Hat tip to Dr Woit, who spotted the message on the skeleton in a CERN news page about the crisis in theoretical physics. John Ellis, CBE, FRS is the James Clerk Maxwell professor of theoretical physics at King’s College London.

*Photo credit: Sophia Bennett CERN photo of John Ellis (freely usable for non-commercial purposes; since CERN is funded by taxpayers).*

Enlargements of the political message of dogmatic consensus based “mainstream science”. Inflation and SUSY are complex epicycle type interpretations of evidence which survive by dominating the landscape, effectively squashing attempts to get the mainstream to investigate other options that actually work and make useful predictions that have been confirmed afterwards.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

Hi, Nige

I am interested in your modified Le Sage (push) gravity idea. It seems to make a lot of sense to me and I can’t see why the traditional criticism of it is necessarily valid because, as you point out, that criticism depends on a very outdated (19th century) assumption about the sort of particle involved.

I see how it accounts for the basic Newtonian 1/r^2 force, but I think you would agree that it must account for all the effects of general relativity as well,

Unfortunately, i am not smart enough to figure out how that works.

Do you have pages here (or perhaps somewhere else on the web) devoted to explaining how your theory accounts for precession of Mercury’s perihelion? or for the gravitational redshift? (and effect of gravity on clocks in general) and all the rest of the known GR effects?

I will check back for a response.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, quantum gravity as I show at http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0004v2.pdf as well as http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0187v1.pdf and with diagrams that are easy to grasp and understand at http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf or http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111 does predict all non-Newtonian gravitational contraction effects, which replicate and derive general relativity’s predictions precisely, just as you list! In fact, Einstein’s own original derivation of the field equations show that energy conservation accounts for the contraction numerically, which is precisely what we’re doing physically. Newton’s equation ignores the fact that a falling apple can’t acquire kinetic energy from nothing. What’s occurring is that the gravitational field’s potential energy is being reduced as the apple acquires a corresponding amount of kinetic energy.

All of the general relativity predictions that differ from Newton’s come from the contraction term, which Feynman showed (see his 1963 Lectures on Physics) is a contraction, a gravitational version of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of restricted or special relativity.

The contraction due to the distortion of space is small for most Newtonian situations; in fact it is something like 1.5mm for Earth’s mass equivalent. You get it by replacing v in the Lorentz transformation with escape velocity, and dividing the resulting contraction by 3 to account for the fact that only 1 dimension is contracted by linear motion (the dimension in the direction of that motion), whereas gravitational compression contracts three spatial dimensions.

In fact, the key differences between Newtonian gravitation and the mechanism of quantum gravity in http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111 are that the quantum gravity mechanism predicts additionally (1) all of local general relativity predictions, (2) predicts dark energy quantitatively, which general relativity fails to do, and (3) predicts the quantization of masses, which neither Newtonian gravity nor general relativity does.