[Tom Bishop]

Yes, along those same lines. The differential equations have no closed form solution for n=3 or higher and thus must be solved numerically.

Central force means that the forces act along the position vector from one object to another. The gravitational force fits this description. The force on charged particles by magnetic fields, however, would not be central forces, because the force terms involve vector cross products.

Our problem is that the central force method matches observations, and is self-consistent with RE approaches analyzing the situation using energetics. It is discouraging actually to note just how self-consistent it is.

The only hope IMO for FE theory is to begin building this self-consistency. Only then will RE scientists have to acknowledge it.

BTW, would you be willing to share your derivation of the equation for the deflection of light by dark energy? This seems to be perhaps a natural spring-board for next steps: it is a formal prediction with well-defined terms. Getting it ready for publication is the next step. Hopefully you would be willing to claim primary authorship on the publication. I am most happy to help, but would not seek contributing authorship - I do not want it to seem as though I am taking/seeking credit. We do not know each other very well, and I want to be respectful of your intellectual property.

I have published many times before, and so know the process. Plus, there are open-sourced online physics journals that do not require a publication cost, which can be rather expensive otherwise.

Anything on the Wiki is available under creative commons. You are encouraged to share or adapt it for any reason. I did not create that equation and don't know those details. I believe that the administrator of the website, Parsifal, created it.

[QED]

Yes, along those same lines. The differential equations have no closed form solution for n=3 or higher and thus must be solved numerically.

Central force means that the forces act along the position vector from one object to another. The gravitational force fits this description. The force on charged particles by magnetic fields, however, would not be central forces, because the force terms involve vector cross products.

Our problem is that the central force method matches observations, and is self-consistent with RE approaches analyzing the situation using energetics. It is discouraging actually to note just how self-consistent it is.

The only hope IMO for FE theory is to begin building this self-consistency. Only then will RE scientists have to acknowledge it.

BTW, would you be willing to share your derivation of the equation for the deflection of light by dark energy? This seems to be perhaps a natural spring-board for next steps: it is a formal prediction with well-defined terms. Getting it ready for publication is the next step. Hopefully you would be willing to claim primary authorship on the publication. I am most happy to help, but would not seek contributing authorship - I do not want it to seem as though I am taking/seeking credit. We do not know each other very well, and I want to be respectful of your intellectual property.

I have published many times before, and so know the process. Plus, there are open-sourced online physics journals that do not require a publication cost, which can be rather expensive otherwise.

Anything on the Wiki is available under creative commons. You are encouraged to share or adapt it for any reason. I did not create that equation and don't know those details. I believe that the administrator of the website, Parsifal, created it.

Thank you Tom. I will reach out to Parsifal.

[TomInAustin]

At a certain point we all need to acknowledge one thing: REers don't bring anything new to the table. All their arguments have already been responded to several times over, and we've all seen pretty much everything they come up with. The strongest point REers have is exhaustion, it is simply wearying to repeat lengthy explanations to people that more often than not don't listen. Thus they create the illusion of superiority with cheap tricks rather than reasoned debate.
No doubt REers will disagree with that assessment. However most should still agree that the same basic points do end up being repeated an awful lot. In a way it's the natural drawback of debate, we already know how the first two or three exchanges will go because we've all had them before. In light of this I'd like to try compiling and categorizing all the finite RE arguments, with an end goal of a one stop shop for the quickest replies to most of them, and references to other areas if it ends up being complex. Nothing's ever going to weed out the trolls, but for those actually interested in learning or debating or discussing, skipping to a more developed topic of discussion can only benefit.

So, first step, putting together an exhaustive list. Don't try to make an argument, just point out what it is. It doesn't matter how informed you are about the area, I'm not going to expect you to defend it, just looking to add it to the list. Equally these are arguments in general, not arguments against specific FE models. Those can be addressed when responses start being compiled, but trying to bring those into it will just turn this into debate and derail everything. If there's any argument you've seen or that you can think of that's not on this list, post it below and I'll add it.
What I've got so far:

Arguments on Celestial Objects
Properties of the Sun (address Eratosphenes, sunset, spectroscopy, how it stays alight, what keeps it up, solar flares, constant size, azimuth, day length, midnight Sun)
Properties of the moon (address phases, what keeps it up, prediction)
Explanation of lunar and solar eclipses (cause, prediction)
Properties of the stars (address spectroscopy and Doppler effect, stellar parallax, aberration of starlight, what keeps them up, circumpolar stars)
Radio moonbounce
Planets (why are they round? Why do they orbit? What keeps them up? Transits, predictable movement)
Kepler's transit of Venus experiment

Space Travel
Haven't we been to space? (Address motive, ability to fake, cost, international politics)
The ISS
Satellites (address GPS, aligned dishes)
Why has nothing been leaked?

Arguments on Terrestrial Observations and Measurements
Map (address issues with creation, distances claimed working for globe, navigation, locating edge, day/night times)
Sinking ship on horizon (address altitude having an effect)
General tectonics (address cause of earthquakes, dispersal, wave detection... volcanoes, is the Earth brittle?)
Gravity (address cause, variations in location and altitude)
Coriolis effect (storms, weather prediction, snipers etc, eotvos effect)
High altitude photographs/observations
What of Antarctica?

Miscellaneous
Neutrino experiments
Equatorially aligned telescopes
RET is preferred by the mainstream and history
Multiple FE models

I've been suggesting a true FAQ since I've been here.   There are so many questions that are frequently asked one would think a real FAQ is a no brainer.  Of course, there's so little consensus among the Flearthers that it would be a mess from day one.  But a  real FAQ would shut down a lot of redundant questions.

[Bikini Polaris]

Nice idea. Here's what comes up to my mind:

Sun
- Clouds lit from below at sunset
- Shadows climb buildings during sunset.
- Mountains cast shadows from below under the clouds at sunset.
- Sun getting red at sunset, that is predicted in RE by inclination of Sun rays w.r.t. atmosphere scattering
- Reflection of the Sun on the sea has an edge on the horizon.
- In some pictures it is possible to see that sun rays are parallel. Example, shadows of clouds are as big as the clouds.
- The horizon is a crisp clear line, as if ocean is frontally curving down. On flat earth there should be a brownish band of confused far landscape.
- Equinox has the Sun coming straight in the sky, no way it's hovering around us.

Geometry
- Spherical geometry of distance (maybe it's already there, but afaik this is the most uncontroversial one, that FEs dodge simply by refusing to take... distances.)
- Horizon dipping with altitude, that can be checked simply using a bottle of water on a plane.
- Pictures of distant mountain tops, where tops of background mountains are much lower than what perspective would predict.
- Travelling East on the Equator going in a perfect straight line
- Visibility of Polaris, its altitude being your latitude
- Radio transmissions cannot go very far

Miscellanea
- Foucalt's Pendulum/Laser gyroscope expertiment
- Pontchartrain pictures
- Gravity varying with altitude