"TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round" Debunked

That experiment does not prove the RE, it presupposes the RE. And then it tries to calculate the diameter of the Earth.
Now, suppose that the Earth is flat and that the Sun is only a few thousand kilometers up in the sky. What would you expect? Exactly the same result! Let me explain why: the birds get apparently lower in the sky as they go farther from you, because of trigonometry (contrary to popular belief, this has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth). The same reason why things on the Earth seem to get closer to the horizon line as they go farther and farther. And the same happens with the Sun in the sky. You simply see it in a different angle depending where you are. Think about this: imagine that you are on the top of some building and trying to determine the distance from another building, and that you know exactly how high those buildings are. You would measure the angle at which you would see the top of that building. And the SMALLER the angle is, the FARTHER is the that building. And you calculate how far using the trigonometry, and not using the fact that the Earth is round. The same happens with the Sun on the FE. Now suppose you find two equally high buildings, and knowing their distance, you measure the angle to the third building you try to determine the distance to. If you (highly hypothetically) see the third building at the angle of sixty degrees, you would correctly assume that the distance to the third building is the same as the distance between the first two buildings. Of course, you probably wouldn't get an angle of sixty degrees, or thirty, or forty-five degrees, so you would have to use trigonometry.
And that is exactly how the FE-ers try to get the distance to the Sun! They try to measure the angle at which you see the Sun from two locations, and apply the same formulas they would use to calculate distances between buildings. And the results always vary between 4000 kilometers and 5000 kilometers. And that is probably the result of, let's say, not measuring at the same time (the Sun's movement), measuring during cloudy day (refraction), and so on.
And the sunset is simply the Sun going FARTHER than the horizon, so that it apparently merges with the horizon line. The sunrise is exactly the opposite. That's that simple. Some RE-ers would argue that this is impossible because we see the bottoms of the clouds being illuminated during the sunset, but, in fact, both the top and the bottom are illuminated and we see only the bottom.
As for the RE astronomy? RE astronomy is based on an assumption that the Earth is round. And that isn't backed up with solid evidence. Just like there being many astrologers doesn't prove that it is correct, so doesn't there being many astronomers.
As for Neil, degree he has is irrelevant to the statements he makes. There are many doctors who claim that MMS can cure autism, and their degree doesn't prove that.

"9. Eclipses

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same."

A lunar eclipse is when the shadow of the Earth falls on the moon.  The moon and the sun are far apart.  Full moons are always farthest from the sun, so there's no way the moon is going behind the sun.

Also, if the moon went behind the sun it would be during a new moon, at daytime (if we were to see it) and we wouldn't even notice it.

Yes, Tausami apparently wasn't informed about this issue. Weird, FEW is full of explanations for lunar eclipses.
However, we also know that RE explanation for lunar eclipses is wrong. It simply can't be caused by a shadow of the Earth. Let me explain: on the Earth, if you make a shadow of a sphere it (or at the most cases only its edges) would seem reddish, but that's because the light around that sphere is dispersed by air and particles of dust, and so on. That doesn't exist in space, so the Earths shadow on the Moon should cause the Moon to be completely dark (like the Sun during solar eclipses), but that's obviously not the case. The Earth's atmosphere is too thin to cause the dispersion, it goes only as high as 1% of the diameter of the Earth (in RE model). Let me rephrase that: In space, where there is no air or particles or anything that would cause refraction, all the rays of light should go at a straight line, so that no light would come to the objects in the shadow.
So, most of the FE-ers argue that the lunar eclipses are caused by a semi-transparent "shadow object" being between the Sun and the Moon.
I don't think that's the simplest explanation. First of all, the notion of the Moon getting its light from the Sun doesn't seem justified to me. I think that the simplest explanation is that only half of the Moon (one hemisphere) emits light, and that the Moon rotates. As for the spots on the Moon, I would suggest that there is some semi-transparent layer with spots covering the Moon, but not rotating with it.
As for the lunar eclipses, I think that we should claim that that the "shadow object" goes between us and the Moon, exactly as it appears.
And, in my geography textbook, the largest RE apologetic I've ever read, is a picture showing that the Moon's orbit around the Earth is at the same angle as the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Based on that, you could conclude that you never see a full moon, but a lunar eclipse instead. So, my hypothesis is way closer to the truth than that one.

With all due respect, are you kidding me? Do you seriously live in 2016 and believe the earth is flat? With all of modern physics, videos and pictures from Earth, astronauts, programs like SpaceX, NASA, moon landings, satellites, and the existence of gravity, you honestly believe the earth is flat? How thick is it? Where does gravity come from? What is the bottom of the earth like? Why hasn't anyone ever been there? Why hasn't anyone ever, in the history of mankind, fallen off the earth? Ask anybody who has ever taken a basics physics class in high school, ask literally anyone who has ever been on an airplane and looked out of a window where you can obviously see curvature of the earth... explain google earth, explain how a global positioning system works... What makes the earth different from any other planet? Why should the earth be flat, where is the evidence to suggest that earth is different than any other planet? Where did this idea even come from? Is it some politicized attempt to defund space exploration programs, or is it just to get attention? You are suggesting that essentially everything we know about physics and gravitation is wrong, which is absurd, and as I am fairly certain this entire website is a troll anyway, I will end Dar my post here. Let it be known that I personally think anyone who believes the earth is flat is a moron, and next you're gonna be telling me Zeus and Thor are real. Farewell.
-Keanu_Reeves

You are trying to emotionally abuse FE-ers, right? That means that you don't have any rational justification for your claim that the Earth is round!
And the only reason people like you believe that the Earth is round is because Aristotle, who was one of the few who believed that the Earth is round, happened to be the teacher of Alexander the Great. So, people considered him to be an authority for thousands of years.
His arguments were: a) Stars shift. b) Sinking ship illusion c) the "shadow of the Earth" during lunar eclipse being round.
All of them, as you can see on this board, have been debunked.
I am not saying that Aristotle wasn't a smart guy, after all, his arguments are brilliant… Considering that he knew less about science than a fifth grader. But it takes very little knowledge of science to understand why his arguments are fallacious.
If only someone else happened to be the teacher of Alexander the Great, we, the society as a whole, would be way more skeptical and probably closer to the truth.
And now NASA, and other "space agencies", use our lack of skepticism to collect money for the fake space exploration. They are convincing us that they know about other worlds, that they will make us the masters of the universe, something that they can't even prove to exist.
People, it's 21st century. And you still believe the conspiracy instead of your senses. You believe that there are people bellow us separated from us by the fluid rocks. You believe that what you walk on is spinning at a speed you can't even comprehend. You believe all kinds of things you can't justify, or even explain in terms of what our senses tell us.
But now those space agencies are in crisis. They won't be able to hide that they don't know how to get to space. They are now collecting money from us by telling us they will let us travel the space. But after a few decades, they will be forced to tell us the truth.
What then? Our children will be laughing at us.How could we believe that? Were we all drunk to think that the entire world is spinning? Did we all have astigmatism so that we thought that what we walk on is curved? Were we all delusional to think that there were other worlds, that one they we would visit them?
Hey, I will be able to tell them that I knew that the Earth is flat before the space agencies fall apart. I will, if there is this website in a few decades, show them that I argued for that using science I had learned in school and actually thought about.
But what will you say to your children mocking you? You will say that you believed the majority, even though you knew that it is completely wrong? That you knew about Hitler being chosen by the majority, but still thought that majority is always right?
Hey, even if I happen to be wrong, I will say that I made the wrong conclusion form the wrong facts that, in our school, they presented to us as science. That they made no sense, and that I thought they would make sense if the Earth was flat. And I will explain to them in details what I am talking about, and they will have a lot fewer misconceptions about the world around them than what I, and probably you, do.
But what if you happen to be wrong?
And about GPS? Well I already made a thread about what I think about it, so I am going to link to it, because I really hate to repeat myself. You have to repeat yourself because more often you tell a lie, more likely people are to believe that. I don't think we have to do that.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65649.0#.VreFPOm0JEc

Wait... is number 4 literally saying that trigonometry stops working once the distances get too big?

Everyone here has to know thats completely and utter bullcrap right? I mean I get why you would want to get rid of trig, because it is a super easy, super simple, super cheap (maybe even free) way of proving the Earth is round all by yourself, but if thats the reason then just ignore trig and all calls to use it like jroa or legion.

Saying after so many units of measure suddenly a whole branch of math stops functioning is asinine.

No, it said that it is impossible to move at a straight line over a large distance needed for that experiment. Just try to ride a bike blindfolded. What? Why can't you? Even if the road is completely straight, the friction acting from one side of a bike is greater than the friction acting from the other side of a bike, causing it to go in a large circle, rather than in a straight line.
And the same goes for airplanes: there is always some wind up in the air causing it to move out of the airline. And, if not controlled, it will crash pretty quickly, wouldn't it?
Now, I guess you will bring a compass into the story. Well, look, the north pole, on the FE, is right at the center. And the needle of a compass, then, always points right to the center of the plane. So, unless you try to move precisely north or south, a compass will actually not make you move at a straight line. And if you try to move precisely east or west, using that compass, it will make you move in a large circle.

Earth is a bumpy sphere:D

https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalDiarrhea/posts/591529930993999

Also, one of Elat Earthers just explaind to me why i am wrong and he is right about the Sun:

Entropian201211:52 AM
 
+Biblical Diarrhea  Maybe the sun stays there for no other reason then god wills it.  All we know about the sun is what we can observe and what the scientific organizations tell us and show us.  And for all we know they are corrupt.  I'm not saying that is the case but it is possible that we are living in a scientific dictatorship with the purpose to hide the truth. Again this may be pure paranoia on my part it's a plausible and intriguing idea. 

Quote from: Erland on January 17, 2016, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 16, 2016, 09:09:05 AM

Quote from: Erland on January 16, 2016, 05:15:01 AM

So how do you FE:ers explain that the Pole star (Polaris) appears at the same spot in the sky at every location, but at different altitudes at different latitudes?

What? 

If the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth, then Polaris would be seen at the same altitude in the sky, independent of the location, if the Earth is flat. But it doesn't.

What if the stars were only around 3000 miles away?

Then the constellations would have different shapes seen from different locations. They don't.

only i feel kind of a lack of  humility here?
the title just say ""debunked"", like they dont want to give to the other side (the ones how believe in a ball earth) any chance for defense.

this is another thing that bother me about flat earth society, not just here but all that videos on youtube with title like, ""irrefutable evidence'' like a arrogant child that dont want to listen to the parents

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

and you are different?

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:11:19 AM

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

and you are different?

Yes, I actually question what authorities tell me to believe. 

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:15:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:11:19 AM

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

and you are different?

Yes, I actually question what authorities tell me to believe. 

everyone do that, galileu galilei do that when use a telescope

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:20:11 AM

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:15:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:11:19 AM

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

and you are different?

Yes, I actually question what authorities tell me to believe. 

everyone do that, galileu galilei do that when use a telescope

Galileo was under house arrest for the rest of his life, and was almost executed for doing that.  Scientists lose their jobs when their employers are not happy with their findings.  Teachers get kicked out of school for teaching against the approved curriculum.  And politicians are taken out of office for going against the grain.  Sorry, but your argument is rubbish. 

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:22:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:20:11 AM

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:15:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:11:19 AM

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

and you are different?

Yes, I actually question what authorities tell me to believe. 

everyone do that, galileu galilei do that when use a telescope

Galileo was under house arrest for the rest of his life, and was almost executed for doing that.  Scientists lose their jobs when their employers are not happy with their findings.  Teachers get kicked out of school for teaching against the approved curriculum.  And politicians are taken out of office for going against the grain.  Sorry, but your argument is rubbish. 

still was enought to make the world view of earth change, schools todays are not the same as 1400 years.
a scientist today is not more fired because say something different, actually they are payed today to do that

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:27:18 AM

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:22:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:20:11 AM

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:15:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:11:19 AM

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

and you are different?

Yes, I actually question what authorities tell me to believe. 

everyone do that, galileu galilei do that when use a telescope

Galileo was under house arrest for the rest of his life, and was almost executed for doing that.  Scientists lose their jobs when their employers are not happy with their findings.  Teachers get kicked out of school for teaching against the approved curriculum.  And politicians are taken out of office for going against the grain.  Sorry, but your argument is rubbish. 

still was enought to make the world view of earth change, schools todays are not the same as 1400 years.
a scientist today is not more fired because say something different, actually they are payed today to do that

I did not know there were different degrees of being fired.  I thought that fired meant fired. 

Do you think the cigarette scientists would have kept their jobs very long if they said that tobacco is bad for you? 

Do you think the climate change scientists would have kept their jobs very long if the said that climate change is natural?

Scientists get paid to produce results... the results that their employer expects them to produce.

Are you dumb and naive, or is this satire? 

Quote from: jroa on January 17, 2016, 05:39:54 PM

Quote from: Erland on January 17, 2016, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 16, 2016, 09:09:05 AM

Quote from: Erland on January 16, 2016, 05:15:01 AM

So how do you FE:ers explain that the Pole star (Polaris) appears at the same spot in the sky at every location, but at different altitudes at different latitudes?

What? 

If the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth, then Polaris would be seen at the same altitude in the sky, independent of the location, if the Earth is flat. But it doesn't.

What if the stars were only around 3000 miles away?

Then the constellations would have different shapes seen from different locations. They don't.

But they do. Orion, for example, is upside down if you are in Australia.

Quote from: Erland on February 21, 2016, 03:47:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 17, 2016, 05:39:54 PM

Quote from: Erland on January 17, 2016, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 16, 2016, 09:09:05 AM

Quote from: Erland on January 16, 2016, 05:15:01 AM

So how do you FE:ers explain that the Pole star (Polaris) appears at the same spot in the sky at every location, but at different altitudes at different latitudes?

What? 

If the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth, then Polaris would be seen at the same altitude in the sky, independent of the location, if the Earth is flat. But it doesn't.

What if the stars were only around 3000 miles away?

Then the constellations would have different shapes seen from different locations. They don't.

But they do. Orion, for example, is upside down if you are in Australia.

I think the roundies are just making up more excuses in their head, lol. 

Quote from: Erland on February 21, 2016, 03:47:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 17, 2016, 05:39:54 PM

Quote from: Erland on January 17, 2016, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 16, 2016, 09:09:05 AM

Quote from: Erland on January 16, 2016, 05:15:01 AM

So how do you FE:ers explain that the Pole star (Polaris) appears at the same spot in the sky at every location, but at different altitudes at different latitudes?

What? 

If the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth, then Polaris would be seen at the same altitude in the sky, independent of the location, if the Earth is flat. But it doesn't.

What if the stars were only around 3000 miles away?

Then the constellations would have different shapes seen from different locations. They don't.

But they do. Orion, for example, is upside down if you are in Australia.

Of course, but it's shape doesn't change, nor its (apparent) size.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on February 21, 2016, 06:48:40 AM

Quote from: Erland on February 21, 2016, 03:47:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 17, 2016, 05:39:54 PM

Quote from: Erland on January 17, 2016, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 16, 2016, 09:09:05 AM

Quote from: Erland on January 16, 2016, 05:15:01 AM

So how do you FE:ers explain that the Pole star (Polaris) appears at the same spot in the sky at every location, but at different altitudes at different latitudes?

What? 

If the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth, then Polaris would be seen at the same altitude in the sky, independent of the location, if the Earth is flat. But it doesn't.

What if the stars were only around 3000 miles away?

Then the constellations would have different shapes seen from different locations. They don't.

But they do. Orion, for example, is upside down if you are in Australia.

I think the roundies are just making up more excuses in their head, lol.

Is it not upside down?

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:49:58 AM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on February 21, 2016, 06:48:40 AM

Quote from: Erland on February 21, 2016, 03:47:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 17, 2016, 05:39:54 PM

Quote from: Erland on January 17, 2016, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 16, 2016, 09:09:05 AM

Quote from: Erland on January 16, 2016, 05:15:01 AM

So how do you FE:ers explain that the Pole star (Polaris) appears at the same spot in the sky at every location, but at different altitudes at different latitudes?

What? 

If the stars are very distant compared to distances on the Earth, then Polaris would be seen at the same altitude in the sky, independent of the location, if the Earth is flat. But it doesn't.

What if the stars were only around 3000 miles away?

Then the constellations would have different shapes seen from different locations. They don't.

But they do. Orion, for example, is upside down if you are in Australia.

I think the roundies are just making up more excuses in their head, lol.

Is it not upside down?

Would it not be upside down on a flat Earth?

Come on now... An object which is turned upside down does not change its shape, nor its size.

Come on now... An object which is turned upside down does not change its shape, nor its size.

Celestial objects near the horizon are apparently magnified by the atmosphere, if that is what you ask. That's not unfeasible as it might seem at first. It happens every time you see a mirage. The light goes through multiple refractions caused by the different air density and different temperatures. And the different light rays go at a slightly different angle, but after lots of refractions, they can make the object appear much bigger than it actually is, but preserving the shape. The constant speed of the Sun can be explained in the same way.
But such things really sometimes make me doubt the FET myself. You should notice that it is impossible to predict those paths of light rays, yet they should somehow always cancel the perspective effect of celestial objects very far from us getting smaller and smaller. Why doesn't it make the things look even smaller? I mean, the light rays from those celestial bodies sometimes enter the atmosphere from a very different angle (some constellations are very big), so shouldn't we expect them to go at the very different paths (sometimes getting closer instead of farther from each other)? Why does it seem to preserve the shapes of the Sun, the Moon, and even the constellations (when other mirages mostly don't preserve the shapes)?
This is similar to the RE-ers claiming that the Sun and the Moon appear exactly the same size because of an enormous coincidence.
But I guess there might be some law of nature we haven't discovered yet that makes it so.
Also, this theory is falsifiable. Take a high altitude photograph with an exposure time long enough that we can see the shapes of constellations. If they are the same as if looked from the ground, you've falsified the FET. And if they are different, you've proven the FET.

Come on now... An object which is turned upside down does not change its shape, nor its size.

No one said Orion changed shape or size.  It simply changes orientation.  Please don't make things up.  It only makes you look foolish. 

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:36:29 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:27:18 AM

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:22:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:20:11 AM

Quote from: racionador on February 21, 2016, 06:15:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2016, 06:11:19 AM

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

and you are different?

Yes, I actually question what authorities tell me to believe. 

everyone do that, galileu galilei do that when use a telescope

Galileo was under house arrest for the rest of his life, and was almost executed for doing that.  Scientists lose their jobs when their employers are not happy with their findings.  Teachers get kicked out of school for teaching against the approved curriculum.  And politicians are taken out of office for going against the grain.  Sorry, but your argument is rubbish. 

still was enought to make the world view of earth change, schools todays are not the same as 1400 years.
a scientist today is not more fired because say something different, actually they are payed today to do that

I did not know there were different degrees of being fired.  I thought that fired meant fired. 

Do you think the cigarette scientists would have kept their jobs very long if they said that tobacco is bad for you? 

Do you think the climate change scientists would have kept their jobs very long if the said that climate change is natural?

Scientists get paid to produce results... the results that their employer expects them to produce.

Are you dumb and naive, or is this satire? 

you know that theres a difference between base science and applied science??

this science that you talking is the applied one, the one wheres we use what we already know to find pratical aplications.

BASE science is the science of finding knowledge for the pure pursuit of knowledge, that how a monk (mendel) discovery how DNA pass from a generation to other, we was not payed for some organization to do that he do as a hobby.

please study about base and applied science before talk bullshit.

Quote from: Erland on February 21, 2016, 02:44:13 PM

Come on now... An object which is turned upside down does not change its shape, nor its size.

Celestial objects near the horizon are apparently magnified by the atmosphere, if that is what you ask. That's not unfeasible as it might seem at first. It happens every time you see a mirage. The light goes through multiple refractions caused by the different air density and different temperatures. And the different light rays go at a slightly different angle, but after lots of refractions, they can make the object appear much bigger than it actually is, but preserving the shape. The constant speed of the Sun can be explained in the same way.
But such things really sometimes make me doubt the FET myself. You should notice that it is impossible to predict those paths of light rays, yet they should somehow always cancel the perspective effect of celestial objects very far from us getting smaller and smaller. Why doesn't it make the things look even smaller? I mean, the light rays from those celestial bodies sometimes enter the atmosphere from a very different angle (some constellations are very big), so shouldn't we expect them to go at the very different paths (sometimes getting closer instead of farther from each other)? Why does it seem to preserve the shapes of the Sun, the Moon, and even the constellations (when other mirages mostly don't preserve the shapes)?
This is similar to the RE-ers claiming that the Sun and the Moon appear exactly the same size because of an enormous coincidence.
But I guess there might be some law of nature we haven't discovered yet that makes it so.
Also, this theory is falsifiable. Take a high altitude photograph with an exposure time long enough that we can see the shapes of constellations. If they are the same as if looked from the ground, you've falsified the FET. And if they are different, you've proven the FET.

You're right to doubt FET. Atmospheric refraction changes the apparent direction of the light, but very little. About half a degree near horizon. It is a fact that the apparent sizes and shapes of the constellation are the same from wherever on Earth you look. Mirages would never be so consistent. You can't build a consistent theory of refractions and mirages which can explain that if the stars were just a few thousand miles away. Btw, how do FE-ers explain that the Sun and the Moon have approximately the same apparent sizes?

Are not the RE'ers the more arrogant ones, saying things, like, "No, because I was taught (such and such) in school, so you must be wrong." 

Seriously? In less than two  hours on this board I have been called a sock puppet and told to call a masterbation hot line, told math is voodoo and all but called a liar when I said I worked for years around Nukes and know how they work.

So far every few Pro FE people have even attempted to have an informed debate without stooping to name calling.

Then when asked to prove the specifics of why my math or other evidence is wrong, the name caller doubles down or goes silent.

The physicist's math is correct. How do I know for sure? Because the computer and internet I'm using to post this to you works, if the math was wrong, it wouldn't.

UA is interesting, the flaw is that it DOES violate E=MC2. To maintain 1g and keep me weighing far to much , Earth and us with it would exceed the speed of light in just about 2 years. The stars would all shift to the UV side of the spectrum as we approached them and those that we were going away from would turn violet.  That is unless you think the laws of physics only apply on Earth.

It is cute how you are trying to use a Newtonian calculation to solve a Relativistic problem.  Perhaps you should not limit your scientific knowledge to high school level physics?  Lol

Does FE discard relativity?

If the cylindrical earth is constantly accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, we would reach the speed of light (impossible for objects with mass) in...

t= deltaV/a = 299 792 458/9.81 = 30559883.59 s, or 0.97 years, given that we started at rest. This is impossible but I saw somebody on here talk about super luminal velocity so lets go with it. Lets throw Einstein out the window, and with him nuclear power, GPS, and everything else, and say that the earth can constantly accelerate in this manner. What provides the force for this acceleration? Do the stars also move with the earth? Given that we accelerate with no bounds in FE theory, wouldnt that mean that stars would eventually dissapear under the horizon, never to be seen again? Since they dont, they move with us. Which means that not only the earth is special, but the stars we see are also special. Nice, you got a new addidion to your theory.

If the sun is a disk shaped spotlight, why does it always look round? If the sun is a disk, would not seem oval in shape the further away it is? Or is this simply due to refraction/electromagnetic acceleration?

Also please explain the orbit of satelites, and why they work differently above the earth. How many of you hold degrees in physics, astronomy or engineering?

lol, another one who thinks that you can use Newtonian calculations to solve a relativistic problem.  He even implies that he is using a relativistic formula in his first sentence.  This is hilarious. 

lol, another one who thinks that you can use Newtonian calculations to solve a relativistic problem.  He even implies that he is using a relativistic formula in his first sentence.  This is hilarious.

Well what should one use? I mean your theory does not comform to Newtonian nor relativistic physics. Relativity models gravity as the result of curved spacetime due to massive stellar bodies, and objects moving through said spacetime will follow that curve. But since the earth is a damn cylinder accelerating at 9.81m/s^2, I fail to see how you would argue it to be relativistic to begin with. Do explain, this is Q&A after all.

Well what should one use?

Perhaps accepted science would be a start?