That doesn't address the issue I described to you, of the specific paths the "lights" take across the sky while you're observing them.
I.E if you're near the middle of your disc model in the UK, Europe, Asia or the US, the lights APPEAR to be rotating ANTI-CLOCKWISE around a polar point in the sky.
My model isn't a disc.
Whereas if you're further away from the middle of your disc model in Australia, South Africa, or Argentina, you see a completely different set of lights rotating CLOCKWISE instead, again around a polar point in the sky.
You see the same moon but upside down.
Lights will offer a similar set up.
Many of the lights you will not see.
Your globe has to be tilted and also wobble around a centralised sun for your stuff to work and it has to act in an elliptical orbit.
It makes no sense by logic but plenty of sense if people go with the magical flow. In my opinion.
And if you're halfway in between the middle and the outer rim, the lights instead make a STRAIGHT path across the sky.
There is no rim. It's a sealed cell. Imo.
If you travel from one of these "near the middle" countries to one of the "halfway" countries and on down to one of the "further away" countries, you can watch the transition from one pattern to the next to the next.
When you do this, it is clearly seamless, with no distortions like you might expect if there was a change in curvature of a lens or dome, and no moments where you can see one light turn into two as if reflected against something funnily shaped.
Curved mirrors / lenses / bowls-seen-from-the-inside cannot achieve this effect without the use of magic to deceive the observer.
However if the planet is a sphere then the lights are doing EXACTLY what you would expect them to do.
You know yourself how reflections and mirroring can dstory or even image something opposite.
A dome will offer all kinds of visual light shows from reflections, etc.
----
With regard to "not feeling the motion":
If you're sitting on a train travelling at a constant 150mph with the windows closed, and you throw a tennis ball directly up in the air, it will fall directly back down again in exactly the same way as if the train were not moving at all.
Yep, you're in a cabin that has a pressure equalisation, almost.
A consistent speed means a consistent pressure from front to back of the carriage.
If the train accelerates then the change in pressure builds.
If you walk from the back of the train to the front of the train while it is travelling at constant speed, it takes no more effort than walking from the front of that same train to the back, and no more or less effort to walking in either direction when the train is stationary.
In your mind it takes no extra effort because your body becomes acclimatised but in reality there is a pressure build with each acceleration to a consistent speed.
You cannot feel "constant motion" in a closed system.
Wheels on a track and suspension suggests otherwise.
It depends on how you want to view it.
Now, you can feel acceleration and deceleration, and either of those will affect the path of the tennis ball or your ability to walk from one end of the train to the other. But if the train is moving at a constant speed in a straight path then neither you or the tennis ball would be affected at all.
Pressure change increase or decrease will certainly affect movement.
Water, like everything else, is subject to gravitational force and unless it is also acted upon by an additional net external force, it will fall towards the largest nearby mass, in our case, the planet itself.
Water is subject to atmospheric pressure and it's own mass, nothing more needed.
Gravity is required to keep a globe alive and it makes zero sense and cannot be explained. Imo.
If you take a glass of water and turn it upside down, the water will no longer conform to the shape of the glass, it will fall out onto the floor for the exact same reason that water will fail to conform to a small convex curve/ball when you conduct that experiment this close to the planet Earth.
If you take a glass of water and turn it upside down you immediately open it to atmospheric inrush which pushes out the water.
The water is then pushed to the ground against atmospheric resistance which is no match for the atmospheric push from above, coupled with the water mass itself.
Regardless of the shape of the container, the water always falls towards the centre of the large mass whose gravitational force is acting upon it. In the case of these two containers in our experiment, (the glass and the ball), the large mass towards which the water falls is the centre of the planet itself, and therefore obviously we observe the water conforming to the upright glass but falling off the ball towards the centre of the planet.
Now, if the curved container were suitably huge (say, a few hundred miles across, and curved in such a way that its curvature matched that of the planet) you would be able to see that the water would conform to that shape, just like it does to the small glass or beaker in your home experiment.
No matter how it's dressed up water does not conform to convex curves unless the convex curve has indentations on the top to hold that water, as in the water conforming to a concave container.
Everything about gravity goes against everything we actually observe/perceive.
Equally, if your flat container were suitably huge (say, the same width as the curved one in my example above) then the water would no longer have the same depth all across the container, it would bulge in the middle, as if it were a gently-sloping perfectly curved hill of water, shallower at the edges, deeper in the middle.
If the supposed global gravity worked as we are told then, by what you say, all your water would be pushed to the poles from the so called bulge we get told about.
Now, the container doesn't actually have to be that big for this experiment to work, as long as the curvature of the curved container matched the curvature of the planet. Because of the sheer size of the planet though, with the naked eye, a container small enough to hold in your hand that matched the earth's curvature would be barely distinguishable from a completely flat container, if at all.
So, while you are clearly correct that if you try the experiment at home, water will not conform to a small ball but will conform to a small flat container such as a glass or beaker, in actual fact this is only true if the curved container/ball has a curvature that doesn't match the curvature around the nearest source of gravity, which in our case is the planet itself.
To be fair that makes no sense.
Therefore for a fair test of "flat container versus curved container" for this experiment, you need to use a curved container whose curvature matches the curvature of the Earth, otherwise the experiment is flawed and the conclusion we are led to will be erroneous.
There's a very easy experiment to show it's all atmospheric pressure.
Get a glass and a beer mat. Fill the glass as full as you can and put the beer mat over the glass top. Now tip it upside down.
You know the water is more dense than the atmosphere but the beer mat holds it in the glass.
Gravity should be bringing that water to the centre of the Earth....but it doesn't.
Why?
The glass itself is the key, along with your own strength of holding that glass up.
The atmosphere cannot get inside the glass to push the water down against the resistance so the below resistance hold that water.
The reason for this is, there's very little atmosphere trapped inside the glass and it's this that is too weak to push against the glass and to push out the water.
The above atmosphere over the glass is stopped by the glass bottom.
A clear proof it's atmospheric pressure and a clear fallacy of gravity. In my humble opinion, of course.
There are a lot of insults coming the other way too. Calling us psudo-scientists, sheep, people who don’t understand and can only regurgitate what we have been schooled, lacking in independent thought, claiming we don’t understand basic maths and physics, along with some other very patronising comments, etc.
It works both ways.
I have never called you sheep or pseudo-scientists.
I include myself in the schooled stuff because I was.
I also don't claim you don't understand basic maths.
You know this so I won't argue it.
