/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

>>163010
This is a summary of the debate. Very poor indeed.

>>163011
>DITRH allowed the glober to win
You have evidence of this?
>curve
I already showed you, ITT, with evidence from one of your fancy Nikon P1000's.

>>163014
So are you the same guy that spergs about the KGB?

>>163015
Flail harder flatty.
Tide
Go on, explain it. Cuz the tide has been a thing since during EVERY-centric, every curve-or-not-curve culture.

Be a good lad, tell me how the tides work.
It should be easy, I could map it quite simply using many flat earth pizzas. The why or how though....

God dammit

>>163015
Yeah, it is he same kike.

>>163019
Deflect harder flaggit.
The Tide. Any day now.

I call it the roving titty model. This accurately displays the phenomenon of tidal forces, on the flat earth. Cuz its totally flat y'all

Overhead view.
See how the nipple represents the peak of the tide on the respective half of the pizza, the titty expanding ourward in an ovoid titty shape. Dont question it, boobies

sideways view, line pointing toward north pole

>>163013
>>163023
>>163024
>>163025
>tides
I don't know much about tides, but you look obsessed by then.
So I investigated a bit and I found the usual sources claiming the existence of the moon's gravitational force as responsible. Of course that's pure non-sense based on faith. Then I went to a reputable source to find out about and perhaps to please your curiosity.

>Eric Dubay: Cause of the Tides (13:53 long)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEP3zhso8jE
Mirror:
https://odysee.com/@TheFlatEarthAwakening:0/eric-dubay-cause-of-the-tides-on-flat:b
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3kYRA7SE8We6/

>>163033
>I dont know
Holy shit! Shocking. Thats the first scientific position youve taken all thread. Are you feeling okay?
Meanwhile, Dubay
>It doesnt make sense to me so its bullshit
Yeah, he says that alot. I did get a laugh out of pic 1 tho
>pic 2
Is that a hollow earth diagram?
>Mount Meru at the north pole
Citations Needed
Seriously, Im curious about this, and anecdotes dont cut it. If these e plorers found it, it should be repeatable.
Again, this seems to support hollow earth because meanwhile....

Gonna get spec ific now, because the debate had a designated time structure.
How is this phenomenon possible?, where the stars can be observed to rotate in opposite directions, if its a flat earth?

https://youtu.be/bvi9jjyVuGo
Not sure what current events look like, but was very interested to see that Dubay has been somewhat uninvoted from FE conferences and panels? Ngl, I find his position on the Holocaust, Jews, and international finance to be quite CREDIBLE. Ngl, this is the first time he has said anything that make me want to have sterilized his parents

>>163036
*makes me not want to have

>Clouds behind the sun
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tBUui1UTPtM4/
Just a curiosity. /s

>>163033
>a reputable source
Are you being serious?

>>163077
Unironically, he is serious

>>163077
Absolutely. Dead serious.

>Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
>The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations
>What do we really know about our universe?
>Born out of a cosmic explosion 13.8 billion years ago, the universe rapidly inflated and then cooled, it is still expanding at an increasing rate and mostly made up of unknown dark matter and dark energy ... right?
>This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with observations of the distant universe.
>In recent months, new measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of universal expansion, suggested major differences between two independent methods of calculation. Discrepancies on the expansion rate have huge implications not simply for calculation but for the validity of cosmology's current standard model at the extreme scales of the cosmos.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/
Take a comfy seat and enjoy an admission of scientific baloney when claims that are stated as fact are just deliriant theories. Hypothesis are not facts, but just speculation.

>>163085
But you said that outer space was fake

>>163090
Correct. Cosmologists base their theories on a false paradigm.

>>163091
But the guy in the article mentions the space telescopes. Is he in on the con?

>>163093
I have to guess that it is the same case like the normies. They believe that the "data" and "CGI" is real.

>>163094
But this is the same guy you're presenting as refuting the con. So which is it?

>>163095
>So which is it?
It is that you have comprehension difficulties.
The guy is not refuting the con, but admits that establishment' scientific theories are shaky at best and driven by ideology, not facts.

>>163096
But its Scientific American, arent they like the head of the Freemasonic Jewish round-earth psyop? Shouldnt we be distrusting them?

>>163109
>playing riddles
Try harder.

>>163110
Im just clarifying that unless they say something that you think supports your argument you present them as relevance, but the 99.99% of the time they go against your argument that theyre Nasa-masonic shills in on the psyop.

>>163111
So?

>>163112
So 99.99% of the time theyre actively involved in the psyop, which is something you can arbitrarily determine just by who they are, EXCEPT for 0.01% of the time when they are saying something that still supports the other 99.99% of their content (which you have already 'refuted'as 'disinfo'), but tangentially gives a nod to the need for more expansive models.
Nothing about his paper says anything that refutes a spherocal earth model, in fact the entirety of the content is based around such models.
In what way was posting that article credible to a flat earth position?

>>163113
I believe you are projecting and what you describe applies to (you).
You consider the information valid if only comes from oligarch funded sources, but independent ones are dismissed. But when some of the first bring doubt, you resort to a futile attempt to discredit OP's deluge of facts.

>>163115
Suit yourself.

Heres a quick way to observe that the flat earth model is BS.
How come, if the sun is actually a disk some thousand miles away, why does it never distort in perspective?
If the earth were flat, the disk that is the sun would appear increasingly oval over distance due to perspective.

Clarifying for posterity
If the sun (and the moon) were disks, the only way they could appear as round is if they were perfectly perpendicular to the observer's position. As such, a person on the east coast viewing the evening sun could not see a round sun at the same time someone on the west coast viewing the afternoon sun perfectly round.
Unless.
A. The sun was actually impossibly far away
and/or
B. The sun is a sphere

>>163118
>Clarifying for posterity
Eww, no.
You are obfuscating for posterity.
From where did you get the idea that the sun and moon are disks?

>>163118
I give you a hint.

@163121
This, sun's literally just a giant lamp from the heavens

>>163121
>where did you get the idea
Its been proclaimed by many of the 'sources' ITT, including you implicitly, in your attempts to claim that the planets/space phenomenon in general is a psyop.

>>163122
Imagine thinking this is an intelligent post

>>163125
Actually a wise post.

>>163124
The idea that the moon might be a disk has some ground, but it has not been proven, the same goes for the sun.
See the translucent moon and through it, a star.

>>163118
>Clarifying for posterity
>If the sun (and the moon) were disks, the only way they could appear as round is if they were perfectly perpendicular to the observer's position. As such, a person on the east coast viewing the evening sun could not see a round sun at the same time someone on the west coast viewing the afternoon sun perfectly round.
Ahem.

>>163129
You're not seeing the blue sky behind it, you're seeing the sky in front of it.
The sky is milky blue because of the color of the atmosphere. The moon is beyond the edge of the atmosphere, so part of it that isn't illuminated looks like the sky.

>>163132
>>163134
>Source: some random faggot
The only thing gayer than deboonking with snopes is deboonking with quora.

>>163135
Do these pedos draw their power from glober souls?!

>>163132
>Blue fog
It is speculation and I didn't find any research about it.
Still, why a supposedly solid object in the sky let us see stars through it remains a mystery.

>>163135
>>163136
Remember these? >>162945 >>162938

>>163139
tks for the yous

>>163140
>https://www.quora.com/If-the-moon-truly-is-a-large-spherical-rock-why-can-we-see-stars-through-it
>Don't fall for stupid meme
Like NASA's?

>whataboutism
Don't worry anon, we all know it's just those pesky G5 towers dumbing you down.

Would you consider the possibility that the moon is actually self-luminescent?

>>163144
It's reflective. It reflects the flight of the sun from the illuminated side.

>>163142
Make an actual counter-argument.

When this thread inevitably gets re-made, make sure it has IDs so that we can have real arguments with consistency.

>>163147
But anon, the flatty doesnt WANT arguments with consistency, he cant even be bothered to make arguments other than to point at videos and say 'its in there somewhere'.
Meanwhile if you post something incontravertable - and dobthe labor of providing screenshots, he'll ignore it entirely or (worse) will refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
Like here:
>>159481
Speaking of horseshit, remember this time?
Fuck IT, lets make it a double-feature! LITERALLY!
https://youtu.be/3OfbwhU5PQk

>>163308
I just think there'd be better discussions if it were more obvious when posters made arguments that directly contradicted each other.

>>163130
You don't see specular highlights on the moon because it's a very rough object with a high brightness. Here's it in blender

>>163310
I admire your optimism

>Globe shills.
Damn.

>>163147
Seriously though, why would it get remade? You do know that there's no bump-limit on /vx/ right?

>>163331
Yeah. The thread is fine how it is.
Globers' bullying can't stop the truth.

>>163332
Yeah, this is the flatty, who doesnt want ids.
I didnt say there wasnt anything wrong with this thread, only an idiot would think that (proven right again), and lo along comes the idiot to proclaim such.
I was just alluding to the fact that there is no need to repost a thread cuz golly gee, I wonder WHY threads on /vx/ dont have a bump limit.
Thats disingenuous, I know exactly why, I just wonder if anyone ELSE thinks it was a bad idea

>>163331
Threads have bump limits, they just don't slide.

>>163333
I think all boards could benefit to have shorter bump limits, tbh. It's unhealthy for threads to go on this long.

I might make a thread about the ideas that come with flat-realm cosmologies in fantasy settings.
A lot of conventional fantasy settings assume a standard planetary model for their material planes, but have infinite/expanding flat realms for their extraplanar space. The concept of an infinite flat realm surrounded by concentric ice rings where the borders of reality grow thin is a world-building cosmology I want to experiment with; it could be good for pony-themed games.

The ice rings could be something like the Dark Continent in the Magi setting. Perhaps also a shadowy spot in the center of creation where new suns are born.

>>163334
Incorrect, /vx/ bump limits were removed

>>163335
>It's unhealthy for threads to go on this long.
What happen? Is truth too hard for ya?

Imagine being so ignorant that you insulate yourself from your own incompetence and then smugly shove it in everyone's face, under the pretemse that everyone ELSE is stupid.

>>163341
No, it's that threads dragging on for a long time without being remade causes decline in discussion quality within those threads.
I was referring more to the main board though.

>>163342
Better you should prove Earth is round. Can ya?

>163344

>>159481
Waiting on you sweet-cheeks

>>163348
>>163349
Do you realize the huge effort NASA and its followers are putting to shut up just a tiny minority who disagree? Quite remarkable. Isn't it?

>>163350
>You do realize theres alot of people telling me Im an idiot
Maybe, just maybe, you ARE an idiot

>>163351
Name calling doesn't make Earth a ball.
Try again with facts next time.

Behold, spacetime.

>>163354
The Ponker Po

>>163353
Well every time I do you either cant comprehend them, call the authors/videographers names, or outright ignore incontravertable evidence. So no, you get what you fucking deserve

>>163350
>huge effort
Not really.

>>163361
>Flat Earth Society
>controlled opposition
Take a hike, shill.

>>163361
>low effort shilling
You have to come with something more creative. For example explain why there is not curve at all.

>>163363
Why would I lie though?

Transoceanic flights prove a flat earth.

>>163365
>trans-atlantic flights dont go direct from the bottom of africa to australia
>flat earth is the ONLY explanation
Literally lmao rn, ty

>>163366
>unable to connect the dots
(You) must be college educated.

>>163367
>music and psychology
Guilty
So, in your 'dot connecting', where does profit motive apply?