Your example is irrelevant.
Wrong, it's absolutely relevant. Being able to make a prediction so far into the future with such precision after observing the object in question for only a brief time depends on a very well formed theory.
No, it doesn't. This argument based on prediction is the worst argument you marbles post on this forum. I can predict that the lights will turn on when I flip my light switch. But this repeatable prediction doesn't mean that my personal theories regarding the nature of electricity are correct.
There are two Flat Earth models, with different sun movements.
Both have been pretty thoroughly debunked, and neither explain how the sun can be seen to rise in the Southeast and set in the Southwest from a position South of the Tropic of Capricorn.
Incorrect. In the Antarctica as a Continent model the sun can be seen to rise in the Southeast and set in the Southwest from a position South of the Tropic of Capricorn.
If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.
Still does not explain how the sun gets down to the horizon from ~27° above it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_SunIn previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory.
No, it doesn't, for reasons quite thoroughly explained elsewhere.
The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".
Sometimes the sun just seems to fade out to the opacity of the atmosphere, without even hitting the horizon, suggesting that the disappearance of the sun is more too do with the atmosphere's thickness, and less on the horizon.
The key word there being "sometimes". Your explanation lacks the consistency required to be credible. Besides, can't you see the fog in the provided image?
The images suggest that the sun is disappearing into a fog near the surface of the earth, and its apparent dipping beneath the horizon is a refraction effect.
If the earth is round the celestial objects are far away. If the earth is flat the celestial bodies are close. This assumption affects the meaning of the observations in the triangulation.
As has been pointed out in the past, this only effects the results if only two measurements are taken. If more than two are taken, we are faced with the fact that only those assuming a round earth give consistent distances; those assuming a flat earth give inconsistent results. For example, the sun: when measured from 45° North and 45° South and assuming a flat earth, the resulting distance is 3,000 miles. When measured from 30° North and South, and still assuming a flat earth, you get 3,464 miles. At 10°, it's 11,343 miles. See the problem with assuming a flat earth?
How do you know the results are inconsistent? Have you measured and checked?
- Observations made by millions of regular people are fictitious, holographic, or mis-understandings of what is really seen
What observations?
Path of the sun, satellites, path of celestial objects, the ISS, just to name a few.
I see the sun pass over me every day. What about that proves that the earth is a globe?
- Competitive shipping and transportation companies agree to use less-efficient routes at the cost of millions, if not billions of dollars
Under what model?
Any flat earth model.
Lets see the ship logs then, to tell us what kind of distances they are experiencing.
Please provide shipping logs for all routes on earth, as to collect enough data to demonstrate that the earth can only be a globe, and without distortion anywhere.