So it's been quite a while now, so how about I focus on one question in particular, which I'll just re-post. I've read the wiki, and I haven't found an answer that explains reality yet.
"A final question I'd like to ask would be how the flat earth model predicts seasons, and specifically how/why the length of day varies throughout the year depending on your location. Take iceland for example. In iceland the day-length varies depending on what time of the year it is; from around may to august the sun sets for 3-4 hours per day, and you have 20-21 hours of daylight. In the middle of winter you have 5-6 hours of daylight. Iceland is a nation with a population of around 300 thousand people; this is a place where many people live, and they can attest to the seasonal variations in daylight hours. At the equator however daylight is approximately constant throughout the year. So the question then would be how the flat earth model can predict the precise and well documented seasonal variations in daylight hours as a function of your location."
Why does the model presented on the wiki not explain reality? First of all, if you had a 'spotlight' sun moving in a circle around the north pole you run into the problem that you'd have a circular region of the earth being illuminated at any given time. In reality what we see is half the planet being illuminated at once. Also; at each of the two equinoxes what we observe in reality is that all observers at all latitudes see the sun rising geographically due east and setting due west. On the model presented in the wiki, at the equinoxes the sun would appear to rise from a direction further north the further south from the equator that you go, and it would appear to set in a further east direction the closer you get to the north pole.
So to conclude; no. The questions I've asked don't have any self consistent answers on the wiki. Take the Bedford level experiment for example; the wiki ignores the fact that when the experiment was performed using a more precise experimental method (first by Alfred Wallace, who took up John Hampden's offer to disprove the results of the initial experiment by Rowbotham; incidentally John Hampden was arrested for threatening to murder Alfred Wallace following Wallace's experiment which disproved Rowbotham's results. The same court that ordered Hampden to be imprisoned for threatening to murder Alfred Wallace also ordered that Wallace return the money because Hampden retracted the bet at the last minute) that the results were entirely inconsistent with a flat earth. For a second time in 1901 Henry Oldham was easily able to reproduce Wallace's results by fixing three poles at equal height above water level at a certain distance apart along the river. Using a theodolite, it was found that the middle pole was three feet higher than the others, which is precisely what you would expect if the earth was spherical with a radius of about 6400 kilometers (with the height of the observer from the water being what it was, and the height of the poles from the water being what they were). Oldham's experiment settled the matter since he actually had photographic proof of his results, which Rowbotham and Hampden did not. This was in 1901.