I mean, at the end of the day, you can have classic gravity on a "flat earth" as well, only that "the core" would be spread out uniformly, heh.

If there is no explanation beyond "the surface of the earth is moving upward" then I don't see how I can just accept that.

Well, sure. You could ask the same thing about gravity, e.g., "what is causing gravity to pull on things?". I'm sure they have a nonsense answer for that as well, e.g., "gravitons" or some such.

Rather, for a globe model, at least there are answers to certain questions.

Sure, but none of those are demonstrable, they just appear to fit what's happening. Every alternative I've offered could fit just as well. With enough observation, you could reverse-engineer the entire thing into something else.

These answers may not satisfy you, and that's fine, but at least there is an attempt at explanation.

The problem with gravity is that it's being used as a catch-all for things that can't be explained (e.g., vacuum/atmosphere, atmosphere dragged along with spin, bendy waters, the three body problem, thousands of satellites orbiting "in front" of the Earth as it's spinning around the Sun, etc.).

These forces don't relate to the shape of the earth, but they require explanation on a flat earth model

Sure, whatever tickles you fancy, just don't get stuck on it. There's too much evidence in favor of a "flat earth" to pitch a tent here.

I mean, at the end of the day, you can have classic gravity on a "flat earth" as well, only that "the core" would be spread out uniformly, heh.

If there is no explanation beyond "the surface of the earth is moving upward" then I don't see how I can just accept that.

Well, sure. You could ask the same thing about gravity, e.g., "what is causing gravity to pull on things?". I'm sure they have a nonsense answer for that as well, e.g., "gravitons" or some such.

Rather, for a globe model, at least there are answers to certain questions.

Sure, but none of those are demonstrable, they just appear to fit what's happening. Every alternative I've offered could fit just as well. With enough observation, you could reverse-engineer the entire thing into something else.

These answers may not satisfy you, and that's fine, but at least there is an attempt at explanation.

The problem with gravity is that it's being used as a catch-all for things that can't be explained (e.g., vacuum/atmosphere, atmosphere dragged along with spin, bendy waters, the three body problem, thousands of satellites orbiting "in front" of the Earth as it's spinning around the Sun, etc.).

These forces don't relate to the shape of the earth, but they require explanation on a flat earth model

Sure, whatever tickles you fancy, just don't get stuck on it. There's too much evidence in favor of a "flat earth" to pinch a tent here.