This thread is gold. It pretty much just curb stomps all the flat earthers into coming up with more bullshit.
Well, gravitation is widely known to not have been correctly explained yet1, even among mainstream scientists. This thread is great because its very first assumption is "let's invoke magic!".
In formal logic, the statement "if p then q" is always true when p is false. This is exactly what the OP has done.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
1) Not having a full explanation of every detail of the universe is very different from what you're implying. "There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways." All that means is that we lack perfection. These problems don't necessarily point to problems with gravity but could just be due to the fact that we can't observe everything. And where there is a problem with gravity, it's a minor detail, a refinement in the formulae or the explanation. There is no doubt that general relativity works extremely well as an explanation of gravity, and even less doubt that gravity exists and that we can base many calculations off it. If general relativity gets replaced, it will be as when it replaced Newton's law: it will be an improvement, not an upheaval.
2) "Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers." Did scientists just make up this problem? FET doesn't believe in spacecraft.
3) These are details at the very deepest of our understanding of the universe. FET has to invoke magic such as bendy light just to explain why the sun sets. And this is without evidence, calculations, observations, or ANYTHING. It's just a weird hypothesis, nothing more.
4) Gravity's contender is the UA, a mysterious, unobserved phenomenon with an ever increasing (at just the right rate for a constant impression of gravity) energy source that is moving us at near light speed, has no real model or agreement behind it, and leaves non-uniform gravity unexplained. THAT is what invoking magic looks like. Asking for gravity as an assumption is nothing compared to asking for this. Actual gravity, meanwhile, explains a host of other things in addition that the UA does not, since it only explains why we feel attracted to the earth. We understand the creation of the earth and solar system, the trajectories of the celestial bodies, the tides, etc. All based on this 'magic'.
5) As well as not invoking physical magic, I have not invoked conspiracies.
I'd like to see FET TRY to come up with a similar thread to this one. Let's see how many assumptions you use, how much 'magic' you invoke at the beginning. How much evidence you have to support your theories. Give me a model of how and why the world works and looks as it does, how it started, etc.