Explaining TFE to Rob Who is on the Fence about the Shape of the Earth

[@VAN17INO6]

Respect the man, he is being completely honest and he is asking himself these questions and expressing them. This was very brave and this is how we all should behave, don't be embarassed to ask questions. He is even acknowledging how the experiment would be clarifying. I don't know this dude but I respect him questioning and listening.

[@alandeon]

He's being completely honest. He's a bit of a moron but he's trying. He's just reading too many stupid websites to get his incorrect information.

[@AnttiKivivalli]

Yes. He is just telling us how there is a great need for light in North America, in education, basic education.

[@yottawatt]

This was a really great discussion. I saw several moments where you wanted to talk and instantly correct, but your patience made the whole conversation very cordial.

[@FlatEarthMath]

I'm a high school teacher, and frequently a student will ask a question that kind of startles me in how obvious the answer is, but the key I keep in mind is the answer ISN'T OBVIOUS TO THE STUDENT, hence the question! Rob clearly was an honestly curious (and slightly confused, based on "stuff" he'd seen or read and partially understood) and kind-hearted soul, genuinely seeking the truth, but without a head full of facts regarding the shape of the Earth. But this conversation was a masterclass in how to treat such a person: with kindness and patience. Rob's clearly not stupid, but he hasn't studied this topic the way the rest of us have. He genuinely doesn't know, again, based on videos he's seen which may be filled with half-truths. When you don't know a lot about a subject, you can't tell the difference between propaganda and the truth. Will, you did an excellent job in this conversation. 🙂

[@ProfessorCrumbs65]

Teachers teach what they have been taught. It doesn't mean it's the truth. Is an education just indoctrination? Just like a doctor teachers what they are taught. Your are taught something, memorise it, repeat it. Some are educated. Some are intelligent (Not educated by mainstream) and some are wise.

[@alvin2021]

​@@ProfessorCrumbs65cope harder, I know you have it in you👍

[@rodrigosampaio1560]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65 Well, every flat-earther argument put in here is repeated from flat-earther channels, most of them don't even leave their house to experiment with anything

[@jolupe5200]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65 _"Teachers teach what they have been taught"_ It does not follow that what they teach is wrong. _"Some are intelligent"_ Rejection of Mainstream is not a sign of intelligence, especially when the main stream is right.

[@yottawatt]

Your attitude and view of education is very good. I had a lot of bad professors and a lot of good professors, and no amount of personal intelligence determined which one fell into each category. I read this book called "made to stick". It is a short book, but it helped me to always put myself into the other persons shoes and not view the subject as someone who knows already but someone who doesn't know. It is hard to remember what it is like not to know and that makes a lot of conclusions obvious to me but not to others. I think it is a great teacher's tool, and it seems like from your comment that you have already embodied a lot of this book's principles.

[@paulgreen9059]

I can't believe he's having trouble understanding the 24 hour sun when he's got a globe, right there, with the 23 degree tilt, modeled. Just shine a light from the side and you can see how the light illuminates the entire antarctic circle! It's right freakin' there!

[@ProfessorCrumbs65]

So that is your science to prove a globe and a 24 hour sun. No wonder the world has gone mad.

[@paulgreen9059]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65 Fine. Wait for TFE.

[@alvin2021]

​@@ProfessorCrumbs65 When they film the 24 hr Sun, be sure to come back and explain it to us, because apparently flat earthers say the Sun appears to set as it moves away, so if the Sun's not setting, it's not moving away, and if its not moving away, it's not reaching any other countries to give them daylight is it?

[@BadBrucey]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65 The OP never said that proved the globe, just that this guy had a hard time understanding why the sun would shine for 24 hours in Antarctica. The answer is literally staring him in the face but, like most flat earthers, he is *_completely_* clueless. I honestly can't believe adults are this stupid. "I understand that the sun lights up half the earth and I understand that the earth has an axial tilt but why would that produce a 24 sun in Antarctica?" 🤦‍♂

[@BreakYourBubble]

I'm 4 minutes in and I don't understand he doesn't know how a sundial works 😮

[@RealWoutLies]

3D geometry is hard, for some people. But, that’s not a problem for flat earth. Physical reality doesn’t matter to them. Sad, but true.

[@ProfessorCrumbs65]

3D geometry refers to the mathematics of shapes in three-dimensional space and consists of 3 coordinates. These 3 coordinates are x-coordinate, y-coordinate and z-coordinate. The globe model is impossible.

[@wideotekatwilight]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65 "The globe model is impossible." Care to explain, why? X, Y, and Z can be used to measure the sphere :) 3D object has Hight, Wide, and Deep.

[@ProfessorCrumbs65]

@@wideotekatwilight I would but you would just bore with with theory and gravity. You're educated (Indoctrinaed) - I'm intelligent and wise, that is why I question everything. That is real science. Not just accepting what you are taught.

[@lawrencerolls3643]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65, it is fair enough to question everything, but when one side has centuries of undeniable evidence to support its claim, and the other has absolutely zero evidence, even imaginary, to support itself, that is all you need. Flat earth and it's followers can not even present an accurate and useful map its known areas of itself to even start providing evidence of any sort, to support itself. I can remember, way back in the 70s, when a satirical magazine, maybe even MAD magazine, published a fictional comedy skit proposing a flat earth. Trouble is, some numb nuts, took it to be a work of reference. We have been laughing at flaturds ever since.

[@BadBrucey]

LOL. I guess point proven by ProfessorCrumb65's comment 🤣

[@steveadams2677]

At 12 noon the sun can only be directly above your head (i.e. at 90 degrees above you) is at certain times between the two tropics and the equator. Absolutely everywhere else the sun will never be at 90 degrees above your head. It will always be lower than 90 degrees. How much depends on your latitude.

[@anthony-po4ho]

live near Darwin last week at a certain time no one had a shadow

[@steveadams2677]

@@anthony-po4ho Indeed Darwin is above the tropic of Capricorn so what you say is entirely possible.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@steveadams2677 It's noon in the Philippines. I'm 1.8m tall, and my shadow is almost 60cm long. The sun is not directly overhead. As you say, it varies depending on the time of year, irrespective of a flat earth or globe model. I hope Rob will correct this part of his thinking.

[@Bunny99s]

@@ronaldhawkins3957 Right. Will should have picked up on that statement and correct it. Though Will didn't want to school or correct everything Rob said. Instead Will started to explain some related topic. Not sure if that's always the best approach. Though it's generally difficult to put yourself in the shoes of another person and understand things the way they do and pick up on the issue.

[@Bloke-in-Stoke]

Every time Rob stated that "at 12 noon the sun is directly over head", I was shouting "no it's bloody not... not in any part of North America it isn't!"... I need to stop watching this stuff. Cheers 🍺

[@Adrena1in]

This guy is a very good demonstration of how 2-dimensional some peoples’ thought patterns are. He thinks noon means “sun directly overhead,” no matter where you are on earth. No wonder nothing makes sense to him.

[@gurbinderjhita4580]

The basic logic is there. He's not far from being correct for the purposes of the conversation.

[@Dr-Curious]

The thing is there are lots of people who "know" things because they told themselves they "know" it, instead of going through the steps we use in academia to test ideas. There are millions of people who WILL not honestly challenge themselves because they can't understand why they would need to. This is what they face when you call them out and most cannot deal with it at all. Questioning a belief is attacking them personally. They identify with the belief. And thats why it's so easy to manipulate humans.

[@bentleykennedy-stone9184]

This man has a better functioning brain than every flat earth media figure.

[@JTwatching-the-clock]

Its not always a 2 dimensional thought process, what it is and the ultimate problem are lies. I feel this guy, the FE people have a good argument but...FE people refuse to go back on it in most cases when you start talking about how a gravity globe earth works. Try explaining how the poles are shifting magnetically to them.. they flip out!

[@NineBerry]

"He won''t lie because he is a pastor" is something I was not ready for as an argument.

[@nathanielroberts7077]

Wow. Has he never heard of 24 darkness above the arctic circle???

[@Bunny99s]

Well, to be fair, most people probably haven't because those are things that are completely irrelevant for the majority of humanity :) Most people also don't know much about cultures in other countries with the exceptions of the "few" who actually travel around. Though even those are only exposed to a couple of cultures, there are so many more. Of course you can read about almost any topic, but if that's not something that interests you, why would you? We as humanity have accumulated way too much knowledge that a single human being could ever learn everything. Not even remotely. The issue with flatearthers is that when you start getting interested in a topic that you don't know anything about, you should start to learn the basics. However instead of learning the fundamental geometry and math required to understand and envision our proposed model they just listened to other flatearthers which themselfs have no understanding of those topics and "convince" them with shallow distorted or simplified observations.

[@MT-UK]

I mean there's There's a pretty fun vampire movie about it maybe they should give that a go 😂 ​@@Bunny99s

[@MiddleMalcolm]

Only about 14mins in. I like Toon's way of saying something to the effect of "If your religious book doesn't reflect reality, that text is wrong."

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Actually Genesis 1 describes the function of the moon (the lesser light) and the sun (the greater light) to the tee.

[@JCW7100]

​@@josephjaramillo3852That's a trivial observation that any ancient person could make. The sun is obviously brighter than the moon

[@livinglight1628]

MCToon is a CHRISTIAN... I think you are misquoting him

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Not really, you're just picking and choosing what you want to be true...I don't have that problem, as I already know that scripture is the highest form of truth available to human beings living on planet earth.

[@kitcanyon658]

@@josephjaramillo3852 : His point is, if a person never read the Bible and just noticed the sun and moon he would come to the same conclusion.

[@tonyclif1]

4 minutes in and its obvious this guy doesn't understand sun dials or the rotation of the earth. For a start, sun dials vary, depending on your latitude, simply because the midday sun is not overhead except at the point of the globe closest to the sun. Then there's the rotation - he simply doesnt understand angular momentum as it relates to different points on a globe. Edit: he at least seems to understand after having it explained, but his preconceived biases might be tough to get around?

[@tonyw4863]

He still is claiming at noon the Sun is directly above you. Unless he lives South of the Tropic of Cancer he will NEVER see the Sun directly above him in the Northern Hemisphere. The opposite applies for the Southern Hemisphere where the Sun will NEVER be directly above you unless you are North of the Tropic of Capricorn.

[@Bunny99s]

Yes, some people really have trouble with simple geometry. Though my mother also have issues with imagining certain simply geometric facts. She always needs to see drawings or diagrams. Though she's not a flatearther. She's more a don''t-care-earther like 99% of the world's population :)

[@Kyle____]

He needs to think in three dimensions. It's difficult, but not impossible.

[@kriisak]

Will Duffy is just sitting there letting Rob ramble on before answering veeery patiently and very accurately. Thank you Will, you're a hero!

[@mr.miller3432]

I think Mr Rob has a semi smooth brain.

[@paulgreen9059]

Semi?

[@John.0z]

When he dodged the simple question about how a globe is only lit over half it's surface from a single light source, I took it that he has swallowed the flat earth nonsense hook, line and sinker.

[@freewill8218]

Brain?😂😂😂

[@three_mountaineers775]

I think Rob's question about feeling the curvature of the Earth when travelling at speed is actually very interesting. On a flat earth, no matter what speed you travel at, you'll never end up higher than the ground. On a globe, if you travel above the orbital velocity at that altitude, you shoot a rocket completely horizontally and end up flying upwards "the rocket flies faster than gravity can pull it down towards the ground". You'll also feel weightless the entire time.

[@tonyw4863]

You only feel weightless after the engine is shut down. Being weightless in orbit is actually being in free fall towards the Earth. Earth's gravity still pulls you and the spacecraft towards its centre. Fortunately, a spacecraft travelling at orbital velocity loses altitude due to that free fall at the same rate the Earth's curvature changes resulting in a perpetual free fall at the same altitude. Well not entirely perpetual as there are still air molecules out there although at a very low pressure. The constant collisions with those air molecules over time will slow the horizontal speed and the spacecraft will very slowly lose altitude. Every now and then the spacecraft needs a small push with its thrusters to maintain the original altitude.

[@LisaAnn777]

No you wont feel weightless when accelerating. G forces will be pulling you back. When you stop accelerating you'll feel weightless though.

[@davemason2290]

I was a moon landing denier. It was actually flat earth that unraveled my beliefs. Before I came across flat earth on KZbin, shows like ancient aliens would have looked more like a documentary instead of an entertainment show. I was obsessed with all of that stuff. Thank you flat earth as that is how I came to my senses. Flat earth was a step too far and looked like utter nonsense. The other thing about flat earth is that the evangelism can be quite extreme. This was definitely a red flag to me. It took me a couple of years to fully reverse my beliefs and walk away. It is hard as these deep beliefs are part of your identity. I hope this guy can work through his misunderstandings as I would hate to think that he'll become a conspiracy evangelist spouting nonsense like I was.

[@psalux18963]

Good job!

[@gr0undc0ntrol]

I thought it was impossible to reverse this condition. Incredible to hear your story. Thanks for posting. Gives some hope that it is actually possible to wake up from that trance.

[@davemason2290]

@@gr0undc0ntrol I wish it was just a trance. It is a conviction where I knew the truth and everyone else were idiots. I was in that mindset for years and I ended the nonsense before the likes of Dave McKeegan were around. For me it was actually an Antarctica video with a flerf claiming that the angles of shadows was all wrong. I thought he was talking a load of rubbish. The significant thing was is that he sounded the same as Bart Sibrel to me in the way that he was trying to convince me that he was telling the truth. That is all it took.

[@KevinVenturePhilippines]

Respect for sharing you were incorrect.

[@davemason2290]

@@KevinVenturePhilippines Thank you.

[@code_monkey_steve]

Are all flat-earthers ultimately just religious zealots? All of the ones I've seen eventually fall back to the Bible.

[@ProfessorCrumbs65]

I'm not religious. Religion is man-made. The globe is impossible.

[@psalux18963]

​@@ProfessorCrumbs65 At least the religious flerfer has a strong ideologic reason for denying reality. In your case it is just pure stupidity.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

I've never seen one who wasn't some form of theist. Those beliefs appear to form a convenient ladder down to flerf at the bottom of the barrel. Explored nicely in "Why Are FLAT Earthers Always Christian??" by Grayson Hawk.

[@LisaAnn777]

Yes, they are ALL religious fanatics. Literally.

[@Shilly-Mcshillface]

This guy doesn't want to learn anything. When the man who you're talking to says 'this is why the final experiment is so important because .." and he cuts will off with "let me ask you a question" right there. The Bible is becoming the last refuge for the flerf these days, definitely an agenda to attach flerfism to Christianity going on.

[@steveadams2677]

The ISS is about 250 miles above earth, but I am willing to bet that absolutely nowhere does it say the space shuttle could travel at 17,500 miles per hour in the atmoSPHERE at 20,000 feet. OMG even airplanes fly at 35,000 feet. The ISS orbits the earth at around every 90 minutes. As for observation from the moon the "upside down" would depend on just where you are observing from. There is no upside down in space!

[@LisaAnn777]

Exactly lol because the shuttle wasn't made for supersonic flight within the atmosphere. Simple stuff is lost on these guys, its scary they are supposedly grown adults.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

Perhaps helping Rob think in the correct scale would help. Rob talks of an altitude of 20,000 ft where you start seeing commercial flights. But the ISS is flying at least 370km above the earth, which is 1.2 million feet.

[@Heoi_Bikuni]

Just wanted to post this ? Flatearthers have successfully observed the ISS using the ISS tracking app. This confirms the accuracy of the app's tracking. So based on the flight pattern, how does the ISS fly at speeds overhead without ever slowing? This can only be possible on a globe earth.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Actually according to Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson, it is impossible for a photo device on the ISS, to get an accurate photo of the earth, because on the scale of a normal, educational globe, the ISS would only be approx the diameter of a dime, above the surface of the earth.

[@LisaAnn777]

@@josephjaramillo3852 literally nowhere in his comment did he mention taking a photo of the entire earth at once. Also "according to Neil" ? So he is the official spokesperson of science now? "Neil" is repeating a fact based on geometry. The earth being 8000 miles wide, yet the ISS being 250 miles up should be enough for you to figure out its impossible to photograph the entire side of the Earth, this is just geometry.

[@RobertNugent-v6f]

Well first I would like to say thank you to all the people who took time out of your day and busy schedules to comment on this podcast, even though we may not agree, your comments and likes and views are very important, my podcast channel is being developed and should be under way over the next month or so and i will be looking forward and hoping to see more of your comments, And i will be open to any debate, I would also like to thank Will Duffy for allowing me to be a guest on this segment. Again, thank you. Robert A. Nugent

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@RobertNugent-v6f I have already asked Joseph, but I prefer to ask you directly. As you already have a channel page, can you upload and share the two debates you have done? You can move them to your podcast channel when it is ready.

[@RobertNugent-v6f]

I will need to get permission in writing from the two gentlemen who I had spoke with, but I’ll be happy to do that for you when the time is right And thank you for reaching out to me

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@RobertNugent-v6f That would be great. Thx. According to Joseph, they were a chemist and an I.T. expert, which means they debated well outside their field of expertise and within their experience. I can picture this for the IT expert, as before I retired, I was a field and subject matter expert in computer performance. However, a head full of queuing theory, arrays of numbers, and disk drive behaviour doesn't give me strong credentials in the many engineering and science fields that intersect in measuring the shape and movement of the earth.

[@belladonnanightshade1793]

This guy is making me cry watching this…I actually had to pause and txt my dad, my only living close relative, who was raised Catholic. He was a land surveyor…I need answers…

[@profphilbell2075]

I would be happy to spend some time with your guest to explain why scientists are convinced that earth is a globe. In fact he’s welcome to join my free physics and chemistry lessons on zoom each week. Please share my email address or Discord with him.

[@gurbinderjhita4580]

Do you teach the geometry of Earth?

[@profphilbell2075]

@@gurbinderjhita4580 I teach physics to young adults. They have already learned the geometry of earth, calculus 2, algebra 2, advanced geometry, physics of motion, forces, energy, radiation, orbital mechanics and chemistry long before they get to my classes.

[@profphilbell2075]

@@gurbinderjhita4580 I can teach you about the geometry of earth and the underpinning evidence.

[@livinglight1628]

For 2 years I had conversations with people that have the thinking capacity of a 5 year old. And it was entertaining, kinda cool to meet people with seeming intelligence and no visible mental illnesses. But over time, it just becomes weary... I appreciate your heart and your love and patience for these people. But in my old age I can only take so much till my head feels like its shrinking.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

And who(m) are you referring to?

[@alvin2021]

"Those flat earthers seem to have a pretty good argument" Do they??? First Im hearing of it lol. Must be a flat Earth channel I've never heard of.

[@SpyroTek]

Yep. From a completely neutral point of view they can 'sound' like they know what they're talking about, but the minute you actually listen to what they are saying it's pretty easy to pick apart.

[@MegaloTnt]

Its rly easy to understand why such things provide irrefutable evidence for a globe

[@chinookmudpie3301]

I couldn’t make it through this interview- the guy kept interrupting Will and There was no way I could endure 54 minutes of that.

[@erykmozejko3329]

On the point about the shuttle. When it’s reached 17500 mph, it’s above almost all of the atmosphere. So when the engines stop there isn’t drag to slow them down. It keeps going. It is also falling back to the earth. But at 17500 mph the earth curves away from your path the same rate that you fall. So it never reaches the earth. It keeps going , that what orbit is. If it slows down then it will fall more quickly than the earth curves away, it will eventually hit the ground. If it sped up from 17500 mph it will gain height, it isn’t falling as fast as the ground curves away. Any object at the same orbiting at a similar altitude to the shuttle, ISS or anything. Has to move at 17500mph to do so. To return to earth something like the shuttle uses engines to slow down a bit. As it begins to come down it’s starting to go through the atmosphere, that causes drag which slows it down even more. At 20000 feet at launch or re entry it doesn’t go at 17500 mph. That’s too much effort for engines to push it through that much atmospheric drag. Re entry or launch that’s too much friction to cope with the heat generated

[@adamsmith2564]

He seems to be under the impression that the sun spends 24 hours directly above Antarctica as opposed to circling the horizon.

[@Adrena1in]

As far as he's concerned, noon means "sun directly overhead" and midmight means "sun directly opposite on the other side of the earth". He's got no idea about 3d geometry.

[@TheZigZiggy]

Do you think any of the flat earthers will delete their posts and videos if globe earth is proven?

[@ProfessorCrumbs65]

2024 and still not proven.. Never will be as the globe is impossible.

[@logic.and.reasoning]

No no... that is your "intelligence" ​@ProfessorCrumbs65

[@wideotekatwilight]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65 Care to explain? I ask second time, what is your reason?

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65it’s been proven thousands upon thousands of times. There is nothing impossible about the globe. A flat planet isn’t actually impossible either, but it could never form naturally. I’ll say it again: “nuh uh” is NOT an argument against the globe. You can empirically measure the curvature yourself with basically no tools in an afternoon.

[@FutureWorldX]

@@ProfessorCrumbs65 how comes Witsit now talks about geocentrism? He knows that flat earth is cooked.

[@capq57]

Wow. Just wow. Flerfs are spatially challenged by definition, yet I swear I just saw the bar lowered by several notches.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Really, so a space shuttle traveling 17,500 mph going from north pole to south pole (in approx 38 minutes), doesn't feel any curvature at all on such a trip?

[@josephjaramillo3852]

....And global earthers are mathematically challenged...a sun ☀ being 93 million miles away from the earth, presents just a problem or two! LOL

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@josephjaramillo3852 Exactly. Centrifugal Force (what you call feeling the curvature) depends on an object's mass and distance from the curve's axis. Centrifugal force at the equator is about 0.3% of 1 G (gravity), so the oceans don't fly off into space. Earth's gravity counteracts the centrifugal force, and you feel nothing. I may have this wrong, but the earth would have to spin 333 (1/0.3) times faster than normal for centrifugal force to equally counteract gravity, so we are just weightless at the equator. That would be 333,000 miles per hour, significantly slower than the ISS's travelling in an arc 1.2 million feet greater than the equator. This is my back-of-the-envelope estimate. I'd like to know how accurate this is, but it explains why "a space shuttle (you mean ISS) traveling(sic) 17,500 mph going from north pole to south pole (in approx 38 minutes), doesn't feel any curvature at all on such a trip."

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@josephjaramillo3852 I'll be happy with an explanation of one of the two problems.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Yes, I'd be happy with all the proof that the sun is 93 million miles away from the earth, and that the earth travels 67,000 mph to circumnavigate the sun in 365 days. Many in this thread have mocked people for being geometrically challenged...but they haven't mocked themselves for being mathematically challenged! LOL

[@vizvizvizvizviz]

10:30 I suddenly realised what his issue is! He thinks that at 12 o”clock the sun is directly overhead, BECAUSE 12 IS AT THE TOP OF A CLOCK FACE. That’s why he says OK I’d have to look down towards 9: 30. He’s getting confused with his watch and the sun. And he’s thinking he’s seen the sun directly overhead, which of course he never has, because he’s never travelled to anywhere between the tropics.

[@A.J.H.71]

Ever notice how these people are looking for answers but can't ever stop long enough to actually get answers?

[@JohnVJay]

Yes. Why ask questions if you're not willing to close your mouth and listen to the answers?

[@MatthewBeachy-e2u]

Truth. The times I literally yelled out loud for him to STFU during this painful hour. Wills a pastor for a reason. I’d have gone off on him before 10 minutes were up.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Yet, there's already 3,400 views of this podcast...apparently some people liked it, including myself!

[@icansciencethat]

Round about 30 mins in, Rob is asking about the space shuttle and how it would feel the curvature of the Earth when flying at the incredible speeds it flew. Rob, if you see this, the space shuttle DID feel that curvature. Very much so. Think of riding in a roller coaster. As you crest a hill, you feel light in your seat because you're going over a curve. That's what you're expecting the space shuttle to feel... they'd all feel light in their seats as they fly in a big curve. Do I understand you correctly? That is EXACTLY what happens (happened.. space shuttle hasn't been flown in a long time). When the shuttle flew around the Earth at those amazing speeds, the people on board were weightless. That's what an orbit is. An orbit is when you go so fast that you feel completely weightless.

[@Coppertunes]

The China Sun comment, its not an actual sun!! If he read the article correctly; they are developing an industrial prototype fusion reactor, which it has been dubbed an “artificial sun”

[@thwackfpv]

I'm firmly on the "let them know they're stupid" side, but I can seriously appreciate the calm nature of this conversation. Rob, however, appears to be much more open and accepting of truths, or even the potential of truths, than your average Flat Earther. He's not diluted into believing they had the technology to fake the moon landing via CGI (in 1969, for crying out loud). He doesn't just disappear when you give him an irrefutable fact, and doesn't appear to think that "globers" are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

[@Flappyduck22]

Wow, he questions the shape of the earth, but it doesn't even cross his mind that his book may be wrong.

[@tonyw4863]

For flat earthers you aren't going to travel South from Punta Arenas. You are travelling "NOT North" because to a flat earther only North exists. They have an infinite number of directions "south" depending on where you start from.

[@algomez04]

No way in hell is this guy on the fence. Calling total bullshit

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Really, what evidence is there that global earthers have, that 100 percent prove that the earth is a globe?

[@horisview]

@@josephjaramillo3852centuries of observations and drawing logical conclusions from that and recently going to space.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@josephjaramillo3852 Bob Knodel's 15-degree-per-hour drift for starters. Plenty of photographic evidence from the curved horizon to the Blue Marble. I observed the curve at 60000 ft by holding a magazine page against the window of a plane. I'd accept photographic evidence of a flat earth horizon taken from greater than 35000 ft.

[@alvin2021]

​@@josephjaramillo3852for a start there's plenty of photos and footage, all you guys have is "it's CGI" Whilst never actually proving its CGI.

[@tonyw4863]

Agreed. He has fallen off the edge and become a flat earther already

[@CryptoRoast_0]

"These flat earth guys seem to have a pretty good argument". Lol. No. Literally every argument they have falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.

[@algomez04]

It’s hard to try to be nice to people like this. The utter lack of Intellect is amazing.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

I disagree. The people that are genuinely ignorant and are ACTUALLY seeking the truth are easy to be nice to, it’s the trolls and grifters that are insufferable.😊

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Well perhaps a display of a lack of intellectual (and intellectual honesty too!) would be claiming the sun is 93 million miles away from the sun, that the earth travels 67,000 mph through space to orbit sun in one calendar year, and that earth spins around axis at 1,000 mph, without any definitive proof of any of it!

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@josephjaramillo3852 it would be, good thing that we don’t. We DO have definitive evidence that the sun is an average of 93 million miles away, and that our orbital speed around the sun is approximately 67k mph. However, the Earth absolutely does not rotate at 1000mph. It rotates once per day, or 0.000694RPM, or half of the speed of the hour hand on a 12 hour analog clock. 1000mph is a linear speed and you can’t measure rotation that way. Even if we could, it would only be rotating at 1039MPH on the equator. It’s 0MPH at the poles. There are plenty of observations we can make, most without any equipment at all that shows definitively the Earth is not flat. They also just so happen to match the predictions of the globe model perfectly. In fact, literally every experiment ever conducted, every measurement ever taken, every observation ever made matches the globe perfectly. The only “proof” flat Earthers have is lying about the globe model. Or lying about the observations they make. The only flat Earthers that have actually done a decent experiment or taken a decent measurement got results that match the globe. Just like the 24 hour sun in Antarctica does. If you’re genuinely seeking the truth I’ll be happy to provide you with a short list of observations that show Earth can’t be flat, and is most definitely a globe.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@josephjaramillo3852 except we have “proof” of all of it. Well, except for the Earth rotating at 1000mph. Literally no one is making that claim. It’s just a flerf lie. The Earth rotates once per day, or 0.000694RPM, or 15 degrees per hour, or half of the speed of the hour hand on a 12 hour analog clock. Better hold on with that blazing speed! We have very strong evidence for all of it. If you wish I can provide you with observations you can make yourself that both match the globe AND are impossible on a flat Earth

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@josephjaramillo3852 The speed of the Earth travelling through space depends on your frame of reference. You can fly 1000s of km in a plane, but aside from turbulence, you cannot feel the speed at which you are travelling. And I've flown at mach 2. Have you not looked at measurements of the parallax, doppler colour shift, and movement aberration of the stars? Luckily, Conspiracy Toonz released a video on this subject two days ago that I hope you will share with Rob.

[@tilestwo]

Truly wonderful the mind of a flat-earther is.

[@chassetterfield9559]

4 minutes in, and he's starting from a misconception - that the sun is " Directly overhead" in Antarctica [ at noon ]. The Sun will be directly overhead a point close to the Tropic of Capricorn, at 23.4°S, and 82.5°W at 17:25 UT on December 16. It will be visible due north, at an altitude angle of approx 33°. It will also be visible at 05:25 UT on 16 & 17 December, but due south, at an altitude of approx 13°. At that time, the Sun will be directly overhead at a point still at approx. 23.4°S, but now 262.5 W [97.5E] The key factor, which requires 3D vision [ or a handy globe model ], is that due to the Earth's tilt of 23°, and the Sun being overhead at a point diametrically opposite on Earth, the Sun is visible due south OVER the south pole, and once more looking due north ..... It goes without saying that the Sun is visible at all times between these extreme examples.

[@Robisquick]

If we took seriously the education of kids and focusing on STEM subjects as the core, and taught people basic civics, philosophy, and critical thinking, 95% of these “adults who have no foundation for their critical thinking” types eradicated. We need to ensure that to get a high school diploma, each student can demonstrate how to properly think through basic concepts and do thought and material experiments to corroborate the thinking. That way it’s undeniable that the methodology for how to think isn’t “brainwashing” but rather just practical and confirmed critical thinking.

[@aldesrivera41]

Omg... I will give you to you man you have a lot of patience , i dont have that patience. Its not hard to understand how the globe works.

[@Chochothepimp]

How the heck do you deal with these people with such humility and grace…

[@peronkop]

This dude was not rude, he was confused.

[@jimthatcher3952]

Never play Will at poker!

[@SamyasaSwi]

I'm glad there are people who are nicer than me because i cant deal with these kinds of people

[@jamesluke4885]

wow, literally all the people who're unsure about it or think it's flat really just don't understand how things work. like i understood the earth's tilt + rotation and orbit around the sun was responsible for the seasons when i was 10.

[@MT-UK]

Will has the patience of a saint

[@flatearthtravolta6585]

What is the independant variable for the final excrement?

[@kitcanyon658]

There isn't one experiment that the group will be doing.

[@FutureWorldX]

if (location = Antarctica) and (season = summer) and (sun = sets) earth = flat. else if (location = Antarctica) and (season = summer) and (sun = not setting) earth = globe. The independent variables is the Sun because it a primary source of light and electromagnetic radiation to the Earth, are you expecting someone to switch out the sun which occurs naturally everyday? Also, why don't you make your own experiment instead of just saying "nuh uh" to any explanation that you are given? You are just an armchair scientist just like Eric Dubay, Dave Weiss and Nathan Oakley.

[@kitcanyon658]

@@FutureWorldX : Oh, the flatters will just make up simpleton excuses for why there will be a 24 hr sun.

[@FutureWorldX]

@@kitcanyon658 and after reading my comment, I also forgot to add the position of the observer as an independent variable. I like how The Final Experiment has asked the community to perform similar tests at home, for example taking the photo of the sun with a solar filter at different locations.

[@jiversteve]

This guy doesn’t understand the globe and doesn’t understand flat earth.

[@Gaz1892a]

Imagine getting to a ripe age and then start to question everything you know 😂 some people shouldn’t be allowed access to the internet

[@Gaz1892a]

And in fairness he seems like a really nice guy 👍

[@Coppertunes]

26:00 He cant comprehend the size of scale. The shuttle going round the earth would be nothing like a rollercoaster ride. It would be similar to something the size of a virus sitting on tip of the big hand of a clock, starting at '12' and finishing at '6' a 30 min ride. It wouldn't have a clue its moving from North to South in 30 mins. If he was in his car and doing a 180 degree in 30 mins does he think he would feel that curve.

[@peronkop]

This just seems like most of these questions are easily answerable. Like a freshman course in physics gets most of this in order. Though, it feels like there is a narrative, rather than a standard of evidence, that is he trying to fulfill.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

Wait… did he say the phases of the moon are from the sun blocking light from hitting the moon? Even if he meant to say it’s the EARTH blocking sun light from hitting the moon he would be wrong. The phases of the moon are because the dark portion of the moon is the side not being illuminated by the sun. During a new moon the side opposite the one we can (normally) see is fully lit by the sun. During a full moon the side we can see if fully lit and the opposite side is dark. The crescent shape during the waxing and waning phases is a result of light shining on sphere with basically no atmosphere. There is no “dark side of the moon”, just a side we can’t see from Earth. The shadow we see on the moon during an ECLIPSE is a result of Earth blocking sun light from hitting the moon. Hope this helps fleets.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

Well spotted. I hope he corrects that inaccurate thinking in his quest for the truth as well.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@ yeah. I wish Will had caught that.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@UpperDarbyDetailing I hope Rob will read these comments and do some independent research. His friend Joseph seems to be maintaining an echo chamber around him. That's the guy who jumped every time Rob said, "Prop man..."

[@josephjaramillo3852]

I am Joseph. That's totally untrue...I have previously scheduled private debates for Rob to debate both a degreed chemist and an I.T. expert, who both argued for the global model. But your speculation is welcomed!

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@josephjaramillo3852 Yes, I figured out pretty quickly that you were Rob's gofer, or prop boy. I got the impression that you manage a lot of the information that Rob is using. Have you approached Dave Farina, or Conspiracy Toons to talk on air with Rob (I hate the term debate - it immediately makes it adversarial)?

[@knightwing4]

Does the Bible say how far the firmament is? I don’t think so. How do we know that the edge of the observable universe isn’t where the firmament starts? If it was as close as the moon or just outside of its orbit we would be able to see into heaven with just a telescope or a strong camera lens just like we can see craters on the moon.

[@algomez04]

People here are brilliant. 🫡

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

The fact is that when the Bible was translated the original word used meant “sky” or “heavens”, essentially referring to the boundary between the Earth and space. Or to anything we can see in the sky. It doesn’t say anywhere that this boundary is a physical thing.

[@algomez04]

@ exactly but you know Flerfs will grasp at anything to confuse their fantasy.

[@kankudevikothari5522]

The Bible is an ancient story book. I would trust the updated version of it more than anything.

[@misterocain]

At Union glacier will te Sun disappear behind the mountains (or even clouds)? If so can the experiment be counted as valid?

[@CriticalThink]

We have a viewing spot where the sun will not disappear behind the mountains. Unlikely we will have 4 days of impenetrable cloud.

[@psalux18963]

I don't know what the conditions will be. The sun will travel for 24 hours between 13° and 33° of elevation over the horizon, so it is possible that it passes behind a mountain Duffy said they have a special camp, in order to have a better view of the sun (I guess it will be in an elevated position). But if the sun being 13° above the horizon remains 13° above the horizon when it comes out of the mountain profile 30 minutes later, will you think that it has set in the meantime?

[@CriticalThink]

@ I already told you, we know where the Sun will be, and we have a viewing spot such that the Sun will be above the nearby mountain.

[@doranku]

the globe prediction is that the sun will not go lower than 13 degrees. A mountain is only a certain amount of degrees/time of the sun orbit, are you willing to believe that if the sun is obscured for a certain amount of time it will do something completely different/be in a different place then just before and after the obscured time? isn't that magical thinking?

[@misterocain]

@@CriticalThink I think your 2nd post was meant for @psalux18963. I've already taken on board your 1st post to myself. Have a good one down in Antarctica.

[@joedavenport6156]

It's incredible that a person his age does not understand how a sundial works... The Sun is never directly overhead south of the Tropic of Capricorn. Why is this so hard to understand? It pains me to watch this guy. He seems like an intelligent person. What's his issue? YES the sun IS always shining on half of the Earth. That's the beauty of it.. It's so simple. It's amazing he graduated.from High School

[@RossAveritt]

How long until experiment?

[@EVOLOVESVODKA]

The ony problem here is belief in religion over repeatable,testable facts in reality.

[@designsonq1]

5:54 your head is the sun 6:15 your head is the sun 6:29 your head is the sun 6:36 your head is the sun

[@RossAveritt]

I am on the fence, can I go?

[@Thosis]

Flerf stupidity is the 8th wonder of the world.

[@Stuart.Little.07.07]

He answered one of questions himself regarding the moon being a luminary, he realises that it is the sun lighting its surface, that in itself should prove the bible doesn't have all the answers.

[@EVOLOVESVODKA]

25:00 The earths atmoSPHERE is relative to earth. It doesn't matter if Rob and Will were standing upright or doing a handstand on our moon. The shuttle would be orientated to earths atmosphere. Do people think there's a top and bottom of our moon? Yes relative from our view point from earth. Hope this helps.

[@anthony-po4ho]

I think they best way to say it is at noon you would be looking north to see the sun and at midnight you would be looking south ( unless your at the actual South Pole and would always be looking north)

[@dna9838]

Wouldn't a cheaper final experiment be to charter a boat to hawaii/ tenerife and note the angular measurement of the summit of mauna kea/ teide at different distances?

[@psalux18963]

Of course, also measuring the elevation angle of a peak of Sierra Nevada from the California valley should be enough, but sadly it doesn't work with flat earthers.

[@dna9838]

@psalux18963 indeed. I suspect that for a lot (not all) of them, it has little to do with what can be proven or not and more to do with a rejection of being told what to think. Where we would see science as a liberator, they see it as a tyranny.

[@peronkop]

It has to be able to convince people who usually don't appreciate measurements. This is because the loudest guys are just grifters. If their wider audience starts to leave, then they will stop.

[@SciTrekMan]

You expect Flerfs to understand things like measurements, maths and science?

[@dna9838]

@@SciTrekMan I think most of them would be able to understand it tbf, but sanity issues are probably more of a barrier.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

I often struggle with the idea that the Book of Genesis is called God's word when, in fact, it is men's account of the creation of the heavens and the world authored centuries after it supposedly happened. It does not quote God, but God is used to explain the inexplicable of that time. Rob wrongly applies the doctrine of biblical infallibility to the physical world, not just life, faith, and salvation.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Not really, there's nothing stated in Genesis 1 or 2, that would lead one to believe that the Genesis account of the creation, is not literal.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

@@josephjaramillo3852 The Bhagavad Gita discusses the creation and recreation of the universe, and nothing in the Gita would lead one to believe that its "account of the creation is not literal." Lack of proof is not proof. The Abrahamic churches believe that Moses is the author of Genesis. While the text and the translations handed down over time may literally be what he wrote, they are still, at best, what he understood of creation rather than an eyewitness account or explanation.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@ No, it’s just that it isn’t directly stated that it’s intended to be taken in any particular way, including literally. The fact that it’s in opposition to reality shows that it’s either NOT supposed to be taken literally of it’s just flat out wrong.

[@psalux18963]

​@@josephjaramillo3852Genesis 2 is not compatible with Genesis 1. By making this, the writers of the Bible, putting one after another 2 different irreconciliable traditions about the creation, showed in the best way possible that what matters is the general idea conveyed by the creation, and not the literal meaning of the script. And if you sum all the other biblical references to the creation you sum even more irreconciliable discrepancies. Were the Bible writers mad? No, they just had a style of writing that you don't understand and that you misinterpret at the highest level.

[@psalux18963]

​@@josephjaramillo3852From "My jewish learning" "The feverish concern of the "scientific creationists" to protect a literal reading of the story in Genesis 1 reflects a conviction that devotion to the Bible requires one to interpret its words-particularly Genesis-literally and to accept it in its literal sense. But, as Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally."

[@Sleepy.Canadian.P.M]

why not just think the firmament is the universe? Doesnt that make more sense lol?

[@peronkop]

Because now you aren't special anymore.

[@RossAveritt]

If y'all think that seeing the sun for 24 in Antarctica is going to solve it? If it is an ice wall, you might have a point.

[@codetech5598]

"Explaining TFE to Rob Who is on the *Fence* about the Shape of the Earth" You might say he was on the *Edge.*

[@amiryatziv7577]

A person "on the fence" is a coward flerf. That's all.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

This will not demonstrate any cowardice by Rob. In fact after watching it, you will be afraid to live debate Rob, imo!

[@amiryatziv7577]

@josephjaramillo3852 I have never heard of a real "on the fence" flerfs. They are all flerfs that are afraid to admit their stupidity...

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Well schedule a live debate with Rob, and demonstrate how stupid you think he is.

[@amiryatziv7577]

@josephjaramillo3852 I don't have to. He will make it fair and square in this upcoming talk with Will. Popcorn is ready...

[@josephjaramillo3852]

In other words, you are afraid to!

[@mdandry]

THAT. WAS. WILD.

[@AnttiKivivalli]

Will Duffy should stop saying "the Sun will circles above people" (10:14) etc. and learn to explain that when at noon, the Sun reaches the highest point, it is not above us in all places of the Earth (yeah, a Finn here, who just took a video of the Sun at noon on Wednesday...). On Antarctica the Sun will always remain low, not go "above people" but remain pretty close to the horizon. It is called altitude, "how high the Sun is in the sky".

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Also, we're seeing a fatal flaw of TFE here. Even IF flerfs were intellectually honest enough to consider ANY form of falsification for their beliefs, personally proving FE wrong would still not be enough for many of them to understand WHY.

[@peronkop]

Falsification is not a strength to most people. This makes science discussions hard.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Yeah, with emotional invested in beliefs people typically don't want to consider being wrong. FE, with built-in persecution complex & global scapegoat, is on the top of that list...

[@SciTrekMan]

Yea, he’s on the fence Half of him thinks he’s smart The other half thinks he stupid

[@OAB9282]

On the fence??? Come on???

[@SciTrekMan]

*Why are there adults that fail to grasp basic things that a toddlers can completely understand?*

[@edwardlin4589]

I can't, I tried, I failed. Once someone brings religion into the equation I lose all hope. Who was it that said, "You're not stupid because you believe in flat earth, you believe in flat earth because you're stupid" Sorry Rob, you're stupid.

[@ValkyrieRiderIPT]

He is NOT in the middle or on the fence. He's a flat earth kook but doesn't want to come out and say it. I've seen his kind many times.

[@josephjaramillo3852]

Are you sure about that?

[@ValkyrieRiderIPT]

@@josephjaramillo3852 Yes!

[@SciTrekMan]

And rambling every last-earth argument, so what are we left with? He’s a flerf.

[@kitcanyon658]

@@josephjaramillo3852 : I am. Completely. He just wanted to get on a show.

[@irrelevant_noob]

12:30 not buying it, can he provide a verse for that "unmovable"? -.- (As for the "foundation" argument, playing a vinyl disc happens on a platter, yet the disc is still moving. Also, the whole system can be flying around, so... yeah, he SHOULD take those minutes to think about stuff.) 13:40 at least he understands that the rotation would happen from W to E... so there's still hope. :-) 14:45 damn, i might have to take that back. 5 million miles is not enough to get that far off the range of what the orbit wobbles through, it definitely wouldn't have the impact he expects ("burn us up" / "cool us down" -- or at least to any meaningful extent besides what summer and winter already do). PS Small nitpick, but at 6:59 you're not considering all the factors. If the light-source is larger than the sphere (as the sun is), there would be a little bit more than half the sphere getting light. Sure, not all of it will be at 100%, but it's still "lit". Also, we have an atmosphere that nudges light around the curve, and that's why we have three types of "twilight".

[@Coppertunes]

Wow, he says he does surveying for a living, but yet he doesn't know the degree of curvature of the earth's surface.

[@ronaldhawkins3957]

I heard that as meaning polls (like phone surveys). Rob would need help figuring out where to start with a theodolite.

[@three_mountaineers775]

For a religious person, isn't it a bit weird to think heaven is in our ohysical world, and some place we can theoretically get to with enough technology? I dont know why these people are so tied to the wording that the Sun and the Moon are in heaven?

[@doranku]

The book tells us it is physical, unless there is a good guide to show us which parts are literal and which are allegory. Something something gaps.

[@psalux18963]

​​@@dorankuI would say that putting in Genesis 2 an account of creation that is unreconciliable with what Genesis 1 says, the writers of the Bible made clear that none of the 2 narrations has to be taken literally.

[@shaunrichards9211]

Anybody that thinks china is making a fucking sun what ever that means. is waisting there time thinking that they are thinking critically. someone needs to tell this guy the bible is not a textbook.

[@kirkbrajkov-kv9rc]

WELL PLAYED

[@EvilBananaWind]

So all I gotta do is say that I believe in the flat earth and I get a free trip to Antarctica?

[@BobbyT64]

Who’s gonna pay to make a fool of themselves?

[@EvilBananaWind]

@BobbyT64 Don't go name calling, that's not the spirit of TFE. Plus there are probably some flerfs in here.

[@MatthewBeachy-e2u]

How Will kept his cool with this blathering idiot is beyond me. Holy crap, that was painful.

[@Pink_Sky_By_Night_Adventures]

Would have been nice if Rob had the manners to not keep speaking over the top of Will

[@JohnVJay]

Another one who asks questions but won't stop talking long enough to get the answers.

[@dgtldrft]

on the Bible references questions; All of the references of the attributes, shape, and size of earth are analogies, figures of speech, and metaphor of Gods great power and glory, none of it is claims about earth in any precise manner. The Bible is about God, not earth, or even Gods creations, it's just useful to reference what God has created to describe Gods power and glory.

[@Famous-Potatoes]

This guy is way past being interested. His adrenaline level is off the chart. He’s been binging KZbin FLERF content and I’m sure he’s had an intense Q&A with someone from the dark side. It also seems back-up is listening in just in case. The firmament would be the universe around the earth and its interaction with the earth. The separation of the water indicated the fresh water from the salt water. The Bible is a guide and, to a certain extent, an owner’s manual. It is by no means a technical manual, a collection of schematics nor a list of all of the creators secrets. It is not for man to assume the mind of God. It is not for man to question the actions of God. God has rarely left a sign for a person or persons when they’ve requested one. On the occasions God has given a sign of his existence, many still denied and rejected it.

[@bravante5927]

This was painful. Nice guy, but the product of the US education system + religion. Deadly combo.

[@ZerzuzeXiiquin]

As far as I know God didn't say Most things in genesis. In the Book of Genesis, the accounts of God's words are generally presented through the narrative perspective of the text. There aren't instances where God speaks directly in the first person to the reader. Instead, the phrases like "And God said" are used to convey God's words as relayed by the author of the text. This approach is consistent throughout the Bible and other religious texts where divine communication is mediated through a narrative. Though God did speak in the Genisis, most times I hear someone say God said; they are not seeking of an instant where God actually spoke Directly. Example: Will Duffy said, there is no life on earth. Does that make this something Will Duffy said or factual?

[@doranku]

50:00 i understand surveying, doing that for a living..... What? How can you not know the answer to your own question in that case. The fact you use "foot" as a measurement instead of an angle, makes me think you know nothing about surveying... and you can access the equipment to do thorough reciprical zenith angle test and explain the results fir both models.

[@Ironraven001]

Dude is wrong. The sun at noon in north America right now is not directly overhead. I live in Minnesota. If I look up at noon the sun won't be directly overhead.

[@JohnVJay]

It's never directly overhead anywhere in the continental U.S. or anywhere north of the Tropic of Cancer.

[@my-name-is-taken]

Wait, this guy said he never read the bible but he thinks everything in there is the truth about our existence? How does that even makes sense?

[@thegreatshamalamadingdong9788]

The 24hr sun is near the horizon not directly over head.

[@gurbinderjhita4580]

If there's 24 hours of sun over the Antarctica all summer, then why hasn't the ice melted already?

[@Adrena1in]

The sun doesn't get high enough above the horizon to warm the area enough. Average temperatures are still way too low.

[@kitcanyon658]

That's way to simplistic understanding of weather. It isn't just the sun. But what does it really matter?

[@gurbinderjhita4580]

@kitcanyon658 Yeh, I agree. The sun being present doesn't necessarily mean the ice will melt.

[@ClyWhite-l1g]

Saying 24 hr sun is a bad idea. Just say the sun will not set for a month.

[@SciTrekMan]

The heavens isn this case is referring to the sky where the moon, stars and sun are, not the heaven why God resides. Not that hard to figure out.

[@TheBartman47]

According to the Bible, there are 3 heavens: First heaven is the firmament which is the atmosphere, the air, where the birds fly. Firmament is NOT some solid structure. Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." The second heaven is space, where the sun, moon, planets, and stars are. The third heaven is where God and the angels live. 2 Corinthians 12:2 "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven."