You have not said anything about HOW it would be faked.
That's true. I rarely speculate on such things, and I doubt it would do much good in this case. Lets imagine I've done all that already, and just presented you a possible (I think we've both agreed, not very plausible) explanation for how it is faked.
Would that prove/demonstrate anything? Would that serve as some sort of compelling evidence for you? If so, why?
Or explain how the GRACE experiment produced correct data (i.e. lead us to find underground water that did not know about).
Assuming there are GRACE satellites - they presumably use them to indirectly measure such things from high altitude. Otherwise it is probably composite data from other real sources. Of course there are many other possibilities.
So they are tracking around in the expected orbital paths and are launched into that path based on the globe model and newtonian mechanics (though relativity does come into time adjustments for their clocks) but are not in orbit. ? What does that mean?
I think this is particularly unlikely, however perhaps not impossible. Just because we believe we know how things work, and can demonstrably use those things, doesn't prove that belief true.
I think it is more likely, that if they are up there and moving as we expect they are - they are riding a current of some kind. The earth is most likely stationary, and the sky rotates above us. They would still require large balloons or other means to remain aloft until that system inevitably fails.
Some speculate that the satellites are entirely fictional, and this is the reason there are so few photos of them and virtually no photos of them in orbit. They conclude that the things we see in the sky are not satellites and point to the apparent sizes of such objects (such as the iss) being inconsistent with their supposed distances as an evidence.
The globe earth IS the default from very far back, this has been known for a couple of thousand years.
Well, that's a big part of the problem. For virtually all that time the speculation that the world was spherical was taught disingenuously/erroneously as "knowledge"/"fact" when it wasn't.
Many people mention eratosthenes or columbus when discussing "proving" the world spherical - but what they misunderstand is that both of those people already KNEW the world was round for the same reason we do today; we are taught it as fact from childhood, just like they were.
FE doesn't even HAVE a full model (i.e. theory).
Models are not theories. However - in general, flat earth researchers do not spend their time producing either, so in a way you are right. There is the globe model, and then there is no model (yet). Models of the entire world take significant time and investment to create. Expecting them to already exist is foolish.
Please generate a table of sunrise, sunset, location data based on FE math.
That would be tricky considering we lack the verified and verifiable data to do so. In any case, the lights in the sky may move and shine where they please - the shape of the world doesn't enter into that. Looking up to study what is down beneath your feet, is both foolish and unscientific.
If the globe earth were true the observations we see for daylight/night, sunrise, sunset, our view of the stars, etc all are exactly what we would expect.
It's slightly less amazing when you realize that the presupposed interpretation of those phenomena has been conditioned through education for millennia.
Testing theories based on observation via Baysean reasoning is how science works.
The scientific method does not involve "baysean reasoning" nor does it allow mere observation to EVER test a theory/hypothesis.
You do not understand science.
Believe me, the reverse is the case - but that will take time to establish/recognize.
We have two theories.
I hate to be a stickler meseeks, but I must for the purposes of our discussion. The colloquial definitions that most everyone learn for scientific vernacular are wrong. For example, your use of the word "theory". In science, speculations on the cause of a natural phenomenon are called hypotheses. Theories are not speculations at all (ideally).
One that the earth is a globe and one that it is a flat disk.
Those are just statements that various believers make. They aren't even hypotheses.
ALL the observation we have is exactly what we would expect to see if the globe theory were true.
Except for all the observations that contradict it, sure.
None of the observations we make are what we would expect if the earth was flat (particularly not ever finding the edge).
Actually, the vast majority of observations support the world being flat (but that doesn't make it flat!).
As for the "edge" - no one is completely certain there is one. Biblicalists cite "the four corners" of the world mentioned. Some speculate the earth to be an infinite plane with no edge.
So bayesian reasoning says the globe theory is the correct one.
And you think that makes it correct? If we pretended that the two "theories" were, in fact, just that - applying occams razor would favor the flat world (perhaps not a "wafer disc") because it requires less assumptions; But that doesn't make it correct!
Why don't you get this? Explain that to me if you would.
I'm working on it! Communication takes time.