OSG, leave.
"If you took valid pictures and documented your process, posted your data and everything checks out I would have a hard time denying it. If the experiment looked promising, with no signs of data tampering, I would have to conclude that your theories would have some merit."
No weasel-words. Yes or no, would you accept DET is the experiment succeeded?
And if so, give your criteria for it to be above board.
"However, you would need to explain how aerthic whirlpools are horizontal phenomena. Every whirlpool I have ever seen was funnel-shaped. The only exception I can think of would be a hurricane, but a hurricane sits atop the ocean preventing the system from going down further."
Every whirlpool you've also seen was made out of water, focus on the model not the word. Also, hurricane-wise, why would you expect it to go down rather than up? You're applying gravity.
"I keep telling you, Occam's razor is a only a guide, not a rule. "
Would you believe in a model that relied on more unjustified assumptions just because it was arrived it before a model which explains the same number of things? No evasion, just a yes or no.
"Who says that you need to reveal that it's a flat earth experiment? You tell them that you're testing for aether, or some of the alleged properties of aether. No one needs to know that you think that the earth looks like an egg muffin sandwich."
The proposal would not make any sense without that. Seriously, think.
"If you want your assertions to be accepted you're first going to have to get an education in the maths and sciences of the prevailing theory at least up to the degree level and then present your scientific papers, experiments, and evidence for peer review in the appropriate journals, no one is saying your propositions are categorically wrong, but neither are you saying anything in the acceptable framework of the sciences."
Pay. Attention.