[LoveScience]

With regard to this particular section of FE Wiki...

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Not quite sure how you arrive at the idea of 'celestial gravity' being distinct and different to gravity in the well known sense.  And how does it account for the tides?  There was me all these years thinking that it is the Moon that causes the tides. With a bit of help from the Sun on occasions.

[RonJ]

There is a conglomeration of vague statements made about celestial gravitation.
"Celestial Gravitation is part of SOME Flat Earth Models"  --- Please be specific here.  Just what is this site's belief?

"Involves an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies"  -- There really isn't much of a definition of 'heavenly bodies'.  Moon, Sun, Planets, Stars?  Nothing too specific here. I do believe that the Wiki does specify that the Moon does provide an attraction to produce the tides.
 
You somehow have a Celestial body producing 'Celestial Gravitation' at least on the Earth's water to produce the tides but that gravity only applies between the 'Celestial Body' and the Earth's water.  There is nothing regarding why a 'Celestial Body' has a unique gravity attraction property but nothing else has.  You can't have any mass on earth with any gravitational attraction properties between anything other than a 'Celestial Body'.

You have to admit that the Wiki provides just a vague definition of FETs beliefs in the gravitational force.  There's no equations.  Much improvement is necessary here otherwise it looks like FET is just made up.

 
 

[LoveScience]

Exactly. I am not sure whether the FES views their ideology as an alternative 'science' but if so there is very little in the way of verifiable proof being presented. Some of the information laid out in the FE Wiki seems to be almost exclusive and not mentioned anywhere else. I have encountered several sections of it where terms are mentioned that seem to be without either definition in the true sense of the word or backed up anywhere else.

[RonJ]

Of course that's the whole deal with FET.  Things 'kind of work' unless you look too close.  Then its like the in the move where the line goes: 'pay no attention to that man behind the curtain'.  I have brought up the objection of 'selective gravitation' before and have been met with silence.  There are no verifiable gravity equations in the FET wiki pertaining to the celestial bodies. There are no verifiable distances for those bodies.  If the wiki were very explicit of how gravitation works under FET it would be easy to show the fallacy in the theory so you can be sure that everything will remain 'cloudy' to provide 'plausible deniability'.   It took me a while to parse all the little nuances of the description.  It took a while to understand.  The more I studied it the more implausible it became.  That section of the Wiki needs a lot of improvement.

[LoveScience]

Seems to me that FE Wiki is the central reference source of all that the FET is based. Trouble is most of it is just based on simple statements that the reader is seemingly supposed to just accept. For example that the Sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles wide.  Where does that come from?  And that is stated to be a 'later' estimate. 


I will await a suitable explanation from someone who can tell me...

[Curiosity File]

Seems to me that FE Wiki is the central reference source of all that the FET is based. Trouble is most of it is just based on simple statements that the reader is seemingly supposed to just accept. For example that the Sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles wide.  Where does that come from?  And that is stated to be a 'later' estimate. 


I will await a suitable explanation from someone who can tell me...

I thought the claim was 32 miles in diameter, or wide and 3,000 miles up from the surface of the flat earth?

[LoveScience]

Yes I meant up instead of wide.  Typo. Still can't find another other references to those figures anywhere else other than FE Wiki. Knowing what the Sun is really like (109 times Earth diameter and 1AU distance) it is impossible for it to be only 3000 miles away from Earth.

I am still waiting to hear from someone what the energy source of the FE Sun is. Tom Bishop seemingly believes that stellar fusion (or nucleosynthesis as it is also called) is hypothetical. Just because we can't recreate it in a lab on Earth.  Surely that is one good reason to study the stars then.  To learn about physical processes which cannot happen on Earth because we cannot recreate the same conditions.

[Curiosity File]

Seems to me that FE Wiki is the central reference source of all that the FET is based. Trouble is most of it is just based on simple statements that the reader is seemingly supposed to just accept. For example that the Sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles wide.  Where does that come from?  And that is stated to be a 'later' estimate. 


I will await a suitable explanation from someone who can tell me...

This might be what you're looking for,
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Xlg_globe_3.jpg

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
 Flatrth.png
   
    A little trigonometry shows that
   
    Flateqn.png
   
    Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with
    b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close
    sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.
   
    Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two
    distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.

This scale is inaccurate to the overall distance of the flat plane from edge to edge but does have the sun 3,000 miles up.
I believe if the scale depicted the distances in relation accurately the sum would be much closer to the surface. Which brings up a whole new set of problems.