You may or may not have a point, but your entire "argument" is the "argument from incredulity" fallacy and not any actual reasoning. For example: arguing about

You may or may not have a point, but your entire "argument" is the "argument from incredulity" fallacy and not any actual reasoning. For example: arguing about "paper" strength to resist air pressure vs vacuum and throwing around numbers like "40 tons" isn't based on any actual materials science. The burst pressure strength for pretty standard office paper is 250 - 300 kPa. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is 101 kPa. So right off the bat, you've multiplied a bunch of numbers together and come up with the wrong answer: the paper I buy from the stationary store is 2-3 times strong enough to resist atmospheric pressure against a vacuum. Now of course, at a suitably large dimensionality, we have to worry about fiber strength loading etc. but this has so many solutions it's absurd - i.e. 2 sheets of paper with fibers perpendicular for strength, a plastic backer for air permeability, and then weaving strengthening fibers into a grid - remembering that the burst strength is quite different to the resistance to piercing forces (i.e. kevlar will stop a bullet but not a knife).