1. I have an entire section devoted to the evidence for the model, and I have a thread devoted to inviting queries about DET on multiple sites (on this site, certain rules hold to make it a logical discussion, read the OP), and you are perfectly capable of making one of your own if you have a genuine flaw.
2. Not really, the number of people who'd actually oversee questionable aspects is minimal. The people handing off raw materials have no idea what it's used for, and you don't get people taking the whole thing apart to look through it just before take-off. As far as external companies go, it's self-sustaining. No one wants to admit that they've failed to reach space, when everyone believes it to be possible. Those that do go forgotten, those that lie, especially in companies dedicated solely to space travel, don't go bankrupt.
4. It's approximately eye-shaped, they meet at the edge, but in a way that cannot reasonably be drawn on a diagram because space is a variable. It could be drawn on elastic, not on a piece of paper. Space moves outwards at specific points, not straight up the way it came; that doesn't make sense. It can't be coming and going simultaneously. There are points it's always coming down, and points it's always going out, but the points it's going out we don't cross in the right direction to notice.
6. Don't claim you understand the model when you do not, as you've made clear with your objections. I said it was a similar principle to sunset, not that it literally was a sunset, all that means is that light passes through more air. Sunsets are just another example of this happening. The reason the sky around the moon does not appear red is just because the moon's light is substantially dimmer than the Sun. It doesn't happen instantly, it's a process, same as ever.
7. Oversimplification. Round shapes, in any dimension, are preferred. As for which one is formed, that comes down to the forces at play. If you throw an object in a pond, the ripples that come out are always circular, even though every pond exists in three dimensions, and there is some movement in the third direction, you still just get circles rather than spheres. The Earth will have a round shape, statistically, but whether it is a disk or ball depends on what forces act on it.
8. Assuming that the Sun behaves the way you claim it does is circular. You cannot justify RET by assuming tenets of RET.
1 - You have a single post, the vast majority of which contains nothing even remotely resembling evidence, and one filled with lies or inaccuracies.
Here is the totality of your "evidence" from that section:
Occam's Razor relates to the number of assumptions made. DET relies on aether, and nothing else; everything follows from this definition, and so cannot be counted as a separate assumption. Does this mean DET contains one assumption, aether? No: because aether itself is defined as more than one entity.
Aether is defined as the fabric of space formed of concentrations (1) with a property appended (2). This is two assumptions: space being able to form concentrations, and space possessing this one property. All else about it is proven, either by Relativity or by definition.
Note, however, that the second assumption is acceptable by scientific standards. While we may not directly have observed the universal law in question be applied to space, this typically doesn't matter when it comes to laws. There are all manner of laws which have not and cannot be tested for all possible entities they apply to: if there is a logical basis however, and they appear consistent, we simply say the law is universally applicable. There is no law that has been confirmed for everything, but no one will call you a bad scientist for assuming, say, the laws of thermodynamics will hold for a new experiment.
What does all this leave us with?
DET is based upon one assumption, and one assumption alone: the idea of space being able to form concentrations.
Of course, that is a blatant lie, as it is based upon several assumptions, that space is able to form concentrations, that it will start to flow to even out these concentration, and that rather than stop, it will keep moving to even it out. It then has more regarding interactions with matter, and that space somehow forms whirlpools.
So no, you have no evidence. You just have several assumptions.
You also claim it is falsifiable, but the first example you give you note that any observation would be consistent due to how small the effect would be.
Something similar would likely apply for the second, where you could just claim the discontinuities are really close together so we still see steps, just really small ones.
2 - No. The number of people working on it making the various expensive components is quite large, components which just go to waste. And I was talking about the external contractors being paid by NASA taking loads of NASA's money further cutting down on the money to line their pockets.
4 - So is it flat, or is it round? You can't have both.
I never said it would go up right where it came down. How come we don't cross it in the right way where it goes out? How would you cross it in the wrong way? How come it doesn't pull Earth out as it moves away?
6 - Don't claim I don't understand when I have made it clear that I do. You have not shown that I don't, you have just spouted more nonsense and avoided questions asked.
Do you notice how you don't actually address any of the objections here? Instead you just dismiss it as me not understanding. Further mocking and ridicule.
How about you actually address the issues raised?
7 - Not oversimplification, just stating facts. In your model there isn't simply a force acting down like there is on a lake. It is also a completely different mechanism. If you throw a round object in a pond the ripples are circular. If you throw a different shape object, then the ripples are based upon that shape.
8 - Once again you confuse assumption with observation. It is observed that regardless of longitude, the sun appears to move at the same speed, it never appears to speed up or slow down.
It is also observed that it takes 24 hours to complete a cycle. So it is moving at a rate of 15 degrees an hour.
There is nothing circular about that (reasoning).
I am not assuming any tenant of RET to try and prove it. I am simply going based upon observations of reality.