You shouldn't blindly (no pun intended) accept whatever you see. There are countless examples of phenomena that are much more complex/different than what the eye would let you know.
See: optical illusions.
Accepting what your eye wants you to think is the "simplest explanation" for a phenomenon is both ignorant and often incorrect.
...and once again, despite what you may think, I observe myself being pulled toward the Earth. The fact that you try to refute that is hysterical and extremely stupid.
That's the lame "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" argument again.
Ok, I get it. Gravitation requires something invisible, while UA may or not be invisible. Tell me something, then. Why is it okay for you to hypothesize an otherwise visible force under the Earth which you can not see, but not for me to hypothesize there is an invisible force that we have demonstrated to exist?
I don't hypothesize an invisible force. I've said several times now that I do not speculate what may be moving the earth. But this does not negate the fact that I SEE the earth moving upwards when I step off a chair.
And where did you demonstrate the existence of gravity?
ITT: Air does not exist.
I've seen air. I can see it build up in the distance. I can see it on a foggy day. I can feel it fill my lungs when I breathe, and I can feel it blow against my face at the beach. There is plenty of empirical evidence for the existence of air.
There is ZERO evidence for the existence of graviton puller particles.
Say that I am standing in the middle of the street and the sun sets below the horizon. I see the sun set below the horizon. I do not see anything making the sun disappear. The most empirical explanation is that the sun set below the horizon.
Why should I believe in the invisible, like celestial gears or an anti-moon or bendy light or whatever else when I have the visible as an alternative explanation?
I've never seen the sun set below the horizon. When the sun sets it goes
into the horizon. No one sees the sun go
below it. The idea that the sun is below the horizon is an unsupported speculation.
I'm so glad that you feel that way, Tom.
What is pushing the Earth ever upwards?
The mechanism is presently unknown, but a placeholder title of "Dark Energy" has been given to the mechanism.
Notice how in that three year old thread I preface that the mechanism is unknown and that Dark Energy is a placeholder title. With my particular usage of the phrase in that thread I make no speculation on what the mechanism is. I make no claims of sub-atomic particles. I make no claims of Newtonian forces. I do not use my imagination, as a Round Earther would, and imbue Dark Energy with special unobserved, undiscovered, or mysterious properties.
In that thread I am using Dark Energy as a placeholder title for an oft future mechanism and no more. While I affirm the upwards movement of the earth, I make no speculation on the driving mechanism behind it.