^^^ Well, thank you. Since you can't answer my points, thanks for the lovely picture.
I'm curious about density vs. gravity. I have only heard about this recently. There appears to be a force that pulls objects down, and it is called "gravity". What is the issue? Is the non-existence of gravity a central tenet of FE?
Well the first issue is you have a force that pulls.
Why would you think that gravity is a force that pulls.
Consider the rope. If you tie one end of a rope to an object, you might be able to easily pull that object along. But it would be difficult if not impossible to push the object via the rope.
If gravity pulled, we would have figured it out easily, long ago. But since gravity is such a difficult thing to figure out, more than likely gravity pushes.
The existence of gravity, an unproven hypothesis is unavoidable and central to the globe model. On our flat earth objects fall or sink because they've displaced the atmosphere (aether in the case of an evacuated chamber) and the atmosphere reacts by pushing them down. Up and down is defined by the electric field (see Coulomb's Law) between the dome (+ anode) and the ground (- cathode).
But if there were a dome, it would have been mentioned in the Bible (which you love to quote). But all that is mentioned is the canopy of water above the sky, and water below the sky. It's a canopy around globe earth.
If Coulomb's Law applied, we would have far more electrical reaction between various objects on earth than we do. We would be able to get free energy out of it.
If denser substances get pushed down by the lighter substance moving up, then why do objects fall in a vacuum when there is no lighter substance moving up?
I would appreciate your thoughts.
The lighter substance is aether. You can refer to the Sagnac Experiment for more information.
The aether isn't a lighter or heavier substance. You entirely misunderstand the aether. It holds denser and less dense materials, and propagates gravity waves and the energies that materials are made from. The aether, itself, is not affected by any scientific terms that are currently popular. Sagnac didn't understand the aether, either.
Gravity is an unproven theory needed to explain the motion of the lights in the sky if we foolishly assume they're heavy balls. There's no observable earthly phenomenon that requires gravity.
You still haven't figured out that there is a difference between gravity and gravity theory. Both gravity and gravity theory exist. Gravity is accurate. We don't know for sure if gravity theory is accurate. If it were accurate, it would be the law of gravity. Now don't go off spouting Newton or something.