The ability to get this to work in RET merely means that astronomers had this conversation hundreds of years ago to get it to work.
You don't think astronomers ever questioned why the eclipse travels in the way that it does and how they can make a model or explain it in a way that makes any sense?
I don't know what they questioned but the model we have of the solar system has evolved over time based on observations. So you seem to think this is a failing of science but it's actually a strength. Models should always be open to changing or replacing as we learn more and newer models better fit what we observe.
We used to think we lived on a flat earth and that everything goes around us.
That kind of makes sense from a local perspective. The horizon looks flat, it does look like celestial bodies go around us.
The fact we were living on a ball was discovered thousands of years ago though. You know about that.
But we still thought we were the centre of everything. Again, kinda makes sense. The sun rises, goes around the sky and sets.
It was 1534 before Copernicus realised that actually we were just another planet orbiting the sun.
This was such a revolutionary idea that the Inquisition declared it heretical, based on Scripture (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10).
It was actually illegal to
believe in the heliocentric model!
But Copernicus turned out to be right, the motions of the planets just don't work in a geocentric model. Attempts were made to fix the model, so ingrained in people's psyche was it). But, ultimately, the heliocentric model was the only one which properly worked and matched observations.
Even the Pope apologised to Galileo for the church putting him under house arrest for promoting the heliocentric model (the apology came a mere 350 years after Galileo's death. Better late than never I guess!). The Bible is not intended to be a science book. Scripture itself tells us what it's for (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
So now we're left with a pretty simple (in some ways) model:
The earth rotates on its axis and it orbits the sun. And the axis of the earth's rotation is tilted.
The moon, in turn, orbits us. It also rotates but the speed or rotation is tidally locked so we always see the same side of it.
The other planets also orbit the sun in a similar way at different distances and speeds.
This single model explains night and day
It explains the seasons.
It explains the way the length of day changes over the course of a year.
It explains 24 hour sunlight in the summer of each hemisphere at certain latitudes.
It explains our observations of the stars - why they rotate around the poles in the different directions in each hemisphere.
It explains which stars we can and can't see from where and at which time of the year.
It explains our observations of the way planets move in the sky.
It explains the moon's phases.
It explains lunar eclipses.
It explains solar eclipses and, as we've seen, it explains the direction the shadow goes in. It's a bit counter-intuitive and you have to think about it a bit, but it does explain it.
You might not understand why the model explains all these things, but it does. That is the test of a good model. And that's without the fact we've got lots of satellites able to take photos of the globe earth, hundreds of people have been to space including 7 space tourists who had to pay for the privilege and the numerous technologies (GPS, weather satellites, satellite TV etc) which rely on satellites orbiting a globe.
To explain the seasons you have to have the sun moving in different size circles throughout the year, smaller in the northern hemisphere summer, larger in the southern. This either requires the day and night cycle length to change throughout the year (which it doesn't), or the sun to speed up and slow down throughout the year (which it doesn't, we observe a consistent angular speed throughout the year). It also means the sun size stays constant despite the constantly changing distance to it. You have to create another fudge to explain that.
You have no explanation for what would make the sun keep changing orbit in terms of the size of circle it makes or what makes it keep changing speed.
Day length I'm not clear about. It's probably something to do with the above but suffers from the same issues.
24 hour daylight works in the Arctic but not in the Antarctic. In your model the sun cannot orbit an observer in Antarctica as we observe. So you either have to invoke another conspiracy and say that those observations and Antarctica itself as a continent is fake, or you have to have some other bi-polar model of the sun orbiting the Arctic in the northern summer and Antarctica in the southern summer, which completely contradicts the above.
For stars you have to have some celestial gears mechanism or other fudge.
You have a Wiki page about Retrograde movement of planets but there's very little detail and not based on any evidence. You dismiss gravity because it wouldn't work on a FE model but then invoke UA with no evidence for it or explanation as to how it would work. You then claim that there is some celestial gravitation which arbitrarily works on some objects and I think you believe they do pull on us but for some reason the earth doesn't pull back so they don't fall on us.
Moon phases are either because of a self-illuminating moon (although why only parts of the moon would illuminate at different parts of the lunar cycle is unclear, as is why the shadows indicate it is being lit from elsewhere), or it is a similar to the RE explanation but you have to have the moon changing altitude with no explanation as to how and no change in angular size. Confusingly, you seem to think that the moon reflecting light from the sun turns the light cold.
Lunar eclipses are because of a shadow object which we can never see and is translucent - hence the red tint, although there is no real evidence for any of this.
Solar eclipses is something to do with the moon going under the sun but whether the size of the sun and moon in your model and the distances correlate to the size of the shadow we observe is unclear.
The RE model explains all this, your model requires separate explanations for all of them, none of which you have any evidence for and it requires huge global conspiracies to explain the things which just don't work in your model.
You started this thread excitedly thinking you had found a flaw in the RE model. When it was finally explained to you, you're now changing to "Meh, that proves nothing".
Can you really not see how silly this all is?