[edby]

The significance of the flyby anomaly (which has been observed at up to 13mm/s

.. which is still only 0.000094628% of the craft's speed, assuming the previous poster's quoted speed is correct.

And let's not forget it's the 'RE model', i.e. everything we currently know about planetary masses, the theory of gravitation, which predicts varying gravitational attraction between the planet and the spacecraft depending on the distance, not forgetting the difficulty of that attraction changing continuously as they change relative positions, etc. I was actually quite surprised they could predict to anything like that accuracy.

And, not meaning to be impolite or uncivil, FE still can't predict the seasons, nor the movements of stars. By 'predict' I mean, taking the theory plus observations and a bunch of mathematics that tells us e.g. where any star will be at a given time, exactly when the season will be etc.

[ICanScienceThat]

Nope, there it is still. You say that "the globe model works" and that we can establish that with our phones. We can't. We can merely conclude that the night sky in both FET and RET matches some app you found on the Internet. They could all be incorrect, or one of the models could be correct. Coincidentally arriving at an agreement is no proof of anything, nor does it provide reassurance.  The conclusion of "the globe model works" does not follow from your proposal.

So Pete, if you have questions about the RE model, let me know. I can usually help explain these things.

The moment your defence turns into patronising personal remarks is the moment you lose your conversation partner.

Your condescension is doubly inappropriate given that mainstream science concedes that there are aspects of your model which don't work. That's normal and expected - we shouldn't have to know everything at any given time - but to deny that it happens is a beautiful reveal of your motivation here.

What you read as patronizing personal remarks and condescension are legitimate offers. I know it's uncommon around here, but if you have concerns with the RE model, please do share them.

There is indeed a big mystery in the world of gravity on cosmological scales. I don't see how that is a problem with the RE model, and I think these mysteries live well beyond the range of anything we can experiment on ourselves.

Lots of FE posters here are operating under the assumption that the RE model fails to explain everyday observations. I don't know you Pete, so I'm sorry if my remarks sound patronizing to you. Maybe you know all this material, and you're ready to delve into dark matter. But you've been on this board enough to know that lots of people think the tilt of the moon doesn't work under the RE model. There are prominent posters here who think that the AR phone app doesn't even rely on the RE model at all. If you share any of that sort of question (things that we can use to demonstrate problems with the RE model), just share them.