>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?
Sun
Distance to the Sun continually changes. Multiple interpretations depending on method.
Aristarchus used the phases of the Moon to measure the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. During a Half Moon, the three celestial bodies should form a right angle. By measuring the angle at Earth between the Sun and Moon, his method shows that the Sun is 19 times as far from the Earth as the Moon, and thus 19 times as big, which is far different than the Venus method.
Copernicus' method computes the distance to the Sun as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler's method gives 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.
Distance to the Sun changes because of the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, no more, no less.
The value varies between 147.1 and 152.1 million kilometers (149.6 million kilometers ± 1.67%).
It can be measured any time and the results are
consistent wherever in the world you are while measuring it.
Stars
Theories about stellar distances continually change, and are based on slight color variations. RE cosmology is a mess without coherent unified theories and multiple contradicting and non-working models
There are farther stars whose distances were adjusted by certain percentage with more precise measurements,
but the distance to Alpha Centauri is consistently 4.3 ly, to Sirius 8.66 ly, to Epsilon Eridani 10.45 ly and so on...
Show me any consistent method to measure / calculate distance to, say, Polaris from anywhere in the world.
You can imagine Flat model and calculate what results you can get from different places, then do the same imagining Globe model.
Take, for instance, measurements from 20, from 40 and from 60 degrees north and see how big differences you get in which model.
>>Aurora Australis?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002154155.htm
An aurora borealis (aurora australis in the Southern Hemisphere) is precipitated by explosions on the surface of the sun, sometimes starting as solar flares.
..."We are nearing the solar maximum, which is when the sun is at its most active," he said. Solar maximums come around every 11 years, but no one knows why.
"No one knows why"
It is obvious from what YOU typed that "nobody knows why Solar Maximums come" not why Aurora Australis occurs.
Aurora Australis and Aurora Borealis are caused by the same thing: ionized particles from the Sun get caught into Earth's magnetic field and excite the air around poles where they shower.
That part is well known.
>>Seismic waves?
Multiple models, based on assumption:
"Many seismic wave models are based on an erroneous assumption about the Earth's interior. A new technique corrects this by eliminating false signals produced by models."
"Here Bezada et al. assessed just how much this assumption leads to disparities between predictions and observations."
General principles are still the same, this is good example of non-dogmatic approach: corrections in the light of the new data.
If the Flat model were more useful seismologists would use it regardless of the shape of the Earth. They just want the job done.
>>Map of the world?
The mapping systems are based on small flat maps. Not a "globe".
Small flat maps are based on general measurements that show bigger picture, it is well known and is used to locate more precise details.
You don't have paper big enough to put more fine resolution details on the same sheet together.
>>Hurricanes and Cyclones?
Coriolis Effect not needed for the Tropical Cyclones. Most wind and water systems are turning the wrong way.
I don't see how that piece of Wiki explains why northern swirls never cross to the south or southern never cros to the north.
>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?
Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.
Article: "Why is the southern hemisphere hotter than northern hemisphere?"
Actually:
The NH is warmer than the SH by 1.25 °C in the annual mean.
(from:
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf, Page 5.)
Northern hemisphere:
- 60.7% water surface (harder to warm up)
- 39.3% land surface (easier to warm up)
Southern hemisphere:
- 80.9% water surface (harder to warm up)
- 19.1% land surface (easier to warm up)
Plus, percentage of CO
2 (greenhouse gas) in Northern hemisphere is higher.
Plus, in Flat Earth model the whole southern 'hemisphere' is 3 times bigger, while receiving "the same" amount of heat.
Plus thermal conductivity between surface and hot magma core, but Flat model denies core, so we will ignore it.
And yet, Southern hemisphere is, in total balance, cooler by mere 1.25 Celsius (2.25 Fahrenheit).
>>Apparent horizon dip?
The horizon dip is much different than the RE predicts.
Globe model "predicts":
- theoretical value that doesn't account for any refraction
- theoretical value that accounts for "standard" (most commonly expected) refraction
- practical value that can be measured, therefore exists
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flat model claims that "horizon always raise to the eye level" which means there is none.
Practical measures (including the one that you pointed out) show that THERE IS horizon dip.
Thanks for your patience.
P.S.: So,
how high (and how fast) is the Sun in Flat model and how can it be measured? Anyone figured it out in the last 2500 years?