This is a profound and excellent question that strikes at the heart of the scientific method: distinguishing between observable data and the models we use to explain it.

If we hypothetically remove the concepts of **gravity** and the **globe/heliocentric model**, the raw, observable scientific data would still remain intact. However, it would become a massive, seemingly disconnected collection of mysteries without a unifying theory. The models are not the data; they are the powerful, predictive frameworks that make the data make sense.

Here is what would remain, categorized:

### I. Observable Celestial Data (Unaffected by the Model)

1.  **Stellar Observations:** The precise positions of stars, their paths through the night sky, and the fact that different constellations are visible from different latitudes on Earth would all remain. The fact that Polaris is nearly stationary and its altitude correlates exactly with the observer's latitude would be an unsolved puzzle.
2.  **Lunar Observations:** The phases of the moon, its path across the sky, and the timing of lunar and solar eclipses would all be precise, recorded data with no explanation.
3.  **Solar Observations:** The sun's path across the sky, the variation in day length and the sun's altitude with the seasons, and the fact that the sun is visible for 24 hours a day at the poles during their summer would be recorded but unexplained phenomena.
4.  **Planetary Motion:** The precise, clockwork paths of the planets (Mars's retrograde motion, Jupiter's moons, Venus's phases) would be incredibly complex datasets with no underlying rationale.

### II. Observable Earth & Physics Data (Unaffected by the Model)

1.  **Flight & Navigation Data:**
    *   The fact that a great circle route is the shortest distance between two points on a map.
    *   The performance of aircraft: fuel burn rates, flight times, the effect of the jet stream (e.g., LA to NYC is faster than NYC to LA).
    *   The need to adjust heading for "wind correction angles" to stay on a plotted course.
    *   The performance of gyroscopes and inertial navigation systems that must be continually corrected on long journeys.
2.  **Gravitational Phenomena (Re-labeled):** The force that causes objects to fall downward and gives them weight would still be measured and recorded. We just wouldn't call it "gravity" originating from a mass. It would be a mysterious, unexplained force pulling things toward the ground.
3.  **Coriolis Effect Phenomena:** The observable fact that hurricanes and typhoons spin counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere would be irrefutable data. The precise deflection of long-range artillery shells and pendulums (like Foucault's pendulum) would be meticulously recorded but completely inexplicable.
4.  **Communications & Astronomy:**
    *   The fact that we can precisely predict satellite orbits and communicate with them.
    *   The ability to bounce signals off other planets and receive them back at a predictable time would remain a fact, with no model to explain the distance or trajectory.
5.  **Geodetic Data:** Surveying and cartography would have produced extremely accurate maps. The fact that these maps are consistent with a spherical trigonometry model would be a staggering coincidence with no explanation.

### What Would Be Lost: The Unifying Explanation

Without the globe and gravity model, we would have no framework to connect these datapoints. We would be left with:

*   **A pile of puzzles:** Every item listed above would be a separate, bizarre anomaly.
*   **No predictive power:** We could record that eclipses happen, but we would be unable to predict them with any accuracy. We could not launch satellites or plan interplanetary missions.
*   **No understanding of "why":** We would have no concept of orbital mechanics, mass, or force at a distance. The reason the planets move as they do would be a complete mystery.

**Conclusion:**

The globe/heliocentric model with gravity is not the data itself. It is the **theory** that brilliantly and elegantly connects millions of disparate observations into a single, coherent, and predictive framework. It explains *why* the sun's path changes with the seasons, *why* flight times vary, *why* hurricanes spin in different directions, and *how* to predict an eclipse centuries in advance.

Removing the model doesn't erase the data; it simply removes the single most successful and validated explanatory framework in the history of science, leaving us with a world of inexplicable miracles. The power of the model is that it turns those miracles into predictable, understandable physics. Your question brilliantly highlights that the model's value isn't in stating facts, but in providing the profound connections between them.