Density is the mass per surface area
No, density is the mass per unit volume.
It you take a piece of alfoil, and melt it into a ball and let it solidify, they will have the same mass and density, but a different surface area.
Newton absconded the term"weight" and so now you can't use it as identical to mass.
It was never identical to mass.
We know this because air was "weightless" yet still had mass.
The one stealing words here is YOU!
Buoyancy has always been an upwards force. A force in response to the weight of the fluid.
Yet you want to steal that word and change it to magically be upwards or downwards and entirely ignore weight.
Mass is a scalar, weight is a vector.
Weight has directionality, mass does not.
Imagining gravity in other planets is a sign that there is something seriously wrong with your brain.
Why?
Because of how much you hate reality?
Don't worry, we don't need to imagine it on other planets. We can just imagine it at different locations on Earth, where objects with the same mass (or even the very same object) will have a different weight.
I'm reclaiming the term
You aren't reclaiming it, you're trying to steal it.
You are doing this so you can pretend that the equation YOU provided doesn't appeal to gravity even though it quite explicitly appeals to the WEIGHT of the fluid. Not the mass of the fluid, the WEIGHT.
I have used this same idea to explain why we can't do outer space travel.
No, you did a fundamentally different idea, based upon pure BS.
You entirely ignored how rockets work and how air resistance works to blatantly lie about the possibility of travel through space.
So a space ship, which has weight and can no longer propel itself through ignition, drops like a stone before it gets to Mars or to the moon.
Why?
Rockets work BETTER in a vacuum, not worse. Because they don't have the air pressure to fight against, exhaust goes back, rocket goes forwards. They don't have the air resistance slowing them down.
So no, a rocket can propel itself. And without air resistance trying to slow it down, it will just be following a trajectory dominated by gravity.
So it doesn't drop like a stone. Instead it travels through space like if you threw a stone.
Your delusional BS would be like saying if you throw a stone, because it doesn't have propulsion, as soon as it leaves your hand it will instantly stop and fall to the ground.
It is pure BS with no connection to reality at all.
All of this is precisely the theory of buoyancy
You have no theory. You have a statement of observations which relies upon you ignoring plenty from reality, like the pressure gradient.
It's meant to prop up the RE model.
No, it is meant to explain parts of it.
The RE model is backed up by so much evidence it doesn't need propping up.
Why should I?
Because you keep lying about how gravity should work.
Such as repeating the lie that gravity should magically make water entirely ignore the attractive force towards Earth and instead stick to a tiny ball in your sink.
It is supposed to somehow prevent blood rush from all the people in Australia standing upside down
They are not upside down.
They are upside up.
They are standing with their feet on the ground, with down being towards the centre of Earth.
You have no justification at all for your delusional BS that they are upside down.
Even if you wish to appeal to a magical universal down, you have no justification for why Earth should have any particular orientation relative to this pure magic of yours.
You just assert they are upside down because you are desperate to ridicule the RE.
It is further supposed to roll around the sun using gravity
No, it is supposed to orbit the sun and rotate while orbiting. That is NOT roling.
changing the definition and behavior of gravity from falling to orbiting
No, keeping the definition and behaviour of gravity as an attractive force, which in the absence of other forces causes an acceleration towards each other.
Earth, while orbiting, is accelerating towards the sun.
It is no more a change than changing a spring from holding an object up, to holding an object to an axis as you spin it around.
because a counter force of centripetal (or was it centrigual) which does not in fact exert negative pressure but simply adds spin.
Pure delusional BS.
As above, Earth is accelerating towards the sun. It is its sideways velocity which keeps it from falling it as it accelerates.
Gravity is providing the centripetal force required to maintain this acceleration.
The apparent centrifugal force is a fictitious force created by considering the system in a non-inertial reference frame where Earth is not orbiting the sun and instead is just moving slightly closer or further away.
This fictitious force is an outwards force.
It isn't your delusional BS of just adding spin.
So no, Earth should not have fallen into the sun.
This while the sun travels around the galaxy, yet we have seen the same stars since ancient Greece and nobody can prove we have moved at all.
Once more, pure BS.
We see different stars (some new ones have formed and old ones died), and they are in different positions.
The change over time is slow, but it does happen.
You ignoring that wont change it.
The entire thing is a crock.
That does sum up your post quite well.
Yes, I've heard you guys and you explanation of how things work
And because you don't give a damn about the truth/reality, you ignore all that and just repeat the same pathetic refuted lies.
but you haven't given me remotely the same respect even a post ago.
We give you vastly more respect than you give us.
We read what you say and explain why it is wrong, responding to what you have said.
You ignore what we say and just repeat the same lies that have already been refuted.
This magical force of gravity says heavier objects exert on light ones
No, this entirely non-magical force says that masses attract each other with a force proportional to the product of the masses.
The acceleration of an object which results from this is proportional to the other mass.
e.g. if you have a massive ball with a mass of M, and a tiny ball with a mass of m, separated by a distance of r; then the force acting on each has a magnitude of F=GMm/r^2.
The acceleration of the larger mass is given by F=Ma, so a=Gm/r^2; and for the smaller mass you have a=GM/r^2.
So given a large enough mass difference, the acceleration of the larger mass is negligible and the acceleration of the smaller mass is significant.
e.g. if you have Earth, and a ball that weighs 1 kg, the acceleration of that ball to Earth is roughly 9.82 m/s^2. The acceleration of Earth to the ball is 0.0000000000000000000000016 m/s^2.
So Earth pretty much doesn't accelerate at all.
So it can be simplified as an approximation, that it is just Earth exerting a force on the object.
if Earth has strong enough central force to cap all water leaks
What water leaks?
Are you appealing to it holding the oceans down?
If so, what force is trying to lift them up?
not only not fly but be pinned to the ground.
Why?
Stop just asserting BS and explain WHY.
A bird is light, so the force pulling it to Earth is small.
Small enough for its wings to easily overcome.
Instead, a bird flies much the same way you or I swim.
No, it doesn't.
How often have you seen someone try to swim by flapping arms like a bird just to stay up?
A bird flies by flapping its wings to produce lift, and at other times gliding, which also uses wings to produce lift.
Its light aerodynamic body is an asset,not something gravity punishes it for.
Yes, because that means that the force due to gravity is less. Why would gravity punish it for being lighter?