I've looked at your model for the shape and structure of the Earth. You set the center as the North Pole in your model, and distance expands outwards from there, based on the Earth being circular in shape. Looking at that model, if printed out on paper, one could use a simple drawing compass to make circles moving outward on that map, using the north pole as a central hub. One could then find definite landmarks along those circles, and using an aircraft, could move from landmark to landmark at a uniform rate of speed, and continue along that circle until one reaches their original point of departure.
Because we are using this model as a map, we can also say that the circles in that map are representative of a set distance. We can track that distance and determine the length of time it would take to reach each individual landmark at a given uniform rate of speed.
I will concede now that up until a certain point, the theory of the Earth being flat will hold out with this experimentation. However, after you reach the line that for those advocating a round Earth would represent the equatorial line, those measurements of distance are no longer accurate. The further those circles of measurement on the map of your model of a flat Earth go out, the more inaccurate your measurements of distance become, indicating that rather than growing as your flat model suggests, the distances are actually becoming shorter.
Again I state that this is easily proven again by charting specific landmarks within those circles on the map, using simple mathematics to determine the equivalent distances between those landmarks based on your map, and then traveling at a uniform rate of speed from landmark to landmark.
Based on this picture, set by one of your members to demonstrate the rotation of the sun and moon:
we can see that the distance from the tip of South America to the tip of Africa should be at least eight times the distance between the easternmost point of North America to the Westernmost point of Europe. If traveled at a uniform speed of 100mph, it should take eight times as long, approximately, to travel from New York City, United States of America, to Paris, France, than it should to travel from Tolhuin, Argentina, to Cape Town, South Africa.
It does not take eight times as long, however, when traveling at a uniform speed. The time of travel is approximately the same when traveled at the same speed by aircraft.
What is interesting in this observation, is that up until the equatorial line, your map for the Earth holds up almost perfectly to this simple test of distance and travel at uniform speeds, suggesting that your map is accurately portraying distance up until that point. However, past that point, your map loses all accuracy, failing to accurately determine distance or travel time between easily defined and easily tracked points and rates of speed.
Thus, I have two questions.
First, does this not suggest to you that the distance between these landmarks, easily placed and plotted on your model, are closer together, rather the distances suggested by your map and flat Earth model, in keeping with a world model of a globe rather than one of a relatively flat circle?
Second, if you do not agree that this disproves the Earth being flat, how do you justify, without relying on statements of conspiracy or philosophical statements about the perceptions of the senses, these glaring discrepancies with your map's distances between landmarks along these easily marked and measured circles and the actual distances traveled along these circles to reach these landmarks?