since the RE model has one highly detailed model that is almost universally accepted
This is fundamentally false. If you spend some time here actually discussing issues rather than just trying to blindly push your preferred agenda, you will notice that the vast majority of RE posters here disagree with many fundamental assumptions of the "mainstream" RE model. The difference does not lie in the level of consensus (if anything, RE'ers are less consistent when allowed to speak freely), but rather different approaches to democratised knowledge. The RE doctrine allows the excuse of "oh, yeah, none of the posters here fully endorse or understand RET, but they're not who you should be listening to!" This is a deep philosophical difference we probably won't bridge any time soon. We want thoughts to be free, you want them to be strictly supervised by people you fetishise.
It's not about fetishising anyone. It's simply recognising that not everyone has the same abilities or experience.
You do know this, of course. If your car doesn't work then who you gonna call? Not the Ghostbusters, obviously. You'd call a mechanic.
If you're ill you'd go to a doctor. You recognise that people are experts in certain fields and are the best people to ask to help you with certain problems.
Of course everyone has the right to an opinion, but you know that not everyone's opinion is equally valid.
So yeah, if you want to know what mainstream scientific theories are then maybe ask a scientist or read a book written by one, rather than looking at what some bloke on the internet (like me) has to say. I think I understand scientific theories better than most, but I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any means.
And of course there are debates within the scientific community, but not about, say, the shape of the earth or the shape of landmasses or how far apart they are. This stuff is known, it IS universally accepted and there are multiple technologies which rely on these things.
Now, I've just said you wouldn't necessarily expect complete agreement on science amongst a load of internet RE randoms but I'm expecting some amongst a load of internet FE randoms. Isn't that unfair? I don't think so, because you are the guys who are claiming to have discovered new theories which would revolutionise our understanding of reality. If you want to be taken seriously you should have some vaguely coherent model. The fact there isn't any working FE map which matches flight routes and times is pretty damning.