On differences about acceleration in different points in the earth

As I posted in a thread created by me wich was moved to another section which nobody seems to read. 
 
First. I need FEr not to be so reluctant about gravity. (I am going to adress the issue of the mistakenly called gravity varying from one point in the earth to another)

This could even be called the FE-gravity unification theory .

Lets start by assuming the earth is a flat disc but its deepness is variable. Earth is mostly accelerated by dark energy at roughly 9.8 m/s. But earth and its deepness also provides a very slight gravitational pull which explains the differences in measurements of gravity. With this in mind, one could even conjecture how the bottom of the earth looks like.

I think this would turn into a nice debate for general disscusion and I ask (beg) not to move this topic.

Any FEr would care to explain if I am mistaken in my assumption?

I couldn't completely understand your post, but I assume you are saying that the bottom of the earth has various shapes which then translates into different speed of acceleration based on your altitude on the top of the earth. Is my assumption correct?

Yeah the acceleration at any point on the earth (which differs as we know) is directly proportional to the mass of material under your feet.

 It raises the question, how the thickness of material can affect the acceleration. If you accelerate disc which is in one point 1mm thick and in other point 1km thick do you assume that the place which is 1mm thick accelerates more or less than place with 1km thickness.

No.

Then it wouldn't be a disc, would it?

The point the OP seems to be getting at, is that FE relies on this upwards acceleration, whereas measuring gravity at various points across the earth proves this to be wrong. So now, after rubbishing gravity as RE'ers refer to it, now FE theory maybe has a bit of gravity, to supplement UA, so that it actually works.

I think this would turn into a nice debate for general disscusion and I ask (beg) not to move this topic.

As noble as this sentiment is, we are trying to give the boards a bit more direction and purpose of late, and as this is a more serious question, I'm going to move this to Q&C.

No.

Then it wouldn't be a disc, would it?

The point the OP seems to be getting at, is that FE relies on this upwards acceleration, whereas measuring gravity at various points across the earth proves this to be wrong. So now, after rubbishing gravity as RE'ers refer to it, now FE theory maybe has a bit of gravity, to supplement UA, so that it actually works.

That was were I was trying to get. Just a bit of gravity. 

Frankly, I don't see why the FET cannot accept gravity to be solely responsible for us being pulled towards the earth.
I can't see how it would make their argument any weaker, and perhaps even stronger getting rid of the hopelessly flawed UA.
You can still have a flat earth (albeit a thick one) with scientificaly backed gravity.

You might even be able to come up with something ridiculous out of gravity that explains bendy light. Say... gravity repels photons somehow and thats why light bends away from the earth?
Hell, so far I think thats the best explanation of bendy light on the forum... and I don't even support FET.

The way I see it, there are several reasons that FE can't accept gravity.  Not the least of which being that gravity acts towards the center of mass of an object.  No biggie for those in the northern hemiplane.  However, as you go further south, you might notice a bit of a list to one side.

The way I see it, there are several reasons that FE can't accept gravity.  Not the least of which being that gravity acts towards the center of mass of an object.  No biggie for those in the northern hemiplane.  However, as you go further south, you might notice a bit of a list to one side.

As Markjo says, if the earth is a finite disc, then there are several reasons why 'gravity' and FET are incompatible. Of course, in John Davis' Infinite Plane model, gravitation is part of FET.

Gravity does not always pull towards the centre.
It pulls towards mass, most of which happens to be concentrated at the centre of the earth in RET.

On a flat earth the concentration of mass would be even throughout and so it would pull directly downwards, not to the centre of the disk.
You can factor in differences in the strength of gravity from other things previously mentioned.

Gravity does not always pull towards the centre.
It pulls towards mass, most of which happens to be concentrated at the centre of the earth in RET.

On a flat earth the concentration of mass would be even throughout and so it would pull directly downwards, not to the centre of the disk.
You can factor in differences in the strength of gravity from other things previously mentioned.

I'm not sure who this is directed at, but if it was directed at what I said, this is the basis of the infinite plane model:

This is the main heart of the infinite plane model.  It has to do with the unobserved myth of decreasing gravitational pull with altitude.

Quote from: John Davis on July 19, 2008, 05:26:36 PM

Given an infinite flat earth:

Infinite Flat Earth Depth and Gravitational Pull

Using Gauss's law:


Alternately, you can integrate:
Apply

to an infinite slab of density , obtaining

where A is the area of the "pillbox," G is the gravitational constant, and h is the thickness of the slab. Therefore, the gravitational acceleration is given by

Source:Wolfram.com

 a < 2*pi*G*D.

Ignore thickness on that first little sketch.  I was in a hurry when I did that I think.