/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.

>>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?