You are literally still completely ignoring every word I have said.
No, I'm not. You're baselessly asserting that I am in an effort to derail this discussion.
The model is not showing 'how light needs to behave in order to reflect the real world.' It does not account for the variables it needs to. Stop ignoring this.
You're misrepresenting what I said. The model is showing
how light needs to behave, not why it behaves that way. Your irrelevant point about variables is conflating the why with the how. Now, if you're saying the model is entirely wrong, then that is a different matter. So far, that doesn't appear to be what you are saying. I would ask that if it is wrong, what would be a more accurate presentation?
You cannot model anything if you don't account for all the variables.
What did Ptolemy do? What did Copernicus do? Those were models, each with varying degrees of accuracy, that did not account for all variables.
You can't just pretend what I'm saying isn't relevant. It isn't showing 'how light needs to behave,' it's assuming a falsehood.
You misunderstand the point of the model. As I've stated before, it reflects how light must behave if the Earth is flat and the sun/moon are on a plane above it, moving in a circle over it.
You ignored, entirely, my example discussing the sun and how it rises and sets in relation to this model. That's the point and the reason you're not succeeding in proving your claim here. The model shows us what light must do to create sunrises and sunsets on a flat Earth. Let say, for the sake of your argument, that you are correct and there's this thing called 'ether', and it is responsible for these manifestations as we see them. If the Earth is flat and presents as it does with the Gleason map, and the sun's location is this point some 4000 miles above us and isn't a ball of fusion 860000 miles wide but a much smaller, closer object, then how must light behave? Do I need to necessarily know how ether interacts with light to model it? I have two sides of this theoretical triangle; the object and it's approximate distance, where I'm at and what I see. If I know what the observer sees and I know the location of the object, then I can determine what the light being cast by that object must do to reach me, the observer.
It gives us those sliders. They are not sufficient. It is that simple, and you are still persisting in ignoring me. What do you think 'rayparam' means?
Light ray parameter and it appears to affect the amount that light bends between the source and observer. Snomial, trust me, I'm not ignoring you. What I don't understand is why you can't seem to figure out that the model shows how and doesn't need to show why. If your issue is with how the model is presented (location of the sun/moon, shape of the Earth) then be specific. Your argument up to this point is that the model lacks specificity regarding how the ether interacts with light. If all we are interested in, at this point, is modeling how light travels from source to observer, then we don't need to know any details about that interaction, only that something is influencing the path that the light is taking.
What changes need to be made to this model to properly reflect whatever it is you believe is missing? How is this model misrepresenting reality?