If Earth is constantly moving up, why does gravitation very over the surface of the earth?
Good question.
Wiki says this:Apparent gravity is weaker at lower latitudes (nearer the equator), for two reasons. The first is that the surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference: a centripetal force is required to keep objects on the surface moving in a circular path around the Earth's axis as the Earth rotates.
I say this:If the Earth is a flat disc/platter - and NOT spinning, then this doesn't matter because no "sideways" force would be needed to keep objects from sliding about, but Wiki is not very good here because it doesn't bring gravity into it. Objects do not slide about - because of gravity! No sideways force is required. Gasses in the air are an exception if we assume the air is still (although it isn't, it moves around the earth on the round earth) - yes if there's a gas then fine, there would in the round earth model have to be some force making the gasses go sideways at the same speed as the earth turns on its axis - this Wiki passage only lends more credibility to the theory that the earth is flat and it is a still disc, hence no sideways sliding, or sideways force, is required.Wiki continues:In providing this centripetal force, some of the gravitational force on an object is "used up" leaving less to contribute to the object's weight. The apparent force due to rotation is called the centrifugal force; on the surface of the Earth, it depends on an object's mass and its latitude (it's zero at the poles and largest at the equator) so[clarify] it is customarily combined with the Newtonian gravity. Thus, the local gravity, g, is not purely the result of gravitational force, but is actually effective gravity, a combination of true gravity and centrifugal force. It is effective gravity that you measure when you step on a scale or hang a plumb bob. This effect on its own would result in a range of values of g from 9.789 m·s−2 at the equator to 9.832 m·s−2 at the poles.[1]
I say this:This deals with the original question in the first post. Look at how small the difference is in gravity over the earth's surface - 9.789 m·s−2 at the equator to 9.832 m·s−2 at the poles"
We are talking about a discrepancy that is so small, it accounts for just 43mm out of 9,832mm.
I am sure the flat earth theory can explain this away easily by the fact that the sun and moon going overhead at the "equator" (circling the middle of the radius of the platter) are the reason why objects are slightly lighter at the equator. The effects are negligible anyway when its only 43 out of 9,832. In flat earth theory I propose that its the sun and moon causing this, the same as they both (not just the moon) cause the waves on the ocean.There is one problem - look in TheEngineers sig and he has this...
This implies that there is such a thing as mass, but that to come to the conclusion that mass means gravity - you would have to apply "magic" or an "unknown" to explain it. Therefore this image is suggesting that spherical objects like the sun and moon do not have a gravitational pull at all - the waves of the sea must then be explained away with claims that the platter "tilts" slightly, only slightly, could just be 2 inches or something... but in this case then, we are back to the first question in the first post, no?
How can you have this discrepancy in things being ever so slightly lighter at the "equator" if it is not the sun or moon passing over that area to cause this effect in the flat earth?
FE claims mass does not mean gravitational pull hence, explain the fact that objects weigh slightly less at the equator.