Then why do the moon and other satellites follow the same laws when they travel around the earth, as the earth does when travelling around the sun?
They don't, in FET. According to FET every celestial body is not traveling around the Earth, but rather the celestial hub (a fixed point above the north pole). I'm sure you can see that it is not the same in any way as what RE has to say.
And why do these same rules apply to the other planets and their moons? Furthermore, why can we apply those laws to our own motion here on earth, as well as the tides?
Because scientists wanted it that way. It's all about how the math is interpreted; scientists choose to assume that gravitation works the same on Earth as it does in space, but their reasoning for choosing to do so is flawed. It's really more faith-based than rational.
You seem to claim "Celestial Gravitation" that even affects objects on the earth (supposedly the tides, etc), yet deny gravitation between the earth and objects on it. Surely the earth, objects on the earth and stellar objects are all the same kind of matter!
In any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did
Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m
3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result he got of about 5,500 kg/m
3 surprised everybody,
but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!
Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". Now before you dismiss Cavendish* (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of G determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value. You don't get that close by accident!
His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference. The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.
None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)
|
This table summarises the modern work:
|
When
one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will
not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So
the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.No, it is a bit ridiculous to say that gravitation between objects on the earth has been de-bunked! And the term "gravity" in nothing more than the gravitational field due to the mass of the earth. In any case, you simply say it is non-existent, but never give any evidence - your denial of gravity is nothing more than a guess to prop up your hypothesis.
* | Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it. Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error. In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity. Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless". Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis! |