no it is not. length is length is length.
Yes, it is. And it's not. That's exactly the point.
a meter in Antarctica is the same as a meter in the arctic circle.
Physically speaking,
not. yes. (Edit: A silly mistake on my behalf.)
whats a blatant falsity? that if you have a correct model of the world, that it has to effect reality?
Out of two sentences, you chose the wrong one. I am beginning to believe that your reading comprehension might be at fault.
that's what a "model" is for. The physical fact is that the approximate area of Colorado is 269837 km^2.
Yes, and yes, physically speaking.
the disk like surface defined by the faq does not predict these result. could you tell me why they don't predict that answer?
The surface does predict this result, it's your proof, based entirely on optics, which does not predict it. Your calculations are not part of FET and should not be treated as such.
and don't tell me that they do, because I've already shown that they don't
No, you've shown that something that doesn't happen doesn't happen. Unfortunately, you did not account for Bendy Light.
If you hold to your logic, you also have to accept my ace disproof of RET:
Since there
obviously is no gravity in RET, the Earth cannot be round, because people would float off.