How, again, are both lit up at the same time by a single sun in the center of the earth? I've seen a few diagrams of yours, but I cannot for the life of me fathom how the aether (whirlpools?) depicts the sun as a rotating sphere (as observed) in a single point in the sky.
Also, I do not understand what 'as the sun rotates with motion of the whirlpool, it will be cutoff, causing sunset' means.
The image is carried along the currents of aether. As it's further down, the currents lead the image to a higher point in the sky, projecting its light. The same happens to the top and bottom, causing the illumination over most of the Earth. Only a single face provides light.
As the Sun rotates, the projected image will move across the sky, carried by a different path of aether. Sunset is caused by the edge of the lit face of the Sun: this is the cutoff. What gets projected at sunrise/set is the image of part of the lit face of the Sun, along with the non-lit rock, hence why only part of the Sun is visible: more coming into view as the Sun rotates, and the lit face rotates fully into view, past the non-lit rock.
Oh, I've tried alright. The inference of you saying this is that those who say they don't understand your model are either not trying to understand it or are just plain stupid. Pretty rude.
Infer what you want. I'm simply saying that there is no possible way to expect to fully understand, for example, the Sun, if you don't understand the design of a star and the properties and flow of aether.
I've always thought that, if someone has a very firm grasp of the subject matter at hand, it shouldn't take much effort to explain it. I feel like this should apply to you about your own DE.
An explanation relies on two people: the explainer, and explainee. It doesn't take much effort, it's just unutterably tedious to have to repeat pages of information on the whim of someone who may well be a troll. I see no reason why I should need to do so: the link explains the model in the terms I would use (a rewrite to clarify is pending, and awaiting the feedback of a beta who seems to have vanished).
Mmmm, no I'm not. Classic evasion. Once again, what experiments performed support a DE over a RE?
It's not evasion: it's a statement of fact. That's not what I claimed: I said simply that there are experiments that are in favor of DET. That is, experiments that provide evidence of DET. You are the one who moved the goalposts to what you now ask for.
There are experiments that could prove it over RET, but I don't have the resources to perform them. I favor DET because it relies on fewer assumptions.