[JRowe]

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 wrt glowing red and bottom-up, spectroscopy, how it stays alight, what keeps it up, solar flares, constant size, azimuth, day length, midnight Sun, equinox path, are rays parallel if cloud shadows are size of cloud)
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, Polaris)
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 esp walking along equator in straight line, locating edge, day/night times)
Sinking ship on horizon (address altitude having an effect, ties to Sun's reflection on sea cutting off)
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?
Clouds lit below at sunset/shadows climbing buildings/mountain shows
Why is horizon a defined line/why does it seem lower at altitude?
Curvature (mountain peaks seeming lower, distance seen like Lake Pontchartain)
Why are radio transmissions limited in range?

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

[WellRoundedIndividual]

You should add stellar parallax and aberration of starlight into celestial category. Although, I haven't really seen the second one debated here unless I am missing something - it is definitely not in the Wiki).

[Mysfit]

Also:
Gravity (other planets and moons)
Tectonic Plates (toothpaste and brittle-biscuit issue)
I think the 'approaching speed of light' thing keeps coming up too.
Energy output of the sun
Cost of conspiracy
That guy who jumped from space... Felix?
... I think that's all i can think of, off the top of my head.

[JRowe]

I think the 'approaching speed of light' thing keeps coming up too.

As far as I'm aware that's specific to UA so not including it. Rest are added in some fashion though, thanks! Did remind me of a couple more things I've seen.

[Mysfit]

I think the 'approaching speed of light' thing keeps coming up too.

As far as I'm aware that's specific to UA so not including it. Rest are added in some fashion though, thanks! Did remind me of a couple more things I've seen.

Darn. I thought it was universal (pun a happy coincidence).
Good work so far, I bet some cleverer clogs will have some more sparks.

[TomFoolery]

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

You might add an entry for the Alaskan winter on an Australian summer's sunset paradox. (I.e. the problem of the sun shining in Australia when it's dark in Alaska even though Alaska is closer.)

[Bastian Baasch]

Under the space travel part, I'd suggest adding in the Soviet Union. It seems most of the evidence for The Conspiracy revolves around NASA and occasionally other agencies, but I haven't seen much about debunking Soviet space flights even though they're half of the Conspiracy. But then again, this isn't really a common objection, so it's your choice to add it in.

Something else I'd suggest is geopolitics, once you start talking about The Conspiracy, a lot of people talk about the incredulity that two sworn enemies would cooperate and stuff and the implications of all geopolitics being a sham and stuff like that.

[markjo]

I think the 'approaching speed of light' thing keeps coming up too.

As far as I'm aware that's specific to UA so not including it. Rest are added in some fashion though, thanks! Did remind me of a couple more things I've seen.

Don't forget about what keeps the sun, moon and other celestial bodies from falling to earth.

[Mysfit]

I've thought of a few more:
Most people think it's round (I know it's not a good argument, but i feel it is the most common).
No other flat planets (I think that's universal).

I'll keep at it.

[JRowe]

I've thought of a few more:
Most people think it's round (I know it's not a good argument, but i feel it is the most common).
No other flat planets (I think that's universal).

I'll keep at it.

I thought I'd included the former, but turns out I mistyped it and in fact asked 'why are other planets around?'

[Tom Bishop]

A common argument is prediction in astronomy. It needs to be shown very clearly that they don't actually have a model. These are their common objections.

- Astronomers can simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system and the Solar System
- Prediction in astronomy is based on the laws of Newton
- The eclipses are predicted based on the Round Earth Theory

[Balls Dingo]

Under properties of the sun, you could add "observed azimuth". It's something so basic that it's witnessed first hand by everyone on Earth and all the Flat Earth models that I've seen have no relation to what people actually observe. For example, on Christmas Day where I live (Melbourne, Australia) when I woke up to see what presents Santa had brought me the sun was 120°ESE. I can't confirm first hand but I believe it's roughly the same azimuth in Santiago and Johannesburg at Christmas too.

Under properties of the sun, there's also the constant size of the sun throughout the day.

Under properties of the stars, you could mention the different set of stars in the Southern Hemisphere rotating around the South Celestial Pole.

Edmund Halley's Transit of Venus experiment is another really good one, but maybe that's getting too technical.

Changing height of observer brings objects over the curve back into view.

This list is sounding a bit like an ideal wiki?

[JRowe]

Under properties of the stars, you could mention the different set of stars in the Southern Hemisphere rotating around the South Celestial Pole.

Edmund Halley's Transit of Venus experiment is another really good one, but maybe that's getting too technical.

Should've remembered the first one, damn it.
Be as technical as you need! Equally doesn't matter if it's an easy response like that one, the goal's to compile all the arguments. An ideal wiki's certainly the end goal.

[QED]

A common argument is prediction in astronomy. It needs to be shown very clearly that they don't actually have a model. These are their common objections.

- Astronomers can simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system and the Solar System
- Prediction in astronomy is based on the laws of Newton
- The eclipses are predicted based on the Round Earth Theory

Hi Tom!

Yes, I agree. I found some resources which detail the level of formalism of RE theory relevant to these objections. The topic they use is central force. I've attached the first of several consecutive pages from a reliable text for future reference. Due to file-size limits, I may need to create a new post to display them all. My hope is to develop FE theory to the level of formalism we find in these examples. Then, there will really be no choice: REers will be forced to acknowledge it.

Let me know if I can be of any service in explaining any of these details, I am RE trained, and so can leverage that training for our purposes.

edit: whoops! looks like each file is just too large. will try to find a remedy soon.

[ChrisTP]

Another objection; there isn't just one flat earth model, there are many different hypotheses for flat earth that don't work together while the spheroid earth is a single accepted model that just works. The current model cannot be replaced by lots of lesser models as to replace the current model, you would need a single model that works better. I personally think think should be top priority for you guys.

[JRowe]

Another objection; there isn't just one flat earth model, there are many different hypotheses for flat earth that don't work together while the spheroid earth is a single accepted model that just works. The current model cannot be replaced by lots of lesser models as to replace the current model, you would need a single model that works better. I personally think think should be top priority for you guys.

Kinda hard to focus on that with what most forum users want to talk about, to say nothing of how they talk.

[Jeppspace]

Under the space travel part, I'd suggest adding in the Soviet Union. It seems most of the evidence for The Conspiracy revolves around NASA and occasionally other agencies, but I haven't seen much about debunking Soviet space flights even though they're half of the Conspiracy. But then again, this isn't really a common objection, so it's your choice to add it in.

Quite, in my view Soviet Cosmonaut footage always looks more authentic than American Astronaut footage. As you suggest, that opens up an alternative theory that the Soviets are exceeding in space secretly, behind a "western media curtain", rather than a blanket space travel fraud, whilst the Americans only pretend to be the leaders. I'm not picking politics, I'm just musing.

There's always been intrigue about the Soviet Space Program, far much more so in terms of genuine achievement, than the American Space Program and yet in a Western world, how can that be orchestrated internet propaganda? You would expect what's presented to be the other way 'round. Not that I believe any of it particularly.

[Tom Bishop]

A common argument is prediction in astronomy. It needs to be shown very clearly that they don't actually have a model. These are their common objections.

- Astronomers can simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system and the Solar System
- Prediction in astronomy is based on the laws of Newton
- The eclipses are predicted based on the Round Earth Theory

Hi Tom!

Yes, I agree. I found some resources which detail the level of formalism of RE theory relevant to these objections. The topic they use is central force. I've attached the first of several consecutive pages from a reliable text for future reference. Due to file-size limits, I may need to create a new post to display them all. My hope is to develop FE theory to the level of formalism we find in these examples. Then, there will really be no choice: REers will be forced to acknowledge it.

Let me know if I can be of any service in explaining any of these details, I am RE trained, and so can leverage that training for our purposes.

edit: whoops! looks like each file is just too large. will try to find a remedy soon.

I am curious what you mean by central force. I was thinking along the lines of the three body problem preventing the creation of any mathematical simulation of the celestial bodies.

[QED]

A common argument is prediction in astronomy. It needs to be shown very clearly that they don't actually have a model. These are their common objections.

- Astronomers can simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system and the Solar System
- Prediction in astronomy is based on the laws of Newton
- The eclipses are predicted based on the Round Earth Theory

Hi Tom!

Yes, I agree. I found some resources which detail the level of formalism of RE theory relevant to these objections. The topic they use is central force. I've attached the first of several consecutive pages from a reliable text for future reference. Due to file-size limits, I may need to create a new post to display them all. My hope is to develop FE theory to the level of formalism we find in these examples. Then, there will really be no choice: REers will be forced to acknowledge it.

Let me know if I can be of any service in explaining any of these details, I am RE trained, and so can leverage that training for our purposes.

edit: whoops! looks like each file is just too large. will try to find a remedy soon.

I am curious what you mean by central force. I was thinking along the lines of the three body problem preventing the creation of any mathematical simulation of the celestial bodies.

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. 

[pb1985]

You've mentioned most of these but they're among the most common, and thought would offer brief answers:

Objection: Ships/objects disappear precisely in accordance with curvature drop
Answer: Ships compress into horizon line precisely in accordance with eye's angular resolution limit (is this true btw? I've seen the claim made but haven't fully verified)

Objection: Stars rotate differently in each hemisphere
Answer: Stars move in same direction on both hemispheres, only depends on which direction viewer is facing. In azimuthal projection most of world population lives in view of North Star and most constellations. Those that don't view different stars because they are out of range.

Objection: Long-day summers/midnight sun in Southern Hemisphere.
Answer: Little to no video of midnight sun (only seen one w signs of manipulation), longest days in inhabited areas 15-16 hours. Explanation may be that sun is many-faceted and casts light differently, e.g. casts wider beam or more intense light towards outer fringes to balance seasons. Differences in aether at center and fringes may have to do with.

Objection: FE requires satellites aren't real
Answer: Aether/air vortex at higher altitudes could keep satellite in orbit; if stronger towards center, this is where vast majority of human population is, with almost all of world population within range given they reach 1-2k miles.

Objection: Earth is a planet, planets are all the same, planets are very large, stars are all the same
Answers: Baseless assumptions that originate from acceptance of heliocentrist premise and size, distance, temp, etc., are extrapolations from its math.

Objection: Mercury/Venus transit and solar eclipse disprove FE and prove heliocentrism
Answers: Geocentrist Aristotelian and Ptolemaic models posited Moon Mercury and Venus below Sun, which explains transit. As for tiny Mercury size, cosmologies and theologies of antiquity suggest an assumption that planets were way smaller than both Earth and Sun. Solar eclipse could be due to very rare retrograde motion or irregularities in moon orbit. Moon ability to block is because Moon is below and size may be not all that different.

Objection: Anyone could just go to Antarctica and disprove FE
Answer: 1) Claimed or de facto regulated by govt, all activity there is by govt, all crossings are under supervision of govt and by military. Explorers could move along rim some distance and then claim or even believe have reached center. With radar infrared and jets could easily detect and intercept any sea or air entry. 2) Very risky just to arrive, high chance of being blocked (on basis of being prohibited, for safety, etc.) 3) Then must scale up to 200 ft ice wall, go overland 100s or 1000s of miles inland to ice wall, potentially involving scaling huge mountain peaks, then make it back and report story to establishment media 4) Anyone with wherewithal to arrive would be aware of this, chances are it has never even been attempted. 5) As for proof of FE by aircraft, jets could easily intercept any craft and take offline.

Objection: We've known of RE since Ancient Greeks
Answer: Little proof many Greeks even existed, history very hazy, centuries unaccounted for in custody of works. Eratosthenes is only RE experiment, and works for FE at 3,000 mi altitude and 32 mi diameter sun, which are plausible size and altitude.

Objection: Heliocentrism depends on gravity and everyone knows gravity is real. Newton discovered and Einstein elaborated.
Answer: All kids learn about gravity is Newton's apple (which proves nothing), then move straight on to heliocentrism. There is active, vigorous debate by maximally educated academics over whether gravitational force is real. There is much evidence Einstein was fraud and plagiarist of Poincare and others.