If you care enough to look in the Wiki and search through the forum you will find that those things have been explained.
I have. I have yet to see these questions resolved. Point me to what I missed.
FET can't explain the appearance of the planets. The appearance and orientation of Jupiter's red spot depends on, and corresponds perfectly to, one's location on the globe. And, these orientations are
impossible from a flat plane perspective. The same can be said for the two transits of Venus that happened recently. Modern astronomy predicts them perfectly accurately.
FET can't explain the appearance of the Sun or Moon. Or nighttime. Your own info from the wiki is blatantly contradictory. The atmosphere does not magnify the apparent size of the Sun or Moon. If it did, then they would always be visible to everyone on the plane. They're not. If it doesn't, then you can no longer explain the consistency of their apparent sizes. It is
impossible from a flat plane perspective.
FET can't explain navigation. Or maps, for that matter. Literally everyone who relies on accurately knowing the shape of the Earth observes that it is round.
Kepler's
Epitome proved that the motions of the planets can be accurately predicted using a few principles based on the properties of ellipses. Newton's
Principia proved that Kepler's laws could be derived from, and were in fact an approximation of, his own planetary laws. Feynman's
Lost Lecture proves these laws with plane geometry. Even Robowtham himself says that plane trigonometry "...admits of no uncertainty and requires no modification or allowance for probable influences."
General Relativity, Dark Matter, Doppler Shift, etc., has not been demonstrated or proven. What examples do we see in nature where light is blue shifted when things approach you? There is no possible way astronomers can know that the theory of Doppler Shift of light is valid. Looking at a blue star only tells us that it is a blue star and nothing more. There is nothing empirical telling us that it is moving towards us at super-luminous speeds, let alone anything telling us its distance. The Doppler Shift of light is little more than a hypothesis -- one of many.
Have you ever received a speeding ticket? If so, you and the police officer demonstrated the relativistic Doppler effect. Radar guns use the effect to measure your speed. Look it up.
This is a great demonstration of your clear lack of understanding of the principles you criticize. You simply don't understand how spectroscopy works. Or what makes a star appear blue, apparently. Absorption and emission lines on a spectrum are relative only to the atoms that compose the star. The lines don't vary with temperature (technically they widen but don't shift). It doesn't matter much if it's a blue star, red star, whatever star. It only matters where the lines appear on the spectrum.
Also, GR has been verified. No astronomer pretends to know what dark matter is.
Oh, and you use a host of things like Dark Energy, UA, and bendy light to justify your 'physics,' none of which has ever been demonstrated or observed by anyone ever.No one knows what powers the sun, as no one has sampled it directly. Early Spectroscopy told us that the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium, and so the hypothesis of Stellar Fusion was made to fit the observations, not the other way around. There are literally thousands of hypothesis' in astronomy. Very little of anything has fundamental evidence behind it -- yet if we ask an Astronomer if Stellar Fusion is true he will answer with a resounding 'Yes', parroting the answer of the school system, despite that Stellar Fusion has not been achieved in a lab and exists as an hypothesis only.
You're just asserting things. Your assertions are incorrect. I can do the same thing. No one knows what causes disease. No one has ever sampled a germ. Early biologists told us that disease is caused by microscopic organisms, and the germ hypothesis was made to fit the observations, not the other way around. There are literally thousands of hypotheses in biology. Very little of anything has fundamental evidence behind it - yet if we ask a biologist if the germ theory is true he will answer with a resounding 'Yes,' parroting the answer of the school system, despite that germs have not been created in the lab and exist as an hypothesis only.
I have yet to see you point to a specific error in any of the fundamental works of astronomy. You make all kinds of really generic claims about what you think astronomy hasn't proved, but I see no error with the proofs it provides.