And I quote myself: "I DON"T KNOW what gravity is. And even if, in a limited way, science can tell us a great deal about how it behaves, perhaps I don't really care about how it behaves, unless that also tells us the reason it does." Yilmaz tells me how it behaves, and misses by something as massive as a black hole, and I'm expected to ignore that and go for his detailed analysis? Life is just, way too short for wasting time on theories of gravity that miss predicting something as profound as a black hole. There are better theories that explain more and black holes as a bonus. Don't give me "metrics" when I'm looking for something less geometric. Inertialess space has no origin for a coordinate system, or for Euclidean geometry to be done. The universe is, thankfully, not an immutable Euclidean solid. Don't bother me with math that assumes it is.