And you think taking them there will make a difference? Pointless when any sane and sensible person has no doubt because we know the facts and the morons will refuse to ac ept them no matter.what.

Witless responded by demonstrating a solid block of glass atop a 'flat earth map' and shone a light through it and mumbled some kak about coffee cup caustics. When questioned about the sun being inside or outside the dome he replied that there might be multiple domes. I think he honestly believes his own nonsense.

@podge2525 No he doesn't, he just has to keep his grift going so he can never accept how wrong he is. Since his audience is completely stupid he doesn't have to worry too much about credibility. Or at all.

@@podge2525 "he replied that there might be multiple domes" Hmm, sounds an awful lot like an appeal to possibility to me.

@@ReValveiT_01 That's flat earth in a nutshell.

Haha. I was listening to a bit of Bev Try Thinking last night when he interviewed Will Duffy on Friday and I sort of committed myself to writing something about this. Spent all day on it! 😊

Thou hast a 40th subscriber as of... now!

@@GymRowboat Many thanks.

Got links for those of us not familiar?

@@boekjar Links for Roohif and Charles? @roohif and @FlatEarthMath

You're very welcome and thanks! 😋

Right? Very well put together. 👏🏾

Which can easily be countered with: - Here the sun is outside the dome. * If that was true, the heavenly waters would warm up reducing seasonal effects during a year, and reduce temperature differences between warm and cold areas. * Some flerfs say the sun is burning (like fire). Heavenly waters would have extinguised it. - Inside the dome there is air. The paperweight is solid glass. Try using a hollow paperweight.

For the glass hemisphere to be the explanation, we would all be living _inside_ the glass, rather than having an atmosphere to breathe! Maybe I'm being naïve, but wouldn't we notice that?

Just never before sent any Flat Earthers there. That's the real experiment.

Yep, I hear what you're saying. It'll be interesting to see how FE'ers react when it's their own KZfaq heroes coming back with first hand accounts!

Skiing is part of the conspiracy.

Fun Fact: The Russian word for snow is snowski.

@@FlatEarthMath 🤣

Yes, but it would be impossible to model a flat Earth, because nothing we see in the real world will match the flat software.

@@DaedalusYoung Never say never. I hear that FE physicists are on the verge of discovering a model that actually fits three data points without breaking.

@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 They could, if they tie the outer edge together to a single spot, and make the whole thing globe-shaped, then it would work. But it'd no longer be flat.

@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394source

♪♫ Night Vigil by Kevin MacLeod. How apt was that? Trust you to notice the music title! 😆 And thanks very much C for your kind words. I really do appreciate it. Gotta say your presentations are awesome! 😊

@@Petey194 Kevin MacLeod is awesome. Such a huge variety in his royalty-free catalog! The guy never sleeps!

Yep, they're already scrambling 🤣 Thanks!

@@Petey194 Obviously flat earthers are going to move goalposts. There was a comment saying that if there is 24 hour sun in Antarctica it doesn't mean that the earth is not flat, and just shows that the current FE model needs to be rethought. They desperately want to find a way to continue their fantasies.

@@mikep9604 Yep. If the observation doesn't fit their model then they either have to update their model to accommodate the observation or scrap the model entirely and start again. Their model is already replete with conflicts. One more ain't gonna matter much. :)

Haha, exactly. They can argue with globers all they like but they can't argue with geometry. And they know where to find the geogebra script if they want to look for underhandedness. 😇

They will just say "math isn't reallity"... and they NEVER do any research beyond watching youtube of other flerfs.

@@Petey194 Oh wait. They can (and thus will) claim that the GeoGebra is incorrect and has bugs! Followed by exhaustive and scientific evidence for that claim!

@@Petey194 LOL. Just kidding for that last part of course. It will be a claim and.............. nothing!

@@draco2k729 Their favourite words when checkmated by reality proven with mathematics and science is to call them "mathemagics" and "scientism"... 😂

Hey Blue! I’ll second that. 👍

Thanks Blue. 😁 🌎 ✅

@@David_Lee379 Cheers DL! 👍

Cool and thanks. No one better than Dave to cover all the bases. He'll leave no stone unturned I'm sure. He won't leave them any wiggle room. 🤭

I hope Nathan Jokely eventually goes so he can rant and rave about how you can't get an angle from a curved surface as everyone with a sextant proceeds to get an angle... 😆

@@chrisantoniou4366 well, because of the position, somewhere up a mountain, with an uncertain thickness of ice sheet underneath, plus the surrounding topography, such a measurement is impractical anyway. I could lend him my aircraft 'bubble ' sextant, which has its own artificial horizon. But, it's way heavier [ 2150g vs 870g ] and I would also like some horizontal sextant angles taken, for which it is totally useless. Instead, I'm suggesting an 'artificial horizon' is employed, basically a shallow pool of liquid with a reflective surface. No disputes that that is flat & level. It's an accepted technique for making measurements inland. Typical liquids have been water, mercury [?!] & molasses. They're not going to be suitable. I'm suggesting either diesel fuel, or kerosene [ jet fuel ]. The particular sextant is good for arcminute readings directly, with interpolation to tens of arcseconds. I'm just waiting on a response from Dave, to sort out all of the details.🌞

I basically put forward 3 'tests' to carry out, for which measurements were required. One of these became subdivided into pt a & pt b. Taking 'altitudes' at various times of day was already included in 2 of the experiments, so these details were under consideration. One experiment is simply to confirm where on Earth they are [ assuming that it's not the Atacama Astrodome, having slipped them a mickey in the pre-flight champagne at Puenta Arenas ]. MCToon can do the sight reduction using his CAD globe method, & CoEA, andI can do the classic centuries old reduction. Flerfs can have a lash, using Gleason & Euclidean trigonometry. Measuring altitudes regularly was also present. The flerf model says that the observer is somewhere near 'the ice wall', and the sun is on the Tropic of Capricorn. At its furthest distance, on the 'opposite' side, it is 16 680 nautical miles away, at its closest 3 120 Nm. We can bicker all day about the 'height' of that sun above the surface, but let's say 3000 miles [ 2607 Nm ]. By Flatzoid SOHCAHTOA, we can predict the observed altitude at any time. It's THEIR model, not our strawman. If it's suddenly NOT their model, then what is it, this week? It doesn't matter whether they REALIZE that they are making predictions, or whether they could calculate what they should be. YOU MAKE A MODEL - YOU MAKE PREDICTIONS. And we can, and will test them. I also want angular size measurements of the sun throughout the day, again, to test against their model, & perspective. Finally, I want horizontal angle readings from some vertical datum line, as the sun moves on its journey from furthest to closest to furthest point. The flerf model says that it starts off eastwards, and moves an increasingly small amount each hour, until hour 5-7, when it will start to move westwards, at increasing hourly increments, etc. etc. but always 'in front'. The globe model says that it will simply move eastwards at 15° per hour, and pass directly behind the observer. Time will tell, but the numbers shouldn't lie.

@@chassetterfield9559 I agree totally on the measurements... Indeed, it wouldn't matter what measurements were taken, they will all confirm that the Earth is both a sphere and rotating among other things besides, and as you say "the numbers shouldn't lie". However, flat Earthers DO lie, and should any of them go with everyone else to Antarctica they will either lie about their measurements, lie about the correct measurements, concoct some pseudo scientific word salad and claptrap, or simply invoke their old favourite - "mathemagics".

🤣 Oh I wish! Cheers mate!

Haha! 👍 😆

So glad you liked it 😊

We're 6 months away from the trip and you can smell their fear already 😆

OMG I’m dying!

Yes, of course and thank you! It's in the description. The GeoGebra link will take you to their website where you can view it there or open the script in your own app!

Yep. It won't be a holiday for Dave. I'm sure he'll busy working collecting data every moment he gets. Glad it's him going!

Thanks Jos. Your video today was awesome!

Thanks Cyg. Appreciate it! 😊

Maybe it is because they keep away from models that work and explain reality.

@@Petey194 more like just staying away from reality full stop!!! 😂😂 They are not very good with reality and hence they have to create their own little universe to play make believe in!

Thank you. I enjoyed making it. I would hope those that are still in the curious phase will take something from it. The genuine searchers.

@@Petey194 I'm not sure people who are curious about the earth being flat are watching videos like this one. And that's a shame. You could watch this video and go off and check what you are saying is correct. But the FE community don't. Up until recently I had done zero geometry in 40 years. I could remember nothing, I still have to look up almost every single thing I don't understand.

@@Hold_My_Pocket I mostly agree with you but there'll be a couple of 'truthers' out there right now searching for content typing, "The Final Experiment", into the search bar. All we can ask is they take it on board if they come across it. Same with me, but not quite 40 years ago 👴😜but definitely over 30. I was watching Roohif a couple of years ago explaining stuff using GeoGebra and he got me interested in testing stuff out for myself. First FE debate I saw was the Brian's logic vs Ranty over the Blackpool/Dow Crag observations. I left school at 15 and tried to do night school but dropped out. Got a GCSE in maths like most people. I don't think I'm very bright at all and I'm always doubting myself. The great thing about geogebra is you don't need to be good at maths. It does the number crunching for you. To me it's like lego. But one brick down, then another and another and eventually you construct something which looks fancy.

@@Petey194 We have a similar background. I finished school around 15, retook my GCSE's didn't try any harder, so ended up leaving school with nothing to speak of. The only reason why I watch the FE stuff is to learn.

He also kicked off a flurry of note taking from the word saladly inclined.

🤣🤣🤣

I reckon you're right. 💯

Quite right! It doesn't prove anything... it proves EVERYTHING!

Since the tilt is what matters, why would anyone use 90°-the tilt angle? Flattards do because they think 66.6 means something. But we all know they’re idiots.

Please explain, with math, why you would subtract the degree of Earth's tilt (which is 23.44°) from 90°.

​​@@chriscasperson5927because the number 66.6 has a special meaning to the people you associate with. No math required.

Cos(23.5) gets us the centre point for Polar circles where Sin(23.5) is the radius and it's the other way around for the tropics!

@@bigJovialJon 66.6? The one order of magnitude less of the number of the beast?

If you think of their "model" and the Sun whizzing around the tropic of Capricorn, they will always have to look North for the Sun. NE, N, NW etc, but always North. They've admitted they will have a problem if the Sun circles their heads and have to look South for it. Why would they need to look South of 80° when it circles their model at 66½°S. That's the main crux of it. As a consequence, they also have to deny a 24 hr Sun there. They're happy with the 24hr Sun for the Arctic.

You say that all shorelines are at sea level and by that I suppose you mean flat so why did it take 90+ seconds for observers in South Carolina to see the rocket which took off in Florida? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gdyBo7md26qze58.html It's a shoreline to shoreline observation. Where was the rocket hiding all that time? Why was it over 20km up before they could see it? It's almost as if something was stopping them from seeing it. Earth curve maybe?

@@Petey194 you’re response does not address the scientific truth by repeatable observations that the surface of water always seeks it’s own level which results in the shorelines of all oceans having the same elevation of sea level. The oceans make up over 70% of the earth’s surface which scientifically tells us it is impossible for the earth’s surface to curve like a sphere. A rocket launch has nothing to do with the fact that the surface of water is always level and not curved.

The rocket launch observed from Myrtle Beach is a view that is coast to coast. South Carolina to Florida. It is a view straight across water with nothing in the way but for some reason the exhaust flames could only be seen after it was over 20km up. Dismiss it all you like. It's your life. If you want to make pretend then go for it.

Just tell me how do you know the circumference of the flat earth ?

@@pierreboissonneault This video answers you’re question. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fuCIjdShvNfYpJ8.htmlsi=jj1vWYEJrXTmCPzI

I don't suppose you've ever sat by a campfire on a winter's day. The fire heats your face, even though the air is below freezing next to your skin.

@@FlatEarthMath Please, if you make any claims, any claims at all, provide as much evidence as you possibly can, such as demonstrations and experiments, to back up your claims, or I will have to assume that you cannot.

@@FlatEarthMath We're told that there are over three hundred billion suns in the, supposed, milky way and that's just the, supposed, milky way. I'm not even counting all the other suns we're told are floating around out there in "space". Light propagates better in a vacuum. Also, how, and why, isn't the heat, and light, from all those other, supposed, over three hundred billion suns, ALSO reaching the earth? They tell us that a suns light, and heat, can go on indefinitely so how is the earth supposedly in a "goldilocks zone"? Especially when there's, supposedly, again, over three hundred billion suns in the, supposed, milky way alone.

@@FlatEarthMath "space" should be the, absolute, opposite of dark.

@@FlatEarthMath In the box above, look-up "clear vacuum chamber videos".

Cheers mate 😊. I can only hope they take it seriously. 🤞 Lots of 💰 being spent to send people down there.

@@Petey194 It seems Nathan Oakley's sock puppet has reared another of its ugly heads again... The dead giveaway is the "I'm not a flat Earther, but I know the Earth isn't a rotating sphere even though I don't have a model." What a maroon! 😂