Absolute proof to verify either the flat earth or round earth model

The next equinox will occur in about 3 weeks on the 23rd of September.


There are 2 equinoxes per year, with the earth's inclination to the sun being exactly perpendicular, or 0 degrees to the sun. What this means is that if you're situated on the equator, the sun will rise from exactly east (090 degrees), rise vertically in the sky in a completely straight line, until exactly midday, when it is directly overhead. From this point, the sun descends in a completely straight line vertically down to and then below the horizon in the exact west (270 degrees). This phenomenon is well known and documented and is visually verified twice a year by the tens of thousands of people who live on the equator.


So on this day, the sun rises in the morning and descends again in the afternoon in a completely straight line (without curve).


If we look at the flat earth model, the sun itself is not moving in the sky due to the earth's rotation, but because it's actually the sun that is moving and transcribing a circular path over the earth's surface, and completes 1 complete circle every 24 hours.


In the flat earth model, the sun can NEVER be observed to move in a completely straight line, due to the fact that it is ALWAYS travelling in a circular path over the earth's surface. The only time that an observer would be able to say that they can observe seeing the sun moving in a straight line, would be if they were at the same height as the sun itself, and on the plane of the sun's movement.


So here we have a test for the plausibility or not of the round earth model, based on the observation that on the equator on the 23rd of September, the sun's movement in the sky will be a completely straight line, from the time the sun is first observed in the morning until it passes out of sight in the evening. If the sun is indeed observed to make a completely straight line in the sky, then this will completely debunk the flat earth model that requires that the sun is ALWAYS travelling in a curved circular path.

A simple experiment can verify if the sun's movement during the day is in a straight line or a curve. Place a measuring (1 metre high would be ample) stick into the ground on a suitably flat surface. Mark the position of the shadow made by the top of the stick every half hour of so, and then at the end of the day, draw a line between each of these marks. If the resultant line is perfectly straight, then it proves the round earth model. If the resultant line is curved, then the flat earth model is proved. Very simple.

This 'test' of the flat earth model must surely be known to those high up members of the flat earth fraternity, who will be eagerly organising a trip to visit the equator on the 23rd of September to establish that the sun's path is NOT a perfectly straight line, but will actually transcribe a curved path as dictated and required by the flat earth model.  If this trip is not actually on the agenda of the flat earth hierarchy, then one might be lead to the conclusion that they are not really that interested in finding out conclusively that the flat earth model is indeed correct or not?  But one would have to seriously question why this trip would not be made, as it would absolutely prove beyond all possible doubt that the earth is flat, and surely this type of proof is what the flat earth hierarchy have been looking for to verify the flat earth model.

I will make a prediction right now: you will have many round earther volunteers to help with your experiment (like myself) but flat earthers will avoid this experiment as if it were a rattle snake.

I will make a prediction right now: you will have many round earther volunteers to help with your experiment (like myself) but flat earthers will avoid this experiment as if it were a rattle snake.

Yes, Mikeman, I have no doubt whatsoever, that not one flat earther will conduct this experiment. I know for a fact that the sun's movement throughout the day will be a completely straight line, which will conclusively destroy the flat earth model, which requires that the sun's path in the sky must always be curved and circular.

It's so easy to debunk the flat earth model - a bit like taking candy from a baby, lol.

Actually, I realized that anyone who who live on a spot where the sun is north of them should not be seeing the sun arcing around them in an concave trajectory, but rather in a convex trajectory (The sun would rise in the northeast to far northeast and set in the northwest to far southwest, and the trajectory would slowly bend towards the north throughout the day. But this does not happen, as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and the trajectory bends slowly towards the south throughout the day).

If the earth was flat.

The problem is that even though the earth is round, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of diversion in the path of the sun. I don't know if it would be observable, but the equinox, in reality, only occurs for an instant.

The problem is that even though the earth is round, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of diversion in the path of the sun. I don't know if it would be observable, but the equinox, in reality, only occurs for an instant.

'Diversion in the path of the sun'?  What diversion?  Do you see a 'diversion in the path of the sun' at any other time in the year?  The sun isn't suddenly going to make a change in its course is it, so why would you even think that some sort of diversion is even going to be noticeable? 

Looks easy to do, but flat-earthers would considerate that images are false, that equations are false, or even that the commonly-admitted laws used to deduce the equations are false. Or that all of this is a conspiracy.

Or that there are other possible explanations of this on a flat earth.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 01, 2015, 12:48:33 AM

The problem is that even though the earth is round, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of diversion in the path of the sun. I don't know if it would be observable, but the equinox, in reality, only occurs for an instant.

'Diversion in the path of the sun'?  What diversion?  Do you see a 'diversion in the path of the sun' at any other time in the year?  The sun isn't suddenly going to make a change in its course is it, so why would you even think that some sort of diversion is even going to be noticeable?

No, what I meant is that the sun wouldn't go directly from east to west. The sun never goes directly from east to west except of during an equinox and in the equator.

If the Earth is flat, there is a law governing the movement of light that is not taken into account. This is a claim based on universal observations of things like ships passing over the horizon, and the Sun setting. What you need to do is show that there is no possible law that would allow for what you observe: this is impossible.
What can be done, however, is to disprove specific models of FE. This is, in practise, enough; but please don't act like an observation is a contradiction. At best, this would offer a refinement.

If the Earth is flat, there is a law governing the movement of light that is not taken into account. This is a claim based on universal observations of things like ships passing over the horizon, and the Sun setting. What you need to do is show that there is no possible law that would allow for what you observe: this is impossible.
What can be done, however, is to disprove specific models of FE. This is, in practise, enough; but please don't act like an observation is a contradiction. At best, this would offer a refinement.

So although there is absolutely no proof of such law, and the current model that describes light has been shown to always work, but we have to accept that the earth is flat and find ANOTHER law that we don't even know what it is supposed to do that describes the movement of light? I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculous to me. I could hold an orange and say "This is an apple, but there is some sort of law that makes apples appear like oranges that we haven't discovered yet", and I wouldn't be any more wrong than you are.

So although there is absolutely no proof of such law, and the current model that describes light has been shown to always work, but we have to accept that the earth is flat and find ANOTHER law that we don't even know what it is supposed to do that describes the movement of light? I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculous to me. I could hold an orange and say "This is an apple, but there is some sort of law that makes apples appear like oranges that we haven't discovered yet", and I wouldn't be any more wrong than you are.

The current model has always been shown to work if and only if the Earth is round. That's an important distinction.
This is how science works: if a flaw in the current model is found, a replacement is offered. Refinement, not rejection.

My only point was that the grandiose claim of 'absolute proof' is clearly unjustified. Every FE model with any thought behind it contradicts the RE notion of space and the Sun: why then would the RE laws follow exactly? In addition, a new law wouldn't necessarily be required: it could just be an application of a known law, that wouldn't normally be applied.

Don't think of it as a new law: think of it as a replacement. The RE models and FE models aren't the exact same barring the shape of the world, each one differs from the other in terms of many fundamentals, and the overall shape and setting and design of the larger universe.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 08:07:40 AM

So although there is absolutely no proof of such law, and the current model that describes light has been shown to always work, but we have to accept that the earth is flat and find ANOTHER law that we don't even know what it is supposed to do that describes the movement of light? I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculous to me. I could hold an orange and say "This is an apple, but there is some sort of law that makes apples appear like oranges that we haven't discovered yet", and I wouldn't be any more wrong than you are.

The current model has always been shown to work if and only if the Earth is round. That's an important distinction.
This is how science works: if a flaw in the current model is found, a replacement is offered. Refinement, not rejection.

My only point was that the grandiose claim of 'absolute proof' is clearly unjustified. Every FE model with any thought behind it contradicts the RE notion of space and the Sun: why then would the RE laws follow exactly? In addition, a new law wouldn't necessarily be required: it could just be an application of a known law, that wouldn't normally be applied.

Don't think of it as a new law: think of it as a replacement. The RE models and FE models aren't the exact same barring the shape of the world, each one differs from the other in terms of many fundamentals, and the overall shape and setting and design of the larger universe.

No, the experiments and models regarding the behavior of light have nothing to do with the shape of the earth and don't take it into account.

No, the experiments and models regarding the behavior of light have nothing to do with the shape of the earth and don't take it into account.

Certainly, but there is no honest scientist who will say that they are 100% sure every possible variable was removed: and experiments taking place on Earth do not necessarily represent what would happen away: weaker gravitational forces, less air and more radiation, etc. (Radiation being the same kinds of waves as light). Space is known to curve around large masses, like the Earth: long distance movement over said surface may have an effect. Or may the space/Sun are not exactly as our models predict...
If the Earth is flat, then the theory of light must be incomplete in order to explain what we observe. It's a knock-on effect, nothing special: the only reason this sounds odd to you is because RE is thought of as a default.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 09:20:42 AM

No, the experiments and models regarding the behavior of light have nothing to do with the shape of the earth and don't take it into account.

Certainly, but there is no honest scientist who will say that they are 100% sure every possible variable was removed: and experiments taking place on Earth do not necessarily represent what would happen away: weaker gravitational forces, less air and more radiation, etc. (Radiation being the same kinds of waves as light). Space is known to curve around large masses, like the Earth: long distance movement over said surface may have an effect. Or may the space/Sun are not exactly as our models predict...
If the Earth is flat, then the theory of light must be incomplete in order to explain what we observe. It's a knock-on effect, nothing special: the only reason this sounds odd to you is because RE is thought of as a default.

The behavior of light is well understood when it comes to its basic functions. You're thinking about it the wrong way: you are assuming that the earth is flat, and trying to change every law in the universe to match what we would observe in a flat earth, when many of these laws have been observed without taking into account the shape of the earth, and with very, very little variables. But I don't even understand how you think light would function. Are you saying that for some reason light curves downwards or something?

Quote from: chtwrone on September 05, 2015, 01:51:33 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 01, 2015, 12:48:33 AM

The problem is that even though the earth is round, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of diversion in the path of the sun. I don't know if it would be observable, but the equinox, in reality, only occurs for an instant.

'Diversion in the path of the sun'?  What diversion?  Do you see a 'diversion in the path of the sun' at any other time in the year?  The sun isn't suddenly going to make a change in its course is it, so why would you even think that some sort of diversion is even going to be noticeable?

No, what I meant is that the sun wouldn't go directly from east to west. The sun never goes directly from east to west except of during an equinox and in the equator.

If you read my first post again, you will see that this experiment takes place during the equinox on the equator, which is where the sun will rise exactly east, pass directly overhead and then set exactly west, whilst making a perfectly straight line in the sky.

If the Earth is flat, there is a law governing the movement of light that is not taken into account. This is a claim based on universal observations of things like ships passing over the horizon, and the Sun setting. What you need to do is show that there is no possible law that would allow for what you observe: this is impossible.
What can be done, however, is to disprove specific models of FE. This is, in practise, enough; but please don't act like an observation is a contradiction. At best, this would offer a refinement.

I disagree. The purpose of the experiment is to establish that the path of the sun through the sky is a perfectly straight line, which is easy to establish by taking shadow readings at regular periods throughout the day.

The FE model requires absolutely that the sun's path through the sky must ALWAYS be a curved circular path, as the sun transcribes a complete circle over the earth's surface every 24 hours.

If the observation made at the equator during the equinox establishes that the sun has moved in a completely straight line, then of course, this one fact completely CONTRADICTS the FE model. In what way could the FEer's possibly account for this with some sort of 'refinement'?

So in conclusion, THIS OBSERVATION IS A CONTRADICTION AND COMPLETELY SHATTERS FLAT EARTH THEORY.

Another CONTRADICTION to the FE model, is the 24 hour Antarctic sun (documented, observed by thousands of people each year and proven FACT), which again IS a CONTRADICTION and COMPLETELY shatters FE theory.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 05, 2015, 03:45:45 AM

Quote from: chtwrone on September 05, 2015, 01:51:33 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 01, 2015, 12:48:33 AM

The problem is that even though the earth is round, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of diversion in the path of the sun. I don't know if it would be observable, but the equinox, in reality, only occurs for an instant.

'Diversion in the path of the sun'?  What diversion?  Do you see a 'diversion in the path of the sun' at any other time in the year?  The sun isn't suddenly going to make a change in its course is it, so why would you even think that some sort of diversion is even going to be noticeable?

No, what I meant is that the sun wouldn't go directly from east to west. The sun never goes directly from east to west except of during an equinox and in the equator.

If you read my first post again, you will see that this experiment takes place during the equinox on the equator, which is where the sun will rise exactly east, pass directly overhead and then set exactly west, whilst making a perfectly straight line in the sky.

I'm just saying that the equinox doesn't last all day. It's actually momentary. I don't know how much of an effect it will have, but if you were ultra precise with the measurements, you would probably see a very slight diversion.

You're thinking about it the wrong way: you are assuming that the earth is flat, and trying to change every law in the universe to match what we would observe in a flat earth, when many of these laws have been observed without taking into account the shape of the earth, and with very, very little variables.

I'm not attempting to prove anything here. Even so, you're mistaken: we don't observe laws, we observe consequences. Those consequences are observed in a certain context, and with certain presuppositions and framework.

But I don't even understand how you think light would function. Are you saying that for some reason light curves downwards or something?

There are many possibilities: my model is not complete. I currently favor the idea that light is attracted to more of the Earth's surface, and spreads outwards, which fits in with the tenuous beginnings of my model: though that would take a lot of explanation and diagrams to fully explain and justify.

The FE model requires absolutely that the sun's path through the sky must ALWAYS be a curved circular path, as the sun transcribes a complete circle over the earth's surface every 24 hours.

Rather, it requires that the Sun appears to do so. There are multiple explanations for that. (In addition, a RE requires that the Earth's surface is always a curved, circular path: does that mean it could not appear flat?).

If the observation made at the equator during the equinox establishes that the sun has moved in a completely straight line, then of course, this one fact completely CONTRADICTS the FE model. In what way could the FEer's possibly account for this with some sort of 'refinement'?

There is a difference between the image of something, and the path it truly takes. It's trivial to see that, if the world is flat, the Sun's light is not perfect: after all, a circle would not illuminate what is apparently wider in the 'Southern' hemisphere/plane. In the same way, it's trivial to see that if the world's round, how the Sun must travel (taking a reference frame with a stationary Earth).

Another CONTRADICTION to the FE model, is the 24 hour Antarctic sun (documented, observed by thousands of people each year and proven FACT), which again IS a CONTRADICTION and COMPLETELY shatters FE theory.

I don't see how that proves a contradiction. There's no reason the Antarctic couldn't be at the centre of the world, for one. For two, if light is attracted to the Earth's surface (a tenuous theory) there's no reason to suppose there isn't a specific 'pole'. for this attraction. There are also multiple explanations of how, in the typical FE North-pole-centred model, the 'ice wall' would reflect the light that strikes it around the circumference. Perhaps unlikely, but the fact is that this is not a contradiction. Shouting 'CONTRADICTION' comes across as juvenile and, frankly, unscientific.
Please prove that there is no possible explanation: this is what you are claiming. I do not need to provide one, you are claiming that this is a contradiction beyond all possible refinement, and I would like to hear your justification for that claim beyond "I can't think of an answer."

Again, I am explaining snippets of a much more in-depth hypothesis. It's far from a complete model, so don't expect perfect detail.

Quote

You're thinking about it the wrong way: you are assuming that the earth is flat, and trying to change every law in the universe to match what we would observe in a flat earth, when many of these laws have been observed without taking into account the shape of the earth, and with very, very little variables.

I'm not attempting to prove anything here. Even so, you're mistaken: we don't observe laws, we observe consequences. Those consequences are observed in a certain context, and with certain presuppositions and framework.

Quote

But I don't even understand how you think light would function. Are you saying that for some reason light curves downwards or something?

There are many possibilities: my model is not complete. I currently favor the idea that light is attracted to more of the Earth's surface, and spreads outwards, which fits in with the tenuous beginnings of my model: though that would take a lot of explanation and diagrams to fully explain and justify.

Quote

The FE model requires absolutely that the sun's path through the sky must ALWAYS be a curved circular path, as the sun transcribes a complete circle over the earth's surface every 24 hours.

Rather, it requires that the Sun appears to do so. There are multiple explanations for that. (In addition, a RE requires that the Earth's surface is always a curved, circular path: does that mean it could not appear flat?).

Quote

If the observation made at the equator during the equinox establishes that the sun has moved in a completely straight line, then of course, this one fact completely CONTRADICTS the FE model. In what way could the FEer's possibly account for this with some sort of 'refinement'?

There is a difference between the image of something, and the path it truly takes. It's trivial to see that, if the world is flat, the Sun's light is not perfect: after all, a circle would not illuminate what is apparently wider in the 'Southern' hemisphere/plane. In the same way, it's trivial to see that if the world's round, how the Sun must travel (taking a reference frame with a stationary Earth).

Quote

Another CONTRADICTION to the FE model, is the 24 hour Antarctic sun (documented, observed by thousands of people each year and proven FACT), which again IS a CONTRADICTION and COMPLETELY shatters FE theory.

I don't see how that proves a contradiction. There's no reason the Antarctic couldn't be at the centre of the world, for one. For two, if light is attracted to the Earth's surface (a tenuous theory) there's no reason to suppose there isn't a specific 'pole'. for this attraction. There are also multiple explanations of how, in the typical FE North-pole-centred model, the 'ice wall' would reflect the light that strikes it around the circumference. Perhaps unlikely, but the fact is that this is not a contradiction. Shouting 'CONTRADICTION' comes across as juvenile and, frankly, unscientific.
Please prove that there is no possible explanation: this is what you are claiming. I do not need to provide one, you are claiming that this is a contradiction beyond all possible refinement, and I would like to hear your justification for that claim beyond "I can't think of an answer."

Again, I am explaining snippets of a much more in-depth hypothesis. It's far from a complete model, so don't expect perfect detail.

Yeah, I'm sorry for my use of the word "laws", I didn't notice it when I was writing this. Anyway, as I said before, I can't debate a model that doesn't even exist yet, so I will just wait for you to provide further details. Right now, it doesn't make much sense, but we shall see.

Quote

You're thinking about it the wrong way: you are assuming that the earth is flat, and trying to change every law in the universe to match what we would observe in a flat earth, when many of these laws have been observed without taking into account the shape of the earth, and with very, very little variables.

I'm not attempting to prove anything here. Even so, you're mistaken: we don't observe laws, we observe consequences. Those consequences are observed in a certain context, and with certain presuppositions and framework.

Quote

But I don't even understand how you think light would function. Are you saying that for some reason light curves downwards or something?

There are many possibilities: my model is not complete. I currently favor the idea that light is attracted to more of the Earth's surface, and spreads outwards, which fits in with the tenuous beginnings of my model: though that would take a lot of explanation and diagrams to fully explain and justify.

Quote

The FE model requires absolutely that the sun's path through the sky must ALWAYS be a curved circular path, as the sun transcribes a complete circle over the earth's surface every 24 hours.

Rather, it requires that the Sun appears to do so. There are multiple explanations for that. (In addition, a RE requires that the Earth's surface is always a curved, circular path: does that mean it could not appear flat?).

Quote

If the observation made at the equator during the equinox establishes that the sun has moved in a completely straight line, then of course, this one fact completely CONTRADICTS the FE model. In what way could the FEer's possibly account for this with some sort of 'refinement'?

There is a difference between the image of something, and the path it truly takes. It's trivial to see that, if the world is flat, the Sun's light is not perfect: after all, a circle would not illuminate what is apparently wider in the 'Southern' hemisphere/plane. In the same way, it's trivial to see that if the world's round, how the Sun must travel (taking a reference frame with a stationary Earth).

Quote

Another CONTRADICTION to the FE model, is the 24 hour Antarctic sun (documented, observed by thousands of people each year and proven FACT), which again IS a CONTRADICTION and COMPLETELY shatters FE theory.

I don't see how that proves a contradiction. There's no reason the Antarctic couldn't be at the centre of the world, for one. For two, if light is attracted to the Earth's surface (a tenuous theory) there's no reason to suppose there isn't a specific 'pole'. for this attraction. There are also multiple explanations of how, in the typical FE North-pole-centred model, the 'ice wall' would reflect the light that strikes it around the circumference. Perhaps unlikely, but the fact is that this is not a contradiction. Shouting 'CONTRADICTION' comes across as juvenile and, frankly, unscientific.
Please prove that there is no possible explanation: this is what you are claiming. I do not need to provide one, you are claiming that this is a contradiction beyond all possible refinement, and I would like to hear your justification for that claim beyond "I can't think of an answer."

Again, I am explaining snippets of a much more in-depth hypothesis. It's far from a complete model, so don't expect perfect detail.

My use of the word 'contradiction' is not juvenile at all. I reject totally, your contention that some sort of light trickery would ever account for what is observed in the equatorial equinox experiment.

Without any doubt what so ever, this experiment would verify completely whether the FE model was flawed or not. If the sun's tracking through the sky during the equinox on the equator is not a curved and circular one, then this completely and utterly CONTRADICTS the FE theory that requires that the sun is ALWAYS observed to track through the sky in a curved and circular path. To say otherwise is just plain rubbish. But then that is all we should come to expect from FEers anyway.

I'm new to this FE concept but I'm going to take a crack at giving a possible answer to the original question. 

The path of the sun over the "equator" is only a straight line from the perspective of a globe shaped earth.

Hold a softball or grape fruit in front of you with both hands with each of your finger tips touching the same finger on the other hand.  Imagine a line drawn around the "sphere" formed by your four fingers on each hand touching and think of that as the "equator". 

Now, straighten your fingers out keeping the tips separated the same distance. Look at the shape of those fingertips. They now form an arc or portion of path that indicates circumnavigation. 

I'm not totally convinced about FE, but that's just my 2 cents.

I'm new to this FE concept but I'm going to take a crack at giving a possible answer to the original question. 

The path of the sun over the "equator" is only a straight line from the perspective of a globe shaped earth.

Hold a softball or grape fruit in front of you with both hands with each of your finger tips touching the same finger on the other hand.  Imagine a line drawn around the "sphere" formed by your four fingers on each hand touching and think of that as the "equator". 

Now, straighten your fingers out keeping the tips separated the same distance. Look at the shape of those fingertips. They now form an arc or portion of path that indicates circumnavigation. 

I'm not totally convinced about FE, but that's just my 2 cents.

That's true. But on a flat earth, it wouldn't appear like a straight path at all. It would appear like the sun "turned". If you don't know exactly what I'm talking about, check out the flat earth model with the sun performing a circle above the Earth.

Now since you are new to this, and, hopefully, not indoctrinated in the misinformation flat earthers spread, here's a thread where flat earthers and round earthers can list arguments for each side: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64409.0#.Vew48s7jYUU

My use of the word 'contradiction' is not juvenile at all. I reject totally, your contention that some sort of light trickery would ever account for what is observed in the equatorial equinox experiment.

Without any doubt what so ever, this experiment would verify completely whether the FE model was flawed or not.

Certainly it would, if you reject every explanation offered with no reason given, as you have just explicitly done. if you are not interested in a scientific conversation I'm not sure why you're proposing an experiment.

Quote from: chtwrone on September 05, 2015, 06:02:40 PM

My use of the word 'contradiction' is not juvenile at all. I reject totally, your contention that some sort of light trickery would ever account for what is observed in the equatorial equinox experiment.

Without any doubt what so ever, this experiment would verify completely whether the FE model was flawed or not.

Certainly it would, if you reject every explanation offered with no reason given, as you have just explicitly done. if you are not interested in a scientific conversation I'm not sure why you're proposing an experiment.

Ok, that's fair enough.

Let's start with some simple questions concerning the flat earth model.

Can I ask if it's reasonable to expect, given that the flat earth model requires the sun to travel in a curved circular path over the surface of the earth every 24 hours, then that path should look curved by an observer situated on the equator during the equinox? 

If in fact the path appears to be a completely straight line, what might possibly account for this, and please give a detailed account with some verifiable references.

Can I ask if it's reasonable to expect, given that the flat earth model requires the sun to travel in a curved circular path over the surface of the earth every 24 hours, then that path should look curved by an observer situated on the equator during the equinox? 

If in fact the path appears to be a completely straight line, what might possibly account for this, and please give a detailed account with some verifiable references.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x371/Flat-Moon/Sun-MoonSmall.png

Your question is, at this stage, unanswerable. I am trying to design a FE model from scratch: what you're asking for is a finished product.
Science is a process, from hypothesis, to experimentation and testing, to refinement. I have the beginnings of a hypothesis: you're asking for the results of experiments. In addition, you're asking for references, by necessity from scientists who support the RE model: and so who would not have tested for elements to help an FE. Most FE aspects would not be observable if you assume a RE, by definition.

I have the beginnings of an explanation. First, however, I am trying to develop an FE map: the idea of the equator as a concentric circle with half the radius as the known disc is downright absurd, so the illustration you give is most likely wrong. When I have that map, I can see what path the Sun takes: maybe it's an extreme ellipse changing direction over the sea and so would appear straight from land (sheer speculation: not proposing this).
Currently I favor a unification theory: that gravity is tied to both electromagnetic and the strong nuclear force (as the fundamental forces seem to have attraction in common), they simply vary on what properties define them. Electromagnetism to charge, gravity and mass etc: the strong nuclear force applies to small, such as quantum, objects and could theoretically 'pull' light, altering its path. If this is accurate, I would expect light to be attracted to objects with a high refractive index (refraction being a consequence of this attraction) so the ice wall would serve as a 'magnet' of sorts, pulling light towards it: so the Sun would always appear, no matter where you are, to be further out than where it actually is. The longer light has to travel, the further it will be pulled, the further out it would seem.

Again, I must stress, this is speculation. The first step of science is constructing a hypothesis: this is what I am currently tending towards including in mine. It is not yet fully defined (I hope to have an equation before I start experimenting and testing), may be rejected, and it is only an aspect of the whole, but it is actually a fairly intuitive and effective notion.