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
2734 replies and 1402 files omitted.
>>167458
You know, Genchink chinkpact's story might be putrid garbage (it is), but the lore is actually pretty neat.
Your post sound like something directly taken from the game, for example.
You know, Genchink chinkpact's story might be putrid garbage (it is), but the lore is actually pretty neat.
Your post sound like something directly taken from the game, for example.
Anonymous
No.167465
1685616156_1.jpg (73.3 KB, 602x555, main-qimg-3b4e5db84d572d582645fec5e1a4b301.jpeg)
>>167504
That's not the Earth's shadow at all. What you're looking at is the normal appearance of the moon: a bit over half of the moon is illuminated by the sun, while the dark side is dark because it's opposite to the side facing the sun. This is how moon phases work; they have nothing to do with the earth's shadow.
The Earth's shadow only moves in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse, which happens during full moons when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth, relative to the observer's position.
I strongly encourage you to go out at night and watch a lunar eclipse next time one happens in your area: they're not that uncommon. You can watch the Earth's rounded shadow steadily move over the moon in real time (it happens over the course of an hour, unlike moon phases, which take a month). It looks a lot more like the right pic you posted.
That's not the Earth's shadow at all. What you're looking at is the normal appearance of the moon: a bit over half of the moon is illuminated by the sun, while the dark side is dark because it's opposite to the side facing the sun. This is how moon phases work; they have nothing to do with the earth's shadow.
The Earth's shadow only moves in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse, which happens during full moons when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth, relative to the observer's position.
I strongly encourage you to go out at night and watch a lunar eclipse next time one happens in your area: they're not that uncommon. You can watch the Earth's rounded shadow steadily move over the moon in real time (it happens over the course of an hour, unlike moon phases, which take a month). It looks a lot more like the right pic you posted.
Anonymous
No.167512
>The Moon Mystery and the Translucent Stars in 4K - (4:07 long)
>I see stars through the moon.
>I show here unedited photos of me with a 16 MegaPixel resolution. Watch the video on a large screen in a dark environment to see all the details. That's why I produced the video in 4K resolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EuLUTmEgMs
>I see stars through the moon.
>I show here unedited photos of me with a 16 MegaPixel resolution. Watch the video on a large screen in a dark environment to see all the details. That's why I produced the video in 4K resolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EuLUTmEgMs
>>167509
>while the dark side is dark because it's opposite to the side facing the sun. This is how moon phases work; they have nothing to do with the earth's shadow.
According to the astronomers, the moon phases have everything to do with the Earth' shadow.
>while the dark side is dark because it's opposite to the side facing the sun. This is how moon phases work; they have nothing to do with the earth's shadow.
According to the astronomers, the moon phases have everything to do with the Earth' shadow.
Anonymous
No.167515
>>167513
>According to the astronomers, the moon phases have everything to do with the Earth' shadow.
No, they absolutely do not. If you're going to say "according to astronomers", at least cite which ones.
They teach this in middle school, ffs.
>According to the astronomers, the moon phases have everything to do with the Earth' shadow.
No, they absolutely do not. If you're going to say "according to astronomers", at least cite which ones.
They teach this in middle school, ffs.
Anonymous
No.167516
>>167513
>>167504
You are talking out your ass, there are no astronomers who say moon phases have anything to do with the Earth's shadow. Shadows only come into play during lunar eclipses, which are NOT the same as moon phases. Astronomers all say says it's based on the moon's relative position to the sun from ground perspective.
(These graphics are not to scale, but they sum up the concept)
Have you never seen a lunar eclipse before? It's possible that at least one has happened in your lifetime wherever you live.
>>167504
You are talking out your ass, there are no astronomers who say moon phases have anything to do with the Earth's shadow. Shadows only come into play during lunar eclipses, which are NOT the same as moon phases. Astronomers all say says it's based on the moon's relative position to the sun from ground perspective.
(These graphics are not to scale, but they sum up the concept)
Have you never seen a lunar eclipse before? It's possible that at least one has happened in your lifetime wherever you live.
Globers' profound dishonesty.
>Have you ever noticed when explaining a deep subject, no matter how much evidence you provide to some people they will still fight you on it? Not because it's wrong, but because it contradicts everything they've been taught... This is called Cognitive Dissonance.
>Have you ever noticed when explaining a deep subject, no matter how much evidence you provide to some people they will still fight you on it? Not because it's wrong, but because it contradicts everything they've been taught... This is called Cognitive Dissonance.
Anonymous
No.167635
1686716578.mp4 (7.1 MB, Resolution:856x480 Length:00:04:38, SOME MORE FLAT EARTH COMMON SENSE TRUTH THAT MAKE YOU SAY HUMMM .mp4) [play once] [loop]
Some more Flat Earth common sense truth that will make you say hummm 🤔
>>167636
Didn't we discuss weeks ago that the technology is still existant in theory but the hardware dismantled and unmaintained due to lack of interest/funding?
We could go back if people actually wanted to, although I assume that the people claiming space isn't real aren't interested in that.
Didn't we discuss weeks ago that the technology is still existant in theory but the hardware dismantled and unmaintained due to lack of interest/funding?
We could go back if people actually wanted to, although I assume that the people claiming space isn't real aren't interested in that.
>>167639
>Didn't we discuss weeks ago that the technology is still existant
It is not if all blueprints were banished. Then no one can push fraud charges.
>Didn't we discuss weeks ago that the technology is still existant
It is not if all blueprints were banished. Then no one can push fraud charges.
Anonymous
No.167649
1686849278_1.mp4 (1.1 MB, Resolution:824x480 Length:00:00:24, WHO WENT TO ANTARCTICA ON ELECTION DAY 2016 POPE PUTIN JOHN KERRY.mp4) [play once] [loop]
1686849278_2.jpg (219.3 KB, 1920x1080, Rarity_wondering_about_e-mails_EG.jpg)
>WHO WENT TO ANTARCTICA ON ELECTION DAY 2016 - POPE, PUTIN, JOHN KERRY.
What's going on there?
What's going on there?
Anonymous
No.167650
>>167646
>all blueprints were banished
They weren't though. The only tech that's sealed is the technology related to our intercontinental ballistic missile system.
>all blueprints were banished
They weren't though. The only tech that's sealed is the technology related to our intercontinental ballistic missile system.
Anonymous
No.167651
>>167645
Maybe "if people actually devoted the right time, resources and investment into" is the right term.
But no, the government just keeps sending money to niggers and Israel instead.
Maybe "if people actually devoted the right time, resources and investment into" is the right term.
But no, the government just keeps sending money to niggers and Israel instead.
1687010107.jpg (114.3 KB, 1280x1423, RDT_20230617_0422227001748350842309532.jpg)
The photo that NASA doesn't want you to see
Anonymous
No.167670
1687149916.mp4 (3.5 MB, Resolution:852x480 Length:00:02:10, Exposing NASA fake imagery.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>167655
>The photo that NASA doesn't want you to see
Aha!
Let's find out what is about NASA's fake pics.
>The photo that NASA doesn't want you to see
Aha!
Let's find out what is about NASA's fake pics.
>>168061
For a disk of plasma, it sure seems to have an interesting 2D map. Almost like the object is 3D and has craters which are visible at different times. Unless plasma takes forms that have the appearance of craters which don't shift while observed, yet repeats the same patterns.
For a disk of plasma, it sure seems to have an interesting 2D map. Almost like the object is 3D and has craters which are visible at different times. Unless plasma takes forms that have the appearance of craters which don't shift while observed, yet repeats the same patterns.
>>168062
>Almost like the object is 3D and has craters which are visible at different times
>3D
Interesting theory, but there is a problem. If the moon is a ball in space, how so all the craters are perpendicular and not even one shows an angular impact?
>Almost like the object is 3D and has craters which are visible at different times
>3D
Interesting theory, but there is a problem. If the moon is a ball in space, how so all the craters are perpendicular and not even one shows an angular impact?
>>168061
The sun is plasma (among other things). The moon is quite visibly a solid body of material, as those exact craters haven't observably changed since time immemorable. Plasma is fluid, and wouldn't have distinctive craters and ridges for any considerable period (although it could still have them briefly, such as with sun spots).
But overall, this still isn't super relevant to flat earth, aside from vague implied criticism of conventional astrology, which is I guess is barely relevant to the narrative.
This is my first time hearing a proposition that the moon is flat though, although imo that's even less believable than flat earth, because the curve of the moon is unironically, literally, easily visible, as per >>168062 explains
>>168063
>not even one shows an angular impact?
They literally do. You can see the minute elliptical ovals and rides to indicate impact angle. Some of them are shaped like long streaks. There are entire teams of people dedicated to mapping the geological (lunarlogical?)history of the moons craters to determine what caused them and approximately how long ago. The craters have names and measurements and very detailed mapping. You just need to look closer to them (as with a telescope).
The sun is plasma (among other things). The moon is quite visibly a solid body of material, as those exact craters haven't observably changed since time immemorable. Plasma is fluid, and wouldn't have distinctive craters and ridges for any considerable period (although it could still have them briefly, such as with sun spots).
But overall, this still isn't super relevant to flat earth, aside from vague implied criticism of conventional astrology, which is I guess is barely relevant to the narrative.
This is my first time hearing a proposition that the moon is flat though, although imo that's even less believable than flat earth, because the curve of the moon is unironically, literally, easily visible, as per >>168062 explains
>>168063
>not even one shows an angular impact?
They literally do. You can see the minute elliptical ovals and rides to indicate impact angle. Some of them are shaped like long streaks. There are entire teams of people dedicated to mapping the geological (lunarlogical?)history of the moons craters to determine what caused them and approximately how long ago. The craters have names and measurements and very detailed mapping. You just need to look closer to them (as with a telescope).
>>168064
>They literally do. You can see the minute elliptical ovals and rides to indicate impact angle. Some of them are shaped like long streaks.
Show me those shapep like long streaks please.
Also, if the fake Newtonian law is applied, there is a discrepancy with Earth, supposedly both, Earth and Moon are celestial bodies under the same gravitational laws, but on Earth no meteorite has never ever fell perpendicularly. Strange, isn't it?
>They literally do. You can see the minute elliptical ovals and rides to indicate impact angle. Some of them are shaped like long streaks.
Show me those shapep like long streaks please.
Also, if the fake Newtonian law is applied, there is a discrepancy with Earth, supposedly both, Earth and Moon are celestial bodies under the same gravitational laws, but on Earth no meteorite has never ever fell perpendicularly. Strange, isn't it?
>>168064
>But overall, this still isn't super relevant to flat earth
Astronomy is indeed, those firmament lights are very relevant as they are components of this realm.
>But overall, this still isn't super relevant to flat earth
Astronomy is indeed, those firmament lights are very relevant as they are components of this realm.
>>168065
I don't know why its so important that they come in perpendicular, because there's a lot of angles that they could approach from, especially if they fell from an elliptical orbit around the earth. Meteors typically come at a an elliptical angle, which is why you can see those long trails of smoke stretching across the sky after they land.
They would only come in at a semi-perpendicular angle if they hit the earth at a particular angle, and more importantly at incredibly high speed and mass to have not orbited the earth or slingshotted around it for any period, but instead just hit it directly. Those kind of huge heavy objects barreling towards the earth are rather rare, even among meteor impacts (thank God). I think the most iconic example would be the one would be the one that smashed into the gulf of Mexico during the late Cretaceous period, which seemed to have just barreled right towards the planet and hit it directly and bringing it's destruction with it.
>>168069
Well, maybe next time post some context/argument with the picture if you have an actual point to make, instead of just image-dumping.
Thing is, the earth and moon being flat are actually two separate cosmological debates. If I proved to you the moon was round, it wouldn't necessarily prove the earth was, and vise versa. You could hypothetically have a flat earth and round moon, or a round earth and flat moon.
If you want to continue this, go ahead and post more arguments/evidence for flat moon, but it feels like a red herring for the flat earth discussion.
I don't know why its so important that they come in perpendicular, because there's a lot of angles that they could approach from, especially if they fell from an elliptical orbit around the earth. Meteors typically come at a an elliptical angle, which is why you can see those long trails of smoke stretching across the sky after they land.
They would only come in at a semi-perpendicular angle if they hit the earth at a particular angle, and more importantly at incredibly high speed and mass to have not orbited the earth or slingshotted around it for any period, but instead just hit it directly. Those kind of huge heavy objects barreling towards the earth are rather rare, even among meteor impacts (thank God). I think the most iconic example would be the one would be the one that smashed into the gulf of Mexico during the late Cretaceous period, which seemed to have just barreled right towards the planet and hit it directly and bringing it's destruction with it.
>>168069
Well, maybe next time post some context/argument with the picture if you have an actual point to make, instead of just image-dumping.
Thing is, the earth and moon being flat are actually two separate cosmological debates. If I proved to you the moon was round, it wouldn't necessarily prove the earth was, and vise versa. You could hypothetically have a flat earth and round moon, or a round earth and flat moon.
If you want to continue this, go ahead and post more arguments/evidence for flat moon, but it feels like a red herring for the flat earth discussion.
1689130841.png (2.0 MB, 1280x720, 77be960de18e35e13d06bfbde3e47239-field.png)
>>168070
Forgot pic. This was the trail of one that landed on a sorry guy's house last may. It did indeed come at an elliptical angle.
Gosh I'm tired.
Forgot pic. This was the trail of one that landed on a sorry guy's house last may. It did indeed come at an elliptical angle.
Gosh I'm tired.
>>168070
>Well, maybe next time post some context/argument with the picture if you have an actual point to make, instead of just image-dumping.
Come on, loosen up anon. The pic is breathtaking and cool.
>Well, maybe next time post some context/argument with the picture if you have an actual point to make, instead of just image-dumping.
Come on, loosen up anon. The pic is breathtaking and cool.
Anonymous
No.168073
>>168072
I said it was good, but posting it in this thread implies an argument about flat earth, which wasn't posted until inquired.
I said it was good, but posting it in this thread implies an argument about flat earth, which wasn't posted until inquired.
>>168071
>It did indeed come at an elliptical angle.
>Gosh I'm tired.
No doubt. The mental gymnastics to explain the discrepancy must take most of your energy.
>It did indeed come at an elliptical angle.
>Gosh I'm tired.
No doubt. The mental gymnastics to explain the discrepancy must take most of your energy.
Anonymous
No.168075
1689153578.mp4 (5.9 MB, Resolution:854x480 Length:00:02:41, Floridian Justin Harvey exposing NASA's International Fake Station.mp4) [play once] [loop]
2023-04-04.
>Floridian Justin Harvey exposing NASA's International Fake Station
>Floridian Justin Harvey exposing NASA's International Fake Station
1689764535.gif (538.0 KB, 600x774, AAchasing-the-stars-compressed.gif)
Sirius never moves, it is fixed in the sky.
Anonymous
No.168219
Gravity, not even the science priests actually know what it is.
>>168221
They don't know because it's not exactly easy to understand. It's one of those great mysteries of the cosmos
They could always just make stuff up if they were just bullshitting the whole thing *cough* dark matter *cough* but it's not that simple. There are many different theories for how it works, and questions for what holds things together at the outer reaches of the universe.
They don't know because it's not exactly easy to understand. It's one of those great mysteries of the cosmos
They could always just make stuff up if they were just bullshitting the whole thing *cough* dark matter *cough* but it's not that simple. There are many different theories for how it works, and questions for what holds things together at the outer reaches of the universe.
>>168222
>gravity
>They don't know because it's not exactly easy to understand. It's one of those great mysteries of the cosmos
It is called DENSITY and explains everything darling.
>gravity
>They don't know because it's not exactly easy to understand. It's one of those great mysteries of the cosmos
It is called DENSITY and explains everything darling.
>>168224
It's no mystery that gravity is based on density. Even the guy in the meme could've told you that.
It's no mystery that gravity is based on density. Even the guy in the meme could've told you that.
1690287204.webm (8.1 MB, Resolution:480x360 Length:00:02:36, Only believing what they want to believe.webm) [play once] [loop]
>>168224
>Observable
>Repeatable
>Measureable
It's funny how you think that those alone is how things are "proven".
>Observable
>Repeatable
>Measureable
It's funny how you think that those alone is how things are "proven".
Anonymous
No.168228
>>168224
Gravity is observable, repeatable and measurable. We know the rate of acceleration of gravity, and can observe it's effects on tides, terrestrial life and interstellar objects.
What we don't know is precisely why and how gravity works, only that it does. I don't see a sophisticated explanation on the metaphysical mechanics of relative density either.
Gravity is observable, repeatable and measurable. We know the rate of acceleration of gravity, and can observe it's effects on tides, terrestrial life and interstellar objects.
What we don't know is precisely why and how gravity works, only that it does. I don't see a sophisticated explanation on the metaphysical mechanics of relative density either.
>>168224
No idea what relative density even has to do with concave brained earth. It's not like density doesn't exist under Neutonian gravity, or even relativistic gravity.
No idea what relative density even has to do with concave brained earth. It's not like density doesn't exist under Neutonian gravity, or even relativistic gravity.
Anonymous
No.168233
>>168230
And even if it were something separate entirely, it's not like there's any more of a metaphysical explanation for it than gravity has. May as well be the wojak in the other pic on a fool's errand to explain precisely how and why lighter materials float.
Also worth noting that objects weigh the same in vacuum chambers, so relative density can't be the only force at play.
And even if it were something separate entirely, it's not like there's any more of a metaphysical explanation for it than gravity has. May as well be the wojak in the other pic on a fool's errand to explain precisely how and why lighter materials float.
Also worth noting that objects weigh the same in vacuum chambers, so relative density can't be the only force at play.
[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] [2751-2784] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
2784 replies | 1433 files | 282 UUIDs | Page 8