[Stagiri]

FE UA cannot explain different gravitational accelerations. Even if individual parts of Earth would accelerate differently, the gravitational acceleration also depends on your altitude, whether you are moving west or east (the Eötvös effect), and so on.

Furthermore, even a slight difference of acceleratooinionion would soon tear the Earth apart. For you to get an idea: in not even 15 minutes of accelerating from zero velocity the elevation difference between Mount Huascaran and the Arctic Ocean, the areas with the most extreme gravitational accelerations, would be larger than between the bottom of the Mariana Trench and Mt Everest on the stationary Earth and in 29 hours it would be 384 000 km, the same as the mean distance between the Earth and the Moon in the heliocentric model.

How does the FE society explain these things?

[juner]

How does the FE society explain these things?

Probably by reading the FAQ and the wiki. Maybe even searching the topic on the forum, since it has been discussed repeatedly.

[Stagiri]

I've read the faq and wiki pages, they don't say anything about differences in gravitational accelerations.

I've also read forum threads and, at the very least, I've found no FE explanation for the Eötvös effect.

That's why I started this thread.

[Curious Squirrel]

I've read the faq and wiki pages, they don't say anything about differences in gravitational accelerations.

I've also read forum threads and, at the very least, I've found no FE explanation for the Eötvös effect.

That's why I started this thread.

Sorry, but that just shows you haven't read the wiki thoroughly enough. https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation It's come up in a few discussions. I don't know why he didn't just point you here, but this is the FE 'catch all' for gravimetric anomalies, including the tides. At least for some FE believers, relating most closely to those who believe in UA.

[nickrulercreator]

Sorry, but that just shows you haven't read the wiki thoroughly enough. https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation It's come up in a few discussions. I don't know why he didn't just point you here, but this is the FE 'catch all' for gravimetric anomalies, including the tides. At least for some FE believers, relating most closely to those who believe in UA.
[/quote]

And, remember, this celestial gravitation must adjust to necessary requirements, no matter what. Pulls very slightly on the earth just enough to change the experienced "gravitational pull" by a fraction of what most scales measure? Check!. Pulls much harder to make the tides rise and fall twice a day? Check!. Unknown cause? Check! For some reason the Earth cannot also have this? Check! Immeasurable, unable to be calculated, and seemingly random? Check!

[Stagiri]

I've read the faq and wiki pages, they don't say anything about differences in gravitational accelerations.

I've also read forum threads and, at the very least, I've found no FE explanation for the Eötvös effect.

That's why I started this thread.

Sorry, but that just shows you haven't read the wiki thoroughly enough. https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation It's come up in a few discussions. I don't know why he didn't just point you here, but this is the FE 'catch all' for gravimetric anomalies, including the tides. At least for some FE believers, relating most closely to those who believe in UA.

The many incosistencies of the celestial gravitation aside, it cannot explain the Eötvös effect.

[Curious Squirrel]

I've read the faq and wiki pages, they don't say anything about differences in gravitational accelerations.

I've also read forum threads and, at the very least, I've found no FE explanation for the Eötvös effect.

That's why I started this thread.

Sorry, but that just shows you haven't read the wiki thoroughly enough. https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation It's come up in a few discussions. I don't know why he didn't just point you here, but this is the FE 'catch all' for gravimetric anomalies, including the tides. At least for some FE believers, relating most closely to those who believe in UA.

The many incosistencies of the celestial gravitation aside, it cannot explain the Eötvös effect.

Why not? The stars have some pull of some form, and as such while spinning they create the Eötvös effect (along with every other anomaly because why the fuck not) as they do so. Can you conclusively show this can't be the case? I'm game if you think you can, but remember the shadow object.

[Stagiri]

Firstly, the celestial gravitational (CG for short) field cannot be uniform, there must be areas of lower and higher gravitational pull. Otherwise, objects on the surface of the Earth would be pulled evenly and there would be no differences in gravitational acceleration.

Secondly, the CG must increase to the east and decrease to the west in order to cause the observed Eötvös effect. Furthermore, this must be true for every point and any points on the Earth since the Eötvös effect is universal.

However, it is impossible for the strength of the CG to constantly increase in one direction and decrease in the other. Imagine going around an empty clock dial "eastbound" and writing numbers representing the strength of the CG on it. After completing a full 360° rev you would find out that the number to the west is actually greater than the number to the east when it should be lesser (see paragraph two).

Moreover, the total gravitational pull of the "west half" would be greater than the total gravitational pull of the "east half". That would result in an eventual westbound pull which once again contradicts the whole scenario.

In conclusion, the CG cannot be the cause of the Eötvös effect.

[Macarios]

Acceleration at the top of Mount Everest is 9.77015 m/s².
Acceleration in Tampa is 9.79736 m/s².
(from: http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=e856809e0d522d3153e2e7e8ec263bf2)
Mount Everest is at 27.98 degrees north, at 8848 meters above sea level.
Tampa, FL is also 27.98 degrees north, at 1 meter above sea level.

Moving closer to the source of the celestial gravitation above Mount Everest for 8847 meters makes the acceleration lower 1.002812649 times.
It means the distance was changed SQRT(1.002812649) = 1.001405337 times. Let's call it k.
Since (D-1) = (D-8848)*k it makes D = (8848*k-1) / (k-1) = 6 304 135 m from the sea level (6 305 km).
This is consistent with height of the Sun to be 5005 km.

On North pole and on Ice Wall g is 9.832 m/s²,
Knowing that, we can calculate the distance from celestial source to be 6304135 * SQRT(9.832 / 9.79736) = 6 315 270 m.
6 315 270 - 6 304 135 = 11 135
It means the North pole and Ice Wall are both 11 135 meters below sea level.
It is somewhere around the bottom of Mariana Trench.

Ok, now we have another question here.
Since the "dome rotates" above the Earth's surface, whatever configuration it has, it must be circular, similar to vinyl record, or Fresnel lens.
For example, above Mount Everest must be the same distance regardless of the angle of the "dome" above the Earth.
Same goes for Aconcagua, Rocky Mountains, Appalachians, Alps, Carpathians, and the rest of the Earth's surface.

How this explains tides?

Heliocentric model describes Earth "swirling" around Sun at "astonishing" speed of 30 km/s.
The whole Solar system travels at "mind blowng" speed of 230 km/s around the galactic core.
Unacceptable.

And somehow the "static, unmovable" Earth in Flat model travels at "lousy" 299 791 km/s and on top of that accelerates at rate of 9.832 m/s².
That is much more "comforting".

Through what we accelerate ?