...
I'll reply to your points in bullet form, to cut down on the vertical size of quoting it in full...
1) That program with the Soviets took place in the 80s, not during the 'race to the moon' a decade before. My point during the moon race, is 1) at the time of the moon race, what incentive would the Soviets have to let the US fake a "win" when they have full control over their own people's funds, and cannot profit from the US deception? I am suggesting this is out of character for the Soviets, so what motive would they have then to go along with the deception? 2) I assume you believe the cold war was a hoax then? If that is your suggestion I can accept that, but I just want you to clarify as mortal enemies do not collaborate as such.
3) Regarding Eratosthenes, the only thing that would cause the shadows to be in different places would be if A) the planet was spherical, and the sun was far away, or B) the planet is flat, and the sun is near. The problem is if you plot multiple 'shadow' lengths instead of just two, you get results that are curved under RO, and linear shifts under FE. Later experiments do not work with FE 'near sun' linear math, but do with RE math.
4) What issue can you take with RE math? "It's not and it doesn't." isn't very descriptive.
The "gravity model" with a RE and round planets are all described by one simple formula: F = Gm
1m
2/r
2With that
one formula, it is easy to drop the information into a computer model and see all the results that describe the patterns observed. You only need initial velocities, mass, positions, and it all works. Planetary motion works. Lunar cycles work. Seasons work. Shadows work. Star movement works. These are
not simply formulas that "happened" to match observed patterns, they are consistent and
predictive.
My point is, why does one simple formula work so well, for so much, if it is entirely artificial? The whole model, lets you take the earth, tilted on it's axis, orbiting the sun, and
everything just works. The position of the sun on the horizon, the seasons, the time zones, the lunar phases, the planetary movements - everything. If it
worked in places and
broke in places, I'd understand why someone would consider it an incomplete theory. But it doesn't break. Not only that - it's
elegant. Simple, precise, and from what we can tell in nature, usually the most elegant solutions are the most accurate.
RE even accounts for why the world looks flat from ground level, based on the distance to the horizon and diameter of the earth.
In RE vs FE, the constructs to make RE work are simple, elegant, and work seamlessly for the solar system. FE has tons of unknowns, huge contrived constructs, and is generally unwieldy as far as theories go. By "contrivances" I mean that FE has a lot of secondary theories that have to also be right, for the premise to be right, and appear to be retroactively applied when the core concept is challenged. This ranges from Dark Energy to Bendy Light to giant Conspiracies to unknown acceleration sources for an entire world.
Can you at least understand, from a neutral observer's standpoint, why RE makes so much more sense than FE?
Please don't get too caught up in that, I am really curious where you think RE math fails to be elegant.