I finally broke down and looked at the the thread "Proof of the cause of Gravity" and thought that I might present a few ideas in that area myself. One of my philosophical remarks (perhaps one day I will tabulate them) is "There's a reason for everything, it just isn't always the one we want it to be". I don't think Gravity exists to hold our feet to the ground, or hold the atmosphere to our pleasant planet, though it does serve those functions admirably. I think Gravity exists to hold a certain quantity in Nature constant. In 1931 P.A.M. Dirac wrote a paper expounding on the fact that the quantities H, the Hubble Value, G, Newton's Constant, Ρ, the mean density of matter, and 1/T, the inverse age of the Universe were all approx. 10^−41 when expressed in Electron (or Proton) mass units. This is known as Dirac's Large Number hypothesis. A necessary implication is that these "contants" vary. An important model in Cosmology is the (somewhat misnamed) Big Bang Theory, the notion that the Universe started in a condensed state and expanded to it's current condition. Dirac's Hypothesis is consistent with it. More than a few authors have noted that Big Bang models are very sensitive to initial conditions, that small differences can lead to runaway expansion or immediate collapse. This is true even when we include the Dirac Hypothesis. However I refer to models which just combine the two as "naive models" for good reason, because they fail to take into account some very important and neccesary considerations. One is that all four of these quantiies must "track" approximately throughout the history of the Universe, and any initial mal-adjustment of conditions would cause them not to track. The naive models provided no mechanism to maintain such tracking. After many attempts to make the naive models work I realized that something else was neccessary. I worked with electronic equipment and was well aquainted with fed-back systems. I could not escape this simple conclusion: On the large scale the Universe acts as a fed-back system. And ordinary (Newtonian-Einsteinian) Gravity was part of the feedback mechanism. In a fed-back system there is generally an input quantity and the output "tracks" the input. If the input is a constant current or voltage the output may be a constant voltage, and it serve to regulate the output potential. In such a case the input is usually described as a reference quantity. Naturally we should want to know what the reference quantity is for our Universe. If we take G×T or H/Ρ we have a quantity with the approx. value of one in Dirac's units, with the dimensions of volume per unit mass per unit time, which represents the rate at which the Universe expands. R. Dicke has called this the Volumetric Rate of Expansion, and it seems to be the correct reference quantity. There are three implications in all of this: The Universe must operate on the large scale as a fed-back system. Gravitation needs more "parts" than 1/R^2 Gravity to maintain the proper rate of expansion. The third, not so easy to see, is that some of these mechanisms must operate faster than light. All these are neccesary to keep expansion or collapse at bay. It's well established that 1/R^2 gravity fails on the large scale, on the scale of galaxies by a factor of ten, of clusters of galaxies by a factor of a hundred, for clusters of clusters by a thousand. It would seem that the other parts of Gravity take over here. For our purposes Gravity is any interaction that maintains the proper rate of expansion. Your feedback is welcome.