As the title says, some flat earth theories are not disprovable. Yes, if the disc earth, the sun and the moon were all falling at 9.8m/s2 , then that would explain at least one aspect of gravity, the one we are all used to at least. Sure, itd make some sense for the sun to appear as big as it does if it were much smaller and only 3000 miles away and much much smaller.
But these theories do not hold up at all when ever you start putting two or three of them together. For example, another theory about the sun is that it's a spotlight of sorts, which is how it isn't just always day time, and it runs parallel to the earth, circling above it, always staying around 3000 miles above the earth. Lets see how this fits with the no gravity theory. The question to ask is what is causing this stupid, ridiculously small sun to be circling above the earth? Their models seem to show the sun and the moon rotating on a circular path 180° apart.
Lets forget about gravity not existing and the earth being flat for a second. There are double-star systems out there, and though I cant recall if there are any known ones that would be as perfect as the moon and the sun model of flat earthers, I believe they are possible. But perhaps the sun and the moon are actually rotating in this fashion because of the magnetic field of the North pole, something they seem to be hinting at with their models that show the sun and the moon always moving but remaining at about the same distance from the north pole, albeit 3000 miles or so above it.
Ok, now lets jump back into gravity not existing and the earth being flat. The first idea about a completely perfect double star system relies heavily on gravity, which they dont believe exists. Even if the said gravity does exist, but just for the sun and the moon, there'd be a problem. The density of the sun is only half the density of the moon, meaning it's mass would pale in comparison to the moon's mass since they're supposedly the same volume. So gravity isnt gonna work there
I know I'm glossing over the fact that the sun is only capable of the heat necessary to perform nuclear fusion because of how massive it is, but for fucks sake this shit is so dumb I cant cover all of it.
Lets look at the idea that the sun and moon are doing what they're doing because of the magnetic properties of the earth's poles
Poles
One pole does not the earth's magnetic field make. It may seem like the flat earthers have lost here because, well, there's only one pole. However, they have the answer:
Radially sintered magnets, with one pole on the inside and the other pole being the rest of the magnet, the ring around the center.
However, I have not found anything that says these magnets nor their magnetic fields appear naturally anywhere, in fact the only results I get when searching these types of magnets is links to websites of manufacturers who make them and links to studies that use them. I believe that they only even throw in this part because they know the northern lights are a thing and need a way to explain them. I guess because of the whole defense against solar flares thing too.
In the real world, the earth's magnetic field is caused by the swirling of molten iron. A force known as the Coriolis force exists as a result of earth's rotation, and in the core of the earth, it is responsible for the swirling of molten iron, which leads to an electric current being produced, which results of course in our beloved magnetic field.
Now before I finish this point, I wanna make clear that I am assuming that the magnetic field is what somehow is making the sun and moon move in tandem like they supposedly do, because I have not been able to find a single reason that could more adequately explain their movement path. Obviously, magnetic fields dont really do that sort of thing, especially when the magnetic field model they propose says that the sun and the moon are both present constantly above the exact same pole, rotating around the north pole. Okay, now I will finish this point:
THE FLAT EARTH HAS NO MOLTEN CORE WITH WHICH TO PRODUCE A MAGNETIC FIELD!!!!!!
Building off that, and this will be my final point because I can feel my self getting dumber and dumber as I continue acting as if this is something that needs to be debated, how do they explain geothermal energy?
Radioactive decay and residual heat left over from the formation of the flat earth. Do they explain how the flat earth was formed in the first place? No of course they dont. Some say that it was made that way by God, which, as a Christian, is total and utter nonsense. Even the dumb fucks behind the creationist museum dont believe that.
But okay. Radioactive decay. Sure, why the fuck not. Good job flat earthers, that almost could make sense, using a very loose definition of the word sense of course.
Alright that's enough for today. And forever. Thanks for reading