We know it isn't simply existing in the fluid as that has roughly the same pressure pushing from all sides which would just crush the object, not push it down.
Answer this question as simply and as briefly as you can.
If a ship is floating on water
We are focusing first on objects in the air, not those floating on water.
Remember, basics first.
However, if you will try to make an effort:
is it being pushed up from below or is it being crushed up from the water all around it and merely sitting on resistant water below.
Crusthed up makes no sense.
It is being pushed up from below.
The water pressure is pushing it up.
The buoyant force isn't a push from below.
You rejecting reality doesn't magically change it.
Again, we can observe pressure gradients existing in reality.
These exist with a greater pressure the lower an object is.
This greater pressure below will result in an upwards force on the object.
So no, it is a push from below.
Also, arguing about what buoyancy is just another distraction.
The fact is we know the pressure gradient is opposite that required to produce a downwards force.
If you want to claim this doesn't cause the buoyant force that doesn't get you any closer to explaining why things fall.
It is a resistance to push/crush/compression from above and around.
No it isn't.
Resistance to push would mean no motion.
Resistance to crush/compression would be not being crushed.
Move the object anywhere you want to, it still displaces the atmosphere it is in b y it's own mass.
And that doesn't magically make it move back.
We know it isn't the amount of atmosphere above and below as that should result in us being pushed into walls and objects being pushed into a roof from below.
Why?
I explained that, in that quote, which you have ignored.
We are being pushed down against a resistant foundation. Why should be be pushed up if our dense mass displaces atmosphere above and around whilst using a foundation to stop us being crushed down?
Place an object, like a sheet of paper on the roof.
Now the roof is acting as the foundation against which the atmosphere presses. This should result in the object being pushed up, but instead it falls.
Go lie against a wall, or press yourself against a wall or get a smooth block placed against a nice smooth wall. Now the wall is the foundation, so the object should be pressed into the wall, yet it isn't. You can easily remove it.
If you wish to claim we magically just get pushed down, you need to explain WHY.
For the very reasons I gave. Simply put, denpressure.
You have failed to provide any actual reason.
Every "reason" you have given has been refuted.
The water is below, not atmosphere, so we know atmosphere is not pushing you up because your feet are touching water.
No, instead the water is pushing you up.
How about you stop with the distractions and just deal with air, i.e. an object in mid air.
For simplicity, take a ball, hold it in between your fingers such that your fingers are on the side, extend your arm out, and then release.
Why does the ball go down?
Mathematics work fine if you simply use them for denpressure instead of gravity and such.
No they don't.
You have been completely unable to provide any math for your model.
The math we have currently is centred around gravity, not denpressure.
The problem though, is, if we stick to denpressure it kills space and the spinning globe
Not in the slightest.
Nothing you have said would work any less on a globe.
The only difference is instead of a stack going from a plane upwards, it goes from the surface of the globe outwards.
Do you know of anywhere in the world where something has weighed a set amount in one place and weighed differently in another, using the same scales?
That literally makes no sense.
How can you ask about a place that is 2 places?
Yes, weight varies around Earth, and how you move around Earth.
One such example is the Eotvos effect.
But if you want, you can go get your own scales and try it yourself.
Just note that they would need to be fairly accurate as the variation is typically less than 1 %.
But even if it didn't, that would just be further evidence against your model.