This is my first post. Let me say a few things in introduction:
1. I accept the "conventional" theories regarding cosmology and gravity.
2. I've read the whole FAQ, so I'm familiar with at least the foundation of what FEers believe.
3. I'm a physics major.
My questions are:
1. Do you accept the validity and applicability of general mathematics, including "higher" branches such as calculus?
2. Do you accept the conventional theories of electricity/magnetism? (NOT simple circuitry, but field theory)
3. If yes to both #1 and #2, why are the mathematical proofs and experiments which verify E/M field theory more accurate/plausible than the theories and experiments which verify the existence of attractive force between masses?
4. If no to either #1 or #2, why do you believe the theories are not valid?
5. Do you believe in the general laws of motion, as governed by Newton's equation: F = ma?
6. If you accept the general laws of physics, which have been verified many times, why would these laws preclude the possibility of a spherical Earth?
7. Why do you observe the very top of a ship first as it comes over the horizon, instead of seeing the whole ship slowly become visible?
8. When standing on a beach, why can you not use a powerful telescope to see the opposite shoreline?
9. When computing the trajectories of long-distance projectiles, such as those used during WWII, why is it necessary to include the Coriolis effect (necessitated by the rotation of the earth), and the effects of spherical geography, in order to ensure maximum accuracy?
10. How do you explain the everyday evidence of the Coriolis effect, which is based on the idea that the north hemisphere and south hemisphere (which are only differentiated by the distance from the center according to FE theory) are on opposites sides of the equator? (evidence such as the different direction of swirl in large storms, and the fact that different swirl directions are observable if you (very) slowly drain a large tub of water on different sides of the equator)
11. Why do you think that the existence of a "shadow object", or an "anti-moon" is more plausible than the simple idea that the Earth is in fact not special, is exactly like the rest of the planets, is simply a collection of matter, experiences seasons because of the tilt of the axis, all of which are explained by the same simple theory?
12. How do you explain satellite imagery, stipulating that the satellites continue taking photos without a permanent energy source to maintain altitude?
13. How do you explain the calculated energy levels of the Sun, which predict that if the sun were in fact only 3000 miles away, the Earth would be destroyed by radiation? (such calculations and measurements are easy to perform and verify using blackbody measurements and comparisons to everyday objects)
14. If you accept #1 and #5, how do you explain the fact that the mathematics which successfully predicts the observable movements of the planets (first calculated hundreds of years ago, before a "Conspiracy" could have emerged) also predicts a heliocentric system?
15. Would the following experiments, if successful, prove the RE theory, or at least disprove the FE theory?
a. Flying without a GPS or compass in a straight line directly towards Antarctica, and ending up on the other side of the continent?
b. Launching into space, or just straight upwards, and seeing the earth as depicted in images provided by NASA?
16. Why do you believe that the North Pole is the center of the Earth, and not the South Pole? What observations distinguish the two?