I mentioned that I am arguing simply because I doubt real observations were ever made not that I don't believe the polar night lasts six months at the north pole. However, if you really insist that humans stayed at the north pole continuously for a whole year, I would like to see the evidence. Please provide a source for the claim.
I'm not insisting or basing it off someone being at the n.pole for a whole year. I'm saying there are enough observations from the north pole, the vicinity of, or in the arctic circle in general, to say so.
If you're going to argue that the Sun is not what I suggest, you should also provide evidence to back up your claim. Why do you think it is a sphere and not a disc? Please elaborate why it is necessary to be a sphere.
Look at a sphere from any angle. The perimeter forms a circle. Look at a disk from different angles. the perimeter becomes an ellipse. If the sun is a spotlight as you say, how does it remain a circle all day long? I also have pictures I took (posted here a couple years ago) of the sun in the morning, noon, and afternoon. There were sunspots visible, the orientation of which did not visibly change (other than the view appearing to rotate clockwise- result of latitude I took them from) which means that side of the sun was facing me the whole day.
Do you have any visible evidence the sun is a spotlight instead of a sphere?
If it were that easy to explain it conclusively enough and convince the rest of you, you would be FE believers by now. However, you're assuming things are what they seem to be just because it works well in the HC model. Although most of the time this is a valid approach, it doesn't guarantee it is the correct approach or that it matches reality.
I think Saros nailed it right here.
Simple and common observations are difficult to explain in the FE model.
Explanations for these simple and common observations, and many others, work well within the HC model.
Therefore we use the HC model.
Why isn't this a valid approach in this case? Because you don't like it?
The statement that this is no
guarantee that the HC model is correct is valid, but why discard a model that works well for one that doesn't work at all? There is currently no viable alternative.
Why shouldn't we assume things are what they seem unless we have direct evidence they are not? Sometimes this does happen:
Some details of the orbit of Mercury were not explained by Keplerian mechanics. These anomalies were due to previously-unknown relativistic effects, and now we know that Newtonian gravity and Keplerian mechanics are an adequate approximation in many, but not all, cases.
The Earth looks flat from close to the surface, but additional measurements clearly indicate it's spherical.
Come up with a model that explains what we already see and can successfully make predictions where the conventional HC model fails, and the HC model will be abandoned. This will be a pretty tall order, but there is no guarantee that it cannot be done.