Well, in the upper part of the image, there is a machine sucking up the heavy water.

In the lower image, there is no machine sucking up the heavy atmosphere. The atmosphere is heavy compared to the less heavy vacuum above. But there is no machine disturbing the natural balance.

That's easily understandable for folks who don't dismiss basic concepts of mathematics, physics, and common sense.

Well, in the upper part of the image, there is a machine sucking up the heavy water.

In the lower image, there is no machine sucking up the heavy atmosphere. The atmosphere is heavy compared to the less heavy vacuum above. But there is no machine disturbing the natural balance.

That's easily understandable for folks who don't dismiss basic concepts of mathematics and physics.

Lol.  Nice try.  A vacuum by definition must be contained which space is obviously not. The pressure within a vacuum the size of the universe would surely suck up every last drop of earth's comparatively miniscule amount of water.  Another modern science epic lie busted.  

Lol.  Nice try.  A vacuum by definition must be contained which space is obviously not. The pressure within a vacuum the size of the universe would surely suck up every last drop of earth's comparatively miniscule amount of water.  Another modern science epic lie busted. 

I don't believe that there is a real vacuum anyway. That's against sane philosophy.

But on the other hand, you talk about a pressure which sucks. No, a vacuum is absense of pressure, and doesn't suck! The (pressured) atmosphere might want to expand into the vacuum, but is hindered by gravity.

Gravity might not exist at all. It might be a question of density instead.

Yes, but there's a reason why denser stuff goes down and not up (or goes in direction of the center of the earth, and not opposite; or in direction of the center of the universe, and not opposite). And that's commonly called gravity.

Call it, what you want to. It's a reason why "vacuum" (or much less dense stuff) doesn't disturb that order like a vaccuum cleaner can.

The image above, with the vaccuum cleaner is misleading.

Gravity might not exist at all. It might be a question of density instead.

The image shows stratification of various materials of differing densities, but the question that intrigues me is why does it always stratify with the densest material closest to Earth? Isn't whatever causes that phenomenon what is meant by the term gravity?

Like Ladislaus, you seem to be denying the common sense fact of gravity. There are different ideas about how to calculate gravity in detail, how gravity might work,etc. But between men of common sense, nobody denies the existence of gravity. Some flat earthers do, but not one man of common sense denies that material objects are heavy. Some more, others less.

Density and buoyancy, as has been stated.

Common sense dictates that up is up and down is down. In globe earth fantasyland up is relative and down is relative, so we must contrive some "force" to determine directionality. 

Okay, another question.  (This isn't that question, but how did CathInfo morph from an "all Nishant Xavier, all the time" forum, to a flat earth/heliocentrism-vs-geocentrism forum?  This seems to have taken on a life of its own!)

Anyway, here's the question.

Scientists and astronomers, using the tools of orthodox, commonly received science, are able to predict all sorts of phenomena with great precision, in the case of the 2017 solar eclipse, right down almost to the second, exactly where it was projected to have totality, and they were able to do that years prior to the event.  If the cosmos were something different than what they say it is, then using those same tools, and making those same assumptions, how do they get it right?  Is it not a little far-fetched to think that all the scientists say "all right, guys, sssshhh!, make sure nobody hears this, we'll use one set of tools and calculations to fake everyone out, and another real set of tools and calculations --- predicated upon a flat earth and/or geocentrism --- to predict with pinpoint accuracy when eclipses, and so on, will take place"?

And as for the airline routes between places in the Southern Hemisphere, yes, making huge dog-legs up to North America, Europe, and the Middle East seems counter-intuitive, but train routes --- which are of necessity fixed --- very often take circuitous routes to serve the maximum possible number of passengers.  The Amtrak Cardinal route comes immediately to mind, though that is largely driven by Senator Robert Byrd's efforts to get train service for remote and lightly populated parts of West Virginia.  (Pretty ride if you ever get a chance, BTW.)  And many of these south-to-south flights have huge layovers in the hubs, which seem like they might be just two flights cobbled together, rather than one intentional flight from, e.g., BSAS to Johannesburg, or Santiago to Sydney.

I'm neither trying to debunk FE/geocentrism or heliocentrism (or "no-centrism"), these are just random questions that come to mind.