(Psalms 103:5) (Is The Earth is Not a Globe or is The Earth a Globe?)

One would keep going West until ultimately, one arrived at where one started. Remember, on the Flat Earth, West and East are turnwise and widdershins, and North and South are hubwards and rimwards. Think Discworld.

Interesting concepts, but I'm not sure they comport to the motion I describe. West for you means counterclockwise. That describes circulation motion; not linear motion.

Yes. On a ball Earth, West and East are also circular motion rather than linear motion, but the dimensions of the curves are in the vertical plane, rather than in only the horizontal plane (as on a Flat Earth).

Yes, but circular in the same direction. In your model, west begins due south.

You might have to explain further, as I don't understand what you are trying to say.

A compass always points North. West and East are always at 90 degrees to the North. On the Flat Earth, there is the North pole, toward which the compass points. Therefore, East and West are always at 90 degrees to this North pole. This is displayed in the diagram below.

View attachment 269045
I'm not sure why you say West begins due South.

One would keep going West until ultimately, one arrived at where one started. Remember, on the Flat Earth, West and East are turnwise and widdershins, and North and South are hubwards and rimwards. Think Discworld.

Makes sense for once. Discworld is a fictional fantasy, just like the Flat earth conspiracy.

The model is helpful to understand your conception.
Where is the South Pole? Is there a South Pole? A South Wall? Is there land underneath? What is at the end of south? Why has no one reached its limits? What natural laws comport to this model?
I have more questions, but we can start here.

I don't know which natural laws comport to the Flat Earth model, but I would argue the law which states that water always finds its own level is a natural law offering strong evidence against a ball Earth.

This is a fairly standard Flat Earth map. It's not accurate (given the aforementioned statement about mapping), but it reasonably represents what most Flat Earthers believe about the shape of the Earth.

There is no "south pole" as such. Everything south is the "south pole", although in reality, there is no actual South pole.

There is a national treaty between some 50+ countries banning ordinary people from exploring Antarctica. Typically, governments will require a licence to explore, and once a licence has been obtained, there are limits and fines applied to control one's access to limit exploration (or perhaps artificially end it). The very fact that 50+ countries needed to sign up to enforce the Antarctic treaty is evidence of the size of it.

Jarle Andhoy was one such Antarctic explorer demonised by authorities for his attempt to explore Antarctica without a licence. And on one of his exploration journeys, his ship was lost at sea under suspicious circumstances.

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/exploration-survival/what-really-happened-berserk/

I believe from accounts there is an ice wall at Antarctica, but people could explore beyond this (if they weren't harassed by governments). There are some unverified reports that government sponsored missions have journeyed far beyond the ice wall and come across "sky ice" which sublimates rather than melts, but although I believe some of these reports are likely true, I'm not aware they can be proven.

I believe there is land underneath Antarctica - ancient maps are evidence of this.

I don't know which natural laws comport to the Flat Earth model, but I would argue the law which states that water always finds its own level is a natural law offering strong evidence against a ball Earth.

Wouldn't the concept of south in every direction from north preclude a south pole on a flat earth? How then would there be a land mass as south would never converge? Wouldn't there have to be a edge at some point? And in every direction?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. The "South pole" so named does not exist as a pole, but is really just the opposite direction to North.

I suppose one might assume an infinite Flat Earth to do away with the idea of an edge, but I don't like the idea of an infinite creation.

My point is that it seems very unlikely to me that no one would have ever come to an edge or ending point.

You have done an excellent job of explaining FE concepts. I understand the position much better.

A Gnomonic-projection map of the Earth does not a flat earth prove.

Of course, I don’t expect you to understand that. I might hope, however, that you learn.