I've been hearing FE'ers say that for years and I have yet to figure out what that means. Would you please explain what you mean by that?
You have had centuries to come up with a model that fist your preconceptions. What part of that is confusing?
Ummm... To which "classical planar map" are you referring?
Google 'world map'.
Have you peer reviewed every single RE experiment?
No. Have you?
I have however researched all the ones which seem as though they could have been relevant. If you disagree, and believe one has disproven DET, I await correction. None I've seen have done so.
You go with the theory that has the best supporting evidence.
...Did you even read the question?
I have asked this multiple times. You have an explanation for all observations, and the results of multiple experiments. You have another explanation for the exact same observations and results, which was initially disproven, but refined when multiple excuses and special cases were brought in.
The best supporting evidence would seem to be the one with evidence for its assumptions: that is, the one with fewest unjustified assumptions. You're literally using Occam's Razor, just refusing to call it such.
Have any experiment supported the "simple" properties of aether?
Multiple experiments have demonstrated what DET would expect to happen if those properties were accurate. They have been given before.
What controls have you included in your "observations" of aether?
And those controls are yet again just things that are observed. You really seem to be struggling with the fact that experiments are useless unless you observe what happens. Observations can be set up.
Some controls were included: clearly not enough, which is why some people still cling to RET. However, I rejected the theory with more ad hoc, unjustified assumptions.
DET not making any sense is reason enough for me.
I am still waiting for evidence for why you believe it does not make sense. Do you take pleasure in constantly evading the question?
To which "universal tendency" are you referring?
Huh?
See sig. If you're trying to comment on the model, you could always try finding out the simplest things about it.
Then why don't you?
I tried. It didn't work. The fact something has not been falsified does not mean it's unfalsifiable. Do you really need to be walked through that too?
Or, that no one takes DET seriously enough to waste their time on.
You should see the old site, multiple threads were dedicated to it. The fact is, DET still works. Refsuing to educate yourself is your problem, not mine.
If you're not interesting in even trying to learn about Flat Earth Theory, why are you on this site? At the very least you should know what you're arguing against.
No, you just need to show me a repeatable experiment that you have performed that supports DET over RET. Thought experiments don't count.
Actually, since you're the one claiming that DET is superior to RET, it's the other way around. It's your job to show what observations/experiments DET explains better than RET
If you believe a theory with more unjustified assumptions must automatically be true, you are being intellectually dishonest, and that's all there is to it.
I have explained in my sig how Dual Earth Theory explains the world, and why it s more justified than RET, because the
two properties it relies upon have some experimental evidence, rather than the multitude of unjustified assumptions in RET, such as the two assumptions inherent in gravity alone with no scientific or logical basis.
Poll