I think the RE'ers are still missing the point of the argument. God, this is as bad as a political debate. The point isn't 'The Earth is flat because it's special lol'. The point is 'Yeah, the Earth is different. So what?'
Yeah, the earth is different (fourth time repeating this), but it's still a planet, you know planets are round due to gravity, so a planet can't be round, or who knows, we humans don't know everything, but, until we have solid evidence that a planet can be flat, then we can say that planets can be flat. Even before telescopes, scientist knew that the earth was round. I'm not up to date with your explanation of gravity, so argue with me.
Petitio principii. Your argument is that the Earth must be a planet because it's the same as all of the other planets, and it must be the same as all of the others because it's a planet. Please actually demonstrate one or both of these statements to be true independently of the other.
In Flat Earth Theory, gravity is non-existent. Instead there is a Universal Acceleration. Learn more at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=UA
I assume that earth is round because other planets are round (Apart from other evidence you quote as fake), so, we have to prove that earth is a different case to say it's flat. I read the UA article, but then, how we orbit around the sun? Or in earth-center-of-universe case. how other bodies orbit around us?
I'll address you first, since you're actually polite and likeable. The other bodies do not orbit the Earth. Instead, they follow an orbit directly above the Earth. Here's a diagram showing the path of the Sun, for example [Removed image to save space]
Your argument is that the Earth must be a planet because it's the same as all of the other planets, and it must be the same as all of the others because it's a planet.
This is called a Strawman. You cannot argue the opposition's argument, so you dilute it to a point where you can argue it. In this case, it is even worse than a Strawman because you do not dilute it, you totally change it.
Show us where anyone opposing you has ever said what you are claiming. Or be intellectually honest and make an argument against the real claims of the other side.
Rereading, it appears that it's actually different people making those points. lmb32 said the one, you said the other. So I retract that particular point. However, it wasn't a straw man.
I see, while I still disagree with you, it's a shame you can't get money for serious research, so you can get the evidence to prove or discard the flat earth, who knows, the scientific community ignored Max Planck at first. As for the UA model, there's a force that accelerate things so that give us the feel of gravity, but gravity pulls things, so it's not constant at accelerating them at 9,8m/s^2, so, the UA model has to explain what force makes the sun 'orbit' (sorry if in the UA model moving around and object isn't called orbiting) around the earth, or in different model, what makes the earth orbit around the sun, REs (including me) say that gravity does that, but if you FE accept that, then there's a problem with flat earth, since gravity 'pulls' in all direction, that's why the planets we know are round. Also, you should post this models in some physics forums, like physicsforums, since you can't get the resources to serious research, you could try asking the guys over there so they can help you prove, disprove or fix the inconsistencies in the models.