acceleration of 2c2/Θ ~ 2 × 10-10 m/s (where Θ is the co-moving Hubble diameter) which is equal to the cosmic acceleration and that persists even at the speed of light. This implies that the speed of light limit can be broken, albeit with this tiny acceleration and that this relativity - proof acceleration could be boosted by setting up a causal horizon around the ship.
- The negative inertial mass would never be reached because as the QI-predicted inertia approaches zero the acceleration increases again. The result is an acceleration that asymptotes to 2x10^-10 m/s^2.
- Setting F=0 in equation 11 predicts the minimum acceleration of 2c^2/Theta which is the main prediction of QI. It is due to the attraction of the cosmic horizon, is fueled by information (see below) and is supported empirically by the supernovae data (Perlmutter and Riess, 1999). It is the value of the observed cosmic acceleration.
- QI does not conserve mass-energy, but it does conserve mass-energy-information. In QI information can be converted to mass-energy and vice versa. This is directly related to Landauer's principle which has been verified.
- I am not so worried about agreement with GR because it has been falsified. Ie: it has never predicted a single galactic rotation correctly. I am working on a paper using Qi to predict the bending of star light round the sun.
- As I said, I have not considered causality yet. QI does not depend on reference frames because it uses accelerations. These are independent of ref frame.
- The Pioneer anomaly has not been falsified. The modelling of known anomalies with a complex model is a disease of modern physics. Dark matter is the same.
- 'Fails to provide numerical predictions'. Are you joking? I always make numerical predictions.
- The cosmic horizon is not an adjustable parameter. Sure it has an allowed range, but that is small and known.
- In QI it does not matter whether the acceleration is linear or circular. I performed the calculation for circular accelerators, but linear ones still accelerate at a huge rate so the effect of Qi will be tiny.
- The Unruh waves for particles in accelerator tubes will not interact with the tubes in the same way as for the emdrive, because in the emdrive the microwaves are finely tuned so that the Unruh waves are exactly the right size to resonate in the cavity.
- In summary. QI is not complete and I am not claiming for sure that every anomaly I have looked at is valid, but QI predicts the more conclusive ones, eg galaxy rotation, in a simpler, more elegant manner than any other theory.
You are missing the point, acceleration in what direction? If there is a force, the acceleration is in the direction of the force if there is none, then there is no definition in your theory for the direction of acceleration. The accelerating expansion of the universe is an entirely different type of phenomenon than the local acceleration of a given mass that the equation you used describes.
If that is the case, please provide a rigorous explanation of how that works (It seems to me this would not work for various reasons, but rather than speculating I should see what the details are of your explanation, in case you did find some way that I can't think of.) this only covers energy conservation, which is tied to time symmetry in Noether's theorem, you also need something to cover momentum conservation, which your theory also clearly violates.
GR has not been falsified, your assertions that is has are part of what quickly loses you credibility when you talk to other scientists. GR predicts galactic rotation curves just fine under lambda-CDM, which is a model that has been tested including things such as the evolution of the universe over time to form galaxies as we currently observe them. Also, before you mention it, wide binaries have previously been discussed on this site. A recent paper shows that the data is actually consistent with GR, the pattern in the data is related to projection effects.
Anyway, as I said, you confirm here that you have not actually compared to your theory with any of the standard tests of GR yet. The various claims you make promoting your theory make it sound like it has wider applicability than GR, but in actuality, you have not shown it matches with any of the experimental tests of GR. I (and probably most other people with a relevant background) find this strange, because if someone comes up with a new theory of gravity, the very first question is whether it can predict the results of the various experiments confirming general relativity. Since your theory fundamentally contradicts the most fundamental assumption in GR, this is even more important because it is difficult to see how such a radically different theory can replicate all of the successes of GR.
Your statement about being independent of reference frame is the basis of why I said it is simple: Your theory breaks causality.Your claim of frame independence actually brings up one of the issues I didn't address before:acceleration on its own is not a relativistic invariant, you need to consider the four acceleration, which you do not address in your paper.
From my understanding, The acceleration is in the direction o movement. And that direction could be any referential frame you are using, like a gravitational orbit. If theoretically there would be no frame of reference then the direction of acceleration would be Random, like a quantum fluctuation. (This is my understanding at least)
QI redefines momentum as Unruh radiation pressure of Rindler horizon. So of the universe expands the radiation pressure decreases, momentum also decreases. QI ties momentum to Rindler Horison and universe scale. When universe size approaches zero, momentum approaches infinity, and when the distance between any particles in the universe approaches infinity momentum approaches zero. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
GR was never proven at the galactic scale. GR is still an unproven theory at the galactic scale. (If it's proven why do scientists spend billions on Dark Matter searches? To prove what?)
As MikeMcCulloch has put it. The challenge of #QI to GR is not at high accelerations, but at extremely low accelerations where GR has failed to predict Galaxy rotations without arbitrary additions of Darm Matter.
This Dark Matter is a purelly hypothetical substance with no predictable properties. Does not fit the standard model, does not interact with anything (and I don't mean only light, anything, any matter. DM detector experiments were all failures), it's at this point a figment of imagination at best
(that is if you're a normal human, not a scientist, and use basic logic here)
QuoteYour statement about being independent of reference frame is the basis of why I said it is simple: Your theory breaks causality.Your claim of frame independence actually brings up one of the issues I didn't address before:acceleration on its own is not a relativistic invariant, you need to consider the four acceleration, which you do not address in your paper.Would you provide some arguments to these claims? I'm not a scientist so I would appreciate if you'd detail more what exactly are you referring to here.
meberbs. I have replied to a few of your comments, but as you will see, I stopped when I noticed that your comments were straying towards attacking my motivation & the state of modern journals.
If you can't attack QI itself with solid physical evidence and you have to start digging around for other ways to undermine it, then I've learned from many long and painful experiences that the debate quickly deteriorates.
1. The direction of the extra QI acceleration is in the direction of acceleration.
2. The conservation of mass-energy-information is explained in this paper by myself and J. Gine: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732317501486
3. GR has been falsified. We have to call a spade a spade, and GR has never, ever predicted a galaxy rotation correctly without 'tuning' of the data after the fact (ie dark matter). GR is wrong. It is as simple as that. I've published three papers on galaxy rotation now, and I'll be publishing another paper soon on wide binaries that confirms that.
4. The Pioneer anomaly has been modelled with a complex thermal model with over 2000 finite elements and two adjustable parameters. That's complex in my book.
5. Yes, I have made predictions, but you have to read my papers to see most of them.
6. The 8.8x10^26 m diameter of the cosmos is the currently accepted value for its size, given the need to also include inflation to explain the flatness problem. It is widely accepted, see eg Bars and Terning, 2009. extra Dimensions of Space and Time, Springer.
You can publish infinite papers on galaxy rotation...
meberbs. To take your points backwards, because why not:6. The cosmic size shows up as a diameter in the derivations, but it does not matter. All I'm saying is that the longest allowed Unruh wave must be twice the cosmic diameter, or 4 times the radius. This is basic cavity physics.
5. For the Madrid experiment the prediction is ~1microN. The Dresden experiment has not yet been built. We expect more like a mN but it will depend on the exact configuration.
4. It is, shall we say, not ideal, to use complex computer models to fit known results. Also, a Pioneer anomaly of the same size was also seen in the Ulysses spacecraft which had a different shape.
3. Wide binary stars simply cannot be modelled with GR, dark matter or MoND. So these hypotheses have been falsified. Also, the galactic problems all start at the exact galactic radius where Unruh waves reach the cosmic scale. That is clear evidence for QI.
2. Do read the paper.
1. When there is no force then I would expect the anomalous acceleration to be towards the cosmic edge.
A deeper whole...
meberbs. There's nothing wrong with my binomial approximation. For v=0.9c the error is about 30%, but that is compared with a predicted difference of 22 orders of magnitude or 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% !!!
To quote meberbs: "This is where it begins to look like there may be a major problem, since entropy can never decrease, mass-energy must continuously be decreasing in the universe".I appreciate the thought that went into the derivation, but it is wrong from the beginning because you assumed that entropy is solely related to the arrangement of bits on the horizon (the kTNln2 term). This is wrong, because the entropy that has been proven to increase is the entropy of the mass-energy part that we can see/detect (the other term), and your derivation ignores its contribution to entropy completely. The derivation is otherwise interesting, but needs rehashing.
"There is a simple prerequisite in science for new theories: they have to be consistent with what we already know. "Politely disagree. There is a prerequisite in science for new theories be consistent with the observed universe, nothing else.
"So if someone wants to create a new Theory to replace an existing one, then it has to produce results that are either - at the very least - consistent with what the previous Theory produces (that is to say, its predictions for known values must match),"No*snip*
This is becoming repetitive so this will be my final comment on the topic. There is no requirement for a new theory to meet the predictions of any existing theory. It is only necessary for it to describe the universe more accurately.
It is not a requirement that any new theory is consistent with current theory, only that it is a better description of the universe.
"So if someone wants to create a new Theory to replace an existing one, then it has to produce results that are either - at the very least - consistent with what the previous Theory produces (that is to say, its predictions for known values must match),"No" or it must produce results that more accurately match observations than the previous Theory's results. "Yes
I disagree with meberbs comment in the above debate that, to slightly condense it: "new theories have to be consistent with what we already know. That means a new theory has to match conservation laws". I agree with SteveKelsey that conservation laws are not empirical data. Take, for example, heat. At first the generation of heat through friction seemed to break the conservation laws, until those laws were extended. QI suggests we need to extend the conservation laws to include information, and the data (eg QI predicts galaxy rotation) backs that addition.
The only important criterion for selecting theories is that they predict nature 'before the observations are made'.
However. GR does predict well at high acceleration and of course QI has to compete there as well, eg light bending by the Sun. I am working to see if QI also does that for a workshop in Prague, oddly enough.
“No theory exists that can make predictions without observational data on the system.”Politely disagree. Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter as a consequence of his proposed theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. ...
To quote meberbs "You claim to be disagreeing with me, but nothing you said actually disagrees with my point. You need conservation laws, no one said they have to look exactly the same"OK, we agree then. We can change the conservation laws.
"if there was ever any confusion about friction and thermal energy, it happened long enough ago that no one really cares anymore."I was trying to make a historical analogy, but you apparently don't like history. You should, because history provides real data on which scientific attitudes work and which don't.
"That is a terrible criteria"No, predictability is the best criteria we have. If science does not predict what we do not yet know then it is worthless.
"You can't predict the orbit of the moon around the Earth without first measuring the mass of the Earth"Most of your points are misunderstandings of what I am saying. I'm saying a theory should be able to predict observations before we have them. This means a theory should be able to predict the orbit of the Moon without us having to observe the orbit of the moon. Of course, we need to know some things such as the Earth's mass, but that is not what we are trying to predict!
"The only odd thing is how many years you have spent on your theory without doing such a basic test"I started out by focusing on the observations that physics could not predict, all of them at low accelerations, such as galaxy rotation. This is quite a normal empirical attitude, and I assumed that GR was still valid in high acceleration regimes for which the effect of QI are predicted to vanish. I am moving to the view that GR is wrong in principle even at high accelerations..
"You have yet to actually demonstrate that yours is useful"QI is already useful. It predicts galaxy rotation whereas no other theory can (without fudging). Of course, that use is quite academic I suppose, and QI is not yet directly useful in the sense that it can power a car or propel a spacecraft, but that is a future possibility.
I was asked to post the following link here as well, as it is relevant for this thread.QuoteFYIhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/334987450_A_sceptical_analysis_of_Quantized_Inertia
Also, I have had original article in my hand on QI superluminal travel and asked my opinion on it in JSE. Dr. McCulloch has put that QI implication even though he did not need to. Who would put FTL implication of his theory in its development? Also which journal would published such implication? This approach deserves to be researched further. In mainstream theories there are also issues. This framework deserves research!
It should be also noted that he was the reviewer of that paper, so if he wanted he could have reviewed it negatively (blocking the publication of this paper in that journal) or radically influence the content of the paper and its wording (that actually could have been good, as the paper includes two adjustments of the theory, which can influence it in special circumstances, but in the introduction section it says that it may invalidate the theory, which does not seem to be true, it is an exageration).
Quote from: Zlatan Stojanovic on 03/12/2020 06:27 amAlso, I have had original article in my hand on QI superluminal travel and asked my opinion on it in JSE. Dr. McCulloch has put that QI implication even though he did not need to. Who would put FTL implication of his theory in its development? Also which journal would published such implication? This approach deserves to be researched further. In mainstream theories there are also issues. This framework deserves research!Any honest scientist who actually has a theory that includes FTL would say so when they publish it, of course most would triple check their theory first as the presence of FTL likely means that it does not match reality. Certain forms of FTL could potentially exist, and it is known that GR allows for such (though generally in non-achievable situations) so journals would not necessarily reject a paper for this, if it was addressed in an appropriate manner. Of course in this case, as I mentioned up thread, McCulloch has been using a journal known to act as a predatory journal, probably having no peer review even if they claim to. Publishing in known predatory journals is not recommended, it is just a way to fund scammers.
as the presence of FTL likely means that it does not match reality.
Quote from: meberbs on 03/12/2020 03:31 pmOf course in this case, as I mentioned up thread, McCulloch has been using a journal known to act as a predatory journal, probably having no peer review even if they claim to. Publishing in known predatory journals is not recommended, it is just a way to fund scammers.One of the editors of that journal is Tajmar - you have some guts to call him a scammer.
Of course in this case, as I mentioned up thread, McCulloch has been using a journal known to act as a predatory journal, probably having no peer review even if they claim to. Publishing in known predatory journals is not recommended, it is just a way to fund scammers.
A known problem with modern scientific publishing is that there are a large number of predatory journals out there that take advantage of the pressure for academics to publish and charge high fees for publication, often not performing proper peer review even if they claim to. Someone went to the trouble to compile a list and it was no surprise to find the one you are using is one of them: https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
I did not say that they have formally that power, but they have that power in practice, because editors usually do not publish negatively reviewed papers. So as I said, if he wanted he could have blocked this publication in that journal by negatively reviewing it. He did not do that though.
He is aware, that he needs to implement some corrections:...He claims they do not invalidate QI:...
Quote from: meberbs on 03/12/2020 03:31 pmas the presence of FTL likely means that it does not match reality.I am not surprised that he derived non-locality because his theory has basics in QM and Casimir effect. I am proponent of the explanation of Casimir effect by van der Waals forces (e.g. Nikolic (2016) @ https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143) because it is from microscopic perspective and relativistic process. But when you apply uncertainty principle to photons, the locality should be violated at small distances, so I stay open. Zlatan
it absolutely is in the category of breaking causality.
Are you claiming that Tajmar is an editor for Trade Science Inc journals, the place McCulloch has published his papers? I have not seen a list of their editors, but I doubt that.
It does make sense to claim that the corrections are "untested" from his point of view, because he said in one of his tweets that if his theory is corrected with Rendo's corrections and it won't agree with data, then these corrections are wrong.
If his theory is wrong then why "the observed cut-off acceleration of galaxy rotation makes it obvious that quantised inertia is the cause. It's a smoking gun obvious to all who look at the data: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/a-smoking-gun-in-every-galaxy.html "
Does it get everything else in the Universe wrong?
His views on maths:]
Anyone who considers dark matter and dark energy as real things (despite them being only an ad-hoc hypothesis) is not serious, and therefore further discussion with such zealot is pointless, because nothing would change his/her mind.
Dark matter and dark energy are really a pseudoscience now. They only pretend it to be science, because this is their livelihood (sinecure).These "entities" have not been found despite decades of search and there is some evidence that falsifies dark matter:
So there is no reason to believe that they are real. If we assume that they are not real, then how long would you want to wait for a detection of non existing things? You have been already waiting for half a century, would 100 years suffice or 200 perhaps?