[JocelynSachs]

Celestial Gravitation (CG) is invoked in FET to explain tides and other observed deviations from the uniform force proposed by UA.

CG is observed to act upon terrestrial matter, and the distribution of 'celestial matter' is declared to be unknown. Consequently it is impossible to rule out scenarios where CG is wholly responsible for objects falling to earth when unsupported.

No demonstration of matter undergoing UA can be presented. Rather, we are asked to believe that somewhere below us, some 'special' matter is being subjected to UA, and everything else is being pushed ahead of it. This is inference from a hypothesis, not observation. In contrast, we can see the effects of CG directly, in the same way that we can see the way magnets behave.

I submit therefore that UA is an unnecessary and unjustified complication of FET, perpetuated solely based on its attraction (sorry) as a mechanism requiring a flat earth.

[Rounder]

Are you proposing that ALL gravity is CELESTIAL gravity then?

[juner]

Are you proposing that ALL gravity is CELESTIAL gravity then?

I doubt it, since no one is saying celestial gravity.

[Rounder]

Right, terminology mistake.

OP: Are you proposing that all the force we think of as gravity is celestial gravitation, and that none of it is UA?

[Tom Haws]

I agree with the opening post. Instead of reaping all the confusion caused by UA, why not just postulate that the flat earth is many times bigger than our known world so that the gravity "lines" are for all intents and purposes parallel and vertical for us (in other words, so that gravity acts essentially straight down for all of us)?

[Roundy]

I agree with the opening post. Instead of reaping all the confusion caused by UA, why not just postulate that the flat earth is many times bigger than our known world so that the gravity "lines" are for all intents and purposes parallel and vertical for us (in other words, so that gravity acts essentially straight down for all of us)?

This is part of the reasoning behind the infinite flat Earth theory.

[JocelynSachs]

Right, terminology mistake.

OP: Are you proposing that all the force we think of as gravity is celestial gravitation, and that none of it is UA?

I'm saying that there is no need or empirical justification for UA in FET.

I strongly suspect, based on the choice of terminology (universal acceleration) and the deafening silence that has greeted my last few posts, that its proponents have never followed the logic of it through to the point of realising none of the matter we see can be undergoing UA. All matter we can inspect has weight, and weight (absent gravitational effects) is the result of something that isn't innately accelerating being pushed by something that is.

Meanwhile, FET invokes CG to act upon terrestrial matter and explain tides and other phenomena. Empirically, it is not possible to attribute any particular proportion of an object's weight to CG. Heck, I could just as easily claim that UA is acting downwards to alleviate hundreds of gees of CG - or sideways for that matter.

So while it's possible to imagine that somewhere below us, a force is acting upon matter we can't see and pushing everything else ahead of it, that's pure speculation and quite unnecessary.

I agree with the opening post. Instead of reaping all the confusion caused by UA, why not just postulate that the flat earth is many times bigger than our known world so that the gravity "lines" are for all intents and purposes parallel and vertical for us (in other words, so that gravity acts essentially straight down for all of us)?

This is part of the reasoning behind the infinite flat Earth theory.

That's not necessary either. A distant, powerful source of CG below the earth would suffice.

[Tom Haws]

That's not necessary either. A distant, powerful source of CG below the earth would suffice.

True. That makes me wonder what could possibly be making the earth resist the distant and powerful CG. But it's said that "earth is special". So maybe the bulk flat earth earth itself has anti-gravity properties. I get what you are saying. It doesn't make things any worse, and it's definitely a suitable substitution for UA. I don't know that it's much of a simplification. But it complies a little better with Occam's Razor.

[Scroogie]

Are you proposing that ALL gravity is CELESTIAL gravity then?

I doubt it, since no one is saying celestial gravity.

From Dictionary.com

gravitation
noun
1.
Physics.
the force of attraction between any two masses.
Compare law of gravitation.
an act or process caused by this force.
2.
a sinking or falling.
3.
a movement or tendency toward something or someone:
the gravitation of people toward the suburbs.

gravity
noun, plural gravities.
1.
the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.
2.
heaviness or weight.
3.
gravitation in general.

Gravity and gravitation appear to be defined in such a way as to make them essentially  synonymous.

Why is it that FEers make a distinction between the two?