Concerning the shape of other bodies in space...

For the sake of argument, let's all agree that the Earth is, indeed, flat. Now, let's also agree that the Sun and the Moon are flat. There's an assumption that every other body in the Universe, whether they be planets/stars/et cetera, are also flat. When we see these other forms that are also flat, we obviously see them at an angle where the flat surface is facing us all the time. Never do we see a planet's "side," we only see a circular form.

If it isn't clear what I mean, think of it like this - The flat Earth would probably resemble a cylinder, with the surface being circular, but not a sphere, and the underside probably also being a circle. On the "sides," there would be a few hundred mile wide boundary between the surface and the underside. This would be where the crust extends to the mantle, extending to the core, and opposite out towards the underside. If you saw this from the depths of space, it would look like a line. For example, look at a plate from the side. You can't see the surface of the plate or the bottom, so you have no way to know that these are round.

Now, if all other bodies in space are actually flat, this means they all face us all the time. We never see their "sides." How does every planet/star/et cetera in the entire known universe face us? Are we indeed the center of the Universe? Does the Earth emit some force which makes every mass in space face us in that fashion?

I know someone is going to bring up how galaxies are "flat" and we see that all the time. Well, a galaxy isn't a single mass. It's a collection of bodies in space. Saying that a galaxy is one hunk of mass, amounts out to saying that traffic is a single object, and it's not made up of however many vehicles are on the road, but instead stands by itself.

Please note: The following is not universally accepted FE Theory, it's my own personal hypothesis.

You're completely right, when we see other celestial bodies, they should appear slanted or elliptical.

However, this assumes that what we see when we look at planets is light from the sun reflected off them. This is clearly not the case - the sun is too small to emit so much light, and it's like a spotlight - it only shines on its own planet.

What we actually see is the energetic "burnoff" which results from upward acceleration. Dark matter is very poorly understood by FE and RE scientists, but I believe that when it comes into contact with matter, which it pushes upwards, energy is released in the form of light.

Since photons technically have no mass, they are not affected by upward acceleration, and so can travel "downwards" through the fluctuating plane of dark matter and reach the Earth - but in the process they are distorted into circles with weird and wonderful patterns all over them.

This dark matter (a.k.a ether) does not exist. Do you know how the Flat Earth Society (the real one) came back into existence after centuries of silence? It is because two people decided they were going to prove whether ether existed or not. They did this by shooting off a light pulse into space. If ether existed, the light pulse should slow down, if not, it should continue at the speed of light relative to earth. Do you know what happened? It continued at the speed of light relative to earth. They concluded then that ether does not exist, and that the earth doesn't have to be flat to maintain it's current speed. However, people like you skewed this arguement, and claimed that it meant that the earth wasn't moving (at least not side to side) at all. These ignoramus concluded then, that the earth was flat. That is how it was reborn.

By the way, this talk of ether begs me to bring up another question, one I haven't thought of before. You FEs believe that gravity is caused by the earth continuing to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. First of all, there is no scientific principle or evidence backing this up, but let's hypothetically say that it is indeed accelerating. The original ether theory stated, "Ether, or the dark matter that makes up space, would cause a round object to decelerate as it orbited the sun, but a disc wouldn't (at least not at a noticable rate) because the surface area for friction is greatly reduced. Therefore, the earth is flat." That was the original theory. Tell me this, if we're constantly moving up, that means that the flat side of the earth is pushing through ether. Not only are you saying that it's pushing through it, but also that it is accelerating through this ether. Tell me, how is that possible? How can ether exist, and gravity be caused by a constant acceleration? Because I'd really like to hear the answer to this one.

Dogplatter, you believe that the light that illuminates individual planets is sparked by the planet's acceleration upward. Logically, would this be enough light the entire surface of a planet, making it perfectly visible? Would planets then not also have a surrounding blur when we view them, due to acceleration or the distortion that you're talking about? Also, what distorts the view of every planet/star/et cetera into a circular shape? Why is it possible to point out the planet's outline? I'm just wondering your opinion.

This dark matter (a.k.a ether) does not exist.

Um, I know of now experiment demonstrating this.  If you are thinking of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, you misunderstand its conclusion -- that if the aether exists, the Earth is not moving with respect to it.  That is, in fact, the way the conclusion is stated in the paper.

Tell me this, if we're constantly moving up, that means that the flat side of the earth is pushing through ether.

I'm not sure where you heard this, but the original conception of aether required that it permeates all ordinary matter and does not interact with it... otherwise it would be difficult to explain how lights work indoors and underground.

There is no aether drag because the aether flows through us as though we were not there (accd. to aether theory).