[round boye]

According to the wiki, the pull of gravity diminishes the higher you go in the atmosphere because of the small gravitational pull of other celestial bodies like the moon and sun. Given that these bodies have different masses and are different distances away, the pull of gravity should be somewhat irregular high in the atmosphere, but IT ISN'T.

How can you explain this?

[JHelzer]

the pull of gravity should be somewhat irregular high in the atmosphere, but IT ISN'T.

This is a difficult claim to prove or disprove on this forum.  My understanding of gravitational variance in both RE and FE is that it is so small that it takes incredibly sensitive instruments to detect and measure.  I doubt anyone on this forum has access to those instruments.

We know that the gravitational pull of the moon causes the tides in both models*, so I guess that could be an answer for you.  The moon is indeed causing irregular gravitational forces high up in the atmosphere.  The RE model also asserts that variances in the density of the crust of the Earth creates gravitational irregularities all over the planet.  Therefore very small gravitational irregularities on the surface and in the atmosphere/atmolayer actually do exist in both models.

*FE gravitation reference - https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Tidal_Effects

[mtnman]

We know that the gravitational pull of the moon causes the tides in both models*, so I guess that could be an answer for you.  The moon is indeed causing irregular gravitational forces high up in the atmosphere.  The RE model also asserts that variances in the density of the crust of the Earth creates gravitational irregularities all over the planet.  Therefore very small gravitational irregularities on the surface and in the atmosphere/atmolayer actually do exist in both models.

*FE gravitation reference - https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Tidal_Effects

The differences have experimentally proven to be related to increased distance from the Earth's gravitational field. With ultra precise atomic clocks differences in altitude, and/or velocity measure exactly as expected according to Einstein's relativity. https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/superaccurate-clocks-prove-your-head-older-your-feet

[3DGeek]

According to the wiki, the pull of gravity diminishes the higher you go in the atmosphere because of the small gravitational pull of other celestial bodies like the moon and sun. Given that these bodies have different masses and are different distances away, the pull of gravity should be somewhat irregular high in the atmosphere, but IT ISN'T.

How can you explain this?

The variances due to rock densities and such are very hard to measure - so it's tough to beat the FE guys over the head with that one.

Variances due to the shape of the round earth are VERY easy to measure though - the difference between pole and equator is about 0.3%.  Most people's bathroom scales are accurate enough to do it - so this is a well-established fact.  Variances with altitude are a similar amount.

Overall, between the poles and the top of Mt. Everest, the difference is about 0.7%.

Their claim that the "gravitation" (not "gravity"...although the distinction doesn't seem important and they accidentally use the wrong word in many places) of the stars and moon cause both these variations AND the tides is indefensible though.

The tides vary through the day - according to the moon's location - so the moon can't explain the equatorial effect.

The stars are pretty much uniformly distributed over the earth - so their gravitation can't explain the lesser effect at the equator either.  *MAYBE* you could use this to back a claim about gravity at high altitudes (although the shape of the gravity-versus-height curve would be all wrong if you did careful measurements) - and I suppose you might somehow be able to correlate the localized density of stars overhead to the natural variations that RET says comes from denser versus lighter rock formations.

But the poles-versus-equator thing is VERY easy to measure - it can't be explained by Universal Acceleration - or lunar/solar/stellar or planetary gravity gravitation.

This is one of those things where FET has to rely on "magic happens here" kinds of explanations.

[pszemoI]

This is a difficult claim to prove or disprove on this forum.  My understanding of gravitational variance in both RE and FE is that it is so small that it takes incredibly sensitive instruments to detect and measure.  I doubt anyone on this forum has access to those instruments.

These "incredibly sensitive instruments are called scales, and they are not that difficult to obtain:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/03/scienceshot-garden-gnome-tests-earths-gravity

[3DGeek]

This is a difficult claim to prove or disprove on this forum.  My understanding of gravitational variance in both RE and FE is that it is so small that it takes incredibly sensitive instruments to detect and measure.  I doubt anyone on this forum has access to those instruments.

These "incredibly sensitive instruments are called scales, and they are not that difficult to obtain:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/03/scienceshot-garden-gnome-tests-earths-gravity

You misread.   I agree that the difference between the poles and the equator - and between sea level and mountaintop is EASY to measure with a cheap weighing machine...I actually said that in my post (your bathroom scales are good enough).

What is much more subtle is the effect of different rock formations beneath the ground - underwater aquifers and such.  For that you need much more than 0.1% accuracy - which is about what you get with cheap consumer-grade weighing machines.

For THAT you need more sophisticated techniques.