That's certainly an unorthodox view. As far as I can make out from that post and the rest of your blog, you seem to reject Newtonian gravitation in favor of Kepler's laws of planetary orbits. How does your model account for the perturbations that are observed in three-body and more complex systems?
For instance, right now there is a satellite called SOHO at the Sun-Earth L_1 Lagrangian point. Why do you say that Newtonian gravity is a myth, when the existence of such an orbit violates Kepler's third law but is in perfect agreement with calculations according to the Newtonian model?
"We postulate the density continuum defined by the rule R03/T02 = R3/T2"
T is in seconds, R is in meters. So R3/T2 is in cubic meters per square seconds. A density is something per cubic meters. How exactly do 'square seconds' form a density in any meaningful way? Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath.
Postulating is al good fun but are you actually planning to do some physics with it? You're just saying Newton is evil and wrong but are not giving any reasons why his laws don't sufficicently confirm to reality. Neither are you explaining why your alternative fits reality better.
Calling relativity an offshoot of Newtonian gravity is also not quite correct.
On the Verlinde article, I haven't read it. While it sounds interesting, it hinges on the definition of entropy. IMO, it might be a big circular argument.
