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
File (): EBB8999170B861DACE0B30BD4B4E3775-880166.jpg (859.5 KB, 1200x800, thtfx.jpeg)
File (): 5AFBC2B050DCE12E59A35BCA999CD5AD-6936214.gif (6.6 MB, 900x900, 900px-SunAnimation.gif)
2211 replies and 1109 files omitted.
The flat earth thread is homosexual.
Every so often a new meme is posted, insulting people who know the earth is round. Flatties can't prove their world is flat, they just imitate a liberal's idea of conservative talking points like AI.
Speaking of AI...
Wouldn't it be funny to turn an AI racist like Tay?
https://youtu.be/hUQNiy4K7VU
Every so often a new meme is posted, insulting people who know the earth is round. Flatties can't prove their world is flat, they just imitate a liberal's idea of conservative talking points like AI.
Speaking of AI...
Wouldn't it be funny to turn an AI racist like Tay?
https://youtu.be/hUQNiy4K7VU
File (): 074916D8BF0DCFBA920F4A80D8DF2B89-197920.jpg (193.3 KB, 960x960, if you believe you're on a giant spinning ball.jpg)
>>165130
>Polaris stays put
It just stays northish due to it's relative position to the pole of the northern hemisphere, tracing out a small circle. It still moves vaguely, it's just that you could only tell the significant distance if you were at the north pole. The night sky changes overtime anyway. It even changes with the seasons; that's why we can see different parts of the stars at different times of the year, and why people come up with horoscopes or whatever based on what stars are most visible on a particular month.
>19.2 billion miles
A mere inch in the vastness of space. The galaxy is absolutely enormous, and the void between galaxies is even bigger.
>Galaxy is moving
Polaris is part of the milky way Galaxy, so how far the galaxy is moving isn't isn't significantly relevant because Polaris would be moving at the same speed as our sun relative to all the other stars in the galaxy.
>Polaris stays put
It just stays northish due to it's relative position to the pole of the northern hemisphere, tracing out a small circle. It still moves vaguely, it's just that you could only tell the significant distance if you were at the north pole. The night sky changes overtime anyway. It even changes with the seasons; that's why we can see different parts of the stars at different times of the year, and why people come up with horoscopes or whatever based on what stars are most visible on a particular month.
>19.2 billion miles
A mere inch in the vastness of space. The galaxy is absolutely enormous, and the void between galaxies is even bigger.
>Galaxy is moving
Polaris is part of the milky way Galaxy, so how far the galaxy is moving isn't isn't significantly relevant because Polaris would be moving at the same speed as our sun relative to all the other stars in the galaxy.
File (): AAF3B7023A1E15230D691325BA5D2D37-11313.gif (11.0 KB, 400x761, main-qimg-cb29afe856747f531003b7f4fa15bdd0.gif)
>>165130
https://www.quora.com/Has-an-amateur-astronomer-measured-a-stellar-parallax?share=1
This data was generated by Dennis di Cicco, impressively using mass produced 11 and then 16 inch Schmidt Cassegrain telescopes. The sine-like pattern is consistent with the expected parallax associated with Barnard's 1.833 parsec distance. It is worth noting that each of those points is derived from hundreds or thousands of digital images which were stacked, analyzed, and averaged to compensate for the disruptive effects of Earth's atmosphere, the greatest single hindrance to ground-based astrometry.
https://www.quora.com/Has-an-amateur-astronomer-measured-a-stellar-parallax?share=1
This data was generated by Dennis di Cicco, impressively using mass produced 11 and then 16 inch Schmidt Cassegrain telescopes. The sine-like pattern is consistent with the expected parallax associated with Barnard's 1.833 parsec distance. It is worth noting that each of those points is derived from hundreds or thousands of digital images which were stacked, analyzed, and averaged to compensate for the disruptive effects of Earth's atmosphere, the greatest single hindrance to ground-based astrometry.
Anonymous
No.165143
File (): 667188577856503F4F3829DA1CD264E5-1025787.jpg (1.0 MB, 2560x1707, do-we-need-a-drop-second-the-worrying-reason-why-earth-may-be-speeding-up-after-decades-of-slowing-down-scaled.jpg)
File (): 751E3877A7104B1619F15798B4AAE989-187302.jpg (182.9 KB, 1024x683, main1000_star-trail_4096x2734_406yq.jpg)
File (): C04D3D69DCF44514CB36EA7B742172B8-344545.jpg (336.5 KB, 1200x800, polaris.jpg)
>>165135
>It just stays northish due to it's relative position to the pole of the northern hemisphere, tracing out a small circle.
Sorry, not good enough.
That star is fixed and no amount of shilling can deny it. The heliocentric theory is bullocks,
>It just stays northish due to it's relative position to the pole of the northern hemisphere, tracing out a small circle.
Sorry, not good enough.
That star is fixed and no amount of shilling can deny it. The heliocentric theory is bullocks,
File (): E2BAB175DDFCF638CDF6D34128D52C36-568046.jpg (554.7 KB, 3200x2400, Use-a-Sextant-Step-13.jpg)
>>165135
>It still moves vaguely
I strongly disagree. When sailing, a sextant is used to know the current position, that's done pointing at Polaris and it is more than accurate. If the star moves, even slightly, the errors in the charts would be evident as they won't match with IRL coordinates.
>It still moves vaguely
I strongly disagree. When sailing, a sextant is used to know the current position, that's done pointing at Polaris and it is more than accurate. If the star moves, even slightly, the errors in the charts would be evident as they won't match with IRL coordinates.
Oh, as I went back over the thread I found this post: >>149123
It went through that arguement on how ships sink at horizon. How these ships reappear when you zoom in, meaning it the ship isn't hidden behind any curvature.
The only explanation to prove otherwise would be that those videos are fake, unlikely imo.
The second vid in this post shows and series of photos of a man walking away from a camera on football field. His lower body sinks below the horizon line. I can still not wrap my head around how this visual phenomena happens but clearly the football field is to small of a distance to experince any curvature.
I'm gonna try to recreate this as an experiment for myself. I'll lay with my cheek against hte ground of at the goalposts of a football field and then try to see the bottom of the bag I dropped at the other end.
If the bag's bottom is gone, this doesn't necessarily prove the earth is flat but it does prove that black man scientist is using faulty reasoning in his proofs in the last vid in this post. That alone speaks volumes to me.
It went through that arguement on how ships sink at horizon. How these ships reappear when you zoom in, meaning it the ship isn't hidden behind any curvature.
The only explanation to prove otherwise would be that those videos are fake, unlikely imo.
The second vid in this post shows and series of photos of a man walking away from a camera on football field. His lower body sinks below the horizon line. I can still not wrap my head around how this visual phenomena happens but clearly the football field is to small of a distance to experince any curvature.
I'm gonna try to recreate this as an experiment for myself. I'll lay with my cheek against hte ground of at the goalposts of a football field and then try to see the bottom of the bag I dropped at the other end.
If the bag's bottom is gone, this doesn't necessarily prove the earth is flat but it does prove that black man scientist is using faulty reasoning in his proofs in the last vid in this post. That alone speaks volumes to me.
>>165154
The stars are part of the same galaxy, so they're moving with relative relation to the earth as well.
The sky changes over time, but it takes thousands of years because there's so much distance to travel.
This doesn't prove anything.
The stars are part of the same galaxy, so they're moving with relative relation to the earth as well.
The sky changes over time, but it takes thousands of years because there's so much distance to travel.
This doesn't prove anything.
>>165155
>The sky changes over time, but it takes thousands of years because there's so much distance to travel.
>but it takes thousands of years
Exactly, nobody was there thousands of years ago. Just trust us. /s
>The sky changes over time, but it takes thousands of years because there's so much distance to travel.
>but it takes thousands of years
Exactly, nobody was there thousands of years ago. Just trust us. /s
>>165156
>Implying if you don't personally see it, it can't possibly be true
Well, you could refer to ancient Egyptians who built a pyramid at exactly 30 degrees longitude and latitude in their time based on the stars above them, while the stars above them shifted to change those coordinates since then.
The sky changes over time. It has in human history.
And tbh, the sky changing slightly over time doesn't even necessitate the world being round. It could happen in flat earth too.
>Implying if you don't personally see it, it can't possibly be true
Well, you could refer to ancient Egyptians who built a pyramid at exactly 30 degrees longitude and latitude in their time based on the stars above them, while the stars above them shifted to change those coordinates since then.
The sky changes over time. It has in human history.
And tbh, the sky changing slightly over time doesn't even necessitate the world being round. It could happen in flat earth too.
>>165157
>Implying if you don't personally see it, it can't possibly be true
The Scientific Method demands that observations and experiments to be reproducible. If only a selected priest caste has the means to do it, more yet, their sponsors forbid anyone to build and fly airships without their consent and regulation, then the Scientific Method is violated and what is left are just myths based on faith.
>Implying if you don't personally see it, it can't possibly be true
The Scientific Method demands that observations and experiments to be reproducible. If only a selected priest caste has the means to do it, more yet, their sponsors forbid anyone to build and fly airships without their consent and regulation, then the Scientific Method is violated and what is left are just myths based on faith.
>>165158
>observations and experiments to be reproducible
I I go through all the work to find the data for this and explain it step by step how they came to that conclusion, are you actually going to take it seriously, or are you going to just dismiss immediately because astronomers were the ones who did it?
>observations and experiments to be reproducible
I I go through all the work to find the data for this and explain it step by step how they came to that conclusion, are you actually going to take it seriously, or are you going to just dismiss immediately because astronomers were the ones who did it?
>>165157
>And tbh, the sky changing slightly over time doesn't even necessitate the world being round. It could happen in flat earth too.
There is a theory about it, precisely the one suspecting that there is a lot more land beyond the Antarctic wall.
>And tbh, the sky changing slightly over time doesn't even necessitate the world being round. It could happen in flat earth too.
There is a theory about it, precisely the one suspecting that there is a lot more land beyond the Antarctic wall.
Anonymous
No.165161
>>165158
>has the means to do it
Okay, I know science is often controlled by corporate greed, but how do you expect the means for scientific experiments to be distributed evenly? Science has always been done by those with means: the equipment to do so isn't free.
Not denying the obvious corruption or conflicts of interest in the scientific communities or their sponsors, but I'm just curious about how you think scientific institutions should be run/funded.
>has the means to do it
Okay, I know science is often controlled by corporate greed, but how do you expect the means for scientific experiments to be distributed evenly? Science has always been done by those with means: the equipment to do so isn't free.
Not denying the obvious corruption or conflicts of interest in the scientific communities or their sponsors, but I'm just curious about how you think scientific institutions should be run/funded.
>>165159
>I I go through all the work to find the data for this and explain it step by step how they came to that conclusion, are you actually going to take it seriously
I don't think so, your train of thought is about to pick "space", "cosmos", "gravitational forces" and alike up. All of them are demonstrable non-sense and a hoax.
>I I go through all the work to find the data for this and explain it step by step how they came to that conclusion, are you actually going to take it seriously
I don't think so, your train of thought is about to pick "space", "cosmos", "gravitational forces" and alike up. All of them are demonstrable non-sense and a hoax.
>>165162
So, no, you wouldn't take it from astronomers then, even if they wrote their steps out entirely.
What kind of source would you even accept to prove it then? What is your standard of evidence?
Idk how anything is supposed to be proved if people go about dismissing those who dedicated their lives to studying the topics without reading them.
So, no, you wouldn't take it from astronomers then, even if they wrote their steps out entirely.
What kind of source would you even accept to prove it then? What is your standard of evidence?
Idk how anything is supposed to be proved if people go about dismissing those who dedicated their lives to studying the topics without reading them.
Anonymous
No.165165
>>165162
>demonstrable
These have been demonstrably reaffirmed by scientists all over the world who publish their results step-by-step. You're quick to dismiss those refutations as "NASA shilling" though.
>demonstrable
These have been demonstrably reaffirmed by scientists all over the world who publish their results step-by-step. You're quick to dismiss those refutations as "NASA shilling" though.
>>165160
Do you seriously not think there's any land in Antarctica? You think all those photos are fake?
Do you seriously not think there's any land in Antarctica? You think all those photos are fake?
>>165166
>These have been demonstrably reaffirmed by scientists all over the world who publish their results step-by-step.
There is something very wrong with their science. No curve ---> no planet ---> no space ---> no cosmos ---> no gravity
Just not finding the curve makes the whole "science" fall down like a house of cards.
>These have been demonstrably reaffirmed by scientists all over the world who publish their results step-by-step.
There is something very wrong with their science. No curve ---> no planet ---> no space ---> no cosmos ---> no gravity
Just not finding the curve makes the whole "science" fall down like a house of cards.
>>165167
What is beyond the Antarctic wall is unknown, pictures and video only show a few kilometers from the shore, exploration is forbidden under threats of violence.
What is beyond the Antarctic wall is unknown, pictures and video only show a few kilometers from the shore, exploration is forbidden under threats of violence.
File (): 7BC84C13BFF96086DB7D0FA6C10FC6C2-3335168.mp4 (3.2 MB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:00:39, Sven? Is that you?.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>165168
>curve
The curve has been shown evidently by hundreds of sources. You've been selectively choosing results that reaffirm your worldview.
But of course, anyone who isn't a shady YouTuber or a Facebook memer is a NASA shill, right?
>space
Holy shit, the world doesn't even need to be round for that. It is a fact of life that the air gets thinner with higher altitude. Go hiking in the mountains after spending a year at sea level and you'll know.
Can you not even imagine a "realm" where the air is so thin that there's basically nothing at all?
That aside, there's hundreds of different forms of evidence that space exists, but I'm not even going to bother listing them this time because all of the other times I did you called them "NASA shills".
>no cosmos
The "cosmos" are whatever you see in the sky above you: something you can literally see.
>no gravity
Again, has been confirmed and reaffirmed in so many different ways, but you wouldn't accept even a single source that contradicts your worldview. So now we're just contradicting each other to no end.
>curve
The curve has been shown evidently by hundreds of sources. You've been selectively choosing results that reaffirm your worldview.
But of course, anyone who isn't a shady YouTuber or a Facebook memer is a NASA shill, right?
>space
Holy shit, the world doesn't even need to be round for that. It is a fact of life that the air gets thinner with higher altitude. Go hiking in the mountains after spending a year at sea level and you'll know.
Can you not even imagine a "realm" where the air is so thin that there's basically nothing at all?
That aside, there's hundreds of different forms of evidence that space exists, but I'm not even going to bother listing them this time because all of the other times I did you called them "NASA shills".
>no cosmos
The "cosmos" are whatever you see in the sky above you: something you can literally see.
>no gravity
Again, has been confirmed and reaffirmed in so many different ways, but you wouldn't accept even a single source that contradicts your worldview. So now we're just contradicting each other to no end.
>>165169
>We'd totally prove our worldview, but the scary NASAmasons would kill us!
They can't stop Japs from hunting whale to extinction there, but they can somehow track every individual who sets foot on the ice and have caught everyone who's tried to see past it?
What utter bullshit. For a group of people who claim to be rebelling against the new world order, you lot come off as awfully cowardly. Imagine being afraid of blue helmets.
>We'd totally prove our worldview, but the scary NASAmasons would kill us!
They can't stop Japs from hunting whale to extinction there, but they can somehow track every individual who sets foot on the ice and have caught everyone who's tried to see past it?
What utter bullshit. For a group of people who claim to be rebelling against the new world order, you lot come off as awfully cowardly. Imagine being afraid of blue helmets.
Anonymous
No.165173
>>165169
>exploration is forbidden
You know scientists go to Antarctica for research all of the time, right? It's not that hard to get approved. I had a professor who went there.
>exploration is forbidden
You know scientists go to Antarctica for research all of the time, right? It's not that hard to get approved. I had a professor who went there.
File (): B1C7D81A8A14BFFDCAA5AC89FDD900EF-121369.png (118.5 KB, 520x672, anonfilly - not impressed.png)
>>165174
>You know scientists go to Antarctica for research all of the time, right?
Not sure if you think people are stupid or your IQ is below 60.
>You know scientists go to Antarctica for research all of the time, right?
Not sure if you think people are stupid or your IQ is below 60.
Anonymous
No.165178
>>165176
Well, we have already millions of nurses and doctors who denied reality by going along with a non-existent epidemic, because of the money. And this is a glaring example of how corrupt humanity has become.
Well, we have already millions of nurses and doctors who denied reality by going along with a non-existent epidemic, because of the money. And this is a glaring example of how corrupt humanity has become.
Anonymous
No.165182
File (): D105FABBFD28D8A6D228FE775B75DB72-169707.png (165.7 KB, 449x500, not impressed.png)
>>165218
>8:06 - The genesis of the modern Flat Earth Society
You are being way too dishonest, it is well known that the Flat Earth Society is controlled opposition used to ridicule Flat Earth.
Either you demonstrate the curvature or you have no case.
>8:06 - The genesis of the modern Flat Earth Society
You are being way too dishonest, it is well known that the Flat Earth Society is controlled opposition used to ridicule Flat Earth.
Either you demonstrate the curvature or you have no case.
>>165219
>posting a video is dishonest
Sure thing bud. What is it when you've been presented with dozens of resources that display curvature, but refuse to even acknowledge the post (presumably to avoid illustraying that you cant contest the points, other than to maybe claim nasa/mason/wtfe shill)?
Hint, it's related to the word 'ignore'
>posting a video is dishonest
Sure thing bud. What is it when you've been presented with dozens of resources that display curvature, but refuse to even acknowledge the post (presumably to avoid illustraying that you cant contest the points, other than to maybe claim nasa/mason/wtfe shill)?
Hint, it's related to the word 'ignore'
>>165220
>What is it when you've been presented with dozens of resources that display curvature
Which has been debunked over and over again in the bread.
>Hint, it's related to the word 'ignore'
I agree. Projecting much?
>What is it when you've been presented with dozens of resources that display curvature
Which has been debunked over and over again in the bread.
>Hint, it's related to the word 'ignore'
I agree. Projecting much?
>>165221
>saying mason or nasa once and then never adding anything is 'debunking'
>also you're the one who's ignorant
Right? All those equations and calcularions and historic citations, the moon, the tides, all 'debunked' cuz Eric Dubay cant into actual science, and OP cant into critical thinking.
>saying mason or nasa once and then never adding anything is 'debunking'
>also you're the one who's ignorant
Right? All those equations and calcularions and historic citations, the moon, the tides, all 'debunked' cuz Eric Dubay cant into actual science, and OP cant into critical thinking.
File (): 148B2654C5B4847117E642CE25270630-203272.png (198.5 KB, 1200x675, pathetic.png)
>>165222
>All those equations and calcularions and historic citations, the moon, the tides, all 'debunked' cuz Eric Dubay
Nope, all debunked by IRL experiments and observations.
At this point you are not even pretending with your shilling.
>All those equations and calcularions and historic citations, the moon, the tides, all 'debunked' cuz Eric Dubay
Nope, all debunked by IRL experiments and observations.
At this point you are not even pretending with your shilling.
Anonymous
No.165224
>>165223
>debunked by IRL experiments and observations from people performing irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence due to alack of controls
Ftfy
>debunked by IRL experiments and observations from people performing irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence due to alack of controls
Ftfy
>>165223
>all debunked by IRL experiments and observations.
None of that met generally accepted standards of quality or precision for experiments.
>shilling
Do you actually think that, or are you just talking out of your ass? You think Anons here argue with you because they're paid to do it, and not just because you keep shoving absurdist nonsense in their faces?
So long as this crap keeps coming up on the overboard, idiots are still going to take the bait and reply to it. There is no shilling, because they do it for free.
>all debunked by IRL experiments and observations.
None of that met generally accepted standards of quality or precision for experiments.
>shilling
Do you actually think that, or are you just talking out of your ass? You think Anons here argue with you because they're paid to do it, and not just because you keep shoving absurdist nonsense in their faces?
So long as this crap keeps coming up on the overboard, idiots are still going to take the bait and reply to it. There is no shilling, because they do it for free.
Anonymous
No.165346
File (): D418ED488E2872CCFCB4EB1DDDC80B6C-482952.png (471.6 KB, 908x699, globers.png)
Anonymous
No.165348
>>165347
>Mark Twain
All that ad homenim, and you just quoted a literal, open, known Freemason.
Which is not to discredit the quote; it's a decent quote, but an example how something can make sense despite who says it, so long as it's substantial.
Think of that next time you dismiss/discredit a scientific study because people in the business of studying space might be affiliated with NASA, and judge the arguments on the substance and not the speaker.
>Mark Twain
All that ad homenim, and you just quoted a literal, open, known Freemason.
Which is not to discredit the quote; it's a decent quote, but an example how something can make sense despite who says it, so long as it's substantial.
Think of that next time you dismiss/discredit a scientific study because people in the business of studying space might be affiliated with NASA, and judge the arguments on the substance and not the speaker.
File (): 1BCE6B58E58B9D13DDFDB8FFF147912A-601727.png (587.6 KB, 741x993, startrails_firmament_equator_perspective_container.png)
File (): CE821B0D074AE31787655F063FFE842B-79043.jpg (77.2 KB, 1220x1242, Lake_Michigan_01.jpg)
File (): A17554E15CF761252A221CE8E344A74E-153688.jpg (150.1 KB, 900x494, 1659921312913834.jpg)
File (): 13A3D9F302D9211B9A3EA88097BA4FE5-208115.jpg (203.2 KB, 828x832, 1659785860516509.jpg)
Give up already globeheads
[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] [2251-2261] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
2261 replies | 1130 files | 234 UUIDs | Page 1