After reading the FAQ, i have found a couple things that FE theories predict, which are not observed. (some of which have been stated in previous thread, and i will mention them as well)
I would like for anyone familiar with FET to shed some light on these problems, and how they may (if at all) be resolved.
Problem 1)Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"
A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.
if the Sun is a spotlight, it can be set up 2 ways
A) it is a sphere (or disc) with blinders on the sides, such that it has a spotlight effect, or
B) it is a sphere (or disc) with no such blinders.
if B) is the case, there is no way that it could be a spotlight. it would radiate light in all directions, thus illuminating all of the Earth (just like a light bulb in a room). so this cannot be true in FET.
if A) is the case - which is the only other option - there should be a centralized location of the highest intensity, which gets dimmer farther out. think of the spotlights in a theater - not only do they illuminate one area very well, but the area just outside is slightly illuminated as well. this is of not much significance (although it is contradictory to observation, but i don't want to explore that here), except to outline the following:
this would also mean that the Sun's light should be observable
everywhere on a flat Earth. this is because of reflections of light inside the blinders. however, this means that all places on the Earth should be able to see some light from the Sun at all times. (see illustration below)

but this is not observed; how does FET reconcile this problem?
Problem 2)Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."
A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.
there is a currently active thread (
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49138.0) in which Sorrow_Scavenger pointed out that this explanation is inconsistent with observation.
in addition, there is another problem. not only does the Sun not appear to get smaller (as Sorrow_Scavenger pointed out), this FET explanation does not account for the Sun moving (or appearing to move) below the horizon.
there seems to be no way for FET to reconcile this. however, i understand that an update has been made on the FAQ page about this. it refers to something called Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory. it seems that this is FET's only way to account for these observations, however it makes no reference to what this is or how it works. could someone please link or discuss what this theory is and how it explains these phenomena - please include the complete mathematics and derivation of the theory in your link or discussion.
Problem 3)Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.
A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.
from this (and elsewhere in the FAQ) i understand that gravity, as defined by Newton and Einstein (mainly, that any 2 objects which have mass attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them) does not exist in FET.
instead, FET provides a theory in which the stars and the moon have gravity, but the Earth does not. thus we would expect that the "material" that the Earth is made of is not the same as that of the stars or moon (since, if they were, the Earth's material would be subject to gravitational attraction)
The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
following this logic, would objects made of the same material as the Earth (ie something dug up from the Earth) be subject to gravity? there are two options:
A) yes
B) no
if A) is true and two mounds of dirt
do have gravity, a theory is necessary to explain how they obtain it once being removed from the Earth. if this is the case, please provide a well reasoned theory.
if B) is true - and material from the Earth, once removed, has no gravitational properties - how does FET reconcile experiments like the Cavendish balance (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment), in which an attraction between 2 objects (made of steel, or brass, or any such metal brought from the Earth) to each other is observed? this cannot be explained by the Earth accelerating up at 9.81 m/s^2.
there seems to be no way to explain this in FET.
Problem 4)also regarding gravity and conservation of energy (see Problem 3)):
(before i start: i have seen nothing, so far, regarding conservation of energy. so i assume FET agrees with conservation of energy, which is really should because experiments confirming conservation of energy can be performed (or derived mathematically) on small scales on Earth, without regard to or dependence on its shape or curvature.)
if the Earth has no gravitational field, then there is no potential field associated with the gravitational force. this system cannot conserve energy. for example, in a frame of reference on the Earth (in which we are stationary), an object dropped from a building of height, h, will attain some speed, v, and then some kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 mv^2. however, FET has no explanation for how this energy arose. in classical physics (consistent with RET), it comes from the gravitational potential energy, U = mgh.
in FET, this energy appears to arise from nowhere, violating conservation of energy. how does FET reconcile this?
Problem 5)the Foucault Pendulum (discussed in this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49226.0 - see this for a link to the wiki for it, as well as what it is) cannot be explained with FET.
Tom Bishop has made an argument that
1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.
2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.
as seen from Problem 3), is it not possible for the celestial bodies to produce a gravitational effect on anything from or on the Earth. therefore, it is impossible for the movement of a pendulum on Earth to be explained by attraction from the heavenly bodies.
in addition, i would like to formally ask for a proof that the attraction by the heavens is sufficient to produce this effect.
it seems that the attraction by the heavens (if it exists) could be sufficient to describe a standard pendulum - which is not being moved from place to place on Earth. however, the heavenly attraction must be very intricate and complex to explain how the motion of a pendulum can be so different in different locations on the Earth.
although a mathematical proof is preferred, a logical argument would suffice given that it makes
clear definitions (of such things like the heavenly attraction) and explores all possibilities in detail.
Problem 6)Q: "What about tides?"
A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.
as explored in Problem 3) and Problem 5), it is not possible for the celestial bodies - or the moon - to produce a gravitational effect on the Earth, since the Earth (according to FET) is not made of gravitationally-interacting matter.
also, i don't see how they could produce these effects even if there were a force. again, just like i asked in Problem 5), i would like to see a proof that attraction from these bodies can cause the sea level to rise in different places on the Earth and by the same amount that is observed.
Problem 7)Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"
A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.
where is this antimoon? i have not seen any evidence of its existence. for example:
A) where is it when it is not between the Sun and the Moon?
B) how is its path through the sky described?
C) why can't we see it during a lunar eclipse when the Sun's rays are bouncing off of it?
how does FET explain the lack of evidence for the antimoon?
Problem 8 )Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"
A: In the dark energy model, the magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as the RE (Diagram). The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, while the magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The ice wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.
the only way that a magnetic field could be vertical at some place on the flat Earth is if it were vertical everywhere (as in the depiction below).
if the magnetic poles are oriented as described, a magnetic object (like a bar) would orient itself vertically on the Earth. this is not what is observed. all bar magnets orient themselves horizontally on the Earth, when the Earth's magnetic field is the only influence. see the illustration below:

Note that the blue line is the flat Earth (as viewed from the side) and the green lines are the orientations of the magnetic field in that area. since magnets align themselves in the direction of the magnetic field, this would force bar magnets to be vertical.
how does FET explain the horizontal orientation of bar magnets? also, according to the FET's magnetic field, a compass should not even work.
Problem 9)Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is pointing toward the center of the Earth. If you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you have just gone around the world in a circle. Thus, circumnavigation is possible on FE.
actually, according to FET, the compass needle always points up (this is described in Problem 7)),
not towards the center of the Earth. thus, compasses should not even work in FET.
please see Problem 7) and explain that inconsistency before returning to this one.
Problem 10)Q: "How do seasons work?"
A: The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.
please explain how this causes seasons; i do not see how it does.
the Sun's orbital radius does not seem to have any dependence on how much heat we receive from it. i would also like to see a more detailed picture than the one listed in the FAQ section because, from that picture, it appears that the Sun does not even pass over most the Earth during a given season - which means, according to the "Sun is a spotlight" theory, only a very thin section of the Earth receives light and heat from the Sun.
For now, those are the inconsistencies with FET that i would like to point out and get some feedback on.
Thank you to anyone who can do so.
And please, be cool.