Some Questions

I have already gone through the FAQ, but it seems the answers I'm looking for are not there so I just want to ask some questions for the Flat Earthers.

1)  Is the distance equal between every degree of longitude for the flat earth or is it distorted in any areas?

2)  Is the sun always directly above the equator or shouldn't it be circling closer to the tropics during the solstices?

3)  Why doesn't the dark energy which causes the acceleration of the flat earth also affect the objects on the earth?

4)  If the sun and moon are two dimensional, then why do they not look like ellipses from anywhere other than the equator?

good questions
but your diction is so monotone and BORING than ill only answer one.

1. why does it matter... those are imaginary lines anyways

=]

you accept the earth is flat...
why cant you just accept this too?

1)  Is the distance equal between every degree of longitude for the flat earth or is it distorted in any areas?

I'm not sure how the longitudinal lines run in the flat earth model. I would guess the are like spokes on a wheel, going out from the north pole.

2)  Is the sun always directly above the equator?

No, it moves back and forth across the equator as the year progresses.

3)  Why doesn't the dark energy which causes the acceleration of the flat earth also affect the objects on the earth?

The earth gets in the way.

Thank you for your answers, but that still leaves the last one unresolved.

4)  If the sun and moon are two dimensional, then why do they not look like ellipses from anywhere other than the equator?

Correction:
For the first question, I meant to say "latitude," not "longitude" so:

1)  Is the distance equal between every degree of latitude along a line of longitude for the flat earth or is it distorted in any areas?

Two words I sometimes get mixed up (with disasterous results).

pythagoras, i really hope your not a navy navigator.

On the idea of gravity, modern physics suggests there being no way of having a perpetual source of energy

may i derict you to the wikipedia article which states

"In the macroscopic world, energy spreads among more than one particle and therefore is shared – so loss of energy is always larger than zero, therefore an object in perpetual motion implies work being continuously done to overcome this natural retarding process"

in laymans terms, there is no way of moving something bigger than an atom forever.  

This states that there would be no source of energy that would be able to create the force required to generate the sheer force required to keep a massive object such as the earth movie

Now in the RE theory, this is explained, as orbit, a state in which no energy is being used, it is a dual falling system (one which i only understand the basics of), and therefore no energy is actually wasted in its use