The existence of a Shadow Object is empirically observed. We see a shadow, therefore there is an object to cause it. The existence of the Shadow Object is a certainty.
Technically, we
see a change in the quantity and spectrum of light reflected from the moon. A sweeping change in its surface albedo would achieve the same effect. Hey - it's a theory, and we see it happen, so it must be evidence, right?
In any case, according to your wiki the Shadow Object is definitely not the earth. There is no independent verification that such an object exists. Your wiki comes up with (unconvincing) excuses* as to why that might be but that doesn't really matter: as things stand, FET owes us a Shadow Object.
There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is.
Hang a ping-pong ball from the ceiling in a room with a bare bulb (ideally a dimmable one to reduce bounce-back of light from the walls). Now position your head so that you can see a 'full moon'. Observe that when you do this your head tends to get in the way and cast a shadow on the ball. Note how similar the effect is to a real eclipse. This is RET (sort of; the relative sizes and distances are way out, which is why it's easy to see full moons and eclipses are relatively rare)
Now stand directly beneath the ball and look up. Note that you don't see a 'full moon'. Get someone else to move something between the bulb and the moon to simulate a 'shadow object' eclipse. Observe that it looks
absolutely nothing like a real eclipse. This is FET.
For bonus points, move the ping-pong ball around in a small circle (Small compared to its distance from the light). Stays about the same brightness, doesn't it? That's RET. Now move it in a large circle that brings it considerably closer to and further away from the sun. Changes in brightness a lot, doesn't it? That's FET - and it doesn't happen in real life.
For bonus bonus points, stand under the ball and then walk around in a circle centered midway between bulb and ball, so that you alternately pass beneath the ball and the bulb. This simulates the orbits of moon and sun in FET for someone at the equator on a night when the moon is full. Keep your eyes on the ball. Notice how profoundly the 'phase of the moon' changes over the course of one 'night' (doesn't happen IRL), including a half-moon pointing 'north' (doesn't happen IRL either).
For bonus bonus bonus points, draw some craters on the ball and repeat the above experiment. Notice how you can see very different craters at different times (sometimes the 'front' facing the sun, sometimes the sides, sometimes the underneath) as you observe the ball from different angles (doesn't happen IRL) unless you get a friend to deliberately tilt and turn the ball to keep it pointing at you.
For bonus bonus bonus bonus points, get a second friend to follow you around the circle 180 degrees out of phase and confirm that when the first friend tries to keep the moon pointing at
you, it gyrates wildly from his perspective (doesn't happen IRL)
Per the effect that stops the sun from shrinking, this effect has been documented with several examples which directly shows the effect in action. There is an effect in nature, which is observed to cause light sources in the far field to be consistent in size.
Hey, now I get to use the term 'false equivalence'! Cool.
On a clear day the sun maintains a sharp, crisp outline pretty much all the way from horizon to horizon, during which time, according to FET, it can easily halve and then redouble its distance to an observer. This is completely uncharacteristic of the effects of diffusion upon a receding object, which manifest first as a soft-edged glow around a light source that still has a (visibly shrinking) distinct edge, strengthening until the light-source is reduced to an indistinct, soft-edged featureless blob. By way of contrast, it is possible to observe sun-spots at any time of the day; if the sun retained its visual size by getting blurrier, this would be impossible.
Also, the moon remains crisp and sharp and detailed and the same visual size from horizon to horizon on clear nights, while (according to FET) it halves and then redoubles its distance from us. Not possible to explain away with diffusion.
So no; sorry: FET still owes us weird distortions and discontinuities of perspective.
The Universal Accelerator is also empirically derived. When we step off of a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully we can see the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth. We see that the earth moves upwards. A mechanism is directly observed, in contradiction to the mechanisms of "bendy space" and "puller particle" which have never been observed.
We've already been over this.
1. You agreed that my alternative interpretation (I see myself fall) is equivalent.
2. We can't see UA, or 'the' UA. All of the matter we can inspect has weight, therefore, all of the matter we can inspect is
not itself subject to UA (not upward UA, anyway). Your interpretation requires a layer of 'special matter', which we've never seen, uniquely subject to an unknown force (that we've never seen either) and lifting everything else with it. Ergo, we have never seen 'the mechanism' of UA. FET owes us that layer.
3. Meanwhile, FET also requires CG to influence terrestrial matter in order to explain observed variations in measurements of UA. How does it work? Bendy space? Puller particles? Doesn't matter, right? We observe its effects, so some mechanism must be there. RET asks for no more than FET here - less, in fact, because FET requires a
second kind of 'special matter' to exert CG - something else it owes us. Mote and plank, sir; mote and plank.
4. You've specifically said the distribution of sources of CG is unknown. Therefore, you can't even claim to know in what proportions and directions UA and CG are acting upon any given object. For all you know, the UA part could be zero. Or downward, counteracting excess CG! Right? To claim otherwise is to make a definite statement about the distribution of CG.
To summarise, FET is in the hole to the tune of:
1 x Shadow Object (not the earth).
1 x justification for the phases and appearance of the moon looking nothing like FET predicts
1 x weird discontinuous perspective that first pinches things to nothing in a finite distance and then scales them back up to a fixed visual size.
1 x justification for the (indeterminate) value of UA not being zero
2 x types of special matter, one lifting everything else and the other exerting CG.
plus a bunch of conspiracies and a weird correlation between interest in astronomy and being shit at maths.
And to reiterate: when I say 'owes us', I mean 'these are things FET obliges us to believe in that are not independently verified or which violate well-established, tried-and-tested principles.'
*Unconvincing excuses for the shadow object not being visible:
"It's too close; the sun washes it out" - we can see Mercury and Venus transit the sun. At its brightest, we can see Venus in full daylight. With a telescope, you can even see Jupiter in the daytime (done it myself). Moreover, a 5-10 mile object passing 'close' in front of a ~30 mile wide lightsource would, from the perspective of something thousands of miles away, block no more than 12% of the light; a barely perceptible dimming. The 'puppet-show hand' analogy is another false equivalence unless (as you say in another thread) light only leaves the sun's surface at 90 degrees. Which it clearly doesn't because, y'know, we can see it not doing that.