no see that's not true and I'm not sure why you're so confident in answering that way when it's obvious you're not an expert in thr relevant domain. A bunch of interactions are required to explain the specific motion of the stone, after all it doesn't move like water would. That sounds like pointless pedantry to the layperson but that's because you don't understand the interesting details of the question and don't care about understanding the system any deeper than just sort of saying the name of the force that provided the broad picture impetus, or any predictive details beyond "eventually the stone will probably be at the bottom".

I am not interested in a crude overview from a Marxist perspective at the moment. It is not useful to me.

[–] Maoo@hexbear.net -2 points 11 months ago

It is actually true and it's kind of sad that you need to pretend it isn't in order to avoid the point. You may want to revisit the physics taught to 12-year-olds if you don't think gravity explains objects falling.

If I were to be generous, I could say that what you should say is that while gravity is one explanation, you're looking for something more proximal and contextualized rather than fundamental. But then you might risk having to acknowledge the rest of what I said, which squarely criticizes that (and that you ignored).

I would say that yes you're trying to be pedantic, but it's really just a cover for being avoidant and failing to communicate. People that are informed don't have that insecurity.