This one is a hard one to get out of for you, isn't it?
No, it is trivial to explain with mainstream science, but impossible for you (well the key problem is impossible for you).
I also now realise you were referring to a air filled balloon, not a helium filled one.
Again, in mainstream science with have a downwards force from gravity acting to pull objects down to Earth. But they also exist in a fluid, and this fluid, due to gravity, has a pressure gradient. This pressure gradient is due to the weight of the fluid and means there is a higher pressure below an object than above.
This means the fluid will exert an upwards force. For a simple cylinder standing vertically, with a height of h, the pressure difference between the top and bottom, assuming gravity and the fluid density is constant for that height difference, will be rho_f*g*h. If gravity or density changes significantly over this distance, you need to integrate.
And this acts on an area of A (the cross sectional area of the cylinder).
This means the upwards force will be rho_f*g*h*A=rho_f*g*V.
i.e. the upwards force will be equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced.
The downwards force due to gravity is simply rho_o*g*V.
So the net force downwards will be:
g*V*(rho_o-rho_f).
And this is again, where we can consider how significant something is.
If we have a ball of water with a density of roughly 1000 kg/m^3, (just as a baseline), in air with a density of roughly 1.3 kg/m^3; then the buoyant force contributes an upwards force 0.13% of the downwards force.
That is equivalent to a reduction in g of 0.13%, lowering it from ~9.8 m/s^2 to 9.79 m/s^2.
For a steel ball, with a density of roughly 8000 kg/m^3, the effect of the air is even smaller, 0.016%.
But now compare this to a balloon. The majority of the volume of the balloon comes from the air inside it, as does the majority of the mass. This means its density will be quite close to that of air. As a rough figure, it could be 1.5 kg/m^3. Now the density of air is 87% of the density of the balloon.
This means it will fall much more slowly.
And we also know that there is air resistance which can affect it.
But now lets switch to your nonsense.
Lets even ignore the fact you can't explain why the air pushes anything down and pretend you have an explanation.
Well, according to you, the only thing providing resistance is the air below.
But that means you have the air above pushing down, and the below air resisting, in equal proportion for all these objects.
So why do they fall differently?
But we would soon know which was which when we dropped both from a height, even chest or hip height.
And this is where the gravity illusion falls flat on its face
Wrong again.
This is where mainstream science can explain it trivially, yet you are entirely incapable of doing so.
And this is also why offering higher vantage points for varying dense masses is key to understanding that a ping pong ball will not drop the same as an iron ball of equal visual size. And so on.
No, as that is based primarily upon air resistance.
People won't bother to look into this
Likely because they already know that mainstream science explains it fine.
Even if you want to dismiss gravity as a narrative, it still explains the observations so these would still fit the narrative.
The only thing which doesn't fit is your dishonest portrayal.
If you honestly think it destroys gravity, why don't you explain how?
And remember, unlike you, we don't pretend that 1 thing is responsible for everything.
That means you can't just pretend the air isn't there.
But you can see the effect of any dense mass displacement of the atmosphere by simple evacuation of a plastic bottle or even that tanker rail car and so on and so on.
And notice how that crushes it inwards, it doesn't push it down. It doesn't magically make it weigh more.
As already explained with the simple experiment of taking a solid, air tight container, weighing it and then removing most of the air from it.
It weighs less.
Clearly demonstrating that this crush you are appealing to merely pushes inwards, not magically downwards.
If your fantasy was true, removing the air from the container would make it weight more.
Are you going to tell me gravity pulls it into a crush?
Again, we aren't dishonest by pretending gravity explains everything like you are for the air.
We recognise there are multiple forces at work.
ANy experiment shows it. It's just a simple case of people throwing aside gravity and paying attention to what they actually do see.
No, it doesn't.
The vast majority of experiments demonstrate your claims are BS.
There is not a single example you have provided where gravity does not produce the results observed, or where your fantasy can work.
Again, the most basic premise of how air works:
High pressure pushes to low pressure.
You even admitted this when you correctly stated that low pressure cannot overcome higher pressure.
So the simplest experiment to test gravity vs your BS is to take an object that gravity indicates should fall, like a brick, hold it up in the air, and release.
If gravity is true, the object will fall down, due to gravity pulling it down. It isn't the low pressure air above pushing it down, it is gravity.
If your delusional BS was true, the only forces acting on the object would be the air, with a low pressure above and a higher pressure below. This higher pressure below would push the object up, and there would be no way for the low pressure air above to overcome the higher pressure below and push the object down.
So we see with a very simple experiment, gravity works, and your delusional BS doesn't.
Another simple example is boiling substances, but this only tangentially involves gravity.
I've written it like this for a reason.
Because you need to wrap it up in so much convoluted BS to pretend your failed fantasy has any hope of matching reality?
It means the atmosphere is now acting like a spring trying to decompress against the dense mass but it depends on the foundation of the dense mass or the force holding it as to whether that decompressive force can actuate.
So you are saying the foundation provides a basis for the air to push against to remove that object, but the air above, lacking a foundation can't. So the object is pushed upwards.
It's pretty simply as to what's happening once you get your head around it.
Not with your nonsense.
It's pretty simple to see that your nonsense doesn't work, and that gravity works just fine.
Now all you have to do is understand the stacking system of layers and the breakdown of molecules within.
And how is anyone meant to do that when you refuse to explain how the atmosphere stacks.