I've suggested (& published in 21 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by horizons damping quantum fields. It predicts galaxy rotation & lab thrusts without any dark stuff or adjustment. My University webpage is here, I've written a book called Physics from the Edge and I'm on twitter as @memcculloch. Most of my content is at patreon now: here

Friday 10 April 2015

Abstract for NAM2015

Here's the abstact I recently submitted to the 'Cosmology Beyond the Standard Model' session of the UK's National Astronomy Meeting 2015 (NAM2015). Hopefully they'll accept it (they didn't) but, if not, it can have its day in the sun here:

Testing quantised inertia on cosmological scales
Mike McCulloch

The galaxy rotation problem and cosmic acceleration both occur in extremely low acceleration environments. It is shown that these anomalies can be explained by a model that assumes inertial mass is caused by the effect of horizons on Unruh radiation. The wavelengths of this radiation become longer for low accelerations so that a larger proportion of the radiation spectrum does not fit exactly within the Hubble horizon (and partial waves would allow us to infer what lies behind the horizons, which should not be allowed). This model (called Quantised Inertia or MiHsC) leads to a predicted new loss of inertia at very low accelerations and so predicts galaxy rotation and cosmic acceleration, and some other anomalies, without adjustable parameters. It also suggests a reason for the large-scale cosmic microwave background anomaly recently confirmed by the Planck satellite. The model needs to be tested more rigorously on the galactic scale, hence the need to present at NAM 2015 to make contacts to help with this.


Unknown said...


I suspect this might have major implications for your theory:


I've had some long term doubts about these techniques, especially in light of my efforts with distances to nearby stars.
Scary size errors creep in fast.

On another matter, 'Star Drive' at NSF posted links to some of the core papers used by the Eagleworks team. Doctor Rodal has made some comments on these.

Mike McCulloch said...

Re supernovae: Indeed. Will have to wait till they quantify the likely error in cosmic acceleration..

As for the NSF emdrive thread. I applaud the part of the NASA team's attitude of ignoring theory & following the data. However, from what I can see they have a complex computer code that they haven't published, they still don't compare it with all the experimental data & their explanation seems to depend on complex assumptions (higher dimensions & strings, but the details are hidden).

With MiHsC I've published it completely & openly, compared it with the data (with encouraging, not perfect, results) & it's a simple model with no adjustable parameters.

I wish others would also at least publish their maths, so a debate can be had in the light of day.

Unknown said...

Ok, been thinking about the distance issue. Galactic distances I don't know much about, but in the course of my project, I did make comparisons with other photometric systems.

The old line parallaxes the first photometric tables were based on were not very good. When I crosschecked a lot of those old photometric distances with Hip parallaxes, most of them were good to within 20% only about 1/3 to 1/2 the time.

I had to do my own calibration tables from scratch, using stars of the types I was interested in with Hip distances having error brackets of less than 5%. About a thousand, all told. Best I could manage was to get the distances within 20% about 75 - 80% of the time. Not sure what that comes out to systemic error wise, but a professional astronomer who critiqued an early version put the SE at 19%, and that was before I improved things.

I crosschecked those thousand stars against the work of two other professionals - Ammon's and Pickles.

In 2006, Ammon's (Photometry and Derived Parameters for all Tycho 2 Stars) did distances using Proper Motion as a proxy for magnitude. His distances for those thousand stars were good to within 20% about 41% of the time.

In 2010, Pickles (All Sky Spectrally Matched Tycho 2 stars) did distances using a 'synthetic spectral type library as a base. Those distances were good to within 20% about 37% of the time.

Now, these were for stars with good parallaxes, good proper motions, magnitudes, and spectral types.

Marsakov in 1995 (Ages, Metallicities, Galactic Orbits of F Stars) did distances to a couple hundred of the stars in my calibration tables. He impressed me, those distances were good to within 20% about 80% of the time, and 56% of those stars were within 10%, (versus 48% for me).
He had a claimed SE of 11%.

Weis in 1993 (Photometry of Vyssotsky Stars) matched that with K stars (and inspired my own efforts).

Very recently, RECONS used two photometric distance systems to determine distances to a large number of red dwarfs. These systems employed more than a dozen 'colors' each - and the SE for the best was still in excess of 15%. For the other, it was 25%.

Point is, these are nearby stars with well determined distances and other information, and the apparent best you can hope for with photometric schemes is to be accurate (sort of) about 80% of the time - which means you are way wrong 20% of the time.

And the supernova used to determine galactic level distances...much less well known, therefor, much higher chance of major distance errors...at least from where I'm standing.

Apologies for running on like that; for all I know you're written a book on the subject.

Unknown said...


A comment made by 'Star Drive' at NSF a week or so back:

***finally observed the first spacetime contraction effects that we are fairly confident are the real deal...the laser interferometer observed spacetime contractions are being developed in a TM010 RF resonant cavity that is driving ac E-field levels over 900kV/m at a 1.48 GHz rate.***

Doctor Rodal considers this to be of high importance.

Reminds me of the claims made by the space warp guy.

Thoughts or implications for your theory?

You really might end up having to track down that crazy engineer.

(At this rate, the NSF stuff is going to warrant its own book or dedicated website before much longer.)

qraal said...

FYI "Star Drive" at NSF is Paul March, one of the NASA Eagleworks researchers. His Nemesis is Ron Stahl, one of James Woodward's boosters, who hangs out at "Talk Polywell" and trashes the Eagleworks effort whenever he can. You're probably aware of Jim Woodward's theories of inertia, which involve gravitational back-reaction. Woodward's fans see the Zero-Point Field explanation for inertia as anti-thetical to their own [and I dare day they'd poo-poo your own view.]

Paul March, who works with Sonny White now and has worked for Woodward in the past, thinks we should let experiment lead and theory follow. Whether all three points of view can be reconciled will require a clever theorist and some clear experiments.

Mike McCulloch said...

I need to find out exactly what the warp expt has shown. MiHsC might explain it as a change of inertia in the cavity, but I need the numbers. Like you, I suspect all these groups r seeing bits of the same new physics. Of course, I'd say it's MiHsC, which has explained so much else, but Paul March is right that the data is the thing & I applaud him for releasing some of it on the NSF. I'll stay focused on the numbers.

Unknown said...

Yes, I am aware of 'Star Drives' alter ego as 'Paul March.' And as to the feud with Ron Stahl - that was directly connected with the first EM Drive thread at NSF being shut down.

Unknown said...

I believe I have solved the problem of the rotation curves with just Newton and the solution to the many body problem in a real-time computer algorithm. http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/summary%20of%20rotation%20curves%20of%20galaxies.htm

The algorithm is free to download on the website.

The answer in brief is that spiral galaxies have two centers of gravity