You pointed out some anomalies on Wikipedia.
No, I pointed out some anomalies in GR.
Plus, relativity does a lot of explaining beyond classical mechanics. Why would you claim it doesn't?
I made no such claim. All I said is it breaks down once you start looking past classical mechanics. It makes some accurate predictions and some extremely inaccurate predictions.
Does the theory need to be perfect on intergalactic scales before you accept it on planetary scales?
No, but we already know it's inaccurate on planetary scales, so your questions is a bit of a waste of time.
And if so, does FE present a viable alternative in your estimation?
Reading comprehension, gentlemen, please!
I didn't come here to discuss UA. You made false claims about the round Earth model and its predictive capabilities, I set you straight. If you want to discuss a different subject, start a new thread and someone might take you up on it.
You provided a link to a webpage. One where other people who are not you listed a few anomalies. Then those people linked to other outside webpages from primary and secondary sources that actually point out, in detail, the anomalies.
*slow clap*
The thread is about inconsistencies in FE theory. Reading comprehension, indeed.
You keep saying claasical mechanics like you know what it means, but your words betray you. Relativity does pretty well with physics beyond classical.
So are you ready to discuss the topic of the thread?