What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate?
When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles. Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...
And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps.
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.
Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.
As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?
What? You make no sense! "When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles." What is this supposed to mean? How do you reach to that conclusion? Because it makes no sense!
Now about the magnetization of rocks. The moon is said to have once had a weak magnetic field, but not anymore. What about the age of the rocks? These rocks come from craters. They are likely ancient asteroids that hit the moon. I've never heard of Neptunium on the moon, but Uranium also exists on Earth. It's mostly because of solar flares. Wait. Are you using moon rocks to disprove RET? That makes little sense... If moon rocks are real, then Apollo 17 is real, then... The earth is round...
"In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth."
That's both true and false. First of all, the prevailing theory is that a Mars-sized planet hit the Earth, and from the debris the moon was created. But size does not pose a concern. No matter what the mass of the object is, the acceleration will be the same as it would be if you were being pulled towards the ground. Then you would also have the fact that the Earth itself would accelerate towards the other object.
"Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us"
Look up tidal locking.
"how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse..."
That's just a coincidence. It could be a little bit smaller, it could be a little bit larger, who cares. It happens to be that way.
"RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research."
That's the excuse? Less time? Planets are very basic. FET should have had an adequate explanation for them by now. And it's not just a few dozens of people. I think there are like 3000 active flat earthers or something. Now what's your problem with the RE explanation of planets?
"Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances."
Why? Can you please elaborate? Most of the material went to the sun. Some of it was totally lost, as it escaped the sun's sphere of influence. Then there are tons of it in the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt. Then are the planets. Then there's also the fact that even before all that, the gaseous material wasn't as dense as you seem to think. The solar system was likely in the condition that you say during its birth.
"Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?"
Here we go again, "It does not explain it but it will with further refinement blah blah blah...". And I bet it will never be explained in a way that makes sense.
Why is the Foucault pendulum touted as an advantage over FE? Because the RE model DOES explain the behavior of Foucault pendulums. The Allais effect is the "exception of the rule", and there are ways to explain it, it's just that there isn't a single conclusive one that the mainstream entirely accepts. Also, there are many very precise experiments that show no such effect to be present, so we really don't have enough evidence to do anything with them.
Some of what you say are still mysteries that have some explanations, some is just stuff that makes no sense and that has already been explained.