@Razatd
How does the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances in the acceleration of falling objects if UA necessitates that the entirety of Earth is accelerating upwards at the same rate?
I can imagine many ways. Can't you? If you are asking how gravity works you will get an equally unsatisfying answer. In gravitation, an imagined and non-real psuedoforce, it is assumed to be the matter itself causing the variance - I see no reason why that exact same reasoning cannot be used in the case of UA. UA is mostly just a convention/sign reversal, and causes no issue for the physics (why would it?).
It makes no sense.
I more or less agree with you (in the case of UA and Gravitation which are roughly equivalent, differing by a sign change), however it CAN make more sense if you earnestly try to conceptualize it in GOOD FAITH (not from the heavily biased, and un-objective/anti-scientific, perspective that it MUST be irreconcilable/paradoxical nonsense)
By the way, you can not use gravity to explain it because in the Flat Earth UA replaces gravity.
Why not? UA IS the gravity... However I can appreciate that currently, afaik, there isn't a proposed mechanism for what UA does - but in my view that is slightly BETTER (and certainly more accommodating to new addendum / caveat as you are suggesting in this case) than the presumptive gravitational view which proposes a mechanism that is ill-defined and demonstrably non-real.
Also let’s grant that There are local variances.
Sure.
That means UA is not universal anymore and parts of the Earth accelerating faster will fly off into the sky. How do you explain this?
The UA could very well still be universal, and another interaction between that UA and the particular matter (or structure/ordering, perhaps) causes the minor variances we detect locally by the surface. It's easy to explain things - dreadfully easy. It is much more difficult to demonstrate them, and even more so to experimentally validate them to make them science! For instance, gravitation has NEVER passed such rigor and is not a part of science as a result. It is unvalidated speculation at the absolute best, and delusion at worst. Newton understood gravitation was unscientific, philosophically unsound, and anathema to all of physics when he invoked it - and you can read about it in his own pen if you wish.
Round Earth people talk about conspiracies? Give me a break.
Right, you come to sites like this where you wrongly assume (due to conditioned bias and propaganda) that everyone interested in studying this topic, or truly considering that the earth may be another shape than we are taught, believe in ridiculous conspiracies. The ones forwarding and assuming bizarre omnipotent conspiracies are the apologists for RE, like yourself. If you continue to study this subject, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have about it. The "flat earth conspiracy" bias helps to keep your largely unevaluated/unvalidated beliefs about the shape of the world safe from ridicule and criticism. As long as any criticism depends on an "impossible conspiracy", there is no reason to take it seriously (so you tell yourself, as a subconscious mantra no doubt) - which is why this line of "reasoning" is so heavily advertised and propagated/promoted.
No conspiracy of any size is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it always is (historically, contemporarily - you name it).
Flat Earthers flat out reject all space agencies and everything that doesn’t conform to their beliefs.
This is a common misunderstanding. Some do, that is true - but it has nothing to do with conforming to beliefs. A large part of flat earth research is recognizing, acutely, the difference between knowledge and belief. Belief has NO place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific. If you BELIEVE the world is round, flat, or dodecahedron - you have FAITH not fact.
The ones who more or less discard the "proof" from MIC agencies do so for valid and defensible reasons. The wiki here can help you understand some of the perspectives/conclusions of SOME of the researchers here. For instance, the TFES considers that "space agencies" are not faking the shape of the world. IF there is a conspiracy of some kind, it is conceivably quite small - and MUCH more likely to be for military purpose (what are rockets REALLY for?) - as is suggested on the wiki here. I highly recommend giving it a read through to get a sense of the wildly varying (and often incompatible) views out there!
Flat Earth is based on the grand conspiracy that everyone that uses the Globe Earth model is actually lying which is pretty much everyone.
This is yet another, heavily advertised/propagated, misconception. As I said, it is raised by people like yourself in exactly this context - most generally NOT by flat earth researchers. YOU are convinced there is some grand conspiracy required, but your reasoning is unsound and indefensible (in fact, you are just repeating someone else's criticism).
In any case, whether or not there are conspiracies involved (A conspiracy is merely a synonym for crime - planned by more than 1. They happen at all times in huge numbers.) is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the shape of the earth and to determining it with certainty as an individual researcher.
Even if it were true that the pictures/artwork we receive from NASA were all 100% genuine, they are not measurement of the world and they require abject appeal to authority (are unvalidated and unvalidatable), and in this case - that "authority" are, historically/repeatedly, untrustworthy MIC entities with overt military/profiteering/domination agendas.