Indeed. But the argument (as I see it) is that the person standing next to you is not going to be standing next to you at regular intervals, whereas the (smaller) pull of Mars is a regular event.

The reason I hesitate to dismiss the argument out of hand is because it reminds me of Lorenz and the sensitive dependence on initial condition. As you may recall, he set up a simple computer simulation of a weather system back in the 60s (IIRC). He got unpredictable results because when he fed output values back into the program, he was rounding off the values to the nearest whole numbers - in other words, changing the values by a tiny amount. This led to the realisation that a small change in an iterative system can have a big knock-on effect - later known as the butterfly effect.

The scientists who dismissed Lorenz found themselves with egg on their faces.

However, on reflection, I am prepared to bite the bullet and say that Mr Tulip's theory appears to have no discernible merit. Maybe I'll end up with egg on my face when it becomes mainstream science... but I'm prepared to take that risk.