Gravity can be defined as pressure resulting from space displacement

I first want to say that I didn't really expect to win this debate. As I said in the first round, this is a very loosely organized "theory", and I never really claimed that it was scientifically backed. I just wanted to hear some scientific arguments against it, and Con did exactly that. That said, I do have some rebuttals for Con. What I am proposing very much has to do with mass, not volume. The example I used in R1, where I imagined space as water, and the earth as a vacuum-sphere moving through it (which is more in line with volume displacement), was only to help visualize the concept. It wasn't the concept itself; it was actually the inverse. What I am saying is that when matter displaces space, the removed space pushes back on that matter. The displacement of space (in this theory) has everything to do with mass, not volume. The greater the mass, the greater the displacement, regardless of the surface area. In other words, a massive object could have small dimensions and surface area, but because of its great density, it displaces more space. Therefore, we are not taking about volume in terms of size and surface area; we are talking about how much space is being displaced, which is directly correlated with the mass and density of matter. To address your other points: 1) The term "pressure sphere" IS nonsense. It is a term I made up because I couldn't think of a better one to describe the uniform pressure being applied to all sides of any piece of matter. As far as what it is, essentially it is a uniform layer of space-pressure being exerted on the object. If the object is a sphere, like Earth, then this layer of pressure would be a sphere surrounding it, kind of like our atmosphere. If fact, I think our atmosphere, and layered earth, serves my theory well in some ways. External pressure from space would ensure that more massive objects get pushed until they settle at the "bottom", or core, while the less massive particles (air, gas, liquid, dirt, etc.) would be pushed and held in place just above the more massive core; which is why you see greater density starting at the Earth's core, and less and less density as you move away from it (which is indicative of external pressure). The "pressure sphere" would also mean that the further you move away from the massive object (the primary source of displacement), the lighter the pressure would be. In other words, as you move further from earth towards the outer layers of the "pressure sphere," the pressure would diminish at some quantifiable rate; which might explain why astronauts stop getting pushed (i.e. falling) towards earth almost as soon as they escape the external pressure layers of our atmosphere. As far as precise calculations regarding the amount of pressure (gravity) exerted at different distances from the source of displacement, I'm not that mathematically inclined. I only know that the pressure (gravity) is weaker as you move further from the source of mass. 2. Con's entire second point is predicated on the misconception that the kind of pressure I'm talking about is tied to surface area and volume. I explained above how this is not in line with my theory. When space is being displaced, the only thing that determines the amount of pressure space pushes back with, is mass. The size and density of matter is what determines how much space it is displacing. To reiterate, this pressure from space has everything to do with the mass of an object, not it's surface area, because the pressure is derived from displacement, and only mass can truly displace space. It doesn't matter if it is large and hallow like a beach ball. If it is truly hallow, then the hallow portion isn't displacing space...it is space. As far as how this uniform space-pressure, caused by space displacement, specifically affects the way other objects are pushed towards the more massive source? That's a little more difficult to understand because we don't exactly know how or what "space-pressure" is, or if it even exists at all. It's the least concrete aspect of my theory (among others I'm sure). I just assume that because this pressure is relatively uniform, it pushes all objects down uniformly regardless of their size (hence Newton's law), so long as friction (other already-settled-objects) doesn't interfere with the inward (i.e. downward) movement of the "falling" objects. Obviously we can explore more into what exactly "space pressure" is, and how it affects objects under the influence of it. Is there a mass-less field or force particle that permeates throughout all of space? Is that what defines space? Because of these mass-less qualities, is that why we don't observe the friction you brought up in point 3? These questions open the door to many other interesting topics. But I did want to make clear that mass, not dimension or surface area, is what determines the true displacement of space, and therefore, is what determines the space-pressure (i.e. gravity) being exerted back on the object of mass.