Gravity can be defined as pressure resulting from space displacement

"Space" is a "dimension," not a "quantity." Pro's talking about "vacuum," not "space." You can't just define "space" however you want. Pro's theory is nonsense. "Space" refers to distance from A to B in various directions. Pro's "space displacement" concept is meaningless, and misunderstands the nature of space, as I explained in previous rounds. Pro: "When an object displaces space (not space as in dimension, space as in quantity), displacement is determined by the object's quantity of matter." This statement is nonsense. "Space" is defined as a "dimension," not a "quantity." Pro: "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." Again, this statement is nonsense. Pro's talking about "vacuum," not "space." Space isn't a "substance" that fills "gaps." It's not an object that "permeates" the dimensions. Space is a dimension. Pro: "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." This is a massive misunderstanding of GR. Take a look at any GR textbook. For example, Robert Wald's. [1] You'll quickly learn that Pro's completely mistaken. GR is about the geometry of space-time. GR is emphatically NOT about a "space fabric." GR never posits a "space fabric" or "space substance." What GR says is that space is a manifold, and matter then affects the metric of said manifold. A "manifold" is just a fancy term that means a geometry. So, for example, Euclidean geometry is a manifold with a metric given by the equation: d= (x^2+y^2+z^2)^(1/2). This metric gives us the way that distance is measured between two points in a Euclidean geometry. An example of a Euclidean geometry is a flat piece of paper. On the other hand, a ball (or sphere) has a different geometry. The metric for a ball or sphere is given by the equation: ds2=dr^2 + r^2d_2;^2 + r^2sin(_2;)^2db1;^2. As you can see, the way distance is measured between two points on a ball is different from the way distance is measured on a flat piece of paper. While Euclidean geometry is the geometry that most of us are familiar with, the geometry of space-time is different. The geometry of space-time is given by the following equation: R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}. In this equation, g is the metric. T is the stress energy tensor, which is approximately the mass of an object. The equation shows that mass (or more precisely, the stress energy tensor) determines the metric. The beauty of GR is that the metric is not uniform (in Euclidean geometry, the metric is always uniform). In GR, the metric's affected by mass. And, remember, the metric defines how to measure the distance between any two points in space-time. Thus, GR shows that the way distance is measured in space-time is affected by matter, because matter affects the metric of space-time. GR also postulates that any object must follow the path of the shortest distance between any two points in space-time. As a result, gravity emerges as a consequence of geometry. Gravity is no longer understood as a force but simply as a result of the geometry of space-time. In GR, "space" is never treated as a "substance" or "fabric." In fact, look through a GR textbook. The terms "space fabric" or "space substance" are nowhere mentioned. These are invented terms that have no relation to actual science. Pro, I'm gonna help you understand GR, since I feel bad about your misunderstanding. To explain it as best I can, I need you to follow these instructions. Readers interested in learning about GR should also follow the instructions: Go get a pencil and paper. On the paper, draw a vertical line and a horizontal line. That's your coordinate system. The horizontal line represents space; the vertical line represents time. Now, pick a point and fill it in. That is your object under consideration. Time is always going forward, so the object is always moving vertically. Even if the object is sitting still in space, it's moving forward in time. The only question is whether it will curve horizontally too (i.e. is the object moving through space?). To answer the question, fill in another point above the first point vertically. The question is how to draw the shortest path from the first point to the second point. In Euclidean geometry, that's easy: you draw a straight line going up. That line represents a movement through time but not through space. The result is there's no gravity on that object; it's sitting completely still. But remember, this assumes a Euclidean geometry. The geometry of space-time is not Euclidean. In GR, the metric of space-time is affected by mass. As I explained before, that means the distance between two points is affected by the object's mass. As a result, the shortest path between these two points is NOT a straight line. The shortest path is determined by the equation I gave above for the geometry of space-time. The shortest path will be determined by other factors, including the mass of the object. The important thing to understand here is that the shortest path between these two points in GR will curve horizontally. The object will travel through not only time but also space, which is represented on your coordinate system as a curved line that moves both horizontally and vertically. The horizontal movement shows the existence of gravity. In other words, gravity emerges as a result of drawing a line that represents the shortest path between these points in the geometry of space-time. As such, gravity is a consequence of geometry. It's a consequence of finding the shortest path between two points in space-time. Finally, just take a look at [2] -- that's the Wikipedia page with the equation for the geometry of space-time. Or take a look at a GR textbook. Either way, you'll see that Pro's entire theory is literally meaningless, and it's predicated on a gross misunderstanding of GR. Nowhere in GR is a "space substance" or "space fabric" ever suggested or implied by the geometry of space-time. Again, vote Con because pressure and gravity operate in fundamentally different ways. Don't let Pro just define terms however he wants. That's not science. And make sure you punish Pro for his complete misunderstanding of GR. [1] http://www.amazon.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...