You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
You mean two objects with the same volume that displace the same amount of atmosphere?
If you're saying that, then, of course. I've already stated that.
If you mean actual atmosphere, then yes. If you mean your fantasy where every object is full of atmosphere, then no.
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Porosity is the atmospheric filled gaps.
In that case, not every object is pourous.
As long as there are gaps you can always make something denser
Sure, you can collapse it into a neutron star, or a black hole. But for everyday stuff, YOU CAN'T!
There is a limit to how much you can compress an object.
Likewise, with no pressure at all, there is still a minimum density to the solid. If you try to pull it apart, there is a limit before it loses cohesion and falls apart.
This is seen as tensile failures.
The only thing you can decompress like that is gas, which has large voids between the molecules.
You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.
Whatever gets trapped in the void, is what it is.
And the point you are ignoring is that there is nothing in those voids.
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.
Nope.
Then explain how displacing less atmosphere causes it to resist a change in motion more.
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
Resist motion?
Explain.
[/quote]
Stop playing dumb. You know exactly what is meant. It resists being accelerated. A force needs to be applied to accelerate it.
And that is another massive problem for your nonsense. It should be a force is needed to move it through the air, like how air resistance actually works. But as well as that, there is an entirely separate force required to accelerate it.
If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
Of course. But then again if I ignore all the people inside two planes I have two empty (of people) planes.
Basically, what are you getting at?
That even in the best case scenario for you, your garbage still fails massively.
And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place.
I have, you just spent hundreds of posts denying it.
No, you haven't.
If you did, you would have provided it here.
Resistance is the leverage used by any dense object to repel a force applied to that object.
And just what is this supposed to be?
An attempt at a definition?
Because it certainly isn't an explanation.
Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Inertia has no meaning, unless you simply call it, resistance or leverage or at least use it in that context.
I have already explained how it has meaning.
It is not simply resistance. It is resistance to an acceleration, i.e. a change in motion.
It is a specific type of resistance.
It is something inherent to all matter.
And as soon as you accept it, it means accepting all your claims about air are pure BS.