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 1414 files omitted.
>>165778
Found it!
>>163405
So. In this video, we watch the slow and painstaking process of supertanker making a right turn while descending over the horizon. Yes, the videographer zooms out and back in on occasion, however the zoom out and in occurs very fast, and couldn't cause the viewer to think that the slow, gradual dissapearance over the horizon has anything to do with the zoom.
Unless you're a flat earth glownigger like OP, that is
Found it!
>>163405
So. In this video, we watch the slow and painstaking process of supertanker making a right turn while descending over the horizon. Yes, the videographer zooms out and back in on occasion, however the zoom out and in occurs very fast, and couldn't cause the viewer to think that the slow, gradual dissapearance over the horizon has anything to do with the zoom.
Unless you're a flat earth glownigger like OP, that is
>>165794
The effect was produced by a solid prism.
Unless this is crystal magic where a crystal dome produces the same effect as a prism, you're full of shit and you know it, glownigger.
The effect was produced by a solid prism.
Unless this is crystal magic where a crystal dome produces the same effect as a prism, you're full of shit and you know it, glownigger.
>>165795
>The effect was produced by a solid prism
Actually a solid semi-sphere, then Dubay introduces the gas ionization phenomena and the difference between sunlight and day light.
Don't be a faggot a stop lying.
>The effect was produced by a solid prism
Actually a solid semi-sphere, then Dubay introduces the gas ionization phenomena and the difference between sunlight and day light.
Don't be a faggot a stop lying.
>>165797
So for the record, are you staking the claim that ionized gas produces a prismic effect?
Yes, it's a hemisphere but its still prismic (as in, effect), by your insistence.
So for the record, are you staking the claim that ionized gas produces a prismic effect?
Yes, it's a hemisphere but its still prismic (as in, effect), by your insistence.
File (): 82F48BFECA56818E75475A64F047C578-121622.jpg
(118.8 KB, 1002x1002, 1pcs-Prism-Laser-Beam-Combine-Cube-Prism-for-405nm-450nm-Blue-Laser-Diode-5W-for-Optical.jpg)
File (): 9BFFBB5AB1CAD4BD1E47AA1E414C4E4C-76942.png
(75.1 KB, 1699x2041, sneha-b-volume-of-triangular-prism-07-1606298603.png)
>>165798
>prismic effect?
Anon, it is obvious that gasses don't meet the prism definition. You are confusing the term perhaps with light diffusion (Physics 101).
>prismic effect?
Anon, it is obvious that gasses don't meet the prism definition. You are confusing the term perhaps with light diffusion (Physics 101).
>>165800
However you did insist on a transparent mysterious solid dome which does fall on as prismatic effect, not only that the speed of light through the various mediums should be calculatable as with the energy required.
Some fuckery is going on.
Not only that but everything that goes on everywhere has to be described in detail and all the stuff has to match up.
I mean this should be a trifle really, in a solid dome the fuck is space rocks that land.
However you did insist on a transparent mysterious solid dome which does fall on as prismatic effect, not only that the speed of light through the various mediums should be calculatable as with the energy required.
Some fuckery is going on.
Not only that but everything that goes on everywhere has to be described in detail and all the stuff has to match up.
I mean this should be a trifle really, in a solid dome the fuck is space rocks that land.
File (): D0384AD1B09DD72CCEAB458A880DFEA6-129907.jpg
(126.9 KB, 1280x960, dRBDrCrnHQrNyOwH32sl8Kpn.jpg)
>Flat Earth - Meteors, Comets and Craters
>Meteors, meteorites, asteroids, comets, and shooting stars are not what you have been led to believe.
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/FlatEarth-MeteorsCometsandCraters:d
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8ZogXzFn5Vqw/
>Meteors, meteorites, asteroids, comets, and shooting stars are not what you have been led to believe.
https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/FlatEarth-MeteorsCometsandCraters:d
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8ZogXzFn5Vqw/
>>165803
There's another interesting theory about objects falling from the dome. Not substantiated but it gives food for thought.
>Meteors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3TVlW8PXkw
There's another interesting theory about objects falling from the dome. Not substantiated but it gives food for thought.
>Meteors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3TVlW8PXkw
>>165781
>>165790
Thanks for your reply.
I was actually thinking of these videos, reposting them here for the ease of access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX_eBzCdBTk&ab_channel=EricDubay
6:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow2MoLQXJsQ
3:14
What do you think about them? The timestamps are the ones that discuss ship's hulls going over the horizon first.
>>165790
Thanks for your reply.
I was actually thinking of these videos, reposting them here for the ease of access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX_eBzCdBTk&ab_channel=EricDubay
6:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow2MoLQXJsQ
3:14
What do you think about them? The timestamps are the ones that discuss ship's hulls going over the horizon first.
>>165807
But again, that's horseshit.
When we're talking about ladies walking, or cars driving, the relative area where the distortive visual effect is at MAX 2', which is acceptable given the threshold of the distortion.
In the video I provided, we're talking about watching AN ENTIRE SUPERTANKER, OVER 100' TALL, SLOWLY CROSS THE VISUAL THRESHOLD OF THE HORIZON.
We are not the same.
But again, that's horseshit.
When we're talking about ladies walking, or cars driving, the relative area where the distortive visual effect is at MAX 2', which is acceptable given the threshold of the distortion.
In the video I provided, we're talking about watching AN ENTIRE SUPERTANKER, OVER 100' TALL, SLOWLY CROSS THE VISUAL THRESHOLD OF THE HORIZON.
We are not the same.
>>165808
To further clarify this point.
According to Eric Bidet, the proportion of the distorted object (ship) that is obscured is relative to the distance and pverall volume. Meaning, as something becomes more distant and miniscule, the more of it's body becomes obscured, at least if the earth was flat. Which it is not.
You can tell using the ship video, because the overwhelming width of the ship is quite prominent right up until the point that it disappears over the horizon.
Again to Bidet's assertion, the proportion of the vehicle that is distorted should be relative to the overall volume. Thats observably not the case. The entire height of the ship dsappears over the horizon WELL before the width does so. Unless they sailed into a sea of piranha solution, and that supertanker got dissolved from the base up, it is impossible for the flat earth model to account for the ship's disappearance, no matter HOW many straws of 'perspective' and 'zoom' one grasps at.
Simply put, when one comprehends physics, math, proportion, etc. - regardless of what their opinion of round/flat earth - that ONE video conclusively proves that the earth is not flat.
Which is also why OP won't touch that video with a 10 foot pole.
That he persists with this flat earth nonsense while knowing that his position is literally impossible - no matter how much rhetoric/pilpul he attempts - is the cause by which I assert he's a filthy glownigger, probably tasked with monitoring/obfuscating site activity (and most likely, just one of hundreds who have been sent to various chan-boards to keep an eye out for any Christchurch-esque activity).
Having said and having grasped his motivation, his position has long since been illustrated as arguing in bad faith, intellectually dishonest, as well as laughably unsupportable, excepting individuals one or more standard deviations of intellect below the average.
To further clarify this point.
According to Eric Bidet, the proportion of the distorted object (ship) that is obscured is relative to the distance and pverall volume. Meaning, as something becomes more distant and miniscule, the more of it's body becomes obscured, at least if the earth was flat. Which it is not.
You can tell using the ship video, because the overwhelming width of the ship is quite prominent right up until the point that it disappears over the horizon.
Again to Bidet's assertion, the proportion of the vehicle that is distorted should be relative to the overall volume. Thats observably not the case. The entire height of the ship dsappears over the horizon WELL before the width does so. Unless they sailed into a sea of piranha solution, and that supertanker got dissolved from the base up, it is impossible for the flat earth model to account for the ship's disappearance, no matter HOW many straws of 'perspective' and 'zoom' one grasps at.
Simply put, when one comprehends physics, math, proportion, etc. - regardless of what their opinion of round/flat earth - that ONE video conclusively proves that the earth is not flat.
Which is also why OP won't touch that video with a 10 foot pole.
That he persists with this flat earth nonsense while knowing that his position is literally impossible - no matter how much rhetoric/pilpul he attempts - is the cause by which I assert he's a filthy glownigger, probably tasked with monitoring/obfuscating site activity (and most likely, just one of hundreds who have been sent to various chan-boards to keep an eye out for any Christchurch-esque activity).
Having said and having grasped his motivation, his position has long since been illustrated as arguing in bad faith, intellectually dishonest, as well as laughably unsupportable, excepting individuals one or more standard deviations of intellect below the average.
File (): 5286C713B6E91776908B6DE325B3DAB6-8979758.mp4
(8.6 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:02:47, FLAT EARTH MAP.mp4)
[play once] [loop]
>FLAT EARTH MOON MAP WITH AMAZING DETAILS
Neither the source or content can be proven. Take it with two grains of salt and healthy skepticism.
Neither the source or content can be proven. Take it with two grains of salt and healthy skepticism.
>>165814
Yes, but you'll never get an admission from OP. It's not literal narcissism, but the behavior pattern is the same; you're wrong and he's right, nevermind what the evidence shows
>inb4 hurr, it shows a flat earth
>inb4 your words not mine
Yes, but you'll never get an admission from OP. It's not literal narcissism, but the behavior pattern is the same; you're wrong and he's right, nevermind what the evidence shows
>inb4 hurr, it shows a flat earth
>inb4 your words not mine
File (): CC885AC96609D91C07B350793CF18FFC-117598.jpg
(114.8 KB, 736x704, feStEGTcxW.jpg)
>>165815
>It's not literal narcissism, but the behavior pattern is the same; you're wrong and he's right, nevermind what the evidence shows
What a coincidence, because the same may apply to (you).
>It's not literal narcissism, but the behavior pattern is the same; you're wrong and he's right, nevermind what the evidence shows
What a coincidence, because the same may apply to (you).
>>165818
>n... no u!
Factually and evidently incorrect.
My assessment of (you) is based on observation and your displayed behavior. I'm perfectly open to theories that have evidential merit, and I am on record with a 'whackjob' theory of my own. And yet, I manage to avoid patronizing anons, dismissing their positions without merit (I read/watch/reply-to all of your posts, regardless) and outright ignoring evidence I can't contest.
No no, again, that's just (you)
>n... no u!
Factually and evidently incorrect.
My assessment of (you) is based on observation and your displayed behavior. I'm perfectly open to theories that have evidential merit, and I am on record with a 'whackjob' theory of my own. And yet, I manage to avoid patronizing anons, dismissing their positions without merit (I read/watch/reply-to all of your posts, regardless) and outright ignoring evidence I can't contest.
No no, again, that's just (you)
>>165819
>(I read/watch/reply-to all of your posts, regardless)
... Why? Why are you entertaining this retard with your attention?
You seem to have already understood that he can't be convinced, so why are you still arguing with him? Why not just ignore him? What are you trying to prove?
>(I read/watch/reply-to all of your posts, regardless)
... Why? Why are you entertaining this retard with your attention?
You seem to have already understood that he can't be convinced, so why are you still arguing with him? Why not just ignore him? What are you trying to prove?
File (): E9B10644C5078B588E86B263C2F39F60-12152650.mp4
(11.6 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:04:03, WW2 and Flat Earth.mp4)
[play once] [loop]
WW2 and Flat Earth.
File (): B7B03770BF75ED8849BF23EDA8326F40-725483.png
(708.5 KB, 1280x720, facehoof.png)
>>165832
>tacit acceptance and/or user largesse
>largesse
I'm impressed.
>faggots like him should be made to feel unwelcome
A bit over the top. Don't (you) think?
>tacit acceptance and/or user largesse
>largesse
I'm impressed.
>faggots like him should be made to feel unwelcome
A bit over the top. Don't (you) think?
>>165834
>over the top
Not at all. If he was posing the question/ideas to have a discussion, discuss the merits admit/acknowledge the flaws, and engage in GOOD faith dialogue/exchange, then yes, that would be over the top. IF that's what he was doing.
>over the top
Not at all. If he was posing the question/ideas to have a discussion, discuss the merits admit/acknowledge the flaws, and engage in GOOD faith dialogue/exchange, then yes, that would be over the top. IF that's what he was doing.
>>165832
>ignorong him could be construed as tacit acceptance and/or user largesse
No it isn't. You can't go arguing with every retard on a chansite.
>Because more naïve and/or impressionable users might fall for his bullshit othwrise
That's none of your business; and no, they wouldn't.
>Because faggots like him should be made to feel unwelcome
Over the past year+ of arguing, you have not succeeded in making him leave. This isn't worth your attention.
>ignorong him could be construed as tacit acceptance and/or user largesse
No it isn't. You can't go arguing with every retard on a chansite.
>Because more naïve and/or impressionable users might fall for his bullshit othwrise
That's none of your business; and no, they wouldn't.
>Because faggots like him should be made to feel unwelcome
Over the past year+ of arguing, you have not succeeded in making him leave. This isn't worth your attention.
>>165838
>tries to conflate Mlpol with all other chansites, including 4chan
Get fucked, our demographics are way different than other chans, the circumstances are entirely different and so the strategy must also be proprietary. Additionally, I don't argue with every asshole on the site because A. Most assholes dont persist for literal years with a conclusively fallacious premise and B. Because for some reason, people tend to leave the flatty alone.
>none of your business
Get fucked, this site IS my business. Its called TAKING responsibility. If (you) knew the first thing about it, we wouldnt be having this cpnversation/issue.
>he hasnt left, not worth your attention
Oh, so now you're concerned with how I value my time? Get fucked thrice. The intent is not to make him leave, (tho it would be nice) the intent is to cement in his and other eager flatties looking for a beachhead of sorts that these ideas and the pilpul methods of asserting then will NOT go unopposed, and will be readily destroyed at leisure, often casually.
>tries to conflate Mlpol with all other chansites, including 4chan
Get fucked, our demographics are way different than other chans, the circumstances are entirely different and so the strategy must also be proprietary. Additionally, I don't argue with every asshole on the site because A. Most assholes dont persist for literal years with a conclusively fallacious premise and B. Because for some reason, people tend to leave the flatty alone.
>none of your business
Get fucked, this site IS my business. Its called TAKING responsibility. If (you) knew the first thing about it, we wouldnt be having this cpnversation/issue.
>he hasnt left, not worth your attention
Oh, so now you're concerned with how I value my time? Get fucked thrice. The intent is not to make him leave, (tho it would be nice) the intent is to cement in his and other eager flatties looking for a beachhead of sorts that these ideas and the pilpul methods of asserting then will NOT go unopposed, and will be readily destroyed at leisure, often casually.
>>165839
Okay, fine. Argue with him all you want, but for the love of god, sage your posts so the rest of us don't have to see this thread at the top of the overboard/catalog every day.
Okay, fine. Argue with him all you want, but for the love of god, sage your posts so the rest of us don't have to see this thread at the top of the overboard/catalog every day.
>>165840
>Im the reason its on the overboard
Glad you mentioned it.
Why are /vx/ threads on perma-bump? Is it cuz the /vx/ threads are of such quality that exceeds even mainboard threads? Or is there something else to it?
>Im the reason its on the overboard
Glad you mentioned it.
Why are /vx/ threads on perma-bump? Is it cuz the /vx/ threads are of such quality that exceeds even mainboard threads? Or is there something else to it?
>>165842
Sounds like an interesting discussion for /qa/. No idea why the /vx/ catalog is like this.
In the meantime, remember to sage. You're not the only one who argues with OP. I do it too on occasion, but I sage the thread so as to not give it extra attention. Just because OP bumps it doesn't mean you have to.
Sounds like an interesting discussion for /qa/. No idea why the /vx/ catalog is like this.
In the meantime, remember to sage. You're not the only one who argues with OP. I do it too on occasion, but I sage the thread so as to not give it extra attention. Just because OP bumps it doesn't mean you have to.
>>165843
>sage
Respectfully declined
>I dont know why
I do, and were it not for this thread it wouldnt be an issue. Unfortunately, this thread enjoys the fruits of the otherwise utility of the perma bump on /vx/, which stymies the natural user rejection of such threads as these, if it was to either hit bump limit and be remade or be bumplocked and still be remade.
>/qa/
Riiiiiiiiiight. I'll add it to my letter to Santa while I'm at it.
>sage
Respectfully declined
>I dont know why
I do, and were it not for this thread it wouldnt be an issue. Unfortunately, this thread enjoys the fruits of the otherwise utility of the perma bump on /vx/, which stymies the natural user rejection of such threads as these, if it was to either hit bump limit and be remade or be bumplocked and still be remade.
>/qa/
Riiiiiiiiiight. I'll add it to my letter to Santa while I'm at it.
>>165846
Why, for the rp games, of course that is, the ones other than dick strangler's, who insists on posting to the mainboard cuz... reasons
Why, for the rp games, of course that is, the ones other than dick strangler's, who insists on posting to the mainboard cuz... reasons
>>165848
I don't think perma-bumping threads necessarily help games. Making new threads isn't that hard.
I don't think perma-bumping threads necessarily help games. Making new threads isn't that hard.
>>165849
Well, when I was running a game, I insisted that my threads be immediately bump locked, but I had a hard on for AVOIDING the main page and then later, the overboard.
But current GMs,... ahem insist that it is too troublesome for players to check the thread(s), and further that lol the audience see when there's activity.
spoiler alert: it ain't gonna change
Well, when I was running a game, I insisted that my threads be immediately bump locked, but I had a hard on for AVOIDING the main page and then later, the overboard.
But current GMs,... ahem insist that it is too troublesome for players to check the thread(s), and further that lol the audience see when there's activity.
spoiler alert: it ain't gonna change
Imo, bump locking this thread is the correct course of action, but staff is notorious for refusing my seggestions simply because it's me making it.
>>165853
Thats true, it isnt. But neither is the problem going to be properly addressed if I do so again, respectfully declined.
Thats true, it isnt. But neither is the problem going to be properly addressed if I do so again, respectfully declined.
File (): 038FB9DA03F4D0CA6CC93E6AB62E20E4-97008.png
(94.7 KB, 839x928, disgusting.png)
>>165852
>Imo, bump locking this thread is the correct course of action, but staff is notorious for refusing my seggestions simply because it's me making it
One thing is your non-stop screeching because you would have to admit you were living a lie. But to sabotage a thread with bump-locking is totally a different league and shows how far, and low, you are willing to go to silence the opinions and facts you don't like.
Very commie of you.
>Imo, bump locking this thread is the correct course of action, but staff is notorious for refusing my seggestions simply because it's me making it
One thing is your non-stop screeching because you would have to admit you were living a lie. But to sabotage a thread with bump-locking is totally a different league and shows how far, and low, you are willing to go to silence the opinions and facts you don't like.
Very commie of you.
File (): 20BE94FB5DA7EFC5180D76C15C32A02C-271151.png
(264.8 KB, 1280x720, rgeb39n8s.png)
[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