i think we're all missing the point here. gravity exists.
therefore the earth is not rising upwards at 9.8m/s2
Proof? Last time I check the Graviton has yet to be discovered
The Graviton? What the hell would that be? It's the MASS that makes something attracted to another, not some fancy particle. Look, the Earth is VERY massive, so that anything with a mass much smaller has little effect on attracting the Earth and is very attracted by it, hence why apples fall, because the Earth is so massive compared to it.
This experiment is also ridiculous and reeks of un-scientificism if you allow me the expression. First and foremost, the Earth is not a perfect sphere, thus the radius varies, what you have is an average. Second, usually when presenting scientific results (like the Earth's average radius) we present only 3 "significant" (sorry for my English) digits. But when you find out the a length, you keep LOADS of those digits after, while the average Earth radius HAD such digits but were dropped for the sake of having a decent number. So, doing such calculations means you IGNORE that what you have is a rounded average radius of the Earth... So that's a number not so precise (we don't need the precision considering what we use it for) and you use it in conjunction of a very precise calculation? That makes up for BIG errors. The bigger and more precise the other numbers you use, the bigger the error the result will have.
So, for such calculations with very small and precise numbers, you'd need a very precise radius, you'd at least need to know the absolute error thing, you need to know from within which range the result is in. So by knowing the range of the real value, you can give the range in which your results reside in, so you can't have a 100% accurate result. In order to have a 100% accurate result, you need 100% accurate numbers, which isn't the case here. Usually the Earth's radius is more commonly used for astrophysics and such, equations working with other big numbers which are as accurate (or almost), thus giving you a plausible result, not 100% accurate, but relatively close. But if you are looking for very very accurate numbers (ie. inches and feets are VERY accurate compared to thousands of miles), you need very very accurate numbers, and that rounded average is far from a very very accurate number, thus giving BIG errors, a BIG range of possible results which you don't even know about. That "experiment" reeks of amateurship. I'll try to come with a more accurate experiment, one probably using "cake slices" or something, with numbers with the same precision.
Okay, I tried something and came up with more than 100 feet less for the 30 miles thing. I have no idea of my thing is accurate, but I managed to use to not use the 30 miles value and use something much bigger instead. But then, thinking about it, we could always be surprised by the results. First of all, I call bullshit on his ability to see people 30 miles from where he is with a "good" telescope. 30 miles, is very far, so you'd need great magnification. And talking of good telescopes, a telescope's job isn't magnification, but accumulation more light so you can see more objects and clearer (particularly sky objects). So a good telescope might not even have magnification. And then, the bigger the magnification, the bigger your telescope needs to be, so it can accumulate more light, otherwise you won't see much. So if he REALLY can look 30 miles away with a telescope, well, he wouldn't be able to lay on his stomach at all as it would have to be way too big for that, otherwise he wouldn't see anything at all at that point. And then such telescope would be very expensive. In other words, you don't buy a telescope to be able to see 30 miles away from you on the sea level, you don't, and you can't. He probably looked on another beach much more closer than he thought, or he is making this up.