You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass; you use sunlight when you make a rainbow in a garden.
In order to reproduce a natural-looking rainbow in an environment isolated from sunlight, three things are needed:
1) Water.
2) Light.
3) Glass.
Glass disperses the light that passes through it and the colors are seen in the water droplets. Without glass, rainbows do not occur because water alone cannot disperse enough light to create a rainbow.
In an open environment, the rainbow occurs without the need for glass because there is already the firmament, which disperses the light, while the colors are visible in the raindrops.
A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky for the rainbow to have that shape, or the arc shape could be a result of the curvature of the globe, but that would require the Earth to be the same size as the rainbow, so it is equally impossible.
The mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies still need to be further investigated, they may be associated with telluric energy, magnetism or ether, but we should not just invent things.
The rainbow is evidence of a firmament.
The first firmament is also important to explain the division between the less dense layers of aether and the ultradense layers, which must necessarily exist on a flat Earth.
You can create artificial rainbows with only a prism and a flashlight, no water droplets required, you can also create a rainbow with nothing more than a drop of water and a flashlight, both of which do not involve the sun or your "firmaments" (which I have yet to see evidence of by the way).
You also imply that rainbows would not be possible on a globe earth, and say that the arc a rainbow takes would have no reason to be shaped thusly on a globe earth. What you fail to mention is that rainbows in their entirety are circular; the same shape as you can observe in a garden hose. This is because water droplets are roughly spherical and they refract light in a circular shape.
Based on this, the rainbow is not evidence of a firmament. It can exist independently of one, and it does. You also go into a ton of pseudoscientific jargon that has no logical basis, leaving me only more skeptical of the flat earth model.
If you can't photograph the sun, how about touch the firmament instead?
And one more thing: the FE model has an extremely difficult time explaining celestial motion whereas the RE model has no issue at all, isn't this a huge point in favor of the RE model?
The mechanism that generates a rainbow involves
1) Light.
2) Something to scatter the light (this could be a prism, a mirror, or a firmament).
3) A medium in which the scattered light is seen (this could be water droplets or a solid surface).
A prism disperses light, and colors are seen on a solid surface.

It is not possible to create a rainbow using just a drop of water and a flashlight, I have personally tested this, and I have never seen any video or image of anyone managing to do this.
Rainbows appear circular when observed from above because the first firmament is shaped like a parabola.
The firmament is at ≈ 10 km altitude, while an airplane does not go much higher than 2 km altitude. An airplane does not fly high enough to reach the firmament.
Altitude measurements above ≈ 1 km that disregard aether give false results because aether directly interferes with the measurements.
Wolfgang Pauli made a calculation showing that the radius of curvature of the observable universe cannot be more than ≈ 31 km if zero-point energy/ether exists.

"If the electromagnetic field really had a zero-point energy that did not disappear, then the radius of the universe would be 31 km."
- Wolfgang Pauli
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0901.3640&ved=2ahUKEwiywPSt-quGAxUNppUCHb78Bx4QFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3vsIgyQMZQbZyV36GpemxI https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/1/1.24/218451?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/011/pdfIt is not possible to deny the existence of the ether/aether without violating the scientific method and the principle of Occam's Razor, because only it is capable of explaining a gigantic amount of facts that are inexplicable in other theories.
Globularists often claim that this would imply an Earth with a diameter of only 62 km. However, we can solve this with several curved walls in the structure of the second firmament, the radius of the universe will be the distance between one wall and the center of the area between 4 walls.

Globularists also went on to claim that curved walls would allow for an infinitely large universe, but curved walls only allow the universe to be horizontally large, but the radius of the vertical distance between the center of the Earth's surface and the second firmament cannot be greater than 31 km.

Density of aether:
1) Inverted density.
● The layers of the atmosphere are parabolic in shape and the density of the atmosphere decreases as it approaches the first firmament.
● The layers of aether are parabolic in shape, and the density of aether increases as it approaches the first firmament. The density of the lowest layer of aether is twice the average density of the troposphere. Therefore, refraction behaves as if the atmosphere had "inverted density".
https://youtube.com/shorts/CL_I8_nDzh4?si=gW1rSXD7VccI_O-QApproximate density of aether in the troposphere:
2,45 kg/m^3 (1,225 kg/m^3 × 2)
2) Velocity of celestial bodies.
The celestial bodies with regular orbits rise at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone, follow a path through the zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, always making their natural variations. They set at one of the gates in the west beyond Antichtone and pass beneath the Earth at a speed of 20000 km per second (the true diameter of the Earth is only 20000 km), causing the celestial bodies to accelerate and rise on the other side almost instantaneously.
● Proposed mechanism;
1) The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s.
2) The resistance generated by the density of aether reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).
D = 20000^2/0,464^2
D = 400000000/0,215296
D = 1857907253,2699
Therefore, the aether density at the distance to the Sun will be approximately 1857907253.2699 times the aether density in a no-resistance scenario (± the aether density in the troposphere).
Density = 4551872770,51 kg/m^3
The flat Earth perfectly explains the movement of celestial bodies, there is no great difficulty.
So apparently Anne has given up the most absurd claim that, after setting, “the celestial bodies are accelerated and born on the other side almost instantaneously”. Good.
But
I didn't give up, this explanation is still perfect.
The fact is (as we can easily check in this era of instant communications), when an observer in South America sees the Sun setting, the Sun is still visible for some hours in Tahiti. So the “edge”, for the observer in South America, is BEYOND Tahiti.
And when the Sun sets in Tahiti, it's still visible for some hours in Samoa. So the “edge”, for the observer in South America, is ALSO BEYOND Samoa.
And when the Sun sets in Samoa, it's still visible for some hours in Vanuatu. So the “edge”, for the observer in South America, is ALSO BEYOND Vanuatu.
And when the Sun sets in Vanuatu, it's still visible for some hours in New Guinea.
And so on and so on, through Sumatra, Ceylon, Somalia, Gabon, Brazil.
So, WHERE IS THE EDGE ?
Only possible answer: there's NO EDGE. Earth's surface closes on itself, like the surface of a cylinder... or of a SPHERE
You are forgetting the relief of the continents. The Sun sets behind the continental relief, in addition to setting on the edge.
So, why the observer in South America cannot see the relief of the African continent silhouetted against the disk of the rising Sun?
Because the African continent is too far away to be resolvable and the atmosphere causes distant targets to appear blue, making Africa visually indistinguishable from the ocean. There is also haze, pollution and humidity.
We know that the Sun, for example, must be outside the first firmament because rainbows can only occur if the first firmament scatters the Sun's light.
You have had this refuted before.
Rainbows are caused by light interacting with raindrops. It has nothing at all to do with any firmament.
White light enters a raindrop and is reflected/refracted around the drop, coming back out at various angles depending on the wavelength.
This creates an angular separation between the light source and a particular colour being visible.
We observe this as an arc, or if you are high enough, a circle.
No firmament is needed for this, nor have you been able to provide an explanation of just what you think the firmament is doing.
It clearly isn't that firmament is splitting the light into various wavelengths, because then no water would be needed.
So just what do you think the firmament is doing?
Can you provide a coherent explanation? Preferably with a diagram, showing the difference in the light before and after the firmament?
Furthermore, a Sun below the firmament would cause the Earth to become extremely hot.
Why?
The orbits of the celestial bodies that set can only occur with them outside the first firmament.
The path of celestial objects make no sense on a flat Earth. Observations clearly match up to a round Earth.
If you decide to invoke magic bendy light which just magically bends to get whatever result you need, then it can be anywhere.
Celestial bodies with regular orbits rises at one of the gates on the ground in the east beyond Antichtone
Except they can always be observed above some location on Earth, showing they aren't rising from beneath a flat surface.
Also, you appear to be rejecting the most common FE model, where there is no "east", as east and west go around in circles.
So what continent do you think is the most east? And how come you can fly around the world going east?
The natural speed of celestial bodies is ≈ 20000 km/s and the resistance generated by the density of the aether above the Earth's surface reduces the speed of celestial bodies to ≈ 1670 km/h (0,464 km/s).
Why?

How come we can fly from Australia to the US, going east?
How come it is so much faster to fly there, than to stop over in London?
Your map simply doesn't match reality.
You can't create a rainbow with artificial light without glass
We can. There is nothing special about sunlight.
It is just a white light source.
Again, explain what magic you think the firmament is doing.
Glass disperses the light that passes through it
Your firmament clearly does not.
If it did, you would see that all the time, and no rain would be needed.
For example if I get a glass prism, and split up the light, it is easily seen as a spectrum, with no rain needed.
The water droplets and the glass are doing the same thing, splitting up the light, just in different ways.
A rainbow takes the shape of the glass that disperses the light, outdoors, the rainbow has the shape of an arch because it takes the shape of the firmament.
No, it doesn't.
The shape of a rainbow, i.e. one from rain, is that way because the raindrops cause the light to appear at particular angles relative to the sun, which means it is a circle.
For glass, it depends on the shape of the glass.
Even if rainbows were possible on the globe, water droplets would have to magically form an arc in the sky
Why?
That would be if instead of being droplets, they were a continuous mass of water.
Because they are droplets, it all works on angles.
Two simple diagrams to explain it:

First, we see the interaction of light with a single droplet (simplified).
The white light hits the droplet, and due to internal reflections and refraction, it comes back out with different wavelengths coming out at different angles.
And that angle is what is important.
This single droplet is not enough to create the rainbow. To understand that, we look at many droplets:

For this we see white light hitting multiple droplets.
For simplicity, I have only shown the resulting coloured rays of light which make it back to the observer.
We see different raindrops reflect different wavelengths back to us.
While I have only shown those droplets, you could have that entire image filled with droplets, and the only coloured light coming back to us are those at the appropriate angle.
And that means the rainbow will adopt those particular angles for the particular colours, meaning we get a circle, or at the least the portion of the circle which go through the raindrops.
Rainbows are possible on a globe. They have nothing to do with a firmament. They do not require water droplets to accumulate into any particular shape. They just require a large amount of water droplets being hit by white light.
The mechanisms behind the movements of celestial bodies still need to be further investigated, they may be associated with telluric energy, magnetism or ether, but we should not just invent things.
So we shouldn't do exactly what you have been doing and what the people you follow have been doing?
The rainbow is evidence of a firmament.
No, they aren't.
You are yet to explain why water alone is insufficient, nor have you been able to provide any actual explanation of just what the firmament is doing to cause it.
So it is in no way evidence of a firmament.
The first firmament is also important to explain the division between the less dense layers of aether and the ultradense layers, which must necessarily exist on a flat Earth.
So it is something which is only needed for a FE, and not reality, and is just made up to try to save a flat Earth to avoid admitting that Earth isn't flat?
*I have explained very well the importance of the first firmament in the creation of a rainbow.
The first firmament disperses the light and the drops are the medium in which the colors are seen.
Water droplets alone are not capable of refracting enough water to generate a rainbow, it is even possible that the first firmament pre-disperses the light and the water droplets have a complementary role of dispersion, but water alone is not capable of generating the complete color palette visible in the rainbow!
*A Sun inside the first firmament would be like a Sun inside a greenhouse, the heating would be absurd.
*The path of celestial bodies on a flat Earth makes perfect sense.
You have done a service to the flat Earth theory by showing that light does not need to bend upwards, but only bends as it approaches the surface:

This aligns perfectly with the workings of perspective described by Rowbotham:
https://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201This explains how objects like boats disappear on the horizon.
The rises and sets of celestial bodies occur because of the continental relief, in addition to the fact that they rises and sets on the edge.
*The aether has parabolic gradients that increase in density as it approaches the first firmament. This density is very high in the vicinity of Antichtone, preventing us from being able to reach that continent. Any ship or airplane sailing towards Antichtone will be deflected by the aether and will skirt the perimeter of the aether barrier until it reaches the opposite side of the Earth's surface. If the ship/airplane keeps moving forward, it will return to its starting point.
In the case of airplanes, there is an additional factor: airplanes depend on air for lift, they always travel along the density gradient for which they are configured, and the atmospheric layers have parabolic gradients, that is: the air becomes increasingly rarefied as it approaches the edge.
In total, the distance covered by a circumnavigation close to the equator will be approximately twice the length of the equator.
Circumnavigations in general cover an average distance of 40000 km, this is because the diameter of the Earth is actually ≈ 20000 km, the globe was adapted for this by doubling the diameter of the Earth and adding a large area of water.

The dense aether barrier also deflects electromagnetic radiation that strikes the Earth's surface to the opposite side. This alters measurements of the Earth's diameter that disregard the aether.