This is Dave's third installment in this series. I want to state for the record:

1. Dave is on to something here. These "AI models" accurately parrot based on their training data. These ARE the arguments you could have with any glober.

2. EXCEPT the LLM won't lose patience, get personally emotional and offended, devolve into name calling, rage quit, etc. Again, Dave is really onto something here.

3. These LLMs will throw ALL THE BEST ARGUMENTS from the Globe model at him. Viewers will see how Dave minces them all like a ninja wielding a katana sword. They will know who won.

4. In short, these LLM arguments are like debates only better! All the downsides of debates (length, diversions, emotions getting involved, moderators needing to step in, etc. etc.) are done away with! This is debating in 2025, and it's a vast improvement in my opinion!

5. Dave might be Jєωιѕн, but he's no fool about this one topic. He obviously has a good brain in his head.

Yeah, this one is very well done.

This pressure gradient crap is totally made up to befuddle people that otherwise spot the problem.

Let's take the very top layer of said gradient.  What's above it (according to globe model)?  Vacuum.  What's below it.  Earth + some atmosphere.  So somehow that atmosphere adds such an additional force of gravity vs. the earth alone that this top layer of the gradient is now bound whereas if it were down near the surface it's not bound?  Gravity is related to mass, so the additional mass added by the atmosphere below the top layer of said gradient would be an incredibly small fraction of a percent vs. the gravity cause by earth's mass alone.

So the top layer of the gradient would instantly peel off.

Then the next layer becomes the top layer.  It would peel off.  Rinse repeat.  Atmosphere is gone.

Dr. John D demontrated all this.  He also demonstrated that the next thing that would happen is that any water at the bottom of this system (he put water on the bottom of the vacuum chamber) would similarly expand until it turned into gas, and then the gas expanded out also, resulting in the liquid also evaporating out due to the pressure differential.

This is 100% bunk, and they know it.

Now, again, I've even tried to help the globers out with ideas.  Maybe you could claim that some atomic force is causing things to adhere, or an electromagnetic force, or perhaps there's a flow or pressure of ether causing a similar effect as a container.  All of these may be posited as valid hypotheses and then can be confirmed or falsified by experimentation.  THAT is the scientific method.  But regurgitating an explanation that's easily falsifiable just out of desperation and because it's part of the scientific narrative, that's 100% ANTI-scientific method, and they have the temerity to accuse the FEs of being ouf of step with "science".

I've said something similar about other FE observations.  Once you make the observation that things can be seen to far, don't make up BS that's been falsified, like "refraction" ... but come up with something else.  Again I've given them suggestions.  Hypothesize that the globe is at least 10x bigger than what modern science tells us.  Hypothesize that electromagnetic fields around the earth (due to the earth's electromagnetic field) bend light exactly around the contours of the globe.  Hypothesize that a flow of ether bends the light around the earth.  Lots of things you can hypothesize but then pursue with experimentation either to confirm or to falsify.  Once falsified, you either modify your hypothesis and experiment again or you come up with a new hypothesis.  But stop regurgitation the "refraction" nonsense out of sheer desperation.