Dark Matter Theory Versus Quantized Inertia Theory

by

Here is a summary of Dark Matter theory and its evidence versus quantized inertia theory and its evidence.

Dark Matter Theory:

  1. Gravitational Effects:
  2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):
  3. Large-Scale Structure Formation:
  4. Gravitational Lensing:
  5. Galaxy Cluster Dynamics:

Quantized Inertia Theory:

  1. Unruh Radiation:
  2. Inertia:
  3. Experimental Predictions:
  4. Alternative Explanation:

Gravitational Lensing without Dark Matter

QI theorists contend that the modification of inertia due to Unruh radiation can explain the bending of light in gravitational lensing events. They argue that the observed lensing effects are a result of the modified gravitational interaction at very low accelerations, without the necessity for the presence of dark matter.

14 thoughts on “Dark Matter Theory Versus Quantized Inertia Theory”

  1. There is no scientific justification for the existence of dark matter or more to the point what dark matter is. Quantized inertial matter is a more viable or plausible in explaining the CMB. Whereas dark matter is not a sustainable explanation and should be discounted in its entirety.

  2. Best theory I saw so far, back when I was investigating MOND, wish I had the reference, suggested that dark matter was extremely stable, perhaps making normal matter the flawed leftovers from the processes where dark matter was created.

    Normal matter baryons are characterized as having 2 up quarks (+2/3 charges) and 1 down quark (-1/3 charge). potentially making them somewhat asynchronous in space-time, and permitting significant deformation, which would be required for acceleration (which means deceleration as well). Dark matter baryons might have, for example 4 up quarks 2 down quarks, but with an even division of positive and negative spin quarks, for an overall 0 spin, like a Higg’s particle. Or it could be more complex still. So long as it is arranged in such a way as to be very stable, meaning that it would have minimal interactions with any force other than gravity.

    Since it does not interact much with the electromagnetic force, it cannot absorb or release much in the way of energy, making it difficult to accelerate. This means it wouldn’t even be able to approach too closely to another source of gravity as it would have to give off heat to do so.

    Consequently, it would be attracted by gravity from a distance but, as it approaches a gradient in space-time (such as a gravity well around planet or even another dark matter particle, it cannot approach too closely and thereby appears to be repulsed at shorter range, preventing dark matter clouds from clumping or even getting too close to stars and planets and such, while still being attracted to them (and vice versa) from a distance. So it forms no dark matter planets or stars (nor can it be a part of any normal matter hybrids).

    And of course, if the normal matter it has collected around, such as a galaxy, gets too sharply accelerated, especially along a new path, the dark matter cannot be accelerated sufficiently to keep up and there is solid evidence that this can and does happen.

    • My brain on vacation, the quarks would include sufficient anti-quarks, as well as negative spins, such that there the overall charge would be neutral as well as the spin.

  3. IMO, Quantized Inertia is a very elegant combination of proven theories (Rindler, Unruh, Casimir, etc) and is a MUCH more testable option to “Dark Matter”, which – to be honest – is just a mathematical fudge.

    Observer: “The answer is 24, but we only observe 2 and 4”
    Scientists: “So then the equation must be 2 + 4 + Dark Matter = 24…just scatter some of it within the galaxy at precisely the correct location to make the rotation work”

    http://www.quantizedinertia.com

  4. Dark matter is nothing more than space dust… Nothing complex or mysterious. Just non-refractive particulates…

  5. The Galileo affair (Italian: il processo a Galileo Galilei) began around 1610 and culminated with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. Galileo was prosecuted for his support of heliocentrism, the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the centre of the universe.

    Galileo dared to hypothesize that the earth revolved around the sun, in contradiction with the theological belief that everything revolved around earth. The flat earth theory espoused by the church of the day has since been proven false by factual experiment many times over.

    What we can learn from this is that science isn’t static. It can always be challenged, and through experiment if the challenge provides a more accurate representation of observation, then the “old science” gets tossed. The idea of consensus as science without experimental fact is pure junk science in the realm of the Catholic flat earthists of the 17th century. We hypothesize, we experiment, we validate or disprove; that is the scientific method. Nothing is sacred and immune from challenge. The proof is in the repeatable experiment.

    • Your entire comment represents one of the oldest, most widely cited, and deeply entrenched pieces of ‘fake news’ in all of history.

      First, precisely _no one_ of any learning proposed a flat Earth at the time. No one. The controversy was whether the Earth revolved around the sun.

      Second, there was a competing theory at the time – not condemned by the Church – which explained Galileo’s findings equally well; that of Tycho Brahe, which proposed that the Sun orbited the Earth, and all other planets orbited the Sun. As the controversy predated Newton, and Galileo presented no( valid) evidence to distinguish between the two, one can hardly blame the Church for not endorsing Galileo’s theory.

      Finally, and most importantly, Galileo’s initial reception by the _clergy_ was quite warm – including by the pope himself. It was only after Galileo published a

      • It was only after Galileo published a pamphlet that portrayed the Pope in a rather mocking light for his failure to completely side with Galileo against all other theories that the Church allowed itself to persuaded by the _academics_ of their day that Galileo should stand trial as a heretic. Quite a different – and in many ways, the opposite – story to what is commonly believed.

  6. So in your opinion are there serious QI theorists or is this just an outgrowth of EM Drive stuff and largely considered pseudo science by most Physicists?

    • IVO has recently launched a cube-sat with a QI drive and will begin testing soon. If the correct thrust vector is observed, then this will be a GREAT achievement for QI.

    • The QI theorists are completely serious, and most physicists probably consider it pseudoscience anyway, because one of the results is that we can construct a propelantless drive. Just from that most physicists would be skeptic enough not to bother sitting for a week trying to unravel the maths.

      Now, whether there is something to it or not, that’s another story completely.

Comments are closed.