Gravity can be defined as pressure resulting from space displacement

Pro is right that my response was "dismissive" but it was not "lazy." I value concision. And anyone who plays mafia in the forums knows that about me. While Pro is free to interpret my conscious choice to be concise as laziness, that interpretation is simply wrong. I exercised judgment about what needed saying. And by focusing directly on what matters, I emphasized certain points that otherwise would be lost in the fray.In R2 and R3, Pro admits repeatedly that he doesn't expect to win this debate. That's why my tone is dismissive. How can Pro expect anything but a dismissive tone after admitting he expects a loss? Ironically, Pro asks why I took the debate. I took the debate to negate the resolution. That is the purpose of debating. I also took the debate to teach Pro a thing or three about physics. Pro says he wanted to be destroyed by someone who knows stuff about physics. Well, for the record, the person writing this debate (i.e. me) is nearly done with a PhD in physics, focusing on AMO. And I also have fa number of friends who specialize in GR -- and my neighbor for 4 years who is a professor in cosmology -- who I asked about Pro's theory. Every single person said exactly what I already said in R1 and R2: pressure and gravity operate in a fundamentally different way. A better question would be why Pro started a debate he expected to lose. I'm at a loss to answer that one.As for the resolution itself, I'll repeat what I said in R1 and R2: Pro cannot win this debate because he misunderstands what pressure is. I took the debate to address that very specific and narrow issue. Pro attempts to define gravity as "pressure resulting from space displacement." This "theory" cannot be for a number of reasons. However, the main reason, and the most important reason, is because pressure scales with volume displaced, whereas gravity scales with mass displaced.This simple fact dooms Pro's entire theory. It doesn't matter what Pro says, because if you use the scientific definition of "pressure," as understood by actual scientists, Pro loses the debate. The reason I'm dismissive is because Pro tries to redefine pressure in R2. And Pro creates concepts out of thin air. When I questioned him about "pressure spheres," he admits it's nonsense. Pro simply defines or redefines things to be however he wants. And at that point, we're not talking science anymore. At that point, we're talking fantasy. We're talking about a fantasy where Pro defines every term however he wants, and by redefining terms however he wants, he gets to argue a theory that simply has no connection whatsoever to reality or science.And I have no interest in a debate about this "fantasy." I'm interested in a science debate. That's what I thought this was. If Pro wants to address how a scientific understanding of pressure can do what he's saying, then I'll engage him on that narrow topic. But I'm not gonna engage Pro in an argument about how terms are defined, because in the science world, certain terms are predefined a certain way. While the definition of "gravity" is up for debate, because that's what this debate is about, the word "pressure" is not up for debate.This is why I called Pro's theory "completely meaningless" and proceeded to dismiss it, while repeating my criticism in R1. Pro still wants me to address his points, instead of trying to using proper definitions. Instead, I'll address his definitional problems, because I'm not going to simply accept his definitions. Pro states that "the greater the mass (size and density), the greater the space displacement." Pro fails to realize that "space displacement," which is related to pressure," has no relation whatsoever to mass. None. Zero. "Space displacement" is caused by "size," not "density." This is a scientific fact. That's the key fact that distinguishes pressure from gravity, and the key reason Pro loses. You can't just define "displacement" in relation to "mass" when that's simply not how reality works. I already said this in R1.This concept of "space displacement" is literally meaningless as Pro defines it. When space -- or anything else -- is displaced, it's displaced as a result of "volume" or "size." That's literally what "displacement" means. You have an object. If that object is "displaced," it means it's location in space was moved, as a result of something else taking its place. Pro wants to redefine "displacement" as related to "mass" rather than "size." Pro cannot do that. No scientist would ever accept that redefinition. I certainly refuse to do so. Mass is 100% unrelated to displacement. You can have an object weighing 1 million pounds in a space the size of a speck of sand, or you could have an object weighing 1 nanogram in a space the size of our sun. If that doesn't illustrated to you the total irrelevance of mass to "space displacement," then I don't know what else will.As I said, I'll accept actual scientific definitions, not whatever Pro wants his definitions to be. Again, remember this is a science debate, and defining and redefining stuff into existence in a non-scientific manner, as whatever you want, is against the spirit of this debate.If Pro wants to talk about how gravity isn't related to mass but is rather related to volume, and if Pro wants to argue that gravity can be explaiend solely in relation to volume and to the way volume scales, then I'm willing to engage Pro. Otherwise, Pro simply isn't talking science.