Ok, and where does the energy to consistently keep a weight in the air come from and is it really worth spending?

I know flying cars are some sort of futuristic trope, yet I cringe at it every time I see it. They always assume magical infinite power. In the real the reason we do not have flying cars is the same why you don't use a drone as a coat hanger at home: It is just more practical to use a mechanical solution that holds your coat for infinite time without any energy use or noise/heat emissions and it is much cheaper.

Lifting stuff against gravity is not free, but a piece of wood, a brick or a rubber wheel does a pretty good job at it. One way to do it is magnets, but that means you need even more complicated roads.

We are living on a warming planet where only the naive and the evil pretend that energy use is something only the poor have to think about. We all have to think about it.

>I know flying cars are some sort of futuristic trope, yet I cringe at it every time I see it. They always assume magical infinite power.

No, they assume magical anti-gravity technology. "magical infinite power" implies they're basically a hovercraft, forcing air downwards to hover. Without a shroud, even with infinite energy available, this means constantly blasting high-speed air all around the vehicle, which has some really obvious practical problems. It works for drones because they're small and lightweight and not near the ground and not even that close to each other.

>Lifting stuff against gravity is not free

It's close to free when you have magical anti-gravity technology. Similarly, traveling to other star systems hundreds of lightyears away in a couple days isn't so hard when you have magical FTL propulsion technology that somehow warps spacetime.

You're misunderstanding fundamental physics. Things staying in place do not require energy. The reverse is true, things falling give up the energy they already have. The aim is to prevent them from losing energy. We already do this, they're called geostationary satellites. Also, it's not weight, it's mass.

My entire answer exists in the context of a hpyothetical we were not discussing the realism of it.

It was in the context of if someone would invent this technology. To which then the question was what advantage does this have.

Now going and posing the question wheter this is realistic or feasible is making this argumentation circular.

What do you mean “we don’t have flying cars”? What are helicopters then?

Deathmachines that in their mechanical hubris angered the gods?