If we're going to discuss laws, especially ones that you claim have been agreed upon by others, then we should discuss it as it is written

We can certainly approach it that way, and there are many books, including modern hydrostatics texts, that repeat the law i stated in various ways.

However it is a fundamentally unscientific and lesser way to approach scientific knowledge. It is the way of the academic, and not the way of the scientist. The scientist doesn't truly care what is in any book, they care what is; Out here, in reality - not merely in some book (revered or otherwise)

Just because something is written in a book does not make it consistent with reality. We confirm it is consistent in science through measurement alone. This is the core of empiricism (aka science).

Wrong. Your summary of a law != the law as written.

Different perhaps than the law you may have been taught which, as i've said many times, has been amended arbitrarily and unempirically (ie. unscientifically)... But the way i have stated the law is both consistent with laws which can be found in modern textbooks as well as historical ones. Of course, as i keep trying to stress to you, the fact that it is in books is meaningless.

The reason it is a law is because it has only been measured to be correct, and there are no measurements which contradict it! That's what made it a law 3 centuries (and likely more) ago, and keeps it a law today.

The reason you can provide no measurement to contradict the law is because it is one! Furthermore, you can only provide measurement which confirms it. That's what a scientific/natural law is! It has nothing to do with books.

I realize you are avoiding the topic

I'm avoiding you changing the topic to a meaningless subjective one, yes.

Before we can even begin to discuss the "understanding" of what is and/or why - we have to establish what is first! To skip step one as you want to is both silly and a waste of time. Worse than that, it's a violation/abandonment of the scientific method. Surely you realize that?

So does gas not move downward as a result of having this property?

Things tend towards rest, not motion. Things move downwards because they weigh more than the media they displace - that's all. An object at rest is not moving downward (or any direction). Although we can (and do) conceptualize air as constantly moving - it largely behaves like a fluid (which is also constantly in motion). When the fluid sits upon a layer of fluid beneath it, it does not move downward as long as the weight of the layer is greater than or equal to the weight of the media it displaces.

If we're going to discuss laws, especially ones that you claim have been agreed upon by others, then we should discuss it as it is written

We can certainly approach it that way, and there are many books, including modern hydrostatics texts, that repeat the law i stated in various ways.

However it is a fundamentally unscientific and lesser way to approach scientific knowledge. It is the way of the academic, and not the way of the scientist. The scientist doesn't truly care what is in any book, they care what is; Out here, in reality - not merely in some book (revered or otherwise)

Just because something is written in a book does not make it consistent with reality. We confirm it is consistent in science through measurement alone. This is the core of empiricism (aka science).

Wrong. Your summary of a law != the law as written.

Different perhaps than the law you may have been taught which, as i've said many times, has been amended arbitrarily and unempirically (ie. unscientifically)... But the way i have stated the law is both consistent with laws which can be found in modern textbooks as well as historical ones. Of course, as i keep trying to stress to you, the fact that it is in books is meaningless.

The reason it is a law is because it has only been measured to be correct, and there are no measurements which contradict it! That's what made it a law 3 centuries (and likely more) ago, and keeps it a law today.

The reason you can provide no measurement to contradict the law is because it is one! Furthermore, you can only provide measurement which confirms it. That's what a scientific/natural law is! It has nothing to do with books.

I realize you are avoiding the topic

I'm avoiding you changing the topic to a meaningless subjective one, yes.

Before we can even begin to discuss the "understanding" of what is and/or why - we have to establish what is first! To skip step one as you want to is both silly and a waste of time. Worse than that, it's a violation/abandonement of the scientific method. Surely you realize that?

So does gas not move downward as a result of having this property?

Things tend towards rest, not motion. Things move downwards because they weigh more than the media they displace - that's all. An object at rest is not moving downward (or any direction). Although we can (and do) conceptualize air as constantly moving - it largely behaves like a fluid (which is also constantly in motion). When the fluid sits upon a layer of fluid beneath it, it does not move downward as long as the weight of the layer is greater than or equal to the weight of the media it displaces.

If we're going to discuss laws, especially ones that you claim have been agreed upon by others, then we should discuss it as it is written

We can certainly approach it that way, and there are many books, including modern hydrostatics texts, that repeat the law i stated in various ways.

However it is a fundamentally unscientific and lesser way to approach scientific knowledge. It is the way of the academic, and not the way of the scientist. The scientist doesn't truly care what is in any book, they care what is; Out here, in reality - not merely in some book (revered or otherwise)

Just because something is written in a book does not make it consistent with reality. We confirm it is consistent in science through measurement alone. This is the core of empiricism (aka science).

Wrong. Your summary of a law != the law as written.

Different perhaps than the law you may have been taught which, as i've said many times, has been amended arbitrarily and unempirically (ie. unscientifically)... But the way i have stated the law is both consistent with laws which can be found in modern textbooks as well as historical ones. Of course, as i keep trying to stress to you, the fact that it is in books is meaningless.

The reason it is a law is because it has only been measured to be correct, and there are no measurements which contradict it! That's what made it a law 3 centuries (and likely more) ago, and keeps it a law today.

The reason you can provide no measurement to contradict the law is because it is one! Furthermore, you can only provide measurement which confirms it. That's what a scientific/natural law is! It has nothing to do with books.

I realize you are avoiding the topic

I'm avoiding you changing the topic to a meaningless subjective one, yes.

Before we can even begin to discuss the "understanding" of what is and/or why - we have to establish what is first! To skip step one as you want to is both silly and a waste of time. Surely you realize that?

So does gas not move downward as a result of having this property?

Things tend towards rest, not motion. Things move downwards because they weigh more than the media they displace - that's all. An object at rest is not moving downward (or any direction). Although we can (and do) conceptualize air as constantly moving - it largely behaves like a fluid (which is also constantly in motion). When the fluid sits upon a layer of fluid beneath it, it does not move downward as long as the weight of the layer is greater than or equal to the weight of the media it displaces.