“you're just wasting our time”
I’m not. You’re free to leave, buddy!
Cheers 
Except I know how this goes. I've seen your roundie bs before. You'll spam us with questions, each of which needs a pretty long answer, and when no one bothers with all that given you've demonstrated several times over you aren't actually interested in learning (not reading the FAQ is always red flag one, ignoring answers given because they aren't in line with the FE model you want to argue against is another) then in a few days you or one of your ilk will pop by, point out FEers didn't answer, and claim victory based on that whining.
So no, I'm not letting you get away with it.
Look at how you even ignored most of my post.
It would be great if you published some information on which all thee claims you make are based. I and others have looked through your website and there is nothing there that goes anywhere close to explaining the claims you make regarding the sun, both its behaviour and composition. Its funny how every solar scientist on the planet disagrees with you. Can you explain?
There is an entire section devoted to the evidence, as you know full well.
Your lyign is just tedious at this point. Keep on spamming, it's not clever, it's just irritating. Why do you roundies think being annoying can take the place of actually being smart?
I've read everything in your link, and whether you are too close to the issue to recognize how much is missing in your explanation of if you are just messing with people, I don't know. Either way, your "evidence" consists of saying that your model predicts everything that the conventional model predicts, so all evidence for the conventional model is also evidence of DET. You explain that your model is simpler because it consists of fewer assumptions, and conclude that it is, therefore, correct.
There's so much wrong with this reasoning process it's difficult to know where to begin, but I'll highlight the two major problems. First, grouping the many myriad assumptions that are required to make DET work under one giant assumption doesn't mean you get to claim a single assumption. It just doesn't work that way. Any assumption made that is required for the model is an assumption that needs to be acknowledged separately, even if it's more convenient for you to group them together to get a lower number.
Second, just claiming that all of the observational evidence that exists for a spherical Earth works in DET isn't the same as providing evidence for DET. All that does is cancel counterarguments made against DET. When people want to see evidence, we want to see some physical observation that demonstrates that stars are chunks of incandescent metal in an aetheric whirlpool AND NOT giant balls of hydrogen. Just because you believe that stars COULD be explained by your DET model doesn't mean you have evidence that differentiates DET from the paradigm.
Until you have a pile of evidence that gives support for all the assumptions you're making to prop up the model, AND a pile of evidence that shows why DET explains things better than the current paradigm all you really have is a setting for a unique sci-fi story.
I know you're going to just dismiss me as a troll and probably get all hostile, but, from someone who read what you link, the reality is you don't have nearly as much as you think you do, and I would advise you to start listening to your "trolls" and see if their criticisms can help you build a better model. I'm pretty certain that the paradigm is right in this case, but I will acknowledge there is plenty about the universe that isn't understood, and maybe there is an unusual model that will tie up some loose ends. There is no chance you will find that model if you're unwilling to see the flaws in what you produce and you dismiss anyone who points them out.