Quantized Inertia

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,707
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x3ed9/darpa-is-researching-quantized-inertia-a-theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) recently awarded a $1.3 million contract to an international team of researchers to study quantized inertia, a controversial theory that some physicists dismiss as pseudoscience.

Quantized inertia (QI) is an alternative theory of inertia, a property of matter that describes an object’s resistance to acceleration. QI was first proposed by University of Plymouth physicist Mike McCulloch in 2007, but it is still considered a fringe theory by many, if not most, physicists today. McCulloch has used the theory to explain galactic rotation speeds without the need for dark matter, but he believes it may one day provide the foundation for launching space vehicles without fuel.
...
“The time-varying inertia allows the EmDrive to accelerate,” Koberlein said in his appraisal of McCulloch’s paper about QI. “The idea not only violates Newton’s third law of motion, it violates special relativity, general relativity, and Noether’s theorem. Since these are each well-tested theories that form the basis of countless other theories, their violation would completely overturn all of modern physics.”
Time to put up or shut up.
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
If inertia is defined as resisting acceleration.......then there are many kinds of inertia. But I do think that certain inertias can be reduced, maybe eliminated.........by applying an alternating perpendicular acceleration at the correct rate and angle. If one double rubs the inertia the correct way.......it should glide on the result without resistance.

The perpendicular spin of matter, is the cause of inertia. Those spins are quantized, but the reactive effect of those spins and response is not. It's proportional and also depends on relative angle. Rotations have angle and direction.......inertia should have the same.

Speaking of gravity puzzles........what would the gravity gradient of the radius of the earth look like? There is a gravity gradient between the surface and a satellite. Would that gradient continue down a radius bore hole? How far? All the way?

Is the densest area and the strongest gravity at the center, or at a region somewhere between center and surface? If I descend below that point, will the center direction repel me? Pulled back out to higher density above me?

How far into a galaxy can one go....before there is more mass behind you, than in front of you. Add to that the delays of influence, due to distance. The movement is caused by old forces...which means the forces are not equal to the observed distances. We can't see the locations of the forces working now. It's not surprising to me that the galactic movement is puzzling. Try all you want......you can not relate time stamps. Matter has to exist at the same time....to interact. Star A interacts with star B. Really........when? Where do they interact? At what location and what star stage did they interact? At what distance and direction did they interact? What new directions were the result? If we notice a common effect of different time stamps.......wouldn't that indicate that our movement is affecting the measurement? Astronomy is like psychiatry.....no physical basics for it. We can't even measure a base line for a parallax result.

We can see and measure center of mass. But can we plot the earth's or a galaxy's center of gravity? Isn't that assumption just for convenience? The gravity ring area of a galaxy is in rotation and constantly changing.

How bout a spherical gravity structure within the earth? Possible? Not possible? What would the gravity be at dead center? What of pressure? Temp? No one knows.

We still have no idea for gravity.
Only a new theory and understanding of gravity will resolve the galaxy rotation puzzle.

As for that current EM drive........na. But we might venturi on separated solar particle flux.
 

AlbertHall

Joined Jun 4, 2014
9,009
Is the densest area and the strongest gravity at the center, or at a region somewhere between center and surface? If I descend below that point, will the center direction repel me? Pulled back out to higher density above me?
At the centre of the Earth there is no gravity. All the volume of the earth pulls equally in all directions and therefore cancel out resultng in no net force.
At the surface of the earth the whole volume has a component pulling downwards and so this gives maximum gravity.
A little way below the surface some part of that volume has a component pulling upwards and cancels some of the downwards force from the rest of the Earth.
 

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
695
It is often said that classical ("Newtonian") mechanics is actually the result of the effect of the quantum mechanics of all the micro-nanoscopic particles in an object and it's no surprise that inertia is being attributed to a quantum level phenomenon.

As for DARPA's contract to study quantum inertia and it's supposed application to launching space vehicles without any fuel, it's just more government money and "pork" going to a politically connected group of researchers and all it will do is drive up the cost of housing.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,707
Looks like another 'reactionless rocket' theory to me. It suffers from the usual conservation of momentum problems that lead directly to a perpetual motions machine if the thrust is greater than a photon rocket.


That's another impossible thing to believe before breakfast.
 

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
695
Reminds me of that so called "Cold Fusion" discovery back in the 80s. In fact, the Defense Department considered funding research into cold fusion, but dumped the idea after it was determined that the process was technological equivalent of a practical joke:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

I'm surprised that anyone would fund a study of quantized inertia, but DARPA is well known for doling out big $$$ for useless research.
 
Last edited:

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
Some think the earth's gravity gradient is something like this.

The-gravity-at-different-depths-in-the-Earths-interior.png

Imagine dividing the earth into several thousand spokes. Each spoke would have that very similar slope or profile.

What about the spokes of a galaxy? Each spoke would be a different profile slope. Imagine all the light dots of the galaxy were actually there at the same time. The sparse and uneven density would give you singular spoke profiles. If there are that many changing gravity profiles......during rotation.....what would you expect?

One can not see real time light dots. Our closest one could have exploded 5 min. ago........and you would not know it for another 3 min.

Pick any two lights dots close together. Did both of those dots emit at the same time? The dots were seen at the same time, but were the rays sent at the same time? Did they have to be sent at same time to be seen at same time? Do those dots need to be there now?....for us to see them? Do the dots need have have a common existence time....for us to see them? Because we see them together......does that mean they are interacting?

IS IT POSSIBLE TO ESTIMATE GALACTIC MASS OR POPULATION WITH LIGHT DOTS? Who's the crackpot?

A star field is an accumulation of mass over time, a time stamp collage, not a one time image of real time mass. It's not a picture of marbles in play, it's a picture of all plays of marbles. It's like trying to review 12 baseball games at the same time on same field. It will not make sense. The observed interaction will not match up.

It's like the social sciences. No real actual relationships. An illusion, with modern scientific credibility.
 

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,707
Some think the earth's gravity gradient is something like this.
Some think the earth is flat, big deal what people think. Show me just a tiny bit of physical evidence you can produce thrust. Hopefully DARPA can do that.
 

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,707
Do you think they can?
Very unlikely but their job is to explore fringe and exotic science.

https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/DARAPA60_publication-no-ads.pdf

http://www.oriondrive.com/
Project Orion was a US project to develop a spacecraft powered by nuclear explosions. Although it may sound implausible at first glance, research carried out by leading scientists and engineers of the day, including Freeman Dyson, indicated that such a project was not only feasible but would vastly outperform any chemical rocket system ever developed or even conceived - including Saturn V (used in the Apollo program), the Space Shuttle, and the new Ares system which is still under development (the crew module for Ares is also known as "Orion", but it is unrelated to the original Project Orion).
 
Last edited:

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
I don't believe we'll get much thrust from EM. If we could corral the charge that's there in space......we might use a small portion for electric power, and the majority for thrust mass. We could generate anti matter.....rectify gamma EM and then generate acceleration EM for the thrust mass.

One might need a variable, large lasso for different space areas. I think we could have developed anti matter generators and gamma rectifiers for a fraction of what CERN cost.

For serious space travel....we need to live off the land.....just like all trailblazers have.
 
Last edited:
If inertia is defined as resisting acceleration.......then there are many kinds of inertia. But I do think that certain inertias can be reduced, maybe eliminated.........by applying an alternating perpendicular acceleration at the correct rate and angle. If one double rubs the inertia the correct way.......it should glide on the result without resistance.

The perpendicular spin of matter, is the cause of inertia. Those spins are quantized, but the reactive effect of those spins and response is not. It's proportional and also depends on relative angle. Rotations have angle and direction.......inertia should have the same.

Speaking of gravity puzzles........what would the gravity gradient of the radius of the earth look like? There is a gravity gradient between the surface and a satellite. Would that gradient continue down a radius bore hole? How far? All the way?

Is the densest area and the strongest gravity at the center, or at a region somewhere between center and surface? If I descend below that point, will the center direction repel me? Pulled back out to higher density above me?

How far into a galaxy can one go....before there is more mass behind you, than in front of you. Add to that the delays of influence, due to distance. The movement is caused by old forces...which means the forces are not equal to the observed distances. We can't see the locations of the forces working now. It's not surprising to me that the galactic movement is puzzling. Try all you want......you can not relate time stamps. Matter has to exist at the same time....to interact. Star A interacts with star B. Really........when? Where do they interact? At what location and what star stage did they interact? At what distance and direction did they interact? What new directions were the result? If we notice a common effect of different time stamps.......wouldn't that indicate that our movement is affecting the measurement? Astronomy is like psychiatry.....no physical basics for it. We can't even measure a base line for a parallax result.

We can see and measure center of mass. But can we plot the earth's or a galaxy's center of gravity? Isn't that assumption just for convenience? The gravity ring area of a galaxy is in rotation and constantly changing.

How bout a spherical gravity structure within the earth? Possible? Not possible? What would the gravity be at dead center? What of pressure? Temp? No one knows. I love researching this kind of stuff. Also, I have some publications at https://edubirdie.com/college-papers-for-sale. My colleagues order here writing services, because they just can't write so clearly.

We still have no idea for gravity.
Only a new theory and understanding of gravity will resolve the galaxy rotation puzzle.

As for that current EM drive........na. But we might venturi on separated solar particle flux.
Thanks. Is there any illustration of that you described in the first paragraph?
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
6,949

Hello there,

I had posed a similar question back in the 1980's when i had discussions about this stuff with various people i worked with so i am really really happy to see this FINALLY start to be thought about with some seriousness.
The reason i was thinking about this is because for one thing i did not believe that the current definition of inertia was sufficient to explain how things moved. This is similar to how scientists think about mostly still objects and their quantum descriptions. However, i was not pushing for a quantum description as much as a classical description. The classical description would be one of mechanics. That is, the classical mechanical description of why inertia exists. Let me try to explain first the reason for even thinking about this.

Like all things in nature we tend to try to break them down and understand them. For mostly still objects we've gotten as far as a quantum description which basically says that there is a limit to the minimum size of constituent particles that make up everything that exits. That came about because we looked at smaller and smaller samples of objects in nature. But that thought process came about because we realized we didnt know everything yet and when we went deeper we found more and more. That can be said to have come about because we only took a superficial look at things to begin with, then started asking more questions. This might seem like a trivial view but read on.

If you look at the basic definition of inertia you'll see that it is nothing more than a superficial description of an observation. "I saw something move therefore it moved." Does that help? Yes, it does in many circumstances but if we want to know why it moved that way that's not enough.

The first idea i had, and this is NOT meant to be a true solution, was that the electron orbits changed shape. This is probably not right, but it's a step in the right direction i think where we want to start to think about the underlying mechanics behind inertia. We know that it would require a force to change an objects trajectory, but we dont really know why it does not change without that extra force. Note the operative word here, "why". There are various mathematical descriptions that help us deal with this, but none that address the issue directly. The description for why it does not change so far is, "That's just the way things behave.". So my question is, does anything about the object itself change internally that we did not measure previously.

You guys might have some other ideas which would be good to hear about. I think there are other ideas being talked about too in physics.
 
Top