Is this code for who are the paid shills? The ones that twist the truth to meet the RE agenda while acting all FE.
As usual J-man you make no sense, please rephrase your message less ambiguously
He appears to believe that people like our Inquisitive Sciuridae friend and I are paid by...someone...to post here. I'd REALLY like to figure out who does the paying because so far, I've not seen a single paycheck.
The business of "gravity being only a theory" should be expanded upon.
Science uses the word "theory" to mean "the best explanation we have for some phenomenon of nature". It doesn't mean "some vague idea we have" - it's just recognition, that no matter how solid we think we know something - there is always a possibility (however remote) that a better explanation might one day show up. Newtons "Laws" of motion seemed to be a totally solid, impossible-to-be-wrong statement of how the universe operates. But then Einstein showed up and proved them to be only an approximation. We don't say "Einstein's Law of Relativity" - we say "Einstein's Theory of Relativity"...because there is always a chance that it too is only an approximation.
But with any theory (or "law") - whatever replaces it has to explain everything that the original law explained...and then add something that it missed.
Newton's law of gravity ('theory') explains a large range of experimentally determined things. Why planets orbit the sun, why planets and stars form at all. Why there are galaxies, why things fall when we drop them, why every heavenly body of any size is a sphere and why smaller bodies don't have to be.
Anything that is "wrong" with this thing that's 'only a theory' isn't in these matters. It would have to be something that provides a better explanation at the scales of quantum theory - or which explains the surprising rate at which the universe is expanding - or which avoids the need for mysterious "dark matter".
This replacement theory would explain all of the things that gravitational theory explains - also in one simple rule.
The Flat Earther's can't do that. Their theories are a patchwork quilt of dozens of things that have great gaps in them (they can't explain WHY the stars, sun, moon, planets move in the way they do). Most of the pieces are no more than names. "Celestial currents" for example. The name is claimed to be an explanation for why things up in the sky move the way they do. But it doesn't explain anything - it's a name for an explanation that doesn't exist.
Some of the pieces don't fit with experimental evidence. For example: "Universal acceleration" fails to explain the lesser gravity at the equator and the greater gravity at the poles. Their half-assed version of gravity has to be switched on and off to explain why some things are pulled by the moon and other things aren't. Universal acceleration requires that it be ignored or "shielded" by some objects and not others.
So the FE "theory" (it's not really a theory because there is no verifiable experimental evidence - it's a "hypothesis" - an untested idea) isn't a replacement for gravitational theory because it cannot explain things like the tides or the orbits of planets.
If it WAS a replacement for gravitational theory - it would have to explain why the earth is round...something which it exists specifically to avoid.
So blathering on about how "gravity is only a theory" is to misunderstand almost everything.