I called flat Earth and alternate Earth's, silly because I was pig ignorant and believed the mass adherence to an absolute nonsensical spinning ball around a big fiery near million mile sun in a space vacuum.
Yet we can repeatedly demonstrate why your FE is pure nonsense and you are unable to show a single fault with the RE model and instead just repeatedly ridicule it.
We don't think FE is silly because we are ignorant or indoctrinated, but because we have honestly and rationally analysed the models and found them severely lacking, and have evidence some of which we have obtained ourselves, which clearly show the FE model is wrong.
My version is better....to me
And only to you.
To anyone who bothers to actually look at in honestly and rationally, they see it is severely lacking.
But you ignore all those problems, because of how much you hate the RE and how you so desperately need the RE model to be wrong.
People struggle with me
People "struggle" because you use whatever dishonest BS you can to try to prop up your complete failure of a model.
You refuse to provide explanations for quite simple things, only to then later claim you have explained it.
You continually ignore or dodge logical arguments, and dismiss any evidence that shows you are wrong as fake.
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.
Like stripping a chain down to the links and the connection between the links, and seeing that the connection between the links is a push, with each link "pushing" the next link along the chain, and also seeing that the individual links are a pull, where the pushed side of the link pulls the rest of that link along so it can push the next link along the chain.
Or stripping down the effect of the atmosphere on an object in it to the pressure, and how we have a higher pressure below than above, meaning this pressure will apply an upwards on all objects in the atmosphere.
Or stripping down the atmospheric stacking to see that in order for the pressure to increase their must be a force acting on each layer of air pushing/pulling it down, other than the layer of air above. And then, as there must be some force acting on the air to push it, it is likely that this same force acts on everything to push/pull it down.
Or stripping down inertia to objects resisting changes in motion based upon their mass, rather than the air which resists relative motion and pressure gradients.
I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless
You mean you can't actually explain it, so you will make up an excuse for why you aren't explaining it.
So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.
You mean complex artificial technology rather than any natural occurring phenomenon, and which produces a result nothing like what you need where everyone in the room can see the same ceiling with the same lights on it.
Also note that that is not a hologram, it is a projection.
Utility, extension, and prediction. The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
It is really quite simple, even a complete imbecile should understand.
Utility is the ability to actually do practical things with it, which to some extent relate to the latter 2 points.
For example, understanding the quantum world has allowed us to construct very small transistors which are in turn used to produce processors which power computers. This understanding has great utility as it has allowed us to construct computers and make lots of things so much simpler.
Extension is the ability to take something learned from one thing and apply/extend it to another thing, and this has significant implications for utility and is also based upon prediction.
For example, understanding electromagnetism has allowed us to construct large motors. The tests for it were quite small, with just simple wires with low currents. But we can extend that to more complex problems such as a winding in a motor.
This can also work in the opposite manner to show that a framework is limited in only applying to a specific set of circumstances/conditions and a more general (and complex) framework would cover more circumstances/conditions.
Prediction is the ability to calculate or determine what should happen based upon that framework. This prediction allows you to extend from the simple tests you have done to more useful and complex situations.
Applying this to what is being discussed, gravity, inertia and simple fluid dynamics has great utility, extension and prediction.
We understand gravity quite well from experiments conducted on Earth. This has allowed us to create aircraft and spacecraft, including those in orbit providing communication to remote areas and GPS and lots of pictures of Earth which are used for weather prediction. And this was only possible because we can predict what the effects of gravity, inertia and fluids are, including the forces involved and the direction and magnitude of these forces.
Conversely your model has no predictive or extension capability as you have no explanation for any of the forces involved, and your model repeatedly contradicts itself. Until you actually do the thing you have no way of knowing what should happen. For example, an object is in a pressure gradient, which way does it go? Well that depends upon which part of your magic is applying and which part applies will change to match the outcome. This complete lack of predictive capability means you cannot extend it to things you haven't tested yet and makes it entirely useless.