[Mysfit]

Yet the question remains, what in FET explain moons predictably, 'patternistically' orbiting planets? So far, from an FET perspective, I would say the explanation is unknown.

Thanks for getting back on topic, stack.
I have done research into an alternative force for moons (not our moon), the 'small effect', but came up with diddly. No evidence whatsoever for the 'small effect', unless i misunderstood my findings
And yet. The moons are there, taunting.

[AATW]

If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you guys allege then you guys would EASILY be able to prove any of these topics beyond doubt.

There's a good reason that the UK legal system demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.
You can always cast doubt on something as I showed above in my silly conversation.
Your list of demands are spurious. Most people would argue those things have been done, but even if they hadn't, we have film from space and endless photographs, we have hundreds of people who have been there and orbited the globe earth including 7 space tourists who have paid for the privilege.
Yes, you can cast doubt on all their testimony and all the photos and film. You can claim there's a worldwide space travel conspiracy. But you have no really evidence.

That doubt is really you guys just mumbling "CGI" and "wires" and "bubbles" or whatever.

And you don't apply this sceptical context consistently. Till recently you blindly accepted Rowbotham's claim about the horizon being at eye level. You have now inexplicably changed your mind about that. Something for you to think about: if he's wrong about that then what else might he be wrong about?

[RonJ]

In getting back to the first post on this tread, I made a 'back of the envelope' calculation.  I assumed a 5 meter sphere with a mass of 2,887,881 kg, and a pebble of 0.005 meters radius with a mass of 0.00288 kg.  I came out with a force of gravity deflection of less than a millionth of a newton.  That would mean that you would never be able to see or measure anything given the conditions of your experiment.  In order to see the force of gravity you will need much bigger masses and more sensitive measurement instruments.   

[Mysfit]

In getting back to the first post on this tread, I made a 'back of the envelope' calculation.  I assumed a 5 meter sphere with a mass of 2,887,881 kg, and a pebble of 0.005 meters radius with a mass of 0.00288 kg.  I came out with a force of gravity deflection of less than a millionth of a newton.  That would mean that you would never be able to see or measure anything given the conditions of your experiment.  In order to see the force of gravity you will need much bigger masses and more sensitive measurement instruments.

Not quite, I was not measuring gravity. I was attempting to measure an effect, not present in the GIANT Flat Theory Sun and Moon, but present in the tiny Flat Theory planets or meteors etc.
I was assuming flat theory was correct and may have disproven it that way.
Glad to know that my noticing nothing works with round theory, though. Thanks.

[LoveScience]

In other words this 'universal acceleration' is some kind of 'gravity simulator' which is needed in order to create the illusion of gravity on a FE. I can't argue with the idea that motion in a particular direction will create the impression of weight but in the case of a FE, what is causing the motion in the first place.  And motion relative to what?

They say that the Earth is not a planet. So what is it then?

[edby]

In other words this 'universal acceleration' is some kind of 'gravity simulator' which is needed in order to create the illusion of gravity on a FE. I can't argue with the idea that motion in a particular direction will create the impression of weight but in the case of a FE, what is causing the motion in the first place.  And motion relative to what?

They say that the Earth is not a planet. So what is it then?

See my other post on auxiliary assumptions. One assumption underlying most of physics is conservation of energy. The energy for the constant acceleration of the earth over time must be vast. But where does it come from?

By contrast, the Newtonian theory of gravity is much simpler, and consistent with conservation of energy. You lift up a heavy object, and it acquires potential energy. The energy came from the food you ate. You drop it, and that energy converts to heat and sound. Much simpler.

[RonJ]

According to FET the earth is being constantly accelerated at 9.8 meters per second squared.  That acceleration is due to the force of 'dark energy' pushing on the bottom of the earth.  If the disk earth had gravity like any other object of mass then the only place that the gravity would be at 90 degrees to the earth's surface would be at the North Pole. Of course this whole scenario is very interesting.  What solid surface does the 'dark energy' push against? There is gravitational attraction between the water on the earth and the 'heavenly' bodies but other objects don't have gravitational attraction toward the earth.  The sun and moon circle the flat earth above but have to means of 'propulsion' to keep them in orbit.  I'm just scratching the surface of the impossible things going on under FET.  The earth is more like a space ship going at nearly the speed of light thru the universe.  Dark Energy flows around the edges to hold the atmosphere to the earth is another option of the theory.  If you wish to believe in some of Newton's laws of motion then many of the things under FET are impossible and unexplained.  At least under FET I wouldn't have to worry much about an alien invasion because any aliens would have to work hard to keep up with the earth and would have to break thru the 'dome' to get at any earthlings.