but ALL RErs agree on EVERYTHING abour the RE model! why? because it fits the FACTS in a simple, consistent fashion, without unknowns like "shadow object".
Nope. Wrong again. There is no Grand Unified Theory. Therefore REers do not agree about everything. In fact, they agree on very little.
Modern Science cannot even tell us whether or not time exists.
Please explain how the debate over the existence of time would equates to a disagreement about the spherical characteristics of the earth.
maybe you've heard of occam's razor?
Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.
What's the simpler explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?
Occam's Razor simply states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Put another way one should not make more assumptions than the minimum required. I'm sorry but your application of this simple logical principal is flawed.
Which scenario is the simplest (least assumptions). Assuming Occam's razor can in any way be used as evidence for any hypothesis...
1) The earth is a sphere, it spinning on its axis with a tilt of 23.5 degrees.
one "assumption" that when applied with mathematics explains the observed characteristics of the sun, the moon, stars, day/night cycle, lunar cycle (including lunar and solar eclipse). And how the planets when observed from earth appear to "loop" over their own paths in an otherwise impossible manner.
2) The earth is flat.
Must assume:
a) The sun moves in a circular orbit around an undefined center of gravitation.
b) That the radius of that orbit changes to cause seasons (and in doing so speeds up/slows down to maintain 24 hour days)
c) Either the planets really do follow a "looping" orbital path. Or somehow like with RE only appear to (RE explains how).
d) Must assume Universal acceleration of the earth upwards while still relying on gravitation to explain how at high altitude acceleration towards the earths surface is reduced. (also apparently earth has no mass to cause its own gravitation...)
e) some unknown secondary object casting a shadow on the moon and passing in front of the sun to explain eclipse phenomenon.
f) there are separate sets of stars over various regions of the earth surface to explain observable star patterns.
The largest assumption of them all would have to be that all photos from space ( and many from earth such as rotary star movements) are faked and that the entire concept of a spherical earth and ALL related science ( physics, astronomy, seismology, cosmology, etc.) are part of a global conspiracy spanning hundreds of years to make the earth "appear" to be a sphere.
So which view makes the least assumptions again?