Wanting that to be the case is fine - if not natural. Declaring it so is religious zealotry. I'm sure several things you said are untrue (and vice versa).
For example, there is no reason to assume that aether would have greater density above us than at the surface (opposite to all other forms of matter) and there is measurement (vertical interferometers) showing that it doesn't. There is also no reason to assume that electrostatic/electrical charge differential between the sky and the ground has anything to do with falling (the measured charge differential fluctuates, but the phenomenon of falling is unaffected).
there is no reason to hold onto a fake law
I agree. Fake laws should be discarded. Gravity, however, is not a fake law. What goes up, must come down - and it is as true today as when the law was first observed and then formalized (and for the same reasons).
Laws are just consistently repeatable/demonstrable phenomena, nothing more. You don't disagree that things fall. We call that tendency to fall gravity, and have for thousands of years. Don't fix what isn't broken, and don't throw the baby (gravity) out with the bathwater (gravitation)!
not sure what you would need to hear to understand that there is no need for the word or concept of gravity or gravitation
If gravity were not real, that would be plenty and i'd agree with you. Gravity (the phenomenon of falling) is real and repeatably demonstrable (as all laws must be, as that is what makes them laws in the first place). It is gravitation (the supposed force that causes gravity) that is not real. Do you understand what i am saying / the distinction i am making? Gravity (thousands of years old) is NOT gravitation (a few hundred years old).
its the most unscientific term in science.
Gravitation, i generally agree with you (though "evolution" is a more unscientific term). Gravity is as scientific as any other validated and validatable law.
That's all laws are! We observe a phenomenon over and over again, and through repeated measurement confirm it (almost) always happens.
Observations are laws (when you repeatedly validate/verify/measure them enough).
You are simply watching buoyancy
Actually, you are watching the lack thereof in the falling object. If it had enough buoyancy, it would either float or rise.
Stop calling buoyancy and Aether, gravity.
I wouldn't! Buoyancy, aether, and gravity are all separate and distinct things. You still don't seem to be understanding me. Buoyancy is a force, but (as you have already explicitly said, and i have agreed) gravity is not (it's a phenomenon : aka natural/scientific law). They are not interchangeable for this, and many other reasons.
You're arguments that gravity is a scientific term because scientists have used the term for a long time is not an agrument
I agree, it's more like a semantic definition. But as i said, (the law of) gravity is real because we can repeatedly demonstrate it. That's all natural laws are or can be. The word gravity (and the law it represents) has been and is used much more frequently by non-scientists through history anyway.
You could call gravity, Satan jizz, and it would be just as meaningful.
I agree that it is just a name, arbitrary like all the other ones. The point is that there is no reason to discard it. It's a perfectly good word, and scientific concept. Its false conflation with gravitation is the problem.
Whatever new word we contrived would not be as meaningful until everyone else knew and used it. There is no reason to go to all that trouble - they already know and use the word gravity. If you want to speak to someone else, you best use their language and their terms.
Wanting that to be the case is fine - if not natural. Declaring it so is religious zealotry. I'm sure several things you said are untrue (and vice versa).
For example, there is no reason to assume that aether would have greater density above us than at the surface (opposite to all other forms of matter) and there is measurement (vertical interferometers) showing that it doesn't. There is also no reason to assume that electrostatic/electrical charge differential between the sky and the ground has anything to do with falling (the measured charge differential fluctuates, but the phenomenon of falling is unaffected).
I agree. Fake laws should be discarded. Gravity, however, is not a fake law. What goes up, must come down - and it is as true today as when the law was first observed and then formalized (and for the same reasons).
Laws are just consistently repeatable/demonstrable phenomena, nothing more. You don't disagree that things fall. We call that tendency to fall gravity, and have for thousands of years. Don't fix what isn't broken, and don't throw the baby (gravity) out with the bathwater (gravitation)!
If gravity were not real, that would be plenty and i'd agree with you. Gravity (the phenomenon of falling) is real and repeatably demonstrable (as all laws must be, as that is what makes them laws in the first place). It is gravitation (the supposed force that causes gravity) that is not real. Do you understand what i am saying / the distinction i am making? Gravity (thousands of years old) is NOT gravitation (a few hundred years old).
Gravitation, i generally agree with you (though "evolution" is a more unscientific term). Gravity is as scientific as any other validated and validatable law.
True, and that is (and always was) the law of gravity!
That's all laws are! We observe a phenomenon over and over again, and through repeated measurement confirm it (almost) always happens.
Observations are laws (when you repeatedly validate/verify/measure them enough).
Actually, you are watching the lack thereof in the falling object. If it had enough buoyancy, it would either float or rise.
I wouldn't! Buoyancy, aether, and gravity are all separate and distinct things. You still don't seem to be understanding me. Buoyancy is a force, but (as you have already explicitly said, and i have agreed) gravity is not (it's a phenomenon : aka natural/scientific law). They are not interchangeable for this, and many other reasons.
I agree, it's more like a semantic definition. But as i said, (the law of) gravity is real because we can repeatedly demonstrate it. That's all natural laws are or can be. The word gravity (and the law it represents) has been and is used much more frequently by non-scientists through history anyway.
I agree that it is just a name, arbitrary like all the other ones. The point is that there is no reason to discard it. It's a perfectly good word, and scientific concept. Its false conflation with gravitation is the problem.
Whatever new word we contrived would not be as meaningful until everyone else knew and used it. There is no reason to go to all that trouble - they already know and use the word gravity. If you want to speak to someone else, you best use their language and their terms.