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 1420 files omitted.
>>170217
>It has almost complete coverage over all the world's oceans.
Go below the Ecuator parallel and see how it works, the further you sail to the south, the less functional is.
>It has almost complete coverage over all the world's oceans.
Go below the Ecuator parallel and see how it works, the further you sail to the south, the less functional is.
>>170218
They were it to track ships having to go around the horn of Africa in real time during that Suez canal fiasco. It works perfectly fine down south.
Where are you getting this?
They were it to track ships having to go around the horn of Africa in real time during that Suez canal fiasco. It works perfectly fine down south.
Where are you getting this?
>>170219
>Where are you getting this?
First hand experience sailing the Cabo the Hornos, where the world ends before reaching Antartica. This have been described by me like a thousand posts above.
>Where are you getting this?
First hand experience sailing the Cabo the Hornos, where the world ends before reaching Antartica. This have been described by me like a thousand posts above.
>>170223
Well, if it was more than three years, that's not really relevant, because most Starlink satellites have gone up very recently.
>dox yourself
>implying a boat among tens thousands sailing on a particular year is doxxable
Well, if it was more than three years, that's not really relevant, because most Starlink satellites have gone up very recently.
>dox yourself
>implying a boat among tens thousands sailing on a particular year is doxxable
>>170224
>because most Starlink satellites have gone up very recently.
Yeah, but satellital service is way before Musk's hoax.
>because most Starlink satellites have gone up very recently.
Yeah, but satellital service is way before Musk's hoax.
>>170224
>implying a boat among tens thousands sailing on a particular year is doxxable
The Cabo the Hornos is a veeeeeeeeeery special route where no many adventure into. Just yandex it.
>implying a boat among tens thousands sailing on a particular year is doxxable
The Cabo the Hornos is a veeeeeeeeeery special route where no many adventure into. Just yandex it.
>>170225
General satellite service isn't Starlink internet. Starlink has proven to be reliable all over the ocean, so sailors can shitpost from anywhere on the seas.
And as I said before, the number of satellites has doubled in the past few years.
General satellite service isn't Starlink internet. Starlink has proven to be reliable all over the ocean, so sailors can shitpost from anywhere on the seas.
And as I said before, the number of satellites has doubled in the past few years.
>>170225
>hoax
Considering how lucrative and influential satellite internet is proving to be, it wouldn't even matter if it were made of a bunch of balloons or dangling on strings glued to Ymir's skull. Whatever it's made of, Starlink is an incredibly promising technology.
>hoax
Considering how lucrative and influential satellite internet is proving to be, it wouldn't even matter if it were made of a bunch of balloons or dangling on strings glued to Ymir's skull. Whatever it's made of, Starlink is an incredibly promising technology.
File (): 75CFACD842F83866E8772CF58092CCB4-376359.jpg
(367.5 KB, 2048x1362, 1.jpg)
File (): 3585B71527D4579549056AA33F0798A1-700659.jpg
(684.2 KB, 1280x720, 2.jpg)
>>170228
>Starlink is an incredibly promising technology.
I would say a balloon technology rebranded as satellital.
>Starlink is an incredibly promising technology.
I would say a balloon technology rebranded as satellital.
>>170229
>pics
These aren't Starlink terminals though?
Pic 1 is from a test flight for a silly sunlight-blocking technology to fight climate change in Sweden. It was cancelled due to being stupid
Pic 2-3 are pics of NASA's launch of the Compton Spectrometer.
None of this has anything to do with Starlink.
>pics
These aren't Starlink terminals though?
Pic 1 is from a test flight for a silly sunlight-blocking technology to fight climate change in Sweden. It was cancelled due to being stupid
Pic 2-3 are pics of NASA's launch of the Compton Spectrometer.
None of this has anything to do with Starlink.
>>170230
>None of this has anything to do with Starlink.
Of course not. You really expect Mr Musk to show us commercial secrets? But the balloon technique stands.
>None of this has anything to do with Starlink.
Of course not. You really expect Mr Musk to show us commercial secrets? But the balloon technique stands.
>>170231
>But the balloon technique stands
Based on what?
We could've had satellite Internet a lot earlier if balloons were reliable satellites.
Starlink took off when spaceX developed a method to recover rockets so that the equipment for putting satellites in orbit wasn't only disposable.
>But the balloon technique stands
Based on what?
We could've had satellite Internet a lot earlier if balloons were reliable satellites.
Starlink took off when spaceX developed a method to recover rockets so that the equipment for putting satellites in orbit wasn't only disposable.
>>170233
>We could've had satellite Internet a lot earlier if balloons were reliable satellites.
Exactly, balloons are so effective as the wind currents that take them away, that's the reason why a continuous launching rate of balloons are necessary to fake satellites and keep an apparently stable communication link.
>We could've had satellite Internet a lot earlier if balloons were reliable satellites.
Exactly, balloons are so effective as the wind currents that take them away, that's the reason why a continuous launching rate of balloons are necessary to fake satellites and keep an apparently stable communication link.
>>170235
Except balloons also deflate over time at a rate that makes them unreliable for permanent infrastructure.
>continuous launching rate of balloons are necessary to fake satellites and keep an apparently stable communication link
Oh, hahaha, just continuously keep launching $250,000 satellites that fall into the sea when their balloons pop. That's totally a sustainable business model.
Except balloons also deflate over time at a rate that makes them unreliable for permanent infrastructure.
>continuous launching rate of balloons are necessary to fake satellites and keep an apparently stable communication link
Oh, hahaha, just continuously keep launching $250,000 satellites that fall into the sea when their balloons pop. That's totally a sustainable business model.
>>170236
>$250,000 satellites that fall into the sea when their balloons pop. That's totally a sustainable business model.
Dude, even Amazon was not a sustainable model for years and I'm not sure is getting even today. All these private enterprises would never survive a year without government contracts and assistance. You see, while claiming to be a companies in a free market environment, reality is that they survive because government centralized communism.
>$250,000 satellites that fall into the sea when their balloons pop. That's totally a sustainable business model.
Dude, even Amazon was not a sustainable model for years and I'm not sure is getting even today. All these private enterprises would never survive a year without government contracts and assistance. You see, while claiming to be a companies in a free market environment, reality is that they survive because government centralized communism.
>>170235
>>170236
It would cost $15,000,000,000 per day to continuously replace all Starlink satellites without communications loss, and that's just considering the manufacturing, not the salaries of the technicians or the cost of launching balloons.
>>170237
You seriously think Elon is spending more than fifteen billion dollars per day to continuously replace over five thousand satellites on weather balloons that cost two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and only last for two hours each?
>>170236
It would cost $15,000,000,000 per day to continuously replace all Starlink satellites without communications loss, and that's just considering the manufacturing, not the salaries of the technicians or the cost of launching balloons.
>>170237
You seriously think Elon is spending more than fifteen billion dollars per day to continuously replace over five thousand satellites on weather balloons that cost two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and only last for two hours each?
>>170238
>You seriously think Elon is spending more than fifteen billion dollars per day to continuously replace over five thousand satellites
>5,000 satellites
You seriously think Elon is telling you the truth? KEK
>You seriously think Elon is spending more than fifteen billion dollars per day to continuously replace over five thousand satellites
>5,000 satellites
You seriously think Elon is telling you the truth? KEK
>>170240
No idea and it actually is not important because is the same case than Google. The government is interested in keeping functioning at any cost, if it makes profit is good, and if not injections of capital will keep it afloat.
No idea and it actually is not important because is the same case than Google. The government is interested in keeping functioning at any cost, if it makes profit is good, and if not injections of capital will keep it afloat.
>>170239
How would Starlink possibly work if there weren't that many satellites? You think this is possible with only a few satellites? This is a fuckload of data we're talking about.
How would Starlink possibly work if there weren't that many satellites? You think this is possible with only a few satellites? This is a fuckload of data we're talking about.
>>170242
>This is a fuckload of data we're talking about.
It is not. 97% of all internet traffic goes through submarine cables and the rest is distributed between land fiber optics and airborne relays.
>This is a fuckload of data we're talking about.
It is not. 97% of all internet traffic goes through submarine cables and the rest is distributed between land fiber optics and airborne relays.
>>170243
Except all of that has to be accessible through the satellite if Starlink is supposed to be useful for anything, so it does indeed have to go through the satellite.
The only reason Starlink works is because there's so many of them, and there's that many of them because SpaceX recovers the rockets for reuse.
Except all of that has to be accessible through the satellite if Starlink is supposed to be useful for anything, so it does indeed have to go through the satellite.
The only reason Starlink works is because there's so many of them, and there's that many of them because SpaceX recovers the rockets for reuse.
>>170245
Weather balloons only last two hours.
To have continuous connection, you'd have to replace each of them 12 times a day.
Weather balloons only last two hours.
To have continuous connection, you'd have to replace each of them 12 times a day.
For those in the known.
>The current solar cycle is, indeed, a circle. Because the sun revolves in a circle, that is also the shape of the ice wall that exists at our boundaries.
>The firmament barrier may be much larger than this, though, according to the 'moon map' - the image of the Earth we see projected on the moon.
>On the moon map, we see many other, HUGE pieces of land - and resources - outside our solar cycle, and the ice wall.
>The current solar cycle is, indeed, a circle. Because the sun revolves in a circle, that is also the shape of the ice wall that exists at our boundaries.
>The firmament barrier may be much larger than this, though, according to the 'moon map' - the image of the Earth we see projected on the moon.
>On the moon map, we see many other, HUGE pieces of land - and resources - outside our solar cycle, and the ice wall.
File (): 9B7A00C3F21D97914F8567ED62319AC8-47391.jpg
(46.3 KB, 512x416, 33e4da529e503d23271c46b039d08b21fcaaef67_00.jpg)
>>170372
I've heard of Dark Continent theory. It's basically the Flat Earther's equivalent to Hollow Earth theory: it would be really amazing if it were true, but there's little evidence for it (even in context of Flat Earth cosmology). The concept of a terrestrial hidden world outside the known boundaries of our own with it's own lands and resources and unexplored frontiers is a cool idea, although not much supporting it.
I've seen Dark Continent theory in referenced in a lot of fantasy world-building. One example would be the Magi manga (although it has a spherical earth, it's still the same concept). It's a fun trope, for the reasons above. I would recommend it for fantasy world-builders interested in making a final frontier who's existence tells a story about the meaning of the world's creation, being in close proximity to the great rift of creation, perhaps even the path to an ancient, dead world from eons before this land was formed, or an inverted world unlike our own, perhaps even the realm of the dead, or the home of our ancestors.
The trope is, in many ways, like an inversion of hyperborean hollow earth theory. Where Hyperborea depicts a paradise in the north, and a world within a world, Dark Continent theory depicts a dark and loathsome wasteland which encompasses our own, a world outside our world.
In my own fantasy pony worldbuilding, I considered the idea of the Dark Continent being the icy frontier of the world being a rugged and untamable place, where providence withers, reality breaks down, and the wendigos rule the frigid edges of disharmony. I based it on the warning sign in The Witcher III: "You've reached the edge of the world! Only devils roam here! Turn back!". I love the trope of the edges of reality being dark and sinister places inhabited by nameless horrors, but still worlds in and of themselves.
Where did you quote that greentext from? I would like to read more about this supposed "moon map". All I find is maps of the cartography of the moon itself. I know the moon is reflective, but I didn't think it was reflective enough to reflect a mirror-like image of earth.
I've heard of Dark Continent theory. It's basically the Flat Earther's equivalent to Hollow Earth theory: it would be really amazing if it were true, but there's little evidence for it (even in context of Flat Earth cosmology). The concept of a terrestrial hidden world outside the known boundaries of our own with it's own lands and resources and unexplored frontiers is a cool idea, although not much supporting it.
I've seen Dark Continent theory in referenced in a lot of fantasy world-building. One example would be the Magi manga (although it has a spherical earth, it's still the same concept). It's a fun trope, for the reasons above. I would recommend it for fantasy world-builders interested in making a final frontier who's existence tells a story about the meaning of the world's creation, being in close proximity to the great rift of creation, perhaps even the path to an ancient, dead world from eons before this land was formed, or an inverted world unlike our own, perhaps even the realm of the dead, or the home of our ancestors.
The trope is, in many ways, like an inversion of hyperborean hollow earth theory. Where Hyperborea depicts a paradise in the north, and a world within a world, Dark Continent theory depicts a dark and loathsome wasteland which encompasses our own, a world outside our world.
In my own fantasy pony worldbuilding, I considered the idea of the Dark Continent being the icy frontier of the world being a rugged and untamable place, where providence withers, reality breaks down, and the wendigos rule the frigid edges of disharmony. I based it on the warning sign in The Witcher III: "You've reached the edge of the world! Only devils roam here! Turn back!". I love the trope of the edges of reality being dark and sinister places inhabited by nameless horrors, but still worlds in and of themselves.
Where did you quote that greentext from? I would like to read more about this supposed "moon map". All I find is maps of the cartography of the moon itself. I know the moon is reflective, but I didn't think it was reflective enough to reflect a mirror-like image of earth.
>>170373
Okay, I did some research on the "moon map" thing. It's the suggestion that the moon is actually a map/reflection/projection of the earth.
Overall, I have to say, I disagree. Not only do the craters of the moon not really match the geography of the earth (although they could look vaguely similar if you squint), the moon's craters are also observable in greater detail with medieval-era telescopes, and while observing the moon shows that it indeed does have mountains, pits, and valleys, they don't really match up with the geography of the world.
To kill time, I decided to check out if anyone decided to map out the moon's craters in detail and compare them to the earth, but all I found was vague outlines drawn with an excess of wishful thinking.
Cool idea, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Okay, I did some research on the "moon map" thing. It's the suggestion that the moon is actually a map/reflection/projection of the earth.
Overall, I have to say, I disagree. Not only do the craters of the moon not really match the geography of the earth (although they could look vaguely similar if you squint), the moon's craters are also observable in greater detail with medieval-era telescopes, and while observing the moon shows that it indeed does have mountains, pits, and valleys, they don't really match up with the geography of the world.
To kill time, I decided to check out if anyone decided to map out the moon's craters in detail and compare them to the earth, but all I found was vague outlines drawn with an excess of wishful thinking.
Cool idea, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
>>170375
>Cool idea, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
At less... you try to match the map with the undersea geology, then suddenly it makes sense.
>Cool idea, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
At less... you try to match the map with the undersea geology, then suddenly it makes sense.
>>170373
>Dark Continent theory depicts a dark and loathsome wasteland which encompasses our own
Did you know that there is some myths about sunny warm lands beyond the frozen wasteland? If so, it may be that there is at least other sun circling the dome in a wider ring.
>Dark Continent theory depicts a dark and loathsome wasteland which encompasses our own
Did you know that there is some myths about sunny warm lands beyond the frozen wasteland? If so, it may be that there is at least other sun circling the dome in a wider ring.
>>170373
>The trope is, in many ways, like an inversion of hyperborean hollow earth theory. Where Hyperborea depicts a paradise in the north
A reminder that the north is also guarded by men with weapons and no one is allowed to travel there.
>The trope is, in many ways, like an inversion of hyperborean hollow earth theory. Where Hyperborea depicts a paradise in the north
A reminder that the north is also guarded by men with weapons and no one is allowed to travel there.
>>170376
Nah, I considered that. There doesn't seem to be any exact match with abovesea geography.
>there is some myths about sunny warm lands beyond the frozen wasteland?
Of course I know. I just referenced Hyperborea.
>no one is allowed
That's not really true at all. People go there all of the time. You can schedule holiday trips there. Multiple shipping routes go there too.
Nah, I considered that. There doesn't seem to be any exact match with abovesea geography.
>there is some myths about sunny warm lands beyond the frozen wasteland?
Of course I know. I just referenced Hyperborea.
>no one is allowed
That's not really true at all. People go there all of the time. You can schedule holiday trips there. Multiple shipping routes go there too.
>>170379
>Nah, I considered that. There doesn't seem to be any exact match with abovesea geography.
Hang on. I saw a good presentation but long and geometrically convoluted, but kinda a geographical match nevertheless.
>Nah, I considered that. There doesn't seem to be any exact match with abovesea geography.
Hang on. I saw a good presentation but long and geometrically convoluted, but kinda a geographical match nevertheless.
File (): 62ABCFF5C60405F57E7A67190FE21619-1450722.mp4
(1.4 MB, Resolution:404x720 Length:00:00:41, conste.mp4)
[play once] [loop]
Our constellations have never changed, and our Earth clock has never changed.
This is a small clip from >>148621
This is a small clip from >>148621
>>170385
>Our constellations have never changed
Our constellations have demonstrably changed, since Ancient Egypt.
>If everything was moving we'd see different things in the sky
We've had this exact conversation before. It was explained. Scroll up.
Why are you posting redundant arguments? Why are you repeating yourself? Did you just forget?
>Our constellations have never changed
Our constellations have demonstrably changed, since Ancient Egypt.
>If everything was moving we'd see different things in the sky
We've had this exact conversation before. It was explained. Scroll up.
Why are you posting redundant arguments? Why are you repeating yourself? Did you just forget?
>>170387
>You've brought this up before. Everypony remembers.
Yeah, and yet you still insist in your misinterpretation because you have no clue what you are talking about. If your ball is flipping around in a allegedly universe, then is impossible to have any periodicity in stars' position.
>You've brought this up before. Everypony remembers.
Yeah, and yet you still insist in your misinterpretation because you have no clue what you are talking about. If your ball is flipping around in a allegedly universe, then is impossible to have any periodicity in stars' position.
>>170388
>then is impossible to have any periodicity in stars' position
How is that impossible?
And again, you're just repeating yourself, with the same arguments you've already made in this thread, like a broken record.
>then is impossible to have any periodicity in stars' position
How is that impossible?
And again, you're just repeating yourself, with the same arguments you've already made in this thread, like a broken record.
>>170389
>And again, you're just repeating yourself, with the same arguments you've already made in this thread, like a broken record
No U.
I have a better idea, instead of talking about something you know nothing about, why you don't plot the earth trajectory in a heliocentric setting and then find out where the stars are?
>And again, you're just repeating yourself, with the same arguments you've already made in this thread, like a broken record
No U.
I have a better idea, instead of talking about something you know nothing about, why you don't plot the earth trajectory in a heliocentric setting and then find out where the stars are?
File (): 19818A5F52F183CF9BA5A6AD2AC34140-120632.gif
(117.8 KB, 400x399, main-qimg-4baef238de5df5096a05494475cc9501.gif)
>>170388
>is impossible to have any periodicity in stars' position
Untrue. The stars have consistent positions because in the grand scheme of things we're not actually getting very much closer to any of them. The universe is so enormously vast that the amount the earth has moved in the history of humanity has made very little difference in terms of positions of the nearest stars.
>>170391
>why you don't plot the earth trajectory in a heliocentric setting and then find out where the stars are?
Pic related
There is an entire field of science devoted to tracking the position of the earth relative to the nearest celestial bodies.
>is impossible to have any periodicity in stars' position
Untrue. The stars have consistent positions because in the grand scheme of things we're not actually getting very much closer to any of them. The universe is so enormously vast that the amount the earth has moved in the history of humanity has made very little difference in terms of positions of the nearest stars.
>>170391
>why you don't plot the earth trajectory in a heliocentric setting and then find out where the stars are?
Pic related
There is an entire field of science devoted to tracking the position of the earth relative to the nearest celestial bodies.
>>170392
>The stars have consistent positions because in the grand scheme of things we're not actually getting very much closer to any of them.
Correct. This realm is fixed.
>The stars have consistent positions because in the grand scheme of things we're not actually getting very much closer to any of them.
Correct. This realm is fixed.
>>170391
>earth trajectory in a heliocentric setting
Are you asking for the trajectory of the Earth's or it around the sun, or the trajectory of the sun itself (and thus also the moon) around the center of the milky way?
>earth trajectory in a heliocentric setting
Are you asking for the trajectory of the Earth's or it around the sun, or the trajectory of the sun itself (and thus also the moon) around the center of the milky way?
[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