I do not care what Newton was wrong about.
Neither do you.
Everybody has been wrong about a great many number of things.
Mostly you.
The fiction is gravity.
Period.
I know water will not adhere to a sphere.
You claim it will because of gravity.
I claim it will not and offer the supposed "father," of gravity, who also states it is pure rubbish.
But go ahead.
Describe the mechanism by which gravity causes 326 trillion gallons of water to perform this marvelous magic.
Well, Newton certainly wasn't describing it as pure rubbish in the quote you cited, but rather challenging its ability to reach across a vacuum without some material of transmission. This was deep philosophical stuff at the time, wrapped up in theology as well as maths and physics. Newton would have laughed hard at the notion that earth was flat - he was way, way beyond that. Indeed, he was instrumental in proposing that it was an oblate spheroid and not just a sphere - he's probably not your best choice of champion.
Saying that 'water won't adhere to a sphere' isn't really an argument. Are you saying that water wouldn't adhere to planet earth even if there was a force equal to mg acting on every particle on the surface of the planet? Or are you saying that there isn't a force equal to mg acting on every particle on the surface of the earth?
The theory is very simple - there is a physical property of matter called mass. If you apply a force to a mass, M, then it will accelerate at a rate given by F=MA. That's what mass is.
There is a mutually attractive force that acts between masses. It is proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That is what gravity is.
Earth's mass is such that every mass on the surface experiences a force equal to its own mass multiplied by 9.81 - the 'acceleration due to gravity', or g. So F = mg = ma, or g = a, meaning everything falls at the same initial rate, until aerodynamic drag takes effect.
But we can measure the effect of gravity with smaller masses - that's what the Cavendish experiment was about, and what numerous other experiments have done. Tom's assertion that the lack of precision in the results invalidates them is absurd - even his own source indicates an agreement between multiple different methodologies of 3-4 significant figures for the gravitation constant. If it isn't a gravity force they are detecting, what is it?
Which part of all of this do you actually disagree with , and why? And saying 'you're wrong' or 'all of it' or 'because Newton' isn't a valid argument.