluid hold, if there's more fluid being displaced, >> then the stronger the buoyant force due to gravity acting in the opposite direction. That's the point.
>> Yeah. See for that you have to calculate density which is mass divided by volume right.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Those are variables in these equations.
>> There's no P you know P equals M over V.
Right. Well there's no P in Newton's formula for gravity. It uses M1.
>> P= M over V >> and M2.
Right.
>> What? Sorry. What's P? Do the say the say say the P again. P equals what?
>> P= M over V.
>> P is what?
>> Density equals mass over volume. So you mean row?
>> I'm sorry. Give me the formula for density.
>> Yes, the it's not P. It's the Greek symbol row.
>> My bad. It looks like a P, right?
>> Yeah, but it's not P. And if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that it's not P. It's it's row.
>> Oh, if I knew what I was talking about.
Okay. So this you know when you have m1 they're different things. Row is the calculation. Right. Let me answer it for you. Right. Row is the combination of the mass of the object the volume of water it displaced and the you know the acceleration.
>> The these are the things that make row and that that one some of the components of that are the same as the components for the force of gravity. That can happen. But row doesn't have to be in the force created by gravity because row is buoyancy, not gravity. It's a different thing.
>> Okay.
If the two objects have the same mass, they have the same that'll calculate out to the same force, right?
>> Yes. I And I've just explained that to you, but they have a different surface area, right? Because they're less dense, so they displace more fluid.
>> I've just gone through that with you.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But why would one object so where where would you use Newton's formula for gravity? Why would you even bother calculating it when that doesn't determine if it floats or sinks? It has no part of it. Then you would be able to calculate you would be able to calculate the the force of you know the the force due to gravity of the object and then you could compare it to the other things and do a summation of forces. You you can't just say well that's not the entire thing. It's part of the entire calculation.
>> You get the force due to gravity. You well you would you would wouldn't compare it. You would do a sum.
>> You need it for density.
>> Yeah. But then to know if something's going to float or not, you need to know the force that's pushing it down as well.
>> You would need to know how much fluid it's going to displace.
>> Yeah. And the force also.
>> Mass equals volume.
>> Yeah.
>> Or density equals mass over volume.
>> Yeah. But you you What you force in there? the force would be when it was going down and you could calculate the acceleration, right? You can calculate the force by the mass of the two objects being attracted to to each other and doing the the you know the universal law of gravitation. The force is still there. It doesn't disappear. But then you also have to calculate the buoyant force which means that it will float if the buoyant force is higher than the force created by gravity or the acceleration obviously of gravity and then the acceleration due to the force of buoyancy because you get the force of buoyancy >> you get the force of buoyancy which you calculate row vg right >> that's how you calculate the force of buoyancy >> and then you get the force created by gravity which is FG equals GM1 M2 over R 2 Okay. And then you compare those forces. Then you hold on. Then you compare those forces to the masses, which gives you the acceleration. So you'd have the acceleration due to gravity of the object pulling down. Then you'd have the acceleration due to buoyancy acting in the other direction.
And then you subtract one acceleration from the other and you get a positive or negative acceleration. You need to know the forces to know the acceleration that's going to happen when you have the masses. But the way the electrical forces acting on the object as well, right?
>> The electrical forces are minute over those kind of distances and sizes.
>> Oh, I didn't know.
>> They're literally zero at that point. As close as it can be. The electric force is only strong at like subatomic distances.
>> Yeah. You're surrounded by there's electricity in the air all around you.
Anyway, so have you finished your point?
>> We'll get to your woo that you don't understand in a bit. But have you finished your point you were trying to make about gravity? Do you understand?
I've explained it to you now.
>> You haven't.
>> I anyone with a brain can know like I I'll sum for you.
>> I will sumate for you. You have the force.
>> What are you comparing this this number with? What are you using to >> Let me go through it one one more time with you. Pay attention.
>> You have the force created by gravity >> which gives it >> What do you do with that number? Do you want me to explain or are you going to keep I'm I'm going to explain what you do with the number.
>> You get the force created by gravity. F= GM1 M2 over R2 >> and you use that and the mass of the object, >> right? And then you get the acceleration due to gravity towards Earth, right?
Then you get the buoyant formula to do the opposite side. So the buoyant formula is row GV, right? um or which is obviously the you know the the density of the object the um the amount of volume displaced and the acceleration due to gravity right so you use the buoyant formula which you get from those things and then times that by the mass of the object to get the acceleration acting in the opposite direction to gravity then you take one acceleration from the other and you get either a positive or a negative acceleration to show you which direction the object will go depending on the fluid that it is in and its density because of gravity Like I I the the students that I tutor get this.
>> You know, I don't know what they're getting because you're saying that you basically calculate the force of the ob the force of gravity on the object and then you throw that number out the window.
>> No, you use that to calculate the acceleration in one direction force and the buoyant force is what's going to tell you.
>> No, you need both of them. The gravitational force could be the same for two different two wildly different objects.
>> Yes.
>> But but >> and then that's why you use you you do use then the buoyant formula the buoyant force and you get the acceleration due to the forces acting in each direction.
>> Using that buoyant force. You're not >> you are you use the buoyant force and you times it by the mass of the object which gives you then the acceleration in the opposite direction to gravity.
Like I don't I don't know how how simple to make this for you.
>> After you calculate the buoyant force, you're not using this number.
>> Yeah. Well, you you're then using the result of it, which is the acceleration downward >> the object.
>> You're using the mass of the object.
>> Yeah. And you've done that, right?
>> Not the force, >> right? Let let me once more for the for the people in the back. Right. And follow along each to see where you get each thing from. Right. So you've got a an object falling towards Earth, okay?
And it's going towards some water.
You can you know the mass of the object and you know the density of the object.
Okay? Right? So you take the mass of the object and you you you use that to calculate the force created by gravity which then you then take that force times it by the mass of the object to get the acceleration towards the ground. Right? So you've used the force of gravity to get acceleration one. You've used it. It's there. Now we've got acceleration one towards the ground which is let's say 9.8 m/s squared. So you've used that, you've not thrown it away. You've used it as a variable in an equation to get an answer. Then you go to buoyancy. The force of buoyancy is ro gv density of the object, volume of liquid dis fluid displaced and the downward acceleration due to gravity. Right? So you know the mass of the object. So you can get the force of buoyancy on the object because you know the density which means the amount of fluid displaced. So you've got the force of buoyancy now and you times that by the mass of the object and you get acceleration 2. So now I've used the second force equation for buoyancy. Now I've got acceleration one going this way. Acceleration 2 going that way.
Acceleration 1 was 9.8 m/s squared.
Let's say acceleration 2 is 11.7 m/s squared which means it will never go down. If acceleration 2 is 7.2 2 m/s squared. You now have an overall downwards of 2 m/s squared. You've used every single part to get to an an end point.
>> How do you not understand that? That's like one add two.
>> Yeah. No, I agree with you. You're saying density is the determining the density of the object is the determining factor if the object sinks.
>> No, it's just one of the variables, not the determining factor. It's one of the variables. I mentioned many variables.
>> Be able to determine it without it.
Yeah, but you also wouldn't be able to determine it without some of the other variables as well.
>> You could definitely you don't you could calculate buoyancy without gravity easily.
>> Well, no, you need the acceleration due to gravity in the first place, which is not yet you do because buoyancy is ro gv.
>> Okay.
>> And g that g that g and ro gv >> that you're talking about that's right.
>> That's the little one. Right.
>> Right. Archimedes um principle is simply FB the force of buoyancy equals the weight of displaced fluid. That that is the actual principle. The buoyant force equals the weight of the displaced fluid. Right?
>> But weight itself >> is a port a product of gravity.
>> It's it's it's just take the mass of an object and multiply times it by the acceleration due to gravity. Right? So um and then if you got the mass of the object you can then calculate the density of it. So, so Archimedes did the simple part.
>> Multiplying it. Yeah, Archimedes did the simple part, but he didn't give the explanation as to why it happens, how to calculate the force of buoyancy.
>> For that, you need, you know, if you want to do it from the mass of the object and everything and know it in advance, then you need the acceleration due to gravity, which is part of the formula to actually get the force of buoyancy >> when you have to talking about >> Yeah. Because the mass multiplied by the same number.
>> No, you don't multiply by the same number. formula without multiplying the number by >> No, that's not how you get weight.
>> That's not how you get weight. Weight >> weightight is times by the acceleration due to gravity, which is about 9.8 m/s squared. Anyway, >> I'm I'm going to show you my evidence now. You've argued with me. All right, dude.
>> I want to show you my evidence. All right. I'm going to show you how you actually show evidence. You've you've you've done you showed no evidence and then you've misunderstood a bunch of physics.
>> No, I don't.
>> Yeah. All right. What what is your educational level in physics?
>> What does that have to do with the the >> Well, because I need to know your level of understanding. What what did you do uh higher higher physics? Have you got an undergraduate degree, a masters? What did you get?
>> A piece of paper from a university has nothing to do with your intelligence.
>> It does to do with your expertise on a subject like physics.
>> Doesn't physics is not a hidden It's not a secret knowledge that only universities. How how how do you know that you you understand it? You've never taught yourself >> anybody to research.
>> Yeah, but you didn't even know that it's not P, it's row. You clearly don't know anything about physics.
>> What didn't I know?
>> What didn't I know?
>> That you didn't know that row it's row and not P. For instance, >> that you didn't understand that the force of buoyancy is also due to the acceleration due to gravity. And that's how you calculate it.
>> No, you're not mass times gravity.
results.
>> When you're calculating buoyancy, you can get the same results without multiplying.
>> No, you get the numbers out. It'll give you the same difference in numbers. All your by multiplying it by a by that 9.8 m/s squ a second squared. Objects sink at different rates.
>> To calculate that, you need the 9.8.
>> Stop. Stop. To calculate that you need the 9.8 m/s squared because weight >> is mass. Hey, stop talking when I'm talking. You need it because weight, which is the thing that Marimedes times it by. If you want to calculate the weight, you need to use gravity because weight is mass times gravity. The acceleration due to gravity, 9.8 m/s squared. So, you cannot calculate the force of buoyancy without using that 9.8 m/s squared, which is due to gravity.
You're saying that you wouldn't get the same difference in results like the difference in answers by doing the same calculating the same force >> if you have part number.
>> If you have part of the answer already to get if you don't know the weight of the object, you can calculate that by taking its mass and timesing it by the acceleration due to gravity. That's what weight is.
>> Yeah. But the weight of an object doesn't determine if it sinks or floats either. Yes, it does. THAT THAT THAT'S literally what Archimedes said.
>> No, >> the Archimedes said the force of buoyancy is due to the weight of the the fluid displaced.
>> That's what Archimedes said.
>> You could say the mass displaced.
>> No, no, he said weight.
>> It's the same thing.
>> No, it's not. It's not the same thing.
That There we go. Hold on. There we go.
There we go. Hold on.
>> You It's not Weight and mass are not the same thing.
>> I know they're not >> right. To get weight, which is what Archimedes said, you need the mass of the object and then times that by 9.8 m/s squared, which is the acceleration due to gravity on Earth. That's what it is.
>> What is the difference between using the mass of the object and using the mass of an object times the exact same number?
>> You're not tsing by the same. You're not ting it by the same number.
>> You're tsing it by 9.8%.
>> That's what it is. That 9.8 m a second is what you're multiplying the mass by.
>> Yeah. That's how you that's how you find out the weight of something.
>> Okay.
>> Right. And Markdi said that it's the force of buoyancy is due to weight. Right.
>> Why couldn't you replace that with mass?
>> Because mass is not mass is not weight.
They're different things.
>> Yeah. You're But when you multiply it by the same number, you're going to get the same result.
>> No, you're not. Because you have to to get the weight you have to times it by 9.8 m.
>> Why do you have to multiply it by this random number? Why?
>> Because that's what the formula for weight is.
>> No, I'm saying how would that affect the results when you're putting it when you >> because it would [laughter] be a different number.
>> Yeah, but the differences in the numbers when you >> create a new system then that doesn't uh you create a new system. Yeah, but that's because one is weight and one is mass >> fundamentally. So to use the formula, you have to use the correct thing because the formula isn't just x * b.
It's x * b + c or b * c, right? It's, you know, it's the mass of the the weight of the object isn't the same as the mass. The weight of the object is the mass times >> the acceleration, right? So if you were to break it down and take away the um the mass, it would then be that the weight is um it's just the mass times the acceleration.
>> Clarify the significance and importance of multiplying the mass of an object to 9.8 m squared. What is what? So the formula works >> essential to calculating the correct results >> because that's what the formula is.
That's how you calculate a force.
>> But why? What? No, you're not explaining. Why is that an essential part of the formula? Why do you have to multiply it by that number? Be >> because then no matter what the number is, you can calculate the force if you have those two variables and and they don't move up in the same amount. As one goes up, the other doesn't go up by one.
>> It's there's going to be an exponential difference when you're tsing different numbers.
So it's not a simple 1:1 ratio like you're imagining. To calculate the force, you need both the mass and the acceleration. And then you use the force in other things. Mass is is not force.
Mass is not mass is not weight. Weight is a force. And weight is mass times acceleration.
>> You're just taking >> the the the mass >> and multiplying it by a constant number.
>> Yes. That's how you get the answer.
That's how you what the unit is. That's how you calculate the thing. That's what the formula for for weight is >> when you're putting it into the formula.
When you're inputting that into the formula, if you >> because you would then get the wrong number.
>> Why is it the wrong how what what is what would be the wrong number? What would be >> not the correct not the correct ratio between the numbers?
>> Because one part of the equation because one part of the equation would go up by a different amount of the equation because you've not used the formula.
>> No, it wouldn't it wouldn't be the same.
That's the thing. There would be a massive difference depending on the starting unit >> because you didn't multiply it by 9.8 m squared.
>> Yes, it would for every one it would be 9.8 times greater.
>> So by the time we by the time we got to 10 it's now 980 times greater.
Right. Can I do my can I do my um actual uh evidence now? Because you gave no evidence. You just misunderstand basic maths.
I Yeah, I multiplying the number by the same number is essential to getting the right number. I got you. No.
>> Yes, it is. If you want to do the sum properly. Absolutely. Jesus [ __ ] Christ.
>> What the actual Smeg? I I you didn't even pass high school physics.
>> Yeah, you got me.
>> I I mean, what you're demonstrating is a pre high school level knowledge of physics.
No, I'm trying. I'm demonstrating how you're throwing in a useless calculation.
It's not a differentity like >> right for because you're tsing it by 9.8 that means for every one greater that it is it will be a 9.8 times extra difference.
>> One * 9.8 2* 9. So it's not going to the actual number that you get is going to be 9.8 times bigger each time. So, it's not a 1:1 ratio. You need that part of the formula to get the answer. I Jesus Christ. Right. Anyway, be quiet. Be quiet. I'm going to I'm going to give you evidence of the shape of the earth with measurements, including water and everything that that you you're so desperate for. And then if you want to speak to a PhD that uses the shape of the earth in his job, I'm more than happy to bring them on for you as well.
>> Yeah, definitely.
>> Right. Give me two minutes. I I'll give you evidence.
So the radius of the earth has been measured countless times including by professionals. All these are professional measurements of the radius of the earth throughout history by teams of geodessic surveyors including one of my favorites which is the um uh the triangulation of the uh sorry where is it?
Uh, sorry. It's one of these. I have to get the right one.
Here we go. The transontal triangulation of the American arc of the parallel which is measure across the transcontinental United States to measure the radius of the earth based on the curvature that they measured. Uh, and here is all the details. you feel free to go through it yourself. But unless you know more than professional surveyors and you know um you know people that use the shape of the earth and measurements as their job then you know this is evidence that it's been done and the fact that it's been done multiple times and anyone can go and check using the correct tools and methods uh to find out that the earth does indeed curve at one degree every 69 miles. Um there there was there's many one of them. Um there's lots more. the California Washington Arc of Primary Triangulation. Uh, another survey done.
Um, anyway, there's there's lots of these surveys and you feel free to go through the evidence yourself, but the fact that it's repeatedly done over and over and over by multiple different teams shows that the measurements of the Earth always actually show it to be a globe. Um, if you want to talk about water, here's a good one. Um, Jesse Kowolski, a surveyor. He actually used the surface of water. Uh this is a a lake that is one mile uh and using professional methods and professional equipment uh actually measured the drop from a tangent point which is what flatter has gone all the time which would give you your curve over a distance. Um and this isn't the only one. He did this experiment a few times and so have other people. So using his professional equipment even mapped it all out and everything to get the calculations and found that overall there was a drop from tangent of 8 in per mile squared. Here you see what it says here. Results are decimal feet and it um 0.5 0.15 is 8 in per mile squared.
So when professionals measure over water you do find a drop from tangent of 8 in mile squared which is exactly what we expect.
um more curve of the earth stuff. My friend Mr. Sensible sent up a um a weather balloon to look at the curve of the earth.
Uh this is the kind of the money shot here using a non fisheye camera. Uh all the details of the camera are available uh in the description and even put the camera up for sale. And as you can clearly see here, there is a um a curve.
And not only is there a curve, but the curve actually matches the predictions of what we expect it to be. Compress it side to side. You can see the curve much more clearly. If you're wondering what the strings are, those that the blue and um uh yellow string there, let me show you. This is the actual device they sent up. And as you can see here, they've got a blue and yellow string going across the front. Um and basically if they stay as straight as they are for the whole flight then whatever is in between it is also obviously straight which is why you you have the strings as a reference and in the images. So uh this actually showed what we would we predicted. Um where is it? Water basis um someone extremely clever that makes computer models and stuff analyzed Mr. sensible footage put in the overlay based on the horizon that we see um and it actually really completely matches the predictions of what we expect it to be. Uh he even took the other cameras which were fisheye and put them through a conversion thing to remove the fisheye uh and they also showed curves. So all three cameras uh especially the non-fisheye one showed that the earth curves at the predicted amount. Um, rotation is a very easy one. Rotation of the Earth, uh, you can measure it with a pendulum like this guy did. And like this is how I've measured the the rotation of the Earth myself. Um, very simple. What he does, he lets a big ass pendulum swing back and forward for as long as it can, and it's tracing a line through an ink pad and write and drawing a line on the paper.
uh if the earth is rotating then we would expect a swinging pendulum like this to drift over time depending on its latitude on earth. So basically they let it go after 41 minutes. They measure the angle um and it's drifted from the straight line path to that and so they measure the angle which is I think about 17° something like that.
Uh and then they times it by forcourt sine law and you can use that to calculate your latitude on earth. I've done this myself um during my physics degree. So I've measured the rotation of the earth myself and also calculated my latitude on earth due to the rotation 7.89 it was the degrees there and they they use fcult sign law um and they calculated their latitude on earth which is brilliant exactly what we expect. Um if you want to see the earth moving on its own just go to many of the satellites in space especially probes that have gone really far out and watch the earth move. Um so uh also we want to talk about the just the solar system and stuff in general. Flat earers always say that um the stars don't move.
Well the globe and the solar system and everything moving predicts that Bernard star which is quite close to us would change position noticeably over 30 years. So we measured it over 30 years and it actually did change position exactly as we expect. This is what the globe model predicts. And there it is.
There is the evidence. Uh and it's still moving. Now, anyone can measure the proper motion of Bernard star. Um, here's some iPhone footage of the Earth from space. Uh, thanks to the crew on board Artemis 2, raw iPhone footage, which uh they they've shown and everything. So, and this is, you know, what Flower has always asked for. Why don't they take a camera up? Well, they did. Here you go. Here's a camera >> recording the the Earth going behind the moon. Um, and let's talk about the sun in 1959.
uh we used radar to measure the distance to the sun. Uh basically we fired out a massive pulse at the sun. It took a thousand seconds to come back. Uh which gives us we've used the speed of light a distance of 93 million miles. This has been repeated over and over and over and matches every other measured of meth uh meth method of measurement to of the distance to the sun. So there we have the curve of the earth. Um there we have the rotation of the earth. There we have real movement of stars distance uh moon on uh the earth from the moon on an iPhone and radar echoes to the sun. That is evidence not claims. So you know how do you feel about all of that?
>> Okay, I guess we'll start with the geodessic surveys that you provided uh where they supposedly measured like the curvature of Earth and everything. Do you know what um equipment those uh people used to measure?
>> Yeah, total stations and theodolytes.
>> They used what?
>> Total stations and theodolytes.
>> Total stations and theolytes. So they went all over Earth with theolytes.
>> Yes.
Yeah. They measured out um triangles over distances uh and then put those together. Measured the you know the arc length based on what it is. Found out that every single triangle they measured measured more than 180°. And as I'm sure you're aware, there's 180° in in a triangle. Uh unless it's on a sphere, of course, and then it would always be more than 180°. So they measure the triangles, measure the degrees, and then you can put them together and show the actual curvature of the Earth and the exact curvature rate, which happens to be >> navigation wasn't used for all the time.
>> No, celestial navigation is used all the time. I've used this extent myself. I I've got a bit of I've got an astrolab here. Um I I've used a sectant for like over a thousand hours. I was a sailor in the Royal Navy. Um we can absolutely use celestial navigation because we chart the moving position of the stars.
>> You know that requires a triangulation, right?
>> No, it requires triatellation.
>> Yeah. You you're >> not triangulation, triatellation.
They're different things.
>> Triathlation.
>> Triatilation. Yeah.
>> How that doesn't work on a globe?
because your eyes it works perfectly on >> linear perspective applies to everything.
>> Could you um explain to me the method of using a seextant >> is you take the the how high it is above the horizon to the horizon in your position to get that triangle.
>> No, you're not getting a triangle.
You're getting an an angle.
>> Get an angle.
>> Yeah. You're not There's no triangles in celestial navigation.
Okay.
>> You're you're pointing towards the GP, not to the actual position.
>> The way the vision works is like you don't see in a straight line endlessly.
>> Well, no. You just see light that's come to you.
>> Yeah. But the stars in the sky are definitely, you know, linear uh >> these are all perspective applies to those to th to those as well.
>> Yeah. So, what's the law of perspective?
Do you know?
the the like how far your eyes can see is based on the angular resolution limit.
>> No, that's not how far your eyes can see. That's what when your eyes can resolve an object. You can still see light coming from an object.
>> You can't see it.
>> You can still see the light coming from it. Like you can if someone's shining um a torch from miles away, but the torch is too small to see. You can still see the light from the torch, but you can't resolve the actual torch.
And angular resolution doesn't work independently for different parts of an object. The bottom isn't too far away.
>> Endlessly forever light get weaker.
>> Yeah. But what's the what how do you calculate the intensity of light >> in the sky? It's that light's going to travel all the way to space.
>> Michael, what do you use to calculate the intensity of light?
>> Lumens.
>> Have you have you heard of the inverse square law?
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Uh, could you tell me at what point the inverse square law reduces to zero?
>> It would depend on the distance.
>> Never. Never is the answer because it's inverse squared, which means it could never reduce to zero. It just gets smaller. Light gets weaker over distance, it doesn't ever reduce to zero.
>> Exactly. If it gets weaker over distance, it's not traveling forever.
>> Yeah, it it does. It just gets weaker at different speeds. It doesn't it doesn't ever reduce to zero. So, it's always going to be there, but it gets really really weak. Our eyes can detect as little as two or three photons hitting, you know, the the sensors in our eyes, >> right? So that's all we need to be able to see something. And the inverse square law means that light will never reduce to zero. So it does travel forever unless it's uh, you know, blocked by something or absorbed and reitted in another form.
>> Objects can definitely be obscured from the viewer's like view without a physical boundary between the viewer and the object.
>> Yeah. But they don't disappear bottom first.
That's exactly if it's above your head, the bottom of the object would would >> No, the the bottom's actually the bottom's actually going to be closer to you than the top.
>> Yeah, it's going to be closer, but the angular perspective your eyes to the angle of the top of the building compared to the bottom.
>> Angular resolution can't can't hide the bottom first. So, you're saying if you stand on your head, then it should work the the opposite way.
>> If you stand on your head, no. The object is still above your eyes.
>> But what if it's below your eyes? If it's below your eyes, if it's below your eyes, be above you there.
>> If it's below your eyes, it still goes bottom first. Everything always disappears bottom first at sea.
>> If it's below your eyes, >> yeah, then according then according to it goes to the horizon, it rises and then before it disappears because it's it's level with you at that point. So yeah, but you according to your logic field of view, >> according to your logic, if it's below your eyes and moving towards the horizon, the top should disappear first >> because that would be where the angular resolution gets compressed first as it goes towards the high horizon. But that it doesn't. What happens is things move towards the horizon, go above it. I'm talking what it does is it goes uh towards the horizon, rises towards it, then goes above it and then disappears bottom of first, which is what we expect on a globe. That cannot be explained by perspective.
>> Yes, it it can because the horizon demonstrate that happening then >> when it reaches the horizon that that visual horizon for one is not. the wider the things regardless of how big they are disappear bottom first at the same distance. If it's just too small to see the bottom doesn't disappear first. And you've seen this in countless videos that flat earthers themselves cell phone with when they show something being zoomed in but appearing in hole not from the bottom first.
>> Okay.
So let's say >> Okay. So, just to be clear, you've ignored all my evidence.
I haven't ignored anything you said.
So, as this, let's say, as this object, this building, you're moving far away from it, the angular perspective of that is going to go the angle's going to go down like this, right? See, it's going to go down here.
>> Yeah. That doesn't make the bottom of things disappear because of angular resolution. the entire thing would disappear at the same time. Angular resolution doesn't apply to just No.
Angular resolution does not apply to just parts of something.
>> Yeah. No. The part that's closest to you.
>> No, that's not how it works.
>> Very far away on the horizon. That's not how it works. Compress.
>> That's not how it works. No. No. No.
Angular resolution works. No. Angular resolution does not work like that. Um, what's the formula for angular resolution?
You don't you know you don't see >> 2 * the r 10 of g over 2r is the answer.
Nowhere in that does it say the bottom disappears first. There's a mathematical formula for angular resolution and what can be resolved how far away >> would compress faster?
>> No, it wouldn't.
>> So does so the >> what if what if bits aren't closer to you? What if it's exactly the same distance to you?
>> Yeah. Well, the top of the building is going to be farther away than the base of the building if you're on the same flat level plane. Correct.
>> What if it's not? What if the building's only 8t tall, which means the um you know, the top would be closer to me than the bottom.
>> If it's only 8t tall, it's just going to it's you're going to lose the resolution of it altogether.
>> Go bottom first because it's 8 ft tall.
>> Yeah. If you zoom if you zoom in with something good enough, you can watch it go bottom first. This has been done.
>> You know, by zooming in, you're not looking farther, right? You're not like >> Yeah. I'm talking about increasing the angular resolution >> until it does disappear bottom first instead of all at once.
>> You know that it would that the compression would still apply to you the same in the same way because the angle >> Yeah. But in this case the top's closer than the bottom as it as that angle goes the top's closer than the bottom. It's 8 foot tall which means the top is closer than the bottom.
>> Yeah. But your the visual the optical horizon that you see because you don't see a ge geometric horizon with your eye.
>> No, you see a refracted horizon. But anyway, none of this none of my evidence none of my evidence was that. I didn't talk about anything going over the horizon. So this is not talking about my evidence. I talked about geodetic surveyors and the measurements that they use.
>> And apparently they went all over the world with the lights across every ocean and measured curvature.
>> Yes. I I showed you a list of lots of measurements. Have you ever done it?
>> It's been done for centuries. I'm not a >> It's been done.
>> Oh, so you just you're just taking what they said as truth and just >> I I'm referring to the experts that have done it multiple times and that people, you know, base massive engineering projects on.
>> Well, no, they were done centuries.
They've been done over centuries.
>> I mean, I could show you people do doing the experiments.
>> So, you're going nut because it wasn't video recorded.
>> No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying >> in science we have to refer to experts because not everybody can shut up.
>> In science we have to refer to experts and because not everybody can do everything that would be a massive waste of resources.
>> No.
>> So if someone makes a map based on a particular projection of the earth, I will trust that they have done their job correctly. Just like I'm going to trust that people paid to measure the radius of the earth are going to do their job properly.
>> Uhhuh. Uh so you don't you you just trust the experts is what you're saying.
and and you >> I trust that the experts have the ability to do their job properly >> but it's been checked multiple times that could >> that have performed an experiment that showed the opposite.
>> There's been no experiments that have shown the opposite.
>> So if I I showed you an experiment that showed the opposite, would you agree?
You'd be like, damn, they were, you know, >> if it was analyzed correctly. I mean what what experiment? What type of experiment is it?
>> I mean there's laser tests. There's >> well lasers are light so you would need to include in the um the experiment the refractive condition analysis >> right >> yeah no because we don't have lasers that could they could nail line of sight 30 miles >> yeah but they take into account refractive conditions >> right okay >> because lasers are light and and light light is affected by refraction all electromag Magnetic waves are affected by refraction, >> right? And uh refraction determines, you know, where that horizon is in your field of view.
>> Horizon refraction determines how you see everything when you're looking through a medium with refractive properties like the atmosphere.
>> I mean, the the distance to the horizon is purely based on your elevation.
>> No, it that's why the what the the apparent horizon sometimes you can see further, sometimes you can see closer because refraction changes the apparent position of the horizon. The only way you could see the actual geometric horizon is if there was no atmosphere.
>> But you can't have a refracted something unless >> you don't see a geometric horizon.
>> You don't you can't have a refracted horizon if there isn't a geometric horizon to refract from because light hits an object. I'm still talking light hits an object, >> travels through a medium, and comes to your eyes. So you see the light that has traveled through a medium. Simple as that.
And sometimes the medium can change the path of the light.
>> Anyway, but I didn't talk about refraction. Uh that wasn't in my evidence. So are you going to address any of my evidence or >> I am. You haven't. So with the geo with the with the geodessic surveys, uh you're just taking what their word.
You're just saying >> yes, I'm trusting that the experts that and the multiple repeats of it done by hundreds of different people.
>> Claim they're experts.
>> Yes, they are. That's what they got paid to do their job. Yes.
>> Do you know these guys personally? Yes.
I knew people from the 1800s. Yes.
Because I topped my TARDIS every night.
>> Right. Right. So the you're saying you're taking you're just taking the words of people that you don't know. You never >> It's been tested multiple times.
>> It's been tested wrote that wrote it in a bunch of papers.
>> I'm saying it it matches what everyone else has ever measured.
>> You know you That's a wild claim.
>> No, it's a factual claim.
>> Oh, it's it's factual.
>> Yeah. measurement, every measurement that I've ever analyzed shows that the earth is a >> viewpoint on the geodessic thing is you just you take what these people said in a paper and you just >> I will trust the word of surveyors that do that are doing their job. Yes.
>> Yes. They're experts. They couldn't have lied.
>> What you're doing right now is the genetic fallacy. You're attacking the source instead of looking at the evidence. Of course, if you don't believe the evidence in science, it's your job to test it >> to go and check. But I bet that you've never done any tests, have you?
>> Me? I've measured the shape and rotation of the Earth. I've measured the distance to the Sun. I've been to Antarctica.
>> Oh, great. So, could I see those measurements where you measured the curvature and the tools you used to measure that curvature all over the world >> that I used?
>> Yeah. You said you've done it. I measure I've measured the rotation and shape of the earth, but I did it with a pendulum just like the um the gentleman physicist I showed you.
>> Oh, the pendulum thing. Yeah. That wire that the pendulum's hanging from, did you take into account any tension that might be on it when you like >> Yeah, it was set up very specifically to do that. Yes.
>> And it and it didn't the tension of that rope didn't want to turn either way. It wasn't twisted at all.
>> No, they've let it they've left it to settle for many many many many hours beforehand.
>> Okay. Okay. What about what about the electrical forces on the >> You could do it with different materials and you get the same result. If it was due to electrical forces, you wouldn't.
>> Plus, there's no measurable electrical forces. There's no There's no Let me Let me finish. There's no measurable electrical forces that rotate in a manner that is um uh in proportion to the latitude you are on on Earth.
>> Okay. If you just let the pendulum hang there and didn't let it go, is it going to start moving?
>> No. when we don't say that it should. We say that once it is swinging then it drifts over time from a straight line back and forward drift and you measure the angle and that drift is how much the earth has moved independently of the swinging pendulum because the pendulum swing t stays um perpendicular relevant to the axis of rotation >> suggesting that the pendulum wouldn't swing wouldn't swing.
>> No, that would break the conservation.
No, that would break the conservation of momentum >> if you let it like you let it go on the exact perfect and it like just perfect line and it was weighted just perfectly.
>> Yes.
>> Cuz you know the way cuz it's not like you know the you know the electromagnetic forces or you know you know how that how heavy is the pendulum that you're swinging. Is it heavy enough to even maintain a but yeah it did it for >> there's no tension at all on the rope.
They've let it stand. That's how you set up when you set up the experiment. You let it um rest for a long time before then >> let starting it to swing.
>> Uh-huh.
>> Yeah.
>> And that somehow gets rid of any circular tension from the rope that it's hanging from.
>> Yes. That when it's got no tension because it's been resting for a long time. Yeah. That's that happens.
>> It's just it would it would perfectly swing straight back and forth. And uh >> Yes. That's why when you do the experiment that it could is if Earth was moving.
>> Yeah. And that's why depending on where you do it on Earth, it drifts a different amount depending on your latitude as predicted by the globe.
>> Wild. And does it keep swinging forever?
>> No, because we don't say it should.
>> No.
Oh, didn't say it should.
>> No, it's clear you have no clue about physics. You You know this that you you are literally clueless about physics.
>> Yeah. I didn't know the formula for gravity or density or any of that >> or the P. It wasn't P, it was row. That That was fun.
>> Yeah.
>> You realize that that's going to be a short on my channel, right?
>> You can. Yeah, that could clip it.
>> I've got an assistant for that. Yeah.
Well, I say assistant, I mean Captive Held in the basement that I feed every now and then, but you know.
>> That's great.
>> Yeah.
>> Um >> I I I I know Ra bot. It really does, doesn't it?
So you calculated the speed of the rotation.
>> Yeah. 0.0000694 RPM.
>> When did you observe one? You know, uh, Earth, you know, any any place on Earth go from point A to point B over a certain amount of time.
>> I measured it indirectly >> because I'm on the thing that's moving.
I've never been to space and in an orbit. No, >> you've never seen earth something on Earth go from point A to point B over a time.
>> I' I've seen a pendulum drift um from angle A to angle B.
>> Uhhuh. You know that's you can't measure speed. It's not how speed's measured is by what you don't measure the speed.
>> I've got how much it's moved if I if [clears throat] I know the radius of Earth.
>> Uh because that's been measured. Uh and with that with that angle with that Yeah. With that angle, I can then calculate the distance moved and therefore speed. seem well educated. Do you know how the formula for speed and how you calculate?
>> Yeah. Linear speed or rotational speed.
>> I'm talking speed.
>> Yeah. Linear speed or rotational speed.
>> It's distance over time.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's linear speed. So, how do you calculate rotational speed?
>> Any speed.
>> Yeah. Yeah. How it's different over time.
>> Yeah. How do you calculate what what do you do to calculate rotational speed?
revolutions, you know, how many revolutions it does in a certain amount of time.
>> Yeah. So, how how would you measure that if you've say got the amount is moved from an angle over time?
>> You're comparing revolutions to an angle.
>> Yeah. Because if you've got the angle that something's moved and you know in a circle there's 360°, you can see how much of a circle it's moved in a certain amount of time, which means you could calculate the speed of its rotation based on that.
>> You're not observing it make a revolution.
>> No, you're you're observing it make you're observing it make part of a revolution.
>> You're not even observing Earth. You're observing a different object.
>> Yeah, because I'm on Earth. object >> because I'm on Earth. So, I can only view it from Earth's point of frame, can I?
>> Point of reference.
>> How How am I going to view it? How am I going to view it independently of Earth?
I cannot float. I cannot float. And >> I I am I'm literally I'm on the thing that's rotating >> and I'm watching something else move because of that rotation.
>> It's what we predict to happen.
>> You're on the thing that's not moving.
>> No, I've measured that it is moving.
There's no reason why that pendulum would drift the way it does. Different amount depending on your latitude, >> why the pendulum would drift. That's >> No, there's none.
>> Wild.
>> There's no absolutely no reason.
>> No, there's no there's no measurable or, you know, detectable reason that the pendulum would drift the way it does if the Earth isn't rotating.
>> That's a wild claim.
>> Well, could you give evidence of a way?
>> You're entitled. You're entitled to that belief. Uh well evidence that there are a ton of present reasons >> the I mean just the electromagnetic forces around the object.
>> Uh is there have could you present measurements of the electromagnetic forces that would make it drift um proportional to your latitude on Earth?
>> The t I mean what the string you're hanging it from has tension on it.
>> And how would the string make it drift an amount that is proportional to your latitude on Earth?
How is it? Do you have any evidence that it's drifting proportionate to your latitude on Earth?
>> Yes, every one that's been done. I done mine in Bristol and used the uh latitude calculated to, you know, figure out where I was on Earth.
>> It's different. If you're if you're at the poles, if you're at the poles, it rotates a whole circle in 24 hours. At the equator, it doesn't do it at all because there's no corololis force at the equator. And every every time the experiment's done at different places, you get a you know, depending on where you are, you get a proportional drift depending on your latitude. That's the entire point.
>> You've done it at the same place.
>> I've done it in multiple times and got the same exact angle every I've done it in different places and I've seen other people do it in different places.
>> Twice in the same place.
>> Yeah, I've done it multiple times in the same place.
>> Could I see that evidence?
>> Well, no. I didn't record my personal thing from 21 years ago when I was at university. You're you're there you go again. You're you're saying you did something.
>> Yeah, but I've just I've just shown the same thing being done [clears throat] >> claims. No, >> I've just shown the evidence of the of the experiment.
>> You haven't shown me. Okay.
>> I don't have to show you what I done personally. I didn't say I didn't say here's a video of me doing it personally. I say here's a video demonstrating the same thing that I did.
And I did it during my degree over 20 years ago. Those aren't recorded. You're also you're suggesting that if you drop the same pendulum in the same place that it'll make the same angles based on your location.
>> Yeah. And if you repeat that 37 people on my course all 37 exact angles every single time that's all dependent upon your location on Earth.
>> Yes.
>> And that two different locations.
>> This has been done thousands of times.
>> Really? I know. I've never seen it done.
I've >> I'm not surprised. It doesn't seem like you've done anything.
>> In the same place, you'd get different angles.
>> They're in museums all over the world because they do exactly the opposite of that.
>> I If you dropped If you started the same pendulum drop in the same place, you would not get the same exact angles every time you drop.
>> You literally do. This the Chicago Science Museum where I went last year.
>> Show me.
>> Uh, right. Well, I can show you a video of the Chicago Science Museum. Any any video of any folks pendulum in a museum around the world >> where they where they just repeatedly drop it and does the same exact >> Why do you think they've got one in the Chicago Science Museum that does the same magnets under those?
>> No, not the one at the Chicago Science Museum. No, >> there's no magnets under those.
>> No, not the one at Chicago. It started every morning and it it goes well I was there like 2:00 in the afternoon and it was still going. Um still measuring the same angle every hour.
>> Mhm.
>> This isn't news. I don't have to prove to you that an experiment that is well known is done and with the same result.
It's the It's the >> I can I can show you it done. Hund There's probably thousands of videos of it on YouTube.
>> Got people dropping a pendulum in the same exact place and getting the same exact >> like nearly every science museum that has one will have their um videos of it.
There's live streams of just pendulums that are on constantly for ASMR >> for [ __ ] sake.
>> So you got no evidence of that. Gotcha.
Every single science museum in the world is my evidence. The video I showed you is my evidence.
>> Yeah, science museums couldn't set up a display with a pendulum.
>> It's an experiment for >> people to walk in and look at. It's not >> If you doubt it, then do it yourself.
Your denial is not your denial of evidence is not a rebuttal of it.
>> You can't measure the speed of the ground. Yes, you can. Moving watching a pendulum swing. I did.
>> No. If you want to measure the speed of something, you have to observe it go a distance over time.
>> I did. I observed it go from angle A to angle B over time.
>> You watched a different object go different angles.
>> No, I I watched the ground I from my from my perspective. I watched the ground do it.
>> Standing on.
>> That's the It's the same way.
>> If you're on the thing that's moving, you have to do it from that reference by looking at something in the sky.
>> It's not on the sky. It's on the ground.
No, I'm saying it's the same it's the same angle they used for the the fantastic experiment where they were trying to look at something in the sky to prove the shape of the earth and that's the evidence of the shape of the earth >> they had to cling to.
>> It's a great way to show the what the shape of the earth is just because you don't understand it. Of course, >> it was a great 24-hour doing this for 10 years.
>> That didn't happen. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> You seem like a baby flurf.
>> I'm a baby flurf.
>> You seem like a very baby flur. This is all like I've been doing this for nearly seven years and this is like day one.
>> I mean really already with the name calling.
>> No, that's not name calling. It's it's a classification.
>> We we have we have classifications of flour like papa flurs, parrot flour, NPC flur. You're what we would refer to as a baby flurf.
>> Uh >> it's not a name call, it's a description. That's a really >> You are a flourish and you seem like a baby in the sense that you don't know much about the concept of the flat earth.
>> Huh.
>> And and you came to this assumption because >> because I've spoken to nearly 2,000 flat earthers.
>> Uh-huh.
>> Yeah. And I've heard all of the arguments that you're saying over and over and over, but it's usually from the ones that have not been doing it for >> talking about when I've addressed every single one of your points. You haven't addressed any of them. You've misunderstood them.
>> Like not understanding how you calculate two different accelerations >> going against each other to do a summation.
>> Well, I pick up what you're trying to put down.
>> No, you don't.
>> No, there's no trust me. There's no >> row is P.
>> I'm not.
>> Right. So, you don't understand the um the fact that the pendulum does exactly what the globe predicts. And that's what you do science. You make a prediction and you test it. But, you know, science, you've never done it once in your life.
So, >> I got it. Yeah. No, you're trying to measure you're saying that you're measuring the speed of something by looking at a completely at the angle of a completely different object moving.
>> Yeah. If if you if you're going to deny it just because you don't like how you can actually measure things based on relative motion, that's kind of >> how speed is measured.
>> Yeah. And you can calculate speed by the way that I've described.
>> This is well known.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> I mean it's you watch you observe it move a distance over time.
>> Yeah. And I did >> that's how speed that's how you measure.
No, you didn't observe Earth moving any distance.
>> Yeah, I did. Earth went from point A to point B as the pendulum swung above you.
>> Looking at Earth.
>> Yeah, I was. I was I was watching the ground.
>> You're watching a pendulum.
>> No, I looked at the ground.
>> The Earth didn't move.
>> Yeah, I watched it move as as the angle changed with the thing swinging in a straight path above it. No, the earth was in the same place. And you know what was moving was the pendulum. The pendulum was moving.
>> Well, relative to the earth, relative to the earth, the pendulum was moving. But relative to the pendulum, the earth was moving.
>> Yeah.
>> Relative to everything.
>> Relative to the um relative to the pendulum is what?
>> Relative to the pendulum, the earth was moving.
>> Earth is the >> Shut up and listen. Relative to the pendulum.
>> Shush. Relative to the pendulum, the earth was moving. You Because in science, you can choose anything as a rest frame.
Yeah, you could, but that doesn't give it speed.
[laughter] >> Greater Sapion, uh, a great dude in the chat for $20 says, "Bruh, I can't anymore." It's like this dude is trying to fake his way through an oral report on a book he didn't read.
Guys, don't forget if you want super chats read out, either be funny like Greater Sapion, um, or ask a question.
and we we'll see if we can get um Michael to answer some questions once he's addressed my evidence and had a we chat with PhD Tony if Tonyy's still there. Um right, so you don't understand that um the the fact that we I sent up weather balloon well Mr. Sensible sent up weather balloon and it was analyzed showed exactly what we see the the real movement of um Barnard star uh the earth from the iPhone with the the moon going the earth going behind the moon. the radar echoes from the sun showing that the sun's 93 million miles away.
>> Are you just going to nut all of these?
>> No. Well, you know, I love the picture that they took on Artemis where it would, you know, they took a picture of the moon and they had like the sun. It was like eclipsing the sun.
>> Yeah.
>> Um but when you when you put in the measurements for like how far away they were supposedly from the moon and what the sun the angular size of the sun should be at that distance from that side of the moon like it would definitely not make an eclipse. Could you could you show that that evidence, please? That's lovely claim. Can you present that evidence?
>> Uh yeah, I guess I'll have to find the uh let's see.
>> And did they take into account the the crop of the picture, the the angle of the phone, the lens used, everything, you know?
>> Hey Ton, how you doing?
>> Lunar flyby.
>> Just uh just run us through the math, bud.
>> Right [clears throat] here. Let's see.
>> Um, put the source in in the chat of the Zoom call.
>> Oh, it's the NASA website.
>> Oh, so NASA are saying the picture is wrong, are they?
>> No, I'm I'm giving you the image that they provided and how it definitely shouldn't have looked.
>> Well, I want to see the map shouldn't have looked like that.
>> Okay. Well, let's see. I'll put it in the chat so you just click the link, I guess, and show it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, so th this is the math showing.
Wait, not not the chat of the live stream. You can't put links in that. Put it in the the chat of the Zoom call that we're in.
>> Oh, okay.
Um, so just to be clear, you're going to give us the math that shows that that picture that NASA provided is wrong >> because all you've done so far is >> calculate the angular like how how big the angular size of the sun would >> Yeah. Yeah. Which is what you need to do. So you need to give us the math to back up your claim.
>> See where's the chat? Oh, there it is.
There's the picture.
>> Right. So that's the NASA image.
>> So now, can we see the the math to back up the claim that that's incorrect, please?
All right. So, let's see.
What does it say? How far away was that picture taken from?
>> Talk us through the math. Come on.
What's What's the math?
Well, >> I'm have to put Apparently, I'm gonna have to put all this together because >> What are you saying? It's not been done.
No, it has.
>> Well, just link us to resource then glowing halo around.
>> Okay. They didn't put the distance in here.
>> Yeah, you said that the math's already been done. So, just show us where the math's already been done. You don't need to redo it.
And how how would you calculate what the angular size of the sun should be from there?
What what's the formula for angular resolution or for angular size?
>> Let's see.
>> Michael, what's the formula for angular size?
>> I don't have it on hand.
>> Well, you don't know it. You said the math is wrong and you don't know the formula for angular size. It's alpha equals 2 * the arc tan of g over 2r.
>> No, I'm talking about how big the sun should appear from that distance on on the opposite side of the moon. Yeah, but you to be able to calculate that you need to know to calculate that you need to know the angular size formula. So what is the formula to calculate the angular size of something based on distance?
Like I said, I don't have the the formula on hand. I'd have to >> But why don't you know it?
>> Find it again. What do you mean? Why don't I know it? I don't know. I don't know the distance of the where where they claim to take the picture.
>> Yeah. What would you do with the distance?
>> To figure out the angular size.
>> Yeah.
>> You'd have to use the the size of the sun and the distance.
>> Yeah. And what would you do with them?
>> What do I What do I do with >> How do you calculate the angular size?
So, you've got the size of the sun and the the distance to it. How do you calculate the angular size?
>> Same way you calculate any angular size, >> which is what? What's the formula for that?
>> It's the It's just calculate the angle from the from the viewer's eyes to the object.
>> No, that's the angle, not the angular size of something.
>> Yeah, the angular size. How much like how many?
>> So, what is the formula to calculate angular size? Alpha.
The formula is alpha= 2 * the arc tan of gR.
That's how you calculate how big something should appear based on how far away it is.
>> Yeah.
And >> why didn't you know that?
>> Because I don't know the distance. I I >> Well, yeah, but you didn't know what to do with the distance. You could give me an angle, but that's just an angle.
>> No, I said I'd have to calculate the angular size.
>> Yeah, but you didn't know how to do that >> because I don't know the distance. Clear that. Yeah, but even if you had the distance, you wouldn't know how to do it.
>> If I had the distance on the other side of the moon, then I could use that distance with the it's just the um the AU, which is the [ __ ] uh the distance they claim Earth is from the sun, >> add the distance from Earth or from the moon.
>> No, I've just told you how to do it. Are you not listening to me? To calculate the angular size of something, you do alpha= 2 * the arc tan of gR. That's how you do it. Not whatever you're talking about.
>> Yeah, but you need the distance, right?
>> Yes. And then distance is part.
>> I don't have the distance. What I'm saying is I don't have the distance.
>> Right. Well, how do you know that it's been done then?
>> You said it's been done.
>> I've I've seen the formula before. I've seen it calculated before.
>> Where?
>> I don't I just didn't have it on hand.
>> So, you got no evidence of that claim.
>> It's the same as you claiming. You see, same as you and the papers you showed.
>> No, the I've got all the figures in the paper that can be checked against reality.
>> You've not even got the figures >> that can be checked. You don't have any of the You just take, like I said, you're just taking the words of what they said and I'm taking the word.
>> No, I'm taking the word of it being done hundreds of times and getting the same answer.
>> You have any evidence of people doing this hundreds of times?
>> Yes. The list I showed you.
>> You showed papers.
>> I showed the list of the papers of the results of them doing the measurements.
Do you write down the measurements?
>> Yes. You showed a list of papers.
>> Yes. That's the measurements, >> which is okay. That you believe that they did.
>> Yeah. And then then other people did them and then other people did them and then other people did them and then they're checked today when surveyors do their job today.
>> Tony, I've sent you the link. By the way, my head's about to explode.
>> You're claiming this.
>> Yes. Because it matches the other things that I showed you. Um like measuring the curvature of water and the drop from tangent being 8 in of a mile squared.
>> It matches. It matches every time you do the measurements. It shows the same thing.
>> Really?
>> Yes.
>> I I I haven't. But have you done the measurements? Have you done it yourself?
>> I used the Folultz pendulum to calculate the shape of the earth based on the mathematical principles of it being a certain proportionality between the angle.
>> You watched the pendulum swing.
>> Yes. And then I calculated the shape of the earth with it. You could >> I used that to calculate the radius of the earth.
>> Yes. And then I used the I used all the details to calculate the radius of the earth. Yes.
>> I've also measured gravity and the distance to the sun and I've been to Antarctica.
>> Don't judge me by your low standards.
>> I mean measuring an explanation is pretty wild.
>> No, I' I've measured the force created by gravity.
>> You measured it?
>> Yes.
>> They gave you the formula for it. You should be able to calculate it. But actually measuring it and what >> I actually measured it. I I calculated how the for the attractive force between objects based on how much certain things moved. I did the Cavendish experiment.
>> Oh, the Cavendish experiment.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, um you know, even when two objects of the same gravitational force sink and float, >> I've explained that to you. I even talked you through the maths >> because you you have to add in you can't figure it out without the without figuring out the density of it, right?
>> Yeah, I went I' we you reset I've been through this with you.
>> Kind of useless to calculate the force of an object.
>> No, it the force is one of the variables in the equation.
>> Sinks or floats. It's not one of the forces. You don't use it after the density.
>> Yeah, you do to get the acceleration. I talked you through where you use it.
Do you have like problems converting short-term to long-term memory?
>> Maybe you shouldn't smoke.
>> If you can't if you can't figure out the whole thing without the second part of it, >> you can. That's the point.
>> Yeah. The second part of it is the entire equation because when you're using when you're comparing that to >> Tony, I've sent you a link. Come and save me, please, mate.
>> You're using the different densities and the same force.
What's the determining factor >> that that you need to to get the weight which is the force? It's not there's a difference of 98 to >> be the same to calculate it. You have to Oh my god.
We went I'm not going back to >> using mass to calculate the force.
>> Uh yes.
>> Yes. Two objects of the same mass with different densities. One is going to sink and one's going to float. But they have the same.
>> Yeah. Because the buoyant force we went through this. The buoyant force is different because of the density. Yes, >> but that's a result of gravity also.
>> Buoyant force relies upon density. You have to you have to calculate the density of it.
>> Yeah. And the density displaces a certain >> gravitational force could be the same.
>> We went through this. You then use that to calculate the amount of the weight of the water or the fluid displaced.
>> Yeah.
>> So weight you still need to to use gravity in >> for [ __ ] sake. We we went through this. I'm not going through it again.
I'm not going through. Yeah. One sec.
Yes, Tony. I sent it by a Discord.
Yeah, you send mass use mass and Newton's formula and two objects of the same mass.
>> We went through this. I explained it to you.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. That gives you the acceleration downwards and then you have to calculate the acceleration upwards due to buoyancy which you use the density for >> and if the density is higher >> um or or lower and so it's more volume then it um displaces more of a weight of fluid. And to calculate the weight of the fluid, you still need to use gravity.
>> That force that you >> We've been through this. We're not going around in circles.
>> They both weigh a thousand grams.
They'll have the same force.
>> And yes, you're not when they're outside of the water or sinks.
>> Listen. So, when they're outside of the water, they're going down at the same rate. But when they're in the water, they will have a different buoyancy, which means that there will be a different force in the opposite direction.
We went through this >> in the air as well. Well, you think like you're not surrounded by fluid?
>> Yeah, that's why there's such thing as air resistance. But in in general, it's very little.
>> That's why you don't float away cuz your body is denser than the surrounding fluid and everything falls into place because of gravity.
>> There's no electromagnetic field that we can measure down here like that.
>> Yeah. No, the downward force is actually caused by incoherent dialectric acceleration.
>> All right, Witset. No, it isn't. Uh, I've already destroyed Witset on that that that downward um 9.8 m/s that you would apparently get from that actually dissipates [clears throat] after about 300 m.
>> You know, like all there's a lot of oxygen around most oxygen from the ocean. When there's a lot more gas, like the denser gases, electrons don't pass through them as freely.
>> Yeah, they do.
>> The more oxygen an electron has to pass through, >> the less conductive it is. That's why the closer you get to the ground, the ground is electrically neutral. You know, there's like >> the ground the entire earth is electrically neutral, but the ground is actually slightly negative.
>> Gravity.
>> Yeah. Right. So, um, now be quiet because I'm going to introduce someone actually a lot smarter than both of us.
>> This is um, PhD Tony. Tony is, uh, a he's obviously got a PhD, hence the name. Um, he has measured the shape and and weight of the earth, uses gravity in his job. Uh, knows all everything about earthquakes. Tony, please help me introduce yourself to this guy.
Welcome, by the way. Thank you.
>> Hi, Tony.
>> Uh, you're muted, Tony. Um, let me There we go.
>> Okay. Um, hi. Uh, I'm, uh, I'm Tony. Um, nice to meet you. Your claim is that objects fall because of the contrast between densities.
>> Objects sink, you know, whether whether an object sinks or floats is going to be dependent on its density in the in the fluid it's in.
>> Um, >> the fluid it's surrounding it.
So if I have two objects and I control their densities, um, so I have one object, I have one object with a known density, I have a fluid and I control its density, then the object should fall through that fluid or should sink through that fluid at the same rate all the time, right? Because it's just a function of the of the of the two densities, right?
Well, there's also the buoyant force once it gets deep enough, it'll have more buoyant force pushing down on it at a certain point.
>> Buoyant force doesn't buoyant force doesn't push down. You don't know what you're talking about. Let me let me let me repeat let me repeat the question.
>> Buoyant force does not push downwards.
Buy force is always an upwards force.
The fact that you look confused like a like a troglodite um doesn't make it and doesn't make what I'm claiming. Would you like to go through how we actually derive buoyant force? Is that is that the level that we need to pitch this at?
>> Yes. He This one's exceptionally dumb, Tony.
>> Okay. Do you do you know how buoyant force is derived?
>> Yeah. He doesn't.
>> Okay. Yeah. Please explain.
>> It's the you can do it without gravity.
You're >> No, you can't.
>> Yeah. Okay. So you can't take the uh the amount of fluid displace and the mass of the object >> the weight of the fluid displace.
>> That isn't that isn't a derivation. That isn't a derivation of buoyancy. That's a description of buoyancy. You are not showing us you are not showing how the result is you are not showing how the result is derived which is what I asked for. I asked you how do you derive that formula?
>> I'm going to grab a quick >> how do you get there? How do you know that that's true? Why is that true?
>> What do you mean why is that true?
Calculate the buoyant force.
>> Yes.
>> The m take the mass of an object.
>> How do you obtain? How is that formula obtained?
>> You take the mass of the object.
>> That's my my question is not what is the >> I mean you're not letting me >> you are you are but I know what you're saying. You're you're just giving me the formula again. That wasn't my question.
My question is okay how do you derive the formula? Where does the formula come from? You you know the formula for um buoyancy. Where does that formula come from? How was it obtained?
>> Archimedes did it first.
>> Um Archimedes Archimedes noticed it as a law. He didn't derive the formula for it.
>> So Archimedes didn't figure out buoyancy.
Uh I just said he figured I just said he figured out the law.
>> I I didn't say and what I asked >> calculating buoyancy or no >> he was calculating he did not he did not calculate he did not go through the formula um derivation of the calculation but regardless you you have managed to sidetrack the conversation again. I asked you if we have two if we have a medium whose density is controlled and an object whose density is known does the object always fall through the medium at the same rate?
>> It would depend if the if the density of the object what the density of the object >> the density of the object is the same the density of the medium is the same.
Please listen to what I'm saying because that was part of the question. The density of the [laughter] object does not change. The density of the medium does not change. Therefore, if your theory is correct, if your hypothesis is correct, the object must fall through the medium at the same rate every time.
Correct?
>> Yeah. Why wouldn't it do that?
>> Because it doesn't when we measure it.
And when have you taken an object, the same object and dropped it in the same fluid and watched it just sink at different wildly different rates?
>> Every time. Every time we use a gravimeter, a drop gravimeter.
So a in a drop gravimeter. Do you want me to show you a picture of a drop gravimeter?
>> Sure.
>> Just give me a second.
>> Yeah. It's not science unless it was recorded. Uh Tony, um doesn't matter that it's been done over centuries. It wasn't videoed with a GoPro, therefore it didn't happen.
>> I didn't [clears throat] >> I'm paraphrasing.
>> Didn't say that. I I just I I just pointed out that basically, you know, you believed claims that you read in a paper. That's okay.
>> Uh we'll get there, Max. Um we we'll go through questions to the Flur near the end.
>> Once again, guys, if you've got a question for our um quite clearly baby flur here, uh feel free to super chat or tag me on Discord or something. says you lost a debate like just going straight to name calling.
>> It's not name calling. It's a description. It's a it's a description we have for you guys. We're I'm not calling you a name. It's just how we describe you're in this particular category.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's tough facing facts. I understand.
>> You haven't presented any facts. You've said a bunch of things that have been instantly disproven. You've shown no evidence. You've misunderstood science.
You called row P >> looking at a at a >> Dude, you called row P. Shut the [ __ ] up.
Oh man, it's tough. [clears throat] >> Right in the chat, let's do a vote.
>> So, do you know where Dunning and Krueger Do have you ever heard of Dunning Krueger?
>> I've heard of it.
>> Right. Do you know what Do you know where it comes from? Do you know Do you know what Do you know what event inspired them to um uh to >> come up with the term? No, I I know where the I know you know where. So Dunning and Kruger did a study. What event inspired them to do the study? Why did they >> take an interest in this?
>> Why do you assume this applies to me?
>> It applies to everybody.
>> Because it exactly does. So the the what what introduced exactly does?
>> Yes.
>> Because it exactly does. That's why >> everyone can be measured on the Dunning Krugu scale. So it definitely applies to you.
>> So >> you got me. Yes. And and this is this was exactly their point. So So allow me so allow me to tell you the story. A guy by the name of Wheeler MacArthur decided to rob some banks.
>> Um but rather than wear a mask, he decided that he would smear lemon juice on his face. Um because lemon juice was um lemon juice is invisible ink, right?
Therefore, smearing lemon juice on his face, he reasoned, would make his face invisible to cameras. He decided that he shouldn't just rely on his intuition on this. He should do some experiments. So, he smeared his face in lemon juice and he couldn't see his face. His face wasn't clear when he looked [clears throat] in the mirror for some reason. Okay, that's that's evidence.
Um, then he decided that he would take a photograph of his face with an instant camera. And for whatever reason, perhaps because there was lemon juice in his eyes and he could couldn't see where he was pointing the camera, perhaps because the film in the camera was old, whatever the reason, he came up with a blank photo. So he decided that his theory was right. Um, so he went, he did the bank robbery, and he stopped, looked straight into a security camera, and smiled. a smug, self-confident smile about how clever he was, how much cleverer he was than everybody else in the world. And then he walked out of the bank. And he was absolutely amazed when a couple of hours later the police showed up on his doorstep [laughter] knowing his name and arrested him. And Dunning and Krueger read this story and they thought to themselves, "How the hell? How the hell is it [cough] that someone who is that ignorant, who is that unable to intellectually process information has so much confidence in their own ability?
How is it that somebody who is so smug, who is so um condescending to others, who is so sensitive to um to aspersions on their intellect, how is that person so catastrophically wrong? And that's what inspired Dunning Dunning and Krueger to um to do their study. And if you um cannot see how this relates to you and your confidence in your position, then I can't help you. But we're going to get on to But we're going to get on to grametry papers.
>> I never on my face.
>> No, but you're doing something that is even more stupid. That guy didn't think the earth was flat.
>> So compared to him, you're worse. You are metaphorically covering your face in lemon juice live on camera. He >> I'm not metaphorically covering my face.
>> He at least did his own experiment.
>> What experiments have you done?
>> It is an insane comparison.
>> No experiments done.
>> He's done none.
>> You're asking me what experiments I've done after.
>> Yes.
>> You've shown me no experiments.
>> Um >> I've shown you a bunch of experiments, but he's just asking you a question.
>> You can make claims, but I have to show experiments. get on to. But since you asked, let's get on to the actual instruments that we use.
>> He hasn't he hasn't done any um experiments. I did ask him that.
>> Yeah. Finds it level.
>> He he thinks that's an experiment, Tony.
>> And And do you think And what do you think that proved? What do you think that proved?
>> I'm observing water finding its level and requiring a container because it doesn't stick to the outside of it.
>> You know, the word level means curved on Earth, right?
>> Would you would you like illustration?
>> Level does not mean curve. Are you are you and you and and and you and and and and you are stupid enough to smoke.
>> Um which uh which tells me which tells me a lot about you as well.
>> Big big part of a person's intelligence.
Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Yes. Definitely.
It's a big sign of how intelligent someone is.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh I know. I'll give myself credit. That sounds [ __ ] smart.
>> Okay. Throughout history, smart people have never smoked.
>> Got it. only the real people.
>> It's just that you're stupid enough smart people smart people say smart people acknowledge that it will kill them. You're stupid enough to believe that it won't.
>> Your IQ is uh >> relative habits.
>> Okay.
>> There we go.
>> Oh, I'm sharing. [clears throat] >> Claims.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> So, this is an absolute gravimeter. This is an FG5X Lacost. This is the most uh this is the most precise gravimeter that you can find. Um so let's go down into the diagrams of what of the interior.
This is what's inside it. Um uh this is what will be in the inside of the drop chamber. So this um going back >> object drop in the water and watch it sink at different rates.
>> Um air [clears throat] is a fluid, isn't it?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. So, we're dropping it through air.
>> You're dropping it through air. Okay.
>> Yes. Air is a fluid, right? And you said you said all I had to do was drop it through a fluid.
>> Yeah. And it's the same density.
>> Yes. And so, we control we control the temperature and pressure conditions inside the instrument um using how fast it sinks and floats. Yeah. Um uh >> we're not interested in it floating. Why would we want to see it float?
I mean, you're saying that if you drop the same >> Your claim, your claim was your claim was that if the density of the test mass and the density of the fluid were the same, then the test mass would fall at the same rate always. I'm proving I'm proving we have we now have an instrument we now have an instrument that can test this hypothesis. We can control the temperature and the and the pressure inside the instrument. So we can control the density of the air and we can control the density of the test mass. Right? So those two things are the same. So we can control those and we can make them the same regardless of where the instrument is.
Okay? This is this is what this ion pump down here is. It's to pump air out so that we can control the pressure um inside. Ideally, we pump as much air out as we can, but we standardize the pressure. So, we keep the pressure and the temperature constant inside. So, this is this is the experiment that your hypothesis if your hypothesis were correct, then this would be this would be absolute proof. Regardless of where you were on Earth, >> regardless of where you >> regardless of where you were on Earth, regardless of the time you did the experiment, you would always get the same results, right?
>> I think regard where you are on Earth would have an effect on it. If you're way high up, if you're high up in elevation, it's effect >> because what do you mean why? You have different >> because the the chamber is sealed. The the air pressure inside the [clears throat] chamber is independent of the air pressure out outside of it.
>> Why would So why would taking the instrument high affect affect conditions inside the chamber?
>> When did you drop the same density object through the same air and see it sink at two different rates?
>> Um all the time.
>> All the time.
>> Could you show me?
>> Yep.
>> You did that.
>> Wait. No, our claim was if it was different densities, it would sink at different rates. It's not Mr. >> No, no, no. Um, no, it's fine because he's ignoring tidal variations. The the rate at which the rate at which objects fall is not constant through time. Um, because there are different title influences on that outside influences.
>> You might want to shut up and actually listen to what's being said for a second. I'm talking to Craig. You have no part in this exchange. Um.
>> All right. But >> so time um so because of time uh is Abramovich there? No, it's in the gravity papers.
Do you think you can also explain to him why you need to have the 9.8 m/s squared when you're calculating weight? Cuz I don't understand how I couldn't get that through to him.
>> Yeah. Look at >> um Yeah. We're going we're going uh fairly >> same number to get the same number.
Yeah, I got you.
>> But you're getting a different number because >> to get what? Same number? What are you What are you even talking about?
>> Mike, what you talking about?
>> Okay, so we're going to stop that stop that share and we're going to start up another share.
Okay. Um Okay. So, here's a set of gravity measurements through time for See how it same location on Earth. See how it varies?
>> Yeah. The electromagnetic field is always moving around us. Yeah.
>> Um Yeah. Except that except that it can't be due to electromagnetism, [clears throat] can it?
>> Because neutrons fall. Neutrons are observed to fall under gravity, but neutrons have never been observed to be deflected by an electrical field.
>> Neutrons can't be observed to fall under gravity because gravity.
>> Yes. Well, neutrons are observed to fall, >> but neutrons neutrons cannot ha have not ever been observed to be deflected by an electrical field >> because they're neutrons, which means they're neutrons >> outside of where gravity was was supposedly acting.
>> What are you What are you even talking about?
>> You're suggesting that the neutrons are acting this a certain way under a theory. Okay. as opposed to neutrons.
>> Gravity is not a theory about that.
>> So have your claim of gravity.
>> No, no, no. Your claim was that the [clears throat] that the reason gravity varies through time and and I'll say gravity varies through time. I said gravity doesn't exist.
Um, and this is this is why you um and this is why sort of the um uh the this is why the uh that Dunning Krueger applies to you to anyone to to >> because it has to because you say it does, right? No, that's why that's why it applies >> because it does.
>> You just said gravity these variations could be due to electromagnetism. I am in the middle of explaining how it cannot be due to electromagnetism and you just won't shut up. So you raise an objection and then you won't shut up long enough in order to get an in order to um process uh an explanation as to why your previous hypothesis was wrong.
So later on in this in this discussion, you'll probably come back to the fact that gravity could be electromagnetic as though that hasn't already been discussed and discarded because that hypothesis is simply f is is falsifiable. Right? We can falsify the hypothesis that electromagnetism is what produces these variations.
Um, and rather than listen to the [clears throat] actual explanation, you're just going to talk over it and move on to another topic and pretend like, well, he didn't get the chance to explain to me why electromagnetism was wrong, so I get to pretend that electromagnetism isn't wrong.
>> No, you you're you're not you're you're giving me explanations without any >> I'm showing you evidence right now.
>> What do you think? What do you think this graph is?
You tell me. You're showing me the graph.
>> It's measurements of the rate at which the test mass inside an object falls as a function of time.
>> What did they use to measure this?
>> The gravimeter.
>> They used in they used in this they used a gravimeter in this case a superconducting gravimeter. Would you like to see the documentation for a superconducting gravimeter? Sure.
>> And [clears throat] uh if you could also explain how this superconducting gravimeter works and how you know it it >> do you honestly think that you'd be able to understand the technical specifications behind a superconducting gravimeter?
>> I don't see why I wouldn't.
>> Well, I probably because your mom used your softball as an astray when you were a child. if it was explained to me.
>> Yeah, because your mom used your soft spot as an astray when you were a child, you wouldn't be able to understand it.
>> All right. Well, we'll all the >> character assassination and name calling, man. It's just it's really that's how you win debates.
>> Well, I one of the Do you consider yourself intellectually honest?
>> Yes.
>> No.
>> Not on the basis of this conversation, I would on the basis of this conversation, I would disagree with you. Do you consider yourself a good student?
Nope.
>> Uh, I consider myself >> Do you I That wasn't the question I asked. And your inability to answer the question I asked is the [clears throat] question in itself. If you're not willing to answer a yes or no question with yes or no, then you are neither intellectually honest nor are you a good student.
>> I don't accept that all information told to me is true. Because And >> neither do I, sir. And I'm not a [ __ ] idiot who will believe some rando on [ __ ] YouTube over um o over over o over the experiments that I've done. And you did. You made that choice. You made the choice to obey some r to obey and believe some random idiot on [ __ ] YouTube ahead of someone who actually knows what they're talking about rather than go and read a textbook. You haven't read a textbook. you don't know what the [ __ ] you're talking about with any of these scientific discussions. That much is transparently obvious. So rather than do rather than do any research or teach yourself anything, you watched a bunch of YouTubes um exposed yourself to confirmation and now you don't [ __ ] believe anything he's told to you.
Congratulations. You vandalized yourself. Michael, let me be clear. We know exactly where you got your information because we've heard it all before. Know where I got my >> Yes, we do. Because we've heard it all before. Tony, you've heard everything.
>> Okay. So, this is a superconducting gravimeter.
>> Mhm.
>> Right.
>> Right.
>> The way it works is it has a test mass in this case a nobium sphere that is suspended um on the electromagnetic field generated through three superconducting three layers of superconducting coils that are um that are uh that are run around it.
>> Interesting. If there is any change in the force that acts on this sphere um that will um that will cause the sphere to attempt to move which will induce a current in the superconductors which will force the sphere back to where it was. So by measuring the current running through the various coils, we can um we can determine the forces that were um that this um that this test mass has been um has been uh uh uh subjected to.
Your f your first question will be well how do you know that Earth's electromagnetic magnetic field isn't having an influence? Well, for starters, we we surround it in a big metal cylinder like so, right? Which um which is made of new metal um which is >> which is designed to um shield the um shield the instrument from electromagnetic influences. And we can demonstrate that the that the instrument is much more sensitive to the distribution of mass around it than it is to um than it is to these things.
Anyway, that's the instrument that was used.
>> It uses electromagnetic forces to keep that ball suspended.
>> Yes. But it detects changes. So if if as you say well now we can go back to the original paper, right? We can go back to the original paper.
[clears throat] If you if you if you're going to persist with this idiocy, we can go back to the original paper.
>> Man, you guys are mad.
>> Okay, we're not we're >> I'll tell you why. Because of your intellectual honest dishonesty.
>> Yeah, >> I'm not intellectually dishonest.
>> You are. And everybody in the chat can see.
Um, no you're not. You're you're you're just shielding yourself. So now if we look at this figure, you will see if you look closely that there is actually a smooth black line. That smooth black line is the predicted value that gravity should have. It is um what our models tell us. It is how our models tell us gravity should behave due to tidal effects. What you do not see here is um uh variation um in accordance with the electromagnetic field.
>> Okay.
>> The electromagnetic field does not obey tidal um frequencies or t is not tidal modulated.
>> What do you think causes the tides?
>> No, tid force is not >> that's how it's measured in a gravimeter. See how it's measured in a gravimeter?
>> Why does it only affect salt water?
>> It doesn't.
>> It doesn't only affect salt water. It affects the it affected the nobium in the gravimeter.
>> I'm saying tides.
>> Yeah, you can measure you can tides occur in fresh water as well. The magnitude of the the magnitude of the effect depends on the length scale over which gradient is applied.
>> You and again you're talking over the explanation. You ask a [ __ ] question and rather than shut up for the 30 seconds it would been it would require to get an explanation of why you're wrong, you decide to talk again and and and and then you have the absolute tmerity to go on about how [ __ ] honest you are and how great a student you are.
>> No, a good student.
>> Shut up and listen. You are being educated. Shut up.
>> You're not being educated at all. You're not educated.
>> Yes, you're not being educated at all because you refuse to shut up.
>> Because you refuse to learn.
>> You keep on talking over explanations and then you say, "I'm not being educated."
>> What a whiny [ __ ] baby you are. And it's this is it's no wonder. It's no wonder you're you're lost in [ __ ] flat earth fantasy because you're so whiny that anything anything that is not good in your life has to be somebody else's fault. There has to be some as to why nobody likes you, as to why um, you know, nobody respects you intellectually, as to why no one respects your knowledge. And that's not because you're stupid and prone to conspiracy theories. No, no, that can't be it. It's because the rest of the world is against you. The rest of the world is out to deceive you. The rest of the world is lying to you. That's much more believable than the fact that you're just not that bright.
>> It's much MORE BELIEVABLE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE in the world is [ __ ] lying and too stupid to see through the lie rather than you're just a fantasist. Given a choice between those two hypotheses, it's clear that a worldwide conspiracy spanning [ __ ] generations and hundreds of thousands of people is the vastly more plausible explanation than the fact that you're just a bit [laughter] thick.
>> No, I I don't think it's I don't think everybody's lying. I think people truly believe what they were educated.
>> Okay. Yeah.
And that's and and the fact that everybody else is stupider than you is much more plausible to you than the fact that you're a bit of an idiot and you didn't bother to pay attention in class.
That's the more plausible exper THESE THESE TWO hypotheses exist side by side in your head and you're going with the one well everyone else is the [ __ ] idiot. I'm clearly the super genius. and smarter than every [ __ ] scientist for the past 400 years. Yes, you are.
You're saying you're saying that the error YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE EVIDENCE IS transparently false and you're smart enough to have worked it out. But every professional scientist who has dedicated his career to this the past 400 years is so much of a [ __ ] [laughter] blundering idiot that they can't be trusted to tie up their own [ __ ] shoelaces. But you, the [ __ ] idiot with zero zero real world accomplishments, YOU'RE THE ONE EVERYONE should listen to. You're out here in public explaining to the rest of us HOW WE'RE [ __ ] LOSERS. THAT'S THAT'S THE TARITY you have.
>> I never said anything. I never called you a name.
>> No, BUT IT'S BUT IT'S WHAT'S going on in your mind. In order for you to be here, in order for you to be here, you must believe that every scientist is wrong.
If you don't believe every scientist is wrong, you wouldn't be.
>> It sucks. It's like, dude, my life doesn't suck at all. What do you >> It does. IF IT DIDN'T SUCK, YOU'D HAVE SOMETHING BETTER to [ __ ] do than to spout fantasies on some on some online forum while a thousand while a few hundred came here to debate us laugh [laughter] their asses off over just what a [ __ ] you are.
>> If my You know what? If my life sucks cuz I'm on the I'm on the show because they admire your intellectual. right here.
>> They're not here because they think you're a great speaker. You are literally the dumbest, least informed flur that this channel has had on them for a year. And that is up against some pretty [ __ ] stiff competition. There are idiots from South Africa who are being made to look good compared to you, you know, in um by you. Um there are there are literal halfwits in Canada um who um at least seem likable compared to you. There are um you know the the you know there's a guy in Canada who got sacked from his job as a delivery bike rider for being a flatearther and he comes across as smarter and better informed than off on this or something.
If you think if you think you're here achieving something constructive, the only thing you're achieving is making yourself look like a competitive Agrade dumbass on a global scale.
>> Yeah, I'm watching you have a meltdown right now. [sighs] >> I am famous. I am famous for yelling at flurfs. And in fact, contrary to you, the audience enjoys hearing me yell at flatearthers.
>> You're right.
>> They think it's funny. I think it's funny >> conversation about the subject apparently.
>> Um well, we could have had more continual dishonesty and [ __ ] snide jobs and eventually and then you have the ter and then you have you know again it's this whiny look at me I'm the victim. Everybody in the universe is [ __ ] engaged in this victim and I never said anything. People aren't polite AND THEY DON'T LISTEN TO MY [ __ ] WHEN I SPOUT IT and I refuse to listen to the explanations as to why I'm wrong. AND THEN PEOPLE GET ANGRY with me. They're so unreasonable getting angry with me. You're a whiny.
[ __ ] with that. That's why you're in the situation that you're in.
>> You have my situation is great. What are you talking about?
>> You're being laughed at by 300 people.
You've been 124 actually that isn't a great situation to be in [clears throat] the bar harder. You have publicly humiliated yourself. You may as well get up, turn around and pull your pants down. That is how embarrassing this has been for you.
>> You know, that's great. If you care about what other people think about you, if you're that insecure, you know what I mean? That would be a really bad spot to be in. But I'm pretty secure in my life and I don't really mind if people laugh at me. You know, when you're delusional, when you're delusional, you have absolute confidence in your delusion and you don't care that the rest of the world disagrees about your delusions.
>> Right?
>> The only reason you're not in a mental hospital is because of because of your country is because of your country's lack attitude to mental health and the funding of public and the funding of public facilities.
>> [clears throat] >> That's the only reason the delusional narcissist >> because I wasn't a good student walking accepted and repeated everything I was told in class on a test.
>> You never understood anything because you're delusional. You have disconnected yourself from reality. You we could [laughter] have a reasonable discussion about whether or not what you were told in class is um adequate. But you're not having that conversation because whenever you you make a prop you make a reasonable proposal and then when I say well it's wrong because of this.
You don't stop and listen to why it's wrong. You start making snide snide comments and then you start trying to shift to another topic of conversation.
We could still be explaining how we know that gravity isn't due to electromagnetism. that you're too much of a [ __ ] wick to let the conversation linger on that topic for more than 5 seconds before realizing you're about to get your ass handed to you and deciding that the best defense is to is to switch again.
>> You have a really great imagination, friend.
>> I know you've made a lot of assumptions about my life and compared words in my claim. They're not assumptions. They're conclusions [clears throat and laughter] drawn from evidence. The evidence before me is that you have nothing better to do than this with your life and that you have spent apparently by your own by your own admission of my belief >> 10 years 10 years researching flat earth without opening a physics textbook without bothering to talk to a physics tutor without bothering to inform yourself on the nature of gravity and the experiments for it. Do you know what a geostrophic you you you talked about rotation. Do you know what a geostrophic wind is?
>> You're gonna tell me wind measures the rotation of Earth?
>> Yes.
>> If you understood physics, you would know why.
>> No, you know, speed is >> you can go get a random go get a random weather map.
>> Go get any weather map >> um on on [clears throat] a reasonable scale and look at the wind direction.
>> Is speed measured by observing a distance? the the again again again you've seen a semi-tra coming to run over you and you've decided to step to a different topic wind direction wind direction if you are let's let's bring up the [ __ ] presentation again Jesus >> it blows a lot of different >> and you you keep on wanting to talk for >> you're not going to measure the speed of earth >> by looking at it's one of the ways that we measure the speed of earth is by using the geostrophic winds >> by using a completely by observing something completely different is how you measure the speed of earth. I got it.
>> It's one of the ways we do that.
>> No, that's not that's not how we measure >> observing something completely.
>> That's not how we measure it. You fatuous [ __ ] We measure it using >> we measure it using instruments.
>> You measure measuring the wind.
>> But you can see the effect of rotation.
>> Earth.
>> Is the wind earth?
>> The wind is on earth, is it not?
>> The wind. Yeah. But the wind can blow all the earth's motion. Right. So if the earth is rotating that should show up in winds, right?
>> How does the how does the wind on earth >> Corola's force mate? Do you know what coriola's forces?
>> No, of course he doesn't.
>> Yeah, cuz you I mean you totally have wind without a you wouldn't even have air pressure.
>> Um >> do you know what corololis force is? Yes or no?
[sighs] >> Michael, show that you are intellectually honest and answer the yes or no question. Do you know what the corololis force is? Yes or no?
>> Do you know what corololis? I said force. So, do you know what the corololis force is? Yes or no?
>> Educate me.
>> Yes or no?
>> Okay.
>> No. Off the top of my head, no.
>> Right. Well done.
>> I don't see how that applies to the speed of Earth and how you measure >> directly respon Oh my god.
>> Let's go with the Let's go with this explanation. Okay. So [clears throat] >> more explanations.
>> If you have a high pressure system and a low pressure system, you have a gas at high pressure and a gas at low and and low pressure over there. Where should the [clears throat] gas how should the gas move?
>> Should come to like it should >> from the high pressure it should move towards the low pressure, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> I didn't know that.
>> So yeah. Okay. So, and it should move with a speed equal to the um equal to the gradient in pressure. Right. The high the higher the pressure difference, the faster it should go.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. So, I'm glad we can agree on some element of reality. Let's start the share again.
>> Now, I I want >> here's a weather map.
>> Okay.
>> You can see the isobars, the um the points of um uh the points of uh air pressure. are measured in um in brown lines.
>> There's a low pressure here. There's a low pressure there.
>> But also marked on the map are wind directions.
>> Uh-huh.
>> So if we point up the wind maps >> Uhhuh.
>> you can see that the wind flows along the isobars.
But that's not what we just decided should happen. What we decided should happen is that the wind should flow across the isobars. It should flow directly from the high to the low. But it doesn't. It flows along the isobar.
And more importantly, it flows in a set direction.
>> If you're in the northern hemisphere, if you're in the northern hemisphere and you sit on the high pressure side, the wind will always flow to the right. And is this observing Earth move from point A to point B?
>> We'll get there. We'll get We'll get there in a second. How about you shut up while you're learning?
>> Not going to get there, but okay.
>> Okay. So, we expect that if there's a high pressure system and a low pressure system >> um uh that the that the air should go should just go there. But [clears throat] what we instead observe is that actually as it move and you can do this with balloons, you can release the balloons that as the air parcel moves it is constantly deflected until it ends up flowing along the isobar rather than across it. Right? Um so that the force towards the low pressure system and the force towards and and the deflecting force are large enough to offset one another. Um uh this is this is due to corololis right this deflection is due to co um coriololis effects sorry.
Okay we can see the same thing in ocean gys. So here are the major ocean gs in the oceans of the world. You can see that the ocean gys go clockwise in the northern hemisphere but they go anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere.
>> Right? The farther away they get from the center, >> they act different ways.
>> Yes, that's right.
>> Can you connect Can you connect this to observing a point on Earth go from point A to point B over time?
>> Yes, >> go for it.
>> Okay. So, we observe so um solar storms when they impact Earth, we see the Earth rotate relative to the to the solar storms. um solar pos stellar positions in the star vary in response to Earth's rotation. Um you want to you want um since you want to get into this rotation thing, let's bring up another presentation.
>> I I said you can can you connect it to observing?
>> Yes, I know what you asked.
>> Earth go from point A to point B over time.
>> Yes, and I can >> I'm waiting.
>> Well, we're going to get there.
>> I can.
Yeah, you keep saying you'll get there.
So >> do you accept that do you accept that there is some deflective force operating on air?
>> Let's before we move on said anything about air. I asked you.
>> Okay. No, that wasn't my question. My question was do you accept that there is some force that is deflecting air and water to act in a certain to move in a move in a certain lateral direction?
>> Yes or no?
>> There's there's definitely different areas. What? Um, well, but that [clears throat] Why would wind patterns vary with hemisphere?
>> I mean, we live in an >> Why would they change by 180° depending on which hemisphere you're in?
>> Wind patterns don't do that.
>> No, >> you live You don't live in an electromagnetic field.
>> Well, >> there aren't electrons.
>> So, show me show me show me in a show me in a laboratory electromagnetic fields having that effect on air and water.
You can't because it doesn't also um >> there's also also >> all around you.
>> Pardon?
>> There's electrons all around you in the atmosphere.
>> The atmosphere is electrically charged.
There's >> they're not free. There aren't there are >> they're electrons fly.
>> They're attached to they're they're generally attached to atoms.
>> Yeah. Everything intrinsically when you break it down to like atomic has a positive and negative.
>> It's all >> No, that's not that's false.
[clears throat] That's false.
>> Okay.
>> Neutrons do not have an electric charge.
>> Okay. Is now you're saying there's no electrons everywhere around here. There aren't electrons flying all over.
>> I'm saying that there aren't free there aren't that many free flowing electrons.
I'm saying that the electrons are generally attached to um the atoms that they're components of.
>> You know, and electrons fly a lot faster the higher up in altitude you go. Right.
What makes you say that?
>> Well, there's less gas molecules for them to travel to travel.
>> And what difference in um speed would that make?
>> That that makes no sense whatsoever.
>> Like you can conduct electricity a lot easier higher up in the sky.
>> Can you >> any evidence of that?
>> Electrons move a lot faster. Yeah.
>> Any evidence you know that where's your evidence for that? What's your what's your basis for making this claim?
>> I mean it's you know science you have PhD, [clears throat] right? You don't know how electrons act when they, you know, they slow down as they go through molecules. The more gas.
>> Have you got any evidence?
>> Go through molecules, >> right? Simple question. I just want a yes or no answer, Michael. Do you have evidence that you can conduct electricity easier with altitude?
>> Do I have evidence? Um, >> you just made a claim. Have you got any evidence >> that electrical forces move around freer higher up in altitude where there's lower air?
>> Yeah. Have you got any evidence that you can conduct electricity easier? Those were your words.
>> I mean, I thought that was pretty settled science.
>> No, science isn't settled.
>> Are you denying that's true?
>> Have you got evidence that it's true?
>> I don't. But are you denying that that is true?
>> I'm denying you've got any evidence that it's true.
>> You're saying that that is >> I'm deni I'm denying I'm saying I'm wrong.
>> I'm denying your explanation. I no I'm what you're what you're saying is wrong in that resistivity of the air decreases as you go higher that's got nothing to do with the velocity of electrons >> do electrons >> the resistivity so resistivity resistivity >> resistivity decreases as you go higher in altitude because air is less dense but that's got nothing to do with electron speed >> so electrons don't slow down as They pass through gases.
>> Um, no.
Okay. I'm If you say so, boss.
>> Right. And just uh So, >> where are you where are you getting these from?
>> He's just saying random [ __ ] Michael on screen. On screen right now.
>> Science, dude.
>> No, it isn't. Electrons are deflected by Electrons are deflected by atoms or >> the shape of the Earth is settled science. We know it's a globe, right?
Anyway, Michael, just quickly, Michael, no, I know it is. I'll measure it.
Michael, just quickly, on on the screen, is Earth moving from point A to point B.
>> So, we've measured the rotation of Earth.
>> You're you're showing a spinning picture of Earth >> from the Discover satellite, which records it 24 hours a day.
>> Yeah.
>> Records records Earth 24 hours a day.
Um, so this is obviously a time lapse, but yeah, if you you can see it 24 hours a day and we can see the speed of Earth rotating from A to B. So yeah, we know how fast Earth rotates.
>> Uh, that's pretty damning evidence right there. You got uh satellite footage that can't be fake.
>> Can't be photoshopped or >> Have you got any evidence that is is fake or you just >> Have you got any evidence that isn't photoshopped that contradicts it? Do you have satellite footage? Um, do you have satellite footage of the Earth being stationary?
>> I mean, I don't need satellite footage.
>> No, you don't. Do you have instrument measurements saying that the Earth doesn't rotate?
>> I get it. You You believe these videos that NASA shows you and you take it as evidence [clears throat] because >> But I but I but I don't need a video to prove the Earth rotation. I can measure Earth rotation with instruments, right?
>> No, you can't.
>> Yes, you can. I did it.
>> You can't measure the speed of something.
>> Yes, you can.
>> If you're not observing >> it go from A to B.
>> Well, I've just shown you that.
>> You didn't show me that. You showed me a a a video compiled by NASA.
>> Yes, it's a video made by NASA. Correct.
Um, have you got any evidence that it's not historically?
>> Okay. On screen, we can see an experiment. This was um uh this was done by a chap named Ferdinand Reich in the 19th century. He dropped um uh lead balls down a mine shaft.
>> I see.
>> Okay. You see an illustration of the experiment.
>> He's doing a CC.
>> Not the actual experiment.
>> Not the actual experiment. Got it.
>> Okay.
You're just taking this.
>> Did you notice that the experiment was done in like 1827?
>> That's what they claim.
>> What did you What better documentation did you want? Did you want like an IMAX crew there?
>> I mean, could you recreate it?
>> Do you want to go and do the [ __ ] experiment yourself?
>> Yeah, it could be recreated. Yes, >> it could.
>> Yeah. So, go and do it if you doubt it.
>> But we've got better instruments now, so we don't need to. Um he he dropped a um he dropped a ball down a 158 m shaft um and and um and noted an eastward drift um exactly in accord with what you would measure um provided that the provided that the earth were rotating.
>> You've got Fuko's pendulum. You've got um f mechanical gyroscopes that um observe a procession and a tilt. Um, uh, you know, you've got your gyroscope set up. As the Earth moves under it, it will tilt because it's trying to stay in the same plane.
>> You believe these things because you trust >> No, I've used I've used the mechanical gyroscope.
>> I believe these things because they're used to make planes work.
>> They're used to make planes work. The principles the principles behind mechanical gyroscopes were used [clears throat] to make planes work and to keep aviation out of I believe these things.
>> Here's the um Compton generator which is a different tech. It relies on a >> So you keep on going each >> Are you just going to say that's fake for each experiment?
>> No, I'm not. I'm saying I I was saying that the derivation and deviation for an aircraft moving at a constant of constant mass like you know the linear equations.
>> Can you show me an aircraft of constant mass?
>> There's no such thing as an aircraft of constant mass.
>> Airplanes airplanes burn fuel therefore they lose mass.
>> Uh also airplanes aren't rigid. They're in fact designed to bend very much so especially the wings. Uh, also weather is a thing but not according to that modeling assumption >> level services though.
>> So like all of the other assumptions like all of the other assumptions that that were just shown to shown to be false um the aircraft aren't rigid aircraft aren't constant mass. The assumption that the earth is flat is similarly false. And any documentation you've seen in which they have assumed these three things are true only for approximations.
>> For approximations. Okay. I got it right here.
>> Right. As you're such a baby flur.
>> No, we've seen this before. This is why we say you are a baby flur. We've seen the documentation and we know what else it says. It says that the earthcraft are that the aircraft are rigid. It says that the aircraft are um it says that the aircraft are constant mess and it says that um and and it makes [clears throat] you know um assumptions about the negligibility of winds.
>> Also it mentions gravity seen all this um uh you know >> you've seen the document right?
>> Yes. And you're [clears throat] not showing us anything that you haven't seen. We are showing you stuff that you haven't seen. This is the content generator. It is a glass um uh annular you know um it's it's an annular glass cylinder.
>> Bring up the summary document >> pardon.
>> So I I sent a link to a document. You could just bring up the summary to it.
>> Okay.
>> We we've seen that before.
>> It contradicts your position or not.
>> Yeah. It says right in the summary the this report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft mass fly.
>> It's a model.
>> Yeah. So it's a model.
>> It's a modelification is only as accurate as its underlying assumptions.
>> Linear aircraft model. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's not it's not an actual it's a modeling >> assumption.
You know that document that this document here mentions gravity 37 times.
>> Michael, listening.
>> Mike, listen. Shut the [ __ ] up. This me this this document mentions gravity 37 times. Were you aware of that? So if you're saying this document is true, you're also agreeing that gravity makes a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s squared and is based on the attraction of mass to mass.
Well, but you can't you can't you can't introduce a source and then say, "Well, I reject what the source says except for this over here where I cherry where I cherry pick out mathematical model." Again, you're talking when you should be listening, >> you know, and this is and this is, you know, you are being you are being walked through. We have a dozen different styles of um of gyroscope that all detect, you know, this is a superconducting gyroscope that detects Earth's rotation. This is a magnetically levitating sphere that detects it. This is a micro electromechanical one. So, this is on a on a computer chip. Um uh we've got a gyroscope that can detect Earth's rotation. Um we've got we've got um ring laser gyroscopes. Um, we've got uh gyro compasses that um that demonstrate that the Earth is um uh um that [clears throat] the that only work at the Earth rotations. We've got direct measurements of Earth's polar rotation and um and its uh and its measurement.
We've got measurements of the of the variation in the length of day, how long it takes for the Earth to complete one um one rotation that are measured during um using different in instruments. We've got measurements of the um of the tidal oscillation in um how long in um uh angular velocity. We can measure these with absolute precision using instruments of mindnumbing sophistication and um >> mind-numbing sophistication.
>> Here's here's the here's reing >> because you can't understand how they work.
>> No, we understand. We It's just boring.
>> You you don't understand how they work.
You don't understand how they work. And you can't be homework. And this this this again this again this again this again comes back into his into his victimhood. You haven't explained to me simply enough how this works. Therefore, I don't believe it does. I'm not going to go and research it. I'm not going to go and read up on the technical papers.
I'm not going to go and educate myself with enough basic physics that I understand the principles of operations of these things. No. Instead, I'm going to sit here and whine that you didn't explain it well to me and I'm just going to reject it because of that. So, my laziness, my mental incompetence, that isn't the problem. The problem is that nobody is spoonfeeding me. Nobody is out here spoon feeding me the facts. I'm saying here comes the fact open. Here comes the airplane. Open. Nobody's [ __ ] spoon feeding you stuff. Let me show you guys. Michael, Michael, stop. Michael, shut up. Michael, I'm going to show you a video.
>> Spoonfed to you.
>> Michael, I'm going to show you a video by a flat-earther. All right, just pay attention for 30 seconds. Keep your meat.
>> What does that have to do with me?
>> It's a I want you to watch this video made by another flatearther. So, shut the [ __ ] up.
>> Don't see how this has any >> 24 hours. That means that to what he said. If the earth is spinning, >> just shut up and watch the video. Don't say anything. Just watch the video.
Okay, >> Craig, Craig, I I need to make a point here. He has decided before he sees before he even sees what is on screen, he has decided that it is irrelevant, that it doesn't prove anything and that it and and that it has no bearing on this conversation. He has decided that what you are going to show is not evidence before even seeing it. So, what somebody [clears throat] else is saying.
This is the opposite. This is the opposite of intellectual honesty. This is the opposite investigation. First, you look at the evidence, then you come to the conclusion, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
You [ __ ] >> You believe the earth is flat.
Everything that you've said is the same things that this guy believes. So, just be quiet for 30 seconds. Do not talk.
Shut the [ __ ] up and watch the video.
>> Spins.
>> Go for it, man. Let's have a listen to what he said.
>> If the Earth is spinning at one rotation every 24 hours, that means that every hour it has to turn 15°. And if the gyroscope is mounted anywhere on Earth, it's going to drift. [music] In today's 21st century navigation systems, they're using what's called a ring laser gyroscope. It is extremely precise. If we could simply get one of these [music] ring laser gyroscopes, we would be able to prove once and for all that there is no rotation to the Earth. One of the people in the community actually purchased one for $20,000. [music] But what we found is is when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift, a 15° hour drift.
>> There is a direct measurement of the speed of the rotation of the Earth.
That's what some guy who was paid probably paid to say said on a video.
>> He died. He died because of his unwillingness to listen to doctors.
>> So, um so yeah. Yeah. He's one of our shills. He's one of our shills. Um he died because he didn't have his diabetes or something. How'd he die?
>> No, he died because he didn't get his diabetes treated properly, which is a common affliction amongst flat-earthers.
It happens more often than you'd think.
Um, so yeah, he died because of his diabetes and that means in that video.
>> It's worth it's worth more. It's worth it's worth noting that what he's measuring that that um he measured anything that is how that is how PL the the um gyroscopes on planes are calibrated. They are turned on and then they are then they are calibrated against Earth's rotation. And it is only if they can get a correct measurement of Earth's rotation that they accept that that it's accurate. So every successful plane flight that ever occurs is because gyroscopes work and because they correctly measure Earth's rotation. And you can shake your head with your [ __ ] smirk like you're a [ __ ] idiot. Um um you're um you know you're just ignoring evidence and everybody in the chat.
>> No, that wasn't evidence. That was Well, all right. Here's the evidence then evidence >> right here. Here he is. Shut Michael, shut up. Michael, shut the [ __ ] up.
>> Here he is later on in his house at his computer.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Using the device showing that it measures movement >> and uh that's then you believe it.
>> So >> yeah, he's showing it aircraft. And so my front of my hand is is the front of the plane. All right.
>> Why would you not? You can see this thing right here >> which is claiming that Is that a laser gyroscope right there?
>> This is an attitude.
>> That's a laser gyroscope.
>> Yes, he's got it plugged in.
>> And Bob's right. They >> It's in a case.
>> You know, do you have object permanence?
[clears throat] >> You can you can put something in a case and link it up to the wiring that goes around it. It'll look different.
>> And here is another one on on on a globe. Here is Right. Shut up. I'm I'm talking. Be quiet. Good boy. Here is another one actually on a globe. This is a pilot Wolfie 6020 and he has a laser gyroscope on a globe >> in a level attitude as it would be level sitting on a desk. You can see that it is not polar aligned. And if I rotate that globe, we're going to register movement in all three axes.
There you can see the drone is rolling and you're >> Yeah. And he's showing you that is measuring the rotational speed.
>> That is the same device showing that it actually there is it actually physically happening measuring the rotational speed of a globe that it is attached to.
>> Um so showing that the same globe on the ground.
>> Yeah. You put it on the ground it measures 15° hour.
>> Those are two different things, bro. So, like he had it on a globe showing that it would how it would work on a globe and he moved the globe around.
>> Yes. And it what it did right Shut up.
Shut up. Shut the [ __ ] up. Shut the [ __ ] up.
>> What it did Shut up.
>> Yes. It does. It detects 15° per hour >> when you put it on the ground when when this thing is on right now, this one that Bob has, the second he switches it on, just leaves it on his desk, it measures 15° hour, showing that it is Yes, that's what this is all showing.
And then it shows that when you put anything >> and then it shows that when you put it on a globe and move it, it measures the rotational speed because this is a lot faster. But if this was just sitting on if this was just sitting on the >> He showed you it over here. Did you not just watch the video?
>> Put it Show me where he puts it on his moving and it's measuring 15.
All right.
>> As soon as he turns it on, that's what they're saying.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Well, let's see. Is he moving?
>> Well, I can send you the raw video that this is clipped from where he turns it on and shows that it's doing that, >> but I didn't have that particular clip in this bit.
>> Ah, >> um, he does just have it on on his desk in in that video. Oh, here it is.
There's the bit. Um, and so when it's just sitting on the desk and it's turned on, it's still measuring 15 degrees per hour.
>> Yeah, it's measuring 15 degrees.
>> Can I Can I ask at any point were you going to show any [ __ ] evidence at all of anything?
>> No. No, he wasn't.
So, you're here asking, you know, where's this? I don't see that. You know, show me a video [clears throat] of it. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And you've got no [ __ ] evidence of anything.
>> The closest you've come to evidence are mathematical model assumptions from a paper that everybody's seen a million times. Um, and and and and is just not a description of reality. It's a description of a mathematical model that is only as accurate as the assumptions permit.
You you've shown no [ __ ] evidence of anything whatsoever. But you but you insist on saying, "Well, I don't believe that because it contradicts it contradicts my belief that I have no [ __ ] evidence for."
>> I've asked you since the beginning to show me where you observed a part of Earth. I showed you it and you said it was fake.
>> Yeah, that's not that's not an observation that you made. You're showing a video.
>> Why does it have to be what? That's the genetic fallacy. It doesn't have to be that you made it.
>> If you because it's unobservable.
>> No, it's not. I just showed you it being a part of Earth go from point A to point B.
>> I showed you it from a satellite in space.
>> You showed me a You showed me a series of images that were compiled by N.
>> Videos are serieses of images. That's what a video is.
>> Okay. That's >> okay. So, do you understand? Do you understand? So, the sun goes from um so the sun goes from being overhead on the equator to being directly underfoot on the equator, right? We can detect that the sun is directly underfoot using um using neutrino detectors, right? So we can detect the position of the sun as it as it moves under. We can follow it through the sky and then we'll keep on following it and it'll go underneath the earth and you can follow it up to the you can follow it up the next day. So we can do that now. Either the sun is moving or the earth is moving. That, by the way, would >> definitely moving.
>> Um, uh, >> because we observe the sun go from Because I'm observing the sun go from this point to that point in the sky over >> If you're driving, if you're driving in a car, if if I'm driving in a car, I see a tree going from there to there. Does that mean the tree is moving?
>> No. But you know that the car >> Okay. But so how do you know So how [clears throat] do you know that it's the sun moving and not you?
Because I'm not moving. How do you know that?
>> How do you know?
>> Because how do you know that >> earth is the baseline?
>> Not according to all measurements. All measurements show THAT >> THAT ISN'T THAT IS AN evidence of relative speed.
>> I don't know. I don't know what science class you went to, but this evidence or an explanation of anything.
>> Pete, you're using relative speed as an excuse. Like it can't be like you you could tell how fast a car is going by measuring the revolutions per minute of the wheels.
>> Yeah. Revolution per minute. You can measure and you can measure how fast the earth is rotating by measuring by using a ring laser gyroscope or a mechanical gyroscope or a matter wave gyroscope or a um or or a uh a magnetic levitation gyroscope or a super gyroscope or a Compton gyroscope or a or just by dropping balls or by looking at corololis effects on on on wind or or on hurricanes or by looking at motion dies.
The evidence that we can the evidence that we have that is that it is the Earth that is moving is insurmountable.
And you're just saying, "Well, I don't see it." You haven't looked at the right [ __ ] instruments.
>> Well, you you can't explain to me how a gyroscope observes Earth moving from one point to another over time.
>> Yes, I can.
>> We did it.
>> You didn't.
>> Okay, let's let's go back to sharing.
Uh, are you going to explain the sadnac effect? I >> did show you I did show you how how that happened.
>> The best evidence is is images from NASA that were compiled.
>> No, he he needs to have the sagnac effect explain explained to him because that is literally what he satellite >> bloating up there.
>> So here, so I am sharing on screen. I'm sharing on screen. You have a laser source. You fire the laser out. It bounces on a mirror um and it goes to the detector. But the mirror is half silvered. So we've got an half the way half the laser goes around the other way. Okay. And ends up at the dete the detector. [clears throat] Now if the if the instrument is completely stationary then these two waves should um should when they meet the detector they should still be in phase right? They've traveled exactly the same distance. Um so they should should be exactly in phase. Um but if the mirror is rotating, if the apparatus is rotating, then one of these waves is um traveling further and the other one is traveling a shorter distance because the mirrors are traveling towards one of the beams and away from the other one of the beams. So when they get to the detector, they will be out of phase. So we look at the phase difference between the between the two beams when they meet to the when they meet the detector. That is how a um ring laser gyroscope and a and indeed a matter wave gyroscope works on roughly the same principle.
>> You verified that this is exactly what's going on in the machine.
>> Uh yes. Um so with with physical with a physical gyroscope we can see for instance tilt as the um as as the rotation as the rotation occurs and we can also see a change in heading right as the earth rotates um because the axis of rotation uh the the axis around which the gyroscope um rotates will stay the same um it'll um it'll appear to precess as the um in a um in this case a uh an anticlockwise fashion as you look at it from above. So yes, with mechanical gyroscopes, that's how you do it. If you had bothered to shut up earlier, I would have explained to you [clears throat] how each of these gyroscopes [ __ ] works. So now that we've got a moment silence, this particular style of gyroscope works by having a glass cylinder full of water. It has little flakes of um of ash or carbon in it. Um and you let it rest for a long time. Um so that the so that the flexcks of carbon are stationary. Then you flip the apparatus. You quickly flip the apparatus over and you will notice if you look through this microscope, you will see the pieces of ash start rotating against um that they still have the momentum given to them by obeying corololis. Now you've reversed the effect of corololis. They start to move under it. This um is a um cylinder of super fluid um uh that should not be affected um unless you're moving um you know it should not be affected unless you're moving the entire apparatus. You should not get any flow. By measuring the flow through the um through this aperture here we can tell how fast um how fast it is rotating. In this one we suspend a plastic ball. So this is a plastic ball with you know um uh lines written with lines drawn on it so that we can measure the change in attitude.
So it's attached to nothing. It's just floating on a magnetic field and we can observe the ball rotate through time and with and that gives us um that gives us rotate um a rotation effect. So there are entirely different mechanisms, entirely different physical processes that are being used to measure how rotation occurs. And again, you could have at any point gotten off your fat ass and actually read through this yourself because you're saying this was spoonfed to me. No, it wasn't.
>> It was.
>> I went out I went out and I researched and I read this myself outside of a class in my own time and I put this presentation together for the benefit of people and for the benefit of people who No, it wasn't part of my PhD thesis.
>> No, this is to yourself. [laughter] Yeah.
>> Read it and you believed it and you ate it up.
>> Said you read it and you believed it.
You >> um I read it. I I read it. I also I also happen to work with people I also happen to work with people who work with these um instruments. So I can talk to them at conferences.
>> Great.
>> So I can ask them. For instance, [clears throat] my work actually involves using satellite data. So, you know, the idea that the the idea that satellites move at, you know, low earth in low earth orbit at 7 km a second. Um, try explaining that. What are they doing? We can and we can track >> possibly be attached to weather balloons like how to do weather balloon. I think someone working on them would know >> they can move at a lot of different speeds.
>> Do do they move at 7 km a second? Can you show me a wind that goes at 7 km a second?
who says that you couldn't attach a a fan to one to make [laughter] a second a second.
>> What's the fastest What's the fastest current aircraft? How fast is that?
>> The X-15, I believe. Um, >> what's it speed kilome an hour?
>> I don't use kilometers where I'm from the US.
>> Yeah, that that much is [ __ ] obvious.
Yeah, >> because you've got no idea how how fast 7 km a [ __ ] second is.
>> Do you know how many seconds there are in an hour?
>> 7,274 km an hour, >> right? Okay. How many How many seconds are there in an hour? I >> mean, you think about it. There's no real like air resistance higher up in altitude.
>> How many seconds are there in an hour?
Things could move pretty fast, I'd imagine, when there's like zero.
>> How many seconds are Yeah, you keep on saying this and you you there are 3,600 seconds in an hour, >> right?
>> You're you're claiming that >> so this would be so this object is moving at 25,000 kilometers an hour.
>> So that is more than three times as fast as the fastest ever aircraft.
>> [clears throat] >> And you're measuring, you know that these things are traveling that fast because you're supposed to move that fast.
>> One, one, we can laser range to them. We have little, they have little retro reflectors set up and we can laser range towards them to confirm where they are.
Two, >> yes, receivers on them that tell us their positions as a function of time.
And from the positions, we can work out how fast they're going.
>> Uh-huh. And uh they just shot them into orbit. They had once they got to a certain altitude, they just stopped being pulled by gravity and got thrown into a circle.
>> Well, no. That's gravity's making orbit.
>> That question betrays a profound misunderstanding of all physics. And I invite you to actually crack open a physics textbook, read about how orbits work because they're not used every day.
>> Explain it to you.
>> Not used every day.
>> They're used every day like every day.
Last year, SpaceX launched a rocket to space using orbital mechanics nearly once every other day.
>> Yes, I bet they did. You know, if you believe what they claim, >> YOU CAN GO AND WATCH THE ROCKET LAUNCH YOURSELF, you dumbass.
>> You can if you if you've got you've got an appropriate laser, you can laser track them. You can watch them go across the sky. If you, you know, shortly like my friend Astronomy Live does >> shortly after shortly after sunset, you can see them go across and you can see when they're going to go into eclipse.
>> My buddy Astronomy Live Michael My buddy Astronomy Live used his own personal equipment to track Artemis 2 all the way to the moon and back.
>> He did, did he?
>> Yes.
>> That's amazing. his own personal equipment >> which he invites flat earthers to come and use and none of them ever take it up.
>> I mean, you're not How did it How did he observe it go all the way to the moon?
>> Cuz he tracked it with his equipment.
>> What was how Yeah, but what did his equipment How did he track >> a mixture of um optics and um radio wave transmissions and things like that?
>> So, he used radio waves to track. He used many different >> travel 30 m 30 million miles or [ __ ] no 235,000 235,000 miles away. Yes.
Sending radio sending radio waves 235,000 miles. Yes. And to to watch it.
>> Yes.
>> It's amazing.
>> No. You can you can actually you can actually point an antenna towards the craft and listen to the radio waves.
>> Right.
>> Okay. So, you're listening to radio waves >> and you can calculate where they've come from because you triangulate them from other points, >> right? 235,000 miles away.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Sure.
>> So, your denial is noted.
>> Right. Anyway, Tony, uh, I want to thank you for coming on. Um, I'm going to, um, read through the questions in super chats now.
>> Um, and I think to go and get yourself a coffee. I want I want to thank you very much.
>> Well, I don't drink coffee, but I'll um, but I'll manage. Um, >> maybe a margarita or five, I don't know.
>> You are you are you are a complete [ __ ] waste of you are a complete waste of otherwise useful biomass.
>> And um if it the the fact that the fact that we cannot we cannot even use you for testing cosmetics on is um the granny state gone mad.
>> Have a good day, Tony. Thank you very much.
>> Have a good one, bro.
>> Right, dude. Uh, I want to be clear math.
>> You do you do not understand anything about physics in the slightest.
>> Yes.
>> You have not even a curs cursorary knowledge of anything regarding physics or the way that maths works.
>> Could you even tell me how many if I've got All right, let me ask you a very simple question. If I've got a triangle of sides one, one, and one, what would the internal angles be?
What does this have to do with with the >> it's what I call a litmus test um to gauge the person's ability uh in in mathematics and general >> I claim to know everything about physics >> you you claim to know physics you claim to understand physics very well that was your exact words but anyway the question is and this is I need to know so that I can gauge questions for your intelligence level. If [clears throat] I've got a triangle of sides 1, one, and one, what are the internal angles?
>> You're ask You're asking questions.
>> Yes, I'm asking you a question. And if you're intellectually honest, you would answer it for me. If I've got a triangle of sides 1, one, and one, if I've got a triangle of sides 1, one, and one, what would the internal angles be?
>> Okay. I never claimed to know everything about physics.
>> You said you understand physics very well, right? But anyway, the question is, I've got a triangle of sides 1, one, and one. What are the internal angles?
>> I have no idea.
>> Why not? How many angles are there in a triangle? How many degrees in a triangle?
>> Three.
>> No. No. That How many degrees are there in a in a triangle >> in total?
Are you kidding me?
What do you what's your point here?
>> Do you know how many degrees there are in a triangle? Yes or no?
>> How does this relate to the debate is what I'm trying to >> it shows your level of intelligence and you think you're smart enough to dismiss all of science.
>> Right. I I'll try and make it easier for you. Right. There's 180° in in a triangle.
>> Right. So bear that in mind. Now >> knowing that there's 180°, I've got a triangle of sides one and one. What are the Stop talking >> just listen. Inside of a triangle there is 180°.
>> So if I've got a triangle of sides 1, one, and one, what are the internal angles?
>> Uh, I don't know.
>> You can't divide 180 by three.
>> 60.
>> Yes. So I've got a triangle of sides 1 and one. The internal angles which have to add up to 180.
>> You don't have any. You don't >> the internal angles I shut up. The internal angles that need to add up to 180 >> are all 60.
>> Right? So now knowing knowing that >> I've now got a triangle of sides 2, two, and two.
>> So what are the internal what are the internal angles in that triangle?
>> So I' I've shown you lots of evidence but you ignored it. But anyway, I've got a triangle knowing that in a triangle of sides 1 one and one, the internal angles are 60. I've now got a triangle of sides 2, two, and two. What are the internal angles for that triangle?
>> But I don't see any evidence of Earth moving. No, >> I've I've shown you it. But anyway, I'm asking you a question and I you I did and you ignored it. I'm asking you a question once again. I just want you to try and be honest.
>> Can I observe Earth move?
>> I want Stop it. I'm asking you a question.
>> I can't. Can I?
>> I'm asking you a question.
>> You can't either.
>> I Yes, you can. I'm asking you a question. So, answer the question. Show that you're intellectually honest because I'm gauging your level of intelligence because I'm right.
>> I I'm engaging your level of intelligence. Just listen and answer the question. Shut up and answer the question.
>> Shut up. Stop and answer the question.
>> Stop evidence. Michael, be quiet.
>> Michael, be quiet.
>> I'm asking you a question.
>> Be a decent person for one second in your life.
>> You're asking a question about an irrelevant subject.
>> No, it's not irrelevant. It relates to this because I am testing your knowledge.
So, just listen.
>> Just listen. Michael, shut the [ __ ] up and just listen. Michael, just shut the [ __ ] up and just listen. Michael, >> this isn't a test.
>> Michael, shut up and listen.
>> Don't shut up. [laughter] It's a test now. So, shut up and listen.
>> Right.
>> Okay, bro.
>> I've got a triangle of sides one.
Michael, will you shut up? Michael, >> I mean, if you can't subject, bro. I mean, >> Michael, shut up and listen. I've got a triangle of sides one and one and one.
The internal angles are 60.
>> I didn't come here for a test, bro.
>> Michael, >> I came here to debate.
>> Yeah. And this is part of the debate. I am giving you a litmus test.
>> I'm giving you a litmus test for the debate. All right.
>> You're you'reing because you don't have >> I've done I've done the evidence. You haven't understood it. So now just listen >> and answer the question like a good person.
>> I've got a triangle of sides. Shut up.
>> I've got a triangle of sides 111 and one. The internal angles are 60. Now I've got a triangle of sides two, two, and two.
>> Who lost the debate?
>> Michael, I was nearly finished. Will you just listen?
>> Wait until I finished and then you talk.
>> Okay. Please, >> please, please. All right.
>> Go ahead.
>> Got a triangle of sides 1, one, and one.
The internal angles are 60. Now I've got a triangle of sides 2, two, and two.
What would the internal angles be on that triangle?
>> I have no idea.
>> Why not? It's the same angle, you dumbass debate.
>> This isn't winning your debate.
>> It's It really is winning the debate.
>> It's not. This isn't This isn't evidence of Earth moving.
>> Michael, I've already won the debate by showing the evidence of Earth moving.
You went, "No, it's fake."
>> No, you showed me a video.
>> Yes, that that was the evidence of Earth.
>> A compilation of images, >> which is what a video is, >> which is There's no evidence that it's from space that >> Yes, there is. It's a satellite in space that you can laser range.
>> You can laser range?
>> Yes.
>> When did you laser range it?
>> I haven't laser range that satellite, but that's a that's a genetic fallacy once again.
>> Yeah, but you've never done any experiments, Michael. You've never done any experiments.
>> Michael, we're now going to ask questions from the audience.
>> I have true >> because they're true.
>> Even though you right, you're muted because you're being rude. I'll unmute you in a second. Right. I'll unmute you in a second. When I'm talking, you stop talking.
When you're talking, I'll stop talking, but you need to do the first part. Okay?
I have demonstrated all of the evidence.
You have ignored it, not understood it, or claimed that it's fake. Tony showed you lots of evidence as well. I've already won the debate. That bit is over. I'm now going to read messages from uh questions from the chat, and you're going to answer them. All right.
Please unmute your mic.
Nicholas Green says, um, he's been a member for 21 months. It's a Monday takedown of stupidity. Guys, if you want a question for the flatearther, now would be the best time to get the super chats in. Um, Don Carnage, member for 24 months, says, "Let's guess no evidence."
You were correct. Um, Henroy 5 years, everyone's got their bingo cards ready.
Mine is filling up quick, dude. The bingo cards would have been destroyed.
Every single one would have been full.
Um, member 33 says, "Is it did you say you've been doing this for 10 years, Michael?"
>> I haven't been doing this. I I I unsubscribed from heliocentric theory about 10 years ago. Yes.
>> And this and and this is your evidence.
Yeah.
>> What is my evidence?
>> None is the point, right? Yeah. Thank you. Loop on fire. Uh stop the stupidity. Gifted five memberships.
Thank you.
>> The surface of water finding its level.
>> Uh I showed you the surface of water curve require container.
>> Level means curved. I've showed you the surface of water curves.
>> Level does not mean curved. That's >> Yes, it does. Curve and level have two different definitions. They're do >> you want proof?
You going to prove to me that two different words have the same?
>> You want me to prove to you that according to all of the experts, the word level means curved?
>> Definition of the words.
>> Yeah. From experts.
>> Bring up >> bring up Okay. How about you bring up the definition of the level curve of the of the word curved and bring up the definition of the word level and let's see if they're exactly the same.
>> Here we go. The definition of the word level by surveyors and experts.
>> Okay. No, I'm talking about the definition in the dictionary of the words.
>> Yeah. Uh, so the um the one that says that it matches the curvature of the liquid parts of Earth's surface. Is that the one you're on about? Uh, Mariam Webster.
>> Talking about the death like you can go to like a Webster's dictionary.
>> Yeah, Mariam Webster level.
>> Let me just get that for you because you just actually dunked yourself quite hard there.
>> Yeah, >> because the Marryiam Webster dictionary literally defines it as a a curved surface.
>> Really?
>> Yes.
>> That's >> right. So here is Marian Webster's dictionary. The adjective of the word level having no part higher than the other conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of Earth's surface.
Interesting that that's what the the level in the dictionary is. Now here is experts that use the word level in their surveying manuals and stuff showing the difference between >> Yep. showing the difference between a horizontal line and a level line.
>> Um so here is a a book about surveying that talks about what level is. Um and it shows you the level >> called a level as well.
>> Yeah. And that is locally level. Of course, the plum lines diver >> locally level. Yeah. Because level becomes different at over distance apparently.
>> Locally level means it will react to the it it is perpendicular to the pull of gravity at any point. That's what level is.
>> I mean when you when you hold a level up to like hang up uh something like a picture >> that at that point perpendicular to the pull of gravity.
>> Is that level flat? That tool that you're using is >> level isn't flat. level is not level is level.
>> The leveling tool that you use isn't a flat tool.
>> It can have a shell around it that that is flat >> but it's not level is not flat.
>> A level line is I'm showing you here according to um trigonometric leveling 11 which is a book used to teach surveyors. Uh the level line is obviously C whereas the horizontal line is B. Level line diverges from the horizontal line. Um according to um uh engineers level a level surface is defined as a curved surface which at each point is perpendicular to the direction of gravity at any point. The surface of a still water is truly level surface. Any surface parallel to the mean sural surface of earth is therefore a level surface. Um >> struggle with definitions. I get it.
>> I'm reading you the definitions right now.
Uh for the definitions, this is from from uh leveling 155 chapter 8. Uh and it says that for the definitions, it is evident that a horizontal line departs from a level surface because of the curvature of the earth. Since the line of sight cannot follow a curved level line, an error is introduced and objects appear lower than they really are because level is curved.
>> Um okay, a truly level surface. This this is from let me see when what year is this? This is like from the 1800s.
Uh, a truly level surface is a segment of any spherical surface which is uh concentrate uh uh sorry concentric to the globe of the earth. A true line of level is an arch of a great circle which is imagined to be described upon a truly level surface. The apparent level is a straight line drawn tangent to an arch or true a line of true level. True level being the curve of the earth. Um so everyone even the dictionary the dictionary and all these experts and books and surveying manuals uh and teaching um stuff they all show that level is in fact a curved line >> level surface level adjective and it says having a flat and even surface without slopes or bumps.
>> Yeah. Uh here it is again in of course level can have different words depending on context. Um, words can mean different depending on context, but here it is in the Marry and Webster dictionary.
>> I'm showing you in the Marry and Webster dictionary where it says about conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of Earth's surface.
>> We're using level as an adjective, right?
>> Yes. And it says having no part and another conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of Earth's surface. Do you see that?
>> No, I'm looking at the >> I'm literally showing you on screen right now from the Marryiam Webster dictionary.
>> From when? Um this is the most recent version of Marrying Webster's diction >> having no higher part than another >> conforming to the curvature of the liquid part of Earth's surface. Yes.
>> Parallel with the plane of the horizon horizontal.
>> Yes.
>> Because depending on the context height >> depending on the context. Well, height is obviously from a reference surface.
So, if I've got a like this is like for instance, a tire is level to the wheel that it's on, right?
>> I sent you a p I sent a link to a tool.
If you could bring up that uh the picture of that tool that I sent you.
>> It is tool the word level. Is a tool the word level.
>> It's a it's a tool used to level things out.
>> Yes. Which work because they're perpendicular to the pole of gravity.
Um, could you bring up the picture of the tool and we can discuss if that's flat [clears throat] or curved?
>> Yeah, that is perpendicular to the pull of gravity at any one point.
>> That is uh it's level.
>> Yes, >> flat.
>> Over that short distance. It might appear flat. Do you know >> what do they use?
>> To what margin of error is to what margin of error is that flat? That that edge there. But what we're looking at the actual the actual level is the bubble >> which reacts is the water >> which reacts to the pull of gravity.
>> No.
>> Yes.
That's what that's what makes that bubble go in the middle is when you have it perpendicular to the pull of gravity.
So thank you for proving my point. But anyway, yeah. Level means curve.
>> Nothing to do with gravity, but okay.
>> It's literally to do with gravity.
That's how it works.
>> Right. Anyway, next question. All right.
Um >> can't rely on explanation.
>> E. Well, it's what the experts use to teach other people. So, you know, F dot has been a member for two months, right?
>> No, gravity is not aory. No. No, it's not.
>> It's a scientific theory. Yes.
>> No, there is scientific theory of gravity just like there's the theory of music or the theory of driving. Gravity isn't a theory anymore than music is a theory.
>> In science, there's scientific facts, laws, and theories.
>> No, scientific theories contain facts and laws.
>> No, scientific theory is an explanation.
>> No, scientific theories contain facts and laws. a scientific theory.
>> No, no, no. You're arguing with a person that does science about what science is.
In science, in science, a theory No, shut up. In science, a theory contains facts and laws.
>> Yes. But at its core, a theory is an explanation.
>> Yeah. Could be containing all of the facts and laws.
>> That's all a theory. It's just an explanation.
>> Yeah. Of the mechanics of something like driving theory.
>> Shut up. Listen. Listen to the word.
Shut up. Shut up. Shut Shut up. Shut up.
Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.
>> Music theory.
>> Music theory explains all of music.
>> It contains all of the facts about music.
>> Driving theory contains all of the facts about driving a car. I had to take a driving theory test when I got my license 25 years ago.
>> Different. It's different in scientific definitions, but okay. No, >> a sc the scientific theory of music is the theory of music.
Scientific theory, >> yes, >> is an explanation >> containing all of the facts.
All of the facts are part of the scientific theory.
>> If it was repeatably observable through experiment, it would be a fact.
>> All of the facts are in the theory.
Theory contains all of the facts.
>> A theory isn't factual. It is the factual. Scientific theory contains all of the facts.
>> Why don't Why aren't you getting what I'm saying? Is music a theory? Is music a theory? Is music a theory? Is music a theory? Yes or no?
>> How can an expert?
>> Is music a theory? Yes or no?
>> It can't be a >> Is music a theory? Yes or no? Show that you're intellectually honest and answer the question. Is music understand the difference between Show that you're intellectually honest and answer the question. Is music a theory? Yes or no?
>> Yeah, you can have a theory to music.
>> Is music a theory?
>> Yes or no?
>> Sure.
>> Music's just a theory, is it?
>> I mean, it's observable for people. You can listen to music.
>> So, it's pretty.
>> So, why is there the scientific theory of music?
>> It's a study of music.
It's the explanation of music that contains all of the facts about it. Like how to perform a chord, how to do an arpeggio chord, what harmonics you have, how to separate the >> scientific fact and a scientific theory are two different things though.
>> Yeah. A scientific theory contains all the facts. That's the thing.
>> Does it?
>> Yes, >> it contains all the facts.
>> Yes.
>> But it's, you know, it's an explanation, right?
>> That contains all of the facts.
>> An explanation that contains all of the facts.
>> Yes. If it if it contained all if all if everything in the theory was true, then it should be repeatably observable through experiment.
>> It is.
>> Well, then why why isn't it a scientific fact?
>> There is the scientific facts of gravity. They're part of the theory of gravity.
>> Yeah. Haven't seen those, but uh Okay.
>> Right. Okay. Anyway, back to um so we got uh stop the stupidity gifted five memberships. Thank you. F dot member for two months says no part of a water in a bathtub is flat. I know I showed him water being measured curved. Um he's he's ignored that plenty of times.
>> Water being measured measured curved.
>> Yeah, I literally showed you water being measured curved and having a drop from tangent of 8 inches from mile squared by a professional. Darren Discord, he's been a member for 56 months. That is the love bot. I predict that by the time Croers reads this that this guy will still have given no good points and give no evidence for the dam. No, he gave nothing. He didn't even understand why you have to what the formula for weight actually means. It's incredible. Jim Daniels $5 pingpong ball versus water in microgravity. He's not going to believe anything from NASA. So, we can show him how water acts in when there's no forces acting on it. And he's not going to believe it because it's from NASA because he likes committing the genetic fallacy. Um, F dot says 499. All the water in a tub curves. Have you ever measured the water in a bathtub? Yes or no, Michael?
>> No.
>> Right. Have you ever measured water at all?
>> I mean, I can see with my eyes that >> your eyes aren't a measurement. Have you measured it? Yes or no? Don't answer a question I didn't ask.
>> I mean, you can see it's flat and level.
>> Yeah, your eyes aren't measuring. Have you ever measured water? Yes or no?
When you look at a horizon, is it >> Have you measured water? Yes or no?
>> Is a horizon horizontal?
>> Yes or no? Have you measured water? Yes or no?
>> I don't need to.
>> Yes or no? Have you measured water?
Answer the question. You're being intellectually dishonest again.
>> I'm not.
>> You are. Answer the question. Yes or no?
Have you measured water? Have you observed water sticking to the outside of something?
>> Yes. Earth.
>> Like a large body of water sticking Earth. And where where did you observe this?
>> I looked at sat through satellites.
>> You you went you went to Oh, you saw the pictures that >> I I saw the live images from space.
>> Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Had to be live images from space. No way that they that they created those or photoshopped them.
>> Well, if you've got evidence they did, that's great. But have you measured It's yes or no question. Have you measured water? Yes or no?
>> Well, you I mean you >> have you measured water? Yes or no? I'm just going to keep asking you. Have you measured water?
>> A large body of water stick to the outside of >> Yes, I have. Uh, right. I'm going to mute you and I'm going to ask the question and then when I unmute you, I want you to either say yes or no like an intellectually honest person would. Have you ever measured water? Yes or no?
Please unmute and answer.
>> No.
>> Right. Okay. Well, someone else has and he showed that you were wrong.
>> Anyway, um >> uh Jesse Kazolski, I showed you him doing it. Golf Turbo. Golf Ball Turbo >> video that he supposedly >> Yeah, I showed there's videos of it as well. You can look up the I can send you the all the details and it's been repeated on video as well.
>> Um Golf Ball Turbo 2000 for $4.99 says, "Why would objects sink without gravity?
Why not move towards the North Pole? Why not move towards my taint?" Uh yeah. Why do objects sink at all if there's no force pulling them down?
>> The downward vector is caused by incoherent dialectric acceleration.
>> No, there's not.
That would that would uh mean it was different depending on a different material and you don't get that.
>> Do you mean it's not dependent on things being different material?
>> If it was through dialectric magnetic acceleration, yes, it would >> 100.
Let me answer. I'm going to just keep muting you if you talk over me. Right.
There is no measurable downward acceleration due to electrics. Right. Um and the 100 millolt per um 100 meters thing that wit light's going on about actually dissipates after about 700 m.
Yet things above that still fall at the same rate. So no, that's not true.
Right. So um you know I'll unmute you now. If you start talking over me when I'm talking, I'm just going to mute you because you need to be treated like a child quite clearly. Please unmute.
This is crazy.
>> FG says, "For€2, why is the Flur talking about maths?" Um, what is his highest level of maths education? So, FG has asked for€2, what is your highest level of mathematics education?
>> Uh, high school.
>> And what grade did you get?
>> Uh, I don't remember. You know, I don't see how math is.
>> So, you failed then is what you're saying. Well, math.
We're talking about the shape of the earth.
>> Yeah, math is needed for that.
>> Use all the numbers you want.
>> How you how you going to measure something without math?
>> Well, I mean, you use numbers and measurements.
>> That that numbers are maths, dude. Uh >> when you're observing something, you know, like a large like when I can look through a satellite and observe something, but you don't like it because reasons. Now, shut up. Derek the Dard5.
My name is Craig.
Shh. I'm Don't be rude. People are paid to have this said. Derek the Dard for5 says, "My name is Craig McNil and Nathan Oakley is my best friend."
>> Hello, I'm Nathan Oakley. I like getting pegged with a pepper grinder.
>> That's not very Nathan. Have you got anything else you'd like to say?
>> Hi, my name is Nathan Oakley and I have been lying to people about the earth being flat for a lot of years. I did this to hide the fact I have a small penis.
>> Very strange. Nathan Oakley. Uh, one of your papa flurfs it seems, but you're probably too dumb to know who he is.
>> I have no idea who that is.
>> Yeah, of course you don't. Yeah, you've said the bunch of things that he said verbatim. Ra bot member for 78 months alive.
>> Incredible. Outstanding destruction. All hail Craig and Tony by the way. So your your life, how old are you, Michael?
Just out of interest.
>> You get assassinated by character now?
>> No, I just asked a question. How old are you?
>> 37 years old.
>> 37. And what you do for work?
Work in a warehouse.
>> Doing what?
>> Union job.
>> Yeah. Doing what in a warehouse?
>> Operate heavy machinery.
>> Like what?
>> Like electric pallet jacks and forklifts, stuff like that.
>> Right. Okay. Um and you married?
>> Yeah.
>> No.
>> Single?
>> Yeah.
>> That makes makes sense. Kids?
>> Yeah.
>> Uh then yet you're not with the parent?
you you're not you're not with the mom, so you couldn't hold up. Yeah. Weird. Uh >> no, there's a lot going on there.
>> Yeah. Um well, been married for 20 years.
>> I don't see what this has to do with the debate.
>> Nothing. I was just wondering. It was just actually just an inquiry. Nothing to do with the debate. It was just me asking you a question.
>> Um >> right. Okay.
>> Max uh for 30 UYU says, "Did you know PhD Tony is my father? Ask Flurf." Um, Michael, this Max wants to know if you know what 1* 1 is.
>> I mean, I really hope your dad calms down. You know, he seemed like he got, you know, he's going to have he I thought he was going to have a stroke to be honest with you.
>> No, no, he he's good. He's used to doing that. It's fine. Uh, but what do you know what one times one is? Someone's paid to ask you that question.
Yes, it would be should be one according to modern math even though multiply means to you know >> sorry are you disputing 1 * 1 equals 1.
>> Yeah, you've got one group of one thing means that you have one you're are you saying that you think it should be two?
Some people do. Like who? If you're going by by modern math standards, it'd be one.
>> By all math standards ever, one times one has been one.
>> Yeah. People have different ideas, you know.
>> Like who who's got a different idea?
>> People have different ideas.
>> Like who?
>> You know, everybody has different ideas.
>> Who's got a different idea about one times one? According to the education systems modern consensus of math of how math works, it'd be one. Okay. I >> Who disagrees that it's one?
>> People. I'm sure there's other name that would disagree.
>> I mean, do I know the names of everybody on Earth that doesn't think it's one?
>> Am I supposed to?
>> You don't you don't think there's people out there that would disagree with it?
Terrence Harold because he's extremely dumb.
>> I mean, yeah, I'm sure there's some people out there that would not agree with it >> and they're [ __ ] to be clear.
>> Great, bro. I mean, I didn't say I disagree.
>> You're kind of [ __ ] to be fair.
>> Well, I mean, if that's how you feel, that's >> I mean, it's not how I feel. You've observed that fact here today. Unless this isn't some unless you're like if you're some kind of amazing actor, now would be the time to tell us because you have played the part of one of the dumbest people I've ever had on my channel very well. And to be clear, I've had close to 2,000 flat earth debates.
>> Great.
>> No, in fact, I I've I've done Sorry.
I've had close to 2500 flat earth debates.
>> And your best evidence is satellite imagery from NASA.
>> No, it's the measurements of the Earth.
>> The measurements of the Earth.
>> Yeah. And the people go into space.
>> I've measured the Earth myself, of course.
>> Yeah, because you've been to space.
>> No, but it doesn't matter if I've been to space or not. I've still measured the Earth.
>> You Yeah, sure. Yeah. But >> yeah, I I went through how I did it anyway. Goofball Turbo 2000 for $199.
Thank you very much, my friend. I do appreciate it. I am FTFE and I will cook Emily a nice meal and serve her all the iced tea she would like. I'm not saying this because of a super chat. I mean every word of this. I swear upon the flying spaghetti monster. Look, Emily lost the chance for, you know, her monthly food when they decided that going to work would be more important than watching this stream. I let them out of the [ __ ] the basement for one day and they go to work. You think they're getting fed? Don't be stupid.
What do you do with the captives in your basement, Michael?
>> I don't have any captives in my basement.
>> Where do you keep them?
>> Don't have any captives at all.
>> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you do with the people you kidnap?
I don't kidnap anybody.
>> Why not?
Well, how do you get your menial tasks and stuff done?
>> Uh, do them myself, I suppose.
>> Well, [laughter] you can you can get people for that. You just kidnap them and keep them in a hole under the your what? Basement. I get >> I guess that's what you do, man. Are >> you telling me like you fill the dishwasher and stuff yourself?
>> Yep.
>> What?
Guys, are you hearing? For [ __ ] sake.
This the crazy [ __ ] Like, people go missing all the time. Just take one.
There's lots of them. There's only a nine billion out there. You can just take one, dude. Not They're just there.
[ __ ] sake, idiot. Uh, Henroi, for 5, maybe show him how you get from FG= GM1 M2 over a square to F uh G= MG by plugging into NA. I took him through the maths. Henrobe, he he didn't get the maths. doesn't even understand that 180° divided by 3 is is 60 and that 1 one and one is the same as 2 two and two when you're talking about the angles of a triang that would be pointless.
Um myself the other who's been a member for 38 months says weight is relative to the gravity of the object's mass. [ __ ] this guy is dumb. I'm now stupider because of intense exposure to the radioactive stupid.
I know guys what do you expect from a flatearther? Uh, I mean it there's two options. One, he's an actor and a poe.
Two, he is in the top three of the dumbest people I've ever spoken to.
Um, I mean, if he's an actor, I'm sure he'd tell us by the end of this. If not, there was the other option. Gary I for$22 pound says, um, Michael, what is your favorite Kardashian?
>> I don't watch the Kardashians.
>> Okay. What's your favorite Kardashian?
I don't I don't even know their names. I couldn't tell you.
>> Golden cut. Um Oh, [ __ ] What were the other ones called? Uh General Tagan. Um there's a bunch of Kardashians. Who? The guy that kidnapped Picard. What about him? Do you like him?
Do you prefer God to cut before or after he got possessed by the Parra?
>> The what?
>> Go to Cot. Do you like him before or after he was possessed by the par on Beij?
>> I have no idea what you're talking about.
>> What do you mean you not watch Deep Space 9?
>> No, I don't watch television to be honest with you.
>> You're a weird person. Mad Mike for £5 says analogy sandwich equals bread plus filling. No filling is just bread. that r/wush. No, you you wouldn't get deplorable for five pounds. Can the flour tell me the difference between four and four times two?
Guys, if you got any questions for the flat earther, now would be the time to send in the super chat and ask. Yeah.
What is the difference between four and four* two, Michael?
>> Uh four.
>> Yeah. And and how did you get that?
>> Multiplied four times two >> which gives you what? The difference a difference of four >> right? So one times one what would be the difference there?
>> One there would be one. Oh my god.
>> I mean >> there would be a difference of one if you times one by two. You [ __ ] wit.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Armageddon $5 super sticker. Thank you very much. Dr. Apocalypse for £5. The 4 km long tunnels for LIGO are raised about 1 meter at each end to account for the curvature of the earth. Otherwise, the lasers wouldn't reach the end. Yes.
Have you ever heard of LIGO?
>> LIGO. Is that a large and a large something? It's not like a large hydrogen collider, is it?
>> No, it's a large interferometer. Big big ass laser >> that 4 km long arms, right? That are vacuum sealed, so there's no bending of the light in inside them. Um so to make sure that they are completely flat, not level, flat, >> they actually deviate away from the curvature of the earth over that four kilometers.
>> Do they?
>> Yes. The engineering project literally taken into account the curvature of the earth >> and he watched this thing get built and can he can confirm that. And >> there's videos of it being built >> and in the videos you can they they walk around and show you >> there there is videos showing that. Yes.
Where dips and going down. Yeah, sure.
>> Okay.
>> Tech lore night for $5 says his whole stick is if you personally don't know someone, they're lying. Mixed with Dunning Krueger, personal incredility and distrust of academia. Yes. Yes, it is. Um I I absolutely understand why he's single. Um Pat in the chat, who's been a member for 54 months, says, "Oh, brother, this guy stinks."
>> Greater Sapion, I've already read that out. Thank you. Brer, who's been a member for 45 months, says, "Dude, how do you think your car calculates its speed? Does it put markers on the side of the road and use a a stopwatch?"
>> No, it has a tire. It monitors the revolutions of the tire, like a speed sensor.
>> How does it do that?
>> It's connected to the to the, you know, the rotor, counting how many revolutions that rotor makes. It knows the size of the tire >> relative to what?
>> To the ground. So it knows every revolution it moves.
>> Sorry. You think it does it relative to the ground?
>> Well, it knows how with every revolution how much ground.
>> No, it doesn't measure the tire relative to the ground. Michael, shut the [ __ ] up. You don't know what you're talking about. Jesus Christ.
>> Pat in the chat for $10. No, Michael, just you're embarrassing yourself. Stop >> counting the revolutions.
>> Not relative to the ground. No.
relative to a point on the car.
>> It know I said it knows how much distance it's moved over the ground with each revolution.
>> How?
>> You said it measures the revolution relative to the ground. No, it doesn't.
>> Anyways, >> Michael, just you're talking to an engineer. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Pat in the chat for $10.
Earthrise and the accompanying original photos from that mission and all other Apollo missions are analog. They cannot be faked. We live on a globe. Yeah. How did um all the the photo films >> Star Wars in the ' 70s and they but they didn't go to space?
>> All that was filmed here on Earth. What?
What?
>> Yeah, exact. That's a film. The actual Yeah, but they there's studios for that.
The actual the pictures from Apollo. The pictures and videos from Apollo. We have the pictures. Shut up. The pictures and and videos from Apollo. We have the originals of Shut up, Michael. Michael, shut up when I'm talking.
>> Michael, shut up. We have the pictures and videos from Apollo. the originals that we can check and we can see that they were not in a film studio. Whereas when you look at the originals from the Star Trek, the the the original video and tape and stuff, you can see all the stuff that they had to then make into post-prouction. Raw videos cannot lie when it's analog.
>> You can definitely take those same photos here on Earth. You could set up a small studio and take photos like that on Earth.
>> Yeah. Okay. But then you would have to a remove all the air from the studio and b change the gravity in the studio for the physics to match with what you see.
I've done the analysis on that. So, Andreas Zeldich for 56 says, "Please explain to me, Michael, how you can tell the speed of the car if you're laying down in the back seat and looking at nothing but the floor."
>> Uh, look at the speedometer.
>> No, you're looking at nothing but the floor of the car.
>> But you're in an enclosed system, so you wouldn't you just you wouldn't feel it.
You're >> Oh, you wouldn't feel something if there was a constant movement. What if the car moved left or right? Would you feel that?
>> Yeah, you'd feel it then.
>> Would you feel it if it sped up or slowed down?
>> Yeah, you'd feel that. Yeah.
>> But if the car was just moving at a constant speed with no variation, would you feel that?
>> Yeah. If you're in an enclosed system, no, you probably wouldn't feel it.
>> Yeah. And gravity makes Earth an, you know, a closed system because Earth, according to science, is a closed system. Of course, >> the explanation encloses Earth. No, the the according to Earth, according to science, gravity and everything makes Earth a closed system. So, thanks for debunking yourself. Mr. Eman original for $5 Australian, can you provide your personal analysis of the recent Arteimus photos?
>> I mean, like I said, those photos could easily be taken here on Earth.
the ones that that were live on on, you know, on an iPhone um through the window showing space. That could be taken on Earth. Could it >> film that on an iPhone?
>> All right. Well, recreate it then.
>> If if you want to challenge science the way you do it >> and I'll [ __ ] make you I'll recreate anything they can do, bro. I mean, I don't have NASA's budget, >> but if if you can't recreate it, you can't challenge it then.
>> Give me you can't prove that it's fake.
You're just saying I'll [ __ ] do it. I mean, it makes some pretty interesting movies.
>> Yeah, but they use that money to pay their employees. That that money gets used for things.
>> Do you know how many people do you know how many people NASA employees?
>> A lot.
>> 18,000. Most of the wages go to either that or paying contractors >> or buying helium.
>> Uh NASA use helium for fuel storage and stuff.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Do you know that the first time we found helium was in the sun?
Really? That's why it's called they went to the sun and and found >> No, they used spectroscopy and discovered helium.
>> That's where it got its name and then we discovered it on Earth.
>> Ah.
>> Uh, Taco0815 for 5 years says, "As a surveyor from Germany, I'd love to hear what flat earthers have to say about the Gaus Krueger coordinate system."
Do you know what the Gaus Krueger coordinate system is?
>> I don't.
>> No, of course you don't. Uh, Ronald Vanderstamp for five euros. I have a formula. Tik Tok science squared times dumbass equals flurf. I I can't argue with that. Dapper dinosaur, the real dinosaur in the chat for $2. Ask Michael, is is an angle real or fake?
Kapla.
Michael, is an angle real or fake?
>> An angle to what? The angle's real.
>> Is there any dirt in middle?
Is there what >> is there dirt in middle?
>> Is there dirt in middle?
>> Yeah. Is an angle weird or fake?
>> I mean, it's a an angle would be a theoretical concept, you know, but like you could use an angle to measure stuff. I don't know what your point is.
>> Thank you, Michael. That that's that's going to make a good clip. Uh Mr. Hank, who's been a member for 11 months, says, "What's the angular size of this dumpster fire? You could calculate it from far away with alpha equals 2 times the arc tan of g over 2r. Of course, >> uh, [clears throat] Michael wouldn't understand that.
>> No dirt in middle. No, no, no, no, no, no. Andrea Zeldich, who's been a member for 23 months. Dude, nearly twice around the sun. Don't flour and derive.
Uh, F grudge for€2 says, "Don't take your cup home. Don't tell me what to [ __ ] do with a cup.
Stupid concerts." We've got another We're going to another concert on the 15th of August, my wife and I. Um replay concert. Going to actually see like [ __ ] Blue and um Bewitched and Natalie and Bruia uh toploadader. It's going to be pretty [ __ ] badass actually.
Ronald [clears throat] Vanderstamp for 5 says, "Can you ask um Michael why mariners and airplane pilots use great circles to navigate the shortest distance between two points?"
>> Do they?
>> Yes. Uh, as a sailor, I can confirm that. Of course, >> they use a they use the globe to find the shortest distance between two points.
>> Yes, the pilots do. And anyone sailing a boat uses great circles to find the the shortest distance between two points.
>> So, if I flew from California to Qatar, the shortest distance would be to go over like the Pacific, right?
[clears throat] >> It would, if you were looking at on a flat map, it would look curved because the Earth is is curved. If you look on a flat map, which I, you know, I did take that flight last year and I went straight over like the North Pole.
>> Yeah. From I went straight over Canada, over Russia and down into Qatar >> and it was a straight line.
>> Straight line on what? On what projection?
on a if you put it on a the you know compared to which isn't used for distances but the um >> which projection of a map use >> a Gleon's map >> the Azimoth extra distance projection map yes that's the only one that it would look straight on on every other projection it looks curved because there's great circles but of course you know distances aren't right on that so we can't use that to determine what the actual shape of the earth is inquisitive infidel for $5 says what experiment would provide evidence minutes to change your mind about flat earth. Michael, >> uh, I guess, um, measure the curve over a long distance of water, >> which I literally showed you that being done. Of course, >> you didn't.
>> I literally did show that from Jesse Kowalsski. I showed you the surveyor doing that >> 1800s.
>> No, I showed you the surveyor doing it from now. Remember over the mile of water, Jesse Kolski? I showed you >> a mile of water.
>> Yeah, I remember it was it turned out 80 inches mile square drop from tangent. I showed you that.
>> And how do you know his equipment was set up properly?
>> Because he's a surveyor.
>> Oh, he had to be perfect, right?
>> Well, that's his job. I imagine he would know how to set up his equipment. Yes.
>> So, >> again, if you doubt it, get a Theodolite and test it.
>> Okay. Inquisitive event for $5 says, "Mike, when did you lose control of your life and why wasn't it your fault? What are you doing now to gain control of your life and what makes you so special?"
>> I never said I was special and I >> You're definitely special, but back of the bus licking the windows short kind of special. Uh, when did you lose control of your life?
>> I didn't.
>> You You would have a stable family otherwise, but um Okay. So, why wasn't the problems in your life your fault?
>> [clears throat] >> I never said the problems in my life.
What problems are you talking about?
Just making assumptions about me [clears throat] like my life sucks. It doesn't >> I mean doesn't sound that great to me.
>> Why you get this idea? You think because I don't believe the same things that you do that my life sucks.
>> Well, no. Just you know the general attitude from you would show that your life sucks. Bill Tetley for $5. Michael the mentally deprived. I'm talking >> I haven't called you names. I've used descriptions.
Okay.
>> Mh. Bill Tetley for $5. Thank you, Bill.
Michael the mentally deprived [clears throat] [ __ ] idiot never grew up past high school because he wasn't going to let the man hold him down.
>> Thank you, Bill. Right.
>> Rug 10 um 100 Nokia. Where did you find this baby Flurf? Who is his papa? Well, he's definitely done Oakley. He's um definitely got wits stuff in there. Um, with the dialectric acceleration, there was a bit of dubet and I think I might even sense a tiny bit of Dell in there.
Um, so but I think Witset is probably his strongest Papa Flurf.
>> I've never watched what's in my life.
>> Yeah, you have.
>> No, >> he's literally the one that g came up with the dialectric acceleration thing.
>> Dude, I I let go of heliocentric theory back in 2016. I don't believe making any content. You don't believe me?
>> No. So >> I I think you're lying about that. I think you're either um lying about being a flatearther or you've been doing it for a couple of months.
>> Social media posts in 2016, there's not going to be anything about a flat earth.
>> I I I don't believe you.
>> You don't? But if I go back to my social media in 2017, >> I I just don't believe you that I don't believe that you've been studying flat earth for 10 years and you can still be this much of a baby flur. It's not possible. Bill Tetley for $10 says, "Michael must be a Greg Opie Hughes fan and subscribes to the talk quality in the background while others are trying to talk because he can't stand being silent. Least he be forgotten about."
Don't worry, Michael's definitely forgotten about.
>> I'm not worried about being remembered at all.
>> You won't be apart from as that idiot on FTF's channel.
>> Yeah, I got you.
>> So, I see this wasn't really, you know, this hasn't really been a debate. This has just been like a lot of like name calling.
>> Well, it's been a debate. I've showed you evidence and explained why you're wrong about everything.
>> You made claims.
>> No, I showed evidence.
>> Yeah, but from >> you showed papers from people.
>> Yes, there that's that's evidence.
>> Claimed to have done things.
>> That's evidence.
>> You didn't show any evidence.
>> I showed lots of evidence, including a surveyor doing his job. I showed the Earth being measured. I showed lots of evidence. Just because you don't understand it, you're the one that showed no evidence and made claims. I showed actual receipts for all of my claims, including what level actually means according to all the experts.
Inquisive Infidel for $2. PhD Tony, we are Shut up. PhD Tony, we are Spartacus.
Science has his defender. Tony, I do appreciate you coming on, mate. Dapper dinosaur for $5. Hi, I'm Craig. Sangun is my favorite Primark in Star Trek. I especially liked it when he used Exterminus on Tatooine via the Tardis Death Ray. I will find you. You know that, Dapper. I will find you. JS Tiger for $5. Why don't flat earthers know geometry? Yeah, why don't you understand geometry, Michael? Uh, you know, uh, it's too advanced for me.
>> I I believe that. J says, "Tiger $5.
Sleeping warrior doesn't do equilateral actual triangles. Chris UK thinks angles add up to 135. Nathan Oakley can't convert to kilometers.
And Michael doesn't know why you have to times thing by 9.8 m squared. Uh, just Rick for $2. Michael is impervious to knowledge."
>> Yeah, >> that's just a fact. FGR for€2. What is Michael's favorite brand of butt plugs?
What the [ __ ] I I don't know. He's a weirdo. JS Tiger $5. Somebody mail this guy some flash cards. 1* 1 equals 1. Uh Henroy for€2. There are four lights. Um Picard or Kirk?
Michael Picard or Kirk?
Is the Enterprise A better or the Enterprise D?
>> I don't know what you're talking about.
>> You disgust me. Hugh Jar, who's been a member for 51 months, asked the Flur why I can't zoom in on the sun at midnight with a telescope.
>> It's too far away.
>> Uh, how far away is it exactly?
>> Too far for your telescope to see.
>> Uh, so are the stars closer or further away than the sun?
You know, I haven't measured the distance to either because I haven't been to either one of them.
>> But which one's further away, the sun or the stars? Because you can see the stars at night.
>> Yeah.
>> So, they must be closer than the sun, right?
>> I mean, they could be closer the same distance away, but you know, >> if they're the same distance away, we'd be able to see the sun.
>> Closer than the star.
>> They have to be closer than the sun. If the reason we can't see the sun is because it's too far away, yet we can see the stars.
>> Yeah. They're probably probably a little bit higher.
>> Well, that's further away, which means we shouldn't be able to see them.
>> What do you mean you shouldn't be able to see them?
>> Well, if they're further away than the sun and we can't see the sun, and the reason we can't see the sun is because it's far away, >> then we shouldn't be able to see the stars either, Michael.
>> What do you mean?
>> Think McFly.
>> Goofball Turbo Turbo uh 2000 for 199.
I'm reading out some someone's paid for this. be respectful. Goofball Turbo 2099 says, "Michael, what is the circumference of flat Earth?
>> Can't measure it.
I have no idea what the circumference is because >> why not? You've got the same tools we do."
>> If you're if if you're talking about like how how many miles across Earth is, we'll never know because you're not going to Antarctica. You'll never know what's past that this past that 60th parallel. You can go to Antarctica. A lot of my friends went to Antarctica. I've been to Antarctica.
>> I can't go to Antarctica. No, >> I've been to Antarctica. You can go to Antarctica.
>> That's great. I mean, can you go there by yourself?
>> Yes, you can. Many people do.
>> Really?
>> Yes. Many people have gone across the whole thing on their own.
>> Who's gone there by themselves and just freely explored without any permit from the government?
>> A 22 A 22-year-old did it last year.
>> Did he?
>> Did she? Yes.
How'd that go?
>> They went across the entire thing on their own with no one guiding them and no one stopping them going where they wanted to.
>> They just got No one stopped them. They just landed on Antarctica and just >> just had all the equipment to travel across the whole thing.
>> Yes, they did. Yes, they >> You can look it up if you don't believe me.
>> That Oh, they made a story about it, so it's got to be true.
>> Well, they had GPS tracker on them the whole time. Uh JGB12121974 for $5 says, "Could you tell us what what three is?" No, he couldn't. Abdef, who's been a member for 50 months, says, "Thanks to Craig and Tony and everyone in chat. Tonight has been such enormous fun." Guys, we're getting through it.
We're nearly there. And afterwards, there's a redirect set up to go to MC Tune. So, please stay in the chat if the redirect works. It didn't yesterday. Um Wyatt Ladder for 499 says, "Hi FTFE.
Nice to see you uh later.
Nice to see me later. Am I seeing you later? Have we got a meeting? Are you using time travel again? You know NASA gets mad when you do that. Ernie Matthews for $5. Hi, I'm Nathan Oakley and when Craig is in town, I take my teeth out and pray.
Firefers do run away from me in real life, just like Wit, of course.
Uh, Earth Reserve has been a member for 55 months, says almost five times around the sun and flurs still exist. I know it's crazy. Thank you for being a member for so long. Tom uh WZX for $4.99. How dare How dare you mention spectroscopy?
Everyone knows spectroscopy needs a container. Do you know who David Weiss is, Michael?
>> I have heard of him.
>> Yeah, he's he's a complete and scumbag liar, so you probably shouldn't listen to him.
>> I don't know him personally. Like I do.
He's he's a scumbag.
>> Um >> the Gordon Captain for $2 says, "Mike effing magnets. How do they work?"
Magnetism.
>> Yeah. How does magnetism work?
>> Positive and negative.
>> Oh, the Antarctic traveler's name was Tilo Crus by the way. Uh, whale panties for $4.99 says, "Such a bad flour. I don't even want to know what his favorite shark is." Yeah, you don't get to answer the question what your favorite shark is. You don't deserve it.
Odin's raged for $5. This muppet has much in common with young earth creationists and oddly enough mole people believers. How old's the earth, Michael?
>> I don't know.
>> I do. Uh Rudolph for two Yeah.
>> How do you know the age of the earth?
>> Uh carbon dating. Um Rudolph for $2 says T or F edu equals indoctrination.
>> Is it true or false, Michael, that education equals indoctrination?
I believe it it can be. Yeah.
>> Well, you wouldn't know because you've never done education.
>> A good a good student does what? Repeat what >> not what you did. No, actually a good student doesn't a good student doesn't repeat what they've learned on the test.
A good student demonstrates their knowledge practically.
>> But you wouldn't know what a good student is, Michael, because you're not a good student. JSS Tiger for $5 says he wondered if circumference was miles across globe Earth.
All right, guys. That is all the super chats. I want to say thank you very much for the support. It's been a great stream. There was like 500 of you watching at one point. Um absolutely brilliant. I do appreciate it. Michael um well one more from W um White Lad Routt for 199. Hi. I meant to say it's nice to see your life. Do you mean live?
>> My life.
>> Thank you. He's talking to me, not you.
>> Oh.
>> So, Michael, um why are you so [ __ ] stupid?
You know, that's a great question. You, you know, calling people stupid when you lack evidence to support your claim.
>> Oh, no. I've shown you lots of evidence.
You're just ignoring pretending I haven't given you evidence because you're stupid.
>> Weird debate tactic.
>> I gave evidence. You're just too stupid to notice it.
>> No, I just think your evidence was >> Well, that's because you're too stupid to understand it.
>> You you No, you just You're accepting that the images that NASA shows you are real.
>> Well, you need to show that they're not real.
>> I don't need to show that they're not real.
>> Yes, you do. If you're claiming they're not real, you need to show that.
>> I mean, they're images that NASA created and showed you, and you're just accepting them as true.
>> Have you got any evidence they're not true?
>> I mean, >> no, you don't because you're stupid.
>> If if I'm if I was going to be nice to you, I I would call you a [ __ ] idiot, >> but that would be being mean to [ __ ] idiots.
>> I mean, that's a real gray way to debate. I'm not this isn't this the debate's done, Michael. I'm just telling you a fact. You are >> you Well, again, I'm not going to call you a [ __ ] idiot because that's not fair to [ __ ] idiots. They're they're much smarter than you.
>> Great, bro.
>> I imagine you were fed lead paint instead of formula as a child.
>> It's not your fault.
>> You can imagine a lot of things and you're entitled to that.
>> Yeah, at the end of the day, you don't observe over time.
>> You're not stupid, Michael. You're not stupid because you're a flat-earther.
You are a flat-earther because you're stupid. This [clears throat] is just a fact.
>> Right?
>> I've demonstrated how stupid you are here. No. In fact, you've demonstrated yourself how stupid you are. You are aware, sir, to quote PhD Tony, that you're doing this in public.
>> And that means what?
>> Thousands and thousands of people are going to see you do what you've just done.
>> I don't care.
I I get like close to a million views a month. People there's so many people are going to see you be this [ __ ] stupid.
Your kids could come online and see their dad be actually functionally [ __ ] >> I haven't been functionally [ __ ] >> You certainly have been.
>> I don't know. Well, I mean, you keep saying that and if you maybe >> you demonstrated that you were functionally [ __ ] I'm not I'm not like I'm not you've been here for close to 4 hours. In the past 4 hours, you have demonstrated that you are functionally [ __ ] I think it's possible you need a crash helmet and supervision to go across the road.
>> Well, >> like do you wear slip-ons or Velcro?
>> I mean, you can keep calling me names and >> I haven't called you a single name.
>> Believe it. [sighs] I don't know, >> Michael. Is it Velcro or is it slip-ons?
You know, I'm I'm sorry you feel that way.
>> Is it Velcro or slip-ons? Uh >> is velcro too complicated for you, >> man?
>> Like where did it go wrong for you?
>> It didn't.
>> It clearly has. Is was there a point in Did you like have some brain damage like a few years ago or >> It's amazing. Like you keep saying I have brain damage and >> Well, yeah. I mean, you can't be a flat earther without some kind of brain damage or mental disability. is based on and and this is all based on because because >> this is based on my conversation with you >> because you because you showed because you believe that the imagery NASA showed of Earth is real.
>> Yeah, it is real. I've checked.
>> You've checked.
>> Yes.
>> You went up to space and you >> Oh, yeah. I went yesterday moving.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. That's what you did.
>> Yeah. Yesterday.
>> You didn't?
>> I went up yesterday.
>> You never will. That's the thing. You're never going to go to outer space.
>> Yeah, I went yesterday.
>> Nobody just like space right now.
>> We're all in [ __ ] space. Everything's in space.
>> You can't go to that imaginary place that only exists in your head.
>> It's certainly not imaginary. Space is just where the um atmosphere gets thinner and thinner and thinner. Are you denying there's a gradient in our atmosphere, Michael?
>> It's a place you're >> Michael. Is there a gradient in our atmosphere? Yes or no?
>> Yes.
>> Therefore, space is real.
>> No.
>> Yes. Because that's just where it gets really thin. There is a certain point where the atmosphere is thin enough that we call it space. And you've been there?
>> Uh, no. Doesn't matter if I've been there or not.
>> Have you ever seen gas pressure next to a vacuum without a solid barrier?
>> There is no gas pressure next to a vacuum. There is a gradient.
>> There's a gradient. Okay. But there's air pressure here where we're at, right?
>> Yes. Which gets less and less and less as you raise an altitude into this >> without a container.
>> Gravity makes it. Gravity is a container.
>> You're using a theory.
>> Gravity is not a theory.
>> It is. No, it's not. Gravity is a fact.
>> It's not.
>> Yes, it is.
>> Okay, >> just look online. Google is gravity a fact and it will say [clears throat] yes, it's a fact.
>> Yes, because Google the source of truth for everything you'd get your information. It has to give you >> uh you know, have you ever tried to use gravity in an experiment?
>> Yes, I used it in the Cavendish experiment.
>> Okay. Well, how come you could take two objects with the same mass and one will sink and one will float?
>> We went through that. Is are you resetting again? I've I've literally talked you through the mass at the mass with that.
>> Yeah, you did. You talked me through the mass where you had to use density, right? To get because that's one of the variables in the buoyancy equation. Yes, correct.
>> Because >> which is row, not P. You [ __ ] dumbass.
>> Right, Michael, have you got any final thoughts that you'd like to tell everybody?
>> Results with or without the force of gravity, though.
>> No, you don't. You literally need the force of gravity. We went through this.
It's the same number. It's not the same exact number for the four.
>> Michael, have you got any final thoughts? Yes or no?
>> Uh, it's been fun.
>> Don't care. Go away.
>> Jesus Christ, that guy was dumb. Right, guys. I'm just going to double check that I have set up the um the redirect to Tune properly because apparently the one I did yesterday did not work. Yep.
Right, Ton's about to go live. Um, going over some Mikey activism. Thank you very much for being here. I do appreciate it. I love every single one of you. Not you, Gary. You you you know what you did. Um amazing stream, great amount of super chats, you know. I really appreciate it. Um so hang around in the chat. Uh but before we go, I I do need to ask a really important question. Um and and that question is, can we pretend that airplanes in the night sky? I don't know. Wait. [ __ ] Where is it?
I've released so many videos now it's really far down.
Can we pretend that airplanes in the night sky are like shooting stars? Thank you guys. Uh I'll be back tomorrow with a debate between tune and a flur. See you then. Remember stupidity is not a right.
[music] Should be wishing for a brain right now.
right [music] now. Rain right now.
>> Good morning. These words come with a storm warning. Better batten down the hatches, grab some [music] matches, and brace yourself for a long day of misery.
YouTube has given me the [music] power to reach up into the sky and show you all that we live on the ball. I bring you [music] science is comprehensible.
Your view is indefensible. You're reprehensible. [music] Go on, Mr. When I was young, I never thought I would be here to see this. A pile of random ps is dressed up as [ __ ] Your ignorance [music] will be the death of us all.
Like running head first, full speed into a wall. You could [music] always read a book by a telescope. Set it up and take a photo of the moon or just be a buffoon. I sent you in a balloon up to the stratosphere. Page three.
You're a [music] few fries shot of a happy meal. You're dumber than a box of hair. The wheels spinning, but the hamster's dead. And you're as smart as bait.
You forgot to pay your brain [music] bill. You're missing a few buttons on the remote control. 24 cents short of a quarter. [music] You're surfing in Nebraska.
You're as bright as Alaska in December and you fell out of your family tree.
You don't have all [music] the cold flakes in one box. You got an IQ of two and it takes three to grunt. The elevator doesn't [music] go all the way up and there's a vacancy on the top floor. Your antenna doesn't pick up all the channels. You're civil [music] not short of a >> You're sensible. Calm down. Don't go too hard. You don't need to ask like burying blurs in your backyard. You're a man [music] of science. Poison grace mud did everything to wip the grins of the face.
So Nathan Nathan, get away from those kids. The world is not flat and it doesn't have a lip. [music] Recognize the differences between a textbook and a Bible and control yourself. Lay off your slander and your lie. You're a bunch of knobs poisoning the well of the youth.
Spreading lies and your lia knowledge [music] of truth. Stop spreading fresh [ __ ] like the butter on your breath.
Maybe your musical assault knock some sense into your head. I hope one day you'll hear these lyrics and smile and you realize [music] it used to be a 40year-old child. Now it's time to wake up. Open your eyes and see noisy [music] existence.
>> You're a few clowns short of a circus.
Your phone is [music] off the hook. Your sewing machine is out of thread. Your phone and no beer. You don't have all your doubts on [music] one leash and intellect rifled only by garden tools.
There's no brain in your silo and your skylight [music] leaks a little. Your belt doesn't go through all the loops.
You couldn't pour water out of a boot [music] without instructions on the heel. Your slink is kicked [music] and you're proof that evolution can work in reverse. A few feathers short of a whole duck. One true [music and singing] in the night sky are like shooting stars. She'll be wishing for a bring right [music] now. Bring right now. [singing] Bring right now. We pretend [clears throat] that airplanes in a night sky are like shooting stars.
Should be wishing for a brain right now.
Brain right [music] now. Brain right now.
>> You thought it was over? Well, I'm still standing [music] while you swing and fling a feces talking [ __ ] just like the human centipede. You've got the mind of a chip. And I'm [music] here to expedite your shore leave. Cuz I'm a seaman, but not the kind that rit up when your mom's gums. I'm the kind that sailed [music] submarines and fire guns. I could float the boat across the ocean with my eyes closed. Cirate the globe with a compass and a bag of sausage roses. Well, all you can do is [music] nibble on your toes. I'll smack you with the hose that you call a water level. Sit and swivel.
You nasal gazing puppet. You can slough it hard with [music] the wallet. Stuff by Warren Buffet. And I don't care about your sources. You're serving them. And I don't care about your lines [music] unless you're curving up. Step away from me. You're sucking up my oxygen with a vacuum where your brain should be. You >> dumb [ __ ] Thank you guys for watching.
I do appreciate it. Do not leave the chat. You will be automatically redirected over to tune. What an absolutely fantastic stream of old. That was just [clears throat] pure gold.
Expect to see lots of uh stuff from it soon uh with shorts. Thanks to Emily trapped in my basement. See you soon. Go over to tune. I'm going to go to bed.
Remember, stupidity is not a right.
Fight the flat earth.
Related Videos
23:38
Physics
Why the Arctic Warms Faster: new science—Interview w/Dr. Malte Stuecker—Radio Ecoshock 2019-01-31
StopFossilFuels
269 views•2019-02-16
1:13
Physics
What's in a watt?
AlliantEnergyVideo
13K views•2019-01-24
4:21
Physics
The Newest Form of Water Is Hot and Black, Wait What?
Seeker
266K views•2019-06-03
14:54
Physics
Demystifying Electromagnetic Braking: How It Slows Things Down
iitutorcom
6K views•2019-03-23
10:26
Physics
How to Make a Free Energy Water Wheel - Science Project Without Electricity
LXDESIGN
2019K views•2025-07-19
23:13
Physics
Physics behind a Tuned Mass System
StructuralMadness
21K views•2019-01-11
4:11
Physics
Bubbles: A rainy day science experiment
WDIONews
2K views•2025-03-16
2:56
Physics
Earth's Magnetic Field Suddenly SHIFTS - What's REALLY Going On?
ForumIASOfficial
729 views•2025-08-26
Trending
13:38
Law
WOW! Judge TURNS THE TABLES on Trump in His OWN $10B LAWSUIT!!!
MeidasTouch
197K views•2026-07-23
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23