How do you know "the formula [governing] gravity was disproven"? Maybe there really is dark matter. There was an unknown eighth planet perturbing Uranus' orbit at the time of its discovery.
Do you not understand anything?
Yes. I understand that the orbit of Uranus was perturbed by a then-unknown large planet. Some predictions of its position were made, and it was found close to some of those.
The predicted model was falsified. An excuse was made. The end.
Um, no. That's not an "excuse", A large unaccounted-for mass was postulated as a plausible reason for the observed perturbations, and turned out to be correct. An "excuse" would be something like "the laws of Kepler must not apply here, but they do everywhere else."
Which model was flasified? Newton and Kepler's? No, this was
validated, not falsified; these are opposites. Remember that the new planet (it's Neptune, in case you didn't know that) was close to the location predicted using that model.
That's one of the hallmarks of a reasonably accurate model - the ability to make accurate predictions. The end.
What is it about the shape of the Sun that "disproves" the (nearly) spherical shape of the Earth. I'm really interested in hearing this one!
Consider reading the thread. Why is it REers always think their minds are so spectacular that they are the only person who could ever have thought to ask an obvious question?
I have read it. I just don't recall seeing any such "proof". Maybe I missed it, though; since you say it's there, you know what it is you're looking for, and could provide a link to it.
I'll bet you reply with some
excuse for not providing such a link or just ignore the request. The
reason you won't provide said link is that you can't, because it doesn't exist.
In practise, a disproof is not done by showing a problem with a model A, it is done by showing that a model B which cannot be reconciled with A is much more likely to be true.
That's not a "disproof" of A, it just makes B more appealing if B can be shown to be more likely to be true.
And if B is held instead of A, as a result, that is functionally a disproof. If you're not happy with the terminology, fine: but it still shows how one model can replace another, which is the thrust of the OP.
Unless you can back up your claims, you're just talking. How about giving it a shot. What you just said sounds like excuses.
...
Maybe the reason for that is that "FET" has so little chance of being correct that it's not worth much effort. Face it, FE is a model that simply doesn't work because it's the wrong model. "FE" is an interesting idea in contrarian thinking and putting your notions to the test; but it's easy to see that the widely-accepted spherical-earth model works better. If you can make a case otherwise, let's see it. This seems like the perfect thread for that. Here's your chance.
Unsubstantiated claims are easy to make. Let's see some substance instead of excuses. What are you waiting for?
And you see the problem here perfectly.
I've tried it your way. It doesn't work. REers don't put the effort in to learn a model, they glance at one or two aspects relating to their questions, and either debate that, or debate something mentioned in those sections
Once they reach the points where the basic tenets of the model obviously disagree with observation, there's little reason to proceed.
without taking the time to read the rest of the model where their answer is stated clearly.
Why not put the part with the clear answers first and save the wrong stuff until later?
You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.
Boy, howdy, is that ever true! Discussing reality with you is a prime example of that!
You see it clearly. You ignored my reasons, you ignored my explanations, you outright admitted REers don't put the effort in: and yet you expect me to do just what I said I wouldn't for those reasons.
Your problem is that you think your explanations make sense. They don't.
An excuse may be justified. I'm not going to cross the road when cars are speeding along it: is that an excuse? yes. So what? It has plenty of substance to it. There is a reason.
That's an example of a "reason", or, if you insist, a "good excuse" for not crossing the road. That's different from what you do to avoid answering questions. What do you think will happen? You'll get flattened by a Greyhound Scenicruiser[nb]For readers who may be unfamiliar with them, a Greyhound Scenicruiser is a large cross-country bus.[/nb] if you answer direct questions on this website?
The way to learn DET is pretty obvious. It just requires a REer to be willing to sit down and dedicate a little time or effort to understanding the model.
If there's a comprehensive and at least semi-coherent description of the current model, will you provide a link to it?
It was changing pretty rapidly for a while and bits and it showed up in various states in several places.
That's how science works.
Actually, no. Science works by not only
creating models, but also
testing them and using them to make predictions. If a model better explains observations than other models, it will become accepted. As I recall, the equator of your DE model required much more complexity than the Spherical-Earth model to explain routine observations. Has that changed?
I'm not going to waste time posting pages and pages in a random thread, because what would you do if you saw a wall of text posted? At best you'd skim it: at worst you'd just ignore it. What you're asking for is a very obvious waste of time, and that's all there is to it.
Not
that's an excuse[nb]And not the good kind.[/nb].
If you're not going to describe your model, then how can it be tested? If there's already a clear and comprehensive description of the current iteration, link, please. Or, if you prefer, just make another excuse for not doing so.