วีดีโอ

Thank you. More coming your way very soon!

Thanks a lot!

Thanks! I suppose it wouldn't be too surprising if there are still some typos lurking - contact@stevenyoung.uk

@ thank you for being so cool with my comment. I hesitated for a while before I finally sent it as I certainly do not wish to rain on your parade. It’s a wonderful read and you are a special gift to the world. Truly.

​@@lolaisawake Ah no it's all good, i'm happy to learn of typos in the book so I can fix them and make it better. I wrote the preface tongue-in-cheek, tbh didn't really expect the book to be perfect, even the second edition, but it's a big improvement on v1.

Just watched your 1st video on the channel. My gf is from Bonar Bridge. Her parents own land and built her childhood home on Loch Migdale. I'm so glad to here a familiar voice cover such topics!

I'm a Fifer :)

@steven_a_young Ah, you're a neebur. Certainly not broad enough to detect anyway. I'm a Leither. Binge watched all your videos mate, looking forward to more 👍🏼

No. I'm just saying that the distance to the stars is a calculation based on the theory of gravity and stacks of other unproven assumptions about the universe. Astrology has no concern for distance to stars, it's all about the position in the sky, the angle and timing of the stars. In astrology stars are viewed as rays of light. In astrophysics they are believed to be physical material objects.

Ah ha! Well spotted!! I didn't plan that actually. Did you also notice that it's chapter 22, and 22/7 = pi

@steven_a_young no, I didn't spot that - that's advanced level maths for me! 😲😂 That just made it way cooler - I'm going to have to read the book again, see what else is hidden in plain sight! ☮️💟

Love this, thank you! Yes, in 2020 I began looking to the churches as I expected they would have known, or at least have resisted the blatantly evil agenda, but instead they were all pushing masks, jabs and social distancing and closing their doors to people. Then when they reopened, seeing people going to church in facemasks was so dystopian. The devil must have been cackling all the way to the bank!

​@steven_a_young I am a Muslim homeschooling mom who has come a long way :) I saw the same nonesense in mosques, esp among the religipus lot and it broke my heart. Very few of our scholars saw the lies. But they weren't very famous. I had a rude awakening regarding the Scolars I looked upto :( I have learned so much from ppl who may not share the same religion (and I think that's not important anymore) but are some of the most enlightened and beautiful souls. I am so grateful to God for sending them in my life. I have immense respect and love for them all. May God bless them , protect them, and keep guiding them to truth eternally. Ameen We are all ONE:)

Actually not so much. Nobody is begging me to make music, I just do it for my own personal joy. It all changed in 2020 of course. True colours were revealed. I still love making music, but the industry disgusts me tbh.

You'd need to give info about the specific flight you are referring to, and how long it takes. I'm not aware of any flights that do that. The flights from SA to Chile, go via West Africa and Brazil, then to Chile. So they follow a perfect straight line on the AE flat map. The quickest flight takes about 25 hours and has 3 stops. Similar duration as flights from UK to Australia.

@steven_a_young There must be some flights that are direct. What makes me suspicious is these provide the most obvious proof or disproof so I should see more about them but I've looked at maybe 10 hours of FE materials and not seem them covered in detail.

@@ThePallidor Respectfully, looking into all the flight paths was one of the first things people look into when researching all this. Loads of pilots are flat earthers. Try not to put it all on me, it requires self-study. You said 'there must be a flight' so go and see if you can find evidence of it. That's what the rest of us had to do, you don't need to believe me.

@@steven_a_young I understand, and I will look on my own, but as a meta-observation this really should be put front and center if the evidence is there (for whichever side is right).

@@ThePallidor Just for context, this was a huge topic of interest online back in 2015-2016, before it was heavily censored, and there were lots of channels covering it, studying all the flight paths, talking to pilots etc. So for me I went through all this nearly 10 years ago, and I didn't start this channel to repeat everything that others have said on the subject. I'm just being honest with my audience that I am globe skeptic and have been for a long time. When someone is new to flat earth, they have a lot of questions, it's only natural. But every question you can possibly have has already been asked and answered many times by many different people (we all received the same indoctrination). Each individual needs to do the research for themselves before becoming convinced of anything. That's why the original slogan was "RESEARCH flat earth".

Stationary earth is an observation, not a theory. I don't believe it is all relative.

Thank you for the support!

Hi, I cover this in depth in the book, and also had a great chat about it on recent podcast with Michael Ashley. But it's basically a giant kettle, uses hot metal (uranium) to heat water, creates steam to drive turbines.

@steven_a_young Thank you for answering. Search for Michael Ashley and Steven Young yields a lot of football... would you be able to send me a link to the podcast? I figured it might be something along those lines, since it is like you said basically a steam plant,, still confused about all the engineers not realising there's no fission occurring and all the waste products etc. Hopefully you explain that in the podcast. TY.

@@c3N3q yes of course, sorry. Here is the podcast: th-cam.com/video/IEmW6b9rUQw/w-d-xo.html There is also a playlist on my channel with all of the podcasts I've done lately. This topic comes up in all of them. Also look into Galen Winsor, he was head of nuclear fuel inventory for US government, and he explains everything about how the plants work and it was all perfectly safe, no radioactivity etc.

@steven_a_young why didn't I take a look at your channel 🙄 thank you.

Thank you! I know FE can be too much for folk. I held back from talking about it for like 8 years, but the reasons to doubt the globe just kept mounting up. I never wanted to be a flat earther, nobody does. But eventually got to a point where I had to be honest with myself, I have no evidence I'm on a giant spinning ball flying through space, and it seems nobody else does either. But yes, if it's all a simulation then I suppose its a moot point, this might be why simulation theory becoming so popular.

Awesome comment George, thank you brother!

My theories? I have no theories, I am simply questioning the theories we're taught to believe at school. I am not oblivious to the Foucault Pendulum, I'm just not capable of the mental gymnastics necessary to infer from a pendulum that the earth is rotating. If earth was rotating there wouldn't be a stationary pendulum anywhere, they'd all be swinging without us needing to push them. Plus the Foucault pendulum is not consistent at all, it circles in both directions randomly and doesn't maintain a fixed 24 hour cycle. More discerning scientists have known for over a century that this trick proves nothing except the gullibility of the masses who believe it shows the earth rotating.

First of all, your claim that "you have no theories" is absolutely false. Thinking that the Earth does NOT rotate is a theory (aka model), just as thinking that the Earth does rotate. Both these assertions are theories. Hell, even the concept of Earth -- the idea that we live on a giant ball IS a theory. So don't give me that "I have no theories": opening your mouth and having an opinion about *anything* is called having a theory! Now that's out of the way, on to the slightly more technical part... I can't believe that I'll have to explain this to someone with a PhD in science but stranger things have happened lately so: the way "this" (this = approaching the truth, approximating what is "really" going on, not just in science but anywhere really; science has just formalized it / made it more rigorous) works is as follows: 1. There is reality. Humans are unable to perfectly grasp reality (which is infinite in nature), so we necessarily make models. Without *models* of reality we could not possibly do *anything* as finite beings -- we would drown in that infinitude. You with me so far? 2. So the question becomes -- in a particular situation, of all the available models (which in practice means "among a finite set of models that I can think of and handle"), what is the one that best explains the outcome of my experiment? 3. In this case, the Foucault pendulum gives you a rather specific pattern, if you trace its motion across time. So the question is: does your theory (yes, your THEORY) that the Earth does NOT rotate account for the pendulum's pattern better than the alternative theory that the Earth rotates? If so, and if you can *demonstrate* this to me, I will accept it. Otherwise, on what grounds are you choosing your theory over the prevailing one (ie the rotating Earth)? Notice that I'm not even saying that "the Earth is rotating" is the ONLY scenario that explains the pattern. I'm merely asking whether your scenario that "the Earth is not rotating" explains it too or, even better, whether it explains in a better way (ie your theory's *prediction* matches the experiment better than the competitor theory's prediction). If you do the math (which you admitted that you are unable to), you'd find out that your model *cannot* explain the pattern, unless you assume some additional mechanism at play (maybe an evil demon that tries to deceive us all by pulling the pendulum with a hidden magnet to make it look like it would move if the Earth rotated). Last but not least... " If earth was rotating there wouldn't be a stationary pendulum anywhere, they'd all be swinging without us needing to push them." This is patently wrong. What makes you think you know what you're talking about here? Have you actually tried to put a pendulum on a rotating body (like a merry-go-round) of constant angular velocity and verified that it "swings without being pushed"? Lots of wrong statements here, and the sad thing is: you could have proved to yourself these are wrong very easily.

@ stationary earth isn’t a theory, it’s an observation. Like the water is wet, or the sky is blue. The earth is stationary. If you believe it’s a giant merry-go-round because of a pendulum swing then you believe in a theory.

No, it is a theory. The actual observation is an image (colours, contours/shapes etc) and bodily sensations (eg proprioceptive feedback from what you THEORY calls "the ground"). You ALWAYS have a theory about basically everything -- why can't you accept that? Your so-called observations are actually models. Imagine you were on an actual merry-go-round: YOU wouldn't observe yourself to be moving, would you? YOU are always stationary with respect to yourself. Furthermore, other people sitting on the merry-go-round with you would also appear stationary. How would you know you were on the merry-go-round? Everything outside the merry-go-round would appear to you to be rotating. Now try telling your friends who are waiting on the ground that you're not actually rotating on the merry-go-round but that you're stationary and that this is an "observation" (and that they themselves are spinning around you but you're not even sure because that's a "theory"). They would call you insane, and rightly so.

​@@gregolas17 Stationary earth is not a theory, no matter how many times you say it. It is the rotating earth and heliocentrism that are theories, this is widely known in the history of science. The problem with your analogy is twofold, first - you feel centrifugal force when your rotating on a merry go round, so that would be one way you'd know you were spinning. Secondly, if the earth is the merry-go-round, then there would be no 'friends waiting on the ground' they'd all be on it with you, otherwise they'd have to be hanging in outer space, stationary with respect to the rotating earth (another impossibility according to relativity).

Nobody works with neutrons, they are theoretical. The energy that can be quite dangerous to biological life is called 'heat'. But if you have proof neutrons exist, please do send it to me, i've been looking for 25 years!

Mainly just grammatical, improvement of sentence structure, some small corrections, additions and clarifications, better use of full stops and apostrophes etc. Preface and new cover. But no changes to the overall story or the arguments therein. It's been tightened up with 'better english'.

Thanks for the question. I do address all the aspects of this in my book, whether it be the bomb, the power stations, radioactivity and radiant materials, or the theoretical models of the atom and the assumptions it rests on etc. I have elaborated on this in podcasts, especially the recent one with Michael Ashely, for example. I'd recommend checking that out, he had some great questions on all this, and we got deep into it.

Ah thank you Nessa! I'm still a student myself in many ways :)

It should be, if the video creator is being honest. Computers are designed to accurately reproduce frequencies, so if it's made in 432 tuning then it should stay that way when playing it back. Some people claim that spotify or apple retunes music to 440, but that's not true, it's just that 99% of the music is made in 440.

Thank you! Welcome to the channel :)

Thanks Jackie! :)

I learned from the best of them ;)