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?
You completely misunderstand. You are operating under the false impression that in order to have a differing view to yours, you must think yourself some sort of "genius". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being wrong and/or misunderstanding what i'm saying does not make you dumb or me some sort of genius by comparison.
Take that very same statement and apply it to up and down instead of east and west.
Yes, as i said - if there was no force then there would be no down - at all. It just so happens that there IS a force, and in the direction we arbitrarily named down, which we call weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical "fields". If you still don't understand - please ask questions! If you disagree, please try to do so using specifics and - even better - examples!
Then maybe you'll see why this "density" argument is stupid.
I'm not making a density argument. In many ways I'm explaining it, and why your "debunk" is nonsensical - but what i'm really doing is sharing my view, and my conclusions from a lot of research on the subject.
If you truly wish to learn about my perspective, it will take time - but i assure you that we will get there eventually. You only need to be earnest and continue the conversation! Ask questions!
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?
You completely misunderstand. You are operating under the false impression that in order to have a differing view to yours, you must think yourself some sort of "genius". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being wrong and/or misunderstanding what i'm saying does not make you dumb or me some sort of genius by comparison.
Yes, as i said - if there was no force then there would be no down - at all. It just so happens that there IS a force, and in the direction we arbitrarily named down, which we call weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical "fields". If you still don't understand - please ask questions! If you disagree, please try to do so using specifics and - even better - examples!
I'm not making a density argument. In many ways I'm explaining it, and why your "debunk" is nonsensical - but what i'm really doing is sharing my view, and my conclusions from a lot of research on the subject.
If you truly wish to learn about my perspective, it will take time - but i assure you that we will get there eventually. You only need to be earnest and continue the conversation! Ask questions!