u/AltScientist84

Same Earth.

Same object.

Different regime.

Fall. Float. Rise. Suspend. Stabilise.

At what point does “gravity causes motion” become “interaction regime determines motion”?

Fluid mechanics, buoyancy, drag, pressure gradients, and density relations are all standard physics.

So where exactly does the discussion become unacceptable?

I’m genuinely curious how people distinguish “alternative interpretation” from “pseudoscience.”

The same object can:

fall rapidly in air

drift slowly in oil

rise in water

remain suspended in a density-matched medium

Yet the object itself — and Earth’s gravity — remain essentially unchanged.

At what point does the medium stop being treated as a secondary correction and start being recognised as an active participant in realised motion?

The torsion balance clearly measures displacement.

But the interpretation of what physically produces that displacement is still layered with assumptions about environmental coupling, electrostatic effects, thermal gradients, air interaction, fibre behaviour, vibration isolation, etc.

My question is,

How much of Cavendish is direct observation of mass attracting mass, and how much is interpretation layered onto observed motion?

Not denying the experiment works.

Questioning what exactly the experiment uniquely proves.