How 'bout this one...

If the sun is on a fixed path rotating above the equator then why to the poles each experience 6 months of sunlight/twilight?

Nothing yet huh?

Come on guys don’t let me down.

Could someone also explain to me why, as I travel south from the North Pole _anywhere_ in the world the North Star sinks lower and lower in the sky until finally, as I cross the equator, it drops below the horizon? I mean if it is fixed in the sky above the north pole and the world is flat then I should be able to see it from anywhere in the world, right?

The radius of the sun's orbit is not the same throughout the year.

Please elaborate.

When it's summer in the northern hemisphere the radius of the suns orbit is smaller.

When it's summer in the southerin hemisphere the radius of the suns orbit is greater.

I guess that could make sense for the northern hemisphere but please explain how the southern polar region along what FEer's call the ice wall, which per the FAQ has a circumference of 78225 miles, can experience 6 months of constant sunshine. The entire circumference. Please explain this to me...

And no one has answered my question about the North Star...

Nothing yet huh?

Come on guys don’t let me down.

You can't honestly expect people to have time to answer your question, posted in the wee hours of the morning, to be answered within two hours?  Somebody'll answer eventually.

Oop, looks like somebody did.  As to your unanswered questions:

1) Antarctic 6-month days don't exist on a Flat Earth, and I bet you have no direct proof that it happens.  Arctic 6-month days/nights as well as 6 month of darkness in the Antarctic are both fine though.

2. If the sun looks like it sets everyday just by moving far away, then the north start will "set" too, if you moved far enough from the north pole.

Wow, thanks for this answer, really a masterpiece. Writing a question in the early morning making it less worth being answered than a question written any other time? Is this also FE theory? I guess it perfectly fits, especially when considering that the author of the question could potentially be in a location opposite to yours, therefore writing his question in the late hours of the evening. But to understand that would of course require an RE view of the world.

And you don't have any direct evidence that it doesn't happen. Given that the weight of plausibility is in favour of a spherical, non-turtle supported earth, I think perhaps the onus is on you to provide evidence...

Especially as your theory is by far the most contrived and refutes by far the most research merely on grounds of a motiveless conspiracy.

You've seen this ice-wall I suppose...? I Guess you sailed over to it on a turtle too.

And you don't have any direct evidence that it doesn't happen. Given that the weight of plausibility is in favour of a spherical, non-turtle supported earth, I think perhaps the onus is on you to provide evidence...

Burden of proof has approximately nothing to do with whose alleged "plausibility" is weightier.

In science the simplest explanation is considered more likely. Turtle supported universes full of obvious holes require more complex and contrived explanations.

Complexity is absolute, but you will dispute that... just like straight lines I imagine.

This statement of yours is utterly baseless.

In science the simplest explanation is considered more likely.

...

This statement of yours is utterly baseless.

Not baseless; merely irrelevant for considerations of parsimony.  Try not to conflate the two.

Fine, conceded, but gets you nowhere,

I now see I should have referred to the contrived-ness of the theories directly... but instead I said "plausibility" which opened me to more befuddling of what exactly is meant by a word.

It's obvious what I meant, and instead of responding you've fallen back on the chewbacca defence again.

It's obvious what I meant, and instead of responding you've fallen back on the chewbacca defence again.

It wasn't obvious, and therefore you must acquit!

Fine.

I.... AM.... THE LAW!!!!