Another deal-breaker for the Globe model:

The idea that thin air molecules at 30,000 feet are connected to the ground below it, as by a solid iron bar. No way!
Air, especially THIN air, would not be connected to the ground immediately below it, as if it were connected by a solid bar of metal. AND if the earth spins at 1X, how fast would the air at 30,000 or 50,000 feet have to spin, to keep up? Planes flying against the "spin" of the Earth should face an incredible headwind. Such has not been observed.

And if the air is NOT glued to the ground below it, then why can't you fly up in a hot air balloon, come down 2 hours later MANY miles from where you started? Such has not been observed.

Either way, the Globe model is screwed.

Hey right back at ya. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD the globe model is ridiculous.".

At least the GE (both the geocentric and heliocentric) models work and explain how the heavenly bodies move. I can’t believe that you and Ladislaus don’t understand this simple NECESSITY. You NEED to have a model.

At least the GE (both the geocentric and heliocentric) models work and explain how the heavenly bodies move.

It's a story that sounds good but doesn't stand up to experiments and actual scientific knowledge.  "Flat Earth" is general term to mean...anything non-helio and non-globe.  The details aren't worked out yet.  We're pushing up against 6 CENTURIES of lies...have a little patience.

Quo Vadis keeps saying "Where is the FE model? At least Globe Earth has a working model!" and until today, I didn't have a good answer.

That "model" demand is a distraction, and I've called it out as such.  One does not have to have a model that explains everything to prove some of the foundational contentions / facts / observations.  That's the scientific method.  You start with facts and observations, and then the model comes as a hypothesis to explain all the known facts, and each model can get either confirmed or refined or invalidated.  Globe Model has been completely invalidated by observation and evidence.  This demand for a model comes from begging the question, the assumption, that the Globe Model is valid in the first place.  It's not.  That's the starting point for FE, that the Globe Model is invalidated.  Now where one goes from there is a different issue.

We can say that evolution and Big Bang are garbage ... even if we don't have complete detailed explanations for some phenomena here or there.

In terms of a model, there are working hypotheses out there, some better than others.  But FE do not have the money and the scientific apparatus to do a proper investigation of the real model ... not the access to places like Antarctica where the answers could likely be found.  But if you do a Google search on "scientists are baffled", you'll see 139,000 results.  Their theories are constantly being invalidated.

I find that observation after observation, experiment after experiment demonstrate a lack of curvature where it should be, and I find the Glober "explanation" of "refraction" to be utterly inadequate, and an act of desperation, a deus ex machina that they wheel out to address all these problems.  But the two-way laser experiments and many other considerations make "refraction" an impossibility to explain all the observations and experiments.  It just doesn't work.  NOW, if someone wanted to hypothesize that we live on a globe, but it's 100x larger than science claim, that would work to explain this particular piece of evidence.  But they would then have to look for other observations or conduct other experiments to either confirm or deny that hypothesis.  FE is in the same place.  If someone wanted to hypothesize that the earth's electromagnetic field bends light predictably around the globe, that too might work.  Then THEY would go off in search of evidence to either confirm or deny the hypothesis.  I'm open to speculations like this, and then it would be a question of evaluating the evidence for or against each one of these.  But I'm not open to people who dogmatically cling to their model as part of the scientific orthodoxy and assume it to be true, filtering out any contrary evidence, and accepting as evidence anything that MIGHT be interpreted that way, out of confirmation bias.

I don't think I've seen this discussed here and maybe it should be its own topic but has anyone looked into the square earth theory(ies) both with and without "pac man" edges? 

Biblically it talks about 4 corners of the earth quite often and this was the basis for some investigating this theory. There were some who were working on a model for it and explaining how it could work.  I want to say the Youtube channel that talks about this theory the most is called "desnez" but I could be wrong on the spelling.  He posited that the square was inside the circle and not non-existent or outside the circle.

QVD did have a point about the typical FE model not really working in some aspects.  A guy named Flat Earth A**hole actually had (still has?) the best work on this and he brought up a good point that FEers need a better model (he himself is a FEer.)  Instead of me explaining why it doesn't work that well I think checking his material out might explain it better with illustrations and such.  I think this is what us FEers should be working on.  I'm thinking the key to unlocking a better model might be to make it where Jerusalem is at the center of the earth (isn't this defined by The Church somewhere?) and map it out from there.  The typical FE model does not have Jerusalem at the center. 

I've seen more evidence for FE being widespread 100 years ago, than I've seen evidence that it was taboo 100 years ago.
Most of what I (and you) know about globe vs. flat earth we learned from MSM, modern scientists, public school, Bugs Bunny, countless media and cartoons, etc.

We have to realize where our ideas came from.

One thing I'm convinced of, is that human beings, with their short life span, can be molded very quickly. Things can fade out of living memory in only a handful of decades -- around 50 years. Before long, ALL KNOWLEDGE of a given time period (dress, attitudes, beliefs, lifestyle, culture) comes from Hollywood movies, official textbooks, and those who write the history books. Keep that in mind. I certainly am.

You said: “Did you know how popular Flat Earth was just 80 or 100 years ago? It was almost common knowledge.”

Please show the evidence that FE was almost common knowledge 80 to 100 years ago. 

Every day we observe the Sun “rising” and “setting” and it basically stays the same size and disappears over the horizon.

This is incorrect.  Many videos show the sun noticeably decreasing in size as it "sets".  That's impossible if the sun is 93 million miles away.  Those videos that don't show it getting appreciably smaller are due to the fact that as it gets lower, you're looking through lower atmosphere, which has more humidity, and the humidity has a magifying effect.  But if you're looking across deserts with low humidity, there are many videos showing the sun shrinking to a very tiny speck before disappearing.  Other videos show the sun fading away before even hitting the horizon.

So, in the videos where the sun is getting noticeably smaller, either there's something in the lower atmosphere causing it to appear to shrink, or else, in the ones where it doesn't get much smaller, there's soemthing in the atmosphere magnifying it.  Humidity causes magnification in all cases.  You can see sometimes that the moon can appear gigantic when it's low over the horizon, due to humidity in the air and looking through the atmosphere.

When you make the statement as the one above, you're just saying that and clearly haven't studied the phenomenon or looked at the evidence, lots of photographic / video evidence showing the contrary, where the sun gets significantly smaller.  You just say that because you think it's evidence for your position and you want it to be true.

Sorry, I won't hold your hand.

If that list of dozens of contradictions and un-fillable holes in the Globe model don't pose a problem for you,

"I'm not gonna take away your Globe, bro. Peace."

That’s fine with me. Believe as you wish, it’s not dogmatic. 😀