the ad hoc construct of the AW.
Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.
Can we both promise not to make it personal?
No, no, it's not personal at all. You have a theoretical superiority complex. All of the RE'ers do. Most of the FE'ers do. You're so certain that Round Earth Theory is obviously correct and that by extension, Flat Earth Theory is quite silly, that you assume that all parts of Flat Earth Theory are arbitrary pseudoscience. That was my experience when I first discovered the society, and observations suggest that it's
everyone's position upon finding the society.
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.
We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.
I called it Ad Hoc because there has never been any evidence provided to me to support your observations despite numerous requests. Unless I am mistaken, this is what an Ad Hoc theory is: one that is utilitarian in that it is constructed to fit observation, but has not been substantiated yet; much like string theory.
EDIT: Being able to show that your theory can be derived from other successful theories would go a ways to showing it is not Ad Hoc as well I would think.
I can see what I can do for you in the second respect. As I said before, the theory is just a logical application of fluid dynamics to Universal Acceleration.
I should probably qualify that this entire thought process is based on the assumption that the Aether acts similarly to a fluid. If that turns out to be incorrect the entire theory is moot.
So, this fast-moving fluid would be exhibiting laminar flow prior to hitting the Earth. That's a fancy way of saying that it's moving in parallel layers aren't disrupting each other. It's very calm and orderly. This is because there's no known boundaries to the UA, so there's no friction to cause it to be disrupted.
But then the fluid hits the Earth. Now its laminar flow is disrupted significantly, at least in the area surrounding the Earth. You end up with an eddy, or vortex, according to fluid dynamics.
The celestial bodies appear to be positively buoyant in relation to aether (suggesting, now that I think about it, that it is quite dense). The Sun would ride much higher on it than the Moon simply because the Sun is ~98% H and He, while the moon is composed primarily of silicate rocks. This is consistent with observations.
Most of the eddy wouldn't make it to the surface of the Earth, of course. We have an atmolayer in the way. But some of it will make it through, and this aether would still have momentum. It will have angular momentum, vertical momentum, and horizontal momentum. When it hits objects within the Earth's atmosphere it will impart some of its energy. This has to be consistent with observations, and it is. The angular momentum we would expect to see is explained by Coriolis force. The vertical momentum we would expect to see is explained by gravitational variations (some parts of the atmosphere will allow more aether in than others, thereby causing more or less of this variation). The horizontal momentum is mostly only significant in the oceans, where the large scale application of its force causes tides.