Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"
what specifically are you asking?
you have to remember that all laws/math that you are using to try and prove a round earth were all developed based on the same earth that we are claiming to be flat. a lot of the math would be the same, but the fact the math was done based on an assumed "round" earth is where some errors can occur.
I don't know what math could change.
At the time when Galilee Galileo did his experiments with ramps and later when Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke and others did numerous experiments with rsmps and pendulums etc, there was no thought of the earth being flat.
But I fail to see how that could affect the
results of those experiments.
The earth being flat may changed Newton's deductions from the variation of
g with altitude and may have left the poor fellow mystified as to why
g varied the way it does with latitude.
And the earth's being flat may have affect his deductions from the, possibly apocryphal, apple and the moon. In Newton's day it had been accepted for some 1500 year that the moon orbited the Earth and even the distance was known with quite reasonable accuracy.
Newton realised that the same force kept the moon from flying away as caused the apple to fall to earth.
And I might point out that Newton's "Laws of Motion" alone prevent the moon from circling the way flat-earthers seem to assume.
So a flat earth would have changed the deductions from these observations but there was no significant belief in the flat earth then anyway, so why would it be considered?
But then we get to Henry Cavendish in 1787/88, again before
your flat earth was "invented".
He measured the forces between known masses a known distance apart, an experiment that has been carried out probably a hundred times since with similar results.
How would the earth's being flat or spherical have affected the raw results of all these experiments and essentially they say that
mass attracts mass.
Some try to ridicule Cavendish's experimental technique but he was highly respected in his day for his experimental technique and had done many electrical experiments involving very small forces before that time.
So, I think it is fair to say that the results of these early experiments stand even if you wish to interpret them differently.
Some results might seem very hard to explain with a flat earth and UA.
How, for example would you explain:
- The variation of measured g with latitude?
- The variation of measured g with altitude? "Celestial Gravitation" has been suggested, but that raises the question as to why "celestial mass" should attract "terrestrial mass" but "terrestrial mass" not attract "terrestrial mass".
- The results of the numerous "Cavendish type" experiments which certainly seem to indicate that "terrestrial mass" attracts "terrestrial mass".
Of course, many flat earthers simply dismiss as "fabricated evidence" any results disagreeing with the flat earth - a highly dishonest practice in my opinion.