There are a few questions I have. Forgive me if I repeat prior threads. Feel free to tackle any and all of the questions posed here, but for the sake of easy recall, refer to them by the number given before addressing them.
1) I did look at the explanation of the spotlight sun, but to be terribly honest it seems to be a little... well... contradictory. On the one hand, you say that the Earth cannot be moving around the sun. On the other, you say that the sun and moon can, and are are actually the ones that are moving about the Earth. Evidentially, while the Earth couldn't possibly move around the sun, the sun is more than capable of doing so, and also in a manner that makes it look like it's rising and falling along a curved surface. This perception is caused by an optical illusion? Yet you say the Earth must be flat because it looks flat from here. (Let's not even mention the boat on the horizon bit.) What if that very perception of the Earth appearing relatively flat is also an optical illusion? Why is one more clearly an illusion than the other?
2) I was going to ask about satellites, but I read that the current argument is that they don't exist. Presumably any institution with a powerful enough telescope to see them clearly enough is part of the conspiracy I have also read about, so I'm not going there either. I've also read the land-based transmitter argument, so not bothering with that path either. So my question; if I use a cheaper telescope, and see a white dot, (moving at a speed far greater than the stars, mind you,) and it's not a satellite, what is it? Smudge on the telescope that maintains an objective location, rather than following the telescope's movements? Runaway star? Or are the institutions constantly launching and re-launching temporary satellites? Wouldn't that cut into their profits a bit?
3) So, the idea is that the Earth is constantly accelerating. Somehow, something involving Dark Energy. This is why we have 'gravity,' and this is why 'gravity' only pushes in a single direction. It is also pushing all celestial bodies, apparently, at the same rate of acceleration. So would this mean that nothing is in fact drifting apart, or drifting together, or drifting in anything other than a uniform fashion? Does this mean that absolutely everything is moving in the same direction, at the same speed? If so, then is the claim of interstellar drift part of the conspiracy? If not, then what determines what moves in which direction, and why is it that Earth and apparently everything on it moves in a uniform direction due to Dark Energy? Why couldn't satellites also be propelled by Dark Energy, if they get high enough from the Earth, or far enough away? Your FAQ states that if we were to step of the edge of the Earth, we would appear to be standing still. So does the Earth somehow shield us from this propulsive force, and by its extension shield anything above us? It must, since we seem to fall back down to the Earth because we ourselves lack its influence. If we were being affected by Dark Energy, then we would just hover whenever we jumped, as we would be using the same mode of acceleration as the Earth, no? For us to descend, the Earth's acceleration would have to exceed our own, which would mean that we are being directly pushed by the planet, not by the Dark Energy that is pushing the planet...
If that is not the case, though, and if only the Earth itself is being accelerated via Dark Energy and not what's on its surface, then does Dark Energy have an origin point? And could it be theoretically shadowed, or blocked, from the Earth as Earth would seem to block it from us?
4) Wouldn't atmosphere similarly get blasted away from the Earth due to Dark Energy, since an Ice Wall wouldn't really stop its loss from such an extreme acceleration? What keeps our atmosphere intact? Is it also accelerating because of Dark Energy? Or is it that the universe is actually filled with air, and so we have nothing to worry about? Why, then, would one find less atmosphere, or at least breathable oxygen, at higher elevations?
5) 'Earth Is Special?' Really? Isn't that a bit like 'God Moves In Mysterious Ways?' Couldn't any argument be supported by just saying 'Yeah, well, that doesn't apply here.'
6 ) If the Shadow Object is invisible, how does it block the light from the spotlight moon? Or do you mean it absorbs light, without reflecting it? Is it undetectable by any means at all, other than its apparent light-blocking ability? If that's the case, then how do you know it's there? If it can be detected by other means, then why has it not been exposed? Is every scientist who could possibly detect it part of the conspiracy? Are you telling me that a solar eclipse is when the Shadow Object gets in the way of the sun?
7.) Would you define, for me, what a reliable GPS would be? I mean, let's say I hopped on a plane with a GPS and flew around the world, recording my course, location, etc. The foreseeable argument is that my GPS lied to me. All right, fair enough; do you have any method or tool an individual could use to navigate with absolute accuracy, something you have such faith in that if it is employed, and proves the Earth was round or flat, you would accept that judgment? Or would anything that supports the Earth being round be considered an inadequate tool? If you developed a manner of navigation that proved the Earth was flat, how would you prove that it's any more accurate than those proving the Earth is round?
8 ) If the Flat Earth has a molten core, then where is it located? What I mean is that is it found towards the flat Earth's 'center,' and only extends for a certain distance outwards, or could you feasibly drill at any point, right up to the Ice Wall, and find molten magma somewhere down below? If it's the former, then what keeps this magma from spreading out across the flat Earth's entire area, melting at the rock as it goes?
9 ) Finally, why? I mean, the apparent reason for the conspiracy is financial gain, but why is a round Earth more profitable than a flat one? Is a flat Earth any less interesting to view from space than a round one? Heck, I'd find a flat one more interesting, if only for the fact that I'd want to see what was underneath it. Revealing that the Earth is indeed flat would cause such a media flurry, the profits would be astronomical in the news outlets alone, (Hello, Exclusive Interviews,) and so if the bottom line is profits, there would be far more achieved by rocking the proverbial boat. And, yes, padding pockets with money for space travel, but it can't be as much profit as you'd think; they still have to build rockets, launch them, and pay off God knows how many people to keep quiet about the numerous inconsistencies that would be involved with the program... this is assuming they don't even bother paying off the Pro-Round-Earth scientists, and if that's the case, what's their motive?
I hope my questions are clear enough, I'd be happy to answer any questions or requests for clarification.