Nope. That's called an observation.

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.