singularity

And how is all this logic any different than calculating how many angels can safely dance on a pin? The end is near and the beginning is about to happen. Or,how about what comes first---?

I finally read your explaination of tides on Earth and see no difference from what Newton said 300 years ago. Are you saying Newton had it right when he observed the spring tide was higher than the neap tide by a factor that is equal to the 3rd power of the distance from Earth to the moon and sun times the mass of each? I hope I have this worded right-would hate to be called for not doing so again. Anyway, this observation has nothing to do with the cause of the tide it simply says the tide is higher when the moon is perpendicular to the direction of the motion of Earth than when Earth&Moon are in line with the direction of motion. So, what ever you call it the moon causes more tidal force because of its location in the orbit. I admit this is a new idea about a detail of gravity. So, peer review is next if the idea has merit. The tide on the moon is being looked into by NASA and I'm sure it will not be found to exist nor on Venus or Mercury. How about the tide on Mars is that observed? At least a small tide would be raised there. And Jupiter the moons there must raise great tides.

In the Principia, Newton does not rule out the existence of active principles. In Opticks, p368-69, Newton speaks of the first Cause, which is not mechanical and rejects Descartes’ strict divisions as false logical thinking. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs, as many misinterpet it that way.

With that said, i.e. the need of rigid philosophical premises for establishing a path that will lead to the understanding of gravity, some things are more or less understood, the most important being that gravity is not a property of matter but only inertia is. So the question is really, if gravity is not mechanical or material, what is it? I think it is important to understand this basic philosophical reasoning before anything else. Moreover, gravity is a attractive force, whereas the forces BigAl refers to can be either attractive or repulsive.

There are two fundamental questions to be answered as far as gravity; A: if the attraction law is inverse square, will the trajectories of planets be elliptical---the "inverse problem", which I think has not be answered yet by anyone and all answers given are circular arguments, or tautologies, and B: what is the mechanism of gravity?

In my, maybe naïve mind, looking through GR, LR or any other theory is the wrong way of looking at things, simple because these models have given either incomplete or no explanation of the mechanism that generates but also propagates gravity (I am not referring to it as a force, since I do not know what a force is). As soon as the mechanism is discovered, the proper model or theory will easily emerge and that’s the way to go, as I see it in my simple mind.

The backward synthetic approach to science, followed by Newton, Einstein and almost everyone else has done irreparable damage to human ability to think clearly and understand nature, and maybe has lead research in “dark” paths.

Makis

As to the orbit of any mass it seems to take an elliptical path arround the central mass. The second question is not clear-can you restate what you are asking?

Jim,

Newton proved that given an elliptical orbit, the force law is an inverse square of the distance. The inverse problem, i.e. given the nature of the law, what will be the resulting trajectory, has not been answered in my opinion yet, since all proofs are circular arguments based on geometrical constructions, like for instance the one given by R. Feynman. Even when using differential calculus, the knowledge about the orbits is implicit in the models used. Furthermore, implicit use of kepler's laws is made without proof. (As an example, Newton used kepler's 3rd law to derive the force law and most Physics books Newton's Universal Gravitation Lwa to derive Kepler's law.....no comment....)

The second question is simply about the nature of the mechanism that creates gravity, or universal gravity, and propagates it, whether that's an infinite or finite speed. Nothing is known with certaintly (experimental proof) about that either.

Maybe Dr. Van Flandern would like to assist here and through some photons into these uestions.

Makis

Has TVF ever commented on a mechanism that generates gravity? I still am not clear what you are asking. The force of gravity is a mystery as is electromagnetic force as to what they are. So, I guess the answer to your second question is no one knows-its a mystery.