One that explains gravity would be sufficient for now.

Don't you think the fact that gravity is so elusive perhaps means we are missing something big?

I find it interesting that we're not thrown out in space despite the fact that our planet spins. Of course it's because of gravity, but isn't it strange that gravity is always associated with circular movement, even when the circular movement does not require gravity as in the case of earth's spin?

I also believe that the universe is infinite in space and time, but it is not static.

That it is not static is a matter of fact, but I'm not yet convinced that it is expanding. Expansion could turn out to be an illusion after all.

His comments on the inverse square law sounds like the MOND theory. Mike in his post provided a link that indicates data that refutes the MOND theory. It was however an interesting idea worth exploring. But now that has been done.

I didn't know about that. It's interesting.

Boris reaches too far. He should be content to expose a serious problem with our understanding of gravity without having to claim that a host of other physical theories and ideas are bogus. It makes his primary ideas seem bogus.

I fully agree with that, but apparently physics is like a house of cards, you pull one card out and the whole structure crumbles. I guess the problem with the likes of Van Flandern and Stafford is that they don't realize that, problematic as physics is, it's the best we can do for now. They are good at seeing errors in other people's perspectives but incapable, or unwilling, to apply the same level of scrutiny to their own work. Which is a shame.