But I'm not challenging mainstream science.
Because so far nothing you have presented even remotely challenges it.
Instead it just blatantly lies about it.
You can also be right about the wrong thing, as is the case with billions of people correctly identifying that objects fall... but incorrectly identifying why they fall.
Really?
Billions of people reject gravity?
Gravity cannot make things fall but also make things spin, just as it can't hold things firmly down... yet allow a tiny chirpy bird and a jumbo jet to both overcome it.
And see, this is another example of the above. You aren't challenging science, you are just lying about it.
Why can't that happen?
Because you are desperate for an excuse to reject reality and can't come up with a coherent argument.
We can try the same with string.
String cannot make things fall but also make things spin.
Except it can. You have string pull something down (including things which float a helium balloon). But you can also tie something to a string and spin it around.
Likewise, gravity provides a force of attraction. If there is no relative motion to begin with, they fall towards each other and collide.
If instead there is relative motion, which is not in a line between them, then gravity will not necessarily be able to make them collide.
If it has an appropriate tangential velocity, then the objects accelerate towards each other and end up orbiting their barycenter.
If the velocity is not enough, then the objects collide. If it is fast enough, it is a hyperbolic orbit where they each deflect each other's trajectory.
If the velocity is in an appropriate range, then it is in an elliptical orbit, which doesn't intersect Earth.
You can even think about this logically to realise you are spouting pure BS.
If your BS attack was true, then if you throw an object, as soon as it is released from your hand, it must fly straight down.
If instead, reality is true and gravity isn't magic, then as you release the object, gravity acts to accelerate it towards Earth.
This results in it continuing with its horizontal velocity, and following an arc as the vertical velocity changes due to the acceleration towards Earth.
You can also consider how much this arc curves over a given distance.
The faster you make it go, the less it curves over a certain distance.
That means at the appropriate speed, it will curve at the rate of curvature of Earth.
And that means it it can just circle around Earth.
So yes, contrary to your lie, gravity can make things fall or orbit. Because it isn't magic.
Likewise, we can try your second load of BS with a piece of string.
String can't hold things firmly down, yet fail to prevent things from going up.
Yet I can easily use a string to hold a helium filled balloon down, and then just grab the string and pull it up causing it to snap.
Again, gravity is not magic.
It is a force.
Any given object will have a downwards force due to gravity proportional to their mass.
This force is not magic.
It will not magically hold things down regardless of what happens.
All it requires to have things go up is another force acting on it which is greater than the force due to gravity.
We also see this with things like magnets; where magnets can be used to hold something to a surface, but you can easily just apply a greater force to pull the object off the manget.
So again, no actual challenge to gravity, just pathetic lies.
And lies which have been refuted repeatedly.
But that doesn't stop dishonest people like you continuing to repeat them knowing you are wrong.
2. Mainstream science, as accepted as it is by, well, the mainstream, is nonetheless firmly opposed to what is called consensus science. That is, the idea that science is settled because it is in agreement. No, what mainstream science is, opposing the consensus.
No, it is not inherently opposing the consensus.
Just blindly opposing the consensus is just as anti-science as just blindly accepting it.
Actual science is about making models and testing them. Trying to expand the scope of these models and testing if they still work in this expanded scope or they need to be improved.
It is not about just rejecting things which show your model is wrong.
It is not about believing in a massive conspiracy where you can't trust anything.
If science was just rejecting everything people of the past have discovered and trying to figure everything out yourself, we would never progress, always being stuck to reject the truth only to rediscover it later.
So your "you dare to challenge the RE orthodoxy" thing? Yes, I dare.
So why don't you stop lying about it and instead try to challenge it?
And there is no RE orthodoxy. There is simply an accepted model which matches reality and works to predict what occurs in reality.
So why do I speak out against something with older science? Because I'm not convinced it has been disproven
Yet in order to pretend to demonstrate that, you just repeatedly lie about it, and wilfully ignore all the evidence that shows you are wrong.
That is not science.
That is you adhering to FE orthodoxy.
because any opposing science is better than a consensus.
No, it isn't.
A consensus based upon mountains of evidence, with people accepting a model that works to describe reality; is vastly superior to rejection for the sake of opposition where you just ignore everything that shows you are wrong and continue to lie.
You do not have opposing science. You have wilful rejection of reality.