Superluminal Travel from Quantised Inertia

[cvbn]

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!

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.

One of the editors of that journal is Tajmar - you have some guts to call him a scammer.

[Zlatan Stojanovic]

as 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

[meberbs]

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.

One of the editors of that journal is Tajmar - you have some guts to call him a scammer.

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. I am not the one who originally identified it as predatory, I just found a list:

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 didn't actively do something extremely dishonest" is not high praise. If he had any criticisms of the paper he should have shared them during peer review, that is what it is for. Corrections during peer review are expected, not automatic rejection.

He is aware, that he needs to implement some corrections:
...
He claims they do not invalidate QI:...

Those tweets do not give me confidence that he actually understands the conclusion of the paper. It doesn't even make sense to claim that the corrections are "untested." They are corrections of significant mathematical flaws in his theory, and contradict things he has been claiming as fundamental results. His theory itself already has been experimentally disproven. This would be a great chance for him to reset, throw out all of his old predictions and start over with something that has a non zero chance of matching reality, but I get the impression he has no intention of doing so.

[meberbs]

as 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

Quantum non-locality has special caveats that prevent it from being "true" FTL. McCulloch's replies in this thread make it clear that his FTL is frame independent, which means it absolutely is in the category of breaking causality. He is clearly not talking about quantum effects, but actual FTL motion of real particles.

[Zlatan Stojanovic]

 

it absolutely is in the category of breaking causality.

Yes. So far all his theory achievements fall with this implication. Even with his shift to information theory I do not see how he could handle this problem, but I will continue to follow his research.

Zlatan

[cvbn]

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.

Yes, Tajmar is an editor of the Journal of Space Exploration:
https://www.tsijournals.com/journals/journal-of-space-exploration-editors.html

I believe that McCulloch shared his criticism during peer review, although perhaps not sufficiently IMHO.

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.

[meberbs]

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.

That statement is simply untrue. His theory is wrong today, both because of these corrections not being present, and because it does not match experimental data. (I have listed other issues in this thread that have not been addressed as well.)

If his theory does not match experimental data when the corrections are applied, it does not mean that the corrections are wrong, it means that his theory is wrong. Concluding that the corrections are wrong is only possible by pointing out errors in the math of the corrections.

[cvbn]

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 "
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1236339527779827714

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1185567678003662848

His views on maths:

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1219317672862736389
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1237287901995700224
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1146484641903386624

[RotoSequence]

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 "

Physics is a graveyard of models that can describe one phenomenon while getting everything else in the universe wrong. If the model explains one thing but requires physically and observationally false descriptions of reality to work, the model is inadequate. Confident assertions are not facts.

[cvbn]

Does it get everything else in the Universe wrong?

[RotoSequence]

Does it get everything else in the Universe wrong?

Frame independent theories may as well have; reference frames are an experimental fact.

[meberbs]

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 "

Because that is nothing but a meaningless and unscientific assertion. It doesn't matter if QI fits that data, because so does lambda-CDM. His theory is wrong because it can't predict the lack of the Pioneer Anomaly. (He hasn't actually shown whether it matches for many other important tests, but that is irrelevant at this point.)

His views on maths:]

That first quote he is arguing against Galileo. One of these people is more generally respected than the other.

While it is important to keep in mind that math is just a tool, it is not just "invented," there are things about it that are very fundamental. Making arguments like in those tweets is something I have seen when someone doesn't like that math can be used to undeniably prove fundamental flaws in their pet "theory."

[cvbn]

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1238392132865572864

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1238459942136356865

[meberbs]

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1238392132865572864

This is simply a lie. As he very well should know, the standard model in cosmology lambda-CDM does in fact describe things like dark matter and dark energy without conflict with observation. There are still things to learn about dark matter and a lot about dark energy, but his assertions that the standard model is falsified are simply baseless and wrong.

Meanwhile he just ignores that QI does not correctly predict the observed behavior of the Pioneer spacecraft, has not been compared with standard tests of GR, and cannot even be said to describe the behavior of balls on a pool table due to the lack of any consistent definition of basic conservation laws.

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1238459942136356865

The user who provided a partial quote of my post blatantly misrepresented what I said. I was obviously not denying the experimental data, but rather the absurd assertion that it somehow proves QI, despite the fact that galaxy rotation curves are perfectly well predicted by lambda-CDM. Given this fact, it is simply unscientific to assert that "QI is the cause." It is equivalent logic to "the sky is blue" +"blueberries are blue" = "The sky is made of blueberries."

[cvbn]

Anyone who considers dark matter and dark energy as being real things (despite them being only an ad-hoc hypothesis) is not being serious, therefore further discussion with such zealot is pointless, because nothing would change his/her mind.

[meberbs]

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 energy is basically a place holder, a single variable in GR in a spot where Einstein himself thought there may be a free parameter (and then rejected, as his original reasoning for it existing was not good or supported by data unlike dark energy.) Dark matter is way more detailed than that and explains much more than just galactic rotation curves. (For example gravitational lensing using galaxies)

Anyone who outright rejects hypotheses without even properly understanding what they are, and calls entire groups of scientists "zealots" (as you just did with astronomers and astrophysicists) clearly has no interest in or understanding of anything related to science.

[cvbn]

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:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html
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?

[meberbs]

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:

The only thing you just proved is your ignorance. There is no reason to expect dark matter to be detectable other than through gravitational effects, so a lack of detection says nothing. That part about livelihood possibly explains McCulloch's behavior, but astronomers and astrophysicists would have MORE work to do and research to perform if some theory like QI was shown to be useful, making assertions like yours here self-defeating. It doesn't stop similar statements coming from every crackpot with a perpetual motion machine though.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html

That blog does not provide actual evidence, it provides handwaving assertions, bad logic and otherwise incorrect statements some of which have already been addressed hear such as the incorrect claim about wide binaries.

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?

No reason except for the fact that lambda-CDM fits the data, and despite years of supposedly working on it, McCulloch has failed to show that his theory is applicable anywhere outside of very specific cases, or address fundamental problems with it as I have described in this thread. On the other hand, a variety of types of observations such as gravitational lensing support the existence of dark matter. More evidence isn't really needed, though it would be nice to be able to point to a box filled with dark matter, its known properties are such that such a thing may forever be out of human capability, but that is no reason to deny the existing evidence. So how long are you going to continue to zealously defend the lone person yelling on twitter about how scientists are in some sort of massive conspiracy against him, when he can't even demonstrate his theory passing widely accepted basic tests of matching reality?