You also conflate something that "isn't true" with something that "cannot be true". Your flawed logic implies the former if we're being generous, but you're loudly demanding the latter

No, you are conflating saying something is true with saying that something could be true.

In logic, there is a basic, fundamental principle from which all other logic flows. It is called the Law of Non-Contradiction and states that something cannot be both true and false. So when you say that FE gravity is true (

**not just could be true**), there is zero possibility that it could be false. If there is zero possibility that it could be false, there is also zero possibility that RE gravity could be true. If FE gravity is true, the earth is flat, if RE gravity is true the earth is round. If the earth is flat, there is no possibility that it is round. The Law of Non-Contradiction demands that it cannot be round

Now if all you are saying is that it is

**just possible **that FE gravity is true and that it is not necessarily true, the law on Non-Contradiction does not apply. I don’t get the impression that is your position when I read “This website is dedicated to unravelling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax” and other such statements on this on the website. If that assumption is wrong, I stand corrected.

There is something else is logic called Modus Tollens, it is a basic rule of inference in logic and states that if a statement is true, so is it contrapositive. The contrapositive of a statement is when you reverse the antecedent and consequent. The contrapositive of P implies Q, would be Q implies P. So when you state that the truth of FE gravity implies that RE gravity is false (which is true statement because of the law of Non-Contradiction), that is the logical equivalent of saying RE gravity is false because FE gravity is true.

P2 is true because of the Law of Non-Contradiction, and C1 logically follows because of the Modus Tollens principle. If my conclusion C1 is incorrect, can you explain why the Law of Non-Contradiction or the Modus Tollens does not apply?

While it is true that proving something to be true implies that the alternatives are untrue, demanding a direct proof of the negation of these alternatives is not logically equivalent

I am not demanding “direct refutation”, although it would be nice, it isn’t necessary. To disprove RE gravity, all you have to do is prove FE gravity. But as I stated in my opening post, just offering alternate theories that

**could be true** doesn’t do that. You must be able to demonstrate those alternate theories

**must be true**. That is the only way, because of the Law of Non-Contradiction, to eliminate the possibility that RE gravity is true. Evidence that any FE theory

**must be true **is evidence that RE gravity cannot be true, and that is all I asked for in my opening post.