The object is pushing into the atmosphere above and to the side, because the atmosphere is pushing into the mass as the mass displaces it.
It is not displacing the stack below. It's a stack.
Why isn't it displacing it below but it is displacing it above?
It is below the stack above so how it it displacing it?
If it falls then your rope has snapped and now the mass is pushed down against the resistance of the stack below which is in no way dense enough to counteract that push enough to do anything other than friction grip it and compress until the object hits a foundation.
Again why?
You have the push and resistance be enough to move it, being the only thing that causes the movement, so why isn't it enough to stop the movement?
I have no clue why you even think this. It baffles me.
It is quite simple, your repeatedly claims of the air resistance and equal and opposite reaction and all that nonsense.
You push into the air, it pushes back with an equal and opposite force preventing you from displacing it.
Simple answer is a foundation allowing it to, whether its on a solid ground directly beneath it or on a suspended rope or whatever above the atmospheric stack below it.
How?
How does the atmospheric stack below it magically make it only displace atmosphere above, not below?
The actual simple answer is that the atmosphere has very little to do with falling objects.
Because it's stacked from below and cannot push up unless something forces it up, which would be any mass under energy push.
It is also stacked above, so how does that push it down?
A stack is a stack. It stays as literally a stack.
No it doesn't. It can get moved around quite easily.
We can move air from below and put it up high.
You fundamentally require it to not stay literally as a stack.
In order for it to stay literally as a stack it would stay and not allow the object through.
It doesn't matter how high you go you will always be on top of a stack of atmosphere
And likewise you will be below a stack.
So that clearly doesn't explain it either.
Then why isn't the atmosphere above just a resistance to the below atmosphere in the stack but not to the person/object because there's no push up by the person/object?
It is but it's a resistance by compression of the mass into it and that compression is placed right back onto the mass along with the atmosphere above and around.
I notice you failed to address the "why" part.
If you agree that it is, then that means the atmosphere above and below act the same and thus no net force.
I have given you plenty. You not understanding it is your issue.
No you haven't. Every single one of your "justifications" has been fundamentally flawed.
You are simply holding the ball above the stack.
No, in your model, you are holding the ball inside the stack. There is air above and below, or there is stack above and below.
Ignoring the stack above when it suits you is not providing an explanation.
If you keep hold of the ball you are compressing the atmosphere your hand and ball are in, above and around.
Again, HOW? How does it magically compress above and around, but not below? Especially given the fact that ignoring the slight density gradient pressure in fluids will equalise, which you have already admitted.
That means unless the top is isolated from the bottom, compressing the top will necessarily compress the bottom, with the sole exception of complex fluid dynamics which is well beyond the basics.
You repeatedly asserting that it magically compresses above but not below does not help your case at all.
You need to provide a justification for how this magical feat is achieved.
Below is stacked atmosphere that does nothing to the underside of that ball, in terms of the very point of the underside at the absolute very bottom.
the rest of the underside of that ball will be compressed as it pushes into the stack of resistance due to its shape.
Again, why just the stack below? Why does the exact same thing not happen for the stack above?