Why don't objects with "weight" just displace east to west?
Why should they? The general reason is because they have no imbalance in that axis/dimension to resolve. The force from the displaced media's weight is roughly equivalent on all sides, and the weight of the object seeks equilibrium (down, where - generally speaking - it came from).
Why is it always in the same direction relative to the earth?
Well, technically it isn't. But it is mostly the same direction because that is the direction of least resistance to reach equilibrium. All things tend towards rest.
Things fall because they are lifted (and with the energy used to lift them), and because the media which they sit upon cannot support their weight.
Because there's no force being imparted on them to pull them downward in your worldview.
That is not a sensical answer to my question. If there is no force being imparted on them (other than the intrinsic force of weight and the interplay of that weight and the weight of the media displaced), why should they go east or west?
Gravity accounts for this
Gravitation. And, no - gravitation can't account for anything if it isn't real. I appreciate that in imagination it appears to account for it, but in reality it doesn't and the phenomenon of falling is still caused by weight. Even if gravitation were real, not all things fall, and archimedes had figured out and formally described why millennia ago (almost 2 millennia before the fiction of gravitation was first invoked by newton purely to solve an astronomical math problem).
The cause is made clear in the equation. Weight is all there is, and all that is needed.
I honestly don't know what to say to that other than it's word salad
When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions! The more specific the question the more likely you are to get a specific answer you're seeking.
Throwing up your hands and declaring "word salad" is only appropriate when it is word salad - and that will only be established by asking such questions about it.
What didn't make sense to you? Were the words unclear? Their meaning? Ask for clarification! Be specific! Communication is hard, and takes repeated and concerted effort on both sides!
That aside, physics isn't for everybody - some of us genuinely enjoy it and have a natural aptitude.
I know that you are required to dismiss my views as "insane" and give up trying to communicate immediately by your dogmas, but ask yourself - is that the scientific thing to do? Is declaring every view that contradicts your own as "insane" and then sticking your fingers in your ears and running away the smart thing to do? Especially on a forum devoted to above average rational skepticism and investigation...
No. Thinking that objects ought to fall east or west when there is no force being applied to them is certainly not "genius". Nor was your first response to my question as to why you believe they ought to fall east or west.
and remove all of the air
Not really, but you can remove a lot of it!
all of the objects will always fall towards the earth
Well, removing more of the stuff in the room is hardly going to help them stay aloft!
Things fall to reach equilibrium / their available lowest energy state as efficiently as possible (by following the path of least resistance). They fall because they are lifted, and with the same energy used to lift them. They fall because they weigh more than the media they displace. When you make that media LESS dense (by removing it, in a partial vacuum) - obviously that doesn't make things fall less....
Again, if you don't understand (or disagree) with any of the explanation above, please ask questions!
objects will always fall towards the earth
When they are heavier than the media they displace, yes! Otherwise, no.
Your whole premise that up is up and down is down because that's just where the natural equilibrium is can be easily disproved by putting objects in a controlled environment and changing their equilibrium in relation to each other.
The equilibrium (or tendency towards rest / lowest energy state) doesn't change in the "vacuum". Why on earth do you think it does, or should? You don't seem to understand archemide's principle. Things fall if they are heavier than the media they displace... Why would putting it in a "vacuum" (aka : a less dense media) change or "disprove" anything about that?
Or maybe "equilibrium" means something completely different to you, like "weight" does?
Nope! Traditional definitions for both - however equilibrium has more potential for misunderstanding, so perhaps "rest" or "lowest available energy state" might be less likely to potentially mislead.
All these words your using are very similar to Scientology jargon
I loathe scientology (except for their stance on psychology and drugging children), but if there are any words you think i am using a non standard definition for - please just ask! It is not nearly as important that we use the standard definitions for words as it is to effectively communicate with one another. As long as we understand what we mean, an alternative definition shouldn't be too much of a problem - should it?
Again the question is the same. Why should you expect the object to go away from the earth when you drop it? It's a nonsensical question.
It falls towards the earth to return to equilibrium/rest/lowest available energy state.
It falls because you lifted it (and with the exact same energy used to do so), because it cannot be supported by the matter beneath it, and because its weight is greater than the weight of the media it displaces.
It is as nonsensical to expect a lifted object to fall upwards as it is to expect a lifted object to fall east/west/sideways and for the same reasons.
There must be a reason why objects would go toward the earth and not away from it.
There is! It's weight (more specifically the interplay of the weight of the object and the media it displaces), an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Such tendency towards rest is a law of nature. What goes up, must come down - the ancient law of gravity.
Why should they? The general reason is because they have no imbalance in that axis/dimension to resolve. The force from the displaced media's weight is roughly equivalent on all sides, and the weight of the object seeks equilibrium (down, where - generally speaking - it came from).
Well, technically it isn't. But it is mostly the same direction because that is the direction of least resistance to reach equilibrium. All things tend towards rest.
Things fall because they are lifted (and with the energy used to lift them), and because the media which they sit upon cannot support their weight.
That is not a sensical answer to my question. If there is no force being imparted on them (other than the intrinsic force of weight and the interplay of that weight and the weight of the media displaced), why should they go east or west?
Gravitation. And, no - gravitation can't account for anything if it isn't real. I appreciate that in imagination it appears to account for it, but in reality it doesn't and the phenomenon of falling is still caused by weight. Even if gravitation were real, not all things fall, and archimedes had figured out and formally described why millennia ago (almost 2 millennia before the fiction of gravitation was first invoked by newton purely to solve an astronomical math problem).
The cause is made clear in the equation. Weight is all there is, and all that is needed.
When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions! The more specific the question the more likely you are to get a specific answer you're seeking.
Throwing up your hands and declaring "word salad" is only appropriate when it is word salad - and that will only be established by asking such questions about it.
What didn't make sense to you? Were the words unclear? Their meaning? Ask for clarification! Be specific! Communication is hard, and takes repeated and concerted effort on both sides!
That aside, physics isn't for everybody - some of us genuinely enjoy it and have a natural aptitude.
I know that you are required to dismiss my views as "insane" and give up trying to communicate immediately by your dogmas, but ask yourself - is that the scientific thing to do? Is declaring every view that contradicts your own as "insane" and then sticking your fingers in your ears and running away the smart thing to do? Especially on a forum devoted to above average rational skepticism and investigation...
Just food for thought. I also wish you well.
No. Thinking that objects ought to fall east or west when there is no force being applied to them is certainly not "genius". Nor was your first response to my question as to why you believe they ought to fall east or west.
Not really, but you can remove a lot of it!
Well, removing more of the stuff in the room is hardly going to help them stay aloft!
Things fall to reach equilibrium / their available lowest energy state as efficiently as possible (by following the path of least resistance). They fall because they are lifted, and with the same energy used to lift them. They fall because they weigh more than the media they displace. When you make that media LESS dense (by removing it, in a partial vacuum) - obviously that doesn't make things fall less....
Again, if you don't understand (or disagree) with any of the explanation above, please ask questions!
When they are heavier than the media they displace, yes! Otherwise, no.
The equilibrium (or tendency towards rest / lowest energy state) doesn't change in the "vacuum". Why on earth do you think it does, or should? You don't seem to understand archemide's principle. Things fall if they are heavier than the media they displace... Why would putting it in a "vacuum" (aka : a less dense media) change or "disprove" anything about that?
Nope! Traditional definitions for both - however equilibrium has more potential for misunderstanding, so perhaps "rest" or "lowest available energy state" might be less likely to potentially mislead.
I loathe scientology (except for their stance on psychology and drugging children), but if there are any words you think i am using a non standard definition for - please just ask! It is not nearly as important that we use the standard definitions for words as it is to effectively communicate with one another. As long as we understand what we mean, an alternative definition shouldn't be too much of a problem - should it?
I think that's the inherent question. Why is it towards the earth, and not outward?
Again the question is the same. Why should you expect the object to go away from the earth when you drop it? It's a nonsensical question.
It falls towards the earth to return to equilibrium/rest/lowest available energy state.
It falls because you lifted it (and with the exact same energy used to do so), because it cannot be supported by the matter beneath it, and because its weight is greater than the weight of the media it displaces.
It’s not a nonsensical question. There must be a reason why objects would go toward the earth and not away from it.
It is as nonsensical to expect a lifted object to fall upwards as it is to expect a lifted object to fall east/west/sideways and for the same reasons.
There is! It's weight (more specifically the interplay of the weight of the object and the media it displaces), an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Such tendency towards rest is a law of nature. What goes up, must come down - the ancient law of gravity.