Flat Earther Gets the Standard Treatment

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:00:09]Earth is definitely flat, huh?

[00:00:13]>> Unless you got proof otherwise.

[00:00:16]>> Uh, yeah. We've been to space and taken photos of the Earth.

[00:00:21]>> NASA CGI.

[00:00:23]>> People have independently done this. You can go on YouTube uh and watch videos of people who have built their own rockets fly them up uh or weather balloons fly them up and you can see the curvature of the earth plain as day.

[00:00:37]>> There's zero if there's curvature it's being seen through a fisheye lens.

[00:00:42]>> Nope. Because in those videos >> curvature >> in those videos you can see the curvature of the earth on the bottom part of the lens but the curvature is still doing this. It's still convex is still curvature is still there because of the fisheye lens. You're right. And it can be 20 ft off the bottom portion off the ground or 3,000 ft off the ground.

[00:01:06]>> The bottom part of a lens if it's barrel distortion would make it dip like this.

[00:01:11]It would be concave, >> but it still has convex curvature even on the bottom portion. And >> so the curvature of the earth is so detectable that it even that it actually overcomes the barrel distortion.

[00:01:28]>> So how do you explain water? What's the relative?

[00:01:31]>> Water is H2O. What do you want to talk about next?

[00:01:35]>> The relative of water. What? Water is always flat when it's in a container, right?

[00:01:41]>> No, >> it's never.

[00:01:44]>> Uh correct.

[00:01:46]So, a pond curves.

[00:01:48]>> Do you know the Great Lake of Michigan's curve?

[00:01:51]>> Yes.

[00:01:53]>> Then how can you see from Chicago all the way to Grand Rapids, Michigan?

[00:01:58]>> You can only see the tops of the buildings, not the bottoms of the buildings. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured by the curvature of the earth. Look up Josh Noiki's photograph on Facebook. You can see it yourself.

[00:02:09]>> We've done it on stream before multiple times >> because of the atmosphere. Just like if you're looking at an ocean or a a great lakes, if it's a >> So to be clear, if the Earth were a globe, would you only be able to see the tops of the buildings and not the bottoms of the buildings?

[00:02:29]>> The more clear the atmosphere distorts stuff. Do you not?

[00:02:33]>> So you can either answer the question or I'm going to get rid of you. If the Earth were a globe, would you block me, Junior? Block me, Junior. Block me, Junior. cuz it's your show, right? It's either your way or no way. I You won't allow me to explain myself.

[00:02:49]>> Okay. Sober up and focus on the question at hand.

[00:02:52]>> Goodbye, Junior.

[00:02:53]>> If the Earth were a globe, he said goodbye or it said goodbye, but it's still here. If the Earth were a globe, then you would only be able to >> Now we're now we're um debating my gender and now I'm an it.

[00:03:08]>> You don't have a gender. Um, >> douchebag that's more that's more to do with >> because I'm calling you a [ __ ] douchebag.

[00:03:17]>> Uh, no. That's more to do with your status as an actual uh, fully realized human being, not your gender.

[00:03:26]>> Oh, it left. Oh, interesting. Well, way to prove my point. Kenneth, >> what's up?

[00:03:35]>> Yeah. Okay. I mean, uh, not much.

[00:03:42]>> Riveting.

[00:03:43]>> How's life?

[00:03:44]>> How's life? Life's great.

[00:03:47]>> Cool, man. I want to go on to the Big Bang Theory.

[00:03:51]>> Yeah, go ahead.

[00:03:54]>> Um, the Big Bang Theory states that the energy like I might be straw, man. Okay.

[00:04:00]That the energy like sort of like compelled into itself, you know what I mean? and like exploded in the universe >> uh >> in very simple form.

[00:04:08]>> Oh, could you tell me just really quickly? So I like >> space expanded from an initial state of incredibly high density and temperature and it's still doing it today.

[00:04:20]Still expanding.

[00:04:21]>> Yeah. Cool. So where did the temperature come from?

[00:04:24]>> Nobody knows. Uh including if it came from anywhere. It may just be an eternal uncreated thing.

[00:04:34]Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Right?

[00:04:49]Oh, he left.

[00:04:51]That's all it took. Okay. Well, hail Spanky. Another dub.

[00:04:58]Uh, theism could never.

[00:05:01]>> I'm just saying if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

[00:05:05]You can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. The Big Bang violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[00:05:10]>> Everything that's created requires a creator. Show me curvature. There are no missing links. Evolution has never been observed. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[00:05:21]What about the Big Bang? do you think is evidence of uh of a supernatural creation or what?

[00:05:30]>> I mean, I'm not going to pretend like I have the like answers to the universe or anything, but um I if anything, I would consider myself more of like a pantheist.

[00:05:39]Kind of just we're all God, kind of just the universe exploring itself.

[00:05:44]But um >> well okay >> for the purposes of physics to work and the big bang to happen. I don't see how we can view it any other way than a beginning. I know you said it was something that the universe just kind of does. I don't know if you ascribe to like the big bounce or anything like that.

[00:06:05]>> I I choose to just remain agnostic about what preceded the big bang because I just fundamentally don't think it's really knowable. Um now in the in the future we might get good evidence that the expansion of this current universe will slow down and then start reversing and so that then that would be good evidence of cyclical big bangs like that. Uh then I then I would be convinced that that's pro that's almost certainly the most reasonable take cuz it looks like it's going to happen again. So why would it have never happened in the first place, you know?

[00:06:43]>> Yeah. And that's that's why I kind of I I know creation is a very semantic word to get into, but I feel as though the big bang can be viewed as a beginning. I know we can't tell what would have happened beforehand, and surely it could have just been the universe was existing exact exact same as it was.

[00:07:04]>> But since we can't know that, I think >> so. Physicists don't think that though.

[00:07:09]the overwhelm the overwhelming number of them. No, there was actually just recently a a giant survey that went out.

[00:07:16]I think it was the largest survey of of this kind that's ever been done. And a guy named Phil Halper who just co-authored a book uh with a physicist about the Big Bang. He asked all the physicists, "What is your scientific view of what the Big Bang is?" and they just simply state it's just a hot dense uh it it it just it just says that the current observable universe emerged out of an initial hot dense state. Nothing else. They so they don't they don't claim that it implies a beginning or anything like that.

[00:07:59]Gotcha. Um yeah, that I mean that completely makes sense. If I'm a scientist, I'm not going to go into my own like personal spiritual jargon if someone asks me a question like that.

[00:08:08]Um, yeah, I don't I it's just kind of hard for me to think of it any other way, even if it isn't considered a beginning.

[00:08:19]the the idea that it was just this hot dense state where literally all of the matter, me, you, the the chair we're sitting in, all of that, like all of that was condensed into one >> tiny little speck. I don't I just can't pursue that as any other.

[00:08:35]>> Yeah. So that's that's not the right way to think about it because what we're what what you when you run the clock backwards and the universe like compresses, what we're not saying is everything was the size of an atom or anything like that. That's not really what we're saying. we're saying the stuff for the observable universe we can see um and really it's just like the energy or whatever uh that condenses to an extremely small state but if we live in an infinite universe and it kind of looks like we do then what happen if you have an infinite amount of stuff and you just make all the stuff in it closer together it's still infinite >> right okay >> and also the idea of now that that doesn't nec necessarily uh help with the idea of well yeah but how can like literally hundreds of billions of galaxies fit into a a small space. Well, you're not actually fitting galaxies because at a certain point when you compress things it just becomes pure energy and maybe it maybe it uh decays into a quantum state. So what's the size of energy? What's the size of the initial wave function? Well, those things don't have a size. They they don't have physical constraints.

[00:09:58]So, most of the problem comes with us demanding uh how could it physically have done X, Y, or Z when the science actually says, well, no, it it actually wasn't like that. So, you're you're kind of imagining the wrong thing.

[00:10:14]>> Okay. Um I guess I'll just have to do some more reading on it then. Um, yeah, I was just under the the premise that the big bang was still considered to be sort of a beginning or creation of the universe at large and that even if if we do have let's say like the big bounce theory is is true or the universe tends to I guess in a layman's term reset itself it would still be a continuous state of >> yeah and that would still be the big bang because if bounces h bounces are just what happens before the bang. So, how the hell do you get this XP board?

[00:10:52]So, um the the big bang would still be true if cyclical bounces are a thing that happen.

[00:11:01]>> Gotcha. Yeah. Um yeah, I'll just have to read some more into that and have to change my worldview a little bit. I appreciate that though.

[00:11:08]>> Oh, yeah. No problem. Get a free book, two free audio books, and add free videos by becoming a Patreon member.

[00:11:16]Heat.

[00:11:29]Heat.