This will be the very last time I waste a lot of time accommodating idiots who demand answers to a list of questions, Neil. I don't know why you people feel the need to be rude by demanding I waste my time on things like this. This is not a test; the site is for civilized discussions and rolling out a list as long as your arm does not make for a civilized discussion. If any more thoughts pop into your little head, ask them one at a time.
1. Navigation, specifically how inertial navigation systems work on a flat earth.
Inertial navigation is a joke. It is so inaccurate that it must be constantly corrected for using another navigation method.
2. Neutrinos, specifically observations of solar neutrinos which appear to have passed through the earth.
Scientists have no way to identify individual neutrinos. They have no way of knowing where the neutrino originated from or what it has passed through. They detect a neutrino and conclude that it must have passed through the Earth. This is not science, it is speculation and assumption.
3. Surveying, specifically why the horizon viewed through a theodolite is below horizontal level from any appreciable altitude.
Theodolites can not see what is on the other side of the horizon, dummy.
4. Maps, specifically why it appears to be impossible to produce a functional FE map but very easy to produce a functional RE map.
Who said it is impossible to produce a functional FE map? All maps, after all, are flat.
Why should you waste your time explaining them?
Because you claimed that FET could explain them.But instead, you came up with :
1. Claiming that a tried and tested and commonly used system of navigation does not, in fact, work at all. Even your excuse that it has to be cross checked against other navigational methods (which is a distortion of the truth - it's more that several methods are often used in parallel in many types of navigation) that would simply result in people not using INS because they'd notice it being wrong all the time! Verdict: no FET explanation given.
2. Ignoring what it observed matching
exactly what is predicted if neutrinos were to emanate from the sun - or indeed any other man-made source of neutrinos. Yes, you can't be CERTAIN that any individual neutrino originated from any particular source... just like you can't be certain that if you roll a dice 1000 times and it comes up 6 every time, that the dice is loaded... probability says that can happen, right? Verdict: no FET explanation given, just a dismissal of experimental evidence.
3. Here, you simply ignored the question and gave a non-sequitur answer. Irrelevant. Verdict: no FET explanation given.
4. If the earth was flat, it would be impossible to produce a functioning globular map. Yet some have been produced, and they work. If globular maps work, then flat maps can't work, therefore FET cannot explain maps.
You'd think, given the twenty seven thousand posts and years of your sad little life you've spent here, that you'd be able to do a little better. Good grief, even people like Papa Legba argue better than you.