But sure. There exists such a definition of "harmony" under which the two exist in harmony, and since you chose to replace one ambiguous definition with another, you should be pretty content with that answer.
I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”. If there is a sense in which the two theories can coexist, then it is misleading to say they are incompatible.
Yes, this problem will persist until you've actually read beyond the lede and understood the piece of writing you're impotently trying to "gotcha". Nobody can help you there but yourself.
There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible. Instead, it goes on to offer an entirely different and entirely incompatible theory. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state that in some ways traditional theories of gravity are consistent with FE and then to on to explain how?
I repeat (only for the second time, so I appreciate this might not have sunk in just yet): you will not be allowed to derail this thread any further. If you want to carry on shitposting, do so in the right place.
When it was suggested earlier in the thread that FE and gravity weren’t not compatible, you were the one who said that was not true. I don’t see how pointing out that your wiki says otherwise is derailing the thread or shitposting. It was a direct response to a comment you made.
If there is some sense in which traditional theories of gravity are compatible, in what way are they? And directly to the point of the OP, is that limited compatibility responsible for maintaining the shape of the earth (whether RE or FE)?