NeoGravity

Press

Press kit

Everything needed to write about this accurately, including what the work does not claim.

The claim in one paragraph

Space is not empty: it contains a measurable fluid. Matter continuously radiates into the Plenum, and by Newton's third law the Plenum pushes back. That inward reaction is proposed as gravitation, and it is written in one line: the gravitational acceleration at a point is the logarithmic gradient of the Plenum's density there, times a third of the speed of light squared. There is no mass in that expression, no separation, and no gravitational constant. Because the Plenum is compressed near mass, light passing nearby slows and bends, the same process that makes a straw look bent in water. One expression for the Plenum's refractive index reproduces light deflection and the Shapiro time delay. A second expression, for the rate at which clocks run, reproduces the gravitational redshift, and the two together give Mercury's perihelion advance. That two are needed where one was wanted is forced by the measurements rather than assumed, and it is the framework's own structural result.

What this is not

Getting these right matters more than the headline.

NOT

A claim that Einstein was wrong

General relativity's confirmed predictions are reproduced, not contested. The proposal is about cause and vocabulary, not about whether the predictions hold.

NOT

A revival of the nineteenth-century aether

That medium required a detectable rest frame and was correctly refuted in 1887. The Plenum proposed here has none, by construction.

NOT

Peer reviewed

These are preprints. They are open access with permanent DOIs, and they have not been through journal review.

NOT

Complete

One constant remains fitted rather than derived. Its first reading of the pulsar-timing signal, a scalar one, is disfavoured by the data and has been replaced by the tensor wave sector the framework later derived, and the papers say so in print.

Facts and figures

40papers in the series, all deposited
4failed derivations published
1998year the idea originated
42.98″Mercury per century, derived; 42.98 ± 0.04 observed
The angle most writers miss. This series publishes its own failures. Four attempts to derive the coupling strength are written up in full, including one killed by observational data. The verification suite prints deliberate failure markers. That is unusual enough to be the story.
Press enquiries Interviews, review copies, figure permissions

Figures. Every figure across the series is original and generated from the underlying data. They may be reproduced with attribution. Source code: https://github.com/worldlibrary-hub/NeoGravity