You're all focussing too much on the empirical aspect of the Zetetic Method, to the exclusion of its other elements. Tom's point (as far as I can tell) is that he is not inferring the existence of anything on the basis of supposition or guess-work. Instead, he is making logical inferences on the basis of incontestable empirical data.
Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him. So the question becomes, what can he logically conclude from such an experience (without being ambushed by the garrison at Fort Solipsism)? Well, if the Earth accelerates towards Tom, then it must either be a property of the Earth that it accelerates, or something else must accelerate it. This is all that he concludes. Without further empirical data, I don't see how the conclusion can be challenged, or how further conclusions can be drawn.
The simple fact is that you cannot observe the Earth attracting you to it, or make observations that are outside your frame of reference. To introduce these arguments (as many RE'ers have in this thread) in order to attack arguments as "not zetetic" is ridiculous, as these forms of 'evidence' are not permitted by the Zetetic Method. At heart they are all hypothetical, and therefore antithetical to Zetetic methodology.
So where does that leave the RE'ers, or those FE'ers who believe in 'gravity'? Well, in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom. At that point, he would have to draw some kind of logical conclusion(s) from the new empirical data. Crucially however, these new conclusions would be based upon empirical evidence, not hypotheses or imaginative speculation.