In the mid 1800's Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham looked out at the icy tundra from the edge of Antarctica and concluded that he didn't know how far the earth extended, but that from his perspective the tundra seemed perpetual. Hence came the idea of a perpetual earth where the edge of the earth meant the edge of the universe, the edge of space and time itself.
In my short time visiting this forum thus far (like watching a train wreck), I'm getting the idea that you are pretty dogmatic, prone to logical fallacy and many short bursts of faulty reasoning strung together to form (or demonstrate) faulty ad-hoc assertion-based conclusions, and just plain married to your ideas. But you like to sound intelligent. (Which is odd, because it's hard to sound genuinely intelligent without actually being so--yet much of your reasoning, regardless of the worth of the ideas they are supporting, is just plain moronic. What gives?) At any rate that's all OK: at least you do not come off as a jerk or a hax0r (if that's the right slang). People are entitled to cling to moronic beliefs, as long as it is not directly hurting anyone. It just may be hurting our long-term survival prospects as a species. (The movie "Idiocracy" comes to mind...)
So against my better judgment I'm going to bite.
First, your theory of a perpetual earth (apparently formed by someone else's starting revelation that the "tundra seemed perpetual" [even though you can only see 35 miles or so according to you]) is not congruous with what appears to be FE canon (as near as I can tell). So if you are going to cling to foolish irrational dogma, at least cling to the
official foolish irrational dogma, right? The earth is a finite disc surrounded by a great ice wall, and whether it has mass or not is irrelevant since our perception of gravity is accomplished by a UA accelerating us ever faster upward.
And about the whole raindrop business. You seem to be implying that a sphere is not "preferred" (to anthropomorphize) by nature, and point to a raindrop falling through the air as "proof". Proof of what? A raindrop has something acting on it, actively expending energy to deform it--such as, oh I don't know, how about
air molecules bombarding it at high speed from one primary direction. (Regardless of whether we're talking about resulting from gravity from a spherical earth, or constant acceleration from a FE UA.) An equally valid argument would be for me to say that a snowflake is the natural state of all solid. Or a mickey mouse-shaped ice cube. Or that a lizard that I accidentally stepped on is the correct shape for lizards. All are pointless, meaningless arguments that have no place in rational debate. All you have demonstrated is that raindrops falling through the air are not spherical--with no effect on the notion that planet-sized bodies (in the SE model) tend to form spheres under self-gravitation. (Which I think was the gist of the original debate.)
The fact is, a sphere optimally minimizes surface area relative to internal volume. Many natural forces purposely or randomly "strive" to that goal. Which is why many living things naturally "try" to optimize their shape (via natural selection) to wind up with roughly spherical or at least cylindrical body plans and/or parts. Water, when undisturbed by gravity or wind, forms a sphere--not by self gravity as massive bodies in space do, but by surface tension. (But then you believe those videos from the space shuttle are hoaxed, right? How could mankind ever achieve perpetual free-fall especially on an infinite flat earth that is forever accelerating upwards towards them? Well I suppose you probably believe the Vomit Comet is at least plausible even in an infinite FE scenario, right?) Soap bubbles--relatively undisturbed by gravity relative to their size and mass and interaction with the dense gas of our air--form a sphere (surface tension again). Tiny raindrops and tiny water bubbles--where surface tension reigns over exterior fluid dynamics--are spherical. Rapidly spinning planets are less spherical. For anything over small moon size, a sphere is the natural shape it's own self-gravity brings it into--assuming no external forces acting on it like rotation (e.g. slightly flattened Jupiter, galaxies, etc.).
BTW, I have to ask: what is the basic physics or mechanics behind the luminance of a tiny spherical (much less flat) sun 35 miles from the surface? A fourth-grader is capable of getting the basic concept of solar-scaled fusion. I am curious as to how the FE sun works.
One more question: If the earth is an infinite plane, and below it is a ubiquitous pushing/accelerating force, then how is it that we see 360 degrees of sky? Even in one 24-hour period, we see well over 180 degrees worth of stars. Where do the 180 degrees worth stars that we don't see in the 180 degrees above us go? (Yes I have read the FAQ and scoured countless posts.)
Also, the sunrise/sunset business is just sheer nonsense. Come on, Tom Bishop, admit that even you have a problem with the official FE explanation. It's "an optical illusion"!? (According to the FAQ.) That's it, just like that, it is explained? I am dumbfounded. I am going to use that in my next meeting. "Why are we 1.2 million over budget?" "Well actually, it's just an optical illusion. As we get farther in time from the start of the project, the remaining balance appears--through an optical illusion--to get smaller and smaller, until it apparently disappears...and then turns negative." The optical illusion idiocy leaves out many things, such as how the sun marches across the sky and drops below the horizon at an even rate every degree across the sky--easily verifiable with your hands, which you would know well if you've spent much serious time outdoors and used the sun for navigation. How this could happen if the sun just fades away by sliding into the distance is, uh, well lets just be nice and call it a "mystery".
And about this boat/horizon nonsense. You may be shocked and horrified to learn that A) I live less than ten miles from the pacific ocean, B) I'm an avid sailor, C) I'm on or high above and looking at the ocean very often, D) I own a pair of very expensive and very powerful binoculars that I have out often. [Not to mention an 800mm camera lens that I use often on cliffs above.] And E) It is usually exceedingly clear here. I don't think these idiotic FE theories were meant to stand up to practical experience like this--because they don't. My direct observations clearly, directly, and regularly contradict the moronic claims of FE'ers on what a boat "should" look like as it "appears to" sink below the horizon. I'll tell you what it
actually does look like: it sinks below the horizon. You can trust me that, when a giant cargo ship the size of a couple of football fields steams out to sea, as viewed from atop an 800 ft. cliff, and I'm looking at it through massive Nikon glass, I am not mistaking the hull for the ocean or some other pandering "optical illusion". When I see the rare 150 ft yacht sail out that far, I am not seeing it sink into the ocean (hopefully), or the ever-increasing additional waves between me and it "appear" to swallow its masts...unless those are averaging 50 ft waves (in which case it would be really sinking).
But hey, you can always just assert that I'm part of the conspiracy, and be neatly done with these uncomfortable questions, like so many others here do when backed into a logical corner.
And last but not least, Tom Bishop, I am dying to know: what do you do for a living? Be honest. I will not mock your answer, nor do I anticipate it is mockable. I'm assuming you aren't retired or independently wealthy and thus rely on a regular job for survival. I suppose it's only fair I should volunteer what I do: functionally speaking so as not to give the impression of "job title comparison", program manager in the software industry. What we do is not who we are, nevertheless it offers a glimpse, and I am curious. That's all. I'm dying to know the typical FE demographic (or if not typical as I suspect doesn't exist, then average).
Oh, one more question: are you one who believes that Science is just another belief system, like a religion?
Sorry to single you out for a few of these questions that are more generic to FE: but you seem like a good, intelligent, responsive representative of it. I can't escape the feeling that most of the FE proponents are just flat talking out of their a**ses, without ever bothering to leave the house, get their hands dirty, get some sun on their necks, and/or watch "Astronomy for Idiots" on the Discovery Channel. (Much less be bothered to ever buy a telescope or plot the apparent motion of a planet sometime in their life.) While their paranoid skepticism may be admirable, it could be put to better, more socially useful purposes (like demanding the impeachment of a certain president or helping to educate poor people). I'm looking for evidence that this is not typical of the average FE'er. I want to believe people are really not this dumb. Because let me tell you, the movie "Idiocracy" scared the hell out of me.
Finally I must ask: could somebody--you perhaps--please predict the date and time of the next solar or lunar eclipse, using only predictions arrived at from FE principles. Don't just look up the predictions of SE and call it your own--I'm going to want to see the math, assumptions, and constants. If you want to see the predictions and sources from the SE camp for comparison, just google "lunar solar eclipse predictions".