/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

Owen Benjamin || M O O N W A V E

>Cavendish Experiment Proves Gravity? - (2:41 long)
>pseudoscience
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/Cavendish-Experiment-Proves-Gravity-:0
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/W2tADYOxjQu8/

-------

Transcript:
>In 1797, Henry Cavendish, the British scientist, Freemason, and wealthy grandson of the Duke of Devonshire, created an experiment which he claimed successfully proved the existence of gravity, measured its constant, and provided accurate figures for the exact masses of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and Planets. How did Cavendish achieve this quantum leap for heliocentric pseudo-science? He fixed two large lead balls on opposite ends of a torsion balance and hung them from the roof of his shed. By watching and recording slight motions of the contraption via telescope through his shed window so his mass would not affect the reading, Cavendish claimed to have proven gravity. Two small lead balls were hung near the large ones and any motion observed towards one another was touted as being the influence of gravity.
>Now, the Cavendish experiment has been widely criticized by the scientific community because never in over two centuries since its creation has anyone been able to replicate it! Firstly, the balls simply do not always attract one another as they must for the so-called gravitational constant to be constant at all. Sometimes the torsion balance turns towards the balls and sometimes away as it is impossible not to give some slight tremulous motion when interacting with it. Henry even complained in his notes how often as he was performing the measurement the contraption was still in oscillation. Secondly, since his calculated force of gravity was 10^39 weaker than the force of electro-magnetism, from which all material objects are composed, there is no control for the experiment which can factor out and positively differentiate the alleged gravitational force, from the known stronger electro-magnetic force. In other words, the balls could simply be attracting each other through static electricity, a known force existing in all things, billions of times stronger than gravity, and impossible to control for the experiment. Even though no one could replicate Cavendish’s findings, the experiment went down in history as a great success, and is still taught as veritable proof of universal gravitation in science textbooks today.

Would anyone be willing to provide me with lore pertaining to the old suns and moons in this particular image? I want inspiration for my fantasy setting. What are the black spheres next to the moons?

I've considered that a flat realm may be more interesting as a design for my fantasy setting, and I would like any unique lore that the flat realm model uses that would be inconsistent with the conventional round earth model.
It would of course be a missed opportunity to make my planet hollow, but perhaps I can work with that as physics get increasingly funky beyond the ice rings.

Another question, in the flat realm spinning model, where does the sun go when it sets, and why would it appear to dip below the horizon.
Assume I'd believe whatever you told me, but don't spare any details, as want this for worldbuilding.

>>161189
>where does the sun go when it sets, and why would it appear to dip below the horizon.
Perspective.
Read the thread for the pertinent answers, most are here.

>>161190
The thread is more than 600 posts long, so if you could help me out and point me to some post numbers, that would be much appreciated.

>>161191
I'm sure it is just a matter of time for some anon come to the rescue.

>>161192
It's also more of its own topic, tbh. I'm really only concerned with how to use this model as a fantasy cosmology. If anyone has thoughts/suggestions on that, I'd appreciate the input.

>V-2 Rocket Films (FLAT) Earth in (1946).
https://odysee.com/v-2-rocket-films-%28flat%29-earth-in-%281946%29:a

Original video, not edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjXwsj8kHT4

>Nikon P900 Stars- Real Stars and Planets vs NASA images. Stars are not what they tell us! - (4:51 long)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr6g7Pe92C4
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9mmDFd0q5Lca/

>>161378
After watching both videos, I see no evidence for a flat earth. If you would be so kind as to indicate the part that you feel is evidence, that would be great.

Okay, after scrolling through all of this, I've gotten some decent ideas for my fantasy setting.

Question for flat earthers and round earthers: How can a world larger than Earth have a lower gravity? Preferably 0.9x to 0.8x.

>>162403
Maybe if it were a gas planet? Lower mass should mean lower gravity.

>>162403
Uranus hos very low gravity, mate.

>>162403
Cull all the dense mf's, like everyone ITT

>>162403
>gravity
It doesn't exist. Think in density and buoyancy.
That said, there are 44 instances of gravity in this bread with plenty of information.

>>160435
So pic 4 does come up if you follow the link, it's page 35 if you follow the actual number of pages included in the pdf but 30 if you follow the numbers in the down-left corner of the pages.

Don't know what that means in the context of this document yet, though.

Maybe someday I'll go through this thread.

>>162417
>Don't know what that means in the context of this document yet
It means that the military and NASA make all their calculations assuming Earth is flat, otherwise the math would be so incredible complex and unmanageable that all their projects will be unpractical. Not to mention that making calculations on the assumption that Earth is flat, the math checks perfectly out.

>>162408
Uranus doesn't exist, it's a CIA psyop
>refuses to elaborare further

>>162425
>Uranus
>a so called planet
See >>162069 as an introduction.

Aeiou Stars aren't real

>Antarctica Is NOT What You Think! [CLIP]
>A video that should end the idea that we live on a globe with a southern continent at the bottom surrounding the south pole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoX27ItX22M
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/euyI2q1sZQZj/

Full Length Video on Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/post/80542/ARCHIVE

>>162583
This is why Im on about flat earth.
I agree
Its curious/suspicious that there is no presented video of a complete 360deg. shadow. That should be readily available, easy to document and produce, and that it isnt being done is worthy of significant consideration.
Which legitimately leaves us with questions about why, and to what purpose. I know what conclusion you lot wanna jump to, because you're an idealogue.
As for the lengths of the shadows,... I dont know if the videographer has ever heard of slopes. Cuz you can very clearly obser e slopes in all the 'elongated/short' shadow videos.

Ive said it before, Ill say it again. There are a number of unanswered question about the globe model.
However, there are vastly more unanswered questions about a flat earth model, and until such a time as a flat earth model can be producex, from which a predictive model can be observed and validated through trial, its lunacy to attempt to throw out the globe, especially withiut being able to explain why calculus doesnt work.

Any day now on that.
Let me rephrase that. Lets assume the earth IS flat.
Why then does calculus apply cohesively to a multitude of naturally occurring phenomena, except the planet?
Am I to assume calculus is part of the masonic nasa conspiracy?

Another rephrase: Why does calculus produce cohesive results that indicate a globe model if the earth is flat? If calculus were capable of quantifying and predicting all walks of natural phenomena with accuracy, why does that accuracy dissolve when applied to the globe, especially in that the same multi-genre cohesion can be observed to indicate a globe?
Simply
>Calculus is a perfectly viable, until you apply it to the globe.
Why?
Bonus points if you approach the question from an arbitrary standpoint, as opposed to starting from... your usual.
>>149639
>>149962
>>149974
>>154733
Golly, I wonder why these posts dont warrant an answer/response

>>162586
>Calculus
Are you referring to trigonometry?

>>162590
Did Newton invent trigonometry to map the circumference of the planet?

Wow, a lengthy silence; I assume OP is versing himself with Calculus. This is not to cast aspersions on trig, its more to say that simplified equations on the internet will never give values that will match in-field values. The planet is far more nuanced than a simple equation or ratio of slope over distance.
>>162422
>otherwise the math would be so incredible complex and unmanageable that all their projects will be unpractical.
You said it, not me

>>162598
>I assume OP is versing himself with Calculus
No nigger, I'm cooking diner after a long day.

>>162598
>This is not to cast aspersions on trig, its more to say that simplified equations on the internet will never give values that will match in-field values.
WTF are you talking about, math is math. Give some example where math won't apply.

>>162732
Can someone explain to this nigger what relativity is
And whiplash

>>162733
>relativity
>whiplash
Movies?

>>162733
At least you tried

>>162600
Newton's planetary calculations. Go on, explain where he went wrong.

>>162736
>calculations
There's nothing wrong with them. The problem is that Newton assumes a heliocentric system, which is a fiction of course.

>>162737
Are you of the position that he didnt validate his calculations through testing?

>>162738
>validate
>testing
The calculations are fine, the issue is that they are applied to a theoretical model impossible to verify.
NASA and other transnational agencies claiming the existence of space are lying.

>>162739
So thats a yes then? You unironically believe that he invented Calculus, but didnt bother to perform a single experiment to test his findings?

>>162740
>You unironically believe that he invented Calculus
Your words, not mine.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would strongly disagree.
>but didnt bother to perform a single experiment to test his findings?
And how would he? Testing the numbers against moving celestial objects may match, but the core of the issue is if those objects in the firmament are really planets as Newton assumed.

GAME OVER GLOBERS.

>>162789
There's even a specific wikipedia on this for Norway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_of_Norway
>A straight line along Norway's sea borders (the coastal perimeter) is 2,650 kilometers (1,650 mi) long.[1][2] Along the coast there are many fjords, islands, and bays, resulting in a low-resolution coastline of over 25,000 kilometers (16,000 mi).[3] At 30-meter (98 ft) linear intercepts, this length increases to 83,281 kilometers (51,748 mi)[4] (see the coastline paradox)

And then like that says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

>>162790
>Benoit Mandelbrot
Yes, his observations on the dynamics of planes will very neatly put the final nail in the flat earth coffin, assuming we get to it

>>162791
>his observations on the dynamics of planes will very neatly put the final nail in the flat earth coffin
Interesting. Would you deliver?

>>162792
(you) of all anons ought appreciate the irony when I say
>Spoonfeeding Request: DENIED

How are either of you retards supposed to convince each other if neither of you ever want to put in the minimum effort to "spoon-feed" the over party?
It's the same shit every week with you fucks. Ffs, just explain your viewpoints.

>>162794
They enjoy the attention that they get from each other more than the arguments themselves.

>>162794
Either side would claim that the minimal-to-moderate effort has since been applied, and in their specific mentalities they would be right.
Both parties feel justified in disregarding any/all of the opposition arguments, and point tontheir opponent's inabikity to see what they see as evidence of the other's folly.

>>162795
>>162796
It's all so tiresome.

>>162797
Tired no longer friend. The horizon will always be flat.

>>162798
>Pic
This is facebook tier retardation

>>162799
Welcome to the flat earth thread

>>162801
And yet, globers cannot prove the curve, unless NASA told me so.

>>162802
So how autistic are you?

>>162803
>personal matters
Stick to the topic.

>>162802
Its been countless times, in countless ways, by countless methods.
A bit hyperbolic, the point being that (you) and your lot have JUST enough technical knowledge to THINK youve unassailable proof, when all you have is a bunch of experiments that need to be reevaluated.
Cuz thats how science works. When an experiment gives results outside the well-established expectation, you first vet the experiment, not the well-established finding. Becaude at the end of the day, theres more money in refuting a well established finding than the theory that comes of it.
I would love to be presented with the same experiment conducted by numerous people using different equipment and achieving the same/correlating results. But I dont, all I have is a bunch of niche attempts to conduct an experiment that dont pass the most basic threshold for anything more than data sampling.
And thats what (you) have presented as evidence, which when asked for specifics, BEGAN the infamous 'spoonfeed denied' campaign.
TL;DR OP cant put up but wont shut up

>>162805
Allow me to synthesize the curve issue here: "Fake Science" fed by the freemasons.

>And thats what (you) have presented as evidence, which when asked for specifics, BEGAN the infamous 'spoonfeed denied' campaign.
I disagree, you and your cohorts can not ask for specifics when the bread has plenty of it. And the very reason is because you are unwilling to research more, let alone to read this whole thread.

>>162804
How can the earth be flat when its hollow? It can be only one, and its not flat.
>>162806
How are the jews involved?

>>162809
>How are the jews involved?
Not the jews per se, but the masons.
Read the bread for details.

>>162810
>Not the jews
Opinion discarded

>>162808
That's why you need to lurk moar.

>>162811
Oh its not just that its not the Jews, but:
the moon is fake (not a planetoid)
the planets are fake (cuz a nikon camera yo)
the stars are fake (theyre not stars, theyre... did I mention the nikon camera?)
and much more!
Go on, sift through thenpages of that shit. Or else you're a shill, or braindead. Thats OPs position.

>>162813
>Thats OPs position.
Actually is not only OP's position, but hard evidence posted here.
(You) have plenty of time to debunk it, and yet (you) squandered it with strawmans and character assassination attempts.
Go figures.

We pointed at two boats with lasers
we cant do simple math
our homemade rockets ran into atmopheric conditions, er, the firmament dome
ANTARCTICA
we cant comprehend scale, dimension, or circular/spherical-obloid geometry
... all for the low low price of hours+ of your time!

>>162815
>we cant do simple math
Now you are being maliciously deceptive, aka dishonest.
The math is already set by the freemasons stating that the supposed globe has a radius of 3,959 miles, experiments debunk that in an unequivocal way.
See >>149071 pic 3.
Stop lying.

Flat Earth is a Jewish psyop to make right wingers look like retards.

>>162817
Sure, if (you) can debunk it, but you cannot.

>>162818
I could, but you'd pretend that it's bullshit, like a good shabbos goy.

>>162798
It does cut through the Earth. It's a magnetic field. What did you think?

>>162822
Wait until he gets to the part about gravity 'not being real'

>>162822
>>162798
Оh, you mean compasses don't point into the ground? Compasses can't even point down so they'd just rotate on the axis they can point to anyway. But it's a field. It's going along the axis not pointing straight at the North. We see the same thing on smaller observable scales too

>>162823
GRAVITY holds no WATER
*deflated beach ball*

lol wut

>>162825
>Flat Earth Society
Controlled opposition. If you actually read this thread you would already know it.

Some rocket surfing the dome.

>Chris UK - Globe Lie Gamechanger
>The following video portrays a scientifically proven analysis that not only questions the preconditioned narrative that we live on a spinning ball but also how that information has been packaged into a format that pertains to alleviate any doubt regarding the shape, structure, and multifaceted dynamics of how our world and the universe can exist. We can choose to follow the status quo and never question the world we live in, or, we can choose to disseminate the evidence, open our eyes, and realise that truth can only be obtained when science and our senses are coaligned.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Awq4-ETSTbw/
The video has some math and might not be suitable for most ballers.

Flat eartherism is a psyop to distract whites from jews because there are no jews to talk about when it comes to radio waves or centrifugal force

>>162861
There are freemasons and that is close enough as freemasonry is judaism for the goyim.

>>162861
I feel like either way it's mostly just schizos, but this makes more sense than the other conspiracy. I still don't know what they gain from saying the Earth is round if it's flat. Best answer I've gotten is something vague about defying god because bible says it's flat

>>162863
>I still don't know what they gain
The truth.

https://youtu.be/4Qpzl8bWMnI
While not appearing to be a strict flatty in a literal sense, analysis of this guy can offer insight into the dynamic in which a flat earther conceptualizes and formulates their worldview and argues their case.
Note, he is at no point making an argument. His points have the appearance of arguments, but all he is arguing is his personal disbelief, based on a lack of comprehension of what he is seeing. This is the trap flat earthers beckon reasonable skeptics into, and why 'debates' and discussions with flat earthers never go anywhere.
Its not about arguing facts and evidence, because if facts and evidence were comprehended there'd be no argument.
Flat earthers insist on arguing their diabelief, which is as subjective as what one thinks 'the best flavor of ice cream is'. Additionally, flatties positions (from their perspective) is actually insulated by a lack of comprehension.
Now, a skeptical person wouldnt conclude either a flat or a round earth, they would keep asking questions to determine which viewpoints, data sets, figures, and values are corroborrated by other experiments and data sets. Eventually, those values will coalesce into an aggregated spectrum of concurrence and consistency.
Flat earthers however have already jumped the shark and have wilfully vested their interest in proving/promoting flat earth rather than asking the questions that would lead them to a viable and predictive model that can withstand scrutiny.
In short, being a flat earther is about promoting a 'flat earth' - as in, an ideologue - rather than pursuing a framework that explains all the observable phenomena, while accounting for a flat earth.
You cant educate a person on how ignorant they are of the existing science when their worldview depends on that ignorance, and they will resent you for trying. Protip: thats what the Psalm(?) about pearls before wolves/dogs is about.

>>162875
>but all he is arguing is his personal disbelief, based on a lack of comprehension of what he is seeing
Projecting much?
By the way, that man is using his brain and bases his belief on a very real phenomena: entropy.
On the other hoof, globers base their faith on establishment's fairy tales.

>>162877
If the earth is flat, why do Radio Towers work best when they are tall?
The earth is not flat, and Radio Towers are tall so their signal can travel around the globe better.

>>162936
>African charlatan
Try again.

>>162937
Not an argument.
The point is: if gravity isnt real, the moon isnt real, the earth is flat etc.,
Explain the tides

>>162938
>Not an argument.
Pretty much it is. Taking seriously an African in art, philosophy, science, or logic, is preposterous.

>>162941
Tides, wh3n3ver you're ready

>thinks an ad hominem is an argument
This thread, in a nutshell

Unscientific nonsense like Terrain Theory and Flat Earth are PsyOps to make any site that welcomes talk of it look unappealing.

Where do discussions about these things go?

Do the Flat Earthers have answers for why trebuchet calculations must account for the curvature of the earth to hit their targets, and why they miss their targets if they assume the earth is flatter or more curved than it actually is?

Can Terrain Theorists explain Antibiotics?

>>162946
>psyop
Concurred
https://youtu.be/he-7vs0BkLE
One should draw their own conclusions

>>163010
>One should draw their own conclusions
I did.
DITRH allowed the glober to win. Why? I don't know.
Going straight to the basic facts: If there is not curve, then there is not planet, then there is not space, then there is not universe, and the whole fake science comes down in a spectacular fashion.