Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help

  • 20 Replies
  • 5420 Views
Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« on: June 26, 2011, 10:52:30 PM »
After reading the FAQ, i have found a couple things that FE theories predict, which are not observed. (some of which have been stated in previous thread, and i will mention them as well)

I would like for anyone familiar with FET to shed some light on these problems, and how they may (if at all) be resolved.

Problem 1)
Quote
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

if the Sun is a spotlight, it can be set up 2 ways
A) it is a sphere (or disc) with blinders on the sides, such that it has a spotlight effect, or
B) it is a sphere (or disc) with no such blinders.

if B) is the case, there is no way that it could be a spotlight. it would radiate light in all directions, thus illuminating all of the Earth (just like a light bulb in a room). so this cannot be true in FET.

if A) is the case - which is the only other option - there should be a centralized location of the highest intensity, which gets dimmer farther out. think of the spotlights in a theater - not only do they illuminate one area very well, but the area just outside is slightly illuminated as well. this is of not much significance (although it is contradictory to observation, but i don't want to explore that here), except to outline the following:
this would also mean that the Sun's light should be observable everywhere on a flat Earth. this is because of reflections of light inside the blinders. however, this means that all places on the Earth should be able to see some light from the Sun at all times. (see illustration below)



but this is not observed; how does FET reconcile this problem?

Problem 2)
Quote
Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

there is a currently active thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49138.0) in which Sorrow_Scavenger pointed out that this explanation is inconsistent with observation.
in addition, there is another problem. not only does the Sun not appear to get smaller (as Sorrow_Scavenger pointed out), this FET explanation does not account for the Sun moving (or appearing to move) below the horizon.

there seems to be no way for FET to reconcile this. however, i understand that an update has been made on the FAQ page about this. it refers to something called Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory. it seems that this is FET's only way to account for these observations, however it makes no reference to what this is or how it works. could someone please link or discuss what this theory is and how it explains these phenomena - please include the complete mathematics and derivation of the theory in your link or discussion.


Problem 3)
Quote
Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

from this (and elsewhere in the FAQ) i understand that gravity, as defined by Newton and Einstein (mainly, that any 2 objects which have mass attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them) does not exist in FET.

instead, FET provides a theory in which the stars and the moon have gravity, but the Earth does not. thus we would expect that the "material" that the Earth is made of is not the same as that of the stars or moon (since, if they were, the Earth's material would be subject to gravitational attraction)
Quote
The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

following this logic, would objects made of the same material as the Earth (ie something dug up from the Earth) be subject to gravity? there are two options:
A) yes
B) no

if A) is true and two mounds of dirt do have gravity, a theory is necessary to explain how they obtain it once being removed from the Earth. if this is the case, please provide a well reasoned theory.

if B) is true - and material from the Earth, once removed, has no gravitational properties - how does FET reconcile experiments like the Cavendish balance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment), in which an attraction between 2 objects (made of steel, or brass, or any such metal brought from the Earth) to each other is observed? this cannot be explained by the Earth accelerating up at 9.81 m/s^2.

there seems to be no way to explain this in FET.

Problem 4)
also regarding gravity and conservation of energy (see Problem 3)):
(before i start: i have seen nothing, so far, regarding conservation of energy. so i assume FET agrees with conservation of energy, which is really should because experiments confirming conservation of energy can be performed (or derived mathematically) on small scales on Earth, without regard to or dependence on its shape or curvature.)

if the Earth has no gravitational field, then there is no potential field associated with the gravitational force. this system cannot conserve energy. for example, in a frame of reference on the Earth (in which we are stationary), an object dropped from a building of height, h, will attain some speed, v, and then some kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 mv^2. however, FET has no explanation for how this energy arose. in classical physics (consistent with RET), it comes from the gravitational potential energy, U = mgh.

in FET, this energy appears to arise from nowhere, violating conservation of energy. how does FET reconcile this?

Problem 5)
the Foucault Pendulum (discussed in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49226.0 - see this for a link to the wiki for it, as well as what it is) cannot be explained with FET.
Tom Bishop has made an argument that
Quote
1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.

2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.

as seen from Problem 3), is it not possible for the celestial bodies to produce a gravitational effect on anything from or on the Earth. therefore, it is impossible for the movement of a pendulum on Earth to be explained by attraction from the heavenly bodies.

in addition, i would like to formally ask for a proof that the attraction by the heavens is sufficient to produce this effect.
it seems that the attraction by the heavens (if it exists) could be sufficient to describe a standard pendulum - which is not being moved from place to place on Earth. however, the heavenly attraction must be very intricate and complex to explain how the motion of a pendulum can be so different in different locations on the Earth.
although a mathematical proof is preferred, a logical argument would suffice given that it makes clear definitions (of such things like the heavenly attraction) and explores all possibilities in detail.


Problem 6)
Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.

as explored in Problem 3) and Problem 5),  it is not possible for the celestial bodies - or the moon - to produce a gravitational effect on the Earth, since the Earth (according to FET) is not made of gravitationally-interacting matter.

also, i don't see how they could produce these effects even if there were a force. again, just like i asked in Problem 5), i would like to see a proof that attraction from these bodies can cause the sea level to rise in different places on the Earth and by the same amount that is observed.


Problem 7)
Quote
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.

where is this antimoon? i have not seen any evidence of its existence. for example:
A) where is it when it is not between the Sun and the Moon?
B) how is its path through the sky described?
C) why can't we see it during a lunar eclipse when the Sun's rays are bouncing off of it?

how does FET explain the lack of evidence for the antimoon?


Problem 8 )
Quote
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: In the dark energy model, the magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as the RE (Diagram). The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, while the magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The ice wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.

the only way that a magnetic field could be vertical at some place on the flat Earth is if it were vertical everywhere (as in the depiction below).

if the magnetic poles are oriented as described, a magnetic object (like a bar) would orient itself vertically on the Earth. this is not what is observed. all bar magnets orient themselves horizontally on the Earth, when the Earth's magnetic field is the only influence. see the illustration below:


Note that the blue line is the flat Earth (as viewed from the side) and the green lines are the orientations of the magnetic field in that area. since magnets align themselves in the direction of the magnetic field, this would force bar magnets to be vertical.

how does FET explain the horizontal orientation of bar magnets? also, according to the FET's magnetic field, a compass should not even work.


Problem 9)
Quote
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is pointing toward the center of the Earth. If you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you have just gone around the world in a circle. Thus, circumnavigation is possible on FE.

actually, according to FET, the compass needle always points up (this is described in Problem 7)), not towards the center of the Earth. thus, compasses should not even work in FET.

please see Problem 7) and explain that inconsistency before returning to this one.


Problem 10)
Quote
Q: "How do seasons work?"

A: The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

please explain how this causes seasons; i do not see how it does.
the Sun's orbital radius does not seem to have any dependence on how much heat we receive from it. i would also like to see a more detailed picture than the one listed in the FAQ section because, from that picture, it appears that the Sun does not even pass over most the Earth during a given season - which means, according to the "Sun is a spotlight" theory, only a very thin section of the Earth receives light and heat from the Sun.



For now, those are the inconsistencies with FET that i would like to point out and get some feedback on.
Thank you to anyone who can do so.

And please, be cool.

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2011, 11:45:26 PM »
also, if you have a response to one of these problems, please don't refer me to a book and tell me to read it unless it is free and available online, or you can provide it - or the relevant passages - for me and the others. i apologize that i don't have the resources to be buying these books.

i say this because i often see Tom Bishop (and perhaps others) reply by telling posters to read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. it would be immensely more helpful if you could respond with the relevant information.
it is fine - suggested even - if you provide the source for your ideas, but please include the information, not just the source.

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2011, 02:56:35 AM »
sorry, i had just a couple more things to add:


Problem 11)
Regarding the stars (and other celestial bodies):

FET states that the stars are suspended above the Earth at a constant height. however, it can be easily observed that only some stars are visible during the course of the year if you live, say, in Western Europe. and say your friend lives in Australia, he will see a different array of stars than you will.

but according to FET, all of the stars should be visible to everyone regardless of his or her location on the Earth. this is not observed. how does FET deal with this?


Problem 1) (revisited)
i also wanted to add something else about the FET model of the Sun - that is, that the Sun is somehow a spotlight on the Earth.
it is easy to see that, unless you are standing directly under the "spotlight" Sun, the Sun will appear distorted, and will look more like an ellipse. that is, when viewing the Sun from any angle (measured from the vertical) other than 0, the Sun will appear as an ellipse.

this, however, is not observed. how does FET reconcile this?



Again, thanks to both FEers and REers for posting.
And please keep my last post in mind.

i'll keep posting with more stuff that i find as it comes along; i hope we get some good discussion in this thread.
be cool everyone.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2011, 03:09:58 AM »
i say this because i often see Tom Bishop (and perhaps others) reply by telling posters to read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Google, first result.

Alternatively, this very site's Flat Earth Library.

You're welcome.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2011, 03:23:20 AM »
i say this because i often see Tom Bishop (and perhaps others) reply by telling posters to read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Google, first result.

Alternatively, this very site's Flat Earth Library.

You're welcome.

ah thanks, i was under the impression that i had to buy it.

okay, i'll be reading that.
while you're here PizzaPlanet, do you have any thoughts on the actual substance of my posts?
thanks

EDIT:
i'd still like to note that what i was talking about still applies. posting the actual information - or at the very least, a quotation of the source's relevant passages - is much more helpful than simply the title of the book.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 03:26:56 AM by be cool »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2011, 06:13:22 AM »
Keep it at one question per thread please

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2011, 06:16:29 AM »
Keep it at one question per thread please

can't answer the questions then? go read Physics for retards, you'll enjoy it

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2011, 07:35:53 AM »
Tom knows he cant answer them, he will end up contradict is previous AMAZING children stories about the earth.

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2011, 07:38:29 AM »
Keep it at one question per thread please

can't answer the questions then? go read Physics for retards, you'll enjoy it

You've read a book called "Physics for Retards"?

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2011, 03:56:29 PM »
Keep it at one question per thread please

if you want, you can have a mod lock this one and i'll make 11 different threads.
but that just seems much messier.

but i'll do whatever you want if you'll just answer the questions.

please let me know in a timely manner - as i think these are vital questions for FEers and REers.
thanks, and be cool.

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2011, 03:12:31 AM »
I'm really itching to have these questions answered soon.
If i need to remove this post, and make 11 separate ones, please let me know.

Otherwise, i am very eager to get some input on these matters.

Thanks again.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2011, 07:13:51 AM »
Keep it at one question per thread please

can't answer the questions then? go read Physics for retards, you'll enjoy it

You've read a book called "Physics for Retards"?
He's the author.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2011, 08:33:15 AM »
Keep it at one question per thread please
Tom, you can't answer one questions, so it doesn't matter how many he puts here, you'll never contribute anything.

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2011, 04:25:29 PM »
I'm really itching to have these questions answered soon.
If i need to remove this post, and make 11 separate ones, please let me know.

Otherwise, i am very eager to get some input on these matters.

Thanks again.

Still waiting here guys.

I know this isn't the speediest of forums, but more than reasonable time has passed. I hope you guys aren't just ignoring this...


In the meantime, REers, what do you think?

?

crackpipe larry

  • 178
  • I poopded.. <%!
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2011, 10:27:46 PM »
Just keep waiting patiently, well get back to you.. We promise, your concerns are important to us..  ;)
Why are Pandas so rare??   cuz, Panda tastes good.. <is>

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2011, 10:09:37 PM »
FE'ers are good at that. Getting straight to the important details is Tom's specialty:

Keep it at one question per thread please
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2011, 11:57:38 PM »
they will not ever satisfactorily answer any of those questions.  The reason being is that all evidence points to a round spherical earth very, very strongly and all other theories against it are simply hole ridden alternative theories that just dont add up when they are all put together.  There is no round earth theory, it is round earth fact (technically is spherical, not round), as seen by astronauts from every space faring nation on the planet including teachers, professors, and government astronauts/cosmonauts alike.  But I guess their ALL in on the conspiracy.

Even while Russia and the US hated eachother, both nations space agenices confirmed the earth as a globe when they went to space.  If one nation hates the other, why would they not want to make the other look bad by saaaaaay showing americans proof of the earth being flat?  This would surely make us lose faith in our lying government and start huge uproars.  In fact why has no government (that is our enemy) ever put forth these claims?  Even the smallest of countries can afford low space weather balloons.

But I guess the ENTIRE planet is in on the conspiracy against FET.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 03:01:31 AM by MooseJuice »

Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2011, 11:37:52 AM »
The following "problem" has been raised with Problem 1) regarding the light from the FE Sun. I'll dispel it here.

I own a flashlight.  It does not illuminate my entire house at once.  I have often worked as a spotlight operator.  The spotlight does not illuminate the whole stage at once - that's the point of using it.

And don't forget, the inverse square law does not apply to light beams that have been focused via a reflector and/or a lens.  This is a point it seems hard for many people to understand, but it's one of the basic reasons to use a reflector or lens.

You are correct that a flashlight does not illuminate the entire house.
But try this, turn on your flashlight and set it down on the table. Now, step a few feet back and look at it from an angle of almost 90 degrees (even 60 deg. would be good) measured from the direction that the light exits. You will still be able to see the light shining inside the head of the flashlight - even though the flashlight is only directly illuminating the area in front of it.

Everyone please feel free to post pictures of this. Like so:

See how the illumination is visible even at an extreme angle, which is no where within the scope of direct illumination?


Since the Sun works much similar to this mechanism in the FE model, then this side-ways illumination should be visible everywhere on the FE, not just on the small fraction that the light is illuminating directly.
(This is what is shown in the diagrams above in Problem 1).)

The same would apply to your average lighthouse, except that the lighthouse uses elaborate optics to focus the light, and there is a massive concrete structure surrounding it.

And it is obvious that neither of these - especially the elaborate focusing mechanism - are observed on the Sun. Even with a telescope and a solar filter, which I have used to look at the Sun.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2011, 05:03:50 PM »
The following "problem" has been raised with Problem 1) regarding the light from the FE Sun. I'll dispel it here.

I own a flashlight.  It does not illuminate my entire house at once.  I have often worked as a spotlight operator.  The spotlight does not illuminate the whole stage at once - that's the point of using it.

And don't forget, the inverse square law does not apply to light beams that have been focused via a reflector and/or a lens.  This is a point it seems hard for many people to understand, but it's one of the basic reasons to use a reflector or lens.

You are correct that a flashlight does not illuminate the entire house.
But try this, turn on your flashlight and set it down on the table. Now, step a few feet back and look at it from an angle of almost 90 degrees (even 60 deg. would be good) measured from the direction that the light exits. You will still be able to see the light shining inside the head of the flashlight - even though the flashlight is only directly illuminating the area in front of it.

Everyone please feel free to post pictures of this. Like so:

See how the illumination is visible even at an extreme angle, which is no where within the scope of direct illumination?


Since the Sun works much similar to this mechanism in the FE model, then this side-ways illumination should be visible everywhere on the FE, not just on the small fraction that the light is illuminating directly.
(This is what is shown in the diagrams above in Problem 1).)

The same would apply to your average lighthouse, except that the lighthouse uses elaborate optics to focus the light, and there is a massive concrete structure surrounding it.

And it is obvious that neither of these - especially the elaborate focusing mechanism - are observed on the Sun. Even with a telescope and a solar filter, which I have used to look at the Sun.
Wow you are very cool. This post is awsome, I can't believe you did this on your own. please keep up the good work.  Can you make a video about this(for youtube)?
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

FEisBS

  • 120
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2011, 03:10:56 AM »
The following "problem" has been raised with Problem 1) regarding the light from the FE Sun. I'll dispel it here.

I own a flashlight.  It does not illuminate my entire house at once.  I have often worked as a spotlight operator.  The spotlight does not illuminate the whole stage at once - that's the point of using it.

And don't forget, the inverse square law does not apply to light beams that have been focused via a reflector and/or a lens.  This is a point it seems hard for many people to understand, but it's one of the basic reasons to use a reflector or lens.

You are correct that a flashlight does not illuminate the entire house.
But try this, turn on your flashlight and set it down on the table. Now, step a few feet back and look at it from an angle of almost 90 degrees (even 60 deg. would be good) measured from the direction that the light exits. You will still be able to see the light shining inside the head of the flashlight - even though the flashlight is only directly illuminating the area in front of it.

Everyone please feel free to post pictures of this. Like so:

See how the illumination is visible even at an extreme angle, which is no where within the scope of direct illumination?


Since the Sun works much similar to this mechanism in the FE model, then this side-ways illumination should be visible everywhere on the FE, not just on the small fraction that the light is illuminating directly.
(This is what is shown in the diagrams above in Problem 1).)

The same would apply to your average lighthouse, except that the lighthouse uses elaborate optics to focus the light, and there is a massive concrete structure surrounding it.

And it is obvious that neither of these - especially the elaborate focusing mechanism - are observed on the Sun. Even with a telescope and a solar filter, which I have used to look at the Sun.

Since a spotlight will dispel light in nearly every direction, I have also always wondered this. Tom and friends need to change the LURK MOAR section.
Quote from: 17 November
Ok, so what if I'm retarded. At least I know what I'm talking about...

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2011, 02:25:10 PM »
After reading the FAQ, i have found a couple things that FE theories predict, which are not observed. (some of which have been stated in previous thread, and i will mention them as well)

I would like for anyone familiar with FET to shed some light on these problems, and how they may (if at all) be resolved.

Problem 1)
Quote
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

if the Sun is a spotlight, it can be set up 2 ways
A) it is a sphere (or disc) with blinders on the sides, such that it has a spotlight effect, or
B) it is a sphere (or disc) with no such blinders.
There are literally indefinite ways for a light to appear as a spotlight.  Consider a non-euclidean space that directs light towards one location.  Or some forms of lenses can create this effect too.  I could likely think of thousands more, but I think you get the idea.

Quote
Problem 2)
Quote
Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

there is a currently active thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49138.0) in which Sorrow_Scavenger pointed out that this explanation is inconsistent with observation.
in addition, there is another problem. not only does the Sun not appear to get smaller (as Sorrow_Scavenger pointed out), this FET explanation does not account for the Sun moving (or appearing to move) below the horizon.

there seems to be no way for FET to reconcile this. however, i understand that an update has been made on the FAQ page about this. it refers to something called Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory. it seems that this is FET's only way to account for these observations, however it makes no reference to what this is or how it works. could someone please link or discuss what this theory is and how it explains these phenomena - please include the complete mathematics and derivation of the theory in your link or discussion.
You are misunderstanding Rowbotham's perspective laws (which are kinda bunk anyways.)  However to refute it, I suggest you learn what he's actually saying.

EAT and AE theory both explain this you are correct.  EAT does not have a mechanism, but AE theory does.  The mechanism is an effect of empty space.  This also explains the planetary motions, the sun setting, ships sinking, and most similar phenomenae.
Quote
Problem 3)
Quote
Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

from this (and elsewhere in the FAQ) i understand that gravity, as defined by Newton and Einstein (mainly, that any 2 objects which have mass attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them) does not exist in FET.
In correct, In the Davis model gravitational pull is identical as in RE theory. 
Quote
instead, FET provides a theory in which the stars and the moon have gravity, but the Earth does not. thus we would expect that the "material" that the Earth is made of is not the same as that of the stars or moon (since, if they were, the Earth's material would be subject to gravitational attraction)
Not necessarily, that is a logical jump that is not by necessity true!

Quote
Quote
The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

following this logic, would objects made of the same material as the Earth (ie something dug up from the Earth) be subject to gravity? there are two options:
A) yes
B) no

if A) is true and two mounds of dirt do have gravity, a theory is necessary to explain how they obtain it once being removed from the Earth. if this is the case, please provide a well reasoned theory.

if B) is true - and material from the Earth, once removed, has no gravitational properties - how does FET reconcile experiments like the Cavendish balance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment), in which an attraction between 2 objects (made of steel, or brass, or any such metal brought from the Earth) to each other is observed? this cannot be explained by the Earth accelerating up at 9.81 m/s^2.
The Earth does not have gravity in the models you talk about.
Quote
there seems to be no way to explain this in FET.
Except my work, which you quoted above and to which there is a link with a rudimentary explanation.
Quote
Problem 4)
also regarding gravity and conservation of energy (see Problem 3)):
(before i start: i have seen nothing, so far, regarding conservation of energy. so i assume FET agrees with conservation of energy, which is really should because experiments confirming conservation of energy can be performed (or derived mathematically) on small scales on Earth, without regard to or dependence on its shape or curvature.)
More or less we do, but then again RE theory again and again ignores it with inventive magic babble!
Quote
if the Earth has no gravitational field, then there is no potential field associated with the gravitational force. this system cannot conserve energy. for example, in a frame of reference on the Earth (in which we are stationary), an object dropped from a building of height, h, will attain some speed, v, and then some kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 mv^2. however, FET has no explanation for how this energy arose. in classical physics (consistent with RET), it comes from the gravitational potential energy, U = mgh.
In the davis model it does have a gravitational field.   The conservation of energy in the other models would be tied to the UA...

Quote
in FET, this energy appears to arise from nowhere, violating conservation of energy. how does FET reconcile this?
It arises from the UA.  It should also be noted that magically energy is being made all the time if we are to believe REers - an increasing amount that is accelerating the cosmos!
Quote
Problem 5)
the Foucault Pendulum (discussed in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49226.0 - see this for a link to the wiki for it, as well as what it is) cannot be explained with FET.
Tom Bishop has made an argument that
Quote
1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.

2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.

as seen from Problem 3), is it not possible for the celestial bodies to produce a gravitational effect on anything from or on the Earth. therefore, it is impossible for the movement of a pendulum on Earth to be explained by attraction from the heavenly bodies.
This is not shown in problem 3.
Quote
in addition, i would like to formally ask for a proof that the attraction by the heavens is sufficient to produce this effect.
it seems that the attraction by the heavens (if it exists) could be sufficient to describe a standard pendulum - which is not being moved from place to place on Earth. however, the heavenly attraction must be very intricate and complex to explain how the motion of a pendulum can be so different in different locations on the Earth.
although a mathematical proof is preferred, a logical argument would suffice given that it makes clear definitions (of such things like the heavenly attraction) and explores all possibilities in detail.
The proof is to tie a ball to a string and swing it about.  Though it should be noted all foucault pendulums in the world either produce incorrect results when looked at through a RE lens or are guided by magnets.  How odd...
Quote
Problem 6)
Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.

as explored in Problem 3) and Problem 5),  it is not possible for the celestial bodies - or the moon - to produce a gravitational effect on the Earth, since the Earth (according to FET) is not made of gravitationally-interacting matter.
This has not been shown.
Quote
also, i don't see how they could produce these effects even if there were a force. again, just like i asked in Problem 5), i would like to see a proof that attraction from these bodies can cause the sea level to rise in different places on the Earth and by the same amount that is observed.
What "proof" would you see fit beyond the proof round earthers claim to have (viewing the sea rise and fall.)
Quote
Problem 7)
Quote
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.

where is this antimoon? i have not seen any evidence of its existence. for example:
A) where is it when it is not between the Sun and the Moon?
B) how is its path through the sky described?
C) why can't we see it during a lunar eclipse when the Sun's rays are bouncing off of it?

how does FET explain the lack of evidence for the antimoon?
The antimoon theory is kinda bunk imo.



I have run out of time for your plethora of questions.  In the future post them in seperate threads...
So long and thanks for all the fish