And just why would "common sense tell me it's false?" - Also, this is not a refutation.
"Fake, VR, CGI, green screen, etc" - not one single shred of proof that the collective image history is fake. Not a refutation. No proof.
Foucault's pendulum operates because of Newton's first law. Objects in motion stay in motion. This is exemplified by math. V =/= 0 m/s & A =/= 0 m/s = stays in motion. Now to be fair, acceleration isn't 0 m/s, because of friction, so even Foucault's pendulum will slow down over time, but it can absolutely last long enough to prove the Earth's rotation under it. What's the math behind your made-up-on-the-fly "wake of the rotating Luminaries." Also, you've debunked nothing.
...and time lapse photography at the equator proves the sky moves in different directions. Airy's failure disproved the existence of aether, not that the Earth is stationary. Also, you've debunked nothing.
Prove the existence of "Fundamental plane of the North and South nodes location." Until then, you've debunked nothing (still).
Ships disappear from the bottom up when moving away and reappear from the top down when moving closer. You've STILL not explained exactly how the "law of perspective" works, mathematically, so that it can be tested. Therefore it is unfalsifiable and junk, worthless pseudoscience. You've debunked nothing here either.
CGI doesn't affect my own personal observations. I've seen constellations that are only visible on one half of the globe, because geometry. Your attempt at refutation here is beyond laughable.
The horizon IS physical. You've provided no evidence to support a claim that it is strictly optical, and certainly no evidence (the falsifiable kind) to explain how optics alone explains real world observations. Your contention that limits to the travel of light to your eyeball rest on your altitude are comical. You've refuted nothing.
There is zero evidence of a close sun, and much evidence to disprove it, especially eclipses both solar and lunar. Eratosthenes can be explained on a globe. He can't on a flat Earth when examining all the evidence. You've disproven nothing, only presented a nonsensical counter argument with no support.
Gravity is a myth? Prove it. Show us how you're smarter than Einstein & Newton. And Newton didn't believe in gravity? Must be why he wrote down the law of universal gravitation (complete with math). Simply saying it doesn't exist doesn't disprove gravity, you've still to refute anything.
I've SEEN satellites. From the ground. You have no proof of your fantastical claims. I can show video of rockets launching satellites. Maybe one of these days, you'll learn what it means to refute something?

Unless you can show me a volume of gas without a container in a vacuum that maintains its shape, your assertion is not even possible, nor scientifically proven, and a plea to unicorn farts which only proves your argument is based on a plea to your complete lack of common sense and your faith in Narnia.
YouTube is full of proof that shows and details the falseness of all “images” of your Narnia cartoons, the fact you refuse to research this detail makes your argument just a plea to ignorance. The Faux Cult pendulum scientists who have repeated the experiment have freely admitted that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.” is powered by motors in museums as admitted by many technicians. Motors are used because of air resistance, the fact man made perpetual motion machines are a myth, and the fact that 360° grandfather pendulums dont prove your assertions. How do you explain your "armchair Astronaut" opinion that this device registers or feels the spin of earth while you cannot, nor does it feel the spin of earth in the other directions that are claimed by your model which are: 66,600 MPH Spin and Orbit around the Sun (+/- 8000 mph depending on the day), 43,200 MPH Towards Lambda Herculis, 15,624 MPH Perpendicular to the Galactic Plane, 446,400 MPH Orbiting the Galactic Center {or Galactic Spin Rate} and 1.4 million mph rotation around the Great Attractor Black Hole at the center of everything. You must explain this false assertion of yours. Also explain why the direction becomes reversed during a solar eclipse, does the earth spin in the opposite direction? Your example is a joke.

Photography of star rotation just shows the effects of refraction. Airy's failure did not disprove the aether, who ever said that is monstrously wrong. It proved the stars rotate, not the earth – please do some actual research. The fundamental plane is a fact of eclipse prediction proved by the fact we can predict them, the fact you don't understand how they relate to the Lunar Nodes is just a plea to ignorance which you do all the time. The "wake of the rotating Luminaries." has also been known for a long time – it is just never explained to you to keep you stupid. As for perspective you've yet to explain why things optically rise in hallways – yet physically rise out side, do your eyes work one way inside and another way outside? Until YOU figure out why, your scribbling amounts to the rantings of a feeble and cantankerous old man.

- continued

“The horizon IS physical.” - lol – ok go take a selfie at the horizon, you utter utter utter clown. The horizon is due to your ability to perceive the third dimension which makes things optically rise. I did not make a contention that LIMITS the travel of light to your eyeball resting on your altitude. Your altitude DETERMINES The light that reaches your eye, your understanding of description rhetoric is weak as usual. There is zero evidence of a sun that's far far away in your Narnia assumption, it's just based on the assumption Venus is the same size as Earth (another assumption) and its Angular size in the Sky. The size of the Sun is directly proportional to whatever distance we assume, the math works no matter which you choose. Eclipse predictions don't prove a far away sun, please explain how this would alter the Fundamental plane? Neil "de-gassed" Tyson explains how Eratosthenes experiment works with a close sun and a Flat Earth, again your argument is based in ignorance and fallacy, something you excel at. Gravity is not a force – science already proved it – not my fault your mentally 500 years behind normal people, research it. Again your plea to ignorance is not an excuse.

“Show us how you're smarter than Einstein & Newton.” never said I was – but I will prove im smarter than you. Please tell me which page of Principia talks about as you put it “Universal Gravitation” – show me the page please, until you do – your claim he said something when he didn't is a false equivalency. And its a fact that Newton didn't actually believe in Gravity – I've posted the quote before and will search it out again, You might remember it – the one where he said you had to be mentally insane to believe in magical forces – remember that one? Simply saying Gravity exists because of a linear temporal relationship of falling objects is not a proof a magical force that you cant replicate or scale caused that object to be sucked to earth. If you actually understood real science you'd know that Time itself cant be manipulated and is never a cause or an independent variable.The only satellites you've seen from the ground is the Moon. Watching some controlled fire during vertical Cylindrical blimp launches may appeal to your inner cavemen, but it is not a proof they do what they claim. They simply never get to your Narnia fantasy and are just Phallic Worship that express the Return of the new Babylonian religion. Keep reaching for the sky, your simple minded witlessness is never getting out to infect space with your diseased thoughts. Boom!

Too much to address at once.

First, allow me to present a table on air density by altitude:



These number are easily verified by simple altimeters on private and commercial aircraft. Here, we can see that air density is already 1/100 at 30 km altitude as it is at sea level, and it continues to diminish as you rise higher. There's no physical barrier there, and yet the effect of a barrier is already apparent. Obviously, it continues to taper off to the point of being in a vacuum. So we already know that the atmosphere is bordered by near vacuum, HOW CAN THIS BE??? Totally possible, scientifically proven.

your presenting a chart of data that shows the linear temporal relationship of the relative density
of the medium an item might find itself in, does not proof this magical force you claim is there,
time is not an independent variable, Learn how to do Science.

also, a volume of pressurized gas can NOT without the walls of any container exist surrounded by a vacuum, - if your assumption that your assertion is somehow possible, then you must demonstrate that claim because it disagrees with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
OR just keep your Faith in Narnia by keep shutting your eyes, while crying about your belief in Math abstractions, paper Models and ma' grabbity.

Still don’t understand it’s the atmospheric pressure from the outside not the the ‘vacuum sucking in’ that collapses vessels eh card, Good times.

So show me a volume of pressurized air that exist without a container surrounded by a vacuum that maintains it shape as you assert.
Go ahead - try ti break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, i'll be waiting with baited breath.

pressure - as in PSI - pounds per square inch - is derived from particle collisions inside a closed container

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

https://imgur.com/J4hHVO5

Pressurized Soda can inside a vacuum

https://youtu.be/bSZMNu4PWf8