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.
1752 replies and 862 files omitted.
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.
So are you the same guy that spergs about the KGB?
Flail harder flatty.
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....
Yeah, it is he same kike.
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
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
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
>>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
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?
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
*makes me not want to have
Unironically, he is serious
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.
But you said that outer space was fake
Correct. Cosmologists base their theories on a false paradigm.
But the guy in the article mentions the space telescopes. Is he in on the con?
I have to guess that it is the same case like the normies. They believe that the "data" and "CGI" is real.
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.
But its Scientific American, arent they like the head of the Freemasonic Jewish round-earth psyop? Shouldnt we be distrusting them?
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.
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?
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.
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.
A. The sun was actually impossibly far away
B. The sun is a sphere
>>163118>Clarifying for posterity
You are obfuscating for posterity.
From where did you get the idea that the sun and moon are disks?
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.
Imagine thinking this is an intelligent post
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.
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.