Ok, let's see. It's only a few points.
General point: this video makes several assertion of how different things could work on a "Flat Earth". But why assume a flat earth in the first place?
Several points in this video invalidate or even contradict some of the most common reasons.
So why discard a model that has been consistent with observations for a very long time and been shown compatible with a lot of new discoveries, and replace it with a model that is based on, in the best case, a lot of unverified assumptions?
1. Sun is small and close.
In the best case, an irrelevant point. The rest of the video bases several observations of the sun on "lenses" So how would you know where and what the sun was... and why would you even care?
2a. Seasons are due to the movement of the sun, which is "trapped" in earth's magnetic field. The rotation and oscillation of this magnetic field are responsible for these movements.
This point would have been a lot more interesting if the authors could have shown how they suppose the magnetic field does "rotate and oscillate", why this change in the magnetic field is not observable on earth and what might generate such a field.
So basically this is pure speculation and not backed up by any observation or even theoretical calculations.
2b. The atmosphere acts like a lense.
This part of the video is at based incomplete and misleading. There are several problems with this part, some of which are relevant later on.
Noteworthy is the difference between the top image and the botton model. The upper has the sun inside the atmosphere, the bottom (necessarily) outside of it.
Optics and the properties of lenses are quite well understood - as everyone who wears glasses or contact lenses should know - and so it should be possible to calculate what kind of properties this "atmospheric lense" would have to result in the observable behaviour of light on earth.
It should be noted that the behaviour of the light in the bottom demonstration is not compatible with either the predicted behaviour of point 1 nor the "real world".
3. Timezones.
Timezones are administrative units, not physical or astrononical ones. So I don't even know what the author is trying to say here.
The problem of the model of point 1 vs. real world observations remains though.
The second part of this point is wrong, or at least phrased incorrectly. It is not noon when the sun is above your head - it is noon when the sun is at the highest point of its apparent course.
If you consider that this model does give contradicting explanations toward the position of the sun, it is also quite strange to make such a claim at all.
4. Sunsets.
Now we get into completely phantastical territory. The "atmosphere" is not something completely unknown. It's properties can be analysed, tested and modelled.
What is given here is just an an-hoc explanation that bears no resemblence to the real world.
Again, note the presented experiment. It uses a very specific lense, in a very specific location between the observer and the observed object. This is not how the atmosphere works in the real world.
The atmosphere alone wouldn't be able to provide such an exact result: the magnification and positioning of the apparent sun towards every single observer on earth.
First of all, it would require a change of density in the medium between observer and object. If both are within the same medium, there is no lensing effect.
Second, it would require an adaptive effect of density change between every single observer and every single observed object. This is not possible.
Third, this effect would only affect the celestial objects, and nothing else. Considering the scale of the effect necessary to keep the sun (wherever it might be) to a constant size, it would have a noticable affect on other far-away objects, at least on the "stars".
5a. Planets are "translucent balls of energy".
Another ad-hoc explanation. There is no explanation for what a "translucent ball of energy" even is. There isn't any kind of explanations to explain their behaviour in "earth's magnetic field", especially under the explanations that will follow on "gravity".
5b. Some are so transparent that we don't even know about them. So "Rahu" could be such a "so transparent object" that is responsible for lunar eclipses.
Interestingly, this "Rahu" is opaque enough to blot out the light comming from the moon, but nothing else. Not even the stars that are next to the moon during a lunar eclipse.
5c. "Rahu and Ketu are considered as two strong planets as per the principles of Vedic Astrology, although, astronomically, they do not exist?"
Correct. They are, astronomically, not objects, but just specific points in space. As they do not seem to have any other kind of influence but that on the light of the moon - not magnetically, not optically... why would they be considered "strong planets"?
Also consider that as per the principles of Vedic Astrology, Rahu is also a personified immortal demon who drives through the sky on a chariot drawn by eight black horses.
Vedic Astrology might not be the best source for astronomical knowledge.
6a. Stars.
"Earth's magnetic field produces a harmonic frequency. That frequency resonates along the dome, which we call the schumann [sic] resonance".
This is just bunch of scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo, based on esoteric misinterpretations of scientific phenomena and jargon.
A magnetic field does not "produce" any kind of "frequency", and the Schumann-resonance is the existence of a certain type of electromagnetic waves between ionosphere and ground.
"Intersecting frequencies on the outside of the dome cause bubbles within fluidic space to caviate and produce stars via sonoluminescence".
More of the same mumbo-jumbo. Frequencies do not "intersect". But even if we would use the correct concept of "waves", this would have nothing to do with the Schumann-resonance.
Sonoluminescence is a basically mechnical effect, and a connection with electromagnetic waves would have to be demonstrated. This videos view of electromagnetism has its own problems, which will be mentioned later.
But even if we assume that some kind of "intersecting frequencies" could result in sonoluminescence effects, it wouldn't result in the constant and regular appearence of the stars.
6b. Startrails and "our atmosphere acts like a lense".
Given the shown experiment with distorted lines viewed through a lense, it is questionable if the author of this video know how lenses work at all. Note that our atmosphere does NOT work in this shown way. It is just a "it looks superficially similar, so it must be the same" argument. Real world observations do not conform with this image.
Notice how the "flat earth" model shown on the left, and the "startrails" in the lower right corner are based on a completely different position of the observer.
7. Gravity
Now it gets really interesting. A flat earth system that does not deny the existence of forces.
"All materials on earth are diamagnetic. Diamagnetic materials are repelled by magnetic fields. This includes our atmosphere. Gravity is a push from above, not a pull from below."
First, note that the form of "earth's magnetic field" as shown in the graphic on the left side does not conform to the measurable form of earth's real magnetic field. In contrast to what is suggested here, the magnetic field of the earth is not a radial field, going perpendicular to earth's surface on every point. This is demonstrable.
Second, not every material on earth is diamagnetic. Objects with a magnetic field of their own do exist and can be produced.
This results in an interesting problem for this flat earth model. Objects should experience a "gravitational" force according to their magnetic strength. But as can be easily shown, a piece of magnetic iron falls with the same acceleration as unmagnetized iron.
Even diamagnetic objects show this same problem. Every material has its own value of magnetic susceptibility. Objects of different material but equal mass should thus accelerate different. But they don't.
Third, considering that this flat earth model supposes a constantly fluctuating magnetic field, it should result in a regular change in experienced gravitational force. Again, no such thing is observed.
Sorry, but this model of gravity simply does not work.
8. Tides.
"The sun and moon affect tides because water is diamagnetic."
This supposes that the sun and moon create their own magnetic field, strong enough to influence the matter on earth. But somehow these magnetic fields do not interfere with the regular changes in the earths magnetic field that is necessary for the creation of "stars"... or "seasons". Or even the movement of the celestial objects themselves.
9. Navigation.
No idea what he wants to say here. Compasses do point north? Well, they do. Partially.
In reality, they align with earth's magnetic field. But this field is, as we have seen, not like the field this flat earth model assumes. In fact, this flat earth model assumes several conflicting magnetic fields for different observations.
The interesting point here is not the problem of "north" direction though. It is the lack of explanation for the difference in east-west directions between globe and flat earth. And they ignore the problem of a vast difference in distances.
Navigation does not work on a Flat Earth in the same way as it does on a globe. That this point ignores this is not strengthening its argument.
