The End of Space-Time Symmetry?

[Robh]

I found this immensely fascinating.
Physicist Petr Horava's theory to unify quantum mechanics and gravity is opening up a whole new line of research. It might also eliminate our dependency on dark matter and dark energy to explain observations.
I'll leave it to the experts to make comment.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Regards, Rob

[renormalised]

Exceptionally interesting article. I can get all the other articles referred to in the snippet but not Horava's....unfortunately I don't have access to Phys Rev D (got all the others A,B,C and E, but not D).

If you want the other articles, let me know.

[CraigS]

Good one, Rob.

Very interesting ...

I think this may lead to his original paper (Jan 2009):

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775
(See attachment, also).

Heavy going on the maths, though (as expected).

More later,
Cheers

[Robh]

Thanks Guys,

I have the articles.
Ploughing through them, that's another issue!

Hey Carl, I note the problem of renormalizability of gravity in Horava's paper D.

Regards, Rob

[renormalised]

I haven't read it yet. I will though. Hmmmm....so there's some infinities creeping into the equations??

[xelasnave]

Thanks Rob.
I am happy that others finally are starting to realise dark matter may be an illussion created by a determination not admit such a notion seems rather unusual.
Still until it is accepted the force of attraction is an illussion I doubt if the understanding of gravity will move forward. Still at least there is a realisation that GR needs a small adjustment somewhere.
alex

[sjastro]

The infinities don't crop up by changing the nature of the gravitational constant at different scales. It's a "subtle" form of renormalization unlike for example the brutal chopping out of divergent terms that describe the energy of a vacuum so it does not become infinite.

It's a renormalizable theory of gravity, unlike previous attempts to combine gravity and the other forces where it was not possible to renormalize.

An interesting paper, it requires a considerable knowledge of QFT to understand it. I'm still sifting through it.

Steven

[bojan]

Alex,
On what exactly you are basing your statement that gravity attraction is an illusion?

And.. No-one, ever said GR is perfect. It is just that we don't have better theory yet, every scientist will tell you that.

[sjastro]

I'm wondering about the same thing.

Steven

[renormalised]

I haven't read the paper, so that's why I asked that question. Whether there were infinities cropping up. So, it's just a subtle readjustment of a few of the parameters and not some attempt to try and "hide" mathematical embarrassments that turn up in equations sometimes.

[renormalised]

???????????

[bojan]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[avandonk]

The gravity of the Gravity situation with QM cannot be over emphasised.

I think we are all looking in the wrong place.

When some smart B_a_stard works it out we will all go DUH!

I hope it happens in my life time. I doubt if the person has been born yet.

There is a limit to what one human mind can comprehend.

Does anyone here think that the human mind can comprehend itself? Let alone the Universe!

Bert

[CraigS]

Hang in there, guys !!
Let's look at the real physics, first !!
:)

[CraigS]

Hi Steven;
Whereabouts does this occur ? (Ie: which theory etc?)

Cheers

[sjastro]

Craig,

Are you familiar with use of Hamiltonians in Quantum Mechanics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)

The Hamiltonian is an operator which defines the total energy of a system (the sum of it's kinetic and potential energies).

In Quantum Field Theory the definition of a Hamiltonian is not as straigthtforward and is based on the creation and destruction of virtual particles in a field.
The experimental verification of this concept is the Casimir effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

When the Hamiltonian is applied to a vacuum, the total energy is found to be infinite. A vacuum should in fact be a system in it's lowest energy state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

The way out of this conumdrum is to define a renormalized Hamiltonian where the term in the Hamiltonian that produces the infinite term is chopped out. The physical significance of this operation is vague.

In other applications of renormalization such as Quantum Electrodynamics or the attachment in this thread, renormalization has a physical significance. The divergence is caused by out of scale or non quantum mechanical effects which can be removed without destroying the integrity of the theory.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hmm...
No, unfortunately I'm not familiar with the use of Hamiltonians in Quantum Mechanics, (!!), but I do get what you've explained (& thank you for that). I'll have a read of the links & learn more.
:)

I'm now beginning to understand what's going on behind the scenes (in the maths) when the string/quantum theorists say "infinities" occur. Giving the term the chop, (just to eliminate the infinite resultant), surely requires justification, though. As you say it does "destroy the integrity of the theory".

- Oh well, I guess as in most areas, no theory is perfect, and most do live in that world, huh ?

Good that this theory handles it more gracefully, though.
Interesting.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Alex;
I know of 3 different types of reality:

1) Physical Reality - eg: Jack Russel dogs exist because they can be measured, weighed and charaterised, repeatedly by anyone (not just me);

2) Reality in one's own mind - eg: "I imagined that giant Jack Russels exist then I observed a big mountain that must've been caused by a giant Jack Russel. So therefore, they're real (but nobody else knows that, except me). A better example without the irony may be feeling hungry - hunger is real, folks but when I'm hungry I'm the only one who knows it;

3) Reality by Concensus - what politicians practise - eg: "Giant Jack Russels exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do - so they are real".

But Gravity (or the 'force of attraction) falls well and truly into (1) above. ?? Illusion ?? - Only if one's mind is in either of the other two realities !!

Cheers

PS: A topic for a separate post, methinks !!

[renormalised]

A separate post....the philosophical definition and consequences of reality.

But just as an aside, points 2 and 3 could be lumped into one "catch all" description as "the reality of delusion":):)

Especially when point 3 is taken into consideration:):P

[xelasnave]

Hi Bojan I though folks saw GR as somewhat perfect but maybe I have formed an incorrect idea given your statement. I do feel there are many who hold it up to be the key to all understanding and in that regard have maybe elevated it to a level higher than its author believed it could ever reach. For me it is one of the things out there one must take into account when discussing the universe, its origins etc. and I would rather deal with it than introduce religion in an attempt to find an answer.

I maintain the force of attraction is not proven:eyepop: and to this end I have searched for an experiment that proves such a force is real, and over the years I have asked for someone to point to an experiment that shows attraction is a force. To date I have no knowledge of any experiment that shows there is a force that we call attraction....and so I say there is no force of attraction but happy to hear why I may be misguided. I have followed your advice and read and read upon physics and although I am old and useless I can follow how we have arrived at where we are today..

Things work within fields and field can only work via particle flow and push I suggest:rolleyes:... I am not advocating an electric universe by the way:D

I do not think particles or bodies "attract" as I can envisage no mechanism where one body "calls" to another in effect saying..."come here"..

Irrespective of how folks wish to exclaim that attraction is obvious..look at magnets etc I simply say is there an experiment that demonstrates an interaction between bodies can be labeled "attraction" and if such labeling is to be used then I inquire..what is the mechanical process that takes place... things do not happen as if by magic so if attraction is to be held up as a force I simple ask what entitles us to label something as "attraction".

I do admit my preoccupation with a push universe has probably made me a little one sided on this issue. However if we are to be scientific and invoke a force such as attraction I simply say it must be proven before we happily use the term to describe an observation that shows two objects moving toward each other...everyone assumes they are attracted I ask how..if how cant be estqablished then I see no reason to simply assume they attract each other.

Now I have lowered my shield you may strike hard at any part you regard as exposed to correction...but please be gentle:)

I have to go and help someone so I may have to edit when I get to read what I have said.

alex:):):)

[sjastro]

Alex,

Here is the experiment performed over 200 years ago.
It is based on the torsion balance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Steven

[bojan]

Lets start another thread for elaborating further on this, mate...
This is too basic for this place, where GR discussion is taking place

[CraigS]

Totallllllly agreeeeee!!
:)
Very cool.

[bojan]

Steven,
Alex is talking about definition.. or even the very existence of attraction force...
In a discussion with me couple of years ago, he was arguing that the attraction can't exist because, according to him, there is no mechanical way to communicate this force to other bodies ("come to me... ").. while it is quite easy to understand "pushing" force (as result of collision).
So, he was arguing (and he still does, obviously) that the attraction force between two bodies is actually a manifestation of push, resulting from flow of hypothetical particles (we called it "push_itron" or "pussitron") coming from everywhere, and effect of mutual screening of that flow by two nearby bodies.. So the attraction, according to him is just an illusion.
Obviously, this discussion is not over yet ;)

EDIT:
"push_itron" is spelled as this to circumvent the built-in dirty language detector of this forum (at least it was working last time when we had this discussion)

[CraigS]

Ewwwww !!!! (... oh boy ....).

I'm going back to Hoˇrava's paper !!

[xelasnave]

Sorry I only got back a few minutes ago.
Thanks Steven I will look at the link.
Thanks Bojan for for a brief history of my time..on push.
I have to do more stuff now so I will be a while reading everything here.
alex

[xelasnave]

Bert I presume you mean other humans as I am sure you know by now I will happily answer yes to your questions :lol::lol::lol:

Subjectively each of us are here for an eternity as we can not comprehend a world in which we do not exist and from there we realize we are indeed the center of the universe (observable universe us being the observer:D) and gaining the realization we are so important how could one be wrong about anything let alone everything:rolleyes:.

I am just happy I have found all the answers before I pass on.:P unfortunately I can not remember all the questions.:)
alex:):):)

[sjastro]

The experiment also disproves push gravity. If you replace the larger spheres with a different mass but of the same diameter, the result should be same, as the screening of the "push_itrons" is a function of diameter of the spheres not their mass.

This clearly is not the case.

Regards

Steven

[mill]

People and their theories :P
This world is full of them.

[xelasnave]

I enjoyed all of that Steven:thumbsup::thanx:.
Bojan explained my point very well:).
..although I am not fixated upon a specific particle but simply that what we observe as attraction at work is not along the lines of..to make it simple...a message of "come here"...anyways Bojan covered it well enough.

I can not see why the prospect is difficult to speculate upon ...how else can a field work other than by a pressure of particles...I submit the Pioneer slowed because once outside the heliosphere as they would encounter a stronger gravity field rather than a weaker one... mind you I have zip support on this even though they did what I predicted..and I made that prediction on this site using a rather elaborate metaphor... but it could be like Bert's dog thing..seize a fact and fit it to your pet idea...anyways I am not the only human who can be accused of such folly... still I was right and NASA were wrong ... but I recognize it has a Jack Russel taste to it.... anyways I did not want to get onto this...I am sorry ..I swore all this was behind me.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I have never said screening was related to area or volume etc. Clearly mass is key our observation make that obvious.
AND nothing I propose need alter any sums we currently use... and lets face it Steven although we have many formula gravity related we still have absolutely no idea of the mechanism... I know you find it curious one needs a mechanism but without a mechanism..a particle..a machinery we have little more than sums that are useful and work but tell us nothing about the process..I submit that what we have borders on belief in magic...space bends because of mass etc but why what is physically going on..if we dont know what is physically going on we know nothing..Gravity is a field so it must have particles in there somewhere if we recognize their significance and fit them in maybe all the forces can be united...but to grasp at GR calling it a field and not looking at why we will always be in the dark...

A push field offers acceptable explanations for the problems dark matter seeks to cure...and what that means really is while you have attraction as a concept you have to add mythical material..dark matter.

Sorry to rant I have had a stressful day and should not use here to relax and speak my mind.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Anyway back on track ..how will this new approach (subject matter of this thread) accommodate gravitational lensing
alex

[xelasnave]

Hey Mill:hi:..you must have one...gotta have something to chat about at parties:D
alex:):):)

[bojan]

But I do hope you acknowledge I didn't endorse your view, Alex ;)

[sjastro]

So let me get this right.

(1) We don't know what a push particle is.
(2) We don't know what propels it.
(3) We don't know the origin of a push particle.
(4) We don't understand the push mechanism as collisions can neither be elastic nor inelastic.
(5) We can't classify it in Particle Physics.
(6) We can't isolate it in the laboratory.

But it's not a mythical material like "Dark Matter"

I'm glad you have clarified it Alex.:)

Regards

Steven

[mill]

Aha!!!
I have only one theory.
It is kinda of a secret :lol:
My theory is that the human race will be gone before they can even get to another planet to save themself :D
(unless they get past the theory about the speed of light :shrug: ).

[xelasnave]

When you put it that way Steven it sounds as if you see no hope for the idea which surprises me;)

Still let me deal with the matters you raise.

1. That is correct.... but does that really matter in a speculation such that I indulge in... lets face fact we are not sure we can find the HB but certainly the HB could be a PP after all the HB is the particle that scribes the Higgs field..and what is the Higgs field..it is a field made up of Higgs bosens..how is one to see this field working I ask...are HBs sitting around not moving waiting their opportunity to give a particle mass..do sit in the voids ? are they maybe our dark matter?. how do they give a particle mass?...could it be that HB's fly around at near C to create the Higgs field which I submit would be the sort of thing I suggest. If we cant find them how do we know what they do or where they are..they are as illusive as PPs;)

If a push particle exists in its own right it may simply be something we already "know" about...even a neutrino sounds like a good candidate..and lets face it Steven Neutrinos and others have been suggested for dark matter ..I suggest that such an approach is not that different to mine...They dont know..I dont know but neither they or me need give up on the premise because we dont have the detail nailed down..if that were the case all speculation upon dark matter should be disregarded..

2. Do we know what propels dark matter? we dont know what it is or if it is there it exists because we are determined that attraction rules the sums... however if dark matter is say the neutrino it is clear what propels it.. i think it is clear.
I think PP will be somehow connected with the EMS ...but clearly anything on push is speculation...and I think most ideas start as speculation and someone asking..what if... now plenty of crap comes from such an approach but also plenty of valid discoveries come from someone speculating upon possibilities based on their observations and thinking...

I never suggest I have the answers but in this area given the little we know I do not see a problem. I know GR is complex etc but it tells us very little really and clearly fails us in some areas...we now have someone fixing it or fine tuning it..no problem but even so we still have not credible mechanism.
The graviton is a mere speculation I believe ..it has no lab experiment proving it does it? Even the HB is an educated guess at this point... I dont think any thing is rock solid when it comes to our understanding of matter.

3. We dont but if it is a neutrino we do:)...if it is a HB we can work it out:D..

4. I saw something on the HB showing the HB running into a quark and I thought thats cool a PP would be the same maybe.
Again I speculate for I dont know but if for a moment the push idea was given any credit and other minds offered input as to why it could work rather than why it can not work more would be built...lets face it everything is built from an idea...GR BB etc is not different. AN idea is born an infant not fully developed and complete.

5. I dont know that anyone has or will try.
I imagine whatever would fit the bill will be very small and travel at near c and such an animal would not be easy to observe...and thats the case for neutrinos and HB..How long have they been monitoring their underground tanks of window cleaner or whatever they use...One such attempt I noted the other day..been years at it and only had one "flash"...
My point is simply no matter what one seizes up[on finding one is not easy at this level of smallness.

6.Look I did find one but being so small I lost it:lol::lol::lol:
Steven if we have so much difficulty in finding stuff we are reasonably sure is there (HB neutrinos ..er I think many particles are inferred by their decay trails) think of how much trouble we will have finding anything... it is no good to say ..find one..as if everything found to date was easy work.

Thank you for taking the time to provide regions to think about.
I appreciate you taking the time but think about what I have said... we can not unite the forces and have had a long time now and we are not going anyplace..is it such a bad thing to specualte upon a mechanism...I know we dont admit the aether but I suggest things would work better with that type of fram work.MM proved it was not there etc but I suggest that if we can not find the HB or the neutrino with a greater ammount of effort that we may have been too hasty to draw the conclusions that nothing meant nothing..there is always something and it is this something that we do not yet understand.

I appreciate your abilities and that math is central and you maintain a discipline to avoid speculation ..that is good..however rather than try to point out why such a concept could not work please indulge a speculation as to the many difficulties that universe such as I suggest would overcome...and finally it is only the concept of attraction that is causing problems..

It is clear galaxies are not held together by attraction but some external force (which must be a push one must conclude)...so we have a force strong enough to hold galaxies together but this massive force does little else..why would gravity work as a push at that level and not down here.


ANYWAYS I am one man how can I present a complete theory of everything no one has a model yet even S Hawking ..and Dr A tryed all his life...and many great men have not come up with all the answers so although I do my best I cant do everything.:D

DAm it you have got me going again ...I dont want to think about this stuff anymore...

AND may I round off with this....why did the pioneers slow using all we think we know...was it a jack russel event or could a mug like me have just got it a little right?
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I know you cant come straight out and agree Bojan :lol::lol::lol:

No I was happy that you could state my position without comment identifying what your thoughts were... I have always felt that you never quiet agreed with my general premise;) ... I have some math weapons these days but I wont bring that in until I have an experiment or something...I am still only developing the premise of the general idea.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Sorry for being late to reply Craig.

I agree with your comments but again note that the area of particle physics is not one where one buys some scales and tape and runs out and write down all the answers.

I made the comment that finding a neutrino was not easy..check this but one example of the difficulty in measuring ..er even finding something the standard model includes in the game...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100109002326.htm

Now that is one of many stories on the difficulties dealing with finding and measuring a neutrino...one candidate for dark matter. And what about the HB I dont think it at this point fits reality one ... and notwithstanding all the good reasons why it is there the reality (1) is that it is not yet a reality.

So why be so harsh on a mug like me with no budget:D I cant produce a PP or take the premise past speculation.:D but the reality as always comes down to available funding...so I conclude cash is the only reality worth considering..... but give me $250,000,000 and I will search for the rest of my days for whatever you like....

alex:)

[CraigS]

Apologies if I seemed that I was being harsh. I actually thought my post, which you quote, contained some pretty cool distinctions, (even if it was prompted by my frustration about disrupting what could've been a really interesting discussion on GR). I don't think I'd ever elucidated those thoughts in writing before. (Not bad for a hamster, huh - Witten's Hamster, that is).

With the benefit of further posts on your topic, I now 'get' where you're coming from. But to me, it seems like a difference in semantics. (As Steven pointed out). Your questions it seems, & as I think you have pointed out, will seemingly all come out in the wash anyway, courtesy of experiments & research, presently being funded as a result of Lamba-CDM thinking.

I'm still left puzzled by why graphene electrons speed up as it cools down, though ... fascinating !!

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Yes I have been giving it a lot of thought as one would expect the opposite.
I think they encase fuel rods in graphite and I wonder what is behind that and have been considering what properties these (assuming the encasement thing is right) facts may point to.
What are your thoughts?
alex

[CraigS]

Not a lot on that at the moment !! (Ie: .. ah dunno ..!!).

Cheers

[renormalised]

Graphite acts as a moderator in nuclear reactions. It slows fast neutrons and that's why they use it to encase fuel rods....to help control the reaction by slowing down the neutrons.

[CraigS]

Some more words on that Graphene property:

http://www.physorg.com/news161529738.html

"Even at room temperature, electrons in graphene are more than 100 times more mobile than in silicon. Graphene apparently owes this enhanced mobility to the curious fact that its electrons and other carriers of electric charges behave as though they do not have mass. In conventional materials, the speed of electrons is related to their energy, but not in graphene. Although they do not approach the speed of light, the unbound electrons in graphene behave much like photons, massless particles of light that also move at a speed independent of their energy.

This weird massless behavior is associated with other strangeness. When ordinary conductors are put in a strong magnetic field, charge carriers such as electrons begin moving in circular orbits that are constrained to discrete, equally spaced energy levels. In graphene these levels are known to be unevenly spaced because of the "massless" electrons."

Interesting ..

[renormalised]

Interesting behaviour.

[sjastro]

Alex

You have provided a good example of Craig's classification of reality in one's mind.

Your argument that the supposed failure of mainstream science to explain the Poineer anomaly indicates that your ideas are a "little right" (or in other threads "completely right") defies logic.

It makes as much sense by claiming the Pioneer anomaly led me to experiencing a toothache last Tuesday.
The fact is there is no causal relationship between the two, as much as there is no relationship between failing to explain the anomaly and the existence of push gravity. One cannot conclude the anomaly leads to a justification of push gravity or any other alternative.

Why don't you engage in some physical reality and explain the Pioneer anomaly in terms of push gravity with supporting evidence instead of assuming it is a "little right" by default.

Regards

Steven

[Virgs]

Alex here is a simple challenge for you... Your push gravity says that the everything is being pushed from the outer to the inner right?, well then why is it that things travelling in straight lines like light or space craft only change their direction when passing near large mass objects like stars or planets? If your push gravity was acting the way you harp on about it, then it should not matter if the large mass is there, these things would not travel in a straight line ever due to the constant push. So we observe the large mass attracting the object as it nears it - how do you explain it? You will note that I have not included any maths as this is how you like to operate.

[bojan]

The challenge (required some math) was issued 3 years ago, here (mid and lower end of the page):
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=21247&page=3&highlight=gravity+push+inverse+squa re+law

And couple of times before and after that.

I am still waiting :-)

[Jarvamundo]

(wrong alex i know)
A model covered by Tom Van Flandern's - Dark Matter Missing Planets book.

in short: 'gravitational shielding from the push-er-particles'

Imagine a gravi-push-tron sea, with two bodies... as you bring the bodies closer together, gradually the inside face of the bodies receive less push... and the 'force' of gravity is manifested.

The bigger the body, the more push-trons it will shield and shadow.

A neutrino style sea would represent a good candidate for this particle. These push particles would ofcourse be rapidly moving.

the first 3 or so chapters in that book give a really great run down of the model. (not sure if this is the same as Alex's tho)

[CraigS]

A quote from wiki on Tom Van Flandern (for those reading this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern

"Van Flandern advocated several ideas related to astronomy and physics which were not supported by the mainstream scientific community. In particular, he was a prominent advocate of the belief that certain geological features seen on Mars, especially the "face at Cydonia", are not of natural origin, but were produced by intelligent extra-terrestrial life, probably the inhabitants of a major planet once located where the asteroid belt presently exists, and which Van Flandern believed had exploded 3.2 million years ago. He gave lectures on the subject and at the conclusion of the lectures he described his overall conception:

"We've shown conclusively that at least some of the artifacts on the surface of Mars were artificially produced, and the evidence indicates they were produced approximately 3.2 million years ago, which is when Planet V exploded. Mars was a moon of Planet V, and we speculate that the Builders created the artificial structures as theme parks and advertisements to catch the attention of space tourists from Planet V (much as we may do on our own Moon some day, when lunar tourism becomes prevalent), or perhaps they are museums of some kind. Remember that the Face at Cydonia was located on the original equator of Mars. The Builder's civilization ended 3.2 million years ago. The evidence suggests that the explosion was anticipated, so the Builders may have departed their world, and it produced a massive flood, because Planet V was a water world. It is a coincidence that the face on Mars is hominid, like ours, and the earliest fossil record on Earth of hominids is the "Lucy" fossil from 3.2 million years ago. There have been some claims of earlier hominid fossils, but Lucy is the earliest that is definite. So I leave you with the thought that there may be a grain of truth in The War of the Worlds, with the twist that WE are the Martians."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

[Virgs]

Nope that does not make one bit of sense. If push was coming from everywhere, why isnt the motion of the object slowed down. For f%#&s sake this push argument has more holes in it than a sieve. I have better things to do with my time than carry on reading this dribble.

[Jarvamundo]

Why did you ask the question? Was it serious, or were you just setting up strawmen?

Push is not my view, but i actually bought the book, read the works, investigated the model. I see the merits, and arguments. Your follow up question is also covered in this.

Re: Craig_S



Wikipedia? really?

Cmon, lets address the science....

Otherwise this is just pointless psuedo-skepticism.

[renormalised]

That Craig, is just the sort of prime time nonsense that we have to deal with and the sort of rot these guys are proposing.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

[renormalised]

Smug.

I've seen you use wiki quite often yourself so don't put someone down for using it.

What is pointless is arguing with someone such as yourself who has clearly come to the conclusions that they have. It's also plain to see that you joined this forum with those conclusions already formed, otherwise you would never have approached the various threads you have posted in in the manner that you have.

[Jarvamundo]

I thought this was about push gravity?

ahwell for those interested... like if you ask a question, and are actually interested in a response. looks like since he's passed on it's available on gbooks.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fq8trtkOvMEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=tom+van+flandern+Dark+Matter&source=bl&ots=fE6u10o-jc&sig=8KZODu7AgWvBqspAOejfY6ebNnw&hl=en&ei=PdplTN3eG86DcN79uOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

around page 35 might be what you look for

again, i'm not sure if this is Alex's views, it should not be attached to them... but it has been part of an investigation on push-g.

all the best,