It's laughable how we've arrived at hairsplitting the definition of "sphere" and "teaching" etc. while even the most basic common sense observations can't be explained by your flat Earth disc model.
- the changing firmament depending on latitude
- tied into the above, why people on the "southern hemisphere" can't see the North Star whatsoever, and vice versa for the "northern hemisphere"
- the rotating face of the moon depending on latitude
- solar and lunar eclipses
- loads of visual proofs of things disappearing below the horizon, even when viewed with the strongest lenses
- the sun literally shining through from below the cloud layer, then disappearing below the horizon
- a lot of other inconsistencies
I haven't seen a single plausible explanation for any of these here, except for solar eclipses, but that explanation says that the moon is consists some kind of translucent cheese or something.
Come on, what are we even discussing here?
Well, they have claimed that solar and/or lunar eclipses are due to some solid body that gets in the way but is otherwise invisible.
And some variation of the heavens based on location would happen on a flat earth.
But the variation we see is NOT the variation that would exist on a flat earth with the sun, moon and stars "close".
For example, the angle of the shadow on the moon varies with latitude! (at half moon, for example, I'm not talking about an eclipse). But not longitude! And the standard cosmological model, a globe earth with a tilted axis, explains that.
Yes, a geocentric model with a globe earth also fits that particular data.
But a flat earth? Nope.