General Questions

Seriously, how about a reasonable number of questions? Or even using the search function?

1, 2, 3 rely on the Earth being flat, 4, 5, 6, are in the FAQ, 9 is bizarrely philosophical and irrelevant to a lot of FEers, 10 and 11 are meaningless until you make ceratin assumptions (ie: theories being relevant, the forces at play forming the Earth comparing to those on a bubble), 7 and 8 have FE answers and DE answers, the latter taking too long to explain.
For an example clear answer, 1: space travel is impossible under the Dual Earth FET, it started for political gain, now no one wants to admit to being the first to have failed. There's no Flat Earth conspiracy, just a space travel conspiracy.

Seriously, how about a reasonable number of questions? Or even using the search function?

1, 2, 3 rely on the Earth being flat, 4, 5, 6, are in the FAQ, 9 is bizarrely philosophical and irrelevant to a lot of FEers, 10 and 11 are meaningless until you make ceratin assumptions (ie: theories being relevant, the forces at play forming the Earth comparing to those on a bubble), 7 and 8 have FE answers and DE answers, the latter taking too long to explain.
For an example clear answer, 1: space travel is impossible under the Dual Earth FET, it started for political gain, now no one wants to admit to being the first to have failed. There's no Flat Earth conspiracy, just a space travel conspiracy.

re. 1 - we launch and use satellites successfully.

You failed to answer his generally acceptable questions.

You blatantly ignore the first 2 and 3, refer him to somewhere else for 4-6, ignore 9 (you can at least explain why it irrelevant).

You say there are answers to 7 and 8, but you never gave them.

I've noticed this trend among people on the forum. People ask clear cut questions and they never get clear responses in return.

What's under the flat earth if that's what we live in?

Seriously, how about a reasonable number of questions? Or even using the search function?

"1, 2, 3 rely on the Earth being flat"- That's a circular argument; you are using the assumption that the earth is flat in order to disprove arguments against the world being flat.
"9 is bizarrely philosophical and irrelevant to a lot of FEers"- Why is it irrelevant?
"10 and 11 are meaningless until you make ceratin assumptions (ie: theories being relevant, the forces at play forming the Earth comparing to those on a bubble)"- The assumption is that maths is correct. Do you guys question that too?
"7 and 8 have FE answers and DE answers, the latter taking too long to explain."- That's convenient
"For an example clear answer, 1: space travel is impossible under the Dual Earth FET, it started for political gain, now no one wants to admit to being the first to have failed. There's no Flat Earth conspiracy, just a space travel conspiracy."- Where's your evidence of failure?
The fact that you got so angry at me asking some common sense questions suggests that you are struggling to answer them but lack the open-mindedness to admit you are wrong. Remember, Abraham Lincoln said that the sign of a great man is that he can admit that he is wrong, but then again he thought the world was round.

That's a circular argument; you are using the assumption that the earth is flat in order to disprove arguments against the world being flat.

Why is it irrelevant?

The assumption is that maths is correct. Do you guys question that too?

That's convenient

Where's your evidence of failure?

The fact that you got so angry at me asking some common sense questions suggests that you are struggling to answer them but lack the open-mindedness to admit you are wrong. Remember, Abraham Lincoln said that the sign of a great man is that he can admit that he is wrong, but then again he thought the world was round.

Quote

That's a circular argument; you are using the assumption that the earth is flat in order to disprove arguments against the world being flat.

Uh, no. The answers are trivial under the FE model: they result from it. If we know the world is flat for separate reasons, the conclusions are simple (such as the more detailed answer I gave for 1).

Quote

Why is it irrelevant?

Not all FEers hold it. Read.

Quote

The assumption is that maths is correct. Do you guys question that too?

Not the assumption. Read.

Quote

That's convenient

Note the sig rather than mocking. I'm not going to write pages and pages to explain a model to someone too lazy to even use a search function.

Quote

Where's your evidence of failure?

Results from FET.

Quote

The fact that you got so angry at me asking some common sense questions suggests that you are struggling to answer them but lack the open-mindedness to admit you are wrong. Remember, Abraham Lincoln said that the sign of a great man is that he can admit that he is wrong, but then again he thought the world was round.

Same to you. I get angry when fuckwits like you come in, can't be bothered to do something as simple as use the search function, and whine about the same bullshit EVERY OTHER NEWBIE on this site complains about. Are you really arrogant enough to think that in all the years this forum has been running, no one else has been smart enough to ask those quetsions?
They've been answered a ridiculous amount of times, the simple fact is you're not interested in any kind of honest discussion, because that would require learning the FE model: which you have evidently not even tried to do.

How do youe xpect me to react when yet another moron comes along and asks the same pathetic questions that have been asked hundreds of times before?! If you were interested in learning FET, you'd have seen the answers by now. the fact is you're not, you're just trying to mock it.

I notice you are still failing to answer my questions, and I think that you just proved my point about the anger. Also, you need to brush up on what a circular argument is, because yours is as round as the Earth.

1, 2, 3 rely on the Earth being flat,

4, 5, 6, are in the FAQ, 

9 is bizarrely philosophical and irrelevant to a lot of FEers,

10 and 11 are meaningless until you make ceratin assumptions (ie: theories being relevant, the forces at play forming the Earth comparing to those on a bubble)

7 and 8 have FE answers and DE answers, the latter taking too long to explain.

For an example clear answer, 1: space travel is impossible under the Dual Earth FET, it started for political gain, now no one wants to admit to being the first to have failed. There's no Flat Earth conspiracy, just a space travel conspiracy.

2, 3: there are more than the direct implications of Earth shape.

The surroundings would clearly vary between models as well, Antarctica proving a good example.

Toy rockets have been discussed multiple times: they're ambiguous at best.

4, 5, 6: and yet even you are rejecting it without reading it. Do you always make claims about what you don't know?

7, 8, 1: why should I spend time defending a model I don't hold?

Direct how? You just repeat the same thing without providing an actual answer.

My point is that they somehow work in favour of FE... At least from some FE believers point of view.

I read them. Do you always make claims about what you do not know?

Why do you spend time answering questions about the model you do not hold? Especially when wiki/FAQ section does not describe your model.