Quantized Inertia


What is the mathematical basis of the theory, and how does it fall short in explaining the origin of inertia and the apparent effects of dark matter and dark energy, so significantly that some consider it pseudoscience?

In: Physics

I’m just a graduate in physics, but from my understanding, the reason its classed as pseudoscience, rather unfairly by some is its connection with the EM drive that many have already dismissed as pseudoscience, this is popular opinion (not scientific opinion). Mike has now release several alternate methods of deriving QI which strengthens his case, i like his information theory derivations. Inertia as an aspect of physics hasn’t really received much attention at all through scientific theories, outside of the equivalence principle, bar QI and similar derivatives, there is no current explanation for what the mechanisms behind inertia actually are. regarding dark matter and dark energy, these concepts are mass and energy gaps between what we see in real life, vs our current model of physics are. in QI as inertia breaks the equivalence principle, with possible verifiable experiments to be conducted it remodels the rest of our theories to align models with the actual data without the need for anything dark, doing so elegantly without any adjustable variables like every single dark matter model ever. the theory is testable and is being tested and peer reviewed, it is fringe physics and by no means pseudo, any physicist that calls it pseudo should no longer be called a physicist. the same people who call this kind of science pseudoscience, would have found themselves a fantastic home in church’s of the 15th century.

Who says it is psuedoscience? It better fits the observations regarding the outer arms of galaxies and wide binaries. Also it is testable and if correct will lead to interstellar space travel and abundant clean energy.