(1) The F.A.Q. proposes a sunspot of "cold light" emanating from the moon. Considering physics effects that this would be impossible, what factual evidence supports this kind of energy being radiated? (even asking the question alone contradicts proven laws by radiating a lack of energy)
Well how do round-earthers possibly know that the light from the moon is "reflected" from the sun? Neither really makes more sense than the other.
Laws of physics tell us that light and heat are properties of energy and that something that is absolutely frozen (absolute zero) has no kinetic energy. It doesn’t radiate cold, it simply has an absence of heat/energy. Since it is understood and accepted that something can not produce or radiate negative amounts of kinetic energy, it makes no sense that the moon emanates “cold light”. My first question focuses on that physics law.
Also, I will politely refuse arguments that support an idea because it’s “possible” or can only be faced with “how do you know it’s not?”. I’m not asking why it’s not, I’m asking why it is (in the eyes of a FE’er).
(2) Lighthouse and ship-hull examples indicating a RE go largely unchallenged. Why is this so?
Really?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
I have read this (even prior to my post) and disregarded it almost immediately considering the method of science used to measure distance and that the short distance (6 miles, nautical, at that) would not produce a distance noticeable, especially with such imprecise instruments. The publication produces numbers that are baseless (I’ll spare a break-down consisting of the actual dimensions of the RE’s globe, which is what a RE-disprover should be using) and largely inaccurate.
I also have to point out that the credibility of the author is also somewhat in question. I can publish a website saying whatever I like as well for the sake of supporting whatever theory I like, but does not make it factual. Finally, the diagrams in many figures (a good one on experiment #8) are just blatantly wrong and are so because a curve
is what is seen, though not as exaggerated (likely for the point of illustration), and sometimes unnoticeable by the human eye.
(3) Proven laws of physics on a RE support the idea of an atmosphere with cloud coverage. On a FE, wouldn't the clouds eventually wind up disappearing off the edges, taking with it much of the world's precipitation? (especially considering the constant movement of the world)
Flat Earth Theory posits that 150ft ice walls encircle the Earth, holding the atmosphere (and clouds) in.
So I read, but wouldn’t precipitation in the clouds freeze to those walls (since the clouds and ice walls would meet) and thus make rainfall very scarce? The walls would build in size (making a problem for any government facilities situated at the walls), changing the geometric size of the FE (for the purposes of causing instabilities/wobbles in the rotation, this may work towards the FE’ers favor), causing all kinds of issues that we should be seeing with the climate and physical properties of the Earth that we aren’t seeing.
(4) What manner of force exists that would cause sunlight (and heat/radiation) to appear and warm a FE in such a manner as to produce a warm inside track but frozen center and edges? Does a model exist that supports this behavior? Further, wouldn't the sun always be visible regardless of the hour, with no curvature of a RE to hide such sunlight? (the spotlight theory posted in the F.A.Q. vaguely describes an optical illusion -- I'm looking for a more concrete answer than that kind of shrug-off)
Think of the sun as a flashlight, not a lamp. The light emitted from the sun is only visible in a relatively small area underneath it. Thus, much less sunlight is available for the ice wall and the North Pole, keeping the cold. Also this is why it is not always daytime everywhere.
Except for light amplification (such as lasers), a source of light (even a flashlight) can be visible from an angle that it’s not directed at. While your response did not give me an answer to my question, it did pose another that’s been bothering me: what kind of celestial object focuses light in one (and only one) direction, such as the sunbeams we have, and how amazingly coincidental that it faces our direction and in a perfect circle on a FE and even more coincidental that it, the moon, us, and all the stars, are all moving in the exact same direction at the exact same velocity. Where a high number of improbably coincidences help support your theory, they are not necessary under a planetary solar system / globular model at all, such as commonly-accepted RE theories. (this is in partial response to your reply to #1 above).
(5) How does the notion of satellites and other orbiting bodies function without the constant gravitational attraction that a RE provides? This includes natural bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, stars, etc. as well as artificial (commercial satellites, etc.).
Many FE'ers hold that satellites and the space program are an elaborate hoax. There is some controversy as to the nature of the other planets and of asteroids among the FE community. My personal hypothesis is that every planet is flat and acted upon by the same force pushing the Earth upwards. It is likely that other planets have their own light emitters cycling via the power of magnetism emitted from the center of each "disc" of a planet.
Fair enough: FE’s believe satellites are essentially nonexistent (man-made ones, of course).
Any model, simulation, sketch, etc. that can help me picture this cycling so that we can have a better understanding of how this cycling magnetism of light-emitters-to-disc-planets works?
(6) What makes the creation of a FE more likely (to a FE'er) than a RE?
What makes an RE more likely?
As per my follow-up to question #1, telling me “why not” or “because it’s possible” will not compel anyone. I’m genuinely interested in a rational, logical, and scientifically-proven demonstration for why the creation of a FE is more likely to occur than a RE.
But to be fair answer your question without going into too many details: given volumes of data supporting solar-system functionality, globular celestial objects, orbits, mass/energy/gravity, and other such forces, it makes more sense to live on a planet where the fewest number of exceptions and coincidences occur.
(7) The F.A.Q. indicates that global warming both does and does not exist. Please explain the contradiction.
I believe that carbon dioxide is emitted and does degrade the layer of O3 (Ozone layer) which is held in by the ice walls. If the atmosphere above the planet gets too hot, two problems will occur - firstly the North Pole will begin to melt, raising sea-level and possibly pushing water over the edge. Secondarily, and far more importantly, the ice wall may melt, running all the water in the world off into space.
Interesting and I will take that into consideration.
(
How does continental and/or tectonic plate movement theories function on a FE? It is without question that earthquakes occur (and are the cause of oceanic tides and so forth), but without a shifting, living RE that explains the nature of tectonic plates, the movement of continental bodies on a FE seems unimaginable. While some FE'ers will argue that continents and land masses do not move (and never have), all evidence would indicate otherwise. Is there evidence, or even a working model, supporting the FE'ers on this point?
Plate techtonics (or the lack of) was discussed in the thread "antarctica". Refer there for an in-depth discussion of just why it is possible that continents have never shifted position.
I read that thread (first one I read on this website, actually) and found it inconclusive. It also doesn’t answer my question – there is actual hands-on, eye-witness evidence (both old and new) of continents mutating, moving, cracking, etc. along what we RE’s call faultlines. How does FE theology debunk that knowledge?
(9) If the sun and moon merely direct light (like a flashlight) down on the world and the stars, heavens, and so forth are a tangible distance away, then wouldn't they all have to be moving in (a) the same exact direction and (b) same exact velocity to continue to be the same distance from us at all times? Orbiting globes propose an easily-understood answer, but this remains a mystery if the world is flat. In the same vein, wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that if a FE Earth was hurling through space (instead of orbiting in a relatively static location), then it would stand the good chance of colliding with other material? Additionally, wouldn't the gravitational pull these bodies have (both FE'ers and RE'ers acknowledge this, see F.A.Q. sticky) alter their trajectories?
As an FE'er, I do not acknowledge the existence of gravity. The forces holding things to the Earth are the direct result of the constant upthrust beneath all matter in the universe which propels the Earth through space. According to this model, the Earth will not collide with other material because all material is indeed moving in the same direction at the same speed.
Just to make sure I understand – you believe that not all of Newton’s laws of physics are accurate, believable, or correct?
(10) What benefit do government bodies have in perpetuating a conspiracy regarding the geometric properties of the world? (i.e.: motive theories as is unanswered in the F.A.Q.)
The effects of global warming are understood to be fairly bad under RE-model, but under FE model they are catostrophic and will literally destroy the Earth and all the life on it. The Trilateral Commission (an international conglomeration representing the interests of big business) is in cahoots with the government, keeping quiet the true nature of the Earth so they can continue to pollute without incredible public outcry and revolution.
I’ll let this question rest for a while and revisit it again after I’ve had some thought on the matter. Thank you for your response.
(11) Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that if such conspiracy existed and was the design and implementation of a large government body (or collaboration thereof), that there would be some tangible proof towards many, if not all of the F.E. theories, given that governments are operated by people (and/or sentient beings) which are fallible?
The conspiracy is so all-encompassing (world governments, big business, the media, most of the world's religious institutions, established facets of science) that it is quite capable of erasing nearly all concrete evidence of the Earth's shape.
Okay -- that avoided the question, though. The governments are operated by humans, which are subject to error and a slew of sins, which make secrets impossible to maintain. I’m having a hard time accepting “conspiracy” and “brainwashing” without far more detail. Any links handy?
(12) Assuming that conspiring government bodies have a motive that involves financial gain (or the control of such value), wouldn't it be far more economical to not cover up such a wide array of evidences that would support FE theories? Or even just one? Such as space travel, globe-vs.-disc travel, etc?
No, because if the Flat Earth Theory gains any credibility whatsoever the conspiracy's entire livelyhood and existence will be thwarted.
You misunderstood my question. It’s not profitable to maintain such secrets unless there’s something huge you’re not mentioning. Can you elaborate why you think that conspirators would profit from a cover-up on this scale?