Context. He's asking about a specific model, of course I'm answering with respect to that specific model.
I'm primarily focusing on FE in general, and using a specific model to show problems with your argument.
But what FE model has the sun between Earth and the planets rather than among them?
And either way he still wants the argument to apply to FET. So yes, I've always maintained that the properties of what the argument is being applied to should be justifiable to bring up, otherwise you might as well refute RET by appealing to UA.
You didn't see it the first two times I brought it up so frankly I have no reason to trust your skills of observation.
Was that because you didn't bring it up?
Instead you dismissed it saying you don't care then just asserted that "under FE, blah blah blah"?
It is a very simple question, yet rather than answer it you keep up with these pathetic distractions?
Why not just admit your argument was flawed and move on?
The situation you require is fundamentally absurd no matter the model, it bears no resemblance to what anyone believes
You are yet to show this to be the case, and I know just how much FEers love moving goalpoasts. You keep appealing to a FE with close small planets, yet bendy light FE was set up to avoid the problems with close small celestial objects.
It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not accepting your baseless claims regarding all FE and what all FEers believe.
Who appointed you dictator of FEers to decide what they believe?
And you accused me of only caring about semantics? Doesn't matter whether we're on fire, that's what's called flippant phrasing, fact is stars are going to be significantly brighter and hotter than the Earth. But no, acknowledging that would require you to care about logic rather than point-scoring.
Funny accusation coming from someone throwing logic out the window and who only cares about point scoring.
Again, there is no clear consensus on what the sun is under FE. So even if you were to assume Earth is like the sun in that regard there is no reason to think the sun would be hotter than Earth.
"We don't share those major defining traits, but we have to share that one instead despite not sharing a whole host more!" Congrats, you just made it even more circular.
No, that would be you making it even more circular, setting up yet another pathetic strawman so you can pretend you are the best person in the world. It is truly pathetic.
As a reminder, these objects have multiple traits. Some of these traits are in common with all the objects. Some are not. I'm suggesting the shared traits are shared by Earth.
...Stop taking everything literally. Talking about categories. Things are not physically sorted into categories. The Sun gets in the way of trying to sort the Earth and planets into categories. Basic comprehension, maybe instead of assuming "Oh, she said it, it must be wrong!" try thinking.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice. You seem to think everything I say is wrong, yet still claim to be in agreement.
What you are saying is like claiming 0 means you can't class the integers as integers, because 0 is special.
2 things in the same category don't need to be exactly the same. There can be variation in a category.
So when you don't like the answer you just plug your ears? Ok.
No when you seem to need to repeatedly avoid a very simple question to avoid admitting the massive holes in your claims I will continue to ask it. So again:
How far away and how large are the planets in the bendy light FE model?