I appreciate you stepping in to clarify, but what I was asking was much more simple than that. Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true? which is really just another way of asking is there any evidence that UA is true, since if one is true, the other is untrue, by default. That is all I asked A simple yes, and here is the evidence, or no, there isn't any evidence is all that was needed. Instead, what I get in response is deflection, dissembling, false assumptions, logical fallacies and insults. Which I guess, is kind of answer of its own.
I think Pete's point is why does FE (or anyone) have to disprove a theory to propose an alternative.
And he's right, they don't. BUT, I would suggest that in order to propose a new theory you surely have to have some evidence that there is something wrong with the prevailing one.
Why would you propose a new model if you have no evidence that there is anything wrong with the existing one?
The heliocentric model was suggested because Copernicus believed there were issues with the geocentric model and that the heliocentric one worked better.
Over time it became adopted because as accuracy of observations improved it became clear he was right.
I don't think UA was suggested because it was felt to work better as a model than gravity, my guess is it came about because if you believe the world is flat then the RE gravity where things are attracted towards the centre of mass can't work, so an alternative has to be proposed. And the premise of UA is that it is in certain regards equivalent to gravity.
But there are other reasons like the variations in gravity which have been mapped why it doesn't work as well. And it has no explanatory power for how any of the celestial bodies move.
UA actually explains less than gravity and doesn't work as well as a model compared to observations. That's why it hasn't revolutionised our scientific understanding.