So... when I point out that objects on Earth exert gravity and this can be detected... that means objects on Earth don't exert gravity.
No it doesn't.
It means objects on Earth exert gravity, unlike what celestial gravitation needs.
How about you address what I say rather than strawmanning it?
While you are at it, quit with the insults.
Objects on Earth exerting gravity does not contardict FET, so long as the majority of the mass of the Earth itself is not exerting gravity.
You only need enough to exert gravity to overcome the forces preventing Earth from collapsing into a sphere.
When you need to actively look for the situations where it doesn't work
I don't need to actively look.
I just need to think about how such forces would work.
When you need to avoid these cases that shows your argument is dumb.
Yep, the stars would need different forces, good thing they aren't all in the exact same location. The stars that aren't under the correct force would not be visible, they weren't made yesterday.
And that would be an argument, if the stars were always in the same position, and that position was stable.
But the stars change position, especially the sun which goes over a wide variety of positions with plenty of stars there as well.
And the position is unstable.
Following your idea of a weak flow above Earth, with it reforming more as you get further away, if the stars drift any further away from Earth than their perfect position, the force increases and they are blown away. If they drift any closer to Earth then the force is too weak and the fall.
So it simply doesn't work.
Every object in the sky should have either already fallen to Earth or already have been blown away.
Earth blocks the accelerator - logical.
As already shown, there is nothing logical about that as the accelerator is not behaving in the same way as wind.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing again.
No, that would be you.
I am arguing to point out a horribly flawed argument.
'Certain users conveniently forgetting it every time they're told' is not the same thing as 'unexplained.'
That's right. So why bring it up?
There is so much that isn't explained with UA.
There is no explanation for why UA is so selective and precise.
People repeatedly dodging the explanations or saying "we don't know" is not the same thing as explained.
If there was nothing in the sky and g was constant around Earth then it would be fairly okay with the main unexplained point being why Earth is accelerating in the first place.
So no, even his first point is unexplained.
If you have an explanation for what causes the acceleration feel free to provide it.