I find before starting such discussions it helps to ask why your expect a given outcome first before declaring that outcome disproves a given theory.
Why would you expect gravity to be constant across the planet if it is an oblate spheroid with non-uniform density and varying composition instead of a homogeneous sphere?
Weight and mass are not synonymous, and electromagnetism is orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Under what conditions is the test for a levitating capacitor performed?
You are correct, heat does affect magnetism. However, the Earth's core is a large mass under extreme pressure, and it does rotate every 24 hours while interacting with the electromagnetic field of the sun. I don't know whether that affects these calculations of demagnetizing or not. I would hesitate to call this disproof.
If a guy did an experiment in the past, we can replicate it today, right? What if Einstein's criticisms were correct? How can we account for it and ensure that criticism is invalid while replicating the test?
Tesla is reported to have performed amazing feats, and while I doubt he was a charlatan, many other potential considerations must be weighed. Wireless transmission of power has been performed, but between interference with radio communications and the problem of the inverse square law over distance there may be good reason not to replicate them.
Light is strange. I don't claim to understand the intricacies of how light interacts with objects. I know there are reports of slowing light. I know there are reports that the alleged FTL information transfer have been challenged as in fact a miscalculation. I don't have the knowledge base to confirm or disprove anything there. However, I am willing to co conditionally accept the status quo of physics for now.
The real test is whether a given model more accurately predicts the outcome of experiments consistently over time. As an extreme example, flat earth theory fails to predict or explain anything, while the heliocentric spheroid earth model does predict and explain eclipses, retrograde planetary motion, the day/night cycle, the horizon, etc. and the flat earth criticisms I have seen can all be tested and rendered moot by checking the assumptions and testing in the real world.
Now, I am not saying your position is that level of error, but I am trying to find a standard for investigation of your claims.
Congratulations, you just disproved the modern science text books....
I said the above because i expected you to know the current model of earth, and know how mass, in the shape of a sphere would display gravity. (basically, the anomalies are cancelled out by the size of the planet. Uniformity is assumed because the planet doesn't have a huge wobble, which it would if one side was heavier than the other. The mathematics works out such that all the mass is considered to be at the center point of the earth)
Furthermore, the gravity is not just a little bit off from being uniform, it is WAY off.
So much so, that there is a scientist who believes that there are micro-blackholes inside the earths crust.
I doubt you have seen any disproofs of flat-earth.
You have probably seen videos which just discard their claims.
But, here is the root problem:
The US published charts on how far away you could see a light house.
A guy worked out from their height and position, that this was beyond the edge of the horizon.
So, you have to see through the water to see them at that distance.
To drive this point even further, you can see these light houses from even FURTHER on still, clear nights. (so it isn't even a question of it being beyond the horizon)
And now, people are taking infrared photographs of cities WAY over the horizon.
Of course, this could be because light travels along the surface of the earth. (not in a straight line)
How have I disproven science textbooks? What is your evidence for variances being "way off"?
Your dispute is, "a guy said something"? Atmospheric refraction. and mirages are known phenomena. They do not prove a flat earth.
Isn't it interesting that both you and @steampunkkaja went to mirages.
Because there is a big deal of mystery in this phenomena.
And we really do not know how it works. (we do have all kinds of pieces...)
However, the photographs of things over the horizon is becoming a larger and larger body of repeatable evidences.
And the lighthouses.
Are you stating that the reason you can see them from the distance that The US govern-cement printed is because of constant and continual refraction?
Every instance I have seen thus far of something appearing over the horizon at a greater distance than the mathematics would otherwise suggest has exhibited the characteristic distortions of a mirage, or demonstrated a failure in the mathematical model assumed by the "globe debunker." Such mirages do not require the "constant and continual" refraction you seem to believe they demonstrate. All I know is that when I have visited the Great Lakes and the Pacific coast, my personal observations lined up with the predictions of the spheroid earth model.
Doubts about possibility A does not prove possibilities B, C, or D. It doesn't even disprove A. Allow me to attempt an analogy. Let us suppose the entire narrative of 9/11 is a lie. I am willing to consider that possibility. Even so, my doubts regarding the official story do not necessarily prove any given alternative, or disprove that airplanes hit two towers and the Pentagon.
Indeed, light doesn't always travel in a straight line. It bends around massive objects, such as stars (planets, not so much), and is also refracted differentially through the air if there is a temperature gradient. Warmer air is less dense, and therefore has a lower refractive index. Mirages are a particularly interesting example of differential refraction, and while most people associate them with the desert, they are most common (and weirdest) at sea.
Allow me to shed some light on point 7 (pun fully intended). Light is both a wave and a particle at the same time, much like electricity. Different substances offer different levels of resistence for electromagnetic signals. In the case of light, this resistence is called the refractive index, and for ordinary glass, it is 1.5, meaning that light travels at c/1.5 (2/3 its normal speed) through it. By contrast, the refractive index of water is 1.336, diamond is 2.417, and air is 1.0003.
As I mentioned in my initial response, every time that the media reports that FTL travel has been achieved, they've misrepesented what actually happened, reporting an increase in the group velocity, which doesn't actually transmit any information. Now, if the phase velocity were ever increased, that would be big news. To the best of my knowledge, no such claim has ever been made.