You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing.

Not to my knowledge, no. There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!

We still use archimedes’ principle today!

You call are calling mass 'weight', and what everyone else calls weight, you call 'effective weight' - the terminology doesn't change what you are talking about.

It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way - but it is incorrect. Certainly there are some conceptual parallels though.

Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter. The mass of an object does not refer to the matter - however weight does. Mass is simply mass - a calculated fiction with no reality. Weight, on the other hand, is a property of the matter itself.

It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.

Effective weight is the measured weight - which includes many sources of variance chief among them being buoyancy.

The concept of Mass is ancient,

The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?

This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.

Again, this is not exactly right - though the word gravity (not gravitation) did exist and was used by epicurus. He is who newton credits with the philosophically unsound (i.e. unscientific) concept of gravitation which newton invoked. It was stupid (and unscientific) then to assume that there must be an intrinsic magic that attracts all matter to all other matter, and it is stupid now for the same reasons. At least newton fully understood that when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem.

I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable

That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!

That is, the effect of buoyancy in air, due to its density (which is also measurable) is some 3 or 4 decimal places smaller than the measured effects of gravity

If true, that is interesting. However it doesn’t change much even if it were,

Minuscule attraction between some types of matter does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to explain it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real, and the cause of weight - you need to demonstrate that gravitation is a real entity in the first order (no - minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction) and then experimentally validate the hypothesis that it is responsible for causing weight by manipulating it. Newton didn’t bother to even try to do any of that - why di you think that is? He famously didn’t so much as offer a hypothesis because he recognized and accepted that it could not be done.

In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.

You aren’t exactly understanding the “grift”. There is no mass to measure. There is no gravitation to measure. There is ONLY weight. Of course mass and gravitation equal the weight we measure - we ensure/define that they do.

It isn’t so much an issue or right and wrong, or true or false. It is an issue of real (empirical) or fictional (unemperical).

Again, the math doesn't pretend to describe the realities of how nature works, and assuming math describes realities will get you lost very fast.

That’s true, and a big part of my point. Mass and gravitation has been “sold” as real through the usefulness of such equations. I agree that a grave error has been made in looking for reality inside equation (it’s out here!), and get’s you lost very fast. The quantumnists are some of the biggest offenders, and people, in general, struggle with (and are encouraged to struggle/avoid) the difference between useful and correct.

It was also refreshing to hear your, correct, description of mathematics. Math worship is a scourge and i encounter it a lot!

Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians

That is a part of my point, however science - especially today - does have a rigorous definition that outlines the something that is practiced (what we call the scientific method).

Even in the early formative baconian method, not much has changed. People who adhere to that method to understand nature are scientists and practicing science - those who do not aren’t.

It is fundamentally unreasonable to expect newton to “practice science” the way modern scientists did after him - however he certainly did do a lot of good empirical science - but the invocation of gravitation is not among that.

Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.

That doesn’t bother me in the slightest! In my view, anyone who adheres to the scientific/baconian method is practicing science and is a scientist. Anyone who doesn’t - isn’t one even if they are a salaried/employed scientist!

but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note,

Completely agreed! I like newton, the arrogant agelastic prick.

from calculus,

Mathematics - essentially gravitation was invoked under his efforts as a mathematician - not an empirical physicist/scientist.

to contributions to flight,

I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?

to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.

Scholar, this is probably the most appropriate term for newton. This is the first (second, technically) i’m hearing about any of that, but i am intrigued. In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?

Don’t forget optics!

You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing.

Not to my knowledge, no. There are no experiments which contradict my, historical, view. If you know of one to discuss, please mention it!

We still use archimedes’ principle today!

You call are calling mass 'weight', and what everyone else calls weight, you call 'effective weight' - the terminology doesn't change what you are talking about.

It seems that way at first glance, and is often taught that way - but it is incorrect. Certainly there are some conceptual parallels though.

Mass, like gravitation, is entirely fictional. It does not exist outside of equation and does not refer to any quantity of matter. The mass of an object does not refer to the matter - however weight does. Mass is simply mass - a calculated fiction with no reality. Weight, on the other hand, is a property of the matter itself.

It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as.

Effective weight is the measured weight - which includes many sources of variance chief among them being buoyancy.

The concept of Mass is ancient,

The concept of matter is ancient. Mass is attributed to newton. Who do you think spoke of mass prior to the concept of gravitation existing to imbue it, magically, with weight?

This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.

Again, this is not exactly right - though the word gravity (not gravitation) did exist and was used by epicurus. He is who newton credits with the philosophically unsound (i.e. unscientific) concept of gravitation which newton invoked. It was stupid (and unscientific) then to assume that there must be an intrinsic magic that attracts all matter to all other matter, and it is stupid now for the same reasons. At least newton fully understood that when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem.

I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable

That’s a silly thing to suspect. Real things are all measurable!

That is, the effect of buoyancy in air, due to its density (which is also measurable) is some 3 or 4 decimal places smaller than the measured effects of gravity

If true, that is interesting. However it doesn’t change much even if it were,

Minuscule attraction between some types of matter does not demonstrate the existence of the fictional entity contrived to cause it. It just isn’t how science works. If you want to prove that gravitation is real, and the cause of weight - you need to demonstrate that gravitation is a real entity in the first order (no - minuscule attraction between some types of matter is not that, that is merely attraction) and then experimentally validate the hypothesis that it is responsible for causing weight by manipulating it. Newton didn’t bother to even try to do any of that - why di you think that is? He famously didn’t so much as offer a hypothesis because he recognized and accepted that it could not be done.

In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.

You aren’t exactly understanding the “grift”. There is no mass to measure. There is no gravitation to measure. There is ONLY weight. Of course mass and gravitation equal the weight we measure - we ensure/define that they do.

It isn’t so much an issue or right and wrong, or true or false. It is an issue of real (empirical) or fictional (unemperical).

Again, the math doesn't pretend to describe the realities of how nature works, and assuming math describes realities will get you lost very fast.

That’s true, and a big part of my point. Mass and gravitation has been “sold” as real through the usefulness of such equations. I agree that a grave error has been made in looking for reality inside equation (it’s out here!), and get’s you lost very fast. The quantumnists are some of the biggest offenders, and people, in general, struggle with (and are encouraged to struggle/avoid) the difference between useful and correct.

It was also refreshing to hear your, correct, description of mathematics. Math worship is a scourge and i encounter it a lot!

Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians

That is a part of my point, however science - especially today - does have a rigorous definition that outlines the something that is practiced (what we call the scientific method).

Even in the early formative baconian method, not much has changed. People who adhere to that method to understand nature are scientists and practicing science - those who do not aren’t.

It is fundamentally unreasonable to expect newton to “practice science” the way modern scientists did after him - however he certainly did do a lot of good empirical science - but the invocation of gravitation is not among that.

Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.

That doesn’t bother me in the slightest! In my view, anyone who adheres to the scientific/baconian method is practicing science and is a scientist. Anyone who doesn’t - isn’t one even if they are a salaried/employed scientist!

but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note,

Completely agreed! I like newton, the arrogant agelastic prick.

from calculus,

Mathematics - essentially gravitation was invoked under his efforts as a mathematician - not an empirical physicist/scientist.

to contributions to flight,

I’m not aware of this. What are you talking about?

to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.

Scholar, this is probably the most appropriate term for newton. This is the first (second, technically) i’m hearing about any of that, but i am intrigued. In what way did he clean up the chronology and where/when did you hear about this?

Don’t forget optics!