There is a distinct difference between the thinking processes of the Occidental world, or the West, and the Oriental world, the East; the Occidentals think linearly while the Orientals cyclicly. The West thinks that the Universe was uniquely created and will end in a finality, while the orientals think the universe has always existed and will continue to do so. And I seem to be an accidentally oriented occidental in that I see things as cycles, and agree with the economist Martin Armstrong who also sees economic phenomena as cyclical, especially the business cycle. But I digress.
Newton’s laws of motion were derived from his observations of the motion of the planets in our solar system. His theories were developed after Copernicus noted that the Earth rotated around the Sun, and not, as the Church then believed, the Sun around the Earth.
It’s important to understand that new theories only become necessary when things have changed, so I am assuming that prior to Copernicus and Gallileo, among others, that the sun may have moved around the Earth for a short while during the middle of the first millennium CE. And it may have been possible that the planets were in different positions during the troubles of the Middle Dark Ages, (comet of Justinian) and only settled in their present positions from, say, 1000 AD onwards.
Now we also know that spiral galaxies etc. have motions that are easily explained by the Faraday motor mechanism than the gravitational mechanism. In other words the outer planets of those galaxies are moving faster than expected in Newtonian gravity theory. Hence ad hoc adjustments needed to be made mathematically to the galaxy models to make them explicable in a Newtonian sense. This is done by fabricating excess mass to make the equations balance.
Years ago I learnt from A.J. Peratt in an email conversation that if a physical process is not scalable then its probably not real. In this sense electromagnetic and plasma phenomena are known to be scalable from the scale of laboratory experiments where the phenomena are measured in nano-seconds to the scale of galaxies where the motion is measured in billions of years. Gravity fails this test principally because it is independent of time in that G effect is instantaneous. G is not scalable.
The blunder modern science has made is in assuming that the motion of our solar system is in a steady state and applicable to the rest of the cosmos and Universe.
It’s the other way round – the motion of the Universe and its galaxies, from trillions of years of existence (and if something has always existed why strain the brain imagining infinite time), are described by the Faraday Motor Mechanism (FMM) and the reason why our solar system is not explained by the FMM is because the solar system only achieved its geometry some 1000 years ago, and remains in an unstable state until it slowly achieves motional equilibrium according to the FMM.
We have erred by assuming that the planetary observations made by us, during a mere transient in time, have always been the same, and that because the Universe doesn’t fit our Newtonian model, it is the Universe that is anomalous. Human hubris one might say.
It’s the other way round – our solar system is the anomaly because its configuration, as observed by our ancestors, was changing right until 1000 years ago when it seems to have settled down and is continuing to change but ever so slowly that we are, more or less, unaware of its motion; It’s the scale of the thing.
The late biologist Lyall Watson related an anecdote that medieval merchant seamen used to navigate by Venus during the middle of the day, a feat we no longer seem to be able to achieve. Watson concluded it was due to humans evolving and our eyesight becoming less sensitive. My explanation is that Venus is less bright today than during medieval times was because it is actively cooling down and was indeed brighter and hotter during medieval times, but cooler and less bright today.
The reason we cannot explain gravity at present is because we are basing our observations on changing planetary motions outside our human timescale, and that if we waited long enough, our inner planets would slow down in their orbits until they fitted into the FMM. Newton did describe the motion accurately, but the mistake we have made is in assuming that the observed motion is steady state, when in reality the inner planets will continually slowing down until the FMM stable state is attained.
How far in the future will this stability occur?
I have no idea, but I am certain our children and their children will continue being amazed at the changing state of the solar system as it slowly achieved dynamical stability.