I'm not part of the UA crowd. Such a thing is neither for or against what I believe to be true. I only care about the shape and the basic (lack of) motion of this world.
Which is just more deflection.
Even if you don't want it to be UA, explain why these magical floating islands need a FE rather than a RE.
There is no reason.
Instead, all you can offer is your typical strawmen of pretending the RE is a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
Your problem is you don't understand that buoyancy is an If-Else equation.
No, your problem is that I do understand buoyancy. It isn't magic.
Do you know the key thing your nonsense lacks? Any ability to explain the pressure gradient which is the cause of buoyancy.
If buoyancy was just a simple case of denser object sinks, lighter object floats, then there would be no pressure gradient; and if there was a pressure gradient it would act in addition to buoyancy pushing objects up more.
And there is no explanation at all for the directionality.
In reality, the pressure gradient is empirically verifiable.
This pressure gradient MUST provide an upwards force.
So there must be a downwards force to counter it.
This downwards force is gravity.
This goes all the way back to Aristotle (or possibly further).
Aristotle had gravity make heavy objects go down.
But as they didn't know about the pressure gradient, they claimed that levity made light objects go up, with that being some innate property of the object.
Understanding the pressure gradient, including what is causing it and its effects, means there is no need for a magical levity.
Instead, there is gravity, a downwards force, trying to move everything, even air, downwards.
This develops a pressure gradient in fluids, and that pushes objects up.
A great thing about this is it is transferrable. You can substitute gravity for acceleration, explaining why a helium filled balloon suspended from the floor of a car will move forwards when you accelerate forwards.
And Newton came along and provided a reason, an attractive force between masses. This gave us an explanation for the directionality and no longer needed a magical down.
I hereby call out the fraud that is any buoyancy theories that associate with gravity. And I hereby declare that if you wish to prove gravity, you must prove that objects do not sink and float in the water due to their mass. Gravity as counterforce is no longer an option. You must wholly dispute buoyancy as a theory to propose the theory of gravity.
No, I don't need to do any of that. And that is because (as above) gravity provide an explanation for buoyancy.
If you wish to reject gravity, you need to explain what is maintaining a pressure gradient in a fluid, and why this fluid doesn't push objects of equal or similar density to fluids up.
Because I know that objects float, and under an If-Else condition there is no reason to have gravity
Pure BS.
An If-Else condition which entirely ignores key aspects of reality which destroys a simple if-else condition doesn't mean anything.
The pressure gradient means you need gravity or something like it.
It means the upwards buoyant force is a result of a downwards force.
And equally important, your if-else has no justification for the directionality.
but you gotta prove gravity by some other means than the lazy ride-along you've depended on thus far.
Providing explanations is not a mere lazy ride-along.
But gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt in plenty of ways, like the Cavendish experiment, and countless objects in orbit.
will you yet admit that Newton was wrong (again) when he said objects stay in motion?
No, I will object to your pathetic quote mine.
They didn't say that objects will stay in motion. They said that objects will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
So if an external force acts, the object slows down.
The key point is that such a force is needed to slow an object down. It doesn't just magically lose speed.
while objects come to a stop either by hitting objects or skidding to a stop on flat ground.
What you are appealing to there is an external force.
But the ground doesn't need to be flat.
It works as well on rough ground.
If the Earth were truly round, don't you think objects should continue to roll?
Why would I think that? If there is a force acting to resist the relative motion, it will stop eventually.
Care to try any sort of explanation at all, or will you just continue in your habit of asserting pure BS with no justification at all?
You crying and screaming that a force exists does change the fact that if I built a hovercraft, it should fall not long after the gas runs out.
I'm not crying and screaming. I'm just pointing out reality that you need to flee from.
You are yet to provide a viable alternative for gravity.
Instead you want to act like an arrow just magically falls for no reason at all.
And yes, with gravity acting on the hovercraft, without it burning fuel to stay up, it falls.
Were an arrow able to fly forever (as Newton claims with his catchy statement), it should never touch the ground, drilling through mountains and staying aloft.
Again, can you post a single post without a lie?
That is NOT what Newton claims.
Again, it is WITHOUT AN EXTERNAL FORCE.
Does your hypothetical have external forces?
YES!
You have the arrow drill through mountains.
This will require a force to displace the material that it has to drill through.
This force will act to slow down the arrow.
The arrow is flying through the air, so you have air resistance slowing it down.
You also have gravity, attracting it to Earth, and if it is in a sub-orbital path, it will hit Earth, with a force needed to displace the material again slowing it down.
So you have an external force acting to slow it down.
If you want it to continue forever you need to remove those forces. Such as by having it travel in an orbital trajectory (or faster) with negligible air resistance, without passing through matter, so as high up as possible.