You can't do that and then just say "unknown" about really fundamental things about, say, the sun - how it works, what powers it, what causes it to make the orbit they claim it makes and so on.
Let me give an example of my position regarding this. When Copernicus proposed the Heliocentric model, Ptolemy's model was WAY better. Ridiculously better. Since Copernicus did not have a better model, should he have just kept his mouth shut?
No, but I would expect Copernicus to keep developing his model until it was good enough to challenge the existing one. Good enough for it to be considered seriously and developed further, which I guess is what happened.
There seems to be little or no effort to develop the FE model. And sure, there's no funding for FE research for the same reason there's no funding for research into alchemy, but you don't need funding to do basic research or simple experiments. Many great advances in science have come about by individuals thinking about stuff and experimenting to test their theories about how stuff works. An example. One of the FE beliefs is that the horizon is always at eye level:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_LevelWhat is strange about this Wiki page is that this quote is used on it to back up the assertion:
"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles"
I've highlighted the word which is the
slight weakness in the evidence. And actually, that quote is right. There's a graph here of horizon angle dip against altitude
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vhmcatpgudAt 2 miles altitude the angle of horizon dip is only about 2 degrees. So it
is "practically" at eye level, but not
at eye level. The dip is not easy to discern at "normal" altitudes but it's quite possible to measure. In other threads multiple ways have been shown to demonstrate and measure horizon angle dip - none of them would cost much, they don't need funding. I've yet to see any FE person try any of those experiments or devise their own to test this. And yet they stubbornly cling to the belief.
So while I don't expect them to have the model completely figured out yet, it is a bit rich of them to pick holes in RE (some of which are because of their misunderstanding of science) while their own model is so poorly developed and there seems to be so little effort to develop it.