If you were using the same evidence and interpreting it with a different model we could look at the model.
FE advocates don't interpret the same body of evidence differently, they reject the evidence altogether.
Gravity for example - rejected by FE advocates. Ergo an alternative working-model without gravity must be produced.
You apparently do not understand what a 'model' is - or how it may come into existence - or what it represents.
You seem to be suggesting that any-and-every model in existence MUST be based ONLY on the 'data' that the Ball Earth model
accepts.
Do you realize just how pretentious and unscientific that is?
Any model in existence may put forth whatever explanation for 'observation' and 'evidence' it considers to make sense within that model.
Do you realize that 'gravity'
is not -
and cannot ever be - 'evidence' - but rather - that it is in fact [only] a
postulation of/for 'evidence'?
The interpretation and explanation of 'observation' utilizing 'evidence' is within each model according to the 'basis-of-fact' foundation of the model.
Any model can have its own interpretation and explanation concerning why/how/etc. that something occurs - but, you
cannot force the explanation of one particular model on any-and-every other model.
It is the very height of self-delusion to think that such a thing is in any way valid in a scientific approach to anything.
You are demanding that every model should explain everything-in-existence
strictly based
only on the Ball Earth model 'basis-of-fact' foundation.
Sorry - it does not work that way.
You need to learn how to examine the 'evidence' for 'observation'
from within each model.
The
model sets the tone and definition for how everything works within that model.
You don't.
To understand it properly, you MUST look at [any particular model] from the point-of-view of
that model -
period.
There are no two ways about it.
Get used to it...
1
A globe map flattened out, covered by a glass dome containing a galaxy. That's creative. 
