ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.

And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

Again, stop talking about gravity, it shows you have no clue what you are talking about, or that you are just spouting garbage to hate on it.

Gravity has no part in a discussion of action-reaction, unless one of those is gravity.

Take a look at the topic title.
You can't answer it and this is why you're acting like you are.
You know gravity has nothing to back it up, because it is a nothing. It's just a word to describe a fantasy and to add to the reality of atmospheric pressure being the reason things are in resistance.

You can't explain it other than to appeal to it, just because.

Take a look at the topic title.

Or take a look at what you were actually talking about.

Gravity has no place in the explanation, not because it is fictional like you continually falsely claim, but simply because it isn't involved.

You can't explain it other than to appeal to it, just because.

That would still be you, with your inability to explain why observed reality spits in the face of your delusional nonsense.

Again, if it was the air that was causing the resistance, a lower density object would either have the same or greater resistance, as the motion displaces the same amount of air, or more air if you want to appeal to the air magically trapped inside.

But if you want to go back to what the start of the thread was about, then yes, air pressure does get involved.
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere (you know, that thing you fled the other thread over because you couldn't explain it without appealing to gravity), which is a direct consequence of gravity, causes the lower density flame to rise.
No gravity means no pressure gradient.

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.

And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

People grasp it, they just reject it as unfortunately for you, they don't see it conforming to the reality around them.  The bigger question is why after years and years and years of silly arguing on an internet forum, you are no closer to getting anywhere with anyone?  Your ideas are simplistic (except for all the strange convolutions you add when cornered).  If they were broadly true, it would literally take an afternoon and a couple hundred dollars to absolutely, conclusively demonstrate in a way that no one could argue with.   Why not do that?  It would be ~so~ easy, do you not do it because you are unable to, or is it because you know deep down that any attempt at demonstration would result in abject failure?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

People grasp it, they just reject it

No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
He is the one who fails to grasp atmospheric pressure.

For example, I grasp that it applies a force based upon area and pressure.
I grasp that this means that without a pressure gradient it applies no net force.
I grasp that with a pressure gradient it applies a net force from high to low pressure.
I grasp that this means in the atmosphere, with a vertical pressure gradient with pressure greatest at the bottom, that the atmosphere pushes objects upwards (commonly known as buoyancy).

Instead of this, he completely rejects that idea and instead thinks the atmosphere magically pushes objects down for no reason at all, except when it magically decides to push them up.

Likewise I grasp that in order for air to resist motion, a pressure gradient needs to be established.
I grasp that the open atmosphere won't simply just push on the object, but also flow around it.
I grasp that that means in the open atmosphere a small ball will have quite a small resistance from the air unless it is travelling at a very high velocity.
I also grasp that this means it will be based upon the size and shape of the object and have nothing at all to do with mass.

He again rejects that and instead claims it magically resists based upon the mass of the object, with quite a significant force.

Quote from: sobchak on January 25, 2021, 11:37:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

People grasp it, they just reject it

No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.

Confused, Isn't that what I just said?

He is the one who fails to grasp atmospheric pressure.

Clearly.  In my opinion he is not really arguing with others here, he is just arguing with himself.  He has built up a strange fantasy world that he thinks people believe in, and argues against that.  He would do well in trying to understand basic concepts they way they used, but I am not sure he is actually capable of comprehending them, his mind is quite closed to outside information. 

Quote from: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:33:48 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 25, 2021, 11:37:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

People grasp it, they just reject it

No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.

Confused, Isn't that what I just said?

I may have misunderstood.

I interpreted it more akin to his denpressure. I grasp it, and reject it as BS.
As opposed to air pressure, where I grasp it, and realise that it shows he is wrong and that he doesn't grasp it.

I don't reject air pressure, just his pure nonsense.

Gravity has no place in the explanation
.

Of course it doesn't. No one can explain it...not even you.

Quote from: sobchak on January 26, 2021, 12:49:28 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:33:48 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 25, 2021, 11:37:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

People grasp it, they just reject it

No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.

Confused, Isn't that what I just said?

I may have misunderstood.

I interpreted it more akin to his denpressure. I grasp it, and reject it as BS.
As opposed to air pressure, where I grasp it, and realise that it shows he is wrong and that he doesn't grasp it.

I don't reject air pressure, just his pure nonsense.

I guess I was not completely clear that I was referring to his conception of 'atmospheric pressure' that people grasp but reject, rather than the concept of air pressure in general. 

The silly part is, you know you can push the air out of a strongly built rubber cup whilst it is placed on a surface.
You know you will have an absolute struggle trying to lever that  rubber cup off that surface.

It's blatantly obvious that gravity is not at play because it's blatantly obvious that pushing out the air in that cup has resulted in it being clamped to a surface.

So why is it clamped to that surface?

It's clamped to that surface because the energy/force that a person placed upon that cup, not only pushed out a lot air from in it, it allowed that air to take its place against it on the outside, added to the pressure of the atmosphere and leaving fat too little of it inside the cup to equally push back. An imbalance.

To give anyone a better insight into why this is the case, you only have to think of this cup under water and placing it against a surface under that water then pushing out as much water as you can.
The cup will stay clamped on that surface.
Why?
Because the water is pushed out, leaving little of it left in to push up against what is on top of the cup, including the added water pushed out that takes its place in that water, just like it does in atmosphere in the above scenario..

The imbalance means the cup cannot return to its original shape, until the water is added back into it, because it's being crushed or held in a crushed position of the force that created that crush in the first place.

Absolutely none of this requires fictional gravity and it shows how displacement creates return pressure back to the object, no matter what it is.
I don't expect globalists to bother with this but I'd hope thinkers who want to see past this gravity nonsense, will.


I hope people are sat at home pondering what I'm saying, so they can see things for themselves.

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.

And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.

Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.

And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.

No, they don't.

Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead.

Quote from: Shifter on January 26, 2021, 05:24:15 AM

Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.

You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.

And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.

No, they don't.

Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different  from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:05:26 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.

And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.

No, they don't.

Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different  from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube.

They aren't. They're both just a cube.
You'll need to come back with what the cubes are made of.

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 06:53:43 AM

Quote from: Shifter on January 26, 2021, 05:24:15 AM

Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.

You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.

Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with.  Be sure to take lots of pictures.

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:13:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:05:26 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:52:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.

And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.

So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.

No, they don't.

Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different  from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube.

They aren't. They're both just a cube.
You'll need to come back with what the cubes are made of.

What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:10:18 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 06:53:43 AM

Quote from: Shifter on January 26, 2021, 05:24:15 AM

Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.

You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.

Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with.  Be sure to take lots of pictures.

You're becoming far too petty I'm going to have to cut down on replies to you. I'll stick to the relevant one's. I hope you don't mind.

What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.

The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:18:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:10:18 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 06:53:43 AM

Quote from: Shifter on January 26, 2021, 05:24:15 AM

Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.

You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.

Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with.  Be sure to take lots of pictures.

You're becoming far too petty I'm going to have to cut down on replies to you. I'll stick to the relevant one's. I hope you don't mind.

Since you avoid answering pretty much any question anyone poses to you, I don't see how that makes much difference.

Don't demand people cater to all your whims and conditions you make up and think you will get a free pass when asked to do even a minimal amount of work yourself.

So... going to do the experiment? 

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:19:06 AM

What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.

The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.

Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them.  Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 25, 2021, 11:26:36 PM

Gravity has no place in the explanation

Of course it doesn't. No one can explain it...not even you.

And there you go ignoring everything that shows you are wrong yet again.
When will you grow up?

Once more, gravity has no part in the explanation because it simply is not involved.
All that is needed is action-reaction.
This is not an issue for gravity. Just like gravity not being involved in explaining how paints dry doesn't mean there is some problem for gravity.

And again, I CAN EXPLAIN IT!
As I have.
The person who can't explain it is you.

Once more, person pushes against ball, with the mass and thus inertia of the ball providing resistance to that force and subsequent acceleration causing the ball to push back, and this "push back" accelerates the person.
Conversely if you replace the ball with an object of low mass, but the same volume (which according to your delusional nonsense means that when you move it you move more air), it has significantly less resistance, due to its much lower mass.

Entirely consistent with reality and my explanation, but directly contradicting your fantasy and your "explanation".

The silly part is, you know you can push the air out of a strongly built rubber cup whilst it is placed on a surface.
You know you will have an absolute struggle trying to lever that  rubber cup off that surface.

Yes, because we understand how air pressure actually acts.
The partial vacuum created when you try to pull the rubber cup off that surface creates a tremendous pressure differential which results in a massive force being applied.
We understand that without the air pressure, that does not work, yet things still fall.
We also understand that without a seal and thus without that partial vacuum and pressure gradient, it isn't difficult at all.
This also means that we understand that if you break the seal by applying enough force to pull the object off the surface, it just lets go and there is then no significant force required to pull it.

You are clearly trying to compare this to a heavy object, that but works nothing like air pressure.
The object is heavy without any seal. It is even heavy in mid-air, with no surface for it to be clamped against.
It is blatantly obvious that air pressure is not at play because it is blatantly obvious that there is no significant pressure gradient acting on the object (and the insignificant pressure gradient that is acting on the object is acting in the wrong direction).

Again, your delusional nonsense has no connection to reality.
Stop trying to equate fundamentally different situations.

Again, gravity not being at play in explaining how paint dries is not a problem for gravity.
Stop trying to pretend gravity should be able to explain everything and that anything it isn't involved in magically disproves it.

There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:23:47 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:19:06 AM

What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.

The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.

Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them.  Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.

Of course two objects with the same volume have the same volume. What in the hell are you getting at?

There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.

Explain what?
It's you that cannot explain gravity.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:51:45 PM

There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.

Explain what?

So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.

You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.

But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 10:21:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:51:45 PM

There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.

Explain what?

So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.

You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.

But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.

Nothing of what you say here makes sense.

What exactly are you talking about?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 27, 2021, 12:01:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 10:21:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:51:45 PM

There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.

Explain what?

So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.

You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.

But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.

Nothing of what you say here makes sense.

Is that why you are unable to show a single fault with it?

Perhaps if you stopped ignoring everything that was said it would make more sense to you.

It has been explained quite a few times.
Again, in reality (you know, that thing you hate because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy) the greater mass results in greater resistance.
This shows it isn't the air that is responsible.

Again, if it was the air, the mass should be irrelevant.
Instead it should be based upon how much air is moved when you move the object.
And looking at the air around the object, the same amount is moved regardless of the mass. That means a light weight balloon should have the same resistance as a dense medicine ball due to the air around it.
And with that all that is left would be the air inside the object. And if the nonsense you spout is true (and in this case even in reality), the lower density object (the balloon) has more air inside it, and that means more air is moved when moving it. That means that the lower density object would have greater resistance.

Notice how reality doesn't match your fantasy and that you are the one unable to explain reality?