All you managed to whine about is "I don't have the time or resources to get that information" - that is your REBUTTAL not REFUTATION.
Nope, fuckwit, that's just an illustration of why your demands are no more than the meaningless, tedious timewasting I expect from you. None of that is required to deal with your assertion that the RE model alone explains alignment.
Since telescopes, by definition, are aligned based on the LATITUDE of the observer EVERYWHERE on Earth. This PROVES the Earth is spherical as latitudes are properties of spheres.
Look, the same old bullshit you ADMITTED was wrong in the thread, and you're back to whinging about it. COMPLETE FUCKING ASSERTION. You literally just assume the world is a sphere with latitudes, and then go "Well, as the earth is a sphere, it's round!" Bullshit as ever. You don't even try to consider that there could be an alternative reason to align telescopes than the one of the RE model.
Until you do that, your attempt at falsification is bullshit. That's trivially simple logic, and yet you go on huge rants desperate to hide that fact.
Your argument that the "altitude of the stars" somehow allows you to align telescopes fails - YOU can't even tell me how high Polaris is. Poor you, you don't have the time/resources to measure it. But you authoritatively state that this answers my questions - total 100% BS.
I don't need to, fuckwit, just like I don't need to tell you how fast a bus is going to know not to run in front of it. You don't need the numbers to know the end result. This remains a valid explanaton for alignment under FET, and until you can actually address the argument rather than whinging and evading, your argument remains bullshit.
Your argument that OTHER models can align telescopes so MAYBE FE can (i.e. it MIGHT be possible) is the ONLY argument you have. But YOU have no proof FE CAN actually do it.
It's the only argument I need you pathetic penguin, do you understand anything about falsification?
Let's try to put this simply. You insisted you were a teacher, you should be able to understand this. You are trying to say that FET is
false: that is that A implies not B (that B is impossible). However, if it can be shown that B could imply A, your implication that A means not B is simply false.
Your argument doesn't achieve anything, you just assert and whine.
Stop spamming your DEF BS into threads. And YES, I will copy this into other threads whenever you spam your DEF BS.
*I* was willing to drop the subject - that you didn't have the time/resources to prove your DEF BS. Being nice, I gave in to your pathetic whining.
I'm not going to stop spreading the DE model just because one fuckwit would rather whine and lie than learn it. I'm going to answer the questions posed, just because you're too scared to engage honestly won't change that.
And look, more lies.
Provide your REAL MEASURABLE TESTABLE evidence, as EVERYONE requests, of your DEF BS. Put up or shut up. Stop whining you can't, then stating your model works somehow and spamming it in threads.
I have done
EXACTLY THAT you PATHETIC penguin.
EVERY FUCKING TIME YOU ASK ME FOR A TEST I PROVIDE ONE. EVERY TIME I AM ASKED FOR EVIDENCE I GIVE ONE. WE SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT A VERIFIABLE TEST FOR DET. I have NEVER said that I cannot, I ANSWERED YOUR DEMANDS. ARE YOU REALLY THAT INCAPABLE OF HONESTLY DISCUSSING DET THAT YOU NEED TO OPENLY LIE?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
DET discussions, page 8. The record stands: I answered your demands, you whined, then swiftly evaded the existence of the test.
There's your way to measure and confirm DET. And it remains unnecessary by the simple standards of evidence, elaborated and compared in the DET model. The DET model works, and your whining won't change that. It has evidence behind it, as you have been given every time you try to lie and whinge, it has falsifiable tests: and it functions better than the RE alternative.
Your lies won't change a thing. You move the goalposts, you demand more than is remotely necessary, and you whine rather than support the most fundamental aspect of your assertion that FET is falsified. Grow up.