Again, you are outright lying.

It's pathetic at this stage. You know that nothing you say is true, but you don't care because people are going to believe you regardless. Roundie playbook 101.

There you go projecting again.

You have provided no evidence to indicate your DE model exists as part of reality, as such I am being quite honest when I say it just exists in your mind.

But more importantly, it has 2 separate flat discs. This means the entirety of Earth is not flat.

At best, if you have 2 perfectly flat discs, the join between them represents the curvature, but that doesn't even match reality.

The simple fact is, on any flat surface you can construct a triangle, anywhere on the surface, and it will have an angle sum of 180 degrees.

This even applies to mathematically "flat" surfaces like the surface of an infinitely long cylinder.

But as soon as the surface is mathematically curved, this is no longer true and the angle sum deviates from 180 degrees.

Which applies for Earth?

Well, as the 2 poles are always 180 degrees apart (and there are sub-polar points, i.e. points on the surface of Earth below the poles):

You have one line, directly connecting the 2 poles.

You then have a point, somewhere else (the exact location is irrelevant, as long as it isn't on the earlier line).

Now, you add 2 more lines, connecting this point to either pole.

As it is not on the pole the angle at each pole will be >0.

The angle at this point will be 180 degrees.

This means the angle sum of the triangle will be 180 degrees plus 2 angles greater than 0, making the angle sum greater than 180 degrees.

That means it isn't flat.

The only FE model (i.e. a model which has a single flat Earth) I know of that has 2 poles is the bi-polar FE model.

In this model, the poles are not always 180 degrees apart.

So no, I know that what I am saying is true.