Please read

Explain wind
Why does air move?
Don't tell me it has something to do with the earth going up

Also
How does the sun spotlight produce the massive amount of stellar neutrinos recorded by NON-GOVERNMENTAL organizations' tests?
Wouldn't we be dead via radiation by now?

How does the sun spotlight produce enough heat to warm an entire planet faster than heat is lost into space/the void/la la land, considering the size of said 'spotlight'? Even an anti-matter matter annhilation would not be able to produce this amount of heat for long considering the mass constraint, I suppose the law of conservation of energy is just a conspiracy from the government too?

If the earth is accelerating upwards at a constant speed, what happens as we reach relativistic speeds? What happens when the force, and therefore energy required to continue accelerating becomes infinite? Will the earth stop accelerating, and then will we be able to jump upwards and float all the way to the sun and moon?
Now that commercial space flight is becoming a reality, see SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo being developed for use now, when you do eventually take a trip into space (as in a decade or two it will cost but a mere 5-10 grand or so), what then? What if you look out from the windows and see earth as it is depicted in orbit shots?

Oh and, if you still, while in orbit, say that its a flight simulator or something and the windows are just little TV screens, then by all means take a hammer to them. Really. Do it, please.

This is a google search of about 100,000 earth images.
Tell me you would and could doctor that many images
http://images.google.com/images?q=earth+from+space&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

Why does the moon have phases? And why are the phases in crescent shapes, if it were a flat spotlight wouldnt it just fill in straight sections?

How about this hypothetical experiment. Couldnt one shine a laser off of the moons face, and determine the time between emitting the light and receiving the reflection, and therefore determine the distance between the earth (be it flat or not) and the moon due to the constant speed of light through a vacuum? Infact, havent we already done that? Isnt that HOW we got the not imagined (read: CONSPIRACY) figures for the distance of the moon?

Before I even respond to something else, here's something I learned in my Grade 10 science class.

Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the earth's surface.

Uneven heating = some parts are warm, some are colder

warm air is less dense than cold air.

As high pressure zones try to equalize out to low pressure zones, it causes wind.

Wind is parallel to the ground, currents are perpendicular.

I figured that...
If the earth is flat and the edges are ice, and we have heat coming from one mostly fixed (I havent read your explanation of the sunrise and sunset) heat source, would we not have a single convection current going from the middile to the edges where heat is lost? Why do we have winds in multiple directions and not just one very intense current carrying all heat to the ice wall?
P.S. Please, please dont say its because the government has big fans going : )

Also what makes a flat earth more plausible than the theory that our earth as we know it is actually the inside of a hollow sphere? Isnt there even MORE evidence for that theory, what with the whole horizon and curvature seen from airplanes and everything. Also couldnt one argue with the same regard to facts as you against the arguements you are sure to present, like, why cant you see the other side of the hollow sphere.
Perhaps the vacuum of space is actually black and not just a lack of light?

Why, if the earth was flat and the moon is but a small light source, would such high detail of it show up in photos from large observatories. Excuse me in assuming you'll reply with CONSPIRACY, but, Ive been to several large observatories. They'll let you take a look, although with the largest ones it'll be CCD's so I suppose the government put chips in them that replace all the images with doctored ones?

Hasnt this line of reasoning, that there is a big conspiracy that you cant debunk BECAUSE of the conspiracy and that all facts are incorrect led to some very bad things? Couldnt one replace the nouns in your base arguements and end up with something hitler spouted in the 30's? What makes people who really beleive that all the facts (excuse me, so called facts) about the earth being ROUND are actually the government persecuted them not sound like someone who says all the facts about the jews not controlling EVERYTHING are actually the JEWISH CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT's lies? How is yours different except in this case you havent gotten around to the whole really-competent-leadership part and then the get-rid-of-all-nonbeleivers part?


What if we drilled at an accute angle, so as to not need to deal with molten rock, and came out on the surface of the ground some hundreds of miles away. Would you accept this as even maybe a tiny slivver of proof that it is indeed round?

What if we drilled at an accute angle, so as to not need to deal with molten rock, and came out on the surface of the ground some hundreds of miles away. Would you accept this as even maybe a tiny slivver of proof that it is indeed round?

Sure, if you did that, it would prove the earth is at least somewhat curved.

Have you done that?

Yes sir I have.















No, thats why I said "What if"
Please reply to my other questions, Im quite bored at the moment
And why is it hotter in a band across the earth and not a circle?
Since the radiation applied to the earth is therefore not even, wouldnt this slow one side/section of the earth and cause it to flip? We are talking about alot of radiation here, and alot of time. Since gravity is NOT independant on which side of a moving object you reside upon in your theory, would we not then be left in the dust as the earth accelerates away from us after it flips?

No, thats why I said "What if"

I understand that, and I'm sure you can see that it would be just as valid for me to say "What if you drilled into the ground at an acute angle, and you came out on the other side of the flat earth, wouldn't that prove the earth is flat?" They're both perfectly plausable scenarios, and until we try it we won't know which one is true.

"Sun v Heat"
It has always been my observation that less energy is required to transfer heat to something very close to you, than something very far away. If the sun is only 3000 miles away it wouldn't need nearly the same amount of energy to transfer an equivilent amount of heat as the massive - but very distant - RE sun.

"Relativistic speeds"
We keep accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 within our own reference frame, and that's all that matters. To any reference compared to which we are approaching relativistic speeds our acceleration would appear to slow down. Within the system of earth, however, the acceleration would be constant.

"Lots of images of earth"
The government has lots of money to pay for fakes. Looks like it was worth it; they convinced you.

"Moon phases"
Is this in the FAQ?

"Laser the moon"
Sure, go for it. Let us know what you find out.

"Ice walls melting"
The sun isn't a fixed light source, it follows a circular path approximately above the FE equator.

"High detail on moon photos"
The moon is a lot closer in FE than RE. If something is closer, you can see it more clearly.


----


In the future, please avoid this kind of "Scattershot" post. Frankly all of these questions could have been answered with the search function, except maybe the digging one (which is why I addressed it). If youi've got some unique ideas about a particular subject, post a thread about that. The reason you haven't gotten many replies is for just that reason; you've got about 20 reasons the earth is flat, none of which you elaborate on and all of which have been discussed elsewhere.