The key issue with your question is that you're asking for an explanation of the 24-hour sun phenomenon from a perspective that presupposes the round Earth model as the only valid explanation. This is where the problem lies: you're assuming that just because the round Earth model can explain it, that automatically disproves any alternative. But this is a fallacy of reasoning—just because a model works for one group of people doesn't make it an absolute truth.
No, I'm not.
I'm asking from a perspective that will allow any coherent model.
That is a model which can explain it which doesn't need to ignore so much of itself and so many other phenomenon to explain it.
e.g. switching to a south pole centred FE model would partly explain it, by pushing the problem to the north.
But it still wouldn't explain the no noticeable change in the angular size.
I also don't want one which invents loads of things to make the model work, such as claiming light will bend to produce the results expected for a round Earth, with no other justification of light bending, nor any reason for why light should bend like that.
I am NOT assuming that just because one model explains it no other model can. I know that is wrong and multiple models can explain the same observation, at which you need to identify the differences in the model to find a situation where they don't agree, and test that to see which model matches observations.
If you can come up with a FE model which actually works, I am open to it.
But look at you, not even attempting to explain it and instead coming up with excuses for why you shouldn't have to.
The reality is, when someone claims to have seen a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, it’s important to critically assess the nature of that observation. Observations alone, especially those made in a specific context (like a group of people in one location), cannot be considered definitive proof of anything. We have to ask: what methodology was used to arrive at the conclusion that the sun was indeed visible for 24 hours? And what other factors could influence such an observation?
Without addressing these foundational issues, simply asserting that the round Earth model explains the 24-hour sun phenomenon better is not a sufficient rebuttal. It’s important to remember that no model is proven without irrefutable evidence. The flat Earth model still holds potential explanations, but like all theories, it requires continuous questioning and scrutiny.
Unless you are planning on going down the path of dismissing it as fake entirely, it is well past the point of critically assessing the nature of the situation.
There were multiple independent timing devices, and it was being live streamed. It is abundantly clear the 24 hour period was reached. It was recorded to show that the sun was visible for that time.
And it isn't just this one group. There are countless examples.
So we are well past confirming it can be seen. The question is how. How does each model explain it.
Instead of suggesting the FE model still holds potential solutions, provide them. Because that is the crux of the issue.
In the end, the crux of the issue is that no one model can be proven beyond all doubt—whether it’s flat Earth or round Earth. What we have are competing interpretations of the data, and the key to progress is in maintaining an open mind and rigorous inquiry.
In the end, the crux of the issue is that we have 2 models (actually one model and one large collection of models).
One model is coherent and able to explain countless phenomenon, with defenders of the model able to explain how the model produces the phenomenon.
The other is a collection of models which are incoherent and contradictory. They cannot explain so much it isn't funny. Defenders of these will switch between different models when appropriate to pretend to explain it; or they will dismiss the phenomenon as fake; or they will make excuses as to why they shouldn't have to explain it.
Yes, the key to progress is an open mind. And that includes being willing to discard a model when it doesn't work rather than continually making excuses for why you shouldn't. We are well beyond the point where the FE model doesn't work and has been shown to not work for countless things. Those with an open mind realise that and move on from it to the model which does work.