but no it's not evidence of gravity. It's more evidence for the stacked atmosphere and the dome if looked at how I mentioned along the route of my denpressure theory.
Pure BS.
It is evidence of gravity. It shows that objects experience a downwards force, even with insignificant amounts of air to displace.
If your nonsense was true they shouldn't fall in a vacuum. They should experience less downwards force in the vacuum than outside it.
As we know in a more dense stacked atmosphere and placing a balloon filled with that helium, we know that the denser atmosphere will try to crush it but in doing so it will only push up the balloon.
No. We don't know that at all.
You repeatedly assert similar nonsense, but typically with things getting "crushed" down. Even though that literally makes no sense and you have no justification for any directionality.
Like trying to hold a wet bar of soap
No. Fundamentally different. When you hold the soap you typically just push in from 2 sides, or a ring around it. Not from all directions as the atmosphere does.
The direction it moves is also entirely dependent upon where you are squeezing and its shape.
Once enough of the molecules expand out of the container, the molecules left inside of it cannot crush the balloons with enough dense mass to keep it up
But you have no reason for it to move. You still have the balloon against the top of the container, and the air inside the chamber (even though it is at a low pressure, there is still some in there) would only be pushing it up against the container. You have no reason for it to move down.
This should scupper gravity in itself but gravity is so ingrained into the psyche of people that they refuse to accept anything outside of the text book of mainstream.
Not in the slightest.
Gravity can be used to accurately explain and predict what will happen.
It provides a reason for the directionality, and the difference in what happens in different density fluids.
You can only provide post-hoc nonsense.
A vacuum as we are told a vacuum is.
No, a vacuum is a region of very low pressure. No one claims a vacuum is completely empty.
This is the nonsense and should be seen for that.
Yes, everything you say seems to be pure nonsense, and people see it for that.
Anyone who dares come to their senses should understand that nothing could work unless everything was attached, throughout.
No, they wouldn't as there is absolutely no justification for that.
Why does everything need to be attached for things to work?
The major major issue is the adherence to a so called spinning globe
Again, your BS works just as well for a spinning globe.
Nothing you have provided requires a flat surface.
Earth was known to be a globe for quite some time. Even when people had the idea that a vacuum was impossible.
It's so nonsensical
If it is so nonsensical, why are you completely unable to show a single problem with it?
So far all you have are pathetic strawmen.
Free space cannot exist in terms of a literal nothingness. It should be obvious and should be looked at to understand why
Or how about you try telling us why?
You seem incapable of doing so and instead just repeatedly asserting the same BS. In fact, that sure seems to be all you are capable of doing, just repeatedly asserting the same collection of BS, without anything at all to back you up.
Stop lying by claiming mainstream science is nonsense when you are completely unable to provide any viable alternative and completely unable to show a single thing wrong with modern science.
So I ask again, WHY DO THINGS FALL?
You are yet to provide any explanation. So far all you have is a baseless assertion that the air magically pushes things down, which you then contradict by it magically pushing some thing up.