Oh, well. Sorry, its not real

But of course it is, and has been for thousands of years. I understand what you are saying, and why you are saying it - but it is not semantically correct. You may think that it is a minor quibble, and who cares anyway - but in my view it is much more important than that.

When you claim that “gravity” isn’t real / doesn’t exist, it encourages others to misunderstand you and think you are foolish. The law of [phenomenon of] gravity is very real, and as we both know is caused by density (of the object and the surrounding media). Gravity the term and observable phenomenon (“what goes up, must come down”) has been around for millennia. There is no reason to discard it now, and scientifically it is very important that we don’t. We must have a name for phenomena that is different than the theories which describe/explain it. In the case of gravity, an attack on the foundation of science has taken place where the two have been conflated together. This is the reason for the word gravitation (the thing which doesn’t exist, in our view), which is separate and distinct from gravity - but most are not taught rigorously.

The real reason things go up and back down is because of density and boyancy

Agreed, but in science - natural laws (aka descriptions of phenomena) like gravity do not and cannot speculate on cause/reason. They are simply what is, without any why. Reason/cause/why is bore of theory which is bore of experiment. As you probably know, there are no experiments supporting the theory of gravitation and newton famously didn’t even offer a hypothesis for it {a necessary prerequisite to experiment of any kind).

What sets direction, up or down, is the electrostatic media, the Aether, which has a charge that flows to the ground.

I find this possible, but not strictly necessary to recognizing the cardinal directions.

Its not a force

Agreed. In fact, most mainstream physicists are also taught that today.

So you can easily exchange little g for 9.8 m2 acceleration in any physics formula.

You can, but that is yet another demonstration that gravitation (the little g stands for gravitational acceleration, NOT gravity) is fictional. It would violate the conservation of energy which is a cornerstone of most all science. Acceleration costs energy. To say, or mathematically describe, objects at rest accelerating perpetually is both stupid and wrong. If only it were so, we could extract limitless energy from any stationary object.