I don't really win no matter who loses. I can still be wrong and such. I just take to my probabilities and am able to be as neutral as I think most people should be.
Based on using Rowbotham's explanations, FE doesn't stand up to criticism in that area of the theory. A revised idea for the sinking ship will have to be formulated. That's not so much a failure of FE as it is, there aren't that many people devoted to devising one. As you said, Username is possibly someone in which we can rely on for an idea, unless I find time to work something out.
you just touched on a, if not the, crux of the issue here. (actually it's another issue and possibly ot for this thread.) and that is: the same could be said for just about *all* of fe explanations for observed phenomenon. (the only exception i can think of is the acceleration = our perception of gravity.) but other than that, most fe explanations are so preposterous, and/or vastly more complex to explain the same phenomenon than re, and/or just don't adequately explain the phenomenon at all and conveniently ignore glaring and easily observed contradictions. (e.g.
these.)
so how far do we go with this "just because explanation xyz is invalid doesn't mean fe theory is invalid" allowance? especially when it's about 99% of the explanations? how long do we wait for better explanations?
furthermore, the very foundations of the fe model are in constant flux. and not just constant, but i have read more on-the-fly, out-of-the-ass fe explanations for newly pointed out observed phenomenon, than i have fingers. and well also toes. and i don't mean tinkerings of theory like scientists fiddling with the math to make the universe collapse or expand forever (which is a very obtuse and technologically difficult thing to deduce and by it's very nature is almost certainly prone to be wrong), every few years. science is ever-correcting, that is true. but it builds on itself (e.g. laws of thermodynamics), very rarely rewriting a supporting pillar now and then--but it doesn't rewrite itself from scratch with every forum post. (the latter being another odd attribute of fe science--the latest incarnation of fe theory exists only in a forum...and not even the electronic faq is comprehensive or up-to-date). i mean profound, fundamental platforms of existence, that can be easily explored and observationally tested. such as: is the earth finite or infinite. infinite mass, finite mass, or massless. is the earth perfectly flat or slightly curved. is the ice wall hundreds of feet, or tens of thousands. i could go on, but i've written these before...
edit: i should also add that for fe to knee-jerk reply with "a vast global conspiracy [that we can't prove exists] prevents us from proving our claims with robust evidence" is the pinnacle of cowardice.