"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).