Tom Von Flandern also addressed the star orbit speed anomaly in his book “Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets.’ (still available on Amazon). He also developed a scientific model to explain—he called it the Meta Model. Some of what he said looks similar to McCulloch’s view (which I haven’t read yet). But Von Flandern has a simpler explanation for the star orbit problem. He hypothesized that gravitational effects are of finite extent. Some stars are outside the reach of the gravitational field of the galaxy core.
That makes sense to me. Shouldn’t we first determine whether gravitational fields are infinite before moving on to all this speculation and “dark matter?”
Thanks for pointing this out. I’ll give it a read.
Here’s what I’ve found to be the best way to visualize QI.
To start with, both Gravity and Inertia are the same force, applied from different sources. And our current understanding of gravity is completely inverted. Gravity doesn’t pull, it pushes.
Picture a sphere, expanding outwards at a constant speed. That’s the observable universe. In the center is a particle. So long as that particle is at rest, it’s observable universe is a perfect sphere.
The observable universe is simply that part of the universe that light has had sufficient time to reach us. So in a perfect sphere around that particle, there is radiation coming from every direction and, critically, it is being CANCELLED OUT by an equivalent wavelength from the opposite direction. Those wavelengths can be any size that can fit within the observable universe, from the Planck scale to the Hubble.
If that particle accelerates in any direction, then the light from behind it has to travel further to catch up. The photons that started out the furthest away simply can’t, which causes the Rindler Horizon to form behind the particle. So our particle is no longer in a perfect sphere of a universe. There’s now a fraction of the wavelengths coming from in front that aren’t being cancelled out by the equivalent wavelengths that can no longer reach from behind. That radiation pressure produces the force of Inertia, the equal and opposite force.
For Gravity, take that same particle at rest, and put another object anywhere near it. That object is now blocking some of the wavelengths from behind it, and our particle is also blocking some wavelengths from reaching the object. So radiation pressure from either side pushes the two together.
Instead of a rubber sheet of space time with different heavy balls, picture a circular neon light around a bunch of glass marbles of different sizes and transparency. The denser the marbles, the less transparent. The shadows between them are the gravitational effects.
Regarding the chart above: It shows an accelerating particle as always going faster than expected, in accordance with its speed. Thus, a slowly moving particle will be accelerated a little, a fast moving particle will be accelerated by a lot. This is, I believe, the opposite of the author's intent. Not to mention a violation of the laws of the conservation of momentum and energy, in addition to observation.
I believe the main problem is that the Rindler horizon is, despite the appearance of the chart, always infinitely distant (except for photons, of course, which exist nowhere except the horizon).
Not quite. A Rindler horizon is the distance behind an ACCELERATING object that something traveling at light speed could have caught up to it from. If an object is accelerating, then there would be a difference between the horizon of the observable universe and the horizon where light could have caught up with the object’s new position.
Has Mr McCulloch falsified Einstein's GR and Newton's #2 with an new mathematical explanation of the 51 anomalies? It it only Dark Matter that save GR? Has McCulloch explained all those anomalies?
All good questions. I don't think he's necessarily falsified GR. He's offered an intriguing hypothesis that might be a good explanation for the anomalies. GR is another interesting question. It is an elegant solution to a variety of observational problems, but I don't believe it's the only plausible answer.
Silvano Borruso - (1935-2022) who had a degree in Agricultural Science and spent most of his life teaching in Kenya - published a fascinating short paper (9 pages) about 10 years ago entitled "Classical Physics Revised and unified", in which he took Newton to task for ignoring friction (giving rise to two separate laws of motion). Borruso would say both steady state and accelerated motions should be dealt with as special cases of a fundamental "dimension", which is "motion" [which has no units, but forms a coherent definition].
He then goes on to develop a startling view of a truly Unified Philosophy of what we call Physics by recasting our view of the universe in terms of "matter" [the sum of all that exists (including "space")] and "time" [the sum total of all changes] rather than "space" (as distinct from matter) and "time" (as duration only).
I haven't been able to locate a web source for the paper, but can provide a pdf if you want to contact me directly via direct message.
I honestly don't understand most of this but I've always thought "dark matter" a total cop out. It's like the economists when they say "imagine a hammer". No. If I need a hammer I can't imagine it into existence. Dark matter is just a placeholder for "we don't know" so it's good to see that there is real science being done to push the boundaries even if it takes a generation for the normies to pick it up. This idea that the gravitational constant is not actually constant comports with other assertions about constants such as the speed of light which apparently isn't as constant as constant would suggest. The only way we will move forward is via unorthodox thinking and too many scientists today seem more interested in agreeing with each other than questioning fundamentals and - heaven forbid - having to deal with submental mockery. Pethaps it was always thus.
Tom Von Flandern also addressed the star orbit speed anomaly in his book “Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets.’ (still available on Amazon). He also developed a scientific model to explain—he called it the Meta Model. Some of what he said looks similar to McCulloch’s view (which I haven’t read yet). But Von Flandern has a simpler explanation for the star orbit problem. He hypothesized that gravitational effects are of finite extent. Some stars are outside the reach of the gravitational field of the galaxy core.
That makes sense to me. Shouldn’t we first determine whether gravitational fields are infinite before moving on to all this speculation and “dark matter?”
Thanks for pointing this out. I’ll give it a read.
Lots of possible explanations. Very few of which require “dark matter.”
This is curious. I tried to post this review to Amazon and it was rejected for violating "Community Standards."
Here’s what I’ve found to be the best way to visualize QI.
To start with, both Gravity and Inertia are the same force, applied from different sources. And our current understanding of gravity is completely inverted. Gravity doesn’t pull, it pushes.
Picture a sphere, expanding outwards at a constant speed. That’s the observable universe. In the center is a particle. So long as that particle is at rest, it’s observable universe is a perfect sphere.
The observable universe is simply that part of the universe that light has had sufficient time to reach us. So in a perfect sphere around that particle, there is radiation coming from every direction and, critically, it is being CANCELLED OUT by an equivalent wavelength from the opposite direction. Those wavelengths can be any size that can fit within the observable universe, from the Planck scale to the Hubble.
If that particle accelerates in any direction, then the light from behind it has to travel further to catch up. The photons that started out the furthest away simply can’t, which causes the Rindler Horizon to form behind the particle. So our particle is no longer in a perfect sphere of a universe. There’s now a fraction of the wavelengths coming from in front that aren’t being cancelled out by the equivalent wavelengths that can no longer reach from behind. That radiation pressure produces the force of Inertia, the equal and opposite force.
For Gravity, take that same particle at rest, and put another object anywhere near it. That object is now blocking some of the wavelengths from behind it, and our particle is also blocking some wavelengths from reaching the object. So radiation pressure from either side pushes the two together.
Instead of a rubber sheet of space time with different heavy balls, picture a circular neon light around a bunch of glass marbles of different sizes and transparency. The denser the marbles, the less transparent. The shadows between them are the gravitational effects.
I am SO glad that you found QI. I’ve been following Dr McCulloch since 2017.
I am not familiar with Rindler's horizon, and it seems a pretty mind bending idea.
Can you comment on how well this video deals with it? https://youtu.be/Otp-eBHLJzQ
That's a fascinating video. Not my area, but it seems accurate.
Regarding the chart above: It shows an accelerating particle as always going faster than expected, in accordance with its speed. Thus, a slowly moving particle will be accelerated a little, a fast moving particle will be accelerated by a lot. This is, I believe, the opposite of the author's intent. Not to mention a violation of the laws of the conservation of momentum and energy, in addition to observation.
I believe the main problem is that the Rindler horizon is, despite the appearance of the chart, always infinitely distant (except for photons, of course, which exist nowhere except the horizon).
Not quite. A Rindler horizon is the distance behind an ACCELERATING object that something traveling at light speed could have caught up to it from. If an object is accelerating, then there would be a difference between the horizon of the observable universe and the horizon where light could have caught up with the object’s new position.
Has Mr McCulloch falsified Einstein's GR and Newton's #2 with an new mathematical explanation of the 51 anomalies? It it only Dark Matter that save GR? Has McCulloch explained all those anomalies?
At what point does GR get pitched?
Great post thanks
All good questions. I don't think he's necessarily falsified GR. He's offered an intriguing hypothesis that might be a good explanation for the anomalies. GR is another interesting question. It is an elegant solution to a variety of observational problems, but I don't believe it's the only plausible answer.
Silvano Borruso - (1935-2022) who had a degree in Agricultural Science and spent most of his life teaching in Kenya - published a fascinating short paper (9 pages) about 10 years ago entitled "Classical Physics Revised and unified", in which he took Newton to task for ignoring friction (giving rise to two separate laws of motion). Borruso would say both steady state and accelerated motions should be dealt with as special cases of a fundamental "dimension", which is "motion" [which has no units, but forms a coherent definition].
He then goes on to develop a startling view of a truly Unified Philosophy of what we call Physics by recasting our view of the universe in terms of "matter" [the sum of all that exists (including "space")] and "time" [the sum total of all changes] rather than "space" (as distinct from matter) and "time" (as duration only).
I haven't been able to locate a web source for the paper, but can provide a pdf if you want to contact me directly via direct message.
I honestly don't understand most of this but I've always thought "dark matter" a total cop out. It's like the economists when they say "imagine a hammer". No. If I need a hammer I can't imagine it into existence. Dark matter is just a placeholder for "we don't know" so it's good to see that there is real science being done to push the boundaries even if it takes a generation for the normies to pick it up. This idea that the gravitational constant is not actually constant comports with other assertions about constants such as the speed of light which apparently isn't as constant as constant would suggest. The only way we will move forward is via unorthodox thinking and too many scientists today seem more interested in agreeing with each other than questioning fundamentals and - heaven forbid - having to deal with submental mockery. Pethaps it was always thus.
Thanks Hans.