1. It has been shown DET needs lots of assumptions. Including how aether flows, why ether flows, etc. pp. For jrowe "everything follows logically" but actually, nearly everything is an assumption.
2. That's not quiet what I meant. I'll try to explain it again: Aether is defined to flow from high to low concentration. Lets imagine a place that has no aether; you cannot see it since it does not exist, there is no aether = there is no space.
Now, aether supposedly flows into there (=into nothingness), thereby not disappearing but actually creating space out of nothing. It's somehow a paradoxon; aether would supposedly flow everywhere at the same time as nowhere.
About the "you assume nothing exists". No, per definition it doesn't. But aether can make something out of nothing since nothing has lower concentration of aether than something 
To correct the model it would be requiered to define that aether either cannot flow into no space or that no space does not exist. One more assumption.
3. I didn't quite get what you meant with that. But it rises one more question anyway: How can anything; any force; any body or whatsoever withstand the movement of space itself? It's not like air is moving or something, space ITSELF is moving. Imagine a solid 10cm thick steel beam. It can withstand a LOT of force. But if space itself moved, it wouldn't even bend. It would simply be...displaced. Every atom in the flow of aether(=space) would be moved. I'm sorry, but I really do not see how this aether thing is supposed to work.
4. So, all the sun's heat would have to pass the equator? Also interesting is that a round object (sun) inside the earth would squeeze through the equator, and when arrived at the sky form again a ball. Without actually lose any of its heat/light onto it's way towards the sky. This model simply doesn't make any sense. Why does the sun itself (inside the earth) not get displaced, if space flows?
Anyway, there is not even one diagram that describes how the world would really look like in DET. Jrowe claims it cannot be shown, but the earth I live on is observable with eyes, cameras and other sensors. So, why is DET not? What would DET look from space/far away? Like a globe? If yes, why would the funny "aether -thingy" and the "sun-inside-thingy" be necessary? It's just an overcomplication. Can DET predict anything? No, it can't. The only thing so far it could predicty would be gravity-glitches due to aether whirlpools. But a gravity-glitch has never been observed. Anyway, Jrowe claims measurements are "not constant", but how could you measure gravity/any force constantly? It's more of a philosophical problem making measurements with infinitesimal timespans in between two measurements.
To be honest, if I were you I'd rather concentrate on something that makes sense; maybe learn some maths, physics, biology or whatever instead of some flat earth model created by a maniac.
1. How do you define assumption? Something that follows from an assumption would not necessarily be an assumption itself.
2. I'm not sure the definition of nothing you're using is feasible. You'd need there to be somewhere where there is nothing, in which case there'd be no 'nothing.' For the definition of nothing you're using, you'd still need there to be a route that aether could flow down to get there, which couldn't exist, so there's no way for it to get to this abstract 'nothing.'
3. Easiest way to think of this is with references frames. Let's have an iron bar on the ground. Frame A is from the perspective of the ground, where the Earth and bar are stationary, but aether is flowing down. Frame B is from the perspective of aether, where the ground is being pushed up, and is in turn pushing the bar.
Now, if there was a flow of aether up in the middle of the bar, then the points in space the centre of the bar occupy will move: but the bar is itself still connected to the rest of the bar. In Frame A, you've got the bar being pulled up by the centre, but the edges of the bar are themselves still being pushed down, and the forces at play would have to keep it together. You'd need a huge variance in forces to break it. In Frame B, the middle of the bar might try to move up, but as it's connected to the rest of bar,
the points in space it exists in are themselves changing so the movement of those initial points isn't important, so long as enough of a force is exerted so that it can change coordinates faster than those coordinates move.
After all, objects till interact, and that's what interactions ultimately are: an alteration in the points in space that an object occupies (displacement).
4. According to the model the Sun follows an incredibly low concentration of aether out the side, so there's no distance for it to lose anything. The Sun, however, is in the centre of the upwards and downwards flow (that's where it formed, according to the model), so there's no way for it to be displaced. the forces acting on it are balanced. It just rotates on the spot, thanks to the rotating whirlpool.
The diagram isn't going to be particularly feasible because space is a variable. You'd get a map shaped more like an hourglass, and a diagram of the inside as well is like trying to fit the whole Earth into a toy globe. It's all very well to ask for something, but a perfect diagram is literally impossible to provide because of how the model works.
I'm about two weeks from a maths MSc, I've learnt plenty, I just like thinking in terms of abstract situations. It's quite a challenge actually, and a good mental exercise, especially with a model this complicated.
Mind you, being a simple Ozzie, I ask rude questions like what are its measurements?
I was never fan of arguments like that even when I argued for RET. You measure them, let me know.
Let's say in the neighbourhood of 6-10 thousand km. I like 9480.
So no satellites and gps?
Now a more concrete question. One of Jrowesceptic's experiment's predicts a jump in gravity at a certain altitude. What altitude would you predict that jump is and how much of a jump is it?
Well, no satellites. GPS obviously exists, it's just reliant on stratellites (in-atmosphere equivalents to satellites).
I can't answer the latter question. There's not much maths to explain DET, and what there is depends on constants which would need to be determined by, for example, finding the altitude of a jump. I think there'd probably be one by the time you get to the roof of a regular house, it'd just be
very small. There'd be more noticeable at higher altitudes.
Why there are two discs, when all can be on one, top and bottom side?
How bottom side gets light while Sun is on top side during north summer / south winter?
How 10 000 kilometer radius (from pole to equator) fits 40 000 kilometer equator circumference?
Why disc(s) don't collapse under own weight into ball(s)?
(You can't measure gravitational constant G at home, but you can easily,
for yourself, prove that gravity exists: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> .)
There would be one disc if not for the flow of aether: this creates a chamber of sorts inside the one disc, essentially splitting it, creating distance between them.
The Sun is in fact between the discs. The same flow that lets people cross the equator also allows the Sun to be seen above and below the Earth, at a higher altitude. Then you also have the Earth slowly tilting to contend with, which means the exact inclination of the Sun will seem to vary.
Those distances would be wrong, as most FE models say.
As for gravity, ask me again when the search function hasn't crashed. FEers have probably talked about the Cavendish experiment plenty of times. One thing I remember seeing was that the experiment proved only that the metals involved exerted such a force, rather than that masses did so.
As you can't detect in any way that there is something at equator I am still confused why its equator from where earth is split two. How it was determined that its specifically equator and not for example at poles or at some other arbitrary place.
This split is what causes circumpolar stars and the Coriolis force to change directions, so it must be the equator. You can't detect the transition of walking across it, but the two discs are still in different positions.
How can anyone take a single breath to claim DET has credibility. For goodness sake, it has TWO disks with a large gap between them that no one notices. If that weren't stupid enough we also have the dun in the MIDDLE of the earth. You can ask jrowe about any of this but his every answer is 'aether' aka 'magic'. The model is full of assumptions, none of which have any credibility whatsoever.
The problem with claiming a lack of credibility is that you need to do more than insult. Aether isn't magic, it's actually a pretty simple, fun idea. In-model, it's no more ridiculous than answering questions about day, night, the Earth's formation, tides... with 'gravity.'
? By public vote? What does that mean?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67956.0