I stumbled across this website recently and, being a RE'er, decided to pose some questions that I hope to have answered.  I originally started just jotting down notes, but had to stop myself once the list grew as large as it did.  I decided to stop adding to it and just post it, posting more questions as follow-up depending on the kind of response and welcome I get.

Here they are, and thank you in advance for your consideration:

--------------------------------------

Physics:

(1) The F.A.Q. proposes a sunspot of "cold light" emanating from the moon.  Considering physics effects that this would be impossible, what factual evidence supports this kind of energy being radiated?  (even asking the question alone contradicts proven laws by radiating a lack of energy)

(2) Lighthouse and ship-hull examples indicating a RE go largely unchallenged.  Why is this so?

(3) Proven laws of physics on a RE support the idea of an atmosphere with cloud coverage.  On a FE, wouldn't the clouds eventually wind up disappearing off the edges, taking with it much of the world's precipitation?  (especially considering the constant movement of the world)

(4) What manner of force exists that would cause sunlight (and heat/radiation) to appear and warm a FE in such a manner as to produce a warm inside track but frozen center and edges?  Does a model exist that supports this behavior?  Further, wouldn't the sun always be visible regardless of the hour, with no curvature of a RE to hide such sunlight?  (the spotlight theory posted in the F.A.Q. vaguely describes an optical illusion -- I'm looking for a more concrete answer than that kind of shrug-off)

(5) How does the notion of satellites and other orbiting bodies function without the constant gravitational attraction that a RE provides?  This includes natural bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, stars, etc. as well as artificial (commercial satellites, etc.).

(6) What makes the creation of a FE more likely (to a FE'er) than a RE?

(7) The F.A.Q. indicates that global warming both does and does not exist.  Please explain the contradiction.

( How does continental and/or tectonic plate movement theories function on a FE?  It is without question that earthquakes occur (and are the cause of oceanic tides and so forth), but without a shifting, living RE that explains the nature of tectonic plates, the movement of continental bodies on a FE seems unimaginable.  While some FE'ers will argue that continents and land masses do not move (and never have), all evidence would indicate otherwise.  Is there evidence, or even a working model, supporting the FE'ers on this point?

(9) If the sun and moon merely direct light (like a flashlight) down on the world and the stars, heavens, and so forth are a tangible distance away, then wouldn't they all have to be moving in (a) the same exact direction and (b) same exact velocity to continue to be the same distance from us at all times?  Orbiting globes propose an easily-understood answer, but this remains a mystery if the world is flat.  In the same vein, wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that if a FE Earth was hurling through space (instead of orbiting in a relatively static location), then it would stand the good chance of colliding with other material?  Additionally, wouldn't the gravitational pull these bodies have (both FE'ers and RE'ers acknowledge this, see F.A.Q. sticky) alter their trajectories?


Conspiracy:

(10) What benefit do government bodies have in perpetuating a conspiracy regarding the geometric properties of the world?  (i.e.: motive theories as is unanswered in the F.A.Q.)

(11) Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that if such conspiracy existed and was the design and implementation of a large government body (or collaboration thereof), that there would be some tangible proof towards many, if not all of the F.E. theories, given that governments are operated by people (and/or sentient beings) which are fallible?

(12) Assuming that conspiring government bodies have a motive that involves financial gain (or the control of such value), wouldn't it be far more economical to not cover up such a wide array of evidences that would support FE theories?  Or even just one?  Such as space travel, globe-vs.-disc travel, etc?