I think you are missing one important factor. Gravity.

Not in regards to the specific statement you were responding to. Orbit always decays because constant speed in anything but a completely frictionless and unidirectional path requires acceleration. Acceleration costs energy. The same is true “attached” to a (uniformly) rotating world.

Can you prove the earth is still?

Arguably, yes (proof is very subjective outside of mathematics :()

In science we can only prove through observation (bearing natural law; the what) and experiment (bearing theory; the why/how)

I already mentioned the michelson morely observation, which establishes that the world is not whizzing anywhere like a space potato. The michelson gale pearson in conjunction with “airy’s failure” does away with the fantasy/conceit of axial rotation. The sky rotates above us! We are stationary.

So what would explain why we are only getting an obvious downward force?

Sadly, most things that we observe don’t have explanations, and worse than that - the explanations that we teach are historically always incorrect :( You learn to live with it.

The downward force is caused by the interplay between the weight of the object and the media it displaces. When it is greater, it has a “downward force” (gravity). When it is lesser, it has an “upward force” (levity). When it is equal it floats (neutrality).

This is all experimentally verifiable as well. The cause of gravity, levity, and neutrality is weight!

When things are entrained during freefall the rules “appear” to be suspended, but only because they are entrained. Archimedes principle involves volumetric density and the entire object (let’s say an airplane cabin, for instance) is still subject to it, although the entrained items within are temporarily not.

Gravity only exists with mass.

In a way you are right! However I think it is important to use the word gravitation.

Gravitation only exists with mass... However, they are both entirely fictional and do not in any way exist outside of equation. This is why they cannot be adequately defined, measured, or manipulated! It is not coincidence that when combined they return to the actual and measured weight they began as.

It doesn't explain a single direction of force.

There isn’t a single direction of force! It is all to do with the interplay of the weight of the object, and that of the media it displaces!

As for the reason why objects have weight - we may never have an adequate (or correct) answer :(

You can even demonstrate this while on earth.

That’s where all science is done! Buoyancy is never absent, it merely appears to be while the object and media are entrained during freefall. The “buoyancy” you are referring to is merely isostatic/isobaric pressure - it’s always there but is not distributed on the object the same way typically.

its not guessing - you are using observation and collecting data.
Not a guess its observation.

I agree that observation and data collecting are not guessing! That is how we establish natural law in science; which is to say “what is”. When you imagine an explanation for that natural law and don’t/can’t experimentally validate it - that’s called guessing!

When a new theory comes along ...

Sadly it takes more than merely “coming along” or better describing reality. The old generation (and their miseducation/bias) also needs to die off, traditionally :(

Flat earth has come and gone

No, it hasn’t! We were just mistaught that it has. Since ancient greece virtually every educated person on earth has been taught that the world is spherical.

Besides, scientific theories are bore of experiment. The shape of the world (or any physical object) is not a scientific theory, nor could it ever be! It’s simply not what scientific theories are for!

We have observation, we can go to space and see the earth is round.

Can we? Can you visit a place that doesn’t exist? Is merely “looking at something” how we conduct empirical science? Do you think that avoiding abject appeal to authority is important for a diligent student or is it fine to simply believe instead of know?

you can take a high altitude weather balloon with a camera and see the same thing.

Yes we can, and many have! The results are in, but they aren’t what you think/expect!

Sadly we were both mistaught that the horizon ought to curve at some altitude. Even if the earth were spherical, it wouldn’t do so. Some students, more fortunate than us, today are not taught this nonsense anymore.

Explain and prove that it breaks modern scientific laws.

Sure! It’s pretty simple. The natural behavior of gas (gas law) was established on earth’s surface where gravitation is presumed (but never measured, because it simply doesn’t exist to measure) strongest. Two gas laws are violated by the mere concept of space (and many more besides, but let’s start with them).

1. Gas always expands to fill a container as homogeneously as possible.
2. Gas pressure is derived from the container walls.

Simply the consistent existence of (relatively) static isobaric/isostatic air pressure necessarily contradicts the existence of an “infinite sky vacuum” above our heads. The very concept of a “gas giant” in such a vacuum is both laughable and entirely unscientific in light of the laws above. Again, these laws were established here on earths surface where gravitation is believed to be strongest. They are laws because, under natural circumstances, they have no available contradicting observation - unless you know of one?!

Your definition of science is extremely narrow and strange.

That’s true! However, it is correct and a working definition! (As opposed to one which does not work, and is not correct)

It appears that you only accept observation if it is with a human eye and not a mechanical or digital one.

Actually, just the opposite! Empiricism requires measurement, not merely looking!

You don't accept observational science using a laser and distance to prove curvature

Of course not! But that is because I understand what light is, and because I understand how refraction works! You could never “prove” nor measure curvature in such a manner! This is a longer conversation, as many of our previous question/answers are as well.

You don't accept a laser gyroscope to prove rotation.

Quite the contrary! It does measure rotation! Just not of the earth!

You expect me to prove the curvature

Absolutely not! We’re just having a conversation! Also, proof isn’t really something anyone can give anyone else (outside of mathematics) - it is far too subjective. We must obtain proof for ourselves, as well as define the criteria for what could/would/should serve as such proof in our view!

yet you are claiming the earth is flat

Nope!

is to say its no know the shape of the earth, not that its flat.

I assume there are some typos here, but if I am interpreting you correctly - you’re right, and I do exactly that! I can say with certainty that the earth is not spherical the way we are taught, however I do not know its true entire shape!

we have vehicles that can fly.

True.

We also have vehicles that can go into low orbit.

Not if I am correct, and orbit is entirely fictional - no!

I'm sure you are going to excludes any of these things that can go into space right?

Personally, as an independent researcher and student, I “exclude” (discard/put aside, more like) things I cannot validate/verify for myself. When it comes to studying/ascertaining the shape of the world, I generally prefer to stay more “down to earth”. The shape of the earth is down here! We don’t need to go into the sky or “space” to measure it... In fact, that just makes it harder to directly measure!

What exactly do you think happens when we get high enough to see the entire earth?

I’m not convinced that we can reach such a height, ever have in the past, or even have the “optical capacity” to see the entire thing even if we could reach such a vantage point. However, assuming we can - I am not really sure... Extrapolating from the highest vantage available to us, I would speculate that the world appears as a generally flat plane beneath us, and the horizon surrounding us remains linear and appears slightly lower as we rise. Basically, I expect it to look very similarly to the vantage available from, say, a weather balloon - because nature is fractal.

However, there are some who posit that the earth (as many currently posit/believe about the universe) is not finite. Of course in such a case, you could never get high enough to see the whole thing even if it were optically feasible.