I noticed you skipped over the pressure gradient.
Again, for a simple case of a helium filled balloon or a gas tank, we clearly observe the high pressure fluid pushing the low pressure fluid out of the way to remove the pressure gradient.
The only time we observe a pressure gradient which is stable is in the pressure gradient due to gravity or due to acceleration of a system, and in both cases the pressure gradient is then proportional to the density of the fluid.
Why? Without gravity, what is causing this vertical pressure gradient to be stable?
Why doesn't the high pressure fluid push the low pressure fluid until the pressure is equal?
Likewise, you also skipped over why the air pushes things down in the first place.
Again, if it is crushing it, it crushes inwards, not down.
You have no justification for why it should be pushed down.
Instead you just deflect to the object magically pushing up for no reason, but what is causing the object to push up, especially it being up rather than just outwards, and especially if this object has fallen at all which means it is pushing down from above.
And likewise, you haven't explained what then magically causes it to push some objects up.
You pretend that you will answer the questions, continually providing non-answers, until you can't think of any more excuses, and then you just ignore them.
The questions are still there. They are still unanswered.
Why density?
Why not just mass?
Mass is density. Dense mass.
There you go ignoring the meaning of more words.
Mass is not density.
Mass is an extensive property based upon how much of the substance there is.
Density is an intensive property, which is the same regardless of how much you have (note some things, like air, will have a density that varies with altitude).
It doesn't matter if you have 1 kg or 2 kg of steel, the density is the same, but the mass is different.
On the basis of that, rather than your own pretend definitions, address the issues raised.
Gravity explains it just fine with a fundamentally different force causing things to fall to the force of the air resisting that falling.
But you want to claim that it is the same.
So address why these sets of objects behave so differently.
It depends on the area of dense masses.
No, it depends on the material properties of the object which do not depend on mass or density.
There are some very light weight materials which are incredibly strong, and some quite dense materials which are much weaker.
The only difference would be the resistance of it against both by area, meaning drop the sheet flat out against dropping the ball and the ball overcomes resistance much easier.
Which also means it would be much easier for the ball to overcome the air pushing down, so it should be pushed down less than the flat sheet.
Again, this is one of the massive issues you can't explain.
Again, with gravity, having a force act directly on the mass to move the object down, while air then acts on the surface of the object, this makes perfect sense.
But with your nonsense of the air doing both, you have no justification for why the air seems to push down on both objects the same, but then resists that downwards motion so vastly different between the objects.
It would still fall faster because the feather has a lot of area against below resistance.
Which also means it has a lot of area against the air pushing it down.
Again, why the massive difference in behviour?
You claim the air pushes the object down, and the air is resisting it.
Then you have totally different masses and totally different volumes.
No, we have the same volume due to the same radius.
I don't care if you want to accept the actual definition of words, or want to make up your own and pretend it is some property other than volume which is the same.
Deal with the issue rather than trying to escape it due to semantics.