Is the aurora not a proof of a globe earth or an indication of how far the sun is from the earth?

It makes a lot of difference.
This is a major space phenomenon. The Sun reaches out and affects the Earth with more than just light. Does FE cosmology allow for the existence of Solar Winds? Van Allen Belts? A bi-polar magnetic field? We can see the sun spots and solar flares without a telescope. We can measure the speed of the CME leaving the Sun. That gives us a way to measure the distance because we know how many days later till it will come here and have effects. If the Sun is only about as far as the Moon, it shouldn't take so long to get here. If there is no South Pole; magnetic or geographic, why would there be ANY aurora in the "South", and why would it be stronger "down" there than at the "Equator" which is closer to the "real" pole up north. If the Sun was so close, and so small, the effects of the CME would be localized -not "global", just like the daylight on FE. Why don't we ever see a fresh CME hit the back of the Moon during an eclipse? You can see coronal events during the eclipse, but they take days to get here instead of smacking the back of the Moon as they happen.

It makes a lot of difference.
This is a major space phenomenon. The Sun reaches out and affects the Earth with more than just light. Does FE cosmology allow for the existence of Solar Winds? Van Allen Belts? A bi-polar magnetic field?

Let me stop you there.
Bi-polar magnetic field? What do you mean?  The earth only has a north pole, which all compass needles point to. There is no "south pole" equivalent. Just a north pole.

And what do you know -- the north pole is in the center of the earth (which is a plane covered by a Firmament). Magnetic "south" is any direction outward and away from that center point.

Antarctica is a ring of land around the known world, containing the oceans. Not an island continent on the bottom of a ball.

Van Allen belts are neither here nor there in FE cosmology. There is no outer space, so there is no concern about lethal belts of radiation that must be passed through to "explore outer space".

I know what "solar wind" is. It's a stream of energetic particles (radiation) coming from the sun. Spacecraft could theoretically harness them with a "solar sail" to harvest energy. One of the battered spaceships at the beginning of Star Trek IV (the hunt for whales) said they were going to deploy a solar sail as a last desperate measure. But again, there's no outer space, so...

As for the rest of the sun's effects -- the sun does whatever it's proven (with actual science, verifiable, physical, observable evidence) that the sun does. It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Some of this sounds like "begging the question". You might as well say, "The earth can't be flat under a firmament. If outer space doesn't exist, then where do the aliens come from, hmmmm?"

As Ladislaus said (in so many words), you're brazenly baring your brainwashing and biases for the world to behold.

This is a major space phenomenon.

You open with begging the question about what they are.

The Sun reaches out and affects the Earth with more than just light.

We all know this.  How is this relevant?  Many FEs (and even mainstream scientists) believe that the Sun is electro-magnetic in nature rather than what they've claimed for so long, a ball of gas compressed somehow by "gravity" so fiercely that it causes nuclear fusion.

 Does FE cosmology allow for the existence of Solar Winds? Van Allen Belts?

Who tells us Solar Winds and a Van Allen Belt actually exist or, to the extent they could be detected, are actually what NASA claims they are?  You assume their existence.  We do not grant it merely on the "authority" of NASA, who have been caught in countless lies and frauds.

A bi-polar magnetic field?

Yep, they're known as ring magnets.  Of course, all compasses are calibrated to point to North, so I don't even know if a South pole even exists.  Regardless, it's quite possible on a flat surface.



We can see the sun spots and solar flares without a telescope.

OK.  So?  How big they actually are depends on how far away and how big the sun is.  But what are they?  They can exist on a much smaller sun as well as on a larger sun.

We can measure the speed of the CME leaving the Sun. That gives us a way to measure the distance because we know how many days later till it will come here and have effects. If the Sun is only about as far as the Moon, it shouldn't take so long to get here.

Can we "measure the speed"?  Who "measures" them?  Jury remains out.  Light only takes 8 minutes to reach the earth form the sun, allegedly, so why do these other photonic energies (which should also move at the speed of light) allegedly require up to 20 hours to reach earth?  Suddenly these CMEs travel at a snail's space compared to light?  Maybe they're not what are claimed and maybe the "measurements" are based on some other calculus, where they can be predicted beforehand based on some other indicators, since these are not what has been claimed.

If there is no South Pole; magnetic or geographic, why would there be ANY aurora in the "South", and why would it be stronger "down" there than at the "Equator" which is closer to the "real" pole up north.

See above about Ring Magnets.

If the Sun was so close, and so small, the effects of the CME would be localized -not "global", just like the daylight on FE.

How are CME's "global"?  They're only actually seen at the poles, meaning they're concentrated there, and radiate outward from there.  How far they travel from the poles depends on how strong they are.

Why don't we ever see a fresh CME hit the back of the Moon during an eclipse? You can see coronal events during the eclipse, but they take days to get here instead of smacking the back of the Moon as they happen.

What are you talking about?  All of this depends on what CMEs actually are and where the sun is in relation to the moon.  And when we "see" them it's due to interaction with magnetic or electrical fields on earth, and we don't know the extent to which the moon has similar properties.

Many of the colors we see during auroras are the same colors that we can see in the atmosphere depending on the angle of the sun, and they're caused by the interaction between the sun's electro-magnetic properties and the noble gases in the upper atmosphere.  Auroras could very well be caused by the same interraction between the sun's electro-magnetism and the noble gases. 

So now if any globers can explain why a structure reaching 150 feet above sea level was photographed from 230+ miles away (by a non-FE), when it should have been hidden by miles of curvature, I'm all ears.

On FE there is only one pole. All Aurora effects would be expected to be concentrated there, with diminishing effects as you go out in any direction. For there to be an Aurora Australis that mirrors the Aurora Borealis in time and latitude, that favors a GE explanation that has a second pole. Lack of Aurora at the "Equator" between two poles also favors GE.

False.  It all depends on what actually causes auroras.  Northern ones (borealis) tend to occur during the Summer, and Souther ones (australis) during the Northern Winter.  It also happens to correspond with where the sun happens to be on the FE model.  So, if the phenomenon is in fact caused by the electro-magnetic properties of the sun interracting with noble gases (rather than the earth's electro-magnetic field), the southern ones could be caused by the interaction between the sun's electro-magnetic field and the firmament in the "South".  You're also assuming that there has to be one pole on the FE model.  I refer you once again to the ring magnet, where you can have a North pole in the center and a South pole along the edges.  Or else the firmament itself may have some magnetic or electro-magnetic properties.