To come full circle…it seems to me that to accept gravity as real you also have to accept “action-at-a-distance”(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance). It is obvious that action-at-a-distance (other than to the most ardent believers) is a tenuous concept that has zero empirical evidence (http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/07/newtonian-gravity-as-as-action-at-a-distance-you-know-a-sympathetic-process.html) and instead relies upon metaphysical arguments and conjecture.
To claim that any object orbits due to the gravitational attraction of bodies is speculating and is attributing special, hidden and unverifiable qualities to matter. In essence, gravity cannot be proven since it can’t be shown to not exist. For example, I can solve the buoyancy of a balloon without the need to include gravity. Volume, differences in density and temperature will give an exact value for lift. However, someone could simply argue that since gravity is inherent within all objects (“the conspiring nature”), you don’t need to include it; therefore, I can give gravity any arbitrary value and the results will match (ie. the total amount of lift will be the same). Try it yourself – just solve a buoyancy equation but give gravity a value of 1 or ignore it altogether. If you think about it, how is terminal velocity, buoyancy and density any different than acceleration due to gravity (ignoring action-at-a-distance)?
In fact, all equations that have a gravity function can be removed without altering the real outcome. However, the only equations which will not work are objects in orbit that require action-at-a-distance. An orbiting body like the ISS requires a continuous change in direction. The change in direction involves a net zero force. So just like the schwarzschild radius can divide by zero (https://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/061108_sjcrothers.htm) a change in direction requiring zero force requires a complete suspension of disbelief (https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3be0zs/how_are_orbiting_objects_not_accelerating_due_to/). Honestly, how can something act on an external body with zero force? It doesn’t matter if you qualify it as a *net zero force* or not. The result is zero…meaning no force. This was the greatest achievement of Newton – to separate the relationship between force and motion. But can anyone really claim that this has any reality? To do that, you *have* to believe in action-at-a-distance *and* that a change in direction is possible *without* force. Other than orbiting bodies (which in themselves are not verifiable), is there any empirical evidence of this?
Many have convinced themselves of the validity of such an action because the implications are too devastating to consider – What if gravity is a false premise? But it’s impossible to prove a negative. One would then have to start questioning and challenging the supposed authorities on these matters. Most of science can still move ahead by removing gravity from their equations. However, one particular science cannot. I will let you guess which one that is. What would happen if an orbiting body is impossible? What does that say about the information that we are presented with everyday?
What if you started testing and thinking with your own eyes and mind? Ideas that were previously blocked from consideration might become viable. But this requires a person to recognize that they believe something as a matter of faith and not because it is self-evident or a testable hypothesis. We are all subject to articles of faith (even atheists). If a person doesn’t think that they are subject to those articles then woe to them. And to argue that the presence of the moon is proof of gravity merely reinforces the idea of that article of faith. The moon and its motions are not fully understood and anyone claiming they do understand it are being intellectually dishonest at best or deliberately misleading at worst.