What I described was the coriolis effect. Now if your "much simpler theory" involves the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw within the context of Flat Earth Theory. I think you can probably figure out what that is.
Anyway what you call science is full of yet-to-be-observed particles; I'm not sure why you think FET should be excluded.
You say "the rotation of the Earth it has a rather glaring flaw
within the context of Flat Earth Theory." Whoever claimed otherwisw?
I would never claim that!
Everybody would be flung into the Ice-Wall and frozen!
And of course were are told to look up the Wiki:
The Coriolis Effect
Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.
I do believe you have seen:
We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world.
Evidence? I do believe that there is a massive difference.The Heliocentric Globe Theory does not
rely on ANY "yet-to-be-observed particles".
The Globe was pretty much settled as the shape of the earth probably as far back as 500 BC, and quite well accepted in both Western culture (though probably most were more concerned with surviving) and with Middle Eastern eastern astronomers, geographers and scientists, such as Al Birini:
Al-Biruni
Of the medieval Persian Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973–1048) it is said:
"Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century. His Masudic canon contains a table giving the coordinates of six hundred places, almost all of which he had direct knowledge."
This bit is from:
History of geodesy, Al-Biruni, though there are plenty of reference on Islamic sites too.
The full "Heliocentric Globe Theory" was settled after Kepler's work (say 1619) and Newton's work (say 1665 to 1687), which gave a theoretical basis for Kepler's Laws.
The only "particles" at this time were Newton's "corpuscles", which were soon decried in favour of the "wave theory", then along comes Einstein finding (with the photoelectric effect) indicating that Newton was not that far off - he just had half the picture.
So you claim "science is full of yet-to-be-observed particles". Please indicate just which ones the "Heliocentric Globe Theory"
relies on!.