You attempt to force a weird narrative here. You assume that EA is an assumption, and that it needs to be verified through observation. This is not how Zetetic inquiry works. We have made the observation first, and reached a conclusion from it.
If my narrative is weird, please elaborate why. Don't just reply with things like "I should try to understand it and respond", because clearly I'm asking, if EA predicts that light rays should be detectable in all regions of darkness on their way back up into space, why do we not detect that fact? You choose to ignore that bit. Aren't these forums for discussion and education? So educate me if you think I'm wrong, do explain.
Regarding how Zetetic inquiry works, yes, I know. It rejects traditional scientific methodology, chooses to only believe what you see, and concludes from there with no further hypothesis to validate a conclusion. Science goes one step further than that and tests the hypothesis, thus providing evidence.
Well, you quite literally couldn't. I elaborated on both parts of the puzzle for both models. You chose column A for one model, and column B for another model, while ignoring the rest. Instead of "throwing things back" at me, it might be time to start fixing your argumentation. This isn't a game in which you're trying to one-up me, it's a discussion. When a critical flaw in your argument is highlighted, you should try to understand it and respond - not just "nuh uh!" me. The latter makes you look childish.
Well, quite literally I can. I elaborated on
both parts of the puzzle for
both models. I clearly articulated that with FET/EA, there would have to be detectable direct sunlight on its way back up into space through the night sky, and that with RET there could be no direct sunlight due to part of the Earth blocking it. I'm really not sure why you think one is column A and one is column B.
On the subject of ignoring the rest, why is it that you are ignoring that fact that there is a difference in measured spectra between direct sunlight and reflected sunlight (i.e. day and night)? You're right, it's not a game, but you do seem to be quite fond of just telling people that they are wrong without explaining why they are wrong, and simply that they should get more educated. This makes you look foolish.
I agree. Will you be altering your position to fix this issue, then?
Fix what issue? Again, you're quick to say there is an issue but slow to provide rationale. I've already explained why I think EA predicts direct sunlight being detectable in all regions of darkness in FET as the light goes back up into space, so if that's wrong, please elaborate why so that I can better understand EA.
Everyday observation. Any trivial experimental setup will confirm the conclusion, and you've already agreed that you've observed clouds being lit from underneath.
So you're saying that any trivial experimental setup with confirm the conclusion that light curves upwards the further it travels? OK, what causes it to travel upwards? In EA there is a force that is, as yet, unexplained, with no mathematical model that can make predictions of it.
Clouds are lit from above, internally through reflection/refraction, and underneath. Unlike the diagram shown in the Wiki, light can pass through clouds - it isn't just blocked.
You might want to learn what an "assumption" is in propositional logic. To call the conclusion of a deduction an assumption is to flip the whole process on its head. I suspect that the problem is with your vocabulary, and not with your ability to follow logic, but the two are functionally the same when you end up saying things like this.
The rest of your post is summed as "I like RET and dislike FET", with no qualifying argumentation. Please keep in mind that such declarations are considered hopelessly off-topic in the debate boards. I'll be nice this time, since you're new, but keep your posts on-topic moving forward.
If the conclusion of a deduction is not backed up by tested hypothesis, it can be considered an assumption. It's interesting you say this is flipping it on its head, because that's exactly what things like this and Zetetic inquiry do - flip scientific methodologies on their head. All I'm doing here is flipping it back again.
You are incorrect. It's not that I "like RET" and "dislike FET", I find the subject and comparisons fascinating. Call me a "globeliever" or whatever, I won't argue that siding, but then we live in a world where there is overwhelming amounts of scientific proof and evidence to show that the world is indeed globular. Do I know this as fact? No, of course not, but I don't just take things at face value as I see them either, and am quite capable of logical deduction, reasoning and challenging things.
But yes, you're right, generic claims of FET and RET do not belong here. This is about EA and (as you have now introduced) differences in approaches to reaching those conclusions and validating them.