[Tom Bishop]

Did you bother to keep reading after that, or simply latch onto it and assume it proved your point? They clearly lay out why these come from the sun

Yes. They go on to state in the article that since the theory didn't match the results they had to change the theory around until they found something that worked.

The neutrino doesn't have to talk, the existence of the ones detected (which match the energy/type predicted to be produced by the reaction) is the 'speaking' referred to in the analogy. Or is that concept too difficult to grasp? I can never tell. The talking is an analogy for the neutrino matching the prediction of what it should look like according to the theory.

In your analogy a human kas knowledge of what a beautiful woman is and experiences to reflect to confirm that it is, in fact, a beautiful woman. A human provides a very high standard of proof, whereas a neutrino is just an object from the unknown like a pair of woman's underwear.

[Curious Squirrel]

Did you bother to keep reading after that, or simply latch onto it and assume it proved your point? They clearly lay out why these come from the sun

Yes. They go on to state in the article that since the theory didn't match the results they had to change the theory around until they found something that worked.

The neutrino doesn't have to talk, the existence of the ones detected (which match the energy/type predicted to be produced by the reaction) is the 'speaking' referred to in the analogy. Or is that concept too difficult to grasp? I can never tell. The talking is an analogy for the neutrino matching the prediction of what it should look like according to the theory.

In your analogy a human kas knowledge of what a beautiful woman is and experiences to reflect to confirm that it is, in fact, a beautiful woman. A human provides a very high standard of proof, whereas a neutrino is just an object from the unknown like a pair of woman's underwear.

That' what you do with a theory/hypothesis. When you find evidence that contradicts it, you adjust to make sense of the new evidence. How is this a negative?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Beyond that, a neutrino of the same energy/form that is predicted, is a VERY high standard of proof. Fitting what is predicted exactly is always that. But I've seen before that you don't understand this type of thing, so I'm not gonna bother wasting my time any further with that analogy. Suffice to say, just because you don't feel like accepting something as proof, doesn't stop it from being proof. You seem to have a very limited view of what proof is, and refuse to accept proofs of much higher quality than your own. As seen in a number of threads that you appear to have abandoned for no discernible reason.

[Tom Bishop]

Did you bother to keep reading after that, or simply latch onto it and assume it proved your point? They clearly lay out why these come from the sun

Yes. They go on to state in the article that since the theory didn't match the results they had to change the theory around until they found something that worked.

The neutrino doesn't have to talk, the existence of the ones detected (which match the energy/type predicted to be produced by the reaction) is the 'speaking' referred to in the analogy. Or is that concept too difficult to grasp? I can never tell. The talking is an analogy for the neutrino matching the prediction of what it should look like according to the theory.

In your analogy a human kas knowledge of what a beautiful woman is and experiences to reflect to confirm that it is, in fact, a beautiful woman. A human provides a very high standard of proof, whereas a neutrino is just an object from the unknown like a pair of woman's underwear.

That' what you do with a theory/hypothesis. When you find evidence that contradicts it, you adjust to make sense of the new evidence. How is this a negative?

It is a negative because they ended up having to make a theory based on the evidence, rather than have evidence confirm a theory.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Beyond that, a neutrino of the same energy/form that is predicted, is a VERY high standard of proof.

After observing that only 1/3rd of the expected neutrinos were being observed they changed around the theory to only expect 1/3rd of the neutrinos. How is it a high standard of proof to apply the new theory and see its expected number of neutrinos?

As seen in a number of threads that you appear to have abandoned for no discernible reason.

The reason threads are abandoned after a time is that I am on this website to provide a charitable education service to the community, and the amount of questions and requests is overwhelming in terms of number amount. We are clearly outnumbered. Rather than relying on us for all of your stimulation, you guys should play devil's advocate more, like debaters do during a debate, and provide your own entertainment. Answer some of the FE questions if you are so bored here.

[Curious Squirrel]

Did you bother to keep reading after that, or simply latch onto it and assume it proved your point? They clearly lay out why these come from the sun

Yes. They go on to state in the article that since the theory didn't match the results they had to change the theory around until they found something that worked.

The neutrino doesn't have to talk, the existence of the ones detected (which match the energy/type predicted to be produced by the reaction) is the 'speaking' referred to in the analogy. Or is that concept too difficult to grasp? I can never tell. The talking is an analogy for the neutrino matching the prediction of what it should look like according to the theory.

In your analogy a human kas knowledge of what a beautiful woman is and experiences to reflect to confirm that it is, in fact, a beautiful woman. A human provides a very high standard of proof, whereas a neutrino is just an object from the unknown like a pair of woman's underwear.

That' what you do with a theory/hypothesis. When you find evidence that contradicts it, you adjust to make sense of the new evidence. How is this a negative?

It is a negative because they ended up having to make a theory based on the evidence, rather than have evidence confirm a theory.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Beyond that, a neutrino of the same energy/form that is predicted, is a VERY high standard of proof.

After observing that only 1/3rd of the expected neutrinos were being observed they changed around the theory to only expect 1/3rd of the neutrinos. How is this a high standard of proof to apply the new theory and see its expected number of neutrinos?

As seen in a number of threads that you appear to have abandoned for no discernible reason.

The reason threads are abandoned after a time is that I am on this website to provide a charitable education service to the community, and the amount of questions and requests is overwhelming in terms of number amount. We are clearly outnumbered. Rather than relying on us for all of your stimulation, you guys should play devil's advocate more, like debaters do during a debate, and provide your own entertainment. Answer some of the FE questions if you are so bored here.

Changing a theory to account for what's seen happens all the time. That's called progress. If the theory doesn't appropriately match what you see do you just abandon it then and start from scratch? Because that's a waste of a lot of time when you could look over your theory to see where it was wrong and make adjustments based on what was observed. As well that part has no bearing on the rest of it where they discuss the observing of the pp neutrino.

I do all the time, look around I'm frequently doing my best to answer the questions that come in. But unlike RE it's quite difficult to find answers to some of these questions. Indeed many of them are aimed directly at you, like asking what way of measuring distances you would accept. When you say the evidence provided isn't enough, but don't elaborate on what WOULD be enough, how are any of us to 'play devil's advocate' in that scenario? Or when you say there's an obvious difference or something has been explained, but we clearly express you're the only one who sees it and ask for clarification, how are we to 'play devil's advocate' in that scenario? I understand there's relatively few of you, which is why I do my level best to answer the questions I can, but with you all having wildly different ideas on various parts of FE it can be quite difficult to debate or discuss higher level topics without your input.

[StinkyOne]

Tom, this is the great thing about the Standard Model and why it has been so successful. It can be used to great effect to predict what is happening and then confirm it. I fault no one for not being a master of particle physics, it is a very challenging topic. We do know, however, about the process of fusion. We do know that single protons can fuse under immense pressure. We can fuse deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) with quite...spectacular...results. Fusion is where the heavy elements that make up the world around us come from. If not fusion, what process powers the Sun?

[3DGeek]

It is a negative because they ended up having to make a theory based on the evidence, rather than have evidence confirm a theory.

Hmmm - but Tom - aren't you a confirmed Zetetic?

This site:

http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method

Says:

  "A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out."

Seems to me like these people did their experiment and then made a theory based on the results.

[CriticalThinker]

Did you bother to keep reading after that, or simply latch onto it and assume it proved your point? They clearly lay out why these come from the sun

Yes. They go on to state in the article that since the theory didn't match the results they had to change the theory around until they found something that worked.

The neutrino doesn't have to talk, the existence of the ones detected (which match the energy/type predicted to be produced by the reaction) is the 'speaking' referred to in the analogy. Or is that concept too difficult to grasp? I can never tell. The talking is an analogy for the neutrino matching the prediction of what it should look like according to the theory.

In your analogy a human kas knowledge of what a beautiful woman is and experiences to reflect to confirm that it is, in fact, a beautiful woman. A human provides a very high standard of proof, whereas a neutrino is just an object from the unknown like a pair of woman's underwear.

That' what you do with a theory/hypothesis. When you find evidence that contradicts it, you adjust to make sense of the new evidence. How is this a negative?

It is a negative because they ended up having to make a theory based on the evidence, rather than have evidence confirm a theory.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Beyond that, a neutrino of the same energy/form that is predicted, is a VERY high standard of proof.

After observing that only 1/3rd of the expected neutrinos were being observed they changed around the theory to only expect 1/3rd of the neutrinos. How is it a high standard of proof to apply the new theory and see its expected number of neutrinos?

As seen in a number of threads that you appear to have abandoned for no discernible reason.

The reason threads are abandoned after a time is that I am on this website to provide a charitable education service to the community, and the amount of questions and requests is overwhelming in terms of number amount. We are clearly outnumbered. Rather than relying on us for all of your stimulation, you guys should play devil's advocate more, like debaters do during a debate, and provide your own entertainment. Answer some of the FE questions if you are so bored here.

Tom,

You're muddling terms with this one. Theories are created in the presence of overwhelming evidence through the repetitive testing of a hypothesis.  A hypothesis is tested in a lab. You never test in a lab to prove your hypothesis, you test to disprove it. After failing to disprove your hypothesis repeatedly, you reject the null hypothesis and accept the current hypothesis under the conditions examined. A hypothesis is never proven, just rejected or accepted based on repeat testing.  When a new test comes along that calls the currently accepted hypothesis into question, it is re-examined.  If it can't be rejected based on new evidence it may need to be amended to include the new conditions. This then becomes the current hypothesis ready for rejection in the presence of new empirical evidence.

To call it flat earth theory is more than a little premature. Currently there is a notable lack of empirical evidence that this hypothesis has been sufficiently tested to reach the ranks of theory. That term is reserved for the very few hypotheses that withstand the test of time.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Tom Bishop]

It is a negative because they ended up having to make a theory based on the evidence, rather than have evidence confirm a theory.

Hmmm - but Tom - aren't you a confirmed Zetetic?

This site:

http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method

Says:

  "A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out."

Seems to me like these people did their experiment and then made a theory based on the results.

According to the definition you posted the Zetetic Method tells us that conclusion should follow the experiment, not a theory or a hypothetical. The experiment was showing that only 1/3rd the expected neutrinos were being seen, therefore the empirical conclusion is that stellar fusion is wrong, and suggests nothing more beyond that.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, this is the great thing about the Standard Model and why it has been so successful. It can be used to great effect to predict what is happening and then confirm it. I fault no one for not being a master of particle physics, it is a very challenging topic. We do know, however, about the process of fusion. We do know that single protons can fuse under immense pressure. We can fuse deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) with quite...spectacular...results. Fusion is where the heavy elements that make up the world around us come from. If not fusion, what process powers the Sun?

It is unknown what powers the sun.

[Curious Squirrel]

It is a negative because they ended up having to make a theory based on the evidence, rather than have evidence confirm a theory.

Hmmm - but Tom - aren't you a confirmed Zetetic?

This site:

http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method

Says:

  "A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out."

Seems to me like these people did their experiment and then made a theory based on the results.

According to the definition you posted the Zetetic Method tells us that conclusion should follow the experiment, not a theory or a hypothetical. The experiment was showing that only 1/3rd the expected neutrinos were being seen, therefore the empirical conclusion is that stellar fusion is wrong, and suggests nothing more beyond that.

Which, imo, is a problem with the Zetetic Method. You wouldn't have gone in expecting anything and come out with a deficit. You would have come in, seen the neutrinos you could see, and made something from that. You would have assumed you were seeing the whole picture by your own logic. Simply figuring you were wrong, but it doesn't sound like you would be at all interested in *why* you were wrong. That's what the theory and the hypothesis is about. I would note, if you look they didn't change how many neutrinos they were expecting to find. What they had to change/reconsider is that the neutrinos weren't arriving in the same form as they were being created in at the sun. The hypothesis for amount didn't change.

[Ga_x2]

It is unknown what powers the sun.

is there anything you know for reasonably sure, beside the disposition of the furniture in your own house? Can I call you Tom Snow from now on?

[AstralSentient]

First, let me say this site is fantastic. Who doesn't like a little nutty conspiracy theory once in awhile. I have a feeling that 90% of the supposed FE supporters are actually just faking it for fun or to encourage critical thinking. I do worry about the other 10% who are suffering from delusional paranoia.

I read the Wiki and there are some very glaring facts that blow this "theory" out of the water.

Lets hear them.
The sun and planets. So FET says the Sun is roughly 3000 miles away and is only 32 miles across. A few things. 32 miles is not large enough to create enough gravitational pressure to initiate fusion in hydrogen gas. (and we do know what the sun is burning because of its spectral lines) You lack the mass.
What planarists are saying the sun gets all of its energy from complete inner nuclear fusion in this model?
Here's a paper pointing out an external source of high energy particles: http://www.journalcra.com/article/external-energy-supply-sun-overwhelmingly-obvious-and-has-recently-been-detected-space-probe . There is also the hypothesis held by Eric Dollard the the sun gets its energy by converting it from elsewhere. A favorite hypothesis of mine regarding this (not one I hold to personally) is that the sun is a spherical vacuum with a concentration of physical aether around it due to a previous rush that created a vacuum and aether rushed together equidistantly to form a sphere, constantly burning because of the aether filling the entire universe. By aether, I am referring to this: https://wiki.tfes.org/Aether
Ideas may exist all over, can't assume planarists must accept nuclear fusion. It's alright to say "we don't know" as well.
The planets are small and orbit the sun a couple thousand miles away. If this is true, why has no group of intrepid FETers launched a mission to these tiny planets to prove to the world that the Earth is flat? I think we all know that answer to that one.
Yeah, we know, because they are not able to do so. Instead, we rely on observation with what we can do.
Your model of sunlight is verifiable incorrect. If the Earth is laid out as proposed, some locations in the east would still be in daylight, while areas southwest would be in the dark. A simple phone call between two people, one positioned southwest of another could prove that the Earth is illuminated by this "flashlight" sun. Why hasn't this very easy, inexpensive test been done??? Again, we know the answer.

Look at this carefully:

Edge continent that keeps the air in. LOL, hard not to laugh when typing that. Where is this 50K foot tall wall of rock or ice surrounding this flat expanse of land?? Surely it could be mapped by a simple mission.
How far would the large ice wall be? Is it attainable? Details like that make all the difference here. Assuming it must be able to be mapped by some simple Antarctic mission or it must not be true is a fallacious assumption to make.
Also, the theory about dark energy holding in the air is completely false. Dark energy and matter are named that because they DON'T INTERACT with normal matter. It wouldn't be dark energy if it was holding all the air in. lol
Maybe you should figure out what the hypothesis is first before trying to make a rebuttal attempt.
An alternative theory says that the atmolayer is held in by a complex reaction to the streams of Dark Energy at the edge of the world. This creates a "boundary" containment.

The Dark Energy Field is a vector field. It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer. The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer. These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space. This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.
- TheEngineer
-https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer
It is not physically blocking air, it consists of a force vector by the DEF and magnetic field interacting to create a forced containment normal to the boundary layer. Force vectors do not mean that specified fields involved are directly interacting physically.
Also, you sound like you know exactly what dark energy is, funny, even mainstream science admits they don't know.

Consider this as well: https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer_Lip_Hypothesis
The atmoplane fading away slowly, and it need not be physically infinite either.
There are many other obvious problems with FET - what causes this acceleration that gives the illusion of gravity
True, wouldn't exactly know for sure. Dark Energy, Aether, or infinite plane gravitation, they are in the end, not conclusive, but we are free to question and have models, that is the great part.
why don't the sun, moon, and planets simply crash into the Earth?
Possibly because they are accelerating too, or, they are kept up by a force, such as electromagnetic levitation (a force acting against the 1G force). I really like the aetheric whirlpool hypothesis, sun, moon, stars, and planets move with the rotating whirlpool while in freefall due to the siphon nature of the whirlpool.
I could go on - magnetism without a metallic core,
Does it need a literal center core? No, not required for magnetic fields.
the seaborne radar problem,
The wiki happens to have an entry on this: https://wiki.tfes.org/Radar_and_the_Horizon
I think the point made there is worth noting too, more scatter of waves will happen due to the moisture here on Earth.
the fake vanishing point argument.
It's a fair assumption to make that perspective limitations is a thing.
Good fun, but the believers in this stuff are...well, I'll be nice and say nothing.
I don't even need to agree with the model you are picking at (and I don't), your attempt wasn't solid, but I applaud you for an attempt to speak your thoughts.

[StinkyOne]

What planarists are saying the sun gets all of its energy from complete inner nuclear fusion in this model?
Here's a paper pointing out an external source of high energy particles: http://www.journalcra.com/article/external-energy-supply-sun-overwhelmingly-obvious-and-has-recently-been-detected-space-probe . There is also the hypothesis held by Eric Dollard the the sun gets its energy by converting it from elsewhere. A favorite hypothesis of mine regarding this (not one I hold to personally) is that the sun is a spherical vacuum with a concentration of physical aether around it due to a previous rush that created a vacuum and aether rushed together equidistantly to form a sphere, constantly burning because of the aether filling the entire universe. By aether, I am referring to this: https://wiki.tfes.org/Aether

This doesn't address the mass issue. We know the parameters needed for fusion and a tiny Sun would not meet them. Also, the article you linked does not say anything about the Sun's primary power source being external energy. Further, the data collected was from a satellite that orbits the Earth. lol, not sure too many FEers would consider that acceptable data. There is no physical aether. There have been experiments and none has ever been detected. Sun from a vacuum? Space is already a vacuum. Also, I don't consider hypotheses as anything more than interesting ideas. Until is backed up by experiment or observation, it is just an idea. Not saying they are all wrong, just saying I'm not putting them over established theory.

Look at this carefully:

The map you linked is pointless to look at as it is been reveled to be just an example of what the Earth might look like. I do find it interesting that the Sun and moon are always opposite one another on this map. How does that explain the fact that we can sometimes see the moon during the day? I know, just an example, but food for thought.

How far would the large ice wall be? Is it attainable? Details like that make all the difference here. Assuming it must be able to be mapped by some simple Antarctic mission or it must not be true is a fallacious assumption to make.

Ok, if it hasnt't been observed, explored, or had it's effect deduced, what would lead you to conclude it exists? Why is it assumed to be ice?

An alternative theory says that the atmolayer is held in by a complex reaction to the streams of Dark Energy at the edge of the world. This creates a "boundary" containment. It is not physically blocking air, it consists of a force vector by the DEF and magnetic field interacting to create a forced containment normal to the boundary layer. Force vectors do not mean that specified fields involved are directly interacting physically.
Also, you sound like you know exactly what dark energy is, funny, even mainstream science admits they don't know.

Ok, I'm going to avoid the particle physics end of this because I'm guessing neither of us are remotely qualified and simply ask, has this been observed? I, and the scientific community, would love to know how these streams of dark energy were detected. What about this magnetic field? Has it been detected?


True, wouldn't exactly know for sure. Dark Energy, Aether, or infinite plane gravitation, they are in the end, not conclusive, but we are free to question and have models, that is the great part.

Absolutely, creative thinking is the core of most great discoveries. But eventually, you need to back it up with fact.

 
Possibly because they are accelerating too, or, they are kept up by a force, such as electromagnetic levitation (a force acting against the 1G force). I really like the aetheric whirlpool hypothesis, sun, moon, stars, and planets move with the rotating whirlpool while in freefall due to the siphon nature of the whirlpool.

Again, so many guesses at what it could be and no evidence. Are there any flat Earth scientists doing experiments? Electro-Magnetic levitation would have a detectable field. The whirlpool you describe is problematic due to the fact that the planets orbits are elliptical and Pluto's is tilted to the plane of the other planets. Also, the planets have moons which have their own orbits. Struggling to see how an imaginary whirlpool model gets us to the observed motions of the planets.


Does it need a literal center core? No, not required for magnetic fields.

You are correct. It doesn't need a literal center core. However, it does need flowing conductive fluids (molten metals) to generate an electrical current and the Coriolis force to organize this fluid into the north-south orientation we see.

I think the point made there is worth noting too, more scatter of waves will happen due to the moisture here on Earth.

The wiki is wrong. You say the problem is scattering due to moisture in the air. It makes one wonder how rain doesn't blind radar. Who needs stealth to defeat radar when all we needed was rain? Yes, radar does "see" rain, they increase the gain and filter out the rain returns to "see" through the rain. They have plenty of signal strength.

At the end of the day, look at all the different mechanisms that must be created to explain an ancient idea that was dismissed long ago. It is easier to say the Earth is not unique. Matter has mass. Mass induces gravitation. Once you accept gravity, you can see things fall into place.(pun intended)

[AstralSentient]

This doesn't address the mass issue. We know the parameters needed for fusion and a tiny Sun would not meet them. Also, the article you linked does not say anything about the Sun's primary power source being external energy. Further, the data collected was from a satellite that orbits the Earth. lol, not sure too many FEers would consider that acceptable data. There is no physical aether. There have been experiments and none has ever been detected. Sun from a vacuum? Space is already a vacuum. Also, I don't consider hypotheses as anything more than interesting ideas. Until is backed up by experiment or observation, it is just an idea. Not saying they are all wrong, just saying I'm not putting them over established theory.

You can't assert that planarists think the sun is powered completely by inner nuclear fusion.

Abstract:
Furthermore, the Sun-like all stars- is not a self-sufficient entity, but it is externally powered by inducing current from high energy particles (cosmic rays).
Aether in what I'm describing is thought of a bit differently than the hypothetical luminiferous aether. Very fluid as well.
The hypothesis I mentioned claims the sun is hollow, with a vacuum.

The map you linked is pointless to look at as it is been reveled to be just an example of what the Earth might look like. I do find it interesting that the Sun and moon are always opposite one another on this map. How does that explain the fact that we can sometimes see the moon during the day? I know, just an example, but food for thought.

They aren't, it wasn't the point of the animation to map out the moon's orbit path.
It was to show you night and day which you clearly demonstrated you were lacking understanding of it.

Ok, if it hasnt't been observed, explored, or had it's effect deduced, what would lead you to conclude it exists? Why is it assumed to be ice?

If it hasn't been explored, we rely on what we do know and put it in a coherent framework (model) to explain our observations.

Ok, I'm going to avoid the particle physics end of this because I'm guessing neither of us are remotely qualified and simply ask, has this been observed? I, and the scientific community, would love to know how these streams of dark energy were detected. What about this magnetic field? Has it been detected?

It would still be debatable how we could go detect this dark energy or whatever is interacting with the magnetic field. For now, it's just model speculations.
If you got a magnetic compass, you can detect a magnetic field.

Absolutely, creative thinking is the core of most great discoveries. But eventually, you need to back it up with fact.

We have many observations, like acceleration in a vacuum and experiments that have been done, these ideas are able to be explained and backed.

Again, so many guesses at what it could be and no evidence. Are there any flat Earth scientists doing experiments? Electro-Magnetic levitation would have a detectable field. The whirlpool you describe is problematic due to the fact that the planets orbits are elliptical and Pluto's is tilted to the plane of the other planets. Also, the planets have moons which have their own orbits. Struggling to see how an imaginary whirlpool model gets us to the observed motions of the planets.

There are only scientists, what it was explained as by some other group of scientists has no bearing on whether the phenomena is explained in a distinct model. Does the sun and moon orbit above us, yes, by observation. Do they seem to be orbiting in predictable paths? Yes, by observation. Can we attempt to explain it? Yes, with observation.

You are correct. It doesn't need a literal center core. However, it does need flowing conductive fluids (molten metals) to generate an electrical current and the Coriolis force to organize this fluid into the north-south orientation we see.

Alright, now that that's understood...

The wiki is wrong. You say the problem is scattering due to moisture in the air. It makes one wonder how rain doesn't blind radar. Who needs stealth to defeat radar when all we needed was rain? Yes, radar does "see" rain, they increase the gain and filter out the rain returns to "see" through the rain. They have plenty of signal strength.

That's why the article said "signal noise ratio". Rain does affect radar, it can contribute to masking target echoes.

At the end of the day, look at all the different mechanisms that must be created to explain an ancient idea that was dismissed long ago. It is easier to say the Earth is not unique. Matter has mass. Mass induces gravitation. Once you accept gravity, you can see things fall into place.(pun intended)

If you want to try to be dismissive of it, that's your choice that you are free to make.