Gravity can be defined as pressure resulting from space displacement

Rebuttals: Con: "Pressure scales with volume displaced, whereas gravity scales with mass displaced" Pressure scales with volume displaced when the volume being displaced consists of matter (e. g. water, air, soil, etc. ). But when the volume being displaced is space, we have an entirely different circumstance. This is what Con has failed to fully understand or acknowledge: there is a fundamental difference between matter displacing other matter, and matter displacing space. When matter displaces other matter, the object's surface area is the only thing that creates displacement; however, when an object displaces space (not space as in dimension, space as in quantity), displacement is determined by the object's quantity of matter. The reason for this difference is that space exists and permeates throughout every dimension of the Universe, which means that space fills all gaps, both the exterior and interior of any atomic structure. Let's use an example to illustrate this difference. If you submerge a submarine in water, the water can't permeate throughout the air-filled inner dimensions of the sub, which results in displacement. Conversely, if that sub is floating in space, the amount of space being displaced is considerably less than the amount of water it was displacing in the previous scenario. The reason being, space already exists inside and throughout the submarine, unlike the water previously. This is because the atoms that make up the entire volume of the sub's dimensions (including the air inside) are already filled with space; and if the object already consists of what it is supposed to be displacing, it won't displace very much of it. Con: "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. " Wrong. Let's examine Con's example to refute this: An object that is enormous in size (like our sun), but only weighs 1 nanogram , is an object that has virtually no density per volume (mass). In other words, its volume consists of minimal amounts of matter; and space is what fills the gaps between that sparsely scattered matter. Therefore, the large, mostly mass-less object, despite the visibly large size of its "shell" or outline, is mostly made of space, which means it's hardly displacing any space. Conversely, an object weighing 1 million pounds, but is the dimensional size of a speck of sand, is an object that is immensely dense and massive; meaning it consists of large quantities of matter. Because there is almost no space in between these ultra-dense particles of matter, the object is almost purely displacing space, as opposed to displacing scattered specks of space. Think of it this way. You could theoretically condense the earth to a much smaller dimensional size (similar to a star condensing to a black hole). This new earth would still have the exact same quantity of matter in it, and therefore would be displacing the exact same quantity of space. The only difference is that the displacement would be concentrated into one completely solid ball of missing space, instead of a larger, scattered displacement with vast amounts of space permeating throughout it. In Earth's current state, most atomic structures (even iron) consist mostly of space, which means that most structures aren't actually displacing as much space as their dimensional size would indicate. That's because something that is made of space, can't displace space, and space exists everywhere, permeating throughout all structures; unless all the space gets squeezed out, resulting in a little chunk of pure matter, creating pure space displacement, like the speck of sand you describe. You can also look at it this way: Imagine a pool of water with a sponge sitting in it that is already completely saturated with that same pool water. Now imagine that you grab the sponge with your hand, hold it under water, and squeeze it until all the water comes out. If we imagine your hand as an invisible, mass-less force, there is no change in displacement in the pool water. The water simply transferred from within the sponge, to outside the sponge; however, the size of the sponge did change. It is now compressed, and therefore, dimensionally smaller, all-the-while, not altering the net displacement of pool water. Similar to the sponge, atoms that make up all structures in the Universe are already saturated with space in between the protons and elections, and in-between the surrounding atoms as well. Con: "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. " My use of unconventional terms like, "pressure sphere" and "space pressure," doesn't necessarily mean that the concepts behind those terms are invalid. These concepts may very well be invalid, but just because the term is misleading or inaccurate, does not by default mean the concept is misleading or inaccurate. That is why I said "pressure sphere" was nonsense in R2. Not because I believe the concept is nonsense, but because the term I used to describe it was completely made-up. Additionally, Con's claim that my theory is somehow violating the laws of physics is nonsense. Con keeps trying to ground the validity of his reasoning to settled physics. The problem is that physics has yet to objectively define exactly what space is. There is no settled law of physics regarding the concepts of "space displacement" or "space pressure" at this point, because physics has yet to objectively define what space is. Con: "Ironically, Pro asks why I took the debate. I took the debate to negate the resolution. That is the purpose of debating. " But Con hasn't negated the resolution, which is why I expected further debate after highlighting his errors in R2. But instead of addressing my counter points, Con basically said, nope, you're wrong, the end. In R3 Con still stands by his fallacious understanding of space displacement; meanwhile the more obscure aspects of my theory (what is space made of? can it be displaced? can it exert pressure? ) have been left mostly untouched. At this point, I think Con took this debate simply because he thought it would be an easy win; not because he actually wanted to explore an abstract theory of gravity. Look, winning is fine. This is a debate website, and that"s perfectly ok. But being dismissive for the purpose of winning greatly underscores what I was hoping to achieve in this debate. We've spent entirely too much time debating the semantics of something Con has simply failed to understand. Con: "A better question would be why Pro started a debate he expected to lose. I'm at a loss to answer that one. " Because winning this debate wasn't my objective. Having a meaningful exchange about an obscure and interesting topic was my objective. Final Topic: What is space, and how can it affect anything? This, in my opinion, is the least concrete aspect of my theory. If matter displaces space (a matter-less vacuum), then how can that displacement affect anything? Well, GR defines space as a pliable entity or fabric that interacts with mass. This "space fabric" (according to GR) has physical characteristics, which means it is made of something quantifiable that can change, which remains consistent with my theory. In my theory, this change resembles inward-pressure resulting from displacement. The light bending dramatically around a super-massive black hole illustrates this distorted "space-pressure" (what most call gravity) nicely. There is certainly more digging, analyzing, and scrutinizing to be done regarding this theory, and I'm sorry to cut this off so abruptly, but I've ran out of characters.