The equations say it is, and it isn't hard to understand why it's true either. Things do not fall the same rate in the presence of air / through any media (unless they are identical). The oversimplified equations you are talking about are not correct when air (or any media, including low pressure air - aka "vacuum" - is present). They are just "correct enough" for everyday use in some cases.
If all things are equal except the object's weight, they hit the ground at the same time. This is not something you can deny.
How about a glider airplane which is empty and one which is filled with lead. The media itself has a significant impact, especially when the shape causes drag / increased collision with it. A simpler analogy/demonstration would be an empty plastic bottle, and one which is filled with rocks dropped into water (air behaves as a fluid as well).
Ohh you mean if you throw them out of helicopter at 30,000 feet they might land at different times?
I'm saying that they do fall at different times, and this becomes easier to observe when the height they fall from is greater. The media is not null, the buoyant force is not null. They may be small - but they are always non zero.
See the problem with that it becomes impossible to do a controlled experiment
We aren't talking about experiments - we are merely talking about observations. It is certainly possible to observe dropping things out of a helicopter or - better yet - from a weather balloon. Dropping things off a roof is also not an experiment, nor "controlled" - not that it really matters.
you're introducing countless variables that will change the result.
The variables are always there, in reality. The variables i am specifically talking about are drag and buoyancy. They are never (and can never) be zero. This necessarily means that only identical objects can fall perfectly identically and through perfectly identical/uniform media.
In order for science to work you need to isolate the experiment as much as possible
Agreed, but we aren't in any way discussing an experiment. We are merely discussing observation/phenomena. Experiments are horses of an entirely different color.
Lemme guess, "They don't remove ALLLL the air.... They leave behind 0.0000001% of the air in a vaccum"....
Correct, and that is the reason that the buoyant and drag forces (among others) are never and can never be 0 - but i agree that the asymptote points reasonably clearly to the conclusion that if there could be no matter - things would fall at the same rate. All of this is irrelevant though, because the rate of fall isn't at issue - it is the reason for falling which is. The reason for falling remains the exact same in both the open air and in the vacuum chamber; the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media displaced.
But the point is they are still falling
Exactly.
That's a problem for a model that relies on the premise that it's the surrounding air causing objects to fall.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the reason for falling, and more specifically how archemides' principle explains, describes, and can be used to experimentally validate that cause.
We haven't been doing any experiments, nor discussing any. It is very important that you understand that. Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition in science, and its colloquial/incorrect usage is an attack on science. We are only talking about observations.
and have air resistance be the only variable?
I'm following so far; we are only observing air resistance.
If the sheet of paper falls slower than the brick of paper, then you've just proven yet again, that "weight" doesn't matter and the variable that effects air resistance is shape....
Once again, the weight of the page alone is not the reason the page falls. The page falls because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces. This is true in both shape configurations. The acceleration profile is, however, most influenced by the media and the object's interaction with that media - but this, once again, is not the cause of falling. Drag and buoyant force both play large rolls.
Again, all this shows is that the weight isn't what most largely influences the acceleration profile. That is NOT the same thing as showing that it isn't involved, or furthermore - and the point - that the cause of falling isn't as archimedes describes.
Air can't simultaneously be the thing that's creating the force that makes you fall
No one said it was! As i keep saying, and archimedes formalized more than 2 millennia ago - it is the interplay/relationship between the weight of the object and the weight of the surrounding media which causes falling.
It can't be both
I don't see why you think this, but in any case - no one is claiming it is. You seem to be misunderstanding. Hopefully the above has cleared that up.
Air resistance doesn't prove gravity,
Obviously! Who said it did? If you think it was me, please provide quotes so i can better understand what made you come to this conclusion.
but it certainly disproves your model.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the cause of falling (or trying to, anyway).
This is also proven by a parachute slowing your descent despite making your weight heavier, not lighter.
You are still getting distracted. We are talking about archimedes principle and the cause of falling. The fact that things don't all fall the same speed is a tangent that is only helping you to lose focus (also, weren't you arguing the opposite a second ago?!)
The equations say it is, and it isn't hard to understand why it's true either. Things do not fall the same rate in the presence of air / through any media (unless they are identical). The oversimplified equations you are talking about are not correct when air (or any media, including low pressure air - aka "vacuum" - is present). They are just "correct enough" for everyday use in some cases.
How about a glider airplane which is empty and one which is filled with lead. The media itself has a significant impact, especially when the shape causes drag / increased collision with it. A simpler analogy/demonstration would be an empty plastic bottle, and one which is filled with rocks dropped into water (air behaves as a fluid as well).
I'm saying that they do fall at different times, and this becomes easier to observe when the height they fall from is greater. The media is not null, the buoyant force is not null. They may be small - but they are always non zero.
We aren't talking about experiments - we are merely talking about observations. It is certainly possible to observe dropping things out of a helicopter or - better yet - from a weather balloon. Dropping things off a roof is also not an experiment, nor "controlled" - not that it really matters.
The variables are always there, in reality. The variables i am specifically talking about are drag and buoyancy. They are never (and can never) be zero. This necessarily means that only identical objects can fall perfectly identically and through perfectly identical/uniform media.
Agreed, but we aren't in any way discussing an experiment. We are merely discussing observation/phenomena. Experiments are horses of an entirely different color.
Correct, and that is the reason that the buoyant and drag forces (among others) are never and can never be 0 - but i agree that the asymptote points reasonably clearly to the conclusion that if there could be no matter - things would fall at the same rate. All of this is irrelevant though, because the rate of fall isn't at issue - it is the reason for falling which is. The reason for falling remains the exact same in both the open air and in the vacuum chamber; the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media displaced.
Exactly.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the reason for falling, and more specifically how archemides' principle explains, describes, and can be used to experimentally validate that cause.
We haven't been doing any experiments, nor discussing any. It is very important that you understand that. Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition in science, and its colloquial/incorrect usage is an attack on science. We are only talking about observations.
I'm following so far; we are only observing air resistance.
Once again, the weight of the page alone is not the reason the page falls. The page falls because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces. This is true in both shape configurations. The acceleration profile is, however, most influenced by the media and the object's interaction with that media - but this, once again, is not the cause of falling. Drag and buoyant force both play large rolls.
Again, all this shows is that the weight isn't what most largely influences the acceleration profile. That is NOT the same thing as showing that it isn't involved, or furthermore - and the point - that the cause of falling isn't as archimedes describes.
No one said it was! As i keep saying, and archimedes formalized more than 2 millennia ago - it is the interplay/relationship between the weight of the object and the weight of the surrounding media which causes falling.
I don't see why you think this, but in any case - no one is claiming it is. You seem to be misunderstanding. Hopefully the above has cleared that up.
Obviously! Who said it did? If you think it was me, please provide quotes so i can better understand what made you come to this conclusion.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the cause of falling (or trying to, anyway).
You are still getting distracted. We are talking about archimedes principle and the cause of falling. The fact that things don't all fall the same speed is a tangent that is only helping you to lose focus (also, weren't you arguing the opposite a second ago?!)