*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5332
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2017, 06:30:08 PM »
First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored. 
Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.

This is on topic because the size of the crowd keeping the secret would be huge and getting bigger every day.  Everyone that ever flew from Sydney to South Africa would know if they own a watch or looked out the window.
Cool, where is the evidence? Also, the fuselage is curved and the windows have some curvature. Keep that in mind when you decide to start providing evidence for your claims (assuming you actually attempt to).

Second, it is a widely accepted fact that people flying Concord saw the curvature. 
Fantastic. Then you should have no problems finding evidence to support this claim.

A simple google search would let you know that. 
You want me to do your homework for you? Not how it works, friend. You made the claim, it is on you to support it.

Are we to assume every passenger of Concorde is part of the coverup? 
You can assume whatever you would like, but I am not sure how this strawman is relevant to the discussion.

https://www.google.com/search?q=view+from+concorde+window&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBn9Cbg_rTAhUC1mMKHbhjBCkQ_AUIBigB&biw=1920&bih=950
I suggest you see the point above regarding the fuselage and windows. Do you know what conditions are required to be able to perceive curvature assuming the accepted RE model? It sure seems that you do not. But hey, Googling some pictures is a lot easier than doing actual research. I know how lazy you RE logicians tend to be, so I understand why you put in such a minimal effort.

Since you are a mod here, will you answer the question of the OP or a modified version of it? 
Why would me being a mod be remotely relevant to answering someone's question?

Your best guess, not an exact number, how big is the number of people hiding the flat earth from all of us?
No idea, as I am not the one claiming anyone is hiding the shape of the earth.

Furthermore, off topic to some extent but why are they hiding it, who stands to gain?
Irrelevant.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Round
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2017, 06:51:12 PM »
First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored. 
Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.

This is on topic because the size of the crowd keeping the secret would be huge and getting bigger every day.  Everyone that ever flew from Sydney to South Africa would know if they own a watch or looked out the window.
Cool, where is the evidence? Also, the fuselage is curved and the windows have some curvature. Keep that in mind when you decide to start providing evidence for your claims (assuming you actually attempt to).

Then why does the horizon look flat at normal cruising altitudes?

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Round
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2017, 07:08:34 PM »
First off, I presented facts about airliners and private jets that you conveniently ignored. 
Given that private jets are irrelevant to your claim about the FAQ, there wasn't anything to discuss beyond your dishonest attempt to claim the FAQ stated something that it clearly does not.


I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. "   That is either dishonest or ignorant?  It can only be one of those.  Which is it?


*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5332
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2017, 07:26:33 PM »
Then why does the horizon look flat at normal cruising altitudes?
Why wouldn't it look flat? I am not the one claiming to perceive curvature on any sort of plane because it is extremely unlikely when you account for the required altitude and the required FOV. People see what they want to see, they take pictures with cameras that have fisheye lenses. This is what results in people claiming they can see the curvature, when in fact they cannot.

I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. "   That is either dishonest or ignorant?  It can only be one of those.  Which is it?

Ignoring your improper use of the quote function (hint: you can preview your post before posting, this will help ensure it looks appropriate), I am not sure what you are claiming here. You're initial claim was:

Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft.  Pure bunk.  A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650.  The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.
I pointed out that your claim regarding the FAQ was false. I also directly quoted the FAQ for you. So yes, you were either being ignorant or dishonest, but I am not sure why you are asking me which one you were.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Offline Oami

  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2017, 04:41:12 PM »
Maybe I should tell something about my own history.

I have done military service in field artillery, as a positioner. A part of my duty was to determine exact direction to the north (and obviously all other directions as well) with an allowed error of less than 0.1 degrees. A compass is not good enough: especially not so, because as soldiers we usually carried weapons and other equipment, that have iron in them...

However, there are some ways to do this using certain devices:
  • to measure the relative direction between two known points (easiest, but often not available on an enemy controlled territory)
  • to measure the relative direction to the sun on a given second (daytime only)
  • to measure the relative direction to a certain distant star on a given second (night time only; there were 7 different stars with precalculated paths, chosen from different parts of the sky, so that any night at least some of them should be visible if only clouds allowed)
  • to find the direction of the rotational axis of the earth

During peace time the use of GPS helps a little, but as my country is not a member of NATO, it cannot be relied upon in case of a conflict.

Now the question: does my history and experience in various land surveying techniques – or even the mere knowledge of the existence of such techniques – make me a part of the conspiracy?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 04:49:17 PM by Oami »

Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2017, 05:09:42 PM »
Maybe I should tell something about my own history.

I have done military service in field artillery, as a positioner. A part of my duty was to determine exact direction to the north (and obviously all other directions as well) with an allowed error of less than 0.1 degrees. A compass is not good enough: especially not so, because as soldiers we usually carried weapons and other equipment, that have iron in them...

However, there are some ways to do this using certain devices:
  • to measure the relative direction between two known points (easiest, but often not available on an enemy controlled territory)
  • to measure the relative direction to the sun on a given second (daytime only)
  • to measure the relative direction to a certain distant star on a given second (night time only; there were 7 different stars with precalculated paths, chosen from different parts of the sky, so that any night at least some of them should be visible if only clouds allowed)
  • to find the direction of the rotational axis of the earth

During peace time the use of GPS helps a little, but as my country is not a member of NATO, it cannot be relied upon in case of a conflict.

Now the question: does my history and experience in various land surveying techniques – or even the mere knowledge of the existence of such techniques – make me a part of the conspiracy?

Apparently your military unit is part of the conspiracy, too. I served in the U.S. Navy. It is part of the conspiracy, too, for they operate on subjects you mentioned based on the earth being a globe. Apparently every organization in the world is part of the conspiracy.
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1346
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2017, 10:00:35 PM »
Well, every military organization, certainly.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2017, 03:02:17 PM »
Well, every military organization, certainly.

So are all of the national civil aviation organizations, such as the Federal Aviation in the United States.
So are all the amateur radio operators who participated in "Operation Moonbeam".
So are  their organizations, such as the American Radio Relay League and the Radio Society of Great Britain.
So is the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.
So is the National Geographic Society.
And a few thousand other organizations.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 09:06:30 PM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2017, 03:36:10 PM »
this is what, for some stupid reason, prevents people from even investigating massive deceptions.
just like 9/11, focus on the facts and physics.  don't let your ego interfere with your logic.  use your own powers of observation and calculation instead of relying on folks you don't know.
1.  pictures taken of things farther away than would be possible on a ball
2.  sun rays coming through clouds at an angle and making angled shadows from parallel objects
3.  triangulation calculations for the distance to the sun.
4.  the water doesn't go to the equator and then fly off
5.  the air magically sticks to a spinning ball so well that it appears as if we aren't moving!  ;D

ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!
ball-deniers understand gravity!

this is simple, but unfortunately, so are sheeple, led by the government schools and media.  WAKE UP :o
1.  gravitational attraction is simple.
2.  a spinning ball is simple.
3.  beLIEving that gravity can hold air and water on a spinning ball is nonsense.
NO ONE CAN MAKE SENSE OF THESE 2 SIMPLE AND KNOWN FACTS!  So, they say gravity is a mystery.  LOL.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2017, 04:31:56 PM »
this is what, for some stupid reason, prevents people from even investigating massive deceptions.
just like 9/11, focus on the facts and physics.  don't let your ego interfere with your logic.  use your own powers of observation and calculation instead of relying on folks you don't know.
1.  pictures taken of things farther away than would be possible on a ball
2.  sun rays coming through clouds at an angle and making angled shadows from parallel objects
3.  triangulation calculations for the distance to the sun.
4.  the water doesn't go to the equator and then fly off
5.  the air magically sticks to a spinning ball so well that it appears as if we aren't moving!  ;D

ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!
ball-deniers understand gravity!

this is simple, but unfortunately, so are sheeple, led by the government schools and media.  WAKE UP :o

I like your suggestion to look into things myself without relying on outside sources - that's what I'm trying to do.

So let's think about your 5 numbered points:

1.  pictures taken of things farther away than would be possible on a ball
So we're expected to believe that these photos that you have found are NOT photoshopped or otherwise misrepresented.  But you're allowed to disclaim any photo I have (taken from a satellite or a man standing on the moon) as being faked?   This is not acceptable within your own standard of evidence!  How can you respond if I say that this is a secret conspiracy to take fake photos that support FE ?

If you're not allowing outside evidence - this isn't evidence.

2.  sun rays coming through clouds at an angle and making angled shadows from parallel objects

So here is what you're talking about - right?   Clearly the light source is not a few million miles away!



We can certainly see that those rays are emerging from the cloud with about a 90 degree angle from the leftmost ray to the rightmost...agreed?  This cannot possibly be the case if the light source is millions of miles away...for sure.

But in FE theory, the sun is claimed to be about 3,000 miles away - so how, even in FE theory can you explain these rays?

The truth is that the sun (be it 3,000 or 3,000,000 miles away) is illuminating a large thunderhead cloud that's right above the cloud deck.  It's light REFLECTED from that bright, white cloud that produces those rays.

Now I get that this is not the most satisfying explanation (although it happens to be true in this case) - but the FE community needs the same explanation to explain that the sun isn't sitting at around 1000 feet above the Earth!   So this argument is (at best) a tie...sunrays through clouds neither proves nor disproves FE or RE.

3.  triangulation calculations for the distance to the sun.

I have not seen these calculations that you have - and in any case, you're saying that I have to do these things for myself.

OK - on the day of the spring Equinox, I look up sunrise and sunset times (in GMT) from places in the Northern and Southern hemispheres (www.sunrisesunset.com - or any of a bazillion other websites and almanacs) - and using both the FE map and my RE globe - I plot an "X" at every place that's has sunrise around 6:00 GMT.   I notice that these X's lie on an almost perfectly straight line on the FE map - and at points that lie on a semicircle on my RE globe.   I do the same thing for the sunset times around 6:00 GMT...and on the FE map, all of these points also lie on the same straight line - but on the opposite side of the central north pole.   On the globe, I now have all of my X's laying on a circle that bisects the Earth.   This says that EXACTLY half of the RE globe and EXACTLY half of the FE disk are illuminated at the same exact moment.   I can repeat this experiment for any GMT time - and the result is exactly the same.   Plug this into some math - and the sun has to be a very long distance away - so far that the parallax is too small to be measurable at the precision of a normal clock.   That doesn't work if the sun is much closer than the diameter of the earth disk...the segm
ent of the world that can see a simultaneous sunrise has to be much MUCH smaller than it clearly is.

4.  the water doesn't go to the equator and then fly off

Indeed it does not.  This is because gravity acts towards the center of the Earth - which keeps everything pulled together into shape that's very close to a sphere.  Any object that has forces pulling or pushing inwards will tend to pull into the shape of a sphere - which is why water droplets and soap bubbles prefer that shape.

5.  the air magically sticks to a spinning ball so well that it appears as if we aren't moving!  ;D

Again - yes it does.  Gravity keeps it pulled down towards the ground - and as gravity weakens further from the center, the air gets less and less dense...which is why it's hard to breathe at the top of a tall mountain.

The air feels the force of friction and turbulence with the surface of the planet - so it spins around with us.  HOWEVER, if a wind blows North-South - it does EXACTLY what you guessed it might to - it blows at an angle, due to the rotation of the Earth.   This is called "The Coriolis Effect" - which is very well known to people who fire guns over long distances - and it's an effect that anyone can experience for themselves.  Coriolis also explains why hurricanes in the Nothern Hemisphere rotate in the opposite direction to hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere - and why hurricanes never form close to the equator.  Flat Earth theory doesn't seem to account for Coriolis and can't explain why storms always rotate the same way...which is a problem.

ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!
ball-deniers understand gravity!


We know how gravity acts - we can measure it, we can establish the mathematics behind it.   We know that every mass in the entire universe pulls on every other mass with a force that's proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them.   This rule works for everything we can measure in the entire universe - and it works.  It perfectly explains the motions of the Earth, Moon, Comets, Asteroids, Planets and even entire Galaxies.

But you're right...we don't know WHY the force acts the way it does - only the way that it acts.

So...how does the experience that RE'ers call "gravity" operate in FET?

* Some people claim that the earth is accelerating upwards very rapidly.  That doesn't explain why gravity is greater at the north pole and less at the equator - and less at the tops of tall mountains.   So that doesn't fit reality.
* Some people claim that the flat earth really does have gravity (which works if the FE world is infinite) - but that gets you back to the same problem that RE proponents have trouble explaining.  So if you decry RE's "gravity" then this version of FET is not for you because it also doesn't have a "WHY?" answer!
* Some people claim that air pressure from the atmosphere presses down on things.  This is so busted, it's ridiculous.  But one experiment that disproves it is simply that if you put an object in to an airtight chamber and pump out all of the air - the object doesn't float away.   So this one is busted too.

There is another problem here too...tides.

According to the Wiki, the FE moon does exert a force of gravity on the water to make tides.  So no matter which FE explanation you have - you still need to invoke a mysterious force that pulls things together in order to get tides to work.   (And in any case this FE explanation for tides fails to explain why there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides each day...so it's STILL busted).

So before you decry the lack of a "WHY?" answer for gravity in RE - maybe you should come up with an FE explanation for "weight" and things falling when you drop them and those double-tides on the FE...I don't see a viable explanation here.

I think your triumphant presentation here has quite a few holes in it...and I'd be delighted to hear the solutions.

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Round
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2017, 06:29:09 PM »
Then why does the horizon look flat at normal cruising altitudes?
Why wouldn't it look flat? I am not the one claiming to perceive curvature on any sort of plane because it is extremely unlikely when you account for the required altitude and the required FOV. People see what they want to see, they take pictures with cameras that have fisheye lenses. This is what results in people claiming they can see the curvature, when in fact they cannot.

I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. "   That is either dishonest or ignorant?  It can only be one of those.  Which is it?

Ignoring your improper use of the quote function (hint: you can preview your post before posting, this will help ensure it looks appropriate), I am not sure what you are claiming here. You're initial claim was:

Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft.  Pure bunk.  A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650.  The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.
I pointed out that your claim regarding the FAQ was false. I also directly quoted the FAQ for you. So yes, you were either being ignorant or dishonest, but I am not sure why you are asking me which one you were.

I pointed out the FAQ is false.  Do you deny it is? 

Offline Oami

  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2017, 07:19:13 PM »
So here is what you're talking about - right?   Clearly the light source is not a few million miles away!



We can certainly see that those rays are emerging from the cloud with about a 90 degree angle from the leftmost ray to the rightmost...agreed?  This cannot possibly be the case if the light source is millions of miles away...for sure.

But in FE theory, the sun is claimed to be about 3,000 miles away - so how, even in FE theory can you explain these rays?

The truth is that the sun (be it 3,000 or 3,000,000 miles away) is illuminating a large thunderhead cloud that's right above the cloud deck.  It's light REFLECTED from that bright, white cloud that produces those rays.

Sorry, here you are both wrong.

The sun is claimed to be 150,000,000 km away, whatever you say in miles, but this single picture does not prove it either true or false.

The rays indeed come from the sun, directly, without reflection. If you go to stand in any of those points where the rays hit the earth and look directly to the direction of the rays, you'll see the sun. If the sun were as far away as is claimed, then, indeed, these rays should be parallel. The problem is: judging from this single picture you cannot tell whether they are parallel or not. Despite those points being in pretty much the same direction from the sun, they are clearly each in different directions from the person who took this picture. That is, because when compared to the sun, the distances between the cameraperson and those points are ridiculously small.

In order to tell, whether or not the rays are parallel, you need someone to stand in each of the individual points where the rays hit the earth. From each of these points, you can have a look at the sun and measure the direction to the sun: and then, if you get the same results, then the rays indeed are parallel (and in that case, it really is a proof on that the sun is somewhere very far away).

Have you ever seen a road rise up a hill? Well, you probably know that the left side and the right side of the road are parallel with each other, though they surely don't look like so.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 07:40:34 PM by Oami »

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1212
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2017, 07:27:03 AM »
this is what, for some stupid reason, prevents people from even investigating massive deceptions.
just like 9/11, focus on the facts and physics.  don't let your ego interfere with your logic.  use your own powers of observation and calculation instead of relying on folks you don't know.
1.  pictures taken of things farther away than would be possible on a ball
Just saying something means nothing!

But, what about the numerous cases where buildings, ships and mountains do get hidden? Like this:

Toronto as seen across lake Ontario from Olcott Beach, NY; evening 18th July EST, by Ad Meskens
Now those buildings are 64.5 km away and large part's are hidden.
Undoubtedly you will have many counter-examples. Let's see them, along with distance and viewing height.

Quote from: BrightNextStep
2.  sun rays coming through clouds at an angle and making angled shadows from parallel objects
Please present some examples, along with your calculations as to the sun height you would estimate from each.

Quote from: BrightNextStep
3.  triangulation calculations for the distance to the sun.
Sure, but why do you rely on just one calculation, presumably done way back by Voliva with two points 45° apart?
And further back Erostosthanes made the triangulation with points, Syene (Aswan) and Alexandria close to 7.2° apart.
To get more accurate results surely one would take measurements from a number of locations.
I did a post on this: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".
In that post, I presented this table of sun heights calculated from different angular spacings.
The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Latitude 
Sun Elevation, Θ   
Distance from Equator, d   
Sun Height, h   
7.2° N   
82.8°
500 miles
3,961 miles
15° N   
75°
1,043 miles
3,891 miles
45° N   
45°
3,128 miles
3,128 miles
75° N   
15°
5,213 miles
1,397 miles
85° N   
5,908 miles
517 miles
Here we see that at a latitude of 45° N (3,128 miles from the equator) the sun's height comes out to be 3,128 miles, more or less as expected.
But, at all other latitudes we get quite different results ranging from 3,961 miles at 7.2° N from the equator to only 517 miles at 85° N.

So sorry, BrightNextStep, but that triangulation method does not give answers that are all consistent!
Is your sun 517 miles, 3,128 miles or even 3,961 miles high?

Quote from: BrightNextStep
4.  the water doesn't go to the equator and then fly off
Simple! You do understand neither gravity nor centripetal acceleration! At the equator,
          the acceleration due to gravity is close to 9.87 m/s2 directed inwards and
          the acceleration due to rotation is close to 0.037 m/s2.
So pease explain why the water would fly off!

Quote from: BrightNextStep
5.  the air magically sticks to a spinning ball so well that it appears as if we aren't moving!  ;D
Clearly, the air doesn't "magically stick" because we do get winds.
But no magic at all. Just a simple understanding of gravity!
Gravity holds the air in contact with the earth "dragging" the air around with the earth and
there is nothing at all to slow the air down. Up past the air is close enough to a vacuum, causing almost no drag.
Gravity also explains very well the way air pressure varies with altitude.

Quote from: BrightNextStep
ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!
ball-deniers understand gravity!
We probably don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation,
but would you please explain the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces.
Opposite electric charges, q1 and q2, attract each other over a distance d with exactly the same form of expression as the gravitational force.

When it is said that "don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation",
what is meant is that we have never identified a "gravitational charge", nor the gravitation equivalent of a "photon"
and quite possibly never will because the energy involved is probably below any limit (Planck limit) of detection.

But, so what does the fact that you cannot explain "the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces" mke them less real?
We do understand the way gravitation works, it has been directly measured dozens of time and it has been verified uncountable times.

Quote from: BrightNextStep
this is simple, but unfortunately, so are sheeple, led by the government schools and media.  WAKE UP :o
So you are now reduced to attempting to insult anyone who doesn't agree with you and claim that they are "simple sheepie".

So, please explain where you got your wise ideas from! Off the internet or did you dream then up?

OK, your explanation of gravitation "is simple", so out with it!  What causes things to fall down?
Please remember to provide evidence for any claims that you make.



Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2017, 12:29:12 PM »
Quote from: BrightNextStep
ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!
ball-deniers understand gravity!
We probably don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation,
but would you please explain the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces.
Opposite electric charges, q1 and q2, attract each other over a distance d with exactly the same form of expression as the gravitational force.

When it is said that "don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation",
what is meant is that we have never identified a "gravitational charge", nor the gravitation equivalent of a "photon"
and quite possibly never will because the energy involved is probably below any limit (Planck limit) of detection.

But, so what does the fact that you cannot explain "the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces" mke them less real?
We do understand the way gravitation works, it has been directly measured dozens of time and it has been verified uncountable times.

We are making progress in gravitation - recall that we now have the ability to detect gravity waves coming from distant black hole collisions and other (very large!) changes in gravity.  We have now confirmed that gravitational changes are transmitted by waves that move at the speed of light.   Wave/particle duality must apply here too - so it's not unreasonable to presume the existence of the graviton as the force-carrier particle that's analogous to the photon and gluon.

Direct detection of the graviton is unlikely though because the equipment needed would have to be larger than the diameter of the Earth (flat or round!).

But (as you said) the fact that the same relationships apply as for electromagnetic forces - and the confirmation that we detect both as waves moving at the speed of light - STRONGLY hints that the graviton exists.

Science in general (flat earth or round earth) is not good at finding the most fundamental causes of things - we can observe how the universe functions - but the "why" behind things like the laws of physics and the values of the fundamental constants are things where we sometimes have to shrug our shoulders and say "Well, we've measured it - and that's how the universe is"...and then we're into weak arguments from the anthropic principle.

FE's problems with explaining how things fall to the ground when you drop them are rather severe though - it's not just that they can't explain (at the lowest level) how gravity works - it's that in an FE setup, no single, coherent, law of gravity (like F=m1 x m2 / r-squared) can explain all of the most basic observations we can make about the effect of gravity on falling objects.

My repeated requests for an explanation of why there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day seem to be completely ignored...the only response I got to my request was an explanation for why there would be only ONE of each in an FE world.

This does not speak well for FET.