There's no way to disprove something that hasn't been proven. i.e., gravity.
Gravity exists, what do you think needs to be proven?
Show me a gravity particle then we'll talk.
In the spirit of the Zetetic method, climb to top of the nearest high building and jump off, then, if you survive, we can talk about your conclusions on the existence of gravity. If we get past that little hurdle, we can talk in more detail about how gravitrons can break legs.
Gravitons? Where are they? And wouldn't the Earth catching up to you bring about the same conclusion?
You have nothing but invisible and undetcable forces in your model. It's just as outrageous as FET. How can you not see this?
So, if gravity doesn't exist, the discussion is concluded, the other option is gravity does exist and the discussion can move on to more fertile ground.
For the sake of argument, can we assume that there is "something" that causes mass to distort space in such a way that there appears to be an attractive force proportional to the masses of the objects involved and following an inverse square law.
Further, (purely for the sake of the discussion) can we agree to call this "something" gravity, for want of a better name, and lacking any deeper understanding of what it might be?
Graviton, is a likewise mythical beast, it may or may not exist. but even if it doesn't gravity will still break your legs, and make a mess of your day. UA doesn't explain the Cavendish experiments. So let's leave UA where it belongs...
Nothing is outrageous as FET, except maybe DET.