the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity

 

If moons/planets are less dense than water, gravity theory is wrong.

NASA's gravity calculations that assert many of the moons and planets in the solar system have below or around the density of water is just... well... telling that gravity theory is wrong.

Gravity of moons/planets is electrostatic attraction.

Gravity of moonsplanets is electrostatic attraction. This varies with the amount of ionization in the core of the planet, and not directly from the mass or density.

Meteorites have the same density as the Earth's crust, suggesting that everything does.

The vast majority of meteorites and recovered non-terrestrial rocks have been around the same density as the Earth's crust. There's every reason to believe that planets, moons asteroids etc. are all of a very similar density. As meemoe_uk states, density figures are adjusted simply to substantiate gravity formula. It's far more likely that orbits are electromagnetic in nature.

Only the meteorites that don't melt are the density of the Earth.

I think your point of meteorites is flawed. It could be that lots of ice meteors enter Earth's atmosphere, but they would melt long b4 the ground, and , even if they got to the ground, they'd melt most of the time b4 we recovered them.

from "226~240"

Oh, before I forget. Someone was mentioning Pound Rebka Experiment: The frequency of an atomic clock is driven by the energy difference between excited states of an atom. Since the frequency of an atomic clock is a function of the gravitational potential, the energy difference must likewise be a function of the gravitational potential. Thus, the Pound-Rebka experiment rather than showing that a falling photon picked up energy, simply showed a higher frequency by comparison to a lower reference frequency. The frequency (energy) of a falling photon is unchanged. This shows that the General Theory of Relativity is wrong—gravity does not act on all forms of energy. This revision of gravitational effects is explored. Significant implications arise and potential explanations for significant ongoing problems in cosmology are developed. - Ron Hatch: Gravitational Energy and the Flatness Problem Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of these results that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are "proof" of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. – Absolute Motion Institute: Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In? This isn't what its relativistically trumped up to be either imho.