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)
2720 replies and 1418 files omitted.
>>157811
No one is shilling except for you.
You do realize that the size and location of the light source plays a role in how the eclipse is projected right? So, sticking a ball in front pf a light bulb is about the least credible of an experiment imaginable.
No one is shilling except for you.
You do realize that the size and location of the light source plays a role in how the eclipse is projected right? So, sticking a ball in front pf a light bulb is about the least credible of an experiment imaginable.
>>157814
>cant tell that proportionate sizes has everything to do with the appearance of curvature over a vast and specific distance
Dunning Kreuger, ladies and gentlemen
>cant tell that proportionate sizes has everything to do with the appearance of curvature over a vast and specific distance
Dunning Kreuger, ladies and gentlemen
File (): A18104CD17E6F9AFD41102D6D892D820-1652780.gif (1.6 MB, 550x515, popcorn.gif)
>>157816
My kitchen is not arranged precisely enough to conduct a credible experiment, and Im not so foolish as to think otherwise. I hope you're the same anon who claimed an engineering background, cuz then you would know what precise ratios and calculations are required to recreate a suitably detailrd model for which such an experiment would be credible. When milling, I deal with precise measurements in the microns. You know what happens if a person is off by just 2 microns? The whole thing falls apart. You're suggesting that an experiment that is off by inches will fly just fine though. Thats not how this works
My kitchen is not arranged precisely enough to conduct a credible experiment, and Im not so foolish as to think otherwise. I hope you're the same anon who claimed an engineering background, cuz then you would know what precise ratios and calculations are required to recreate a suitably detailrd model for which such an experiment would be credible. When milling, I deal with precise measurements in the microns. You know what happens if a person is off by just 2 microns? The whole thing falls apart. You're suggesting that an experiment that is off by inches will fly just fine though. Thats not how this works
>>157817
Do not misdirect attention to "precision" because in this case is irrelevant. It is about plain optics, or light propagation in other words.
Do not misdirect attention to "precision" because in this case is irrelevant. It is about plain optics, or light propagation in other words.
>>157818
The earth is an alleged 150mil kilometers from the sun, and an alleged 405k km from the moon. Thats a ratio of 370 to 1. There needs to be 370x more distance betwern the light and the earth stand-in AND its size needs to be proportionate to the modeled moon size.
That you neglect to account for that makes your claims utterly ludicrous.
The earth is an alleged 150mil kilometers from the sun, and an alleged 405k km from the moon. Thats a ratio of 370 to 1. There needs to be 370x more distance betwern the light and the earth stand-in AND its size needs to be proportionate to the modeled moon size.
That you neglect to account for that makes your claims utterly ludicrous.
>>157819
The experiment is not about distances and proportions, but the shape of a shadow. Try it yourself lazy nigger, it is free.
Otherwise watch again the video as many times as necessary until you grasp the concept.
The experiment is not about distances and proportions, but the shape of a shadow. Try it yourself lazy nigger, it is free.
Otherwise watch again the video as many times as necessary until you grasp the concept.
>>157820
Lets put this into perspective.
A properly ratio'd model would have say, 370' between the 'sun' and the 'earth', and ONE foot between the earth and the moon.
The SUN with a calculated diameter of 1.39mil km would need to have the diameter of about 6.5". The earth, with a calculated equatorial dimeter of ~12.75k would proportionately need to be about the size of a pea, and the moon would be about the size of a peppercorn, just 1' away.
That would A. be vastly more credible experiment.
Lets put this into perspective.
A properly ratio'd model would have say, 370' between the 'sun' and the 'earth', and ONE foot between the earth and the moon.
The SUN with a calculated diameter of 1.39mil km would need to have the diameter of about 6.5". The earth, with a calculated equatorial dimeter of ~12.75k would proportionately need to be about the size of a pea, and the moon would be about the size of a peppercorn, just 1' away.
That would A. be vastly more credible experiment.
Anonymous
No.157822
File (): C7AD023F4EFD49EB78A8B626AF9D4DC1-202174.jpg (197.4 KB, 728x546, light-energy-7-728.jpeg)
File (): 5D83FF061980760EDA0CF58AE2475CB3-141597.png (138.3 KB, 1148x696, facehoof.png)
File (): BDCCC4E37EE7071890C075DF8AF2F540-83159.jpg (81.2 KB, 1600x1131, Lunar+Eclipse+Graphic.jpg)
Heres that pic from the video.
Please note, the proportions are 6.5" diameter sun, then 370 feet, then a pea, then 1 foot, then a peppercorn.
A football field is 360' long. There is more than a football field between the sun and the earth, in this model.
Please note, the proportions are 6.5" diameter sun, then 370 feet, then a pea, then 1 foot, then a peppercorn.
A football field is 360' long. There is more than a football field between the sun and the earth, in this model.
>>157824
Playing shadow puppets with arbitrary sizes and distances will give you dodgy results, but the results are based on the infanti-level precision of the experiment. What Im saying is, that example doesnt in any way disprove the viability of eclipses, it only makes the videographer - and you - look foolish for presenting invalid findings as 'evidence'
Playing shadow puppets with arbitrary sizes and distances will give you dodgy results, but the results are based on the infanti-level precision of the experiment. What Im saying is, that example doesnt in any way disprove the viability of eclipses, it only makes the videographer - and you - look foolish for presenting invalid findings as 'evidence'
Anonymous
No.157826
Again, Dunning Kreuger
>>157825
On the contrary, it makes you look retarded. The quality of the experiment is exactly the same than the NASA one.
It looks like the problem it is in your mindset which only accept input from "authoritative" sources regardless of its validity. The brainwashing is strong in you.
On the contrary, it makes you look retarded. The quality of the experiment is exactly the same than the NASA one.
It looks like the problem it is in your mindset which only accept input from "authoritative" sources regardless of its validity. The brainwashing is strong in you.
>>157827
Thanks for confirming the 'legitimacy' of your 'engineering background'. You obviously dont actually work in engineering, because you would appreciate how inane you come across to someone who deals with extreme precision and calculation versus anything but, and how a layman can look at a thing and assume to comprehend it right before getting themselves and people around them killed.
Obviously thats not an argument, its an inference made by taking your entirely ass-backward method of approaching the experiment and applying it to someone in an industrial context.
Thanks for confirming the 'legitimacy' of your 'engineering background'. You obviously dont actually work in engineering, because you would appreciate how inane you come across to someone who deals with extreme precision and calculation versus anything but, and how a layman can look at a thing and assume to comprehend it right before getting themselves and people around them killed.
Obviously thats not an argument, its an inference made by taking your entirely ass-backward method of approaching the experiment and applying it to someone in an industrial context.
>>157828
Your statement is based in faith, not science.
If you would have a engineering background, then you would recognize at once that NASA lies don't meet the scientific method and therefore they are null and void.
Your statement is based in faith, not science.
If you would have a engineering background, then you would recognize at once that NASA lies don't meet the scientific method and therefore they are null and void.
Anonymous
No.157832
Let me be clear, NASA is full of shit. Im not talking about that.
Im talking about Copernicus and Galileo and so forth. Debunk THEM.
Im talking about Copernicus and Galileo and so forth. Debunk THEM.
Anonymous
No.157835
>>157834
I get it now. Your tactic is to deflect and persist until the other person gives up, concedes under duress, or their head explodes from trying to comprehend how someone could be so oblivious to their own folly.
I already said, Im not pouring through hours and pages of the most irrational caricatures of intelligence, just to try and locate the bit that 'you feel' debunks them. Ive seen plenty of the videos youve posted, along with all the strawmans, to know what constitutes evidence in your eyes, and I havent seen anything that does as you describe; it is reasonable to conclude therefore that you are full of shit because the evidence - in spite of your conviction to it and refusal to critically analyze it - says the same.
Speaking of strawmen
https://youtu.be/x59uV541sLI
I get it now. Your tactic is to deflect and persist until the other person gives up, concedes under duress, or their head explodes from trying to comprehend how someone could be so oblivious to their own folly.
I already said, Im not pouring through hours and pages of the most irrational caricatures of intelligence, just to try and locate the bit that 'you feel' debunks them. Ive seen plenty of the videos youve posted, along with all the strawmans, to know what constitutes evidence in your eyes, and I havent seen anything that does as you describe; it is reasonable to conclude therefore that you are full of shit because the evidence - in spite of your conviction to it and refusal to critically analyze it - says the same.
Speaking of strawmen
https://youtu.be/x59uV541sLI
>>157836
>Debunk Calculus
Calculus is good, what it is not good is the theory about gravitational forces which cannot be backed by the scientific method. Remember, there is a bunch of scientistspriests, all paid by the same establishment, who tow the line of planets and the "Theory of Gravity" which cannot be proven to exist.
>Debunk Calculus
Calculus is good, what it is not good is the theory about gravitational forces which cannot be backed by the scientific method. Remember, there is a bunch of scientists
>>157837
>calculus is good
Then you might as well give up now, because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet. That is its purpose.
It just so happens to correlate to vast swaths of other scientific constants, meaning that if they're wrong (including gravity) then calculus would not work.
Calculus disproves flat earth
>calculus is good
Then you might as well give up now, because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet. That is its purpose.
It just so happens to correlate to vast swaths of other scientific constants, meaning that if they're wrong (including gravity) then calculus would not work.
Calculus disproves flat earth
File (): 21A29C5383798264D480AA1B7ECD118B-193054.jpg (188.5 KB, 517x1427, eeeeeee.jpg)
>>157838
>because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet
>Calculus disproves flat earth
Preposterous.
According to history, Newton developed calculus at the same time than Leibniz, and the later was having none of the Newton's nonsense.
https://williameamon.com/?p=382
>because calculus was invented to determine the sphereoid shape of the planet
>Calculus disproves flat earth
Preposterous.
According to history, Newton developed calculus at the same time than Leibniz, and the later was having none of the Newton's nonsense.
https://williameamon.com/?p=382
File (): C6674C461402BBFE34C4129E382CE18D-53096.jpg (51.9 KB, 960x546, hqdefault.jpg)
>The Greatest Laser Experiment In History - FECORE
>The greatest and most sophisticated laser experiment. In this video FECORE will show how this historic laser experiment was performed. Thank you for your consideration.
>FECORE is growing fast, our member base has doubled in the last 9 months and our staff of engineers has grown with very well qualified and educated individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSanuUNygI
Spoiler alert: CURVATURE NOT FOUND
>The greatest and most sophisticated laser experiment. In this video FECORE will show how this historic laser experiment was performed. Thank you for your consideration.
>FECORE is growing fast, our member base has doubled in the last 9 months and our staff of engineers has grown with very well qualified and educated individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSanuUNygI
Spoiler alert: CURVATURE NOT FOUND
Anonymous
No.157849
File (): 94FDFF752DF9AD1AA3E0F6D3BC6DD187-191703.jpg (187.2 KB, 625x1093, 98645132.jpg)
>>157848
Thats the one!
I agree that one raises further questions. In fact, I seem to recall having this conversation ITT previously. Anyway, if the earth were non-spherical, the experimental distances would be far greater and far more readily provable. For one I would have to look at the specific mandlebrot section for the planet in those areas (hungary and budapest, iirc). For two, even without calculating extreme ratios, you're suggesting that 'if the earth is flat' you could see any part of the planet if you went far enough away. Like, assuming the illumination is sufficient with the revolving sun and moon disk, if you traveled far enough perpendicular to the ground, you could see all continents?
Thats the one!
I agree that one raises further questions. In fact, I seem to recall having this conversation ITT previously. Anyway, if the earth were non-spherical, the experimental distances would be far greater and far more readily provable. For one I would have to look at the specific mandlebrot section for the planet in those areas (hungary and budapest, iirc). For two, even without calculating extreme ratios, you're suggesting that 'if the earth is flat' you could see any part of the planet if you went far enough away. Like, assuming the illumination is sufficient with the revolving sun and moon disk, if you traveled far enough perpendicular to the ground, you could see all continents?
Why didnt they have a length receiver? You know, so they could adjust the angle of the laser and derive corroborative angles and heights? You know, trigonometry?
Anonymous
No.157852
Like literally, that would be unassailable
>>157854
Uhm, no, instead I will objectively conclude that the experiment has an insufficient sampling of data to corroborate and scale its results from, from which a hypothesis yhat WOULD lead one to proof of flat earth SCIENTIFICALLY. Like literally, just adjust/measure the angle of the laser, and record it. Thats all it would have taken.
Uhm, no, instead I will objectively conclude that the experiment has an insufficient sampling of data to corroborate and scale its results from, from which a hypothesis yhat WOULD lead one to proof of flat earth SCIENTIFICALLY. Like literally, just adjust/measure the angle of the laser, and record it. Thats all it would have taken.
Anonymous
No.157857
File (): 4D148D8A4BC4044AA39795C2C35051BC-214006.png (209.0 KB, 595x549, 84651-filly.png)
>>157615
I was asking about the South.
>>157613
>>157744
While I appreciate how NASA tells more lies than truths (as any official organism would), this is not enough of an argument for me. This is exactly the same as "debunking" psychic phenomena by demonstrating you can fake it with stage magic. It doesn't debunk anything. I'm afraid that's just a fallacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jF349mX2lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32YO4ku0xFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUiw576aM00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eABjyxKDXE
Numerous people have been there and experienced what according to the flat Earth model should be impossible. Instead of calling everyone a liar, I'd like to see a flat Earth model that accounts for this phenomenon. That is the real scientific mindset. Adjust your hypotheses to your experience.
I was asking about the South.
>>157613
>>157744
While I appreciate how NASA tells more lies than truths (as any official organism would), this is not enough of an argument for me. This is exactly the same as "debunking" psychic phenomena by demonstrating you can fake it with stage magic. It doesn't debunk anything. I'm afraid that's just a fallacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jF349mX2lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32YO4ku0xFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUiw576aM00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eABjyxKDXE
Numerous people have been there and experienced what according to the flat Earth model should be impossible. Instead of calling everyone a liar, I'd like to see a flat Earth model that accounts for this phenomenon. That is the real scientific mindset. Adjust your hypotheses to your experience.
>>149965
That's how boomers were taught to "learn". It's the same mechanism at work behind the Q anon phenomenon. Herd mentality, heavy emotional investment, groupthink and above all projection so that faults in one's reasoning (or lack thereof) are perceived to belong to the other.
Honestly, at this point, after having given it the benefit of the doubt for 5 years (and I would still be willing to believe the Earth was a thoroid, if it stood up to scrutiny), I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was some kind of experiment on manipulation of the masses.
Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
That's how boomers were taught to "learn". It's the same mechanism at work behind the Q anon phenomenon. Herd mentality, heavy emotional investment, groupthink and above all projection so that faults in one's reasoning (or lack thereof) are perceived to belong to the other.
Honestly, at this point, after having given it the benefit of the doubt for 5 years (and I would still be willing to believe the Earth was a thoroid, if it stood up to scrutiny), I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was some kind of experiment on manipulation of the masses.
Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
>>157892
Glad its not just me. There ARE interesting elements to the flat earth theory and SOME (minimally) of their findings are compelling. However, they are compelling in the sense of 'why did the readings come out that way', and the evidence does NOT point toward a flat earth, rather it suggests phenomenon locally occuring in thenexperiment that skews the results. That we're not allowed to "peer" review the experiments beyond being 'told' what they entail is likewise telling.
Glad its not just me. There ARE interesting elements to the flat earth theory and SOME (minimally) of their findings are compelling. However, they are compelling in the sense of 'why did the readings come out that way', and the evidence does NOT point toward a flat earth, rather it suggests phenomenon locally occuring in thenexperiment that skews the results. That we're not allowed to "peer" review the experiments beyond being 'told' what they entail is likewise telling.
>>157892
>Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
There is not comparison, Qanon relies on Mossad bullshit, on the other hand, the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation.
>Now that I think about it, the parallels between Q anon and flat Earth are unsettling.
There is not comparison, Qanon relies on Mossad bullshit, on the other hand, the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation.
>>157898
>the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation
Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Galileo was imprisonned, not because how argued that the Earth revolved around the sun but, because he didn't allow his scientific studies to be peer reviewed and slandered anyone who dared to question or criticize his theories (Because, you know, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS TO CONTINUOUSLY PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT UNTIL A FACT IS UNDENIABLY REACHED).
>the Flat Earth movement on direct observation and experimentation
Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Galileo was imprisonned, not because how argued that the Earth revolved around the sun but, because he didn't allow his scientific studies to be peer reviewed and slandered anyone who dared to question or criticize his theories (Because, you know, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS TO CONTINUOUSLY PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT UNTIL A FACT IS UNDENIABLY REACHED).
File (): 11DC76FA8C66F9D54CE19F2B04773B02-18980888.mp4 (18.1 MB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:02:50, FLAT EARTH is not peer reviewed(1).mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>157920
>Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Flat Earth is not peer reviewed. There's a reason to it.
>Do you have any peer reviewed sources?
Flat Earth is not peer reviewed. There's a reason to it.
>>157897
Not really. I want to know why there is a midnight Sun in the Southern hemisphere. I'm alright with "debunking" whatever model, including the "globe model" and all its cosmology. I really can stretch my suspension of disbelief as far as logical consistency allows.
But give me an alternative that explains the empirical observations. How does a midnight Sun in the Sourthern hemisphere happen?
Not really. I want to know why there is a midnight Sun in the Southern hemisphere. I'm alright with "debunking" whatever model, including the "globe model" and all its cosmology. I really can stretch my suspension of disbelief as far as logical consistency allows.
But give me an alternative that explains the empirical observations. How does a midnight Sun in the Sourthern hemisphere happen?
File (): 0EC441BEF34B7C20E343B43ACC66C492-185467.jpg (181.1 KB, 1080x1350, boomer-with-a-computer.jpg)
>>157898
I was talking specifically about the memes. You can't deny they have the same flavor to them.
>very crude humor based in middle school finger-pointing and ridiculing
>appeals to emotion and peer pressure
>boomer-tier meme crafting skills
>>157930
I don't. Everything I "know" about almost anything (even most of the time I experience it directly) is based in conjecture and logic. Are all these videos fake and their posters liars? Can you prove it? >>157891
There are many, many such videos by civilian researchers who have been there and recorded it. Hell, I might go there myself and in many a flat Earther's mind I would become a Mason, a liar and a conspirator.
How many videos disproving the midnight Sun in Antartica in-situ are there?
I was talking specifically about the memes. You can't deny they have the same flavor to them.
>very crude humor based in middle school finger-pointing and ridiculing
>appeals to emotion and peer pressure
>boomer-tier meme crafting skills
>>157930
I don't. Everything I "know" about almost anything (even most of the time I experience it directly) is based in conjecture and logic. Are all these videos fake and their posters liars? Can you prove it? >>157891
There are many, many such videos by civilian researchers who have been there and recorded it. Hell, I might go there myself and in many a flat Earther's mind I would become a Mason, a liar and a conspirator.
How many videos disproving the midnight Sun in Antartica in-situ are there?
[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 4