Austin Whitsit  04:13
You In a world what up everybody, thanks for kicking it, we got to Fitty smash the Rogan's up, because, you know, we got algorithms out here trying to hold us back. Alright, so, um, Brian are going to have a little debate, the two primary subjects will be the spin, or shall I say the alleged spin of the earth and gravity. We're hoping to have it be cordial and respectful. Last time, he kind of had to go for everyone. So we want to give him a fully fair opportunity to voice his side. And we will, barring how the time goes have a q&a session at the end. So we ask everyone that is going to Super Chat a question to be read off the q&a to be respectful, no insults, or personal attacks. If you have a specific question for me, or Bryant, then you can super chat and we'll read them off. But like I said, try to be respectful and also try to be respectful in the chat. Because, yeah, true. doesn't fear investigation, there's no reason to stoop down to any type of vulgar behavior. Okay, cool. So there is the opening, Jaron will be moderating. So without further ado, let's add everyone in bow. How's it going, gentlemen?

Unknown Speaker  06:21
Doing? That's a great intro. By the way, even though I don't agree with the premise.

Jeranism  06:28
This will be fun. And just to piggyback off what Austin said, Make sure if you're in the chat to be try to be polite. Maybe think of Brian as your, your grandpappy or something. Just be respectful. We don't need to attack the person attack the argument if you want to attack anything at all yet. Now, I will close maybe I'm

Unknown Speaker  06:47
getting there. I'm getting there. 52 is not.

Jeranism  06:49
That's grandpappy ah, I'm telling you. Yeah. So I guess the way it's gonna work is we're going to just have each guy give 10 minutes to give their opening, and there'll be no interruptions. So it should be pretty simple. From there. And I think you're gonna start right, right. Yep. Yep. I'm gonna start. Do you want to tell people who you are real quick?

Unknown Speaker  07:06
Oh, yeah. Brian Meyer is actually a former physicist and teacher. I did teach it Central University, Central Michigan University. So I actually was a college professor. So and, you know, I've been really into energy medicine, pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, I have a best selling book on that topic on Amazon. And it's, it's, it's basically magnetic fields that changed with time, and it has tons of research has been one of my main passions, the past, I would say 15 years or so. But, you know, I am a passionate, I love science. I read science for fun. So I had a lot of friends that got into the flat earth movement. And, you know, I did look into it and the claims and obviously, my side, I mean, I feel the evidence is overwhelmingly on the globe side. But, you know, that's just my position as a physicist, and I'm hoping to end these two departments of gravity and spin. Present that evidence.

Austin Whitsit  08:06
And work. So so definitely just whoever's talking, I guess presenting, like, just make them big. Okay. No, we'll just kind of do that.

Jeranism  08:16
Okay, just sound problem, or is everybody on the same level of someone

Austin Whitsit  08:19
that complained about the levels of the mic, but I don't know what you're saying. It sounds fine. So you know, there's always the one person that does that. So yeah, I love that. I think we're good. Sounds pretty equal to me,

Jeranism  08:30
just as Brian nice to get close to his mic. So you did remember last time you said that you thought you were a little quiet.

Austin Whitsit  08:38
I think he sounds fine. Right. Now we say

Jeranism  08:40
that was a mute. He was muted.

Unknown Speaker  08:43
Oh, you. Oh, can you hear me now? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Jeranism  08:49
I just turned you up a little bit, just because I think you're gonna be quiet. But anyway, good.

Unknown Speaker  08:52
Yeah. It's just I gotta get used to these mics. And keep in mind, I like to just kind of go for free for all but it just Just tell me when we're going to start and

Jeranism  09:02
get you a little higher on your mics. You should be alright. Okay, ready? Here we go.

Unknown Speaker  09:07
All right, well, great. So we're gonna start with grabbing, I just want to begin with a quote by Albert Einstein. No one must think that Newton's great creation can be overthrown in any real sense of this theory of relativity, or by any other theory, his clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built. So that's Albert Einstein. And I just want to before I get into my, my presentation on some of the evidence that I have for for gravity, I just kind of wanted to lay down University of Berkeley as kind of this idea of of a scientific law, because it does seem there's a lot of confusion on what Allah means in science. And in everyday language. A law is a rule that must be abided by are something that can be relied upon to occur in a particular situation. Should. Now scientific laws, on the other hand, are less rigid. They may have exceptions. And like other scientific knowledge may be modified or rejected based on new evidence and perspectives. In science, the term law usually refers to a generalization about data. And it's a compact way of describing what we'd expect to happen in a particular situation. Okay, so Newton's laws, Newton's universal law of gravity. Let's just start here on Earth. Things like bridges, roof systems, stadiums, aircraft, hangars, bridges, auditoriums, building structure, brick, bike frames, ladders, scaffolding, pliers, scissors, automobile suspensions, you know, just equipment, planes, trains, automobiles, just the structure of the world around us, is based on Newton's laws of gravity, and Newton's three laws of motion. So I just wanted a little show and tell here at Georgia Tech, I was electrical engineer. And I had to take these classes called statics and dynamics. And this book right here is 1400 pages of just using basically Newton's laws, no electrostatics pretty much just hauled Newton's laws of motion and laws, laws of gravity. So the world around us is living testament that Newton's laws work. And this is what a scientific law is all about. It's about things that work. It's not about trying to explain why they work, or necessarily the deeper meanings behind him. That's, that's the job of a theory. And those also can be modified. So I had a little fun last night. One of the beautiful things that I like about Newton's Laws is they're so simple. And again, you don't have to really follow along, it's actually not that hard to follow along. So you know, Newton's law of universal gravity is g m, one m two over R squared, and here I have M, E and M. So that's the mass of the Earth, and a small m, which we'll see in a minute why I'm doing it this way. And now we can rearrange this kind of in a clever way that F equals MA, as a lot of people know from school, right? We all heard that equation. So if you put now if you regroup the first equation up here, and you see that you get your little m out, the rest of it is a start over here. So this basically, you can now then say, okay, that's the acceleration due to gravity. Just very simple, it's very easy. So we can see this G here, this little g is our as our well known 9.8 meters per second squared. And to complete this whole process, all we need to know is big G and the mass of the earth. And this is where the Cavendish experiment comes in. And Kevin just like experiments, and it's just kind of worth noting down here that the acceleration is also you can say it as F over m. So if you have a small mass, that's going to have a small force acted on by the Earth, and it's going to accelerate the same as a big force with a big mass because the acceleration due to gravity, or the force is more on a bigger object or a more massive object. But the inertia is also more by the same exact amount. And this is why all things fall at 9.8 meters per second squared. So it's really cool. And we can even take these laws, and this is why we're the universal motion comes in. And we can we can derive Kepler's laws. I mean, I won't get into it, because I don't have time. But Kepler's laws basically said, here's three laws. The first is the ellipses. Second is equal areas in equal times. But the third law, he didn't know what this proportionality constant was. So we can actually just just use Newton's laws, and then we just know that the centrifugal force is unbalanced the gravitational force, and we can get an exact number for that constant proportionality, and all the planets fall in a straight line. So again, we don't have time to get into but it's really nice that this this law of gravity here on earth extends to our solar system, one of the first scientific ideas that got extended

Unknown Speaker  14:06
beyond just the earth. So let's look at just cabinet just real quick here, we don't have a whole lot of time to go through it. But the Cavendish experiment here, let's just look at the experiment. Basically, there's two large masses that are fixed and you will have two swinging smaller masses on a swinging torsion scale. As a smaller masses are attracted to the larger ones, they twist the wire and that twist along with the oscillation times gives us allows us to calculate g, the gravitational constant, once we have G, the gravitational constant, we can then determine the mass of the Earth and based on some of the equations that you just saw, so now I just kind of want to go through and by the way, it's not just Kevin just there's other Oh, can we share my screen now? Yeah, thank you. Can you share my screen?

Jeranism  14:55
I don't know. I only have a re move. There you go. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker  14:59
So um, So anyway, so besides Kevin just there other early on, there were other measurements of GE, totally different ways. And they're getting the same number. This is kind of a key theme here is that we can calculate the gravitational constant in many different ways. And now, but I want to just look at a few modern day, Cavendish experiments here, because these are the ones that are just so very accurate. And I know some of the rebuttals of some of the flat earth enthusiast will say, but you got to understand these tests take everything into account, the exact you know, the, the balls are perfectly homogeneous, you know, the dampers, they put coatings to eliminate the electrostatic effect, a very thin gold layer is very, very carefully done to ground it out no electrostatics, the air density thermal effects electrostatic it's also shielded and grounded. And then the magnetic effects, they'll use new steel shields on the balls and new steel blocks, magnetic fields. And here's this little table, you can see all of these different, and they know all of the things that can lead to inaccurate results to incredible accuracy. So there's been a lot of different Cavendish like experiments done over the years. And recently, there's there's actually now about two to 300. Peer reviewed, Cavendish like experiments. And here we have the Committee on data for science and technology, the code data, which which lists here, the most, the most accurate, most careful experiments, and they come up with a value for g, that's around 6.67 times times 10 to the minus 11. But it's out to four significant figures. That's that's incredible accuracy. And from the lowest I mean, if you swing all the way back and forth from side to side, that's only a point zero 7% difference from the highest low. So it's, it's incredibly accurate. But interestingly, other constants of nature are more accurately known. It's just gravity's one of the most difficult to measure, but it's still very accurate, accurately measured. So. So based on time, we don't really have time to go into the details of all these but I did set up a page on my DFE dotnet, my debunking flutters dotnet site, and forward slash G, you can see these studies, I got 12 Really good peer reviewed studies. And they're not all Kevin just but a lot of them are. And you'll see that these, like I explained a little just a little bit ago, these were all incredibly carefully done meticulously, and the fact that they're all getting almost the identical number, if you had like electrostatics, or magnetism or other confounding variables, you would be getting wildly different numbers from from test to test, you would not be getting this precise numbers every single time. And just look at the precision here. You know, they're putting these in vacuum chambers, some of these experiments did an almost near absolute zero, I mean, just just absolute incredible accuracy now. Now, this is one test I wanted to share, because I've heard some flat Earth enthusiast will sometimes say, well, that's just a manmade piece of equipment, I want to see something in nature where mass attracts mass. Well, here you go the mount Chilean experiment, which has been mult, which also has been done multiple times. And even even recently, there has been a more recent study with the mound showing back in just two. What year was it? Well, it's a much more recent analysis. And again, they this particular study that was done more recently came up with a density of the earth that was very, very accurate. And Marcia Hellion is just very symmetric, so it makes it very easy. So anyway, we're just kind of run out of time here, but just you can just check out my link. And I have a lot of, you know, good, good other things you can see. And don't really have, oh, this is from statics and dynamics, these are the kinds of freebody diagrams that you need to know. And in science, like bridges, this can be life or death if you do not construct these bridges properly. And by the way, it's not just GE it's the it's actually m g and it's you know, you can't just use G alone to to use to build these things with statics and dynamics. And so we're out of time, but I didn't have time to get into Einstein's gravity, but I think we can talk about that later.

Jeranism  19:18
Okay. And Austin, you're gonna go? You're not sure.

Austin Whitsit  19:22
Okay. Well, I do want to actually let me just share the screen real fast. I want to play like a couple seconds of this video

Austin Whitsit  19:35
All right. So yeah, when you start it, I'll just play this. Hopefully they can hear it. I don't know.

Jeranism  19:45
I will now show you a short video of former MIT physics professor Walter Liu right now, I think is done quite clearly.

Unknown Speaker  19:56
So what holds our world together? Well on the Nuclear scale into the minus 12 centimeters. Very important that the nuclear forces on an atomic scale of 1000s of kilometers, is really electric forces that hold our world together. But on a much larger scale, planets and stars in the galaxy. It is gravity that holds our world together. Now, you may say, that's very inconsistent with what you just told us. Because they didn't you tell us that D cancels it.

Austin Whitsit  20:33
Alright, anyway, that's enough. All right. So there you go. Explain that. 2000 kilometers, everything you observe on the earth is electric. Everything that you observe on the earth is 10 to the 26, somewhere you 39th Power stronger than gravity even claims to be. As for this law, talking point, you know, downward acceleration is in effect. So not everything goes down. Sometimes things go up. But there's a downward bias on the earth, I actually agree with that. Nine point emerged second squares agreed upon average, it doesn't happen every time. Objectively, it doesn't happen every time. It changes it just an agreed upon average, it fluctuates. But we use that convention so that we can build things like bridges, etc. You can replace little g with the letter A acceleration, you don't need it, you don't need the cause claim effect, talking about Kepler's law, as a planetary movement of bodies. This is a whole different conversation, then what we utilize on the earth for everyday use cases of downward acceleration has nothing to do with planetary movement, or this idea that there's bending and warping of space time. In fact, Newtonian physics isn't even used anymore doesn't work. It was debunked, it doesn't work to explain the solar system, much less further than that. So when we talk about what's on the earth, well, we're talking about, we want to use science, we want to actually prove things. Okay. So when they propose the globe, they thought, well, the only way the Earth can be a globe is there has to be something called gravity. That's the actual evidence for gravity. So if we want to say we have a dependent variable, naturally occurring, observable phenomena, things go down, things go up and down. So things have direction or different vectors. So what causes something to go down, let's figure it out. Everything that goes down or up, everything that exists in the world is electrostatic. So all molecular intermolecular attractive forces are electrostatic in nature. So anything going up or down is electrostatic. So let's manipulate the variable of electrostatics. And see if it can actually affect the direction something goes, it does, objectively, things go up and down relative to the electrostatics, electrostatic field, you have electrostatic induction that goes to the object. And that relationship will cause things to go up and or down. We have all kinds of things that happen in nature that show us this, on fact, bumblebees actually levitate over flowers, and sing as they accumulate positive charge, which there's actually no such thing as positive and negative charge, you have charge and discharge, it's a convention, there's nothing negative in nature, but that's a different conversation. So it gets positive charge in the air, it floats over the flower that has negative charge and the pollen watch, she levitate up to the bee and stick to it. Okay, so we watch this happen all the time, of clouds, of course, are electrostatic, and then based on the charges in the clouds, that's when eventually the the water will come down. Right. So based on density and buoyancy alone, or based on gravity alone, there's no reason for those clouds to be up there sit in the way that they do. Now, they just claim that it's basically counteract it. So whenever you talk about the Cavendish, and you said that they control the variable electrostatics. Well, you said no, electrostatics. That's not true. There's no such thing as no electrostatics. The goal that they use is electrostatic, right. So we have things that are called dielectric materials, because they have small amounts of magnetic permeability, right? They have high levels of dielectric permittivity. A, they simply they maintain their charge very effectively. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing there. Just like there's no such thing as anything being neutral. If something's neutral, it doesn't have a net charge. But it still has a charge, including all these quote unquote nuclear forces and the neutron, they have elementary charges, and everything that exists has a charge. So there is nothing in the world, nothing that doesn't have electrostatics. In fact, whenever Cavendish first did his experiment, he didn't even account for electrostatics. I know people personally that have done it. And they know that electrostatics will indeed make the balls move around. It's the primary thing you have to worry about, because of the fact that you have attraction and repulsion with electrostatics. You can never eliminate it. So then we'll have what are we observing? You said that it's always the same, it's not always the same. It varies. You get it's such a small change, though, that you get a decent little window and you can say, Oh, look, it's pretty accurate. It's never exactly accurate. And then whenever it's not, people just assume it's user error, because even the slightest bit of energy or motion transfer through the Cavendish, like mechanism will actually affect what you see. So you didn't account for electrostatics if you manipulate the variable electrostatics in Cavendish, you will literally get the call. Also you can't eliminate it, if you ground something, it still has electrostatics we put it in a Faraday cages to as electrostatics. There's no such thing as eliminating it. And it's 10 to the 36th power or 39th power stronger than gravity even claims to be. So all this stuff about 9.8 meters per second square, that's an agreed upon average, it's not consistent. That's just an effect. It isn't exclusive to the idea that the Earth is a gigantic ball with bending and warping of space time. It's not different on a flat earth or a globe earth. If things fall down, we have an agreed upon average, that's the effect. What's in contention, what gravity is, is the claimed cause of that effect. That doesn't mean anything. Like I said, you can change little g and you can replace it with a. So what we know to actually be true. And I just show you to watch a loon from MIT explaining it, everything up to 1000s of kilometers, which I don't make claims about 1000s of kilometers, because I don't believe in fairy tales. But the point is that everything on the earth is electrostatic, and it's just objective, we can manipulate that variable, we have spider ballooning, they prove that they took them outside of the wind, because they used to think that they did that because of wind. And actually based on electrostatics, they levitate more effectively, they basically fly because they propel themselves. electrostatics bumblebees are not aerodynamic, but they use electrostatic resonance, and they can fly through cross winds up to 60 miles per hour on affected because they have like a little electrostatic force field. So what we have, I'll use the last few minutes to explain this. All the stuff of just begging the question of gravity doesn't mean anything, conflating the cause and effect of downward acceleration to being the cause, which is claimed to be gravity doesn't mean anything. Just saying look, we have an equation that we can use for technology based on nine point interesting squared doesn't prove gravity at all, like I said, you can replace a little g with a, so what we actually see is that we have atmospheric electricity on the earth, so we have an increased eco potential increase, it goes up 100 volts per meter. Okay, so there's positive charge potential charge increasing up from the surface 100 volts per meter. Now, the only way that that can be replicated or accomplished in any way, any actual demonstration in the world, is you have to have two Gozzi and surfaces, you have to have a surface above and a surface below to get that eco potential increase, it's the only way. There's no other way that can be demonstrated, well, we have that on the earth, we have Aqua potential increase, which means there has to be a surface above us acting as a second Ghazi and surface and that's what gives you this downward flow of electricity on the earth. So that's what gives you the downward bias. So when something fluctuates between 9.8 meters squared and 9.73, well, okay, because electrostatics is super weak. So the change in electrostatics would never be drastic, it's an agreed upon average, not all things go down, sometimes things go up. So we can actually manipulate that variable we can prove it's there all matter has it, it's tangible, we can actually manipulate it in an experiment and prove that it causes things to go up or down. So what we have from the beginning is scientific evidence that has demonstrated objectively that electrostatics is always present. And it causes things to go up and down. And we have an electrostatic film the earth with eco potential increase, and there's a downward flow, you can in fact, run something called a Corona motor electrostatic motor with this current, okay, so we have downward flow pushing down to the surface of the Earth where we have negative surface charge. Again, this is how bumblebees operate. So if we're going to make an additional claim, because like I said not to be too repetitive, but 9.8 meters per second squared, doesn't prove anything. That's just an effect. That's the agreed upon average of downward acceleration that changes a little bit, but it's just an effect. So we want to find out the cause. The question is, does gravity exists? And is it the cause of the effect? That's the actual point, right? Well, when you say you try to control for the variable of electrostatics, and stuff like that, you can never eliminate it. It's always there. It's 10 to 36 power stronger than gravity and claims to be How could you find a force much smaller than that? If you can't actually get rid of that force when you know, it's stronger? Okay. And we can scientifically prove it. We cannot scientifically prove the bending and warping of space time, no one's ever manipulated space time, they just manipulate mass reify. It begs the question, assume that it's true. So one of them scientifically valid and can be proven. And then one of them just has to be true if the Earth is a ball and has never been proven. So in summary, like I said, people often conflate Big G and little g, they there's invoke 9.8 meters second squared, saying that it proves gravity, but it does not. And Newtonian physics is not what the globe earth model uses anymore, because it doesn't work. And the reason that they didn't just acknowledge the natural, intrinsic electrostatic nature of all things, and that's why things go up and down, is because it's way too weak to cause gigantic planetary bodies to move around each other in a vacuum of vast distances. And that is the only reason that's something else was come up with, and there's no empirical scientific evidence for it. But there is electrostatics it can be manipulated as the IV and you can prove

Unknown Speaker  29:43
Okay, five minutes. Yeah.

Jeranism  29:51
Go you're gonna go first, Brian. You're

Unknown Speaker  29:53
gonna go first. This was just five minutes. Five minutes. Yep. Okay, well We only have five minutes. So I'm just gonna go through from my understanding. I mean, it's just my time, but that its density and buoyancy, or electrostatic, incoherent electrostatic acceleration, and density and buoyancy takes care of the rest type of so the density and buoyancy are still there. So let's look at, let's first look at the problems with density and buoyancy. So the problem, the problem number one is things that are more dense and less dense fall at the same rate, and actually did an experiment with a lead ball and acuball, the lead ball was seven times more dense than the cue ball, and I got up on my ladder, and I repeat it, and I'll videotape it if anybody wants to see it. But then I dropped it again and again. And again, they both fell in exactly the same time every single time. And again, you let you hold both in your hands and lead, but you can tell it's like seven times more dense. Second problem, a density thing should fall faster further up as air resistance is as the air is less dense as you grow up in altitude. But we know the downward acceleration slightly decreases with altitude, because again, little g, we got the formula for it right here, it's a very simple formula, we can actually calculate very accurately, the gravitational acceleration at any distance above the Earth's surface. And the only thing that we have to account for is the centrifugal force, which does vary that from the equator to the poles. But once you once you take into into account the centrifugal force, everything is very smooth, the gravity is very constant across the surface, and it drops off by one over R squared big R, that's the radius of the earth. So you got to be a radius of the Earth distance away before you get a 1/4 drop off. Now density is a scalar. With no direction gravity is a vector. So we know. But I know you guys use your incoherent acceleration to try to give the vector there. Here's another thing density towers break down in microgravity, if you ever seen some of the images of that if you you can see that the density towers don't even work when you go to zero gravity. Now the problem is is buoyancy. Can I share my screen here for just a couple of minutes sharing? Yep. Okay. So, so the problems is buoyancy is that buoyancy literally is defined by gravity. I mean, the actual formula for buoyancy is it's the density of the fluid surrounding fluid times the volume, which gives you m that's that's units mass times g. That's the gravity here. So it's basically mg. And it's not just G replaced for a, in these books, it's mg. It's the weight, so you got to incorporate the mass there too. And you can see right here, a great little demonstration of this isn't like as like a freefall environment. So when you take out gravity, you can see that, you know, buoyancy doesn't work anymore. So again, this shows you buoyancy depends on gravity. So, so we got over that. So don't want to get into electrostatics here from our meeting time. So I'm not going to have enough time to get through we can talk about this in our discussion. So there's some catastrophic problems with electrostatics. I mean, I just say I say catastrophic because they are so gravity depends on mass electric field depends on charge. Electric fields and lucky charges can be shielded gravity cannot provably you know, why shouldn't we be able to step inside a Faraday cage and levitate? I mean, it doesn't. I mean, we can shield electric charges. Why don't objects of different electrical charge and magnetic properties fall at different rates? I mean, we know this different diamagnetic and different, you know, conductors versus insulators. I mean, in electric fields, they would they would have forces acting on them in different ways. And again, why do magnetic paramagnetic and die magnetic objects all fall at the same rate? So again, you can get a magnet or non magnetic object and you know, gravity will pull them down equally every time. electrostatic charges can be attractive or repulsive. Gravity is only attractive, the source of the electromagnetic attraction and how it works. Yeah, so So what is the source of this electromagnetic traction? How does it work? If bulk matter is neutral, so again, I got my little, little thing here. I wanted to have Austin oops, it's my camera here. So we want to kind of go over this side here, we want to get an F equals something up here. So okay, I'm sorry, share my screen real quick. I just had just a couple slides here that are important. They're just then so So the problem with with this too, is the fact that these these electric fields that Austin talked about, that they fluctuate wildly, and, and that

Unknown Speaker  34:44
at about 30 kilometers, it's almost zero and we know gravity keeps going beyond 30 kilometers. So it just doesn't work. It doesn't match reality at all. In fact, the electric field changes not only around thunderstorms, but around you know the time of day in the city. Reasons. So, so again, we can we can get into this discussion.

Jeranism  35:05
Okay, Austin, you're up for five. All right.

Austin Whitsit  35:12
So I never claimed So you started off talking about density? Oh, I didn't see. It says the host says, Oh, no one. So yeah, my bed. I never claimed it that right, like, density is one thing. You can't have density without electrostatics. So everything that has density, and if you look at the periodic element chart, you know, I don't necessarily believe all the atomic theory, but it's a convention. It obviously there's a correlation and density and electrostatics. That's why it's one of the main variables addressed on the chart. But anyway, density itself isn't the full answer. I actually agree with that. Your examples aren't particularly great, though, if you use two different densities, and you drop them well, he dropped them from a few feet above the earth, and they're gonna go roughly the same distance down the primary thing to figure out what is the determination of the vector? What determines the direction itself? Once it goes down, then you know, yeah, as agreed upon average, I mean, until you drop something five miles in the air in a vacuum chamber, you really don't have much to stand on, and dropping to just a few 100 feet in the air doesn't really mean much. And again, downward acceleration does change drastically, we use grabbing meters all over the earth. And it's a different, it's different all over the earth, the downward acceleration of little BTUs interferometry, they also have spring loaded ones, they show different rates, actually. So it's not this magical, consistent 9.81 meters per second squared every time that isn't true. That's like a misnomer. I don't know why people say it. But yeah, so it's not just density. But whenever there's a density of an object relative to the density of the medium that's going to determine direction to that buoyant force that's resulted is much stronger than electrostatics. And in fact, of course, it's even stronger than gravity, right? Even in this theoretical idea that there's gravity here, this other type of gravity because actually grabbing these cravat tossing weights, anyway, the buoyant force is stronger, it goes up and down, just like the elastic velocity, the kinetic energy of gas is stronger than electrostatics. What it does is it sets the bias. So even if we have slight fluctuation in thunderstorms, or lightning or whatever, it's very weak. It's very weak, like when you use a Vandergrift generator, and you make like a little paint chip, float or piece of paper, you can use iron, you use all kinds of stuff. That's like those little chips are equivalent to like Mount Everest, right? So the point is that it's very, very, very, very weak, it just sets the up and down. That's why you wouldn't see much of a change in downward acceleration because it would have to be such a drastic manipulation and variance to get any type of difference. But that's not that's not the question. The question is like, what actually caused it to go up and down, and there is no problem with electrostatics, other than it's not strong enough to make the Earth Spin around. And you said something about at a certain height, right, like, so you're talking about, like, at a certain height drops off, I don't believe any fairy tales above 5060 miles or anything like that. But all of it has electrostatics. Even in the glow paradigm, they claim there's something called the ionosphere. And that it starts right at around 40 miles, they say 5040 to 50 miles to like 400 miles, which we don't believe stories past 6070 miles at all. But the main thing with that is, that was the first time ever that that was claimed Maxwell actually changed his equations, right? To say that you could have electrostatics without matter, because you can't, you can't electrostatic conduction or just acts without matter. And they made up the atmosphere to basically save the globe. But the primary point here is we have eco potential increase on the surface up. And that creates a downward flow. And the only way to have that is to have to Gaza and surfaces. So what we know we have on the earth has to be there because the 2000 surfaces, and that is 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity claims to be. So I don't know. I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept it. But it just is what it is. And this is why it's not discovered on the quantum scale at all grant, there's no evidence for grabbing the quantum skeletal. It doesn't work. It's incompatible. The relativity doesn't work at all on the quantum scale, but we know that there's electrostatics there, it's everywhere in a Faraday cage does not block electrostatics Sure, it can stop like a like electromagnetism. It doesn't stop electrostatics the cages selfs electrostatics, the air inside of its electrostatics, whatever objects are in there are still electrostatic they're still electrostatic induction. And no matter how much you try to neutralize it like on the very smallest scale, right, which you can't remove it because if you removed it, you wouldn't have the matter in the first place. On the very small scale, it's 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity claims to be. And Kevin's just super inconsistent of course, but it doesn't even matter. So the primary point here is we need actual empirical evidence that you're isolating something outside of it, and you're not and it isn't completely constant. So it's it's somewhat radar tip to my first 10 minutes was the same point I'm not claiming that it sends to you alone buoyant force is much stronger than electrostatics. But it's what sets the up and down. It's measurable. It's testable, it's provable. All matter that exists electrostatic not one piece of matter can be invoked. That isn't electrostatic. And so that's all there is to it. There's there's not really even a debate to be had, because until we have like other empirical evidence to substantiate the idea of the bidding and warping of space time, which is considered to be incomplete at best, right? And there's really not not much to discuss her than we need it. So, yeah, there you go. And yeah, just because things change during thunderstorms or whatever, it doesn't matter because it's electrostatics is super weak. So very good.

Unknown Speaker  40:14
Okay, is that okay, so now we just opened up just a discussion. So so. So basically Austin like what? So I have an equation that can make excellent predictions. So what do you have for predicting all these things because I'm telling you the electric electric field, the earth, and I have a book here on the earth atmospheric electricity at about 31, this is about 3050 kilometers or 31 miles. I mean, there's a very highly conductive layer, the the electric field is falling off to, I mean, almost zero, it's like in the in just like, I mean, the milli volts per meter. I mean, it just gets really down. And the average is eight volts per meter going up to 30 kilometers. And this is actually from one of the things you were showing on your, your, your corona motors, right? They actually had this diagram on your corona motor, little thing, the guys that did the corona motors drew this diagram. And I saw you using that demonstration on one of your videos on Crona motors, right. And they had and they were basically saying the same thing I'm saying, but see, gravity doesn't stop at 30. You know, at 31 miles up, gravity keeps going out. I mean, so this just doesn't work. I mean, with lightning storms is even worse, because you've got you say it's a incoherent what is it? Incoherent I dielectric acceleration. That's I mean, that that you says that gives you the bias of the downward acceleration. But during a thunderstorm, it reverses direction and increases 100 fold. How does that work? It doesn't.

Austin Whitsit  41:48
Okay, it doesn't reverse the entire Earth's electric field. That never happens.

Unknown Speaker  41:54
wait seven, 7 million lightning strikes a day. That is a lot of reversals. And if you

Austin Whitsit  41:59
were gives the earth its negative surface charge, you pick up a book and

Unknown Speaker  42:03
understand Earth atmosphere electricity, you would start to realize what you're saying

Austin Whitsit  42:08
is nonsense. You think the entire Earth electric field flips? Know what's

Unknown Speaker  42:12
happening, it's a global circuit, what you have is you have the downward like you said that fair, the fair weather electric field, as you're saying coming down, then you've got like currents in the earth. And then the lightning strike, it's putting it back. So that's a circuit going around. So in the current the fields are going sideways, here up on these upper layer, so that would mean gravity would be going sideways up here. It's always down Austin always down.

Austin Whitsit  42:38
It's always down because there's an equipotential increase of positive potential.

Unknown Speaker  42:43
Why don't we start levitating around a lot run a lightning storm,

Austin Whitsit  42:48
okay, because that's just a very temporal discharge. And the density of whatever it is that's on the ground has a buoyant force that, again, is much stronger than electrostatics. So that's what sets the up and down, but your density, the buoyant force that comes from your density is much stronger. And again, the entire electric field of the Earth never flips, and never happens.

Unknown Speaker  43:12
I didn't say this the entire field. I said, there's around 7 million lightning strikes today. So that's a lot of reversals of polarity. And the point is, is gravity is always a very, very smooth. I mean, again, you said it varies a lot. It does vary. I agree. But it doesn't vary by more than seven 9.77 to 9.83. At the surface. That's that's not even entirely true. I got I got a source for that. Actually, it is true.

Austin Whitsit  43:39
There's gravitational anomalies. There's like seven different types of gravitational

Unknown Speaker  43:43
but I'm telling you the acceleration due to gravity is very well, very well mapped out by geodesy is very well mapped out.

Austin Whitsit  43:50
Why wouldn't that work with electrostatics though?

Unknown Speaker  43:54
Again, I just told you because the the electric field is dropping off a lot more quickly than the gravitational field does. You know what the gravitational acceleration is at 30 miles up,

Austin Whitsit  44:04
Austin, the gravitation the gravitational acceleration. I can use pretty much all the ways the same.

Unknown Speaker  44:11
I can use my equation to make accurate predictions. You don't have an equation you don't have anything over here. See that red box Austin? You don't have anything to put in that box to make any predictions? Or if you do let me know

Austin Whitsit  44:23
when for force that says f equals So yeah, force equals mass times acceleration.

Unknown Speaker  44:29
Okay, but but again, what's the acceleration? Where are you getting that from? electrostatics

Austin Whitsit  44:34
that's what everything is. It's literally all

Unknown Speaker  44:40
columns law to derive that then if you use electrostatics

Austin Whitsit  44:43
we could use columns law but it doesn't matter that

Unknown Speaker  44:46
ma the columns lon I tried that. You know what you get is nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Austin Whitsit  44:52
That's a lot of specificity you got for us there. Brian. The thing here is my guy

Unknown Speaker  44:56
walking blue and when he did his presentation on electrostatics He derived columns law, that's the equation you use for electrostatics. I know.

Austin Whitsit  45:04
It's almost exactly the same as the gravitational law, but it's just charges different equations. It's just charged that is different. But the point is that downward acceleration is just roughly agreed upon 9.8 meters per second squared. Brian, it fluctuates a little bit. It's not constant. It changes all the time. And it actually changes during thunderstorms. I've read the data during thunderstorms, how fast something falls at the surface changes. So how does that work?

Unknown Speaker  45:33
Well, show me the research. Can you give me a reference on the study that shows that? Sure, yeah. Okay. Send it to me. Yeah. I

Austin Whitsit  45:39
mean, I'm not going

Unknown Speaker  45:41
to see that how gravity changes during a thunderstorm. And during

Austin Whitsit  45:44
rainstorm rainfall. Isn't that interesting, though, Ryan, but just hyped, I will send you all the resources identically, what would be your answer, because this is well documented at universities?

Unknown Speaker  45:54
Well, I'm very, I'm not going to say anything until you show me that study. Because I'm skeptical that gravity cannot be shielded Austin, I know this. So what you're saying can't be possibly true. What can't

Austin Whitsit  46:05
be you're just reifying it you know, what a reification fallacy.

Jeranism  46:10
You know, where the women it back and forth so that we're not talking over each other? You guys. Okay.

Austin Whitsit  46:15
I think we're fine. So we can just try to keep it both? Because what do you know what a reification fallacy is Brian?

Unknown Speaker  46:20
Yeah, I do know. But again, science doesn't claim to be we're using models to make accurate predictions. We're not trying to say that the model is the thing. We're just saying that these models of gravity that we have work and the ones you have don't you don't have?

Austin Whitsit  46:33
Yeah, do I just replace your little g with the letter A?

Unknown Speaker  46:37
i Okay. But then you gotta set MA equal to that. What's the force that that's columns laws? electrostatics. If otherwise, is it F equals D for density? I mean, what are we going to put in there? Do we says electrostatic field but density equal to ma? I mean, is that what we should we should put d equals ma? Wait, I'm

Austin Whitsit  46:53
not you know, you said gravity can't be shielded. You know, electrostatics can't be shielded or removed. It's

Unknown Speaker  46:59
all provably that it's called the dielectric constant dot. Every material has a dielectric constant, which shields electric fields. You can't shield an electrostatic Yes, your bodies actively cannot attack your body has a dielectric of 50 Halston, your body actually shields electric fields up to 50 fold.

Austin Whitsit  47:19
Are you saying that we can shield electrostatics? Electric fields? Yes. electrostatics electrostatics.

Unknown Speaker  47:26
If you have an electrostatics object, it's giving off an electric field. That's that's how it works. There's an

Austin Whitsit  47:33
electrostatic field. But can you ever shield from electrostatics? Yes, you can. You can shield electric fields. You can't Brian will show me the paper that says that please. Okay. I'd love to see that evidence. You're making the positive claim that you actually can do it. So what you use a Faraday cage that doesn't do it. So what else are you going to use other than a Faraday cage?

Unknown Speaker  47:54
Any electrodynamics textbook, electric fields can provably be shielded provably.

Austin Whitsit  47:59
You cannot eliminate the variable of electrostatics and you can't blocked and Faraday cages stop electromagnetic transfer, not electrostatics. So this is the point man, you don't have evidence for your claim, I can tangibly manipulate my claim. That's the difference

Unknown Speaker  48:14
I gave you. There's 12 peer reviewed studies that I gave, why don't I didn't get one peer reviewed study from you?

Austin Whitsit  48:19
Yeah, I can give you all kinds of evidence I'll give you but listen, just one I want to know. Why does the Why does the acceleration change at the surface? If gravity is constant and always there? Why does it change?

Unknown Speaker  48:29
It changes because of the centrifugal force. It's an effects actually the gravity doesn't change. Okay? What changes is, is the you got to subtract the centrifugal acceleration. So the effective net force at the equator is less than the poles by about 5%. Because there are two reasons why. Number one, the poles are about the equator is about 14 miles wide, wider, right? Then then the equator and then I'm sorry, the equator is 14 Miles wider. So you're a little further from the center of the earth. And you're spinning. So you got to subtract those two things. So it comes out 2.05. But it's only 9.77 to 9.3. Austin, that's not a very big difference. But

Austin Whitsit  49:08
you said it was constant. So the point is that it changes because electrostatics is super weak, Brian. So the fluctuation in electric Raman fluctuation and the electrostatics won't change it much because it's super weak, but it does change. And I already showed you told you I haven't showed you yet that it changes during rain and thunderstorms and lightning storms, which goes to show you there's relationship we can manipulate the variable make things go up or down way more or fall faster. This proves that it is objectively a variable that's relevant to all of these things. And you're in your gravity explanation can't explain clouds can't explain anything. It's just an idea to try to claim the ERISA ball.

Unknown Speaker  49:46
Yeah. Let's let's get back to this for a second. So up here at 30 kilometers or 30 miles that you've got near zero electric field, okay, but the gravitational acceleration is still 9.71 it didn't followed by very much, but your electric fields almost zero. So how in the world can that account for? Again? The 9.8? You know, 9.8, you're right. It's an average across the surface of the Earth, but it only varies from 9.77 to 9.83. But it does go down with altitude, right? So the top of Mount Everest is going to be lower. So that again, this is this equation I gave you. I mean, it's simply, you can you can calculate the gravitational acceleration at any distance from the surface of the earth. But we because we live on the surface of the Earth, we're almost always dealing with 7.83. But your model has no equation that can tell us what the acceleration is. You agree it's a one over R squared law, can you at least acknowledge that maybe it's a one over R squared drop off?

Austin Whitsit  50:44
I need to verify your, your are there whatnot?

Unknown Speaker  50:48
Well, what okay, but I'm just saying it is a one over R squared drop off, provably? I mean, we can we can take the measurements, I mean, you can measure the acceleration going up and up and altitude and see that it is falling exactly by this by this equation right here by the one over R

Austin Whitsit  51:03
squared. Is your claim that there's no proportionate relationship to acceleration? And then how high up you go in the electrostatic field?

Unknown Speaker  51:11
Would you say that again? I didn't. Are you

Austin Whitsit  51:13
claiming there's not a proportionate relationship to acceleration and how high you go up in the electrostatic field of the Earth?

Unknown Speaker  51:19
I was the electrostatic field the earth is it again, it's a very complex thing, gravity is just straight down towards the center of the earth.

Austin Whitsit  51:26
You can just keep on reifying it though, man. I mean,

Unknown Speaker  51:29
reifying, you don't have any equation, no model, no research to substantiate your claims.

Austin Whitsit  51:34
We have all the evidence ever, because we know we have the atmospheric electricity. Now gravity just claim assumed to be there.

Unknown Speaker  51:41
The atmospheric electricity is just using I mean, it's yes, it's tapping into the the grading of electricity. But that doesn't prove that things fall 9.8 meters per second squared.

Austin Whitsit  51:50
What keeps clouds up?

Unknown Speaker  51:52
Clouds. It's a very complex fluid dynamics situation where you have warm air rising and very, a very fine mist of water, it gets to a certain altitude cools off, it condenses into clouds, and at some point, it's going to rain and come back down. Just like Well, it's, it's basically heat pressure. I mean, there is gravity involved because the water rains down, it comes down again. I mean, it's it's this way doesn't

Austin Whitsit  52:17
the clouds hold like millions of pounds of water. So just just accounting for gravity, why wouldn't it just fall down?

Unknown Speaker  52:24
Again, the clouds are spread out, and there's very, very, it's a very fine mist. So just like just like dust in the morning, when you see the when the sun comes to your window, you can see the dust particles are floating in the air. I mean, gravity is still working down. But when you have a very, very small surface area, it actually it's a surface to volume ratio, the air resistance gets proportionately greater. As you get a smaller and smaller size because your surface to volume goes it goes up, right. So for example, let me give an example. You can drop an ant from like several, like 10 feet up, and it'll it'll walk away. Why? Because the air resistance, because it's so small, it's got a lot of surface area to a small little volume. So when you have little tiny mists of water like that they have, you know, the warm, you know, warm air rises right often. So hot air balloons work this way. So the warm air that rises up that then it gets to a certain altitude it cools off, and then it kind of condenses into the clouds. But it's not like there's just like a big ocean of water up there. It's a very fine mist particles have a very high surface area to volume ratio. So they are they have they will come down, gravity eventually brings them down. That's what we get rain. Right?

Austin Whitsit  53:33
All right, that was a lot. That was a lot objectively, even within your paradigm. Clouds are held together with electrostatics. What happens is they there's a friction, right? There's a friction that builds up inside the clouds, and it creates charge, and the charge continues to build. And then the charge within the cloud begins to like situate out. And eventually you have what's called negative charge, it's discharging going on at the bottom of the clouds, so much so that eventually you will have something like lightning happening, which is a discharge going down to seek equilibrium to the surface, because there's a downward flow of electricity on the earth. There's a downward flow, clouds are held together with electrostatics. They're within the electrostatic field, all of the water and the ice crystals in the cloud are electrostatic they all situate themselves based on that. That's what lightning is it's electrostatic discharge seeking equilibrium. So we have a downward electric flow on the earth. electrostatics is to 36 power stronger than grabbing claims to be and everything has a downward bias and then different forces like kinetic energy and buoyant force is stronger than that. This is just objective.

Unknown Speaker  54:37
But the lightning strikes go back up though to us and it goes the other way. You know, lightning bolts go up and down. They don't just go down. Okay? So that's, it just nullifies what you just said about, not, it's not a downward acceleration. That's because if it's going up, that's we don't levitate again, we're not levitating around. Thunderstorms.

Austin Whitsit  54:56
You wouldn't levitate because you're so much more dense than the air You're still going to be down electrostatics is very weak, it just sets the up and down. That's a ridiculous response to say that we should levitate. If electrostatics was real, that doesn't make sense, it doesn't

Unknown Speaker  55:10
make sense because the voltage increases by 100. Fold Austin. So not only does it reverse direction, it's going to like 15 to 20,000 volts. The other direction is to go

Austin Whitsit  55:22
by like a million, though Bryant, that's what you don't understand. The whole electrostatic field just sets the up and down, you are buoyant force of density is so much stronger. We do have things levitate. And we have electrostatic levitation in nature. It happens all the time. The fact that lightning goes up and down, which actually looking in slow motion, it's really crazy. Lightning is a baffling thing. Yeah, there's discharges from the surface as well, based on what charges on the surface. And what is in the clouds above that. That's what it is. It's just seeking to librium relative to the charge and discharge levels of the cloud and the ground. It goes up and down doesn't change anything. My point is that all of its electrostatic everything is and that's way stronger than gravity. Everything's not electrostatic and one thing

Unknown Speaker  56:00
well, well, first of all, you know, there are four forces in nature, not just electromagnetism, right?

Austin Whitsit  56:05
Can you name one thing? That's not electric?

Unknown Speaker  56:08
Well, let's there's it's part of everything. But so is gravity. And so as the nuclear force, so as the weak and then you got the electromagnetic force, which you're referencing, but you're ignoring for some reason, the other three forces? No,

Austin Whitsit  56:20
not that they're all electric. We, they, they're all electric that one of them. That's not we're not counting gravity, because gravity isn't actually real. The nuclear force is electric. Yeah. Okay, show me evidence for that. Because Okay, literally does the opposite. It actually holds like charges together. Do you know that lady didn't know that that it was electric? Do you know that like charges repel? Do you know that? Yeah, yeah, but incoherent charges always attract. So you need polarization. You need polarization to have attraction and repulsion. But But listen, even the neutron, nuclear forces all that they have elementary charts, something that's called elementary charge, they still have a charge on the most fundamental level, that's the only way that you can have any of this stuff held together inside the atomic theory. The protons, the neutrons, you say the cancel out, you have bosons and all these different, you know, particle physics, pseudo scientific terms. It's all charge. Everything has a charge. It's all electric. Everything is okay. So that's my point.

Unknown Speaker  57:16
charges repel. I've done many little pith ball experiments in my use to teach physics. Those those little balls will repel each other. They don't come together often just you just talking nonsense

Austin Whitsit  57:25
incoherence. What electrostatic acceleration is always attractive, you have to have polarization to get repulsion.

Unknown Speaker  57:35
Where does that come from? It doesn't wear what can you show me a research study that references incoherent acceleration?

Austin Whitsit  57:42
Well, it has to be something from like electrical field theory, like decades and decades ago before the pseudo scientific derailment of modern science because of the devotion to heliocentrism. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker  57:53
Austin, look at the world around us. We are advancing in technology, we're not going back in the dark ages. So don't say that the science of the 1800s is somehow better than the science today.

Austin Whitsit  58:02
Actually, it is because of the Michelson Morley and then they everyone went the wrong way. I don't we don't have to change the subject. But the point is, they threw out, they threw out the background medium for electrical field theory. And then they ran over here towards trying to explain the earth as a ball. So that's what happened. So yeah, I don't agree with subatomic particles pseudoscience, it doesn't work particle physics has been debunked. It claims electrostatics is the exchange of virtual photons, because the math doesn't work. Yeah. So objectively, you guys are falling apart as time goes

Unknown Speaker  58:30
on, we're not falling apart. Again, you're not understanding a scientific law, when a scientific theory need, they work in their domains of application. If that didn't work, we wouldn't have any computers in a quantum mechanics is the basis of the computer you're looking at, you know, laser cell phones. So you can't see that these things are disproven when you have technology all around you that is actually using those

Austin Whitsit  58:51
things, but you think virtual photons are real,

Unknown Speaker  58:55
virtual photons are part of a mathematic. You know, the difference between a mathematical model is versus reality. Yeah, yeah. Do. Again, it makes predictions that we can use to make things and to do wonderful things in this world in this universe. So, okay, medical model is about gathering evidence from observations, creating a model that can be used to make predictions and to create a theory that can then you know, we can we can apply this in engineering and do a lot of wonderful.

Austin Whitsit  59:23
Yeah, I don't dispute the commit. Just to wrap this up, we can maybe move on. I don't dispute the conventions are valuable, Brian, it's the fact that they're not reality. They're wrong. Particle Physics made a prediction for magnetism and electrostatics. And it was debunked, and they had to invoke virtual photons, everything's electrostatic destined to 36 power stronger than gravity even claims to be you can't eliminate the variable, we have an electric gradient on the earth, you have to have two Gozzi and surfaces to have the equal potential increase in electricity. So the globe can't even explain how we have eco potential increase electricity, and it has a downward flow on the earth, and it's much stronger than gravity even claims to be and to get onto the planetary scale and even water loon from MIT will tell you that

Unknown Speaker  59:59
again, This this book right here actually explains the the electric field and how it's created through a very complex interaction between the sun, the magnetosphere, you know, and the atmosphere. So it actually, we can explain it, you know, and it's not downward, an incoherent dielectric acceleration. Not once is that I've never seen that anywhere in any book. And again, if if you don't have any studies that can actually verify what you're saying, if you don't have an equation that can actually make any predictions which you guys don't. I mean, Sears just told

Austin Whitsit  1:00:31
you we do we have the same equation, we just put a there instead of little g. Why do you keep walking past that and saying it anyway?

Unknown Speaker  1:00:37
Because f because that equation uses on the other side of it. Newtonians law of gravity. So where is your again? You said F equals MA equals What's the force? So ma equals colums? Law equals gravitation equals kx. For that, you know, there's electrostatic field. Yeah, so every force has its equal to ma. So what are you using? What equation are we going to use to be able to make these predictions? What predictions? Then because you've got to you basically got to use gravitate, the only way you can is to use a gravitational equation you got

Austin Whitsit  1:01:08
Oh, no, no, you're not understanding that the gravitational constant is just the downward acceleration, agreed, upon average, you put little g there, it's just the effect. That little g is not gravity, it's downward acceleration, it doesn't prove the cause of downward acceleration, it's non sequitur. That equation is not exclusive to you, nor does it give your point. Any type of value in this discussion

Unknown Speaker  1:01:32
knows Austin, because little g is only we only measured empirically at the surface, we can predict with this equation, what g will be, you know, 100 miles up? In the end, it's wrong all the time. How show me evidence for that claim?

Austin Whitsit  1:01:46
Okay, I'll show you the gravitational anomalous chart. And it's starting at the surface all the way up.

Unknown Speaker  1:01:51
Here's the problem. Where's your evidence? Well, I mean, if you can't make a prediction, and to get to get these numbers that we all can observe and see,

Austin Whitsit  1:01:59
we don't see them, you've got a fluctuate greatly. That's not what happens.

Unknown Speaker  1:02:03
You've got nothing, you're just saying words, that's all it is, is words,

Austin Whitsit  1:02:06
objectively, it isn't exactly as predicted by gravity all over the earth, there's all kinds of anomalies. Again, if they were to count, if they were to count for the electrostatic field, and all the variables based on electrostatic induction, they would get much more accurate readings, but they don't do that. So we may have exhausted, it's been an hour if you want to move on to spin.

Unknown Speaker  1:02:27
Only some evidence, I haven't seen any, I'm still waiting. And I've watched a lot of your debates, I haven't seen you provide any solid, tangible evidence for this claim,

Austin Whitsit  1:02:34
we can manipulate the independent, we can manipulate the independent variable of electrostatics. So you This is how science works. Brian, right. This is how science works. You have a naturally occurring, observable phenomena that you want to figure out. That's how natural science works. You want to study that effect and see, can I figure out what causes this it's a cause and effect relationship test that you can propose called a hypothesis. So it's like things go up or down. Okay, things have vectors directionality, we see things go down, that's our naturally occurring, observable phenomena. Now we're going to presume the cause is electrostatics. So if I manipulate electrostatics, that will cause things to go up and or down. And we're going to run an experiment to test that. And when we manipulate electrostatics, like in a Van de Graaff, generator, things will go up, they will weigh more, they will accelerate faster, you can make things go up and down, manipulating electrostatics. And you can replicate that equity potential increase with to Gazi and services like we have on the earth. This is actual science. Gravity has none of that.

Unknown Speaker  1:03:29
I know. That's, that's just electrostatics. So that's not gravity. I mean, I used to teach fifth, I used to use an electric, Van de Graaff generator, you know, you can just get your wool sweater in a balloon. And you can, you don't even need to get those Vandergrift generators. I mean,

Austin Whitsit  1:03:42
I know you're right, you can do it with all kinds of now can you do the same thing and give us scientific experimentally valid, verifiable evidence that gravity is real?

Unknown Speaker  1:03:51
But do you have an equation that can make any predictions? A model that can make any predictions at all? I mean, just, I mean, seriously, just one prediction. I mean,

Austin Whitsit  1:03:59
yeah, I can just call it a dielectric constant. I can just call it the electric constant acceleration put the letter A there.

Unknown Speaker  1:04:07
I mean, you saw this with your model, if a ball drops from a 10 meter on the ledge, what's the object's velocity before it's the ground using your model? I mean, I'd love to see you use your model to solve this little problem. It's a very simple problem with with Newton's kinematics and gravity. But but you if you can't solve a simple problem like this, you absolutely have no model at all, because you got to be able to make a prediction, Austin, otherwise you've got nothing.

Austin Whitsit  1:04:31
Okay, well, we can make all kinds of predictions with electrostatics. Because all you're doing to do yours, all you're doing for yours is factoring in an agreed upon average of downward acceleration. It's much

Unknown Speaker  1:04:40
more than that. What is it? Have you even read a book on statics and dynamics? And you even know I've taken these classes in Georgia Tech, okay. Okay, much more than just substituted. I mean, G is not the only thing that goes into this. It's actual gravity. You know, it's also mass times that and then you got to deal with torques and all kinds of other things. Yeah. But it's not just Ge, you can't just say, oh, that's r&g and you're just rebranding your, you know, gravity intellectual stack,

Austin Whitsit  1:05:08
you think that you have exclusive acknowledgement of the conceptual quantification of matter that we call mass, which is resistance to acceleration. You're saying that book, we're actually now can't use the idea of mass because you believe the Earth is a ball that makes no sense whatsoever. You don't have any type of exclusivity with the idea of mass is just a concept. And it has made it for definitely,

Unknown Speaker  1:05:33
wait. So if I step on the scale, then what's going on? I mean, I know when my Newtonian model was going on. So if I go and see 150 pounds, or whatever, you know, 100 kilograms? Yeah, what in your model? What does that mean? I mean, what it's, please, please tell me.

Austin Whitsit  1:05:51
So we could just say weight equals ma.

Unknown Speaker  1:05:55
Okay, but again, weight equals MA is not good enough. Because you're using because again, if you understand physics, force equals that mean, you always have a certain some kind of force on the other side of me, like I said, electrostatic force is columns. Well, gravitational forces, is Newton's law. You know, the spring you got, if you're dealing with springs, you've got minus kx. All of those, you need some force equation, Austin, are you doing

Austin Whitsit  1:06:20
weights equals mg is what you believe, okay? Little G is 9.8 meters per second squared. That's how you determine weight. That's an agreed upon average of downward acceleration that isn't completely constant, we also get to use that number. Weight is actually specific to many things, including vector coherency, medium location, it changes based on location on the earth, there are all kinds of variables that should be in that equation. It's downward pressure over a certain area. It is objectively electrostatic it's in an electrostatic field, I could make something float off the scale with electrostatics. Bryant.

Unknown Speaker  1:06:55
Okay, but you got to add again, you got to add charge to it. And to a small little thing. I mean, I used to do that, too. That's not

Austin Whitsit  1:07:00
okay. Are you saying there wasn't charged there before I added it,

Unknown Speaker  1:07:04
when you when you stand on a scale? That's mg. So that's mass attracting mass, you do get that right when you're? So in your model, if you are acknowledging mass, then you're basically admitting that mass is attracting mass.

Austin Whitsit  1:07:16
No, your model doesn't even claim mass attracts mass anymore. So what it doesn't matter, like no, no, Matt. And gravity is no longer considered an intrinsic property of matter for over a century. It's the bending and warping of space time.

Unknown Speaker  1:07:29
Did you listen to what I said about what a law is? Yeah,

Austin Whitsit  1:07:32
your law is nothing more than an equation describing the effect of downward acceleration

Unknown Speaker  1:07:37
works. Like I said, the world around you is filled with examples that it works.

Austin Whitsit  1:07:41
Yeah. And we can use it to it's an agreed upon average for the 10th time.

Unknown Speaker  1:07:45
That's gravity. But again, you don't have a force equation, Austin, so we'll let the

Austin Whitsit  1:07:49
audience decide. Next one,

Unknown Speaker  1:07:53
yeah, let's go next. Okay, so who's going first? This time? Rotation?

Austin Whitsit  1:07:56
He can go first.

Jeranism  1:07:58
Okay, we're doing 10 minutes.

Unknown Speaker  1:08:00
Okay. Give me Give me a second.

Unknown Speaker  1:08:03
That's a five.

Jeranism  1:08:09
Okay, Tim, when you're ready. Okay, I'm ready. The subject on this one. We're moving on to spin of the earth. Yeah, yes. You have a hard stop at eight. Right.

Unknown Speaker  1:08:19
Got your time. Yeah, that's right. So let me just kind of fast. Okay, so go and start. Sorry, I'm getting getting some notifications here. Hold on. Okay, can you share my screen?

Jeranism  1:08:40
Yes. Yeah. I don't know. Awesome. I can mine says remove only when I go down there.

Austin Whitsit  1:08:49
I don't know. You should have admin.

Jeranism  1:08:50
Just remove the option for some reason, right? We're gonna We're fine. Go ahead. Who's gonna Brian wants his up?

Unknown Speaker  1:08:58
Yeah, I want my nap. If you can

Austin Whitsit  1:09:00
reset the clock there. You don't want to use Walter Luhan bro.

Unknown Speaker  1:09:03
I love Walter Lewin. In fact, again, you got to watch his gravity lectures because they're great. Really good. clock start. Okay, so now we're going to talk about the earth rotation. And I just want to provide many different ways that we can see that the Earth does rotate. So the first one I want to briefly go over is sunrise and sunsets and lighting. Then I want to look at counter rotating star fields. equatorial mount telescopes, we'll just mention really quickly. The centrifugal force itself is great evidence that Earth is rotating. The Earthfest effect on east to west flights is a good evidence that the earth is rotating. And then of course, we got gyroscopes we got optical gyroscopes, mechanical gyroscopes, the full comp pendulum, long range ballistics. And so so let's just start with sunrise and sunset here. So I really liked this little proof so so I just want you to watch this little animation. You can see the mountain here is lighting up from the top down. This is this is looking looking west, it's at sunrise. So sun's rising, you're looking west the opposite direction. Now this is sunset on Mount Everest. So you can see the opposite. The last thing the stay lit, is the top of the mountain. So now if you look at the way that the sun works on a flood, or at the spotlight, sun, any light source, even a laser has divergence, it's going to spread out. So the bottom of those mountains should be lighting up first on a flat earth. And at nighttime when the sun sets. The last thing that it's the opposite direction to the bottom shouldn't be lit up last, but it's just the opposite, which is perfectly explainable by the rotating Earth. So you can see the light rays are coming in here. And then as the Earth rotates around the top of the mountain, it's going to come up first and get to get those light rays. And if you just play around with this and kind of think about, you'll see this as a really great proof. The second one is counter rotating star trails. So this is I call this the inner insurmountable failure of flutter to try to explain how the northern and southern hemisphere can have not only two different star trails that are rotating in different directions, but two totally different North Stars. But this works perfectly on a globe. And I really liked the equatorial. When you look at the star trails on the equator, because you can actually see these counter-rotating fields going in different directions at the equator, you know, or the the ecliptic I mean the equatorial.

Unknown Speaker  1:11:28
So so to me, this is just a great proof that we have two poles and you got in the, in the Southern Hemisphere, again, down is down. So when we look south, we're looking down towards the stars on the flat earth, you're looking towards the ice wall, so it just doesn't make any sense. So in the northern hemisphere, everybody's seeing just Polaris and below, just I mean, you can see just south of the equator, you can still see Polaris, just based on but when you get a far enough latitude down, you just can't see it. But the point is, is that we got two different rotating fields that's perfectly explainable by rotating Earth. Okay, so the next thing is kind of related to this as equatorial telescope mounts, and I believe there was a challenge to someone of the flutters debunkers had to get him to challenge the Flat Earthers to explain or model how equatorial telescopes could work on a flat earth. Because again, on these, these telescopes, they mounted in one direction and they rotate and it's that way, you can stay locked on one star, so they don't need to be moving. Now, you can see over here on a flutter, you would have to constantly be moving and adjusting your telescope to be able to see that say the North Star, for example, were on a globe, it makes perfect sense, the equatorial telescopes work just fine. The next thing I want to talk about is, is the centrifugal force. So this also is very conclusive evidence that we are on a spinning spinning sphere. So the centrifugal force is the force due to the rotation rotation of the earth. And you can actually measure that things weigh less at the equator than the North Pole. This is why in the old days, they would they would only you can only buy gold on a counterbalance because because they know otherwise, you could you know, buy gold at the equator and sell it up in Alaska and make money. So it's a well known fact that things do way less at the equator than the poles are. And actually, as you go up in latitude, again, this doesn't make any sense in a flat earth, why things would would lay way less if it's just all flat. Now related to that is the earth bus effect, which is related, it's a component of the Coriolis effect and the up down direction. So basically, it's it's related to centrifugal force in the sense that if you're on a plane flying in the same direction as the Earth, and again, the earth and the atmosphere are all rotating together, but the plane relative to the Earth's atmosphere frame is going to be going in a little extra fast. So that's going to create a little more centrifugal, and again, you can actually weigh this, and it's the opposite is the effect. When you go against the rotation of the Earth. Again, earth and atmosphere rotating together. But when you rent the plane traveling relative to the Earth, the rotating Earth atmosphere is going a little faster. So you're gonna get a little bit more of that. It's similar, just extra, extra, extra centrifugal boost there. And you can again, you can actually wait, this is Wolfie 6020, who is a pilot, and he did an experiment where he was flying from east to west. And he did see that things were weighing more than going from west to east. So when you're going with the rotation, you're going faster, you can eat more centrifugal things will weigh less against the rotation. Again, proof really, really great evidence for for a spherical spinning Earth.

Unknown Speaker  1:14:35
The ring laser gyroscope, I'm getting a little low on time here. So I think a lot of people in the community know enough about this. But it's worth mentioning that these are just so incredibly accurate. And they're in the inertial systems of ships, planes, helicopters, you know, the ISS submarines, missiles satellites. So incredibly, so I kind of want to talk about some other some really good studies some peer reviewed studies using And again, these are much bigger and even more accurate than small little ring laser gyroscopes. So this is a great study showing the Chandler wobble so what the earth actually not only rotates, but it has little wobbles that there's an annual wobble a Chandler wobble, and they've even recently detected a daily wobble that's so small that we almost know what where the spinning axis is to the centimeter, some of the studies. So these big, they're basically just really big ring laser gyroscopes that are incredibly accurate. And in this particular study here, they were able to directly measure the rotating earth and the Chandler wobble, which is named after the guy who discovered it. Now this is another peer reviewed study that showed not only the Chandler wobble here, again, using another very large ring laser type of a gyroscope, and they had one in Germany and New Zealand so they kind of combined their data to get even more accurate answers. And what's really to me what I love about this study is you can even see some of the dailies so this big sweep here is the Chandler wobble, and the little tiny sweeps here are the daily some of the daily fluctuations so so the earth again, not only are we not stationary, we aren't we're spinning, but the Wombles are very accurately measured by these very very sensitive ring laser gyroscopes that are very large scale that are gonna be much more accurate than than the small ones that that you know the I know your communities had access to. So this is another one kind of similar things nice thing about this study again peer reviewed study showing not only the measuring accurately the rotation of the Earth, but also seismic activity so there's they're finding that ringlets and gyroscopes can be very useful and for for geologists in detecting seismic behavior. Now what's really cool is the rings the these gyroscopes, these ring laser, gyroscopes are now getting to the point where they can the technology is getting the point where they can put them in and chips or skips or chip scale. And this means probably an probably not so distant future, we'll be able to have little ring laser gyro scopes in our iPhone or in different types of smaller technologies. So it's really cool, really cool technology. Now moving on to actually mechanical gyroscopes, this right here is a marine gyro compass. These have been used for a long time and you know, people that are you know, like the Marines and the Navy and well, you have to be able to find true north as your life depends on it. They're incredibly accurate, they don't have biases, they they're built in such a way where you're getting the absolute true north spin of the earth. Again, excellent, excellent evidence that we live on a spearing spinning sphere. Now, I love this study, I didn't want to put into football pendulum thing because I know you guys have your whole gimbal type of arguments. But the cool thing about this study is this is a plastic ball, no gimbals that's in like a levitating field. And it's just basically measuring the rotation of the Earth very sensitively, they actually got very, very, very, very good, good results, very accurate results, without using any no attachments here, just a free spinning. And you can read the study, because we just don't have time to get into these studies. Now, this is something kind of similar. This is detecting the rotation of the Earth using a super fluid. So again, this is not ringing, we're not because these are mechanical in the sense that they're, they're fluids and physical things moving. And this was able to, to also very accurately measure the Earth's rotation rate to be precise was 10.5%. So just just an interesting, creative way. So so it's really cool that we can have all these different ways measure the rotation of the earth. And also, I know you guys said that you you've interviewed people that but just in closing here, the Coriolis force is actually very real. I've got a couple long range ballistic books, I'm running out of time, but there's chapters on the Coriolis force. And these are people that actually teach long range ballistics, and they absolutely teach Coriolis. It's a real thing. And we didn't have time. My time is up, so we didn't have time to get into that.

Jeranism  1:19:19
Also 10 minutes

Austin Whitsit  1:19:23
alright, so yeah, here are the wind patterns on a flat earth. Look, it actually make sense. I don't know how the wind patterns would somehow help the globe. That doesn't make any sense to me. So anyway, yeah, bring laser gyros they detect 15 degrees per hour relative to latitude of course, the cosine. So this all started with Mickelson gal. Pearson Right. That's what that is. It's called the sad neck effects. sat next to it, it was the vortex in the ether. So they did Michelson Morley trying to detect the orbit and they did not detect your but then they did Mickelson girl Pearson using the same methodology and they matched the predictions of this ideal rotation within 98% accuracy. So if you combine Michelson Morley and Mickelson gal Pearson, what it actually shows you is that the only viable explanation is that the Earth is not spinning, and we're detecting the motion of the sky around the Earth. Secondly, we brought up planes flying over the earth spinning, any flight that goes north south on a spinning ball, but have to account for the earth spinning underneath it, you know, prominent people, even Neil deGrasse Tyson, which I know you say you don't agree with everything he says. But he said that actually, this guy kicked a field goal and won the football game because it was spun underneath the football for the football as it was north south. Now, the anti Flat Earthers walked that back. And they say that isn't the case, for whatever reason. But then they turn around and they claim that there's a spinning bullet of the Earth spins under the bullet. So they are claiming that actually, you have to have an inertial and accelerated frame to get that effect, then they claim that the atmosphere moves in lockstep with the atmosphere contradictory to that, with the Earth, the atmosphere moves in lockstep with the Earth, it contradictory to the idea that you have an inertial accelerated frame to have the Coriolis effect. Anyway, it obviously cannot move in lockstep with the earth because that would violate the law of conservation of energy. As you increase above the earth, you would have to have a proportionate increase in energy, because you would need a proportionate increase in speed. Because obviously, to travel a greater distances, the same amount of time would need you to travel faster. So anyway, that right, there's a problem enough to introduce a mechanism to introduce additional issue energy to make it go faster around the Earth. Secondly, they claim something called Super rotation where the top of the atmosphere actually moves faster than the Earth, you will need another mechanism to introduce energy or it would violate the law of conservation of energy momentum. Anyway, the plane flies over the earth, and it does not bank to the left, when it's flying from north to south, it doesn't bank over and then accelerate forward to somehow catch up to the earth spinning underneath it. It just adjusts left and right based on the wind. Now, no autopilot, or any manual pilot flights ever have accounted for Coriolis with a consistent update. So they say, Oh, well, it's not it's not that much. And the spin of the Earth is accounted for just naturally as you update for the wind. That makes no sense. So if you if you're going straight, and then the wind moves over to the right, with the earth spinning to the left, as the plane adjust back to go straight to the point originally was it would have to additionally adjust to get to the to the location that would be catching up with the earth. So if you flow five and a half hours without adjusting for Coriolis, you'd be 3000 kilometers off of your path. And no globe Earther proponent ever addresses this at all, there is no answer. So in addition to that, you claim you didn't want to talk about pendulums, but you brought up mechanical gyros, which actually don't pick up the spin of the earth hilariously enough, and are super inconsistent with the claims that they do. And that doesn't work, you would have to always pick up the spin on there, all mechanical gyros would pick up the spin of the Earth, if it was the earth rotating ones, they're going to show you that the ringleader gyro has an effect detecting the some type of motion and actually points to a background medium. But anyway, so Einstein himself said, which actually dropped this here on the screen. Einstein himself said that if there was in the letter he wrote to Ernst Mach in 1913. He said that if there if the sky was moving around the Earth, then you would have a translation of motion. And then you would have Coriolis and centrifugal effects on a stationary Earth that was central. Because if the sky was moving around the Earth, they would translate the motion, you would have centrifugal Coriolis effects. And so it would drag the pendulum around. And that no, that doesn't prove one way or the other. And he had to actually incorporate this principle. For the Eddington experiment where they claim they saw the star go around the sun in the Eclipse.

Austin Whitsit  1:23:33
Now, what I've only only think I've ever gotten back from that is he didn't say that, well, yeah, he did. I'll show the letter right here. But anyway, so even according to relativity, it's not an appeal to authority or anything. I'm telling you what relativity says the person that made it, he says that, if the earth was stationary, and the sky was moving around that you would get centrifugal and Coriolis effects. So even if that was true in your story about pendulums, and all this stuff, even though the truth is that mechanical drive was gonna detect anything, it will just be detecting that the earth is stationary, the sky moves around it. So actually all evidence with all the gyros because the mechanical diode does not pick up a drift. So that doesn't prove anything. It would have to always pick up the drift of the earth but it doesn't mechanical drive has no ring laser gyro magnetic effect detects aside your rotation with a 98% accuracy. But using the same interferometry methodology, it doesn't detect the orbit 30 kilometers a second around the sun. So that and that doesn't help the earth spinning that shows that it doesn't spin that shows that a stationary and then you have like the pendulum that people bring up. Even Einstein himself will tell you that if the sky was moving around the Earth, you would drag the pendulum around. There's a translation of motion. I'm actually going to share that right now. Here we go. Okay, how to work. So yeah, here you go. Here's the letter he wrote If one accelerates a heavy shelf matter s and a mass enclosed by that shell experiences in Excel or to force if one rotates the shell relative to the fixed door stars about an axis going through its center a Coriolis force horizon, the interior of the shell, that is the plane of a focal pendulum is dragged around So this is Tim just point blank and I'm one and this letter he just he just point blank says this isn't my nurse Mike hi hi appreciated pierlot Dear Colleague these days you have received

Austin Whitsit  1:25:14
these days you may have received one new word about Relativity and Gravitation which has been finished after endless struggle and torturous doubt. Next year at the solar eclipse you will see the light rays of the sun are being curved. In other words, the fundamental underlying assumption of the equivalence of acceleration in the frame of reference on the one hand and gravity film The other really applies. You are happening investigation on the foundations of mechanics planks unjustified criticism not withstanding or see brilliant confirmation for unnecessarily turns out that a nurture originates in a kind of interaction between bodies quite in the sense of your considerations of Newton's Pel experiment. The first consequent is on page six of my paper. So this isn't talking about how like literally in his paper, you had to incorporate the idea that if the sky was spinning around the Earth, at me switch back over that it would actually translate the motion over so there's no evidence for the earth spinning whatsoever. And so then, and then the difference in weight distribution doesn't prove anything. For one again, this actually debunks everything that you said, within relativity itself, relativistic application says if the skies moving around the Earth, you get the same effects and that they're identical. So weight distribution also fluctuates. And again, if there is some type of spin over top of a stationary Earth, there'll be a translation of motion. So wherever you are within that vortex filled, would actually have a direct effect, which is what we observed. And if we actually take our ring, laser gyro, and we go to a higher altitude, but we maintain latitude, we can get over a degree to degree and a half variance. Now, if the Earth is spinning, causing the gyroscope to detect the Earth's axial rotation, it cannot change at the same latitude, it has to be exactly the same at the same latitude no matter what altitude or elevation you go. But we actually did this. And when we maintained latitude, but went to a higher altitude a changed, what that shows is you're actually detecting the motion of something above the earth, not the Earth itself. So all the evidence that you invoked actually shows that the earth is stationary. Of course, that's why you have to assume a stationary to fly planes, stationary deploy helicopters to shoot ballistic missiles, everything that we do assumes that the earth is stationary, you brought up the equatorial mount, the equatorial mount tracks the motion of the stars in the sky, and effectively, then it just points out the ground assuming that it's going to come back around the ball. So just assuming how to interpret the equatorial mount doesn't mean anything. And I can't wait, I always hear people saying that blows my mind. So I want I want to do for the final two minutes, as I'm going to read some of this stuff, it's the truth of the matter. The grand the bigger picture. The idea that the Earth is spinning and revolving around the sun is a philosophical determination. Like I just showed you, Einstein saying, oh, we can't actually prove it, it will be seen either way, if the sky is moving, that it would have a translation of motion. Einstein also said, I've come to the conclusion, there's no optical experiment that could ever show the motion of the Earth, you're just talking about in context of Michelson Morley and using interferometry, he goes on later to say there's no terrestrial experiment that could ever prove the motion of the earth. These are two different quotes, actually, that quote is cited by Stephen Hawking in 2007, saying, I've come to conclusion of course agreeing with him, there is nothing you can do on the earth to prove that the Earth is spinning. Yeah, we have people running around the globe and 2022 claiming that has been proven with all the stuff on the earth and 1851. So here's Edwin Hubble, giving you a little taste of it. He said, This is a philosophy, such a such a condition, he's talking about the earth being in the center. Such a condition would imply that we would occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous in a sense to the ancient conception of a central Earth. This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome it would only be accepted as a last resort. In order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favorite location must be avoided at all costs. Such a favorite position is intolerable. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, we must compensate for spatial why spatial curvature there seems to be no other escape. So in conclusion, the truth is that all of the top tier astronomers, astrophysicist that brought us the current globe earth model, although it's actually in shambles. They tell you, it's a philosophical discussion of the Copernican principle, because they want to believe the earth can't be in a special unique position. And so you can't prove that the Earth is spinning because of the sky was moving around the earth to get all the same effects. But they want to believe that it is in fact not stationary, because it would mean that it's special. So it's philosophy also a religion known as religion.

Jeranism  1:29:32
Okay, five minutes. Yep. Whenever you're ready, go ahead.

Unknown Speaker  1:29:38
Okay. Okay. It seemed like yeah, I'll share my screen. So, I just want to say something about Michelson Morley and Nicholson Gale.

Unknown Speaker  1:29:58
So, base Secret the Michelson Morley experiment. You know, the earth and the ether are stationary according to Michelson Morley, but then the ether cannot be simultaneously like you say, moving according to Michelson Gale, I mean, you just can't have both. In fact, I read a book that went through all these ether studies. And there's like three different types that we're talking about ether drag, which is where the ether is going with the earth, then you have just the universal ether, everything is stationary. And then you have the the rents ether. And when you go through all of these different studies, and you create like a chart, some of them, some of them, you know, Michelson Morley correct, it does allow for a stationary Earth in a stationary ether across the universe. But then the Michelson Gale totally contradicts that. And it says that there that there's a spinning ether spinning. So I mean, you can't have it both ways. I mean, the to contradict each other. And there's many more studies like that, too, then you got stellar aberration, other things that make it very clear that we're moving. And I mean, there's, again, I didn't get into all the other evidences of that we're moving. But So again, these ether studies, ether was disproven or shown not to, not to be needed at all, unless you just want to say everything is ether. And then you can just use the word everything is God if you want, but but these actual ether as the medium for light to travel. You know, it's been very soundly debunked now for gosh, about a century. And again, the early studies, even if one study didn't, when you put them all together, guess what only special relativity came across as check green checks across the board, through all those studies, all the other studies with with state with ether drag, with universal either stationary ether and the Lorenz ether, some studies confirmed them some studies didn't when you put it all together, it pretty much debunked the idea of ether, so that this has been an outdated model. And you're not going to find I mean, you may find some, you know, geocentric that might have some papers on ether. But, but But certainly, you know, the peer reviewed studies are going to be sparse, that are going to be saying that there's an ether, again, because we got such overwhelming evidence that it doesn't exist, at least in the way that it was originally defined. So let's see. I mean, what oh, you mentioned, I just want to bring that to you talking about planes. You know, if you go from north to south, and actually, airplanes do account for that. It's one thing to forget where on your screen in

Unknown Speaker  1:32:41
just a second, I'm just trying to find it. I wasn't. It's because I did some of the calculations for this. gets down here. We're gonna put that. Okay, here we go. I'll actually, I mean, it's I forgot to hit on my slides. Yeah. Can you share my screen? Yep.

Unknown Speaker  1:33:15
So see, you actually can can do the calculations for the bank angles, and how much thrust is needed to actually because you're right, if you if you took off from the North Pole, and you flew to the equator, remember, now you're traveling about 6000 miles? So it's a very gradual, you do have to compensate for Coriolis? You absolutely do. And you can actually calculate the exact bank angle and the thrust needed. And it's not much I mean, you need like, the thrust needed to compensate Coriolis is only point 000 2%. And again, these are actual equations that are used with airplanes and are, are very, very accurate. And the bank angles like point one, five degrees, and the point is, is that the Coriolis effect, it's not that the earth is moving out for money, that's incorrect. Whoever said that if Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong, what the Coriolis says is that when you shoot a ballistic, you have that a greater speed at the at the equator than when you go north. So it's going to deflect to the right, because the speed is slower the at that higher higher latitude. So it's not that it's it's not that the earth is rotating out from under you. It's that it just has, you know, more more momentum at the equator, so the speed is so that's why it drifts off to the right. So that whoever said that's wrong, it doesn't even this book says that's a common A common mistake to think that the Earth rotates out from under wouldn't say that you actually can calculate the bank angle needed and the amount of thrust needed to go north to south and it is absolutely factored into airplanes. Absolutely. Okay.

Austin Whitsit  1:34:52
Well alright, yeah, we're good. Or that you're already starting it is this matter? So um, Yeah, they objectively don't do such a thing, bro. Autopilot does not account for Coriolis. And anyone that flies a plane and then goes manual would have to know that everyone that flies, planes, everyone that knows anything about autopilot or has read the documents that engineer them, or the documents used engineer them, they don't account for Coriolis, that's just objectively wrong. They do not do that what they do is they account for wind, a and they claim that the wind is so much stronger than the Earth Spin that you don't have to account for it. But that's wrong. We fly that plane like the Earth is stationary. I just now had a conversation with a pilot the other day, right I haven't recorded. I'm like, Oh, you fly the plane like it's flat and stationary. Of course they do not update for Coriolis. No pilot ever would tell you that they're accounting for the earth spinning. That's not how it works. You have bullet spin with bullets itself like barrel spin, which is much stronger than Coriolis even claims to be you have to account for when much stronger than Coriolis even claims to be I don't care what they say in a book. I've talked to many people that shoot in real life, you don't account for that you count for the wind. As for the Michelson Morley, you said that Michelson Morley show you can't have it both ways stationary and moving ether, I guess what you're saying, for one Michelson Morley did detect a phase shift. It did detect when it was just 1/6, the predicted value of the earth revolving around the sun. And in fact, it's been done dozens of times, even by the Air Force in 1987. And it's still show that there is a phase shift every single time. And we went and did Mickelson go on and show Seidel rotation, it matches that prediction by 98% Every single time. And that's because our 15 degree per hour convention that we use for time is actually just a generalized accepted average basically already agreed upon convention, it changes a little bit, which is why it fluctuates from 98% to 100%. Accuracy. We just use that convention for time. So imagine the prediction for Saudi or rotation perfectly, and it does detect a phase shift. So the only thing Michelson Morley did was show that the the ethers not stationary. And so those work perfectly together the Earth, the either slightly drifts over top of the Earth, okay. And this explains all the phenomena. Again, I just, you kind of walked past it, but I'm gonna really drive this home for the last three minutes. Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Arthur Eddington, you name them your name, Wolfgang Pauli, they all explain, you can prove that the earth is moving from the earth. You cannot including stellar aberration. And they will tell you point blank that they can create a model for you that explains a legend parallax, which doesn't actually happen. retrograde motion, stellar aberration all in a geocentric model with the earth stationary, and you cannot prove that it's spinning or revolving on the earth itself. It's impossible. Stephen Hawking in 2007 explained it. Quoting Einstein from his writings in special and general theory relativity, his paper on the combined two theories, explaining that you cannot prove that the Earth is spinning. They choose to believe in the Copernican principle because they have a religion that triggers people because they think they hate religion, they they hate God oftentimes. But that is a religion. It's a belief system built upon the doctrine of meant void of empirical, verifiable evidence. And, in fact, contrary and antithetical to the actual evidence, despite what the evidence says, I just now read him point blank say it can never be disproven, we disregard that possibility because of the horror of a special and unique position. Right. And I have plenty of quotes here from Geo centrists are heliocentric explaining, you can never prove it, you can't prove that the earth is staged or that the Earth is not stationary? Well, we don't want to believe that because that would mean the earth is special. So then what do we do we go look at the background distribution, the energy coming away from the Earth show the earth in the center. So what are they do they call it the axis of evil? And then they come up with a new idea? Well, oh, it does look like we're the center. But that must mean that no matter where you are in the universe, it would look like you're in the center, or we're just in the center. They don't want to say what it is because it has spiritual implications. It has philosophical ramifications. And that is that the Earth had to be placed there as a special unique position. They want you they want to believe that there are tiny speck of dust, an ever expanding universe of nothingness where everything came from nothing. And there's a pre existing energy, but let's not talked about that part. Oh, lightning strike primordial soup, and all this nonsense. And you know why? That's a good question, probably because they're scared of like moral accountability, I would guess. But this is the point. This is the problem. It's portrayed as science. And we're brainwashed and indoctrinated with this idea as if it is science. And it's proven. And it's not questionable. When you actually go look behind the curtain. It's philosophy, and they admit it. So that's why I gave specific quotes it was walked past. It's the crux of the whole issue. There is a philosophy that leads to atheism and nihilism, and materialism, or trade on to the world as if it is in fact scientific fact. You can't prove that the earth is moving. If the Earth is a ball that spins with it objectively isn't we falsified it. Everything gives us the illusion that it's stationary. And this is what all of the Astro astronomers and astrophysicists say that At the current model

Unknown Speaker  1:40:04
there, back and forth, right? Well, you do know that the Michelson Morley experiment has been done and I my dfe.net forward slash ether page, I've got a whole list of studies that duplicated Michelson Morley and got better and better and better to where there was basically no fringe when you get to the really accurate studies. So it actually, you can actually show that there's no fringe shift when you do the Michelson Morley very carefully. You just

Austin Whitsit  1:40:29
said basically, no, and then none. Which one is it?

Unknown Speaker  1:40:33
Well, it wasn't. I mean, it's just it's such a small amount. I mean, you understand that experiments always have experimental error, and we're talking many decimal places on some of the best experiments, the early Michelson Morley was, I mean, it wasn't as accurate. It just got better and better and better as the studies went on with time airport

Austin Whitsit  1:40:50
did it the Air Force did it in 87, and got a phase shift?

Unknown Speaker  1:40:53
Well, just because the Air Force did it, I mean, it's, there's peer reviewed studies that show otherwise, from when, again, go into, I mean, I've got them right here, what we've got, we can pull some

Austin Whitsit  1:41:02
I've already looked at them, they all show a phase shift.

Unknown Speaker  1:41:06
A how much, though, I mean, again, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Because if you say point zero, you know, you can't be just absolutely, you're looking for absolutely zero and an experiment. That's what you're claiming is happening.

Austin Whitsit  1:41:18
You really don't understand how science works, I understand that you just use the instrumental error as an excuse not to explain it. Special Relativity was invoked to claim that the measuring apparatus physically contracted, and then time slowed down. So it looks like they're the same even though it never actually is the same. We're going to pretend that it just instrumental air and it's always the same and that the the measuring apparatus physically shrink, and you just can't tell. So is that what you believe is happening and Michelson Morley,

Unknown Speaker  1:41:45
Mickelson Morley is a well laid out experimental and it's been duplicated many times. And if you're looking for a zero, of course, science isn't going to be able to get absolute zero error. I mean, because you believe that

Austin Whitsit  1:41:55
in Michelson Morley, the measuring apparatus is physically shrinking.

Unknown Speaker  1:42:01
Well, you understand with time dilation, length contraction, I mean, when you're going when you're going fast enough, it's not going to be much, but it's, you know, that's something that that is kind of a paradox, but it does seem to happen.

Austin Whitsit  1:42:13
So what your model claims is that there is a difference, that there is actually a phase shift. But since the measuring apparatus contracts, and time expands and slows down, and it looks like there's no phase shift,

Unknown Speaker  1:42:25
show me your evidence of your study that would that would that validates what you just said, and that some special

Austin Whitsit  1:42:30
relativity by Einstein, he gave a speech explaining specifically that's that's the whole point of special relativity.

Unknown Speaker  1:42:36
I mean, you're just giving a bunch of quotes, you don't have any actual peer reviewed studies to show that the earth is stationary? I mean, where does your studies?

Austin Whitsit  1:42:43
First of all, all evidence shows that the earth is stationary? So the whole idea of relativity is to explain the theory that says even though it always looks like the Earth is stationary, it's actually spinning wobbling and revolving. That's what relativity says.

Unknown Speaker  1:42:56
I know. But I showed you 12 peer reviewed studies, I mean, where are your studies?

Austin Whitsit  1:43:00
I'll show you 30 Different top level astrophysicist. So if you disagree, you're disagreeing with Stephen Hawking. you're disagreeing with Albert Einstein. you're disagreeing with all the top guys. Edwin Hubble. The these are the people see, I'm not appealing to their authority. It's called a hostile witness. Right. And it'd be different if you had a new theory, but you still use Einstein's theory of relativity. Even though it's drastically incomplete. It's been debunked. He doesn't work on the quantum world cosmological scale. It's incompatible with quantum it doesn't work at all. And usually I just keep it but my point is,

Unknown Speaker  1:43:30
no, it doesn't. It has not been debunked within its realm of applicability. Again, you did not listen to what I talked about laws and scientific laws, how they work. Relativity never claims to work at the quantum level, or even to work necessarily to understand dark matter and dark energy it has to work on all scales, if it was real. Well, again, what's your where's your model that does that electrostatics again, but it's it doesn't have to work on all scales to be real, because that's not how science theories and laws work.

Austin Whitsit  1:43:56
That's how gravity has to work. It would have to be on all scales, we can

Unknown Speaker  1:43:59
use science to make to to develop models or theories that can make accurate predictions about the world we live in. And those models and those laws have domains of applicability, meaning they don't work at all scales and so we certainly are sure we do think that some at some point they'll do a quantum theory of gravity we're just we just don't have it yet.

Austin Whitsit  1:44:20
It doesn't make accurate predictions though. It

Unknown Speaker  1:44:23
Are you kidding me? Generally makes incredibly accurate predictions

Austin Whitsit  1:44:26
95% in the universe we talking about okay, let's let's talk about that because he really liked to bring up you know, acknowledges 5% of the universe. Okay, the dark matter and dark, you understand how a dark matter works around understanding 33 discovered that the galaxies only had 3% of the mass and then it was ignored for decades, and now it's called dark matter. The idea of dark matter is the if you ask me how it works, I'm going to tell you how it works is the idea that it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and it's assumed to be material, but it's undefined. We don't know it's a mathematical discrepancy with what relativity predicts.

Unknown Speaker  1:44:57
Okay, show me a study with your eye If that really encapsulates what you think dark matter is, I'd like to see that no one no one knows what dark matter is. You're just saying words. Well, again, yes, I agree. But we can mock, we can use dark matter and mathematical models to create very using the background radiation, they can simulate that with dark matter, actually putting it in relativity, they can make very accurate models of how galaxies form, etc, they got supercomputers to do a lot of studies like that

Austin Whitsit  1:45:24
everyone knows that relativity made a prediction of the universe, and it was off. And so if relativity is correct, there has to be something called dark matter, or relativity is wrong. That's it, that's all there is to,

Unknown Speaker  1:45:36
you know, what the average density of the Universe is roughly.

Austin Whitsit  1:45:40
I don't make pseudo scientific, very tall claims. No, it's

Unknown Speaker  1:45:42
measurable. It's like 10 to the minus nine, you know, grams, or kilograms per meter squared. It's very, very sparse. The point I'm trying to make is dark matter and dark energy are working on cosmic scales within the very fine, like, look for rotational like the rotation of galaxies, right? The dark matter is probably like there, they think, is in the halo areas of the galaxies. And it's spread out very, very thin. So if you apply dark matter to our solar system, let's say for example, like the Pioneer, that's that's traveled billions of miles, they did a calculation of the dark that if you've incorporated dark matter, and only deflect that by 1.5 meters,

Austin Whitsit  1:46:19
so this is just all theoretical reification fallacies,

Unknown Speaker  1:46:23
get, there's all kinds of really good peer reviewed papers on dark matter. And no one

Austin Whitsit  1:46:27
peer reviewed dark matter. No one knows what it is. It's not even defined yet.

Unknown Speaker  1:46:31
Okay, I'll give you I'll send you a whole budget. Okay. Okay. So

Austin Whitsit  1:46:35
the truth of the matter is, I don't like when people are, are dishonest about how awesome the model is. Because the truth is, it's known that if relativity is true, it's drastically incomplete. Best case scenario, it's incompatible patible with the quantum scale, and it did not predict the actual observations of the cosmological scale. This is just objective relativity has got to be updated or replaced best case scenario. But I don't know why we got over to this, I want to know what your response is to the fact you can't prove that the Earth is spinning. And it's a philosophical determination.

Unknown Speaker  1:47:07
You were I gave you a bunch of studies, where are your studies and it stationary?

Austin Whitsit  1:47:12
All evidence ever I just explained it. I just explained that if the sky was moving, Einstein himself said that you would get the same effects.

Unknown Speaker  1:47:20
You're cherry picking quotes. That's not studies, that's not research.

Austin Whitsit  1:47:23
You know what cherry picking a quote as if I take it. And then I say it says something that if reading context is says the opposite of what I was saying, that's not what happened here. This is objectively,

Unknown Speaker  1:47:32
you're looking specifically for quotes by these people that support your model,

Austin Whitsit  1:47:37
representing the accuracy, I'm actually accurately representing your model. Because you're misrepresenting it. That's what I'm doing.

Unknown Speaker  1:47:45
Again, where is your evidence? I want to see some you don't have an equation, you don't have a model, you can't make any predictions. I mean, our model can build the world around us.

Jeranism  1:47:57
I'm going to teach you to finish and then we'll take the chance because you gotta leave at eight, we're gonna first prime my, my one question that I just have a quick, are we not then allowed to look at Einstein and those guys, since they have a different model than us, we cannot read their books or anything.

Unknown Speaker  1:48:14
Of course, you can read their books and bring them up. We can't, we can't. Such a body of research that you can find quotes, where they might say the opposite thing and another context somewhere else. I mean, so if you're just looking for quotes, to support your model, that's just confirmation bias. You're just sort of looking for things that supports what you want to see. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker  1:48:33
that's what that's called. Okay,

Unknown Speaker  1:48:35
whatever it's called. I mean, I, you know, I'm just saying that you're looking specifically for support for your model. But quotes are not studies, you know, quotes don't prove anything, you

Austin Whitsit  1:48:45
can prove that you can translate an emotion. If there's motion outside of a stationary system, it'll translate the motion to the interior of the system, and then you have centrifugal effects, you can prove

Unknown Speaker  1:48:53
it. But again, he said, a massive shell rotating. So where's this massive shell that's rotating?

Austin Whitsit  1:48:59
There seems to be gigantic sky stuff in the sky moves around the Earth. So what can we observe?

Unknown Speaker  1:49:06
Well, what is that that? Is it sky ice? I mean, what does it mean?

Austin Whitsit  1:49:09
You want to do your two minute closing

Jeranism  1:49:10
statement? You got two minutes whenever you're ready. Okay. You want your screen up? Or no?

Unknown Speaker  1:49:15
Oh, no, no, I'll just we'll just talk. So again, I just want to thank everyone for coming. It's I mean, it's it gets heated. I know. But it's, it's still I enjoy hanging out and talking about these topics. And I feel that with gravity and rotation, I presented actual peer reviewed evidence. That's a very solid that proves that the earth is that gravity. Again, within the scientific framework of scientific law, the universal law of gravity is absolutely valid within its parameters. And again, it knows its limitations. It knows where it can and cannot work. Same thing with relativity. I mean, they work within their parameters. They're not meant to work at the quantum level or at some other scales. So again, the world around us is evidence that gravity absolutely in our Newton's laws and US laws universal gravity. absolutely still is valid. And it still works at slow speeds. And, and low, low gravity because relative to the universe, the Earth is in a very high gravitational field. I mean, it does exist here. And it's nothing like a black hole. And, oh, I did want to, can I share my screen, there is just one thing I wanted to share on that really drives this point home. With Newton, I didn't get to it in my presentation. Hold on. Oh, here it is. So this right here, this is kind of just, it's okay, that you don't fall along here. All I want to show here is that from general relativity, you can actually recover the potential formulation of Newton's laws, and that what relativity does is just adds a correction factor to it, even equals MC squared does that, you know, that's just a first order approximation and Taylor series. So the point here is, is that, that when you do like the perihelion of mercury, you have to take into account this correction factor. But Newton's law of gravity was not proven wrong by Einstein. In fact, it's right there within relativity, it's just once phase space is very flat, and the speeds are slow. So

Austin Whitsit  1:51:22
you just go ahead and start, I guess, how long we got a ton of questions, I think we'll be fine. I'll just wrap it up. So

Jeranism  1:51:29
Skype helps us to find them. No, I can't find them.

Austin Whitsit  1:51:32
So basically, what we covered was that, you know, we have scientific empirical evidence that can be verified for electrostatics, we have equal potential increase, this was never addressed. But you can't have equal potential increase of electricity, like we do on the earth, unless you have to gazillion services, which means there has to be a surface above us, that's the only way that you can have it, there's a downward flow of electricity, electric downward pressure on the earth is 10 to 36 power stronger than gravity even claims to be little g is downward acceleration, that's for everyone. So in fact, the only thing that can be verified and proven and manipulated with science is electrostatics. And again, it's significantly stronger than gravity claims to be, they just have to claim something else cool. electrostatics wouldn't make the earth a magic spinning ball with water spinning around it in a vacuum spinning around other planets. And when it comes to the spin of the earth thing, I really want this to be really for the audience to really soak this in. You were duped into thinking that the Earth is a tiny speck of dust, but it's just gigantic ball with waterbending around it, the grand scheme is nothing and blah, blah, blah, when you actually go and research it. Okay? All this stuff, they claim as evidence that the Earth is spinning, it just begs the question and reifies, the conceptual model over and over and over, where you look at the gyroscope. And actually, when you look into it, it shows that well, actually the earth is stationary, the sky moves around it. They say, Oh, it's shown that the Earth moves then the mechanical gyro doesn't pick the earth spinning. They just ignore it or boldface like, misrepresented and say that it does. And the truth is that all this things even the pendulum which is inconsistent, all this stuff is explained with the sky moving around the Earth, we live in a geocentric system, it's a stationary topographical playing, the sky moves around us, there seems to be a vortex of an energetic background where everything moves together. It's this giant beautiful intricate cycle as if it was crafted like a clock. It does have a special and unique position. And a lot of these atheistic quote unquote scientists that are prompted with a top they don't like the idea that maybe the Earth was created. So they've clung on to the Copernican principle the idea that the Earth cannot occupy a special or unique position. And so don't let other people make your own philosophical decisions for you while simultaneously lying brainwashing you claiming that it's science because it is not

Jeranism  1:53:36
okay I thought I'm gonna Well thank you guys. Hopefully everybody enjoyed it. We can maybe do it again Bob's gonna give me a link you have to go into your back room Austin to pull the super chats we can't get him back there we're not we're not managers

Austin Whitsit  1:53:52
my back room What do you mean go

Jeranism  1:53:54
Oh, my YouTube YouTube studio and then go monetization.

Austin Whitsit  1:53:57
You may just read them off. Yeah. Okay, gotcha. I there's not that many All right. Ryan, I think most of them are for you but there's not that many. Okay, so we have Brian we have a life altering revelation that that was in the that wasn't a preacher. He said do you need you have to have rotation to have gravity?

Unknown Speaker  1:54:21
Rotation to have gravity No, I mean gravity Yeah. Gravity is not rotation gravity is mass attracting mass but when you have orbits you have to factor in the centrifugal it's like a balance right where you got gravitational force balance the centrifugal force. So when you when you write your, your potential equation for gravity, or for the potential of the motion of the of the orbit, you've got to incorporate both gravity and the rotational centrifugal force, but it's not gravity itself. Gravity is just always towards the center of mass. I mean, pulling it so

Austin Whitsit  1:54:54
our that was Shiloh carpenter in plain truth. We're not gonna he said, tell him tell him No, we're talking is rude or whatever. Okay, here's a question from gender neutral, says, Can Brian explain the pockets of gravity on the ISS YouTube video? And number two, how Newton's law of gravity can violate the second law of thermodynamics to hold the atmosphere of a ball against the vacuum of space?

Unknown Speaker  1:55:20
Well, the first one, I'm not familiar with the context that ISS, so I don't I can answer the second one. But I mean, fair enough. So so how, first of all, it doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe always increases, you know, you can have the entropy of a local system decrease as long as the overall entropy of the universe increases. So with the problem with the whole atmosphere next to a vacuum thing is that first of all, the gradient, there really is no pure vacuum, there's always particles in space. So there's never a zero vacuum environment, you're, you're going down from a gradient that gets less and less and less and less, and then it just stays less and less and less, and etc. And there is a difference between atmospheric pressure and gas pressure, and sometimes, flutters enthusiast make that confusion. They think that because because gas pressure is the pressure of gas against a container, atmospheric pressure, is specifically the pressure of gravity pushing the atmosphere down on the surface of the earth. So it's defined differently. And I know you guys always bring that that topic up, but it's very well explainable by gravity. And, in fact, the gradient is so specific that meteorologists and certain people that are into you know, weather science, know, they don't even need to know what the altitude is, if they know what the pressure is at a certain altitude, they almost automatically know what the altitude because it's very, very precise gradient, and you only get a very precise gradient like that when you have a downward acting force. So the force itself Yeah.

Austin Whitsit  1:56:53
Anyway, there's an electric gradient, we can move on. So Jorn magnet Knutsson. Sorry. He said snipers don't factor in Coriolis if they did, and pilots would have to do the same but they do not using snipers. But ignoring pilots is typical obfuscation?

Unknown Speaker  1:57:10
No, actually, the the snipers in the sniper books it does clearly say that in a lot of situations. The the Coriolis doesn't need to be accounted for. Because you because there's a lot of things that are more like wind and certain other factors are a lot more powerful. So a lot of snipers that maybe don't change, like latitude that are shooting from one latitude roughly, they probably would never have to encounter Coriolis, because they'll they're you know, even like you're saying that with with with the bullet. I mean, all of that there's many factors that a Sniper will factor in. And yes, Coriolis is one of the last factors because it's so

Austin Whitsit  1:57:48
subtle. He's asking about why planes don't want he's asking

Unknown Speaker  1:57:52
the planes I mean, again, planes might there is a correction in planes for Coriolis effect. Again, the amount of fuel and energy is just a small correction. So again, this is this is information that's very accessible online, you can see absolutely the planes correct for Coriolis going on. Yes, they do. Have to be the pilot, necessarily. I mean, I'm not a pilot, I've just seen the information. So it can be automatically like built, you know, planes these days have a lot of things automatically factored

Austin Whitsit  1:58:23
in. Right. So then if a pilot and went off of autopilot and went manually, they would have to know to do that. They don't account for course,

Unknown Speaker  1:58:30
you're following a bearing though. They're following a course. So again, point one five degree I mean, it's, it's point one, five degrees, it's such a tiny thing. So if they're just following their bearing, I mean, that's not much

Austin Whitsit  1:58:42
of a of an angry 1000 kilometers over a five hour flight. Show me the numbers. I've got the actual numbers. I'll send you the numbers. I have the actual numbers. Yeah. So we can move on though. Nominal says thanks for the debate, the then he said the invisible matter, we cannot detect his called dark matter, quote from NASA, the invisible matter we cannot detect is called dark matter. That's from NASA. So they can't detect it. That's the question. I mean, he sees he's saying that you said they could detect it, but they can't detect it according to NASA,

Unknown Speaker  1:59:11
and the effects of that we know that the rotation rates are going, you know, at a rate that doesn't the periodic manner can account for. So we so again, it's yes, you I mean, you guys have everything figured out. You don't even know if the sun's inside or outside the dome. I mean, I've had people say that's outside, some people say it's inside. So to be very accurate theories that we have. And you guys don't even know how far up your son is or where it is or what's going on outside the dome or outside the wall. I mean,

Austin Whitsit  1:59:41
it's not an accurate theory. You don't know what 95% of it is.

Unknown Speaker  1:59:45
So when you guys don't even know where you are in the whole. I mean, where's the flutter in this void? I mean, what, what void? Well, I'm just saying what x exactly what is, I mean, you don't see here I'm saying you're criticizing the glow model because we're still Learning about the universe, but we have actual science that can predict make excellent predictions can build all. I'm just saying, We gotta

Austin Whitsit  2:00:09
make this weird, Brian, Don't make it weird. Don't have any predictions, man, they were all wrong. So it's all good. They're all wrong, that you don't have 95% of the universe even theoretically explained, you don't have all kinds of perfect predictions.

Unknown Speaker  2:00:24
That's X large scale effects within our inertial system of the solar system and the earth. What we have works very well provably.

Austin Whitsit  2:00:32
Okay, it was it was actually designed after we saw what they allegedly claimed. Alright, so the Boston runner says, I don't know this is a question says, awesome speaking truth about the place we live. Anyone that can see can't see that has to first set aside what they think they know to actually research the deceptions launched at all of us over time. It can be scary at first, but peace and freedom do calm. Okay. It's not really a question. But thank you very much for the generous donation. The Boston runner that was very nice. Thank you, Dave, for the $10 donation. Dylan Schumacher says what causes wind, same as clouds. I don't know who the questions for

Unknown Speaker  2:01:11
asking you. It's fluid dynamics. I mean, it's temperature pressure, you know, a lot of things like that. I mean, it's very complex. I mean, I don't just I mean, we definitely have a very complex atmosphere. There's no question about it. With with water and land, and I mean, just a lot of factors go into that.

Austin Whitsit  2:01:26
You agree clouds are electrostatic?

Unknown Speaker  2:01:29
I don't think that's it. No, they're not just electrostatic they produce, like you said through you weren't totally incorrect with with the friction the way that the charges will get. I mean, that is correct. But it doesn't mean that the clouds themselves are electrostatic the clouds are made of, of water vapor. And, but but the friction will create, yeah, the learning what, but it doesn't mean that that's the downward acceleration, just because we have electrostatics on the Earth doesn't mean that that's in gravity, or that that's where the downward acceleration comes from. You need the evidence, again, you need to have some studies or some evidence to

Austin Whitsit  2:01:59
grant Brian, do you remember I asked you this question like 20 times in this debate? I maybe five, right, I said, so the only way you can have an electric gradient of ECWA potential values, right? 100 volts per meter ECWA potential increase electric gradient, anyway, is the only way you can have it is to have two Gaziabad surfaces, one on the bottom, and one on the top. But it's

Unknown Speaker  2:02:21
so I just I told you, you weren't even, I guess weren't listening, I was explaining that it's only about 100 volts per meter for the first 120 meters. Okay. And this, by the way, is right from one of those Crona motor type of diagrams, it starts to drop off very quickly after that. And again, the conductive layer you're talking about is the ionosphere, which by the way, if you go you can find tons of studies to validate the ionosphere.

Austin Whitsit  2:02:45
ionosphere is a second Gaussian surface.

Unknown Speaker  2:02:48
Well, it's I don't I wouldn't call it I mean, it's a it's a, it's a highly conductive atmosphere

Austin Whitsit  2:02:53
is if it is, but you agree to have two guys and surfaces though.

Unknown Speaker  2:02:57
So when you say so it's trying to when you turn it when you're trying to say by Gaussian surface,

Austin Whitsit  2:03:01
you can transfer or retain charge. Okay, that's a closed surface that transfers or

Unknown Speaker  2:03:06
that's like a conducting a highly conductive surface or wrapping around the globe. And the ionosphere is a surface. It's not the surface a layer of the atmosphere. I'm just saying it's very conductive. It's a conductive, it's a very actually it's not a service, it's a very big, but I'm just saying when you get to the first part of the ionosphere, that's when the electric field starts to go. Because that's when you got to conduct an electric field goes to zero and a conductor. You know that right?

Austin Whitsit  2:03:33
Yeah. Do you agree there's a downward electric flow on the earth though.

Unknown Speaker  2:03:37
Actually downward and upward all day long. It's going down, up and sideways across again, if you look at the global circuits, you'll see it's this whole up and down inside. We don't

Austin Whitsit  2:03:46
believe in the glue. Brian's top St. Glue. Richard Fineman says that it goes like many many kilometers in the air. I don't know where you're getting this 120 meters thing?

Unknown Speaker  2:03:53
No, no, it's 50 kilometer.

Austin Whitsit  2:03:57
Okay, so then what are you talking about? When you say 120 meters?

Unknown Speaker  2:04:02
No, no. Anyway, 100 and 120 meters, the the 100 volts per meter across the nation breaks down. I didn't say that it stops I just say that it goes to like 50 volts per meter, then it goes to 30. And then it drops off to almost zero at about 50 kilometers.

Austin Whitsit  2:04:17
Okay, that's

Unknown Speaker  2:04:20
100 volts per meter thing is only valid for the first 120 meters. I'm not saying it stops there. I'm just saying it starts to go down very quickly. And we know gravity goes down very slowly. So again, it just can't explain the downward acceleration. It just doesn't work.

Austin Whitsit  2:04:33
If something's more dense, it goes down. Things that are less dense go up. That's the primary causes the buoyant force, but the West says the up and down vector is the downward electric force. It's all good because we will talk forever maybe we can have another conversation again. No, no, I think I think let me just read the last few off. Okay, so doing Dave says please provide a direct measurement of curvature over a body of water at least 10 miles down the city six feet elevation drop. If you don't, you can answer real concisely.

Unknown Speaker  2:05:00
I wasn't going to talk about curvature. Okay.

Austin Whitsit  2:05:03
He doesn't want to talk about curvature. It doesn't exist. Dave. Come on, man don't. Okay, okay, gold. He says this flat. Thank you for the $5 Give me the gravy says Brian, is there a chance you're wrong?

Unknown Speaker  2:05:16
I don't think so. No. No chance.

Jeranism  2:05:19
You didn't get bars

Unknown Speaker  2:05:21
this flat? I mean, I don't know I'm not wrong. I mean, it's definitely not flat. I just have too much evidence. I can't. I mean,

Austin Whitsit  2:05:29
there's no chance.

Unknown Speaker  2:05:31
There's no chance. I mean, based on what I know, there's no chance No, it just can't.

Austin Whitsit  2:05:37
Well, you can never learn anything new. If you think you already know no one goes looking for something they think they already know. Right? All right. But the Boston runner says that things in the sky are spiritual in nature, not rocks and gas we can go visit Do you not realize that the CGI images of planets in space are not real at all?

Unknown Speaker  2:05:54
Actually, I've had a telescope and what you guys call these images of planets is bokeh, you know that right? It's out of focus photography.

Austin Whitsit  2:06:01
That's what they say. But digital is different than analog. And it seems to show a different spectrum. With a telescope. I've seen Saturn as it looks analog.

Unknown Speaker  2:06:09
It's not analog, it's with an actual telescope, not with the P 900. Cam, which is analog versus digital. Yeah, I think p 900. Cameras are meant for for astronomy. They're just digital pick

Austin Whitsit  2:06:19
up a different type of spectrum. So anyway, question the answers. You've seen way too clearly just be out of focus that just a cop out. It's digital versus analog question answers. So why don't we

Unknown Speaker  2:06:30
use a candle and I can use a candle light a light source and create those same patterns with a candle?

Austin Whitsit  2:06:35
Did you know that I can get a bunch of electrostatics and I can blow candles out with my fingers? Everything's electric. Alright, anyway, question the answer says why don't we see complete different stars every six months? How can we see Mercury at night sellin knowing Eclipse and how do railguns work? It's not a conspiracy. It's compartmentalized ignorance ultimately, spiritual.

Unknown Speaker  2:06:53
What do you mean Iran around the ecliptic, we do see difference to the times of the year we see along the equator, all the constants. That's the basis of astrology. All the constants are constantly changing throughout the year,

Austin Whitsit  2:07:03
when you say we would see all kinds of totally different set of stars every six months, we'd be looking the other way. No, no,

Unknown Speaker  2:07:09
no, it's, it's just because we're rotating around the sun. That's why.

Austin Whitsit  2:07:14
Okay, yeah. So you'd be looking at totally different points

Jeranism  2:07:16
of view, wouldn't you be looking the opposite?

Unknown Speaker  2:07:18
So I mean, that's what I'm saying here. It's because we are orbiting the sun that we see that we go through the different constellations throughout, but now the North Star again, we can we can we can go on and on. Let's just

Austin Whitsit  2:07:29
Yeah, okay. Fair enough. Um, yeah, yeah. Okay. So yeah, he asked if you think so a million Eclipse. But anyway, this guy said, what, what? So so so the sun's not actually there. It just looks like it's there.

Unknown Speaker  2:07:43
Well, you understand with sunsets, you get refraction, that the sun is already set, but you can see it after it's set because of refraction.

Austin Whitsit  2:07:49
I understand. That's what you claim. Yeah. Well, that's light. If

Unknown Speaker  2:07:53
you guys use refraction all the time, that's light, bending, bending, or, you know, atmosphere, it's a well known phenomenon that light bends through different media. I mean,

Austin Whitsit  2:08:01
no, you can't prove that the sun's not where you see it. You just say that. So?

Unknown Speaker  2:08:05
Well, I think I think I can prove it. But the way they prove it, is

Austin Whitsit  2:08:09
they take their equation, and they say, according to the globe, Earth math, it should be down beneath the earth. So it has to be refracted. Here's how much the difference is it refracted this much, that's not proving anything.

Unknown Speaker  2:08:22
Anyway, lets you know that at nighttime, you got to go through a lot more atmosphere because of the light skimming through the whole atmosphere. So that's why you get a red sunset, because the blue gets scattered and filtered out, because you're going that's why there is more refraction at night, because you're going through a lot more atmosphere

Austin Whitsit  2:08:36
when the science and you asked me, Why does the weight change at the equator, I think we're within a vortex of an ether field. And I think that there is actually a translational motion from the sky and within that ether vortex based on your altitude and your positioning out from the center, you would have a difference in downward

Unknown Speaker  2:08:50
pressure, show some evidence for that.

Austin Whitsit  2:08:52
I'd like to see the evidence, I have the same evidence you to use claims gravity that can be proven,

Unknown Speaker  2:08:56
it can be proved it's a centrifugal forces. It's very well measurable. It's very simple to calculate actually.

Austin Whitsit  2:09:02
Okay, so when you say measure calculation, those are two different things. Obviously, you just begged the question. As soon as

Unknown Speaker  2:09:08
you can go, you can you can take a scale and measure and weigh things at the equator and you'll see exactly they correspond to what to what the centrifugal acceleration of a sphere gives? Yes, they do.

Austin Whitsit  2:09:18
Once again, even Einstein would tell you that the centrifugal coils effects observed on the earth could be because the sky is moving around a stationary Earth. I don't know why you keep ignoring that. So anyway, evidence that's just a quote. That's what your belief is. Also, you have the same quote unquote, evidence, you interpret it one way, and then you pretend there's no other explanation. It's proof and I'm the team saying to you that even Einstein himself says, That's not true.

Unknown Speaker  2:09:40
Okay. If he says that quote, and you believe that you got to supply the evidence to show that it does that

Austin Whitsit  2:09:45
you provide the evidence, or spinning. Well, I did I mean, no, that's my point is Einstein explains that all the stuff that you propose to what happened if the earth was stationary and the sky was moving around

Unknown Speaker  2:09:59
it You know, one of the quotes from Einstein, he actually said That's preposterous. He says, since I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical instrument you guys say that pretending to but then you forget to leave it

Jeranism  2:10:13
folded up with but we girly but we were moving around the sun revolved around the sun right? Yeah, that's not evidence that's interesting that

Unknown Speaker  2:10:19
begging the question just exactly. But you guys are putting out quotes like that's kind of quotes are not evidence I agree.

Austin Whitsit  2:10:27
Well you still use relativity, the person that wrote it says, applying relativity, you will get the same effect. I don't understand. I don't think you're listening or not the person that the person that gave you your belief system of relativity, he said that according to relativity, which you still use to this day, according to it. If the sky was moving around the Earth, you'd get all the same effects.

Unknown Speaker  2:10:49
One cool, I mean, Leonard Susskind has said well, there's dozens of course. I mean, Leonard Susskind gave a little idea of a big thick flat earth and if it was seven miles thick, you could calculate the gravitational would work for a while. But it doesn't mean that he believes the earth is flat.

Austin Whitsit  2:11:04
He's just crying. You should go to our flat or something, bro. T E M M S dot live, you should go check it out. You can use what's it? What's a 50 as your coupon code or jaren? 50? Yeah, and you can just come check it out virtual online Summit. Questions. I just want to make sure because I got to Okay. Yeah, sure. I think this may be the best one. Thank you for being here. Don't be too close. But he said at Brian, thank you for being here. Don't be too close minded. Not close minded. He said. Someone said Why haven't constellations changed in all the years? Say how? He says they have changed. Okay. Well, we could. Yeah, he says doesn't want to talk to doesn't want to talk about curvature. I don't blame him.

Unknown Speaker  2:11:43
Well, again, I mean, I just don't want to get because that's going to, we're going to end up talking for half an hour. And I will get to want to make that a topic for next time. I'll prepare for that topic.

Austin Whitsit  2:11:53
Well, Brian, don't don't you feel like this was pretty cordial overall. And then everyone got to kind of talk and there was, I like it. I like to swarm. It's very nice. Cool. So thank you for coming on, man. Um, I think it went pretty good. Overall, I think it kind of got like a little worked out, maybe here and there. But hopefully, everyone got to hear both sides relevant to the subject. And you know, they can make up their own mind. And maybe we can do it again in the future. We can chat maybe.

Unknown Speaker  2:12:16
Absolutely. Cool. Thanks for having me. I really appreciate you guys bringing me on. And I mean, it was fun. It got heated, but I still enjoy, you know, sharing my side of the truth. And as a former physics teacher, I, you know, just like people to be excited about science, because you can actually build, make and do a lot of wonderful things with science. It's not just about accepting a philosophy or we can apply it to actual engineering and building things.

Austin Whitsit  2:12:40
I agree. I think science is great. All right, man. All right. Much love, man. Thanks for Thanks for coming on.

Unknown Speaker  2:12:46
Guys. I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah.

Austin Whitsit  2:12:51
All right, brother. Thanks for doing that. Yeah, yeah. I just got another super

Jeranism  2:12:57
hard with this, it's hard to people like that, because he's just not going to see it. So he's gonna he doesn't realize it, he just keeps going to the same well, and the centrifugal force. And again, these things have been set up for them. In my opinion,

Austin Whitsit  2:13:13
ya know, what can you do, man? I got this. philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid peer reviewed forensic Anderson, patriotic peer reviewed quote, just literally just, yeah, yeah.

Jeranism  2:13:27
I mean, it's brilliant that they came up with this idea that if you give them all the truth, first or so called truth, that then anybody trying to come and say that that's a lie is required to provide the new proof. I don't know that we're supposed to complete in five years what governments took 350 years, kings and queens money, government money, sending out ships full of 1000s of people to map coastlines. How would we do that?

Austin Whitsit  2:13:52
It's crazy man.

Jeranism  2:13:53
literally impossible for us to do.

Austin Whitsit  2:13:54
What do you I really liked your adoption analogy. I've been saying a lot like we I ran a ruffle through my parents closet found some adoption papers. Yeah, I'm like, Hey, Jared, guess what, bro? My whole life has been a lie. I just found out I'm adopted. No,

Jeranism  2:14:08
who's your who's your real family?

Austin Whitsit  2:14:09
I don't know who my real family is yet. I'm just trying to

Jeranism  2:14:12
to bet that your mom and dad go deal with the paper. I

Austin Whitsit  2:14:15
have the evidence right here. It's their adopted

Jeranism  2:14:16
family raises you fine. They raised you fine,

Austin Whitsit  2:14:18
right. But they're not my real parents. That's all I'm saying. They gave works.

Jeranism  2:14:22
You can live the life and it's fine. You're fine. Okay.

Austin Whitsit  2:14:26
So until I figured out my real parents, they're still my real parents, even though I have proof that they're not my real parents.

Jeranism  2:14:30
Right? You have a bed to sleep in and you get food.

Austin Whitsit  2:14:33
And how's it gonna change my life anyway, right. Classic. I didn't really elucidate

Jeranism  2:14:41
what they want. I just I love the answer. If he tells me you're flattered, so just wait. How does the whole universe work then?

Austin Whitsit  2:14:46
Yeah. Oh, you don't know. Got your stupid flair. I knew you didn't know anything. So it's wild. Funny

Unknown Speaker  2:14:55
stuff. Oh, cool. Thanks for doing that.

Austin Whitsit  2:14:57
Yeah. All right. Much love. Go. We're all hanging out soon Of course,

Jeranism  2:15:01
I got a lot to talk about a Sabra.

Austin Whitsit  2:15:05
Alright, thank you guys for kicking it. Hopefully you enjoyed that. Checkmate flirt? Yeah, it's a funny meme. It's cool. Um, yeah, like I said, I hope you guys enjoyed it. Slam Dunk all thanks. When did you actually find out? You're adopted? I'm not adopted. It's all relative. Yeah, Mister. Mister What's it however he spins it I'm sure you wind okay, this guy got bars out here, bro. Mr. What's our I've responded I'm sure you wind it. Thank you for the Super Chat brother. Much love. Alright, cool. So I'm gonna go get a little bite to eat is kind of late. Thanks for kicking it. Hopefully you guys enjoy it. Basically, my summary of the situation is you saw how it goes. I mean, no one really ever answered the questions directly. Yeah, there's a downward electric grading on the earth, bro. And electrostatics is is what holds all manner together everything that exists electrostatic you know, and there's no evidence that the Earth is spinning. There's no evidence that it's curving. There's no evidence that you can have pressure next to a vacuum. Where gravity cleans would be the strongest on the surface. It would fill the vacuum violently. How's it gonna go? Where's gravity is weaker beside a vacuum and you know, so anyway, thank you guys for kicking it. I want to I'm gonna plug you flat Tober fest so you can go to that's an in person event. Calm and I will be debating Flat Earth festivals.com And then you can use the code whatsit 10 to get a discount. And then also, I'll drop the links. You can go to tems.com dot live way actually remember this? Yeah, T NMS that live. That is the true Earth mountain roof Summit. Um, you can use the coupon code. What's it 50 to get 50% off. And that's a cool little online son. We have epic epic speakers. Think we'll be dropping another announcement here soon. So yeah, hope you guys enjoyed it. Um, we'll try to do more stuff like that is awesome. People will come members shout to all the people that became members. Thank you guys. That was epic. I saw like five or six you guys become members. So thank you all. And then we will be doing some stuff that's member only perk in the future. And you've got some more debates. I'm trying to get like the NASA gotta come on to do an interview. And I'm trying to have set up some more credentialed physicist and astrophysicist and astronomers debates, I think we're going to try to do something like that more often. So hopefully, you guys enjoyed it. And yeah, cool. Thanks for kicking it. So you can speak truth unequivocally in the week find contentment in the consensus of ignorance. So don't worry about what other people think. Like sometimes the truth seems crazy at first and more, you start to really look into it, you find out like, for example, what the earth it's just a it's a house of cards, like the the Earth is not a spinning ball that's tilted, wobbling going around the sun in a vacuum. All the evidence shows us the opposite. And then like even the people that brought it to you will tell you, Oh, it's just a philosophy. Because we don't want we don't think it makes sense that the earth could be special and unique in its positioning in the sky. Well, that's a weirdo philosophy. Don't put it on to me like it's science. And so think for yourself, bro. Don't let people make their own philosophies, and then force them onto you. You're allowed to make your own philosophical decisions and determine your own worldview in life. And that's, that's really why I talk about the Earth specifically, that's why I do this. I want them to realize it was a philosophy put onto you. The idea that the earth is a sphere comes from that I did that for one Democritus, a Greek philosopher said everything is comprised of in divisible little atoms are spheres. And then it moved to Oh, this guy must be full of spheres. Oh, the earth must be a sphere, because the perfect shape is a sphere. That's literally where this all started for from the perfect shapes of spheres. So the earth must be a sphere. And then it turned into a Copernican principle, the Earth has to be going around the sun, and this gigantic universe, because it can't be a special unique position, because that'll mean it's created. And that's weird. So there you go. If you want to support the channel, or you enjoyed the debate and want to help a brother out a little bit, I could use it at the moment, I'm quite a bit dollar sign, once it gets it on cash app, or you can go to a pal.me/in a world. You can also join to become a member down below, you can go to patreon.com/woods it gets it and so that'd be greatly appreciated. If anyone goes to dollar sign once it gets it on Cash App or paypal.me/in a world I'll read the way the donations off in the next stream. I'll plan on doing a stream tomorrow. So until then, I hope you guys enjoyed it. You know, if you get reviled for speaking the truth for Joyce, they did it to all the prophets and for you. Normally what's popular is not true. And the truth is not popular. So it's all good. That just kind of comes with the territory. So you should should kind of understand that's going to happen if you're actually representing the truth. So until next time, I'll catch up with you guys later peace.

Unknown Speaker  2:20:25
To be in a field test for Israel one day is the real random is active city city super pills or fast suicide so they get the deals Big Pharma Senate and the flip pills control the music industry and so the scripts get filled geopolitically yeah we feel desperate history you wonder is a real look the way you saw the world been distorted now you think you want to rock and twirl someone or but then the theories disproportion is the truth distorted quick with a forceful grip they forced him misinformed that we have Torben quick took the people's signal to them meaning stored it in a forged unedited music because informants so informing them there's a surplus what they tell us there are shortages, credit economy mortgages, dollar debt supportive with 54 interest is the worst importance this report is shipped supporting it yes of course it is what extortion is in accordance with an assortment of different tricks we ignore which warmen disappointment this it looked like we were storing tricked at affiliate and the government enforcing eugenics is exactly what abortion is. You just vilify those this important way to matric centenaire this unfortunate geopolitically, we feel desperate is real. One day is a real rapid sack of setting. City support tools glorifies suicide. So they get the bills. Big Pharma set it down just to flip the pills control the music industry until the scripts can fill geopolitically Yeah, we feel desperate is real. Wonder is your real


Transcribed by https://otter.ai