Besides, the fact still remains that Euclid's hypothesis miserably fails the test of Occam's Razor!
Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy.
Not to mention completely subjective. Simplicity is subjective and depends highly on one's preconceptions of reality. Which is simpler? That only light is bending through refraction, a process we know a lot about, or that the ENTIRE EARTH is bending, governed by some interaction whose mechanism we know nothing about?
I hardly need to tell you that I strongly disagree with you assessment of Occam's Razor. I doubt that you would find very many, if any, competent and productive scientists who would not. Like it or not, Occam's Razor has served the cause of advancing human knowledge very well. You object to Occam's Razor only because it so devastatingly damages the credibility of FET.
Let me ask you. What is really simpler. That the movements of the heavenly bodies (such as their daily rising and setting and apparent circular movement around an axis formed by the north and south celestial poles), the constancy of the apparent size of the sun as it moves from horizon to horizion, etc.) are really as they appear, or that it is all one gigantic illusion caused by purely hypothetical, complex and undemonstrable phemonena such as "bendy light," Rowbothams's demonstrably false laws of perspective and so forth? (and if you think those laws have not been thoroughly demolished numerous times on thes forums, you just haven't been paying very good attention!)
The concept of gravity (or gravitation, if you prefer as if there were any significant difference between the two) is not really all that complex. I admit that we can't say why gravitation exists, but you cannot honestly deny that its effects have been observed and measured with great precision, and that the orbital movements of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn (for example) around their primaries seem to strongly corroborate current gravitational theory. It is unreasonable to expect science to explain why the Universe is as it is. The most we can reasonably expect science to do is describe how the Universe is and (I admit) we will always fall somewhat short of that. That does not justify insisting on highly complex explanations for observed phenomena in preference to much simpler explanations that satisfactorily explain the same observations!
Like it or not, the UA hypothesis is much less believable than gravitation, and even many (or at least some) FE'ers justifiably reject it.
BTW, I agree that much is known about the refraction of light, but judging by your comments on it , I find entirely laaughable your claim to truly understand it.