known phenomenon without understanding

There are things that RE science can describe but not explain the workings of, at least not non-controversially and completely. We have equations for gravity, but as I understand it, there is only conjecture and experimentation with the actual implementation, gravity waves, particles or , scientists admit they don't know.

Does that mean that FE can claim something like light bends from the north star so that it is seen as equal to latitude even though it is actually somewhere else, because RE says gravity works but don't know how. So when FE says the north star light bends to appear in the correct lattitude place in spite of the physical impossibility, FE can say "we don't know how, but it does" and be just as valid as RE?

Is there a way to tell the difference between gravity being true without explanation and whatever FE needs to add as a fudge factor without explanation?

There are things that RE science can describe but not explain the workings of, at least not non-controversially and completely. We have equations for gravity, but as I understand it, there is only conjecture and experimentation with the actual implementation, gravity waves, particles or , scientists admit they don't know.

Do scientists admit they don't know the explanation for gravitation?

It should be stressed that Newton never presented his Law of Universal Gravitation as an explanation as to why gravitation behaves as an attractive force of .
That describes the experimental results not the theory behind gravitation so is not claimed to be a theory of gravitation.

A "scientific law" is a (usually mathematical) description of how something behaves and is based on experimental results.
And this is demonstrably true for so many of the other "Laws", such as "Coulomb's Law" and the "gas laws".
A "scientific law" might also have a limited range of applicability as do the "gas laws", "Newton's Laws of Motion" and even "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".

But "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" has been verified over 300 times in measurements of G and in astronomical observations.
Not only that but it has been demonstrated numerous times in qualitative experiments showing mass appearing to attract mass.
Just do a search on YouTube of "demonstrate Cavendish Experiment".

Does that mean that FE can claim something like light bends from the north star so that it is seen as equal to latitude even though it is actually somewhere else, because RE says gravity works but don't know how. So when FE says the north star light bends to appear in the correct lattitude place in spite of the physical impossibility, FE can say "we don't know how, but it does" and be just as valid as RE?

Is there a way to tell the difference between gravity being true without explanation and whatever FE needs to add as a fudge factor without explanation?

I don't see any issue about "gravity being true without explanation" because Newton's Law is simply a description of gravitation based on experimental results.
Was Coloumb's Law very similar law any less valid before a quantum mechanical explanation for it was developed?
Attempting to explain Coloumb's Law as "opposite charges attract" is no better than explaining Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation as "masses attract".

Instead of saying "gravity exists but we don't know why", to be more honest, they'd better say "free falling of detached objects is real but we don't know why"

There are things that RE science can describe but not explain the workings of, at least not non-controversially and completely. We have equations for gravity, but as I understand it, there is only conjecture and experimentation with the actual implementation, gravity waves, particles or , scientists admit they don't know.

Does that mean that FE can claim something like light bends from the north star so that it is seen as equal to latitude even though it is actually somewhere else, because RE says gravity works but don't know how. So when FE says the north star light bends to appear in the correct lattitude place in spite of the physical impossibility, FE can say "we don't know how, but it does" and be just as valid as RE?

Is there a way to tell the difference between gravity being true without explanation and whatever FE needs to add as a fudge factor without explanation?

Well, even if the causes of gravity are not well understood, it works the same observed and calculated way all the time.

Bendy light only works for the pole star in a specific pole star way while working in a completely different way from the sun and moon and even more different from everything else.

If we want to follow your thinking about not knowing how things work not being evidence that they can't, they have to work the same way all the time to be considered. Flat earth explanations are usually for single observations.