Do you really not see it as a problem that there are such gaping holes in your "theory"?
You have no idea what a flat earth looks like - in the real world the globe has long since been mapped.
You don't even know if there is one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored, there is a research base at the South Pole which you can pay to visit.
The fact is there is no flat earth map which can match observations. The one in the Wiki doesn't. Either there's one pole in which case there is no way the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic circle can be explained and you're calling every single Antarctic explorer a liar. Or there's 2 in which case your entire model of the sun's movement falls down.
The reason for this is that the premise it is based on - a flat earth - is wrong. It's weird that you never consider this. Instead you start with the premise of a flat earth because of...reasons. You then try and fit everything around that but it doesn't fit. You are trying to fit a too big carpet in a room, soon as you flatten one corner down another one pops up.
There are holes in every theory, including RET. Not that you ever remember any of those. They just get ignored and on you go.
I know it would be very convenient if there were, but there really
aren't, at least not in the same way. The things FE believers frequently bring up as holes (e.g. the atmosphere should escape Earth's gravity, the ocean shouldn't look flat if the Earth is really spinning, I can't see the curve from this skyscraper/mountaintop/plane) don't actually contradict mainstream science. For example, if you plug in the data into Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and classical mechanics, you'll quickly see it only predicts objects on a spinning equator will be 0.3% lighter due to centrifugal force, but not flying off into space. If you measure each molecule in the upper atmosphere, you'll see none of them ever reach escape velocity and so classical mechanics doesn't predict they'll escape.
I'm not saying this automatically makes all FE hypotheses wrong and Newtonian mechanics right, just that mainstream physics are all consistent
with each other. You will be extremely hard pressed to find physicist that disagrees with any of the basic premises of modern science, or that a model globe accurately represents the Earth. Where they sometimes disagree is on new areas of study where there hasn't been a lot of experimentation yet, or on the cutting edge of science like string theory and dark matter and all that, where our tools aren't sophisticated enough to draw real data and so all hypotheses are totally theoretical and untestable.
On the other hand, FE hypotheses generally
do contradict each other fundamentally, on things that
should be easily testable, like building a simple map of a known and inhabited area which cartographers have been able to do for 9,000 years.
I largely agree with the rest of your post, but I wanted to point that out.
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298