My understanding of zeteticism is that one bases ones beliefs on direct observation. In other words if they cannot see it with their own eyes then they don't accept it as genuine and true evidence to support their belief. That is why images or video taken from space that show the curved surface of the Earth are discounted because they are not seeing it directly
Pete has commented that he knows of no mention or evidence about the existence of EA outside of the FE Wiki. That provides a somewhat biased I would suggest view on it. In this age of the worldwide (I hesitate to use the word global for obvious reasons) Internet you would think that if it were a viable theory then there would be other, independent mentions of it wouldn't you? FE Wiki is largely a collection of ideas, speculations, call them what you like that have been put together to make different aspects of natural phenomenon or observations 'work' in a FE model. Nothing more. That doesn't make it real or true.
Following on from another comment from Pete, Ok lets use the world phenomenon, observation, mechanism or whatever synonyms you wish. It still doesn't give us any information other than a speculative opinion about something.
Anyway going back to the subject at hand, I have yet to see FE theory clearly and completely account for the variation in the visibility of the constellations generally.