[GiantTurtle]

The gravity at the equator is 9.780 m/s2 at the pole is about 9.832 m/s2, where I am the gravity is about 9.81 m/s2

RE say that the lower gravity is caused by the earths rotation and the centre petal force.
How does the FE theory answer this?

[douglips]

It's not just centripetal acceleration but also the non-roundness of Earth that leads to lower weights at the equator:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/the-earth/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/94-does-your-weight-change-between-the-poles-and-the-equator-intermediate

I too am curious for a flat earth explanation of this.

[3DGeek]

It's not just centripetal acceleration but also the non-roundness of Earth that leads to lower weights at the equator:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/the-earth/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/94-does-your-weight-change-between-the-poles-and-the-equator-intermediate

I too am curious for a flat earth explanation of this.

Because the Earth is also a bit squashed in at the poles, gravity is a little higher there than "normal".

There doesn't seem to be an FE explanation for this.

[douglips]

{crickets}

This is fascinating to me. Variations in gravity clearly eliminate universal acceleration as a possibility, and should be very easy to measure with a gravimeter.

[3DGeek]

Yep - we always get crickets on this one.

You know when you have an FE'er beat...they stop talking about it.  Count it as a victory and move on.

[Curious Squirrel]

I mean, this is what we've got to work with: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

It's pretty bare bones though as far as explaining how any of it works though.

[DigitalBlasphemy21]

I have no dog in this fight but maybe it's cuz there is no gravity? I don't know and personally I don't care if there is or isn't gravity. It's not going to change anything.

[xenotolerance]

homie, if you don't know or care if there is or isn't gravity, you DID take the blue pill

It's not like you should care a great deal about gravity, one way or the other. You could be ambivalent about it without it being important to you, personally; in any given person's everyday life it's not super relevant. A truly ambivalent person however would accept the demonstrations of its existence and be like, okay cool, that's gravity I guess. In order to actually believe something like 'maybe it's cuz there is no gravity idk lol' you have to be something that isn't ambivalent: You have to be asleep.

My impression of the FE explanation for this phenomenon is that the pull of gravity of the infinite plane wavers in this specific way for reasons I'm not clear on. Universal acceleration doesn't have a ready explanation for it afaik.

[GiantTurtle]

Celestial gravity is used as an explanation for why gravity is less at higher altitudes as you are closer to the source of the gravity. Which must mean that it has a lesser effect at a longer range.
As other than the pull of the moon and the sun gravity has no vertical component we know that no part of the earth is closer to a source of gravity than another. IE, if there was a higher source of celestial gravity at the equator then there would be vertical pull towards these areas.
The scale of difference in apparent gravity would require the source to be very low down so it can be significantly closer to one point than another, which would mean that the pull would be highly horizontal.

[3DGeek]

I have no dog in this fight but maybe it's cuz there is no gravity? I don't know and personally I don't care if there is or isn't gravity. It's not going to change anything.

So - pick up an object and then let go.

Why does it fall to the ground?

This definitely happens - and it needs to be explained.   Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree (I've actually sat under that very tree!) and wondered exactly this.

Why did that happen?

That's the question here.   Round Earthers (and every physicist on the planet) agree that there is a force (or, arguably a 'pseudo-force') that pulls small objects like apples towards large objects like planets.   This is what makes the sun, stars, planets and Earth round - it's what causes orbits to happen - it explains why we have seasons and day and night.   It explains tides and that you weigh a little bit less if you're at the equator than at the North Pole - and a little bit less if you're on top of a large mountain.  It explains galaxies and weird shit like black holes.  Every experiment ever done to examine these things has ended the same way:  GRAVITY.

But in a flat earth, there is a bit of a problem.  Gravity wouldn't exactly work like it really does.  The effects are subtle - but important if you actually care whether your ideas about the shape of the Earth are right or wrong.

So intelligent, thinking people must look at this discrepancy between what we claim to be true and what we can actually measure (and can easily see with our own eyes in the case of things like tides).

When you open your eyes and truly THINK about the world around you - rather than following some dogma in a sheep-like manner - you come to the inescapable conclusion that Sir Isaac Newton was *almost* 100% correct - and with a small tweak from Albert Einstein - we now have an answer that seems to reproduce reality PERFECTLY.   That answer is NOT the theory of "Universal Acceleration" - that theory cannot reproduce many important things that we can easily see and measure.