Is anything truly solid?
Unless you plan on going down the philosophical rabbit hole of if atoms with most of the mass in a tiny point is truly solid; or if a solid with a high rate of creep is really a solid, then yes, you can have solids.
Solids do not need to be perfectly rigid.
Do you agree that everything right down to the smallest molecular level, even if you prefer to use sub-atomic, vibrates?
If so, would that not vision it as a liquid and even so far down as a gas
No.
Vibration isn't enough.
The big difference is changing neighbours.
Solids keep their neighbours unless you apply a large force at which point dislocations move through it as it deforms.
Conversely, liquids, with no applied force, will change their neighbours. This is because they have enough energy to overcome some of the bonds holding it together. But not enough to completely break free.
And the big difference between liquids and gases is that liquids are held together via attractive forces, while gases have enough energy to completely break free of their bonds, separating from their neighbours.
Considering how much you love analogies, consider this:
You have a large hall, and in that hall you have a large collection of people. Each person is attached to the 6 surrounding people by ropes (i.e. attractive, pulling forces; in reality it should be springs as it is a combination of attractive and repulsive forces which keeps drives them towards a particular distance), which hold them in place.
For the solid, they cannot break these ropes or undo them or anything like that.
That means they keep the same neighbours.
This means you can have it distort slightly, but it is not free to flow.
If you have a wall dividing the hall, with a simple door through it, which only 3 people wide fit through, but your collection of people is 30 wide, there is no way for them to go through.
Now to switch it to a liquid, in this state, they can have up to 2 ropes disconnected. Now when they approach the door, the ones that can go through can unlink some ropes, those around them can then unlink some of their ropes and relink on the other side.
This partial breakage and reformation of bonds allows the liquid to flow and change shape. But it still holds together. They can't entirely separate.
Now to switch to a gas, they remove all their ropes, breaking free of these attractive, pulling forces. Now, they are free to move around as they please and can fill the room. They easily pass through the door as individuals.
However, as I said, the attraction would be classed as a pull in your book and this can never happen.
The point is this DEMANDS a pull happens.
You CANNOT explain it without it.
It demonstrates your claims are garbage.
You need an attractive/pulling force to hold solids and liquids together.
It's impossible for attraction to hold anything together because it implies something pulls and that cannot happen under denpressure.
This is not a question of what is true in your fantasy. This is a case of what is true FOR REALITY!
Reality demands pulling/attractive forces.
This means if denspressure doesn't allow them, denpressure is wrong and has no chance of ever being correct.
Reality works with pulling forces.
Pulling forces explains the observed states of matter so easily.
Your nonsense can't explain it at all.
You even refer to bonds, which would need to be attractive, pulling forces, in order to explain what is observed.
Repeatedly asserting that there cannot be a pull, to try to dismiss an argument that clearly shows there CAN and MUST be a pull, does not help you at all.
If you really, desperately need to claim there cannot be a pull, then you need to explain why (i.e. what magic is preventing it), and how all these things work without a pull.
Yes I do but do you not understand that one person's perceived fact is another person's theory?
Quite the opposite.
You don't understand that you don't get your own facts.
It comes down to who wants to claim I don't and who wants to try and use this stuff as their argument as if it offers them some traction.
I say quite the opposite.
It appears more to come down to you saying all sorts of delusional BS, providing it as statements of fact, and when backed into a corner, deciding to just claim you were never presenting it as a fact.
To have a bullet work there is a lot of resistance involved.
And the vast majority of it can be ignored.
Take away everything else so you just have a bullet in a gun which has just had the explosive go off.
There is now very hot gas which wants to expand. What happens?
For a bullet to continue to advance it has to displace and have a reaction to that displacement
No, it doesn't.
For a bullet to continue to advance, it needs to simply not have anything stop it.
To give you a better insight into this let's use a long tube and imagine the bullet is fired into that long tube.
At which point we observe the air slowing the bullet down.
The action is the bullet moving through the air compressing it.
The reaction is the air SLOWING the bullet down.
And don't fret, I'm under absolutely no illusions about this going right over your head and likely not even looked at for more than a minute only for you to say I offered nothing.
You mean us recognising it for the BS it is?
That is not it going over our head.
There's no contradiction.
There is a massive one.
The effect of air has meant to be massively reduced, so it results in the feather, which you claim is being accelerated by the air, accelerating faster.
Either there should be no change at all, or it should fall more slowly.
Edit: fix broken quote tag