I was here a while ago debating astrophysics and some other concepts, and I've returned to see the state of the argument. What I present now is not an argument for RET or specifically against FET. In fact, I am actually here to present some advice for FET supporters.

As it is now, it is convenient for FET supporters to stick around here, post their "proof" and debate with the folks of the internet. The problem is that as it is now, you will never be able to leave home base with your arguments, because none of them are based in real science. I'm not saying this to shoot down all of the work you've done, but looking at some of your major ideas, you lack the mathematical rigor to prove it. Take "bendy light" for example. It doesn't really matter if light rays actually bend or if bendy light is a product of atmospheric distortion. For your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to leave the realm of thought and build the math to prove it. A simple diagram made in MS paint isn't going to prove anything. You're going to need the reflection and refraction matrices to show what is actually happening to the light. You're going to need Fermat's Principle to show why this is the most preferential solution. Also, you need to accept the fact that you can't disregard "RET" physics simply because it may shatter your ideas, especially if you can't provide the mathematics and experimentation to disprove it.

From what I see here, none of the major flat earth proponents are physicists and scientists at all, which is unfortunately what you will need to get your point across to the masses. If, one day, an armada of physicists landed on your site and produced the mathematics to prove you wrong, you wouldn't be able to refute them. Of course, you could just say they were wrong. That's simple. You can say that about anything. The problem is that you can't prove to everyone why they are wrong. That's why you either need to find physicists who will be able to construct the math to prove your theories or learn how to do it yourself.

If you do have mathematics and physics that can prove some of the FET claims, please post it here so I can review it. Additionally, it had better be higher than introductory physics level mathematics. You can't solve the world's problems with Algebra III/Trig and Intro Physics I. Also, don't try to tell me how much of accepted physics is incorrect. I've done the math and proven the theory with experimentation over my physics education. It's going to take more than that. If you want to tell me that RET physics is incorrect, you had better present the correct physics.