Pardon the delays, busy here.
We are not discussing a dictionary,
It is important for our purposes to be clear on definitions.
there are a great many definitions for “gravitation” available to choose from.
I am only aware of the correct one, which is that massive objects attract other massive objects relative to their mass. This is only a definition, and fits the definition of 'definition', whereas theories (e.g. Higgs, field mediation, etc) are proposed mechanisms.
If it existed, it would be capable of routinely doing things impossible [...]
Disregarding your qualifier at the end of this statement, the problem is that it does exactly this, and nobody knows why - fun fact. Another fun fact: gravity must act faster than the speed of light, as light takes 8.3 minutes to reach us, and it was proven decades ago that orbiting systems are unstable beyond just a couple epochs if the bodies orbit 'afterimages' of each other (i.e. if you make the systems obey the 'speed limit').
I am gathering that you've clued into the fact that gravitation does in fact problems, but aren't understanding the actual problems, nor their implications, and thus went into left field.
Thus the mystery of why 0 progress has been made on understanding this magical pseudo-force over 3+ centuries and counting is solved. It doesn’t exist to discover or experimentally validate.
Again, you've clued into a problem, but drew conclusions too early. You are right that there has been no significant progress, but it isn't just gravity. Every major physics-related field has had no significant progress. We still know nothing more about electricity, light, magnetism, any of the other major forces, radioactivity, etc, and there are a number of major problems still in chemistry as well. If your conclusions were correctly drawn, then the rest of the disciplines would be empty as well, but we know they are not - instead, they have been deliberately (((stifled))). Ask for more if interested.
Quite the opposite - it returns to it! It doesn’t reinvent anything, [...]
You're discarding successive experiment, experiments which led to the discarding of the theory you are proposing. You then are compensating for differences in measured weight by introducing another factor, which is the exact same thing that has already been done, hence reinvention.
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.
Newton did not invent mass [...]
Correct. Mass is one of those old 'Grecian fluids', which were originally thought to be intrinsic and govern their respective interactions. Other examples are 'time', 'inertia', 'phlogiston', 'caloric', etc. The concept of Mass is ancient, and closely models what we observe in the world.
[...] and gravitational attraction
This concept is also ancient, also dating to Grecian times.
Weight varies minisculely for a plethora of known and experimentally validated reasons.
Just in case you didn't know, buoyancy is one of those. I suspect you don't know the buoyant force is measurable, and is why certain things must be measured in vacuum chambers.
The whole problem with your idea (aside from the bad history, fact that it disagrees with experiment, improperly identifies dependent variables, etc) is that the buoyant force is measurable, and is, in air, a 3rd or 4th order effect. 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, which, again, is just the phenomenon of measurable weight when next to massive objects, in a vector toward the massive object.
Both mass and gravitation are entirely fictional, and exist only in equation.
This is a good thought, but is quickly lost on the next line. Anything in our understanding of the world, whether equation (quantitative) or descriptive (qualitative) cannot be known to be true. It isn't just the math - math is nothing more than a language that helps describe things in terms of precise quantities. We use natural language for everything else.
That said, though trueness can never be known, wrongness can, and this is why we still use mass - it accurately represents our world to many decimal places. In short, it hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
It is NOT coincidence that they annihilate one another
Descriptions in equations are not real physical things or actions, and are only used as descriptions of observed phenomena. Wait until you get into electrodynamics and have to deal with imaginary exponents when calculating delivered power. 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.
Newton was not practicing science
Something isn't right about how this is worded - as if you assume that science is something that is 'practiced' by practicians. For all of recorded history, scientists were simply curious individuals, usually wealthy, who experimented in their own free time. In the 1930s, corporations started sponsoring scientists without strings, sometimes called 'free labs'. The last independent lab was run by Bell and closed down in the 1970s, as a fun fact.
Science has never historically been done by 'scientists' as a profession.
I personally am not one for idols in any field, but his enormous contributions are certainly worthy of note, from calculus, to contributions to flight, to cleaning up the known chronology, etc.
Think I may have found the crux: The word 'gravitation' has a definition, and it doesn't agree with your usage.
"Gravitation" is the noun form of the (nonexistant?) verb for gravity, which would roughly be 'to experience gravity'. The noun 'gravitation', per basic English/latin rules, would be the term describing the noun form of objects experiencing gravity. This word can't be used to describe someone's pet theory without some other modifier (e.g. 'electric', 'coalescing', 'fairy-induced', etc).
There is no magic or anything spooky.
Additionally, nitpicking, but gravity hasn't graduated to 'law' yet, mainly because of the error bounds of big G.
They aren’t the same and in science cannot be the same.
The word's meaning is literally the phenomena. You describe the epistemological problem of reverse engineering the black box of nature, which, though true, dodges that the term 'gravitation' doesn't refer to any theory. You may possibly have miscontrued the 'Theory of Gravitation'. which is a proper noun (and thus requires the words 'theory' and 'of')?
So, present your hypothesis and the documentation of your experiments.
He won't.
Why don't you?
Because he is pants-on-head retarded. Keep an eye on his replies to me if you want evidence of this.
Focusing on the only substance in this post:
Weight is an intrinsic property of all matter.
This tries to reinvent the wheel. People originally believed that, until we realized that weight varies both by location on the Earth and proximity to it, which is why a different intrinsic property was proposed, Mass, and weight is now defined as the product of both mass and the local gravitational acceleration.
What governs wether an object will rise [...] between the weight of the object and the weight of the media it displaces
Two problems with that, both of which have been already rehashed at length. The first is that buoyancy actually requires the acceleration of gravity to be present, making your argument circular.
The second is epistimological, basically boiling down to the metrology of what you are actually measuring. The problem is that weight doesn't change in vacuum (which btw is how gravity is measured - precisely timed falling mirrors in a vaccum chamber), and that buoyant forces can be measured separately from gravitational forces.
newton wasn’t really a scientist, he is just misrepresented that way for modern scientism idolatry
This part wasn't substance, but it is still wrong. He literally went against everything popular in his day. His most well-researched topic is literally him discovering that our timeline has been forged by jews. See Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, Amended. He's considered a hero now, but was a heretic in his time.
Holy shit - he died? When did that happen?
What a shame.
Dude you might be actually retarded.
'Gravity' as a term literally is defined by phenomenological effects. The 'cause' behind these effects (most recently: Higgs Boson) are indeed science fiction and literally everyone admits so (despite what popsci publications would have one believe).
There are a number of these phenomenological terms in science, where the effects are studied but causes not understood, e.g. diffraction, surface tension, etc. all terms of which are defined by their effects. People write huge dissertations on what the causes might be, but nobody really knows.
Falling objects literally demonstrate the PHENOMENA of gravity or gravitation. And yes, gravity has been indeed measured, observed, and understood for many centuries, though the causes are not.
Yea
BTW its yea, not yay.
It's been debated into oblivion already, and there are no new findings for or against FE in decades. I would think a forum, per its definition, should be for exchanging new or novel information, ideas, or perspectives on a topic.
There simply isn't anything new or novel about any FE arguments.
If you felt like a compromise, maybe make a good-faith page concatenating the primary arguments for and against? I would imagine this already exists.
Clarify your view, and I will suggest as I can. Originally, I was going to point out that buoyancy is measured, and cannot explain the phenomenon, as it originally sounded like you were going to ascribe the mechanism of gravity to buoyancy.
Has what you are describing ever been taught? It's the first I've heard of it, and I studied these disciplines extensively.
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. It is our proposed model for the inner workings of the universe, and can't be known to match or not. Further, it directly relates a quantity of matter to its weight, as that is its definition.
Again, you ascribe significance to actions in equations. There literally is no meaning to what happens in the equations. Since we can only measure weight, mass is derived (but proposed to be what is truly intrinsic), and to as-you-say 'recombine' has no special significance when you solve in the opposite direction.
The concept of mass is similarly ancient, though was only called such during Keplerian times. Just as the ancients proposed there must be some indivisible form of matter (atom), they proposed this matter must have weight, just as the whole does, and that something must be causing the same amounts of different matter to have different weights, which is what we now call mass. I'll look - I think even Aristotle spoke on this not-named concept. Kepler formalized this, 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).
I suppose this needs proper explanation. Generally, scientific principles are overturned by others, and nothing has overturned this one. Honestly, I don't even understand what you fault with it, except possibly how it was originated, but this can't be an argument against it.
Also a naive view. Clouds are real; how do you define their bounds, given only boundaries are measurable? It's volume can't be measured, and anything derived can also not be measured (density, composition, etc). This is just a hypothetical to explain the issue here.
Another example, the electric force field is real, but measuring it actually posed a huge problem for early scientists (and still does - you can't measure it without affecting it, for one).
Proving realness of any natural mechanism is impossible, and why nobody ever attempts that. All that can be known is falseness, and thus why science progresses by overturning older proposed mechanisms with newer, (ideally) less false ones).
Further, it should be noted that the attraction you describe is literally what gravitation is - attraction between matter that is proportional to mass.
Laymen, sure, but a number of disciplines are explicitly taught the difference. Some examples: physical scientists, lawyers, etc. Remember that 'correctness' can't be known in the physical sciences, so usefulness is all that we have.
His 'calculations of a flat plate', where he 'proves' that heavier than air flight was impossible, since lift can never exceed drag, and lift/drag both have their maxima at 45 degrees angle of incidence. He was technically right, and we still don't know why wings work (produce more lift than drag - overunity, essentially).
I stumbled upon it while studying problems with chronology myself. You can find his multiple works on it here - it was his biggest work by word count: https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/record/THEM00090
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.