This thread is meant to debunk the deranged idea that our realm is a planet floating in space.
If the so called established science can't be challenged, then it's not science, but religion.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
Merry Christmas and Happy Hearth's Warming Everyone and Everypony!
[YouTube] The True Gift of GiftingIf you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/
File (): EBB8999170B861DACE0B30BD4B4E3775-880166.jpg
(859.5 KB, 1200x800, thtfx.jpeg)
File (): 5AFBC2B050DCE12E59A35BCA999CD5AD-6936214.gif
(6.6 MB, 900x900, 900px-SunAnimation.gif)
2720 replies and 1413 files omitted.
>flat earthers any time their shit is disproven
File (): F940BA84E71942A365F846AE7E2763B4-5749442.mp4
(5.5 MB, Resolution:480x480 Length:00:03:06, Owen Benjamin M O O N W A V E.mp4)
[play once] [loop]
Owen Benjamin || M O O N W A V E
File (): 2E9CB90CFD8D33F1E2085B37F3B69AAA-39387.jpg
(38.5 KB, 513x338, e29e6ed442240d7b 9.jpg)
>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.
>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.
File (): AA305408CBEE9B2710A6DC377128539C-96830.jpg
(94.6 KB, 1200x965, 27AE0E9CED3DF682C06301343DE85B14-96812.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
File (): 0A980134D53A9728FE9E8943DA5CDE81-162635.jpg
(158.8 KB, 800x800, 26wef8.jpg)
>>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.
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.
File (): F95AC428A4EF34491684A9ADB311B104-772812.png
(754.7 KB, 1347x768, 1.png)
NEW - Mar 3, 2022
CNN hit piece on Flat Earth
>Why some people STILL believe the Earth is flat
>Flat Earth videos rack up huge views on the Internet — but how could anyone believe such a fundamentally false idea? Daily Beast reporter Kelly Weill joins John Avlon on this week’s Reality Check to discuss her new book and explain how social media has given an old conspiracy theory a huge boost - and the best way to convince someone to leave these cult-like groups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTSJC9Tmt4E
CNN hit piece on Flat Earth
>Why some people STILL believe the Earth is flat
>Flat Earth videos rack up huge views on the Internet — but how could anyone believe such a fundamentally false idea? Daily Beast reporter Kelly Weill joins John Avlon on this week’s Reality Check to discuss her new book and explain how social media has given an old conspiracy theory a huge boost - and the best way to convince someone to leave these cult-like groups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTSJC9Tmt4E
File (): 91497C30D7A020AB391C8BC084A98003-8140525.mp4
(7.8 MB, Resolution:640x480 Length:00:02:02, V-2 Rocket Films (FLAT) Earth in (1946).mp4)
[play once] [loop]
>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
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
File (): 9C299308D3C68712B5E5DD5F8F13A142-47771.jpg
(46.7 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)
>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/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr6g7Pe92C4
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9mmDFd0q5Lca/
>>162069
>in this video people unironically think that a Nikon camera is giving them an undistorted picture
>in this video people unironically think that a Nikon camera is giving them an undistorted picture
>>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.
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.
File (): 42C41C3AB1241561EDC9402E433CA2A8-81721.png
(79.8 KB, 521x482, 1575337360396.png)
File (): 114AC5A67903EC0B91526DE734E3B62F-37319.jpg
(36.4 KB, 472x432, fmp,x_small,gloss,wall_texture,product,750x1000.u1.jpg)
>>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.
>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.
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.
>>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.
>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.
File (): ACA2BDB47A357B06B20AECF5C44B39A3-326681.png
(319.0 KB, 2048x1536, ACA2BDB47A357B06B20AECF5C44B39A3-326681.png)
Zero doubt, this will be ironically weaponized but thats fine cuz you cant fake authenticity
File (): A317702C5B97FDCB8462C6CBE5392787-62682.jpg
(61.2 KB, 960x530, hqdefault.jpg)
>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
>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?
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
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
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
>>162422
>otherwise the math would be so incredible complex and unmanageable that all their projects will be unpractical.
You said it, not me
>>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.
>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.
File (): A18D7CA2C0ED49FF8B15096CCF8335AC-381680.jpg
(372.7 KB, 1623x2048, IMG-20220324-000546-348-1623x2048.jpeg)
>>162736
>calculations
There's nothing wrong with them. The problem is that Newton assumes a heliocentric system, which is a fiction of course.
>calculations
There's nothing wrong with them. The problem is that Newton assumes a heliocentric system, which is a fiction of course.
>>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.
>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?
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.
>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.
File (): D742178025A27F2C3B2FF42D0AE5B7F7-2978930.mp4
(2.8 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:01:50, GAME OVER GLOBERS.mp4)
[play once] [loop]
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
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
>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?
>his observations on the dynamics of planes will very neatly put the final nail in the flat earth coffin
Interesting. Would you deliver?
[Reply]
[Last 50 Posts]
[Last 100 Posts]
[Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-550] [551-600] [601-650] [651-700] [701-750] [751-800] [801-850] [851-900] [901-950] [951-1000] [1001-1050] [1051-1100] [1101-1150] [1151-1200] [1201-1250] [1251-1300] [1301-1350] [1351-1400] [1401-1450] [1451-1500] [1501-1550] [1551-1600] [1601-1650] [1651-1700] [1701-1750] [1751-1800] [1801-1850] [1851-1900] [1901-1950] [1951-2000] [2001-2050] [2051-2100] [2101-2150] [2151-2200] [2201-2250] [2251-2300] [2301-2350] [2351-2400] [2401-2450] [2451-2500] [2501-2550] [2551-2600] [2601-2650] [2651-2700] [2701-2750] [2751-2770] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
2770 replies |
1431 files |
277 UUIDs |
Page 5