Dear Oriel, I could not kid you, because you just came to this thread
and responded to my post addressed to V.K. Tamhane. ;-)

As to Faraday's prediction I would mention, Mr Tamhane and me analysed
some aspects of electromagnetism. Knowing so well Roemer and the time
of his discoveries, you surely know, no electromagnetic nature of
light was known then.

<< Before Maxwell, electromagnetic phenomena were reduced to the
elementary laws constructed after the example of Newtonian law of
gravitation. In accordance with these laws, the interaction of
electric charges, magnetic masses, elementary currents and so on has a
long-range pattern taking no time to propagate in space >> [A.
Einstein. On the contemporary situation of gravitational problem.
1913; I am citing in reverse translation from Russian].

While Faraday's letter of 1832 was kept at Royal Society, it was
opened in 1938 and contained the following text:

<< I came to conclusion that magnetic interaction takes time for its
propagation, which, probably, will appear quite negligible. I believe
also that electromagnetic induction propagates exactly in the same
way. I believe that propagation of magnetic forces from magnetic pole
is like a vibration of excited water surface. ... By the analogy, I
think possible to apply the vibration theory to the electric induction
propagation. >>

This prediction does not a least belittle the importance of Maxwell's
discoveries, the more that he fully based on works by Faraday and
Cavendish and did not know the text of this message, except only he
could find the draft of this message when reading Faraday's
manuscripts, or drew his attention that Faraday mentioned electric
wave in his texts. But the fact that Maxwell has made correct
conclusions from this mentioning speaks much. Judging by discussions
in these newsgroups, many today colleagues are unable to understand
not only prompts but complete and direct proofs. ;-)

The same as to my statement that Maxwell had an incomplete set of
input data. Should you read attentively this thread before you
objected, you would see, I spoke that Maxwell had to use the laws for
stationary fields when constructed his system of equations for dynamic
field. The aether is a separate issue. But if you want to discuss just
the aether, you would better begin with the fact that Newton did not
reject the aether. Read his "Principia" more attentively. In
particular:

<< Now we should add something about a thinnest aether which
penetrates through all rough bodies and is contained in them, by whose
force and action the particles of bodies with rather small distances
are mutually attracted and clutch when touched, electrisised bodies
act at large distances, both attracting and repelling the near small
bodies, the light is emitted, reflected, refracted, deviated, it heats
bodies, every feeling is excited and makes organs of an animal moving
after his willing, transmitting just by way of vibrations from the
exterior organs of feeling to the brain and from the brain to muscles.
But this cannot be described in short, as well as we have not a
sufficient stock of experiments with whose help the laws of action of
this aether would be exactly defined and shoved >> [Principia, in
Krylov's translation, p. 592 in Russian edition].

Thus, Newton did not reject the aether as a substance, but he had
grounds to doubt such specific conceptions of the aether as Descartes'
vortex theory or theory of liquid aether. And this is basically
important for understanding the essence of processes, how our ideas of
natural processes develop.

In this connection, the failure could not come "later in attributing
aether back into the Newtonian agenda", as the aether never left this
agenda. Even Einstein, having rejected the aether when formulated the
SR postulates, came back to the aether conception in GR, and not
without reasons. ;-)

<< Actually, if generally the energy is passed from one body to
another not momentarily but it takes some finite time, then there has
to exist a medium in which it temporarily exists, having left the
first body and doing not achieving the second one. So these theories
have to lead us to the idea of medium in which this propagation occurs
>> [Maxwell].

There took place, of course, some inaccuracy and incomplete
understanding in Newton's work, but we should accuse of them not so
much Newton as the next generations of astronomers who did not finish
his conception but "have lain down on the shoulders of giants". ;-)
And when I in my post told that all attempts to revise Newton's laws
gave no result, I told it of mechanical, not gravitational laws. While
Newton's gravitational laws still are unrevised, too, even with all
loud claims of Relativity supporters. We have to remember that after
all attempts Einstein and Grossmann defined their results as follows:

<< However, in particular case of infinitely weak static field of
gravity this tensor _does not reduce_ to Delta phi. So the question
still remains, how far the problem of gravity field equations is
linked in general theory of differential tensors connected with
gravity field. Such linkage would have to exist, should the gravity
field equations allow arbitrary transformations; however in this case,
apparently, it is absolutely impossible to confine ourselves to the
second-order differential equations. On the contrary, should it appear
that the gravity field equations allow only one definite group of
transformations, the possibility to avoid differential tensors yielded
in general theory would become obvious. As we showed in physical part
of this work, we still cannot provide an unambiguous solution of this
problem. >> [Einstein and Grossmann. Project of generalised Relativity
and gravitational theory].

I would mark here, neither Einstein nor Nordstrom achieved more
accuracy in describing processes that Newton's gravity law described,
and the basic Einstein's equation was not something other than
Newton's law in tensor appearance. Seeking the generalised Poisson
equation in tensor form, Einstein and Grossmann came to conclusion
that

<< To solve this problem, we have not found the method which would be
the same natural as in case of previous problem (finding the
energy/pulse for material phenomena - mechanical, electrical and
others - S.K.). We had to introduce some far from obvious, though
probable admissions. . . . In accordance with Newton - Poisson law it
looks sensible (?! - S.K.) to require, these equations to have the
_second_ order. But we have to object, this supposition disables us to
find the differential equation being the generalisation for Delta phi
which would be _tensor_ as to the _arbitrary_ transformations. . . .
Though we have to emphasise, we have no grounds for general covariance
of gravity equations. >> [ibidem].

We from our side, in our study, have solved one of fundamental
problems which Newton raised in his letter to Bentley of 10 December
1692:

<< It seems to me, should all the substance of Sun and planets and
generally all substance of the universe be evenly distributed in the
sky, and each particle should have an innate gravity to all others,
and should all the space in which the substance is distributed were
finite (as in Big Band conception - S.K.), the substance from the
outskirts of this space, due to gravity, would tend to the substance
in the centre and would achieve it, due to which it would create one
huge mass >> [Correspondence of Sir Issak Newton. Cambridge, 1968,
Vol. 3, No 398].

We proved that stars and galaxies being heated bodies repel each other
in proportion to their temperature (and temperature of bodies of which
they consist). And only colleagues' unwilling to see the essence and
the colleagues' method which F. Bacon criticised in his "New Organon"
caused that you also do not operate with this fact and do not base on
it in our dialogue:

<< Stating his new methodological ideas, F. Bacon thought the first
basic shortcoming of many philosophers' approach to the analysis of
cognition that they drew their main attention to words, not to
actions, and instead systematic investigation of studied phenomenon
"pursued the words and their euphony". The second distortion, already
of the essence of science, Bacon thought "excessive contrivance in the
controversy", leading to unnecessary altercations, which gained
"especial dissemination amongst many scholiasts having available much
free time, endowed with keen mind, but too little reading" >> [K.H.
Delokarov. Philosophical and methodological basis of Principia by
Isaak Newton. In: Newton and philosophical problems of 20th century
(Russian)]

<< In Bacon's opinion, harmony in "Mind and Things" can be achieved
only, when we succeed to clear our mind of pre-opinion. For it, "we
have to direct our steps along the guiding thread and, using a
definite rule, to secure all our path, beginning with the first
perception of our feelings". To clear our mind and to make it
unbiased, Bacon gave a well-known criticism of four kinds of "ghosts",
or "idols", who impede our true cognition, which played a positive
part in establishment and development of science. . . . Standing up
for empirical approach to the nature, proving the necessity of
experiments and experience for testing the nature, Bacon did not stop,
having simply indicated the importance of experience, he also
addressed efforts to clear up the typology of forms of experience by
their functions during the cognition process. . . . Thus, Popper is
not correct when calling F. Bacon scholiast who have established the
"myth of induction". The main C. Popper's mistake was that his work
was anti-historical, and this caused him to negate the positive part
of experimental method and inductive methodology >> [ibidem].

The approaches which you use in composing your anti-theses to those
mine, are just the reflection of scholastic attempts to disregard the
classical authors of philosophical methodology of classical physics,
and I already showed you this in the above citations. Both in the
history of science and in mathematics, it is so easy to pull out a few
outwardly insignificant expressions, to joint phrases in improper
manner or accuse the author that he did not know what was discovered
on the basis of his results many decades after (and which could not be
obtained without this author's discoveries). So one can compose an
opposite impression, just as Popper accused Bacon of things against
which Bacon struggled. We see this trend in today scientists of
Relativity who are the followers of scholastic interpretation of
cognition, and who state that mathematics without phenomenology and
almost without experiments will well work and fully describe the
nature, that experiment is of no importance to clear up the truth,
that a phenomenon can be equally described with several basically
different conceptions and we can prefer no one. This is what Feynman
stated in his lectures. Anyway, this is so in the context in which I
wrote to Mr Tamhane.

We can see the above described not only as concerns Newton. You can
take any theory, not only in physics, and you will see clear signs of
stagnation caused just by dogmatism of scholiasts who "have lain down
on the shoulders of giants". And we have to address first of all to
them your following phrase:

<< Mathematics in the wrong hands burns all ahead of
it and nobody but nobody will ever say otherwise even when it is
advantageous to leave astronomical concerns aside. >>

Just with these your words you contradict yourself, calling Bacon's
opinion out of date. I already wrote here, only permanent and
scrupulous, and the main, unbiased correction of mathematical model by
experimental results can provide a correct description of physical
phenomenon.

In this view, it can be of more help to watch the floating straw than
to dive for pearls, doing not knowing the bottom. One can find no
pearls but occasionally can break his neck against the stones. I can
tell you this quite definitively, having successfully carried out a
number of fundamental experiments and solved centurial
phenomenological and mathematical problems, of which you can read in
four volumes of our e-journal. The same, not abstractly I told of
indivisible triad of cognition "phenomenology - experiment -
mathematical modelling". I can repeat, namely negation that the
process of cognition is sequential has led Relativity, quantum theory
and modern astronomy to the perfect absurdity. And this is not
Newton's guilt but of the people who cannot attentively read and
thoughtfully analyse. Newton at the level of knowledge of his century
and at the level of available experimental facts made his utmost. And
in limits of boundaries which he marked (for gravitation he confined
himself to the steady motion of planets), he is impeccable, and I
would wish so to many my today colleagues trying to fantasy the
nature. And if you are speaking of pearls, one pearl in a jewellery
made by a skilled artist is worthier than tons of shells in which
pearl could happen to appear. ;-)

Sergey> 
> I reason that if no astronomer was present in Newton's era to correct
> the manner in which Newton formatted his gravitational agenda by
> unauthorised use of two incompatible astronomical  views,I have no
> reason to believe that it could be achieved in the present
> climate.Astronomers previous to Flamsteed calculated orbits of planets
> against the motion of the Earth,after Flamsteed it amounted to
> calculating them against the background stars with Newton fudging as
> much as possible by way of combining Roemer and Kepler seperate but
> overlaping insights.