Okay, here we go.
To clarify this first: This will be the only post of mine with this Account. I'll post, check whether it worked or not and delete my Account. Any attempts on critizing my point of view beyond the point of rationality is futile, aswell that I don't do this. I will definetely keep looking in here, but this meant to be the start of an "Let us all be patient, friendly and open minded people, who discuss this topic seriously"-Thread.
Consider this beeing an embassy of rationality. Personal insults, beliefs or disbeliefs are not helpful in any imaginable way. This is primarily meant to extinct any arguements in its roots, so be polite.
I've read through this and that in this forum and to be honest, I couldn't defend myself against a bright smile. This happened on various occasions I read, beeing some RE'ers in their attempt to prove you beeing wrong and some FE'ers reacting quite, ... inadequate to ( considering the Forum rules in here ).
I have a few questions, that in case may have been scratched in your FAQ, but obviously not answered in a satisfying way, otherwise I wouldn't ask.
1.) First, I can not begin without thinking about those points that hit most characteristics of a conspiracy-theories, like the "No Satellites" issue. Please explain what made you consider this beeing an actual point of interest and what reasons evolved whilst deepening this point. Have you acquired approvable facts on which I can rely whilst discussing ( please insert source ) ?
2.) Dark Energy is yet a theory itself. Including the today's scientific paradigma of the existence of dark matter makes this not more valid than me stating that my "recently upbrought theory of Yellow Energy and Yellow Matter" explains the cause Light beeing waves and not current known matter. What reasons can you give, that approve your thoughts beeing valid ( Mathematical- or Physical Formula, etc. ).
3.) The shape of a thing ( in this particular case a planet ) determines its gravity. Although Dark Energy may contribute to various similar effects, your theory flaws more than the Round Earth concept. The scientific philosophy of "Occam's razor" would, neglect your FE-Theory instead of the less flawed RE-Concept. So, obviously, you must have valid information that make your theory seem at least as reasonable as the RE. Apart from NASA, ESA, etc. delivered visual "informations", gravity for example is and plate tectonics contribute to the RE-Concept instead of the FE. Please share those evidents with us, cause simple theories wouldn't overcome Occam's razor.
Whilst in the process of reading, you may find errors ( grammar or vocabulary ). Since I'm no english Native-Speaker, don't mind them unless they cause misunderstandings. I may answer using another Account.
Thank you for reading.
Feloidea