CathInfo.com

This is nonsense.  They've tried to build muti-million dollar apparatuses to test this, mirroring the Cavendish setup, and they've had wildly varying measurements/results.  Masses involved are so small here that anything can affect the behavior more than gravity would.  Forces involved are so small that anything else, from the earth's gravity, the air movement, to eletromagnetic/electrostatic forces can affect movement more than the force of gravity that would be involved here.  That's why they've spent mullions attempting to exclude all external forces.

That's my concern with the small scale experiment. Also, I disagree with Mould's suggestion that he could have just done away with one set of heavy weights because gravity is a constant acceleration regardless of how massive something is. He was thinking of a feather vs lead weight being dropped in a vacuum and falling at the same speed, but that doesn't apply here. As much mass as possible is needed to enhance the strength of the force to better overcome competing forces. I'd also like to see a much longer, if not thinner, suspension wire, and a much longer distance between the hanging weights to enhance the torque.

More materials that the weights are made of should be experimented with as well as various charge cancelling methods.

But, if we have to accept any flat earth demonstration video as solid proof, this video is no less believable with regards to gravity.

Well, gravity is somewhat distinct from FE per se.  I'm not sure why the two get conflated all the time.

Whether or not one is capable of getting the math for "gravity" right, the explanation of how masses can act upon one another at a distance has remained elusive.  Some have tried to attribute it to electromagnetic fields, Einstein to simply a curve in space time, and the most recent theory being that is has to do with thermodynamics.

What FEs don't do a great job of is where they say that all you need is buoyancy.  In a sense that's true, and I submit that buoyancy/density suffice to explain the movement in and of itself, no different than how things move up or down in water do to their relative density.  But what's missing is an explanation for what might cause the DIRECTIONALITY of the movement, up or down.  Why do more dense things move "down"?

Gravity isn't the only possible explanation for the directionality of the movement.  We know that the earth has a negative charge, so there could be electromagnetism involved.  It could be due to the flow of ether.  It could be due to atomic forces of some kind.  I saw a video of an MIT professor who said that the force of gravity is so weak on the earth that it's a non-factor and that everything on earth is explained by electromagnetism, and that gravity only has any effect between things at the scale of planets.

I guess where gravity enters into the GE/FE debate is that the explanation for how things can stick to the "bottom" of a ball earth is "gravity".  But the debate about whether such a force, whether it's gravity or electromagnetism or whatever, exists I find to be irrelevant vis-a-vis the shape of the earth, because the same force that allegedly would cause things to stick to the bottom of a ball would also cause the downward motion of things on a hypothetical flat earth.  So if there's no gravity, but it's really a type of electromagnetism, then that electromagnetism could be the explanation for how things stick on the bottom of a ball.  So I'm not really sure which argument it's really addressing.

I find the gravity debate to be something of a red herring.  FEs sometime think that if gravity doesn't exist, then it makes a globe earth impossible, but it really doesn't depending on whatever else you end up replacing gravity with.