Brilliant 
! You have to drag in a completely unsupported assumption of EAT to make your "model" fit reality.
Maybe you refer us mortals to where this EAT is defined so precisely.
The evidence for EA is on the EA page.
You claim that "the evidence for EA is on the EA page" but I've read that and can find nothing that I would call evidence, nothing!
Here are the headings on that page. Would you please point out where this
evidence is to be found:
Electromagnetic Acceleration
The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls, pushes, or deflects light upwards. All light curves upwards over very long distances. The Electromagnetic Accelerator has been adopted as a modern alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe.
Mechanism
One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence. Get into a car and attempt to drive in a perfectly straight line down a highway without turning the steering wheel left or right. It is a near impossible thing to do. The car is affected by the slope and texture of the terrain, alignment of your wheels, the wind, &c. An apparently straight heading turns into a curved one. When it comes to bullets, airplanes, et all, it is expected that bodies never realistically travel straightly. Straight line trajectories rarely, if ever, occur in nature.
While the mechanism which affects light over long distances is not known, the cosmological theme of upwards acceleration fits in with this Flat Earth model.
Approximation
Articles of Interest
Simple saying "
One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence" is NOT evidence!
And neither is "
While the mechanism which affects light over long distances is not known, the cosmological theme of upwards acceleration fits in with this Flat Earth model."
That is simply saying that the
EA assumption "fits in with this Flat Earth model".
Nothing in "Approximation" is evidence.
Then nothing in your "Articles of Interest" is relevant to the natural world - they are both very artificial situations involving complex equipment. You did note this at the end of the first article.
Ingenious, but not new?
Jérôme Kasparian of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, who was not involved in the latest work, is enthusiastic, explaining that the two groups have “elaborated a general framework to describe and therefore predict” large-angle bending of light. However, Michael Berry of Bristol University in the UK, is less so. He believes that the authors do not make it clear that in their experiments they are not bending light rays themselves but the rays’ envelopes, or “caustics”. “The technical details in these papers are ingenious and interesting to specialists, and I hope the renewed emphasis will lead to applications,” he says. “But while the papers are technically interesting, they are unsurprising because they contain no fundamental new idea.”
There's nothing there to support your huge "bending of light" and
nothing to support magnetism bending light either!
In other words, you have done nothing than create an unsupported hypothesis that explains observations based on the
assumption of a flat Earth.
Talk about "Double Standards"!
Do you recall that you have already admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed in the equations and that the distances were unable to be justified without assuming a RE?
Not quite!
Your "admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed" is making it look like some great concession but it certainly is not.
Astronomy on the Globe is, of course, based on the Earth being close to spherical.
But that spherical shape has been the accepted shape for at least 2300 years, initially with little evidence.
That initial evidence certainly showed that without the assumptions you are now making a spherical shape is far more likely.
Observational astronomy since that has been ultimately based little more than the "assumption" that light (and all other EM radiation) travels in straight in a homogenous medium. It was realised as early as 100 AD that the atmosphere did cause light to bend very slightly. How slightly is shown in here:
Atmospheric Refraction by David Basey Astronomical Refraction–Some History and Theories
Abstract
Astronomical refraction has had a long and fascinating history. Cleomedes (100 A.D.) and Ptolemy (200 A.D.) were aware of its existence and understood in a qualitative way some of its properties. Alhazen (1100 A.D.) quite correctly suggested that the flattening of the sun’s disk near the horizon was due to astronomical refraction. Tycho Brahe in 1587, however, was the first to make direct measurements of the magnitude of the refraction. The first theory of astronomical refraction based on Snell’s law was that of Cassini, who in 1656 looked upon the earth’s atmosphere as being of constant refractive index up to its upper limit at which all the refraction took place.
And, as noted, Tycho Brahe "was the first to make direct measurements of the magnitude of the refraction".
Since that time refraction in air and other materials has been extensively studied.
The is no evidence of any medium between here and the sun or moon that could cause any "bending of light" of the magnitudes you are claiming.
The refractive index of air at sea-level is about 1.00029 and it approaches 1.00000 (the refractive index of a vacuum) comparatively rapidly.
This is based on extensive studies of the properties of the atmosphere (especially pressure, density and temperature) up to around 80,000 metres.
By this altitude, the pressure and density have fallen to typically 0.303 Pa and 5.64 x 10
-06 kg/m
3.
There is no evidence from sounding rocket measurements, etc, that the density does other than keep falling from that altitude.
So, where is there any
evidence of this
Electromagnetic Acceleration?