I’ve never seen any attempt to match the differences in gravity to actual celestial objects or any hypothetical invisible celestial stuff.
There's not much you really can do on that, especially the latter. At the end of the day the best that can be done is to point out why measured gravitational force can vary under UA, and celestial gravitation's one of the recourses.
Well if it’s due to the sun, moon and/or stars (as your compendium suggests) of course there’s something that can be done.
Simply map out the measured variations of apparent gravity on a flat earth map(s) and compare with positions of sun, moon and stars to see if there’s any correlation.
Of course it’s worth considering that measured gravity doesn’t change throughout the day (tidal effect on measured gravity is actually very tiny). Since the stars, sun and moon all move around in the sky, and the Milky Way does not line up with the equator, it would appear that “celestial gravitation” can’t be due to any observed celestial objects, which I guess leaves something we can’t see, that doesn’t move relative to the earth.
It seems quite amazing to me that people would seriously suggest “celestial gravitation” as an explanation without even giving it as much consideration to how it could actually work as I just have. Which took very little effort on my part.
Has anyone even tried? The lack of intellectual curiosity to test their own ideas that flat earthers exhibit is fascinating.
Unless you can point me in the direction of anyone having done anything to justify this hypothesis, of course?
That being said gravitation's usually used as a response to variation with altitude, not with distance from the poles.
I have no idea what you are saying here. Measured gravity varies with distance from the poles, with altitude, geology, etc. It’s all real, and doesn’t matter what people usually talk about, even if they do usually talk about altitude.
For geographical variation, the UA post in the compendium gives a mention:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458
I’m still curious where you got the information for your compendium?
Are these ideas you’ve seen any work on, or a collection of things picked up in FES forum conversations?
Assuming you're talking to someone that doesn't deny the existence of said variation as too small to reliably measure, the response could likely be that the accelerator isn't 100% blocked by the Earth, that some places more than others exhibit a minor upwards force through the Earth that, while it is utterly overwhelmed by the downwards force of gravity, does slightly diminish it. In that case the reason objects weigh more at poles would be because the Earth does a better job of blocking the accelerator there.
Well, the spherical earth has 2 poles, and the flat earth has 1. So are you suggesting that the rim or edge would somehow block the effects of universal acceleration more than the equator?
As for why that would be the case, it probably ends up tied to the formation of the Earth and I don't really know much about that for most models, beyond those like DET where it's an intricate part of the explanation, but equally DET takes a very different tack to explaining gravity so it's not wholly relevant.
Ok,well we’re seriously mixing models now.
I’d prefer to try and nail down celestial gravitation as a possible contender or not.
As I say, it looks to me that like stars, moon and sun aren’t the answer, so it would have to be some kind of unmoving, unseen celestial stuff (which just happens to produce the same effect as more conventional explanations). But I’ve never seen anyone suggest as much.