Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can.

Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.

Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.

There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).

Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.

Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.

Has what you are describing ever been taught?

Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.

It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either

Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].

Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations.

You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.

The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times.

Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!

and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).

Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.

Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one

Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.

except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.

Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong, and are engaging in mythology. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.

This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.

I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.

Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible

It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.

All that can be known is falseness

Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.

it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is

So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.

so usefulness is all that we have

Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.

His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible

Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!

Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.

Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!

Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can.

Fair enough. The law [phenomenon] of gravity is caused by density, but not the density you are likely thinking of.

Things only fall because they are heavier than the volume of media they displace. The density is weight density, and the interplay between the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it is what causes gravity, levity, and neutrality.

There are no experiments (that i am aware of anyway!) that contradict this, or support your view that “gravitation” is in fact responsible for those phenomena. In fact, the only experiments that exist regarding gravity show plainly that the interplay mentioned above is certainly the cause (experimentally verified).

Before we go too far down the rabbit hole, i would like to clarify that an experiment is NOT an observation. Many things presented as experiments, especially in regards to gravitation, are in fact - merely observations. The cavendish observation/procedure is probably the quintessential one. It is in no way an experiment, was never referred to as an experiment by anyone involved with it, and does not even involve a hypothesis.

Experiments are hypothesis tests. They, provisionally, validate or invalidate a valid hypothesis by establishing a causal relationship between at least one IV and DV. Hopefully we can agree on this scientific definition, and discard the colloquial erroneous/unscientific ones.

Has what you are describing ever been taught?

Certainly! Has it been taught by anyone other than me? I assume so, though it would be surprising if they used the exact same terminology.

It can't be known to be real, but this doesn't make it unreal, as it can't be known to be fictional either

Things we make up are, by default, not real. Doubly so in science! It has to be known/demonstrated to be real and measured in order to be part of empiricism [aka science].

Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations.

You are misunderstanding me. There is no significance to fictional terms in an equation which describe things which do not exist in reality.

The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times.

Again, that mass could not possibly be the mass we use today. That is a synonym for matter. There is no magical field in keplerian times to bestow weight to base mass. Please let me know if you disagree!

and only much later did density come along, during when gas physics were being on (I say this as I suspect this is where you are heading).

Density is at least as old as archimedes, and likely much older. The density you are talking about, mass density, could obviously only exist after newton.

Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one

Lol, making things up isn’t science. Proposing and believing stupid things, then teaching it en masse to scores of students is NOT science. Epicurus never established any scientific principle. There is nothing to overturn. Ergo, with newton’s invocation of it, there is also nothing to overturn.

except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.

Of course it can, and should! When we make things up / guess, instead of practicing rigorous science, we are essentially guaranteed to be wrong. Of course it isn’t completely impossible that we could guess and turn out to be correct, but this would be both extremely rare and require extraordinary validation.

This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.

I didn’t say it was always easy/convenient to measure them! I just said that everything real can be measured. It’s a fundamental axiom of science, and required for it (empiricism). Yes, you can measure the volume and weight of a cloud. No, it isn't easy or convenient.

Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible

It is done through experiment. You hypothesize the mechanism and then experimentally validate it to confirm/refute that hypothesis. I agree it isn’t foolproof, is provisional, and historically is doomed to be overturned - but it is certainly (provisionally) possible.

All that can be known is falseness

Science is comprised only of partial, provisional, positive statements. Negative statements require the totality of knowledge to verify. This is the cause of clarke’s first law.

it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is

So you believe, and i do not! That is the rub! Science has no place for belief, except limitedly in generation of hypothesis.

so usefulness is all that we have

Perhaps, but it is important to be aware of the distinction all the same! Conflating the two together is a grave mistake. I agree with sagan on this point, that “correct” is absolutely determined as best as possible - yet still provisionally - by experiment in science.

His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible

Interesting! So not so much a “contribution” as an impediment to powered flight, but interesting all the same. Clarke’s first law strikes again!

Basically, we have no idea what year this is, and Newton, without explicitly saying so, was excluding certain jewish chronological works that caused misplaced eras.

Interesting! And thanks for the link - i’ll take a look. It seems newton may be a source for our modern “phantom time hypothesis” after all!