And I have to say that the Flat-Earth hypothesis seems rather.... far-fetched.
Very few pieces of concrete evidence support. And I've read the FAQ... all of the "evidence" there seems rather contrived. I'm sorry, but the evidence for a round earth is so overwhelmingly more profuse, succinct, and comprehensive what you've got going here.
There are a few points I'd bring up. And for the purposes of this post, second-person "you" is referring to a supporter of the flat-earth hypothesis:
-You maintain that the earth is a flat disk. What is the thickness of this disk? What is on the reverse side of this disk? What forces hold the disk in this shape? People who know the know the earth is round can tell you the Earth's radius, it's core composition, and that the force of gravity means that the most stable shape for all celestial objects is a sphere.
-You say that day and night is caused by the sun circling above the disk that is the earth, and that seasons are caused by the regular expanding and contracting of its path. We know that day and night on all other planets are caused by rotation of a spherical body. In a flat earth model, you would have to explain what forces keeps the sun rotating indefinitely, what forces cause the radius of the sun's path to oscillate regularly, why the sun does not fall to earth, and why the sun with its own gravitational field which keeps all other planets in the solar system has no effect on the Earth
-Which brings me to my next point. You reject gravity on earth, instead opting for an explanation that surmises that the Earth is constantly accelerating linearly at rate equal to that of the acceleration of gravity. Besides sounding redundant, can anyone here tell me now what the velocity of the Earth is now? This would mean that if any decently-sized object were to strike the earth's surface from space, the energy from the collision would be enough to completely annihilate the Earth as we know it. This has not been the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite_impact#Modern_impact_events-The South Pole. It's already been visited multiple times. The entire Antarctic continent has been surveyed, and the South pole lies on it. In the Flat Earth hypothesis, the South Pole would have to be everywhere along the edge of the earth. This is not true. As indicated by instruments, there is only one location on the earth that is the farthest point from the North Pole. Flags have been planted on it.
-The sun and the moon. Oh boy. Nowhere does your hypothesis encounter more serious flaws. In the FAQ, you address the issue of lunar eclipses by introducing into existence a whole new celestial body called the "antimoon". Firstly, what evidence do you have that enables you to do this, except out of convenience? Why does this antimoon not have an effect on tides? Can you tell me its properties, of which the very least its size and composition? But that's not what I'm interested in. I want to raise the issue of solar eclipses. At what distances do you place the sun and moon from the earth? For solar eclipses to occur, the moon would have to be closer to the earth than the sun. However, in the Flat Earth model, this prevents us from ever seeing more than a half-moon at most. The model I believe in allows solar eclipses and full moons with ease. Furthermore, you say that the sun is a "spotlight" that only shines on certain areas at a time, which creates day and night. This means that at a certain angle when viewed from the earth, light no longer radiates from the sun. Basically, the sun has blinders in your model. If this is the case, however, how can the moon be illuminated at all during the night? The angle projection from the sun to the moon would certainly have to be greater than the that from the sun to the surface of the earth where it is night.
-The stars. Following the Flat Earth hypothesis, all stars and constellations should be visible from any point on the globe during all seasons. This is not the case. On a certain point on the earth, some constellations can only be viewed during certain seasons, and others not at all regardless of season. You will never be to see the Southern Cross from Washington D.C., but you can see Canis Major during the summer. In contrast, the Southern Cross is always visible from any point in the southern hemisphere. The round earth model explains both seasonal variation and celestial visibility by virtue of the earth's axial tilt.
-A lot of your rejection of traditional senses of direction seems to be based on your notion of a compasses fallibility. You forget that early navigators could use both the stars and their compasses to inform you of their direction. But this brings me to my next point, which is....
-The earth's magnetic field. Both the locations of the magnetic north pole and the magnetic south pole can be located. A compass will confirm this. You cannot walk a distance from the south pole (as in walking the circumference in the Flat-Earth model), and still have your compass report neutral.
-Not to mention that heat would dissipate extremely rapidly from a flat earth, stopping all geothermal activity which causes plate tectonics, and the magnetic field to exist at all. Mars has already lost its magnetic field, but Venus has a small one, but only due to lack of convection...
-Oh who am I kidding. Your model of the earth doesn't even allow for the processes that would normally produce a magnetic field to take place. Unless your notion of "flat earth" is more akin to a cube, or a rectangular prism with considerable thickness, which would have by this time stabilized into a sphere anyway, even without the assistance of gravity.
-After perusing through your website, I can only conclude that you guys deliberately lack scientific integrity with your methods, hypotheses, and explanations to support a flat earth model. You assume
a priori that your hypothesis is correct (I quote: "if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't") , supported by very little evidence, and then craft wildly creative and convenient "theories" around it to explain the huge contradictions that it causes, which in turn are also supported by very little evidence because
you failed to use the scientific method. You reject barrow-loads of empirical data which evidences the contrary on the basis of the belief that it's all from some huge conspiracy theory. You arrogantly reject research presented from the most widely respected academic institutions, because you believe you somehow know better than everyone there. You attempt to rewrite over 5 centuries of scientific progress which
has used the scientific method and is so far consistent with everything we know. In any scientific field, a little skepticism is healthy, but your efforts here exceed the threshold of absurdity, and borders on the paranoid. There's a reason why everyone thinks this site is a joke, and it's not because the conspiracy has installed propaganda machines on everyone's hard drive. Isolating oneself from the community prevents healthy circulation of ideas and only breeds irrationality. Visit your local space center. Or an observatory. Organize your own Antarctic expedition if you must (I'm going to tell you a secret: there are no guards stationed there. What, you think the Antarctic Treaty is fake too?) Build your own telescope if you don't trust the government; that's what Galileo did. Something that might open your eyes to the world, please...