Well, that just depends. Mathematical predictions are rather easily fudged and can even lead to incorrect assumptions. For example, they still teach Newton's Gravity equation in grade school, which more or less states that Gravity is directly related to the mass of two bodies and you can calculate that force based on those two bodies. At least, that's what someone who assumes because the answer is "right-ish" that would be the case. The only problem is that such a statement is completely wrong. Gravity is directly related to the total energy of two bodies, not their mass. It just so happens that mass makes up the largest portion of a body's energy, which is why the equation is "seems like it is correct" but horrifically breaks down when more accurate results are needed (which is admittedly rare).
Thus, dismissing the idea based on "I don't see any math" is just as ridiculous as me dismissing the math because there is no idea. The two aren't related enough to draw conclusions from one in order to influence the other. Theory and math do go hand in hand, and while it'd be great to have both, it isn't necessary.
Mathematical physical theories are always used at the level approximation that is appropriate. What does that prove? Newton's laws and Newton's universal law of gravitation are still remarkably accurate for many purposes. Sometimes a more deeper level of understanding is required. That's how science works.
There is nothing even comparable to that with the aether concept. It is little more than magic induced to twist evidence for the Earth being round into evidence for the Earth being flat.
All the argument I have presented are based an assuming that the world works in the normal ways that are widely accepted. Not anything esoteric. Just the normal things we all expect.
The only way you can make flat Earth theory work is by either invoking all sorts of mysterious processes or by point black refusing to accept simple facts. You can see examples of both of theses in this discussion. Jroa tried to deny that the angular size of the sun is constant, Vauxhall accepted that it is but tried to explain it away using a pseudo-scientific concept. Interestingly enough they both ganged up on me as if they were on the same side but they were totally contradicting one another.
We all have different theories when it comes to the flat Earth model. Did you expect us to be bots spouting the same answers each time someone asks a question?
Welcome to the human race, buddy. We are not a Borg hivemind.
That being said, all your math is purely theoretical. It does not explain anything in nature at all, except what you have deemed it to explain. It's easy to say "gravity exists, it's what keeps the planets floating in space" and then work backwards from that while making up maths along the way. But that's not proper science. First you have to start with an observation, then formulate the explanation and test it. First problem, how can you observe gravity? That is outrageous and impossible. Just like the theory of dark matter... it's an absolute farce. It's theoretical... and that's why it's called a theory to begin with. You are severely misunderstanding the scientific process and the terms associated with that process. If anything, my aether model just shows how ridiculous gravity is... because it's basically a substitute for gravity, and it's equally valid because it's equally nonsensical.
There is no evidence for gravity. Period. You can pull out whatever math problem you want, but until you can show me gravity particles... you've got nothing.
Also, saying that we have no math is a complete lie as well. For someone who claims to have read our material, you certainly don't seem to understand it and have forgotten about 90% of it... which leads me to believe that you simply lied.
We have solid maths proving that the Sun is merely about 3000 miles away.
A little trigonometry shows that
Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.
Of course, you would have known this if you had actually read our material instead of claiming to have read our material. Cutting corners makes you look like a lazy person. You came here thinking you were at the top of your game, maybe you would type up a few posts and show us FE'ers how retarded we are, but it looks like your plan has seriously backfired. You are not as genius as you think you are, and this attempt at exercising your superiority over a scientific minority is very telling.