you sure are confident about gravity without even knowing how gravity works, interesting.
the mechanics of RE Gravity are NOT known (same with CG)...unless you recently discovered how and then i will apologize to you are your forthcoming Nobel prize
Look, I am confident that the relationship known as Newton's Law of gravitation accurately describes the relationship between Force, mass and distance. All measurable properties. I have a defined relationship that can be demonstrated in the lab. I am saying that gravity (or acceleration due to gravity, yes the one causes the other) is caused by mass. What you are saying is entirely unclear. You have no defined relationship, just a slogan 'CG'.
By the way, you have the audacity to say I am not engaging with 'intellectual honesty' when you arrive entirely empty handed to the debate with some lame notion of CG being a
bit like Newtonian gravity but pointing the other way....give me an actual break!!!
as far as position of stars affecting the values??? seriously, you are really just trying to find anything to argue on when nothing is there. do you really think there is variability in the distribution of starts to affect the values??? look up in the sky next time its dark, stars are pretty consistently spread accross the sky
This statement shows that you do not understand the scientific method. It is simply not adequate to say the stars have a significant affect on objects on Earth and yet not explain exactly what properties of the stars cause the affect while also saying there is no point in measuring said effect. What kind of intellectual honesty is that? A scientist would say, 'It is proposed that the stars effect a force on objects on Earth, let us measure these forces under differing circumstances'.
For example, If, as you say, the sky is homogenous then the main factor influencing CG will be the proximity to the stars.
CG bases it as distance from the stars. and the same results. sea level = 1g, higher elevations <1g.
Why then can we measure differing values for g at various positions of
equal altitude? That would suggest that another factor is at play. And yet CG was the only factor suggested to explain the anomaly of varying values of g and YOU claim that CG depends only on altitude.
You see the problem?
Once you propose a new hypothesis such as CG it must be tested and explained in a distinct way from the current theory/model. This is what happened with Special relativity. What you are proposing is that CG explains the variation in values of g and indeed that is what we measure when we measure g. But you cannot simply make such a claim without gathering data to support your case. Especially when the current model that encompasses fluctuations in altitude, crust density etc already agrees very closely with the Newtonian model. I think you are very confused and do not understand the most basic aspects of science. Are you a scientist? I am. I have been a qualified Engineer or Scientist in one way or another for nearly 21 years. What is your background? What actual science have you performed in a professional manner? I would respectfully suggest you back off making silly claims about my 'intellectual honesty' when you appear not to understand the difference between an opinion (CG) and a scientific law (NG).
Now, so far as me 'not understanding the mechanics of gravity'....guilty as charged. I never claimed to understand the fundamental cause of gravity. Nobody does. I merely claim to understand the relationship known as Newton's Law of Gravity and can make mathematical predictions about the properties related therein. If I have ever claimed more than this, please quote me. We await a unified theory of everything to join up the theories we have thus far.
Now I am trying to keep this thread about the science. I think anyone reading these threads who understands logic and how it pertains to science will see that. You appear to have no background in Science and little to no understanding of the scientific method. If you did you would understand the criticisms I have made above (and in previous posts). If my posts 'confuse' you (or others) might I suggest it is because you do not fully get the complexity of science needed to explain and justify a proper valid theory.
As they say, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Proper, valid scientific theories are much rarer and must be defended against all who would attempt to misuse or misrepresent them. That is why I am on the forum. That is why I fundamentally disagree with your points.