FE"T" - the lost cause

This is my list of what I have encountered, witnessed or figured here on forum, or while reading wiki/faq.

1. FE"T" is unable to provide any validate experiment, calculations or anything else that allows calculating the distance to the Sun.

2. FE"T" claims the Moon and the Sun share the same orbit. But since it is clearly observable that the Moon moves faster or slower (I am now sure which way), both bodies should collide.

3. FE"T" has no map. Given the years of existance no such map was ever made. Any alleged map shows impossible distances.

4. FE"T" animations of the "spotlight Sun" are always with the Sun that is out of scale. See http://wiki.tfes.org/Sun. The Sun there should be less than a pixel of size.

5. FE"T" has no idea how long the equator is. Because 10,000km distance  to the pole and 40,000km length are contradicting.

6. FE"T" claims seasons are caused by the Sun moving in and out. There is no explaination on how does such motion is possible. Also, there is no explaination on how the Sun can change its spotlight effect to shine exactly half of the disc, or to make impossible bends. Or why it maintain constant speed through the entire day. Or why it sets/rises in wrong places vs the FE model: http://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

7. FE"T" do not understand perspective. They just parot Rowbotham misconception and claim it is how it works.

8. FE"T" cannot explain how the Sun sets/rises given its altitude is so significant.

9. FE"T" claims the horizon is always at eye level. Such a case is possible only for concave surfaces or infinite planes.

10. FE"T" replaces gravity with UA, but has no idea where the energy to accelerate stuff comes from. Not to mention that this energy would suffice for less than say millenium.

11. FE"T" claims zooming can bring objects from behind the horizon. There is no proof of it, just drawings from 100+ years.

12. FE"T" is unable to provide any argument on how stars rotate on the southern hemisphere. The idea of 3 gears that are accidentaly at south America, Australia and Africa is ridiculous and very easy to debunk.

13. FE"T" claims since there is no visible curve, it is flat.

14. FE"T" claims there is some sort of conspiracy, everyone but them is brainwashed and close-minded.

15. FE"T" is just yet another pseudo-scientific movement looking for nothing but attention.


Post your own fail compilation. Or counter-argument to any point that I stated.

Yep, the FET is a sinking ship. No wait, check that, it sank and its now at the very bottom of the challenger deep.

10. FE"T" replaces gravity with UA, but has no idea where the energy to accelerate stuff comes from. Not to mention that this energy would suffice for less than say millenium.

There was one rather delightful answer to this a while back. The aether, which accelerates the Earth, was made of tachyons. As such, it moves faster than light, and in fact the hypothetical particles accelerate as they lose energy over time, if memory serves: it takes infinite energy to reach the speed of light from either direction.

FET's only fun if you treat it as a fun hypothetical situation, and that qualifies.

So as not to create a "wall of text" that most people won't read and that virtually everything is wrong with the FE fantasy (FEF), it might be more prudent to make a list of what actually works (a REALLY short list ).

For example, here were some 2 dozen reasons FE fails (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64627.0).

Several threads were started asking FEers why they actually believe in FE. Did we get even 2-3 reasons?

What actually works in the FE model? Whatever isn't mentioned is probably what doesn't work (almost everything - seriously - the list is THAT long).

So as not to create a "wall of text" that most people won't read and that virtually everything is wrong with the FE fantasy (FEF), it might be more prudent to make a list of what actually works (a REALLY short list ).

For example, here were some 2 dozen reasons FE fails (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64627.0).

Several threads were started asking FEers why they actually believe in FE. Did we get even 2-3 reasons?

What actually works in the FE model? Whatever isn't mentioned is probably what doesn't work (almost everything - seriously - the list is THAT long).

To be fair, failure lists like that are generally terrible. Even basic FET answers (at a skim read) A3, B1, B2, B7, C8 are answered in the FAQ, and D2 is an urban legend. It's just a rant, and one of the few times I'll agree with JRowe, looking down that thread.

Trying to list what does/doesn't work is a pretty futile endeavour. There's no way it could end up exhaustive.