Instead of seeking evidence to the contrary, in your position it should be desirable, rather, to look for evidence which supports your stance. Mere absence of evidence to the contrary is no support for a hypothesis. I don't know if that's how things work in engineering, but it doesn't fly in science. To my knowledge no serious experimental or theoretical work has been done which attempts to explain how the gravitational lensing we observe in space around massive bodies can be accounted for with a constantly accelerating earth, or how Earth-based red-shifting measurements would even work within an accelerating frame of reference creating uniform apparent gravitation, or how time dilation measured in regions of slightly weaker or stronger gravitational pull could be described for a constantly accelerating earth.
I didn't realize that changing the argument was something allowed in science, as it's not in engineering.
I'm sorry if you somehow misunderstood the argument from the very beginning (it does appear that you have, considering the excuses you came up with in the discussion in that thread to try to clarify your "points".) If you need me to recap what the argument was, I'll do it.
If the argument you're referring to is the "evidence to the contrary" argument, my reply is on topic. In science (and engineering) you don't just assume something is true because you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. You believe something is true when you see convincing evidence in support. I wasn't changing the subject, I was suggesting a different method of reasoning...
An accelerating FoR can account for the gravitational lensing due to the earth, the shifting of light due to the earth, and time dilation due to the earth.
No, it cannot. I'm sorry, but an accelerating FoR (especially like the one suggested by the UA, to which this was all originally referring whether you like it or not) will not, cannot, and never will be able to account for the shifting of light on the earth, gravitational time dilation on the earth, or the particular type of lensing discussed in the thread. These assumptions have been the entire flaw in your point from the beginning. It is not possible. What part of "non-uniform gravitational field" don't you understand? I already know which part of the Equivalence Principle you're having trouble with.
Does this need to be broken down, further?
A uniformly accelerating FoR creates an apparent
uniform gravitational field effect. Always. This is the case all the time. There are no exceptions. It does not, has not, and will not create a
non-uniform gravitational field effect. This is something that simply will not happen. Blame physics if you don't like this. Is this what you need evidence to the contrary for? Feel free to design an experiment that tests this statement.
The red-shifting and blue-shifting of light on Earth is a result of a
non-uniform gravitational field.
Time dilation as detected on Earth is a result of a
non-uniform gravitational field.
The two are not possible in a
uniform gravitational field. No experiment exists, which has measured red-shifting and time dilation on Earth, due to apparent gravitational influence, that can be explained with the EP for a non-intertial FoR.
Maybe you have evidence to the contrary?