You have asked what to my point about the ether experiment. Excuse me if I sound a little patronising it is not intentional, I am just unsure of the level of your understanding, which may be greater than mine. The original experiment was designed to work out the relative speed of the earth based on the theory that the earth was moving through a stationary ether. The scientists would shoot a pulse of light and then measure the lag caused by the fixed ether. Very similar to dropping a piece of cloth from a moving car and measuring how far the car has travelled at the point the cloth touches the floor. Any movement on the light pulse should have detected i.e if the earth was moving in the direction that the pulse was 'fired' then a relative slowing of the pulse would have been observed, if it had been moving towards the pulse then a quickening of the pulse would have been obsereved and finally the experiment also tested the lateral movement of the pulse so any sideways movement would also have been seen. The result of the experiment was that zero movement or slowing/increasing of the light pulse was detected. Now traditionalists say that this experiment proves the non existence of the ether. However some use the results as proof that the earth isn't moving at all but more that the earth is the fixed centre point and everything else moves around us. Interestingly I have heard FE's say that waves i.e. light waves, have to have a medium to move through, even if ether does not exist, therefore a drag on the light should always have been observed.
My point was simply this, if FE's use this evidence as proof that the earth is not moving, then it is also the case that the earth cannot be moving upwards in order to simulate gravity. So how can these two coexist.