Did you really just break out the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ narrative to discredit Planck?

I like the font

Alas, we "understand" next to nothing about these processes, that's why it's one "revolution" after another.  One of the Church Fathers pointed this out even in his era, that it was one theory after another displacing and overturning the previous one.

I just the other day watched a video by a Flat Earther who presented video from professor who taught at MIT for 40 years.  This professor stated that gravity has no role to play whatsoever in terms of holding / drawing the earth together, for up to thousands of kilometers, that it's all about electric forces, which are much stronger than gravity.  But then he states that the electrical forces are not strong enough to have planets rotating around one another, and that's where gravity comes in.  Finally, at the sub-atomic level, there are different forces involved.  This highlights that gravity was simply invented (never proven in any way) simply to come up with an explanation for modern cosmology.  Of courses, it's all blowing up right now, as they had to invent "dark matter" to explain why what they (claim to) see in the universe doesn't work with the known "laws" of "gravity".

I find quantum theory to be total bunk, the mathematical fantasy world derided by Tesla.  Even Planck himself felt that the math was somewhat contrived and did not discover anything new about reality in its substance.  I don't believe in things in nature that are non-deterministic.  Everything is cause and effect, and the system just means that people don't truly understand what's actually going on.

In other words, for modern science, it's turtles all the way down. Regress upon regress forever.

I find quantum theory to be total bunk, the mathematical fantasy world derided by Tesla.  Even Planck himself felt that the math was somewhat contrived and did not discover anything new about reality in its substance.  I don't believe in things in nature that are non-deterministic.  Everything is cause and effect, and the system just means that people don't truly understand what's actually going on.

I agree.
‘A great deal of what we call science is scientism, which is to say that it’s ideology driven.  What we are facing here is not “science,” properly so called, but a kind of “religion” you can say. It’s something people are passionate about. It’s something they defend, and it is something for which they are willing to attack.  So a great deal of our so-called science is ideology. And, in fact, it is the ideology which is presently manifesting in all the different cultural domains of our civilization, including the political.’ ---Wolfgang Smith, series The End of Quantum Reality

By 1927, a German ‘theoretical’ physicist named Werner Heisenberg had taken the lead in Einstein’s non-visible area of quantum or atomic physics. In Heisenberg’s quantum world however, nothing is predictable whereas in Einstein’s everything is predictable. Heisenberg said it was impossible to measure the speed and position of a particle (within an atom) for the simple reason that observing them interfered with their speed and place, thus nothing can be predicted with certainty. Most leading ‘experts’ in quantum physics today will go before the cameras and tell us that in their quantum world the movements of atoms are always uncertain, the outcome based on probabilities with nothing absolutely predictable. One example of this shown on TV had a leading physicist tell us that anytime we cross the road there is a possibility that we could dissolve and reassemble on Mars or any other planet for that matter. Now not only is that nonsense, it is simple nonsense.

In the 1920s then, we had two contrary ideas of the universe, Einstein’s predictable cosmos and the quantum cosmos of probabilities and chance. Out of the philosophical debate that ensued came Einstein’s famous quip ‘God does not play dice’ to which the other side answered ‘do not tell God what to do.’ Stephen Hawking however had the last quantum word with ‘God not only plays dice, but sometimes he throws them where they cannot be seen.’

Einstein was at his wits end with this paradox of quantum and who can blame him, but wasn’t it he who started it all. To resolve his dilemma and regain his crown as top physicist, Einstein decided to extend his theory of gravity by attempting to combine it with the maths of electromagnetism. He knew if he could produce the equations then he could claim the greatest breakthrough in the history of physics, the long sought ‘Theory of Everything.’ This in turn would make the quantum ideas he disagreed with redundant.

Finally, I had a brother who became a Professor of quantum physics. He gave it up after a year and spent the rest of his life studying and writing on the works of James Joyce with another brother. I once asked him why he gave up the quantum business. He said because it was nonsense. Thereafter he denied he said that to me.

And they may be unpredictable, but that's only quoad nos, meaning that WE can't predict them because we don't know enough about the the true causes of the movements.  Einstein was right that God didn't create some kind of random substrate beneath all of material creation.  Everything is cause and effect.

Of course, removing the cause and effect chain is one way to take God out of the picture (since God as the First Cause is one of the top proofs for His existence).

Exactly, theoretical physics is basically philosophy masquerading as science. It's really not that hard to realize there cannot exist anything truly random. Instead of going from first principles to advanced conclusions these jokers try to disprove first principles by appealing to uncertain conclusions.

This putative "firmament" made of Planck particles is not capable of keeping water outside the earth.

Can you prove that?

Do you not believe that there are vast amounts of water throughout the universe  The putative firmament made of Planck particles would thoroughly permeate this water holding it in place as it would hold so much else in place all the while allowing localized movement of water through it.  Once again that seeming paradox (unless one knows more about Planck theory) -- a Planck plenum of immense density combined with immense flexibility/fluidity.

Wolfgang Smith was certainly a giant.  He remains a giant.  That said, what are we to make of this truly damning report of his going so seriously astray?  The report is brought to you by the same individual who has perhaps done more than any other to expose the fake Sister Lucy?  See Fall of a Giant?

Yes, In Quest of Catholicity killed my esteem for both Dr. Smith and Malachi Martin in one fell swoop. I was already on the fence about Dr. Smith once I read his work Christian Gnosis. Both of which are religious-syncretist (see: Modernist) works, not Catholic.

It's a shame, because he really does a number on heretic Teilhard de Chardin in Teilhardism and the New Religion, and I recall enjoying The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology (which I'm sure I wouldn't like now)

It's obvious.  If the entire universe is filled with these infinitely dense particles, and yet things move freely about, these particles (assuming they even exist) do not suffice to keep anything from moving.

Yes, obviously things move around freely in their local area, but the theory is that the ether made up of Planck particles at the same time holds them in their localized setting so as to prevent them from going upstream so to speak.  "They" are all forced to go around the Earth once every some 24 hours whether "they" like it or not!

BTW, for anyone who may be interested -- the Planck length at approximately 10 to the negative 35 meters is presently the smallest distance theoretically possible for separated entities of matter to exist (i.e., the state in which matter is indivisible), Whereas the electron of the atom is 10 to the negative 15 meters, the Planck loop clocks is 20 orders of magnitude smaller.  So...if an electron were the size of the Earth, a Planck particle would be about the size of an electron!

As for gravity, which if I understand correctly from your past assertions you don't believe in, Dr. Sungenis proposes -- and I stress the word proposes not declares or pontificates -- the following as one possible explanation, an explanation which he does indeed promote as theoretically tenable -- again as a proposal not as any sort of certainty.  This is taken verbatim from his book A Googoplex of Tiny Blackholes: "Since nature abhors a vacuum, the Planck-particles will attempt to relieve the vacuum by reuniting the Planck-particles outside the Earth with those inside the Earth.  More specifically, the partial vacuum of Planck-particles inside the Earth will attempt to pull in the Planck-particles outside the Earth so as to relieve the vacuum.  The attempt to relieve the vacuum is what we know as gravity.  The gravitational force persist because the Planck-particles are unable to completely relieve the vacuum."  There is a lot packed into that and much of the content of the book unpacks/explains it.

How would flat earth account for the midnight sun observed near both the Artic and Antarctic?

There is no midnight sun in Antarctica.  There are two videos that purport to show it.  Both have been exposed as frauds.  On the "webcam" ones, you can see the shadows "jump" instead of going full circle as they should, showing that the video has been edited.  In the other, you can see that identical footage is being reused at the beginning and at the end of the cycle.  That's actually more evidence for Flat Earth.  Why the need to edit and fake video of midnight sun when it should be simple enough to show it with unedited footage?

Arctic midnight sun is perfectly consistent with the most widely accepted FE model.