They would act the same way in theory, sure, but when we weigh the evidence there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space. We have direct observational evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth, even if the deeper power source behind it remains unknown, but NO evidence at all for the other mechanisms, let alone their power sources.
Quite the reverse. 'Celestial gravity' (Mechanism? Pully particles, perhaps? Bendy space? You show me yours, and so forth) is observable via changes of direction of celestial bodies and tides, and measurable, according to FET, even at ground level as variations in UA. Meanwhile you cannot show me anything that exhibits UA. The challenge still stands: you claim 'the earth' is accelerating upwards. - well, show me a piece of 'the earth' that exhibits that behaviour. If all you can show me are things that
don't accelerate upwards, you can hardly claim empiricism.
It's unfortunate to see CuriousSquirrel remind us that Celestial gravitation != gravity, because I really like the thinking above.
Am I the only person who thinks it's a serious stretch of credulity to think that earth is special? That the laws of nature are different here? That gravity does not work here? I really don't want (but do feel duty bound) to accept what CuriousSquirrel said. Can a Flat Earth believer resolve this?
If someone could demonstrate matter undergoing UA, then there would be some justification for formulating an asymmetrical model of gravity. As things stand, though, UA is just wishful thinking. Tom claims that when he steps off a chair, he 'sees' the earth rising to meet him. Yet every single thing he is looking at, if lifted and released, demonstrates the exact opposite tendency.
It's the dog-and-duck routine all over again: we can observe the influence of an invisible force pulling matter around, a force that can influence matter on earth. But is that force responsible for unifying us with the ground? Oh, no no no. It's an
absurd leap to suppose that the quacking sounds we can hear are
all coming from ducks.
IIRC, Tom himself has said that the precise distribution of 'celestial matter', and thus its influence upon us and the earth's accessible surface, is unknown. To state that the observed behaviour of terrestrial matter
cannot be induced by celestial gravity alone is, in direct contradiction of the above, to make a definitive statement
excluding distributions that would produce these effects. Again: where is the empiricism?
The clincher, for me, is that even in FET there is no need - other than the pursuit of sophistry - to propose UA. 'Celestial gravitation' is just as good an explanation for why we stick to a disc as UA, and the
only reason Tom won't agree to that statement is that UA only works on a flat earth, whereas gravitation could work on anything. He doesn't want to start down that slippery slope.