List of things that don't exist to Flat Earthers

Quote from: İntikam on November 05, 2017, 10:10:21 PM

I don't understand what you mean with it. I do not agree with this one: "Light" as proven by observation". If something proven, flat earthers accept it. If flat earthers deny something, there is nothing such as proven about it.

This is referring to 2 factors:

1. How far light travels (i.e. the light from distant stars and sun is denied on the basis the sun is closer and light abruptly stops half way) when the sun's distance is proven by parallax and radar measurements, hence observation. (Geometry is also added to the list of things FE deny but I'm pretty sure radar vibrations are not denied as well?)

2. How light spreads as the sun is referred to as a spotlight without a lens or how it angles its light as a beam onto a fixed area without any leak and even if focused, how it doesn't illuminate anything outside of its focus area.

So the list item: `"Light" as proven by observation` is "spot" on

Wrong. Sun's distance isin't proven. If it is, lets us to see it. Show us. Yeah lets do it, come on. You are saying lie with it. You are a liar till you proved it. you make something belong us we do not accept . this is wrong. Look, you say it and I refuse and you still say "proved". you are lying. That thing does not belong to that list. It belongs to "you do think so things". Spot yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Time

Based on the rotation of the Earth, time can be measured by observing celestial bodies crossing the meridian every day. Astronomers found that it was more accurate to establish time by observing stars as they crossed a meridian rather than by observing the position of the Sun in the sky. Nowadays, UT in relation to International Atomic Time (TAI) is determined by Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) observations of distant quasars, a method which can determine UT1 to within 4 milliseconds.

You may want to add time to the list.

Does anyone have a list of things that don't exist according to FE's?

• Space
• Rockets
• Satellites
• Nuclear Weapons
• GPS
• Gravity
• Planets
• Photos (telescope) of planets
• South Pole
• Flights to/near Antarctica
• "Light" as proven by observation
• Laws of Physics
• Flight paths/routes
• Laws of Physics
• Below horizon
• Solar Eclipse
• Lunar Eclipse
• Geometry
• Coriolis Effect
• Atmosphere containment
• Size of Australia
• Size of sun constant from sunrise to sunset
• Size of moon same always (minor difference throughout the year)

I'm sure there's loads more, please help me populate this list

And don't suggest "Common Sense"

Most of your list is incorrect.

Space exists
Rockets exist
Whether or not nuclear weapons exist has nothing to do with FET
Gravity exists depending on the model
Planets exist
Photos of planets exist
The South Pole is a place that exists
Flights to/near Antarctica exist
Light exists (your retarted)
You have "Laws of Physics" twice
Eclipses exist
Geometry exists
The atmoplane is obviously contained
Australia may or may not exist, but if it does it has a size

I have a landline.

Quote from: Shifter on November 05, 2017, 08:40:05 PM

Not my map, not my theory

Still no explanation?  Hmmm sounds kind of fishy...maybe the earth is actually ROUND.  Common dude, admit it, the gig is over...LMFAO

Earth is round and FLAT fool.

Few other issues I see though

I'm not versed on all the models, but I'm pretty sure 'space' is fine on some of them. Just that our ability to get there or have been there doesn't exist

Yes, this is what I meant by Space... that we're we've actually been (L.E.O) doesn't exist - I'll update this line i OP shortly

Planets or the concept of, are not a problem on some flat earth models. I'm sure plenty of people who believe in the flat earth, don't discount the possibility of other planets existing.

I've read too much about constant lies about planets so most is denial. We're all fully aware of NASA's lies but to outright deny what we can see in the telescopes means it definitely makes the list of denials/rejections.

Rockets need clarification - just the space faring ones I assume you mean. You can build a 'rocket' and let it fly in your backyard

Yep, that rockets can't reach space

Nuclear weapons not existing - does this go hand in hand with flat earth or just people Heiwa lol

Perhaps you need to make the list of things common and general to any flat earth believer. Things that they all share in  common. Not just anything from fringe models by some random people. Otherwise your list will be never ending

True, so I guess the list should be split in two. Good suggestion

Most of your list is incorrect.

Space exists
Rockets exist
Whether or not nuclear weapons exist has nothing to do with FET
Gravity exists depending on the model
Planets exist
Photos of planets exist
The South Pole is a place that exists
Flights to/near Antarctica exist
Light exists (your retarted)
You have "Laws of Physics" twice
Eclipses exist
Geometry exists
The atmoplane is obviously contained
Australia may or may not exist, but if it does it has a size

I posted it as a list but it's not specifically its existence but rather the existence of its laws, what we know and observe and also includes whether it exists at all. So i'll update OP to explain these so it's not misleading.

Space - explained in previous post about ability to get into space (low earth orbit)
Rockets - ability to reach space (e.g. https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=bZRT8ATMh_c) (remove space after www.youtube)
Whether or not nuclear weapons exist has nothing to do with FET - check here
Gravity - referring to gravity theories that are universal for every planet, not just earth
Planets - https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=jM1Ano--UYM
The South Pole - RE has satellite photos, explorers, flights and ships proving it but FE has a theory of a wall.. this is big part of the list
Flights to/near Antarctica exist - yes it does, but not to general Flat Earthers.

Light exists (your retarted)

- it's "You're" with apostrophe and "retarded" with a "d". Check my previous post explaining why I added light "Light"
You have "Laws of Physics" twice - Yep I noticed, will update shortly
Eclipses exist - yes they do but not on the proven model
Geometry exists - yes but FE deny its results
The atmoplane is obviously contained - not to FE, they think we should fly off into space that doesn't exist
Australia may or may not exist, but if it does it has a size - some deny it exists and the rest deny its actual size due to the it not fitting the FE model

So every item in the list is correct except the repeated one. Sorry to offend your beliefs.

I'm not going to watch a bunch of YouTube videos. If you disagree with something on YouTube you should probably go over there and complain about it.

also, lurk moar.

also, lurk moar.

observering is hard.

got some more:
Logic in FE does not exist (stating something which only partially matches with reality and being able to figure out logically what is wrong with it)
investigation in FE does not exist (just believe in some shady theory with no reason and without any attempt to investigate whether the theory is plausible or not)
using your senses or objective observation (using your senses and objective observation should be the most powerfull tools for any FE-er...but they never use it or they lack the logic to use it properly.
how else can one watch a sunset and then state "the sun is moving away"?
A multimeter is also a powerful tool, but if you don't know how to use it, then it is worthless...but you can always use it as a hammer right?
evidence. the most important one. evidence for FE does not exist...not even very remotely.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on November 06, 2017, 01:04:28 PM

also, lurk moar.

observing is hard.

Yes, looking is easy, seeing is not quite so easy, but observing is hard.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on November 06, 2017, 01:04:28 PM

also, lurk moar.

observering is hard.

Not always.

is that Paris?

is that Paris?

It's closer to Orleans.   

But seeing Lake Pontchartrain reminds me that on a flat earth there would be no hurricanes or typhoons as there would be no Coriolis effect.

On a flat earth crows nests and widow walks wouldn't exist as an increase in altitude wouldn't increase the distance you could see on the ocean.



Lighthouses would only have to be higher than the wave tops.

Common Sense
A basic notion of perspective

Quote from: observer on November 06, 2017, 12:42:13 AM

Quote from: İntikam on November 05, 2017, 10:10:21 PM

I don't understand what you mean with it. I do not agree with this one: "Light" as proven by observation". If something proven, flat earthers accept it. If flat earthers deny something, there is nothing such as proven about it.

This is referring to 2 factors:

1. How far light travels (i.e. the light from distant stars and sun is denied on the basis the sun is closer and light abruptly stops half way) when the sun's distance is proven by parallax and radar measurements, hence observation. (Geometry is also added to the list of things FE deny but I'm pretty sure radar vibrations are not denied as well?)

2. How light spreads as the sun is referred to as a spotlight without a lens or how it angles its light as a beam onto a fixed area without any leak and even if focused, how it doesn't illuminate anything outside of its focus area.

So the list item: `"Light" as proven by observation` is "spot" on

Wrong. Sun's distance isin't proven. If it is, lets us to see it. Show us. Yeah lets do it, come on. You are saying lie with it. You are a liar till you proved it. you make something belong us we do not accept . this is wrong. Look, you say it and I refuse and you still say "proved". you are lying. That thing does not belong to that list. It belongs to "you do think so things". Spot yourself.

Maybe I should put intikam on my ignore list. LOL

The sun's distance has been proven for quite some time.
But I didn't measure it itself myself, so it hasn't been proven ?
Would you believe an  astronomical observatory ?

Pi = 3.14159........
But I didn't measure itself  myself, so it isn't proven ?
Would you believe a Mathematics Depatment at a University ?

The Calendar says today is Wednesday, November 8 , 2017.
But I didn't invent the calendar itself myself so that doesn't prove today is Wendesday, November  8, 2017 ?
Who would you believe ?

This Website is on the Internet.
But I didn't invent this Website or the Internet itself  myself (I think Al Gore did ?)
I can't prove this Website and the Internet, so they don't exist ?
Who would you believe ?

P.S. A suggestion for intikam.
I posted this before, but you might be interested , intikam.
A group of Aggies from the Cadet Corps at Texas A&M University at College Station, Texas, USA are planning an exploration to land on the sun, explore , survey and measure it.
Of course they plan to do this at night.
Would you believe that ?

The Calendar says today is Wednesday, November 8 , 2017.
But I didn't invent the calendar itself myself so that doesn't prove today is Wednesday, November  8, 2017 ?

It certainly "doesn't prove today is Wednesday, November  8, 2017"! 
Today's date in Australia is 18 Safar, 1439.

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 08, 2017, 01:19:51 PM

The Calendar says today is Wednesday, November 8 , 2017.
But I didn't invent the calendar itself myself so that doesn't prove today is Wednesday, November  8, 2017 ?

It certainly "doesn't prove today is Wednesday, November  8, 2017"! 
Today's date in Australia is 18 Safar, 1439.

Hmmmmm........I thought it was October 14, 1066

Where have you been mate, the battle of Hastings ended almost a millennia ago!

Common Sense
A basic notion of perspective

Skip the following if you already know that many flat earthers lack "A basic notion of perspective".

Re: Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « Reply #4 on: February 10, 2008, 03:06:58 AM »
The ones I submitted are all photographed in real time. The SOHO satellite provides false pictures/images of the Sun.

Here is Legault's site:
SOLAR TRANSIT OF ISS AND ATLANTIS - LAST MISSION OF ATLANTIS << Link updated >>
(notice how he is mislead by the official Atlantis-Earth distance of 400 km; Atlantis only reaches about 25 km, if that much, it cannot reach further).

Here is Cortner's site:
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/

The photo referred to by sandokhan is This information is attached,

Image of the solar transit of the International Space Station (ISS) and Space Shuttle Atlantis 50 minutes before docking, taken from the area of Madrid (Spain) on May 16th 2010 at 13h 28min 55s UT. Atlantis has just begun the "R-bar pitch maneuver": the shuttle performs a backflip that exposes its heat-shield to the crew of the ISS that makes photographs of it; since its approach trajectory is between the ISS and the Earth, this means that we are seeing Atlantis essentially from above, with the payload bay door opened.
Transit forecast calculated by www.calsky.com.
For this transit of a maximum duration of 0.54s, the visibility band crossed Spain, southern France, Northern Italy, Austria etc. This band was 4.8 km wide but being placed at its edge implies that the transit duration becomes zero, so in practice I had to be placed less than 1 km from the center of the band. The choice of central Spain has been deduced from the study of weather forecast and detailed maps on Google-Earth.
ISS distance to observer: 391 km. Speed in orbit: 7.4km/s (26500 km/h or 16500 mph).

From: SOLAR TRANSIT OF ISS AND ATLANTIS - LAST MISSION OF ATLANTIS

Then sandokhan makes these posts with regard to distances and sizes:

Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « Reply #8 on: February 10, 2008, 04:38:25 AM »
Not at all; as you can clearly see, the Sun's diameter is much smaller than what is officialy accepted, and much closer than you think. I understand your argumentation, and where you want to go with it, but these photographs do tell the real story, and the truth about the Sun-Earth distance.

Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « Reply #10 on: February 10, 2008, 04:43:49 AM »
Because, mathematically, the Sun could not be 148,999,600 km away from the ISS/Atlantis, given the relative sizes offered by the pictures. Also, you can see clearly that Mercury is the same size and at the same distance from the Sun as is the Atlantis, what does that tell you? Or you think that there are 69,000,000 km between the dark spot (Mercury) in the photo and the Sun?

The photos don't show us anything about distance. How about you prove me wrong.

Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « Reply #14 on: February 10, 2008, 04:54:58 AM »
They show that the distance between Sun-Mercury and Sun-Atlantis is about the same; and that their diameter is also the same, that is why they are so important.

I will offer here, soon, the proofs you need to find out how all the NASA/JPL missions were faked; also how, exactly, the space shuttle flights are faked.

Sadly, this sort of thinking is rife through many of the NASAphobic arguments here and on YouTube.
Look at the part about "how Flat Earth believers handle the story and picture from Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander, called Earthrise?" in: Is Science the new Religion ? « Reply #35 on: May 20, 2017, 08:38:19 AM »

Where have you been mate, the battle of Hastings ended almost a millennia ago!

Simply Google "18 Safar, 1439" and you might find I was only a couple of days out, not 951 years, 0 months, 25 days.
There is the Gregorian Calendar and numerous others,

Where have you been mate, the battle of Hastings ended almost a millennia ago!

Really ? .........Seems like it was only yesterday !

Seriously, you can google on any other calendar.
Today is 19th of Cheshvan 5778 in the Hebrew calendar.

But the flat earth philosophy seems to be  that if you haven't done it yourself it is either false or you are a liar.

Maybe I should put intikam on my ignore list. LOL

I was obliged to reply to his first post simply to clarify otherwise I ignore all his posts.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/83/90/d5/8390d5a0c080113bf692f50c5eef8205--being-a-woman-letter-i.jpg
^ this makes more sense than his posts