To W,
Whoa, dude, you've got that so arse-backwards I don't know where to start.
So how about here:
If there were no water falling from the sky, however, one could reasonably decide that such a theory was really not necessary.
Precisely. But water
does fall from the sky - hence the rain theory. Similarly, people
are sucked towards the ground - hence the gravity theory.
And this is how it is in FET. The only one mechanism in FET is the acceleration of the earth.
Here's where things start to go wrong. First, the difference between a mechanism and a theory is semantic. Regardless of the terminology, you can say there are two kinds of ideas - statements about things that are, and concepts about why things are the way they are. This is the problem. The "Acceleration of the Earth" concept falls into the former category. It simply states the fact that, relative to a ball in the air, the earth is accelerating to meet it.
It causes problems because it's arbitrary - it doesn't
explain anything, it simply
describes it.
Why the earth is accelerating, along with the sun and the moon, and why other things
aren't accelerating (like us and the ball) isn't defined, it's just assumed that they are because they are. Hence it's not really a theory, just a statement.
The only reason that RET doesn't have many conflicting mechanisms is that there actually isn't one...
Actually, I would have said the reason FET has so many conflicting mechanisms is that few (if any) are based on evidence or sound, testable theories. In fact, I'd say that FET is a pigsty of misappropriated scientific concepts and magic theories invented to prop up seriously flawed model of the earth.
Gravity is just a word and all of the various theories in RET as to why we don't float away from the earth are called by that word.
Again, you're arguing semantics here. Yes... gravity is a word. However, the "various theories" of gravity amount to two (Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity), and for 99.9% of calculations you need to make, they yield the same results. Newtonian Gravity is for most intents and purposes correct, it just doesn't incorporate the extra element that relativity does to make it accurate when involving huge masses and distances of space.
But gravity as a force doesn't actually exist, in either RET or FET.
Which is the difference between Newtonian gravity (which is defined as being a force) and General Relativity (which defines gravity as the result of mass distorting spacetime).
Regardless, trying to paint a picture of RET as somehow
less coherent because of its use of gravity is one of the more bizarre argumentative approaches I've come across. Follow me down a little path of reasoning, if you will...
Idea: The Earth is flat.
Problem: If the Earth were flat it would collapse into a sphere under the effects of gravity.Solution: Get rid of Gravity.
Problem: Without gravity, people would float away from the earth.Solution: Then make it so it accelerates up constantly.
Problem: If the earth accelerated up constantly, we'd crash into the moon.Solution: Make the moon smaller... and accelerating up too.
Problem: The Earth would crash into the sun, too.Solution: Do the same with the sun.
Problem: Solar eclipses wouldn't happen.Solution: Make light bendy.
Problem: The tide wouldn't happen.Solution: Invent an anti-moon.
Problem: GPS wouldn't work.Solution: Invent a conspiracy.
Problem: The earth would need a source of infinite energy.Solution: Dark Energy.
... and so on. All problems you could avoid by simply accepting gravity. But then you'd have to accept a round earth, and that's just silly.