Quantized Inertia and problems with dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Freeze

Post Reply
Riley
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Quantized Inertia and problems with dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Freeze

Post by Riley » Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:05 pm



Someone recently shared with me the work of Dr. Mike McCulloch, a physicist who has proposed a fairly radical new understanding of physics. It's not like he's rewriting everything, but he does question a number very well established ideas, and for this he has been attacked by many in the scientific establishment for proposing this new theory, Modified Inertia from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC), better known by its simpler name: Quantized Inertia. Back in 2018 DARPA gave him $1.3 million to do more research on this, so clearly not everyone thinks he's crazy.

The details get pretty complex, of course, but the theory is supposed to explain certain things which have for many years posed a problem for physicists who assume that Einstein got everything right. Probably the best known problem is that of dark matter. Personally, the whole proposition of dark matter always seemed very dubious and unscientific to me, but it doesn't exist for no reason. Take a look at the figure below, which represents two galaxies:

Image

According to General Relativity, the orbits of stars in the galaxies should look more like the one on the left. However, what we see in reality is the figure on the right. The problem here is that, considering the significantly higher speed of rotation we see, General Relativity predicts that the stars should be flying out into deep space, but they are not. However, instead of questioning any aspect of GR itself, the scientific establishment has instead opted to assume that there must be more matter than we can see, a lot more in fact.

Similarly, dark energy is proposed to explain the observed expansion of the universe. Scientists expected to see that gravity would be slowing down the expansion of the universe, and for a time one of the leading hypotheses was that there would be a Big Crunch, where everything in the Cosmos would get pulled together by gravity, resulting in another Big Bang and an endless cycle. Now we have seen that the expansion is actually accelerating, not slowing down, at least as far as we can tell. Again, rather than questioning original assumptions, scientists just tossed in dark energy, despite not having any clue what "it" is, to explain the expansion against gravity. It's basically the science version of God of the Gaps. All in all proponents of dark matter and energy think that about 96% of the universe is completely invisible, with origins and makeup unknown.

The observed expansion is also why now a different hypothetical fate of the universe is the widely accepted one: heat death, the Big Freeze, an unstoppable death of not just biological life, but of everything in the universe. In this picture, the Cosmos will eventually become cold and dark forever, and there's nothing we can do but try not to think about our inevitable doom.

For the record, I believe dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Freeze are all loads of crap with very little sound basis in fact, certainly no more than many of the alternatives. I will wait and see what new findings are published by Dr. McCulloch on QI (his website is here: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/), as there are other alternative theories out there, but so far his seems like one of the better ones that at least explains galaxies better than the existence of magical invisible matter.

To be clear, my problem is less with the fact that these ideas are proposed and more with the fact that they are often defended dogmatically rather than scientifically, and I wonder how much it has to do with Jews in academia trying to protect the legacy of their precious Einstein. It's not to say he got everything wrong, but it would seem that he didn't have it as right as most people think.

Anyway, I haven't explained my problem with the Big Freeze. I'll admit I have a bias in that I don't want the Cosmos to die an eternal death, and it seems to pose a pretty difficult problem for the idea that we will continue on the upward path of evolution for eternity, but I wouldn't bring up my disagreement if I didn't have rational reasons to oppose it.

So, the idea of the Big Freeze is based on the idea of an isolated system. It basically just refers to a system which can't gain or lose energy or matter. In such a system, it is proposed that entropy, a measure of chaos and disorder, will always go to higher and higher levels, until it reaches a max where no more work can be done, and this state can never be reversed. If this concept can be applied to the universe (and that's a big "if"), then it will certainly end in a Big Freeze. Structures like solar systems and galaxies are the opposite of chaotic, after all, and so as time goes on the entropy of the Cosmos should increase, and all the galaxies should basically run out of steam, collapsing into black holes and such, never to return again.

The problem is that there is no experimental evidence of how a true isolated system (which the Cosmos presumably is) behaves, definitely not after trillions of years, and really, the concept of an isolated system is only meant to assist in describing the behavior of systems in relative isolation over minuscule periods of time, like one of the high tech thermoses scientists have built for research. For that purpose the concept is useful and the experiments hold up, but a true isolated system would mean actually taking that thermos completely out of the Cosmos itself, separating a part from the Whole. We have no way of running such an absurd experiment, and it's a massive leap in logic to assume that a thermos teleported outside of the Cosmos would simply be an even better thermos that follows all the same rules.

I asked on a physics forum for people to explain this assumption to me, and the best they could come up with is, "Well why wouldn't it behave that way?" I don't know, but the burden of proof is on the one proposing it would, no? I didn't stick around there long; those physicists were pretty condescending and seemed to think there was no need for such proof, so I didn't gain anything being there.

All that considered, I think the heat death hypothesis is an absolutely ridiculous and unscientific one, especially when you consider how widely it is promoted as if it were indisputable fact despite the lack of evidence. The scientific establishment can't even predict the spins of galaxies with existing theories, and they're spending millions of dollars looking for dark matter and energy, which for all the evidence we have after decades of research might as well be thought of as an invisible army of wizards.

I don't claim to have all the answers myself, I'm just saying that if you're making guesses about what's going to happen in trillions of years when your existing theories about current phenomena are leading you on absurdly expensive wild goose chases, maybe you ought to slow your roll and go back to the fundamentals, like Dr. McCulloch is doing.

User avatar
RCavallius
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:52 am
Contact:

Re: Quantized Inertia and problems with dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Freeze

Post by RCavallius » Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:15 pm

Thank you, Riley. Physics is one of my least favorite branches of science. I'm a lot more interested in anthropology, genetics, and so on, but I can see the value in your post and I appreciate it. I'm sure others here will, too.
H0216

Riley
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: Quantized Inertia and problems with dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Freeze

Post by Riley » Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:20 pm

RCavallius wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:15 pm
Thank you, Riley. Physics is one of my least favorite branches of science. I'm a lot more interested in anthropology, genetics, and so on, but I can see the value in your post and I appreciate it. I'm sure others here will, too.
Thanks :D

I was always interested in physics myself, but I can see why it wouldn't be super interesting to a lot of people, especially those who are simply more focused on subjects that have practical relevance to their lives. To that point, I got a lot more interested in human-focused fields like the ones you mention when I became more invested in the political situation.

I would say it is generally more beneficial for our people to have a decent understanding of certain areas in social science and biology. These fields are a fair bit more relevant to understanding the various aspects of the Cosmotheist worldview and our current situation than something like physics is. But that's probably a topic for another thread.

Riley
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:48 am

Re: Quantized Inertia and problems with dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Freeze

Post by Riley » Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:16 pm

I found this funny cartoon:

Image

And a more serious video about some relatively new research which seems to show that the expansion of the universe may not be accelerating after all:



In a nutshell, some researchers found evidence that the expansion of the universe does not appear to be the same in all directions, which is pretty much the whole basis of the dark energy hypothesis. If true, it would seem that there is simply no need to come up with something like dark energy to explain what we see.

Post Reply