I've just read the DET story. Then, I can't understand, why you people accept DET model, and do not accept RE madel? RE is obviously simpler.
Define simpler. After all, the lay definition of simple doesn't really mean much; most science gets pretty complicated once you get past the basics, and all that makes it seem easier is the fact you already accept it.
If you mean the Occam's Razor type of simple, then DET claims to be simpler as it runs on fewer assumptions: though a lot's new, all of the new elements follow from set rules, so wouldn't count as extra assumptions.
Yes, just pump up the "Dual Hemiplanes" until they form a nice Globe and "Bob's your uncle"[1], as they say in the classics.
[1] Actually he's my brother-in-law, "but don't you worry about that!"
Bit trickier than that sadly. Pump up the dual hemiplanes, rotate one 180 degrees, create the Sun, moon and planets, invent gravity, alter space...
No offence and all that, but you really are quite the idiot. No, I don't have to prove round earth as it has already been proved centuries ago and every time a satellite orbits or a GPS smartphone operates there is more proof.
You'd make a great maths teacher. "What's the proof of Pythagoras' theorem?" "No I don't have to prove it, it's been proven centuries before and every time someone calculates a distance or a designs a building there is more proof."
Where do you think you are? This is a forum, you need to post more than "We're right, ha ha haa," you need to post
why.
Your problem - and it is a doozy - is that you want to engage these morons on the basis that their theory has credibility when it has precisely none. NONE. Get it? NONE. Flat earth is the most (literally) insane conspiracy theoiry on the planet. There are about a million proofs of round earth and zero for flat earth.
And my post is relevant as was the other poster.
Isnt it time you went back to scepti to 'discuss' his truly idiotic vision/lunacy of how the universe hangs together? That way you can encourage him in his stupidity. you ENABLE people with this idiocy despite there being absolute proof for round earth.
What are you even talking about? I've never said FET is right, I just recount the models as stated. If you want to actually make an intelligent argument, you need to know what you're talking about. "You're wrong because I'm right," is a colossal waste of time. Sure, great if you can prove you're right, but that's not how science works. To prove RET over FET, you need to prove that FET, say, fails to explain certain things, and you can only do that if you know what they're talking about, which in turn you can only do if you take the time to read and learn the models.
So that's what I do; I learn them, recount them to people that ask, and let them spot the flaws themselves. I make no claims about accuracy, and I hardly enable: listening isn't enabling. If anything, it's the opposite: I give them a chance to actually explain the details of their model without needing to get defensive, which means they put more thought and effort into the posts. I've had experience with this; mathematically, the easiest way to error-check a proof is to imagine you're explaining it to someone in a friendly setting, discuss... and you find the weak spots. If FEers are going to change their minds, it's by civil discussion, not by being constantly insulted. And if they're not going to change their minds, well, this is no more enabling that what anyone does.
And please, don't act like you care about them anyway, if you did your default wouldn't be insults.
Seriously, instead of constructing an elaborate view where what you want is true, work with what people are actually saying and doing, and stop being such a hypocrite. Rambling about FEers not answering questions when it's not under discussion and an REer's doing the evasion, acting like you care about the people you constantly insult... What is that meant to achieve?
You're rambling about things
no one is talking about.