I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.
So you say, now where are all these experiments that verify all your weird definitions and your hypothetical behavior of gases.
Because unless you've verified this hypothetical behavior of gases it remains no more than guesswork.
Basically what the theoretical science world is doing with a lot of stuff. Including yourself with simply accepting it without verifying it yourself.
The properties of gases were not "theoretical science"! They were all found by direct experiments with measurements.
I believe them because they are consistent with what is observed.
There are now
theories as to why those old "gas laws" were nearly true and these
theories also show the limitations of those old laws.
Nevertheless, those old gas laws are all that is needed in most situations.
But I see no need nor would it be possible for every individual to personally repeat every experiment and measurement of science.
Were that the case there could never be any progress.
What I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.
So why are all your explanations and your flat-Earth model so different from those of Sandokhan, Wise or Tom Bishop.
Are they all complete wrong?
All may be completely wrong or all wrong in some ways and in others, correct.
There's no way of knowing the absolute truth of everything and this is why debates happen and continue to happen.
This is why philosophies and theories....hypotheses and what not, happen.
While "there's no way of knowing the absolute truth" many things reach a point where they can be "regarded as proven beyond reasonable doubt"
And for centuries
Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation were "regarded as proven beyond reasonable doubt".
Then along came Einstein and
extended Newton's Laws into regions that Newton could not envisage in his day.
You need to accept that what you adhere to could also be wrong.
Sure but until there is evidence suggesting that "what I adhere to might be wrong" I see no reason to believe things that I can easily see cannot be correct.