[StinkyOne]

From my understanding, the thing most people call gravity is a constant acceleration pushing the Earth up in FET. My question is how does FET account for the fact that gravity is not uniform across the Earth? If it is an acceleration, everything would be affected equally. Maps of the strength of gravity on Earth, however, show that there is more gravitational pull in some areas than others. The maps show that areas with more mass exert increased gravitational pull than areas with lower mass. (i.e. the ocean) How is this possible in a FE model?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/

[Curious Squirrel]

FE "explains" it with celestial gravitation. AKA everything but the Earth has gravity. http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

[StinkyOne]

FE "explains" it with celestial gravitation. AKA everything but the Earth has gravity. http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

Oops, my bad.

[3DGeek]

FE "explains" it with celestial gravitation. AKA everything but the Earth has gravity. http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

It doesn't really explain it.  Gravity varies between equator and poles - which isn't easily explained by celestial gravitation.  But it also varies (slightly) according to what rocks are below the surface - at the tops of mountains, etc.

Honestly, if I were a flat earther, I'd go with "standard gravity" - make the world infinite in horizontal extent and finite thickness...with the thickness getting slightly less under the equator...maybe god put a massive aluminium support girder under there?

Trouble with these ideas are that they can't reproduce tides correctly.

FE'ers claim that the moon DOES have gravity - which might produce tides...but it wouldn't explain why we get TWO high and TWO low tides each day when the moon only moves overhead just once.

Still waiting on a good answer for that one!

[Ga_x2]

[...]
Honestly, if I were a flat earther, I'd go with "standard gravity" - make the world infinite in horizontal extent and finite thickness...with the thickness getting slightly less under the equator...maybe god put a massive aluminium support girder under there?
[..]

Hi!
I was looking at just this, proposed in another thread. Wouldn't such a plane with time collapse in spheres, around the denser places?
It's unclear to me why it would keep stable... I've jumped into this forum as way to jog my aging brain, and I'm having a harder time than I thought

[3DGeek]

[...]
Honestly, if I were a flat earther, I'd go with "standard gravity" - make the world infinite in horizontal extent and finite thickness...with the thickness getting slightly less under the equator...maybe god put a massive aluminium support girder under there?
[..]

Hi!
I was looking at just this, proposed in another thread. Wouldn't such a plane with time collapse in spheres, around the denser places?
It's unclear to me why it would keep stable... I've jumped into this forum as way to jog my aging brain, and I'm having a harder time than I thought

Well, I didn't say it was perfect!   It's just more tenable than the FET theory of universal acceleration with botched additions of gravity as needed to try (and fail) to explain tides.