David Vokrouhlický

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch If your lensing equation has a testable Δ, that's a new prediction, not 'the same math.' But new theories win by explaining existing empirical anomalies. Until data forces Δ > 0, Occam’s Razor cuts away the extra variables. Best of luck publishing your tests.

@DV0kk @memcculloch That’s exactly the kind of ‘beyond algebra’ phenomenology you’re asking for; the difference is that I’m reading the same math in a different ontology.

In QI the usual confusion of photons having mass yet moving at v=c is passé. It's inelegant to separate mass into inherent (rest mass) & mass due to motion, as is done. In QI there's no inherent mass: it's ALL due to interaction. QI predicts nature better at low accelerations...

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You can factor A_μ into as many custom variables (ψ, I_μν) as you want, but without independent empirical tests, it's just algebra, not physics. Also, standard QFT already says photons are field excitations, not 'pellets'.

@DV0kk @memcculloch Ãμ = (κ₁ + κ₂ ψ) ∇^ν Iμν is built from I_μν and ψ, so EM is explicitly emergent, and T_μν^(EM) is only an effective bookkeeping of deeper field patterns, not evidence of a fundamental photon substance with intrinsic energy–momentum.

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch I respect the effort, but any F_μν defined as a curl satisfies the Bianchi identities automatically. You just substituted variables. And mainly: you keep ignoring that e+e- annihilation to photons perfectly conserves momentum, directly contradicting your interpretation.

@DV0kk @memcculloch The Variational Formulation of my URTG framework has a different Electromagnetic Field Lagrangian, but it still fully satisfies the Bianchi Identities:

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You ignored e-/e+ annihilation because it proves 'true' mass momentum converts 1:1 to photons. Also, T^μν is NOT a force, it's momentum density. Force (dp/dt) isn't conserved! You're confusing states with rates of change. That’s a unit error, not an 'ontology'.

@DV0kk @memcculloch I am interpreting it as the stress–energy tensor (T^μν) as mathematically representing the emergent EM force that is doing the pushing. So stop twisting what I am saying!

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You moved from 'p=mv only' to 'photons have 4-momentum but a different ontology.' Look at electron-positron annihilation: two massive particles (your 'true' inertia) annihilate perfectly into photons. The momentum transfers 1:1. The universe doesn't swap 'ontologies'.

@DV0kk @memcculloch But also what I am saying will not contradict the math of conventional physics, althopugh I do feel that the math of current physics is incomplete or can be modified.

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You wrote an entire essay just to agree with me. Your final 'ontological' point is exactly what I said: momentum is universally unified by the Stress-Energy Tensor. It's not two different phenomena. I'm glad you finally caught up to the math!

@DV0kk @memcculloch if you open this in a new tap you can read it better. First click on it and expand it in X then right click on it and open it in a new tab. And If you would stop twisting what I say maybe we could have a real discussion but you do seem interested in that but only in competing!

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You proudly re-quoted your 'appropriate limit' argument, but you cannot use Maxwell's equations to explain discrete quantum scattering! The quantum 'h' vanishes in that classical limit. Crying 'attitude problem' just proves you ran out of math.

@DV0kk @memcculloch and if you knew anything at all you would know that this is true. You have an attitude a problem.

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You quietly dropped 'conglomerate' because I caught you. Claiming p=h/λ was 'constructed to reproduce Maxwell' is a spectacular historical failure. Maxwell's equations don't contain Planck's constant (h)! Compton literally won the Nobel for disproving Maxwell here.

@DV0kk @memcculloch Compton conserves p = h/λ because the emergent EM stress-energy tensor is deliberately constructed to reproduce Maxwell’s equations in the appropriate limit. The math works. The ontology is emergent EM force, not intrinsic inertial momentum for the photon.

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You ignored the single-electron fact because it breaks your 'conglomerate' rule. Furthermore, if the Compton effect is just an 'emergent EM push', why does it perfectly conserve p=h/λ momentum? You can rage-quit the thread, but you can't rage-quit the math. Take care buddy.

@DV0kk @memcculloch Photons never clump; they stay pure quantum. I only brought up Relational QM to highlight that difference. The “push” in Compton is emergent EM force in interaction, not photon inertial momentum. I am done arguing with you. That is my view take or leave it I don't care

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch Retreating into pure Relational QM doesn't save you. If electrons and photons are BOTH just 'emergent bundles' during interactions, then your previous claim that matter momentum is 'true' and photon momentum is 'fake' completely collapses. You just admitted they are equal.

@DV0kk @memcculloch So in this view the "particles" are bundles of continually emergent & subsiding property values that are emergent in & as interactions/relationships.

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch If photon and matter momenta are 'ontologically different,' how do they exchange perfectly in Compton scattering? Also, we measure single-electron momentum (no clumping) and BOTH use the exact same Stress-Energy Tensor components. Sorry the universe's math ruined your ontology.

@DV0kk @memcculloch One comes from rest mass + velocity; the other does not. So yes, QM applies to both, but only one carries inertial motion. That’s why the two “momenta” are not the same thing.

@macarie58 @memcculloch Zero DM evidence? The Bullet Cluster physically separated dark mass from glowing gas. Unmeasurable spacetime? LIGO directly measures spacetime ripples stretching physical mirrors. A Rindler horizon is a perspective effect. It cannot shield a background metric.

GR needs to add ridiculous quantities (19×) of *dark stuff* to predict the distribution and dynamics of baryonic matter, with zero observational evidence since 1933. Moreover, as Dr. Mike has already pointed out on numerous occasions, there is no way of directly measuring curved spacetime. However, under a Machian model of gravity, a Rindler horizon should be capable of gravitational shielding, giving us the much sought-after floating brick.

Quantised inertia predicts that if you accelerate something then a Rindler horizon forms behind it. The higher the acceleration, the closer the horizon. Can we accelerate summat enough that it can't see the planet? No gravity. Just saying...: progress-in-physics.com/2019/PP-57-05.…

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch 1. Electrons ALSO lack trajectories until measured. QM applies to matter too; by your logic, all momentum is 'emergent.' 2. Relativity unifies momentum: E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² applies identically to light (m=0) and matter. You are trying to philosophically sever what physics unified

@DV0kk @memcculloch My claim, in short: for massive matter, momentum is inertia‑in‑motion (p = mv); for light, “photon momentum” is a context‑dependent EM/field quantity inferred at interaction, not evidence of a tiny object with intrinsic inertia traveling through spacetime.

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You defeated your own argument in a single thread. You claimed 'no mass = no momentum,' then admitted photons have momentum with 'no m in it' via p=E/c. Momentum isn't just 'inertia in motion.' By Noether's theorem, it's the conserved charge of spatial symmetry. Mass is optional.

@DV0kk @memcculloch Inertia (mass) is the “reluctance to change motion.” Momentum is a relational, calculable quantity that tells you how much inertia is currently expressed in motion relative to a chosen frame, i.e. “mass/inertia in motion.”

@memcculloch 1. Unruh radiation is a 1976 QFT prediction. If Lynch verified it (debated), he validated standard quantum physics, not QI. 2. The paper is about positrons in crystals. It says zero about the Hubble horizon (QI's core mechanism). 3. Jumping to 'levitation' is pure sci-fi grift."

This paper by Morgan H Lynch et al., observing Unruh radiation for the first time, will be as seminal as the first observations of atoms. It directly backs quantised inertia which means cheap power, levitation & Proxima Centauri in 15 years: arxiv.org/abs/1903.00043

@Shaktidass18 @memcculloch You're confusing momentum with inertia. It takes the exact same impulse to stop a mass as to start it. Furthermore, a pendulum's acceleration is measured at the turning point where velocity (and kinetic energy) is absolutely zero. Your E=mc² defense vanishes.

@DV0kk @memcculloch If we follow my logic, which aligns with the concept of relativistic mass (m_rel = E_total / c^2) any increase in energy is effectively an increase in the system's total resistance to change (inertia). Inertia and mass are not different.

@alexandertolano @memcculloch Even if horizontal and vertical can't be separated, LISA Pathfinder (Armano 2016) is fatal to QI. In deep-space free-fall, there is ZERO vertical 1g background. Yet it verified standard F=ma down to 10^-15 m/s² . Why did the cutoff fail there? doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe…

@DV0kk @memcculloch This assumes that a horizontal plane in a vertically accelerated experiment can legitimately be measured independently. That isn't necessarily the case.

@alexandertolano @memcculloch 3. Yes, Higgs is ~1%. The other 99% is QCD strong-force binding energy. The Standard Model already explains 100% of mass via interaction! 4. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe… Torsion pendulums isolate the horizontal plane; see paper for methodology

@DV0kk @memcculloch 3. The Higgs field only produces about 1-2% of mass in the Standard Model. 4. The acceleration due to the Earth's gravity is well above the proposed cutoff, so any experiment would need to properly account for this.

@memcculloch Your paper claims an orbital anomaly, yet you admit you have no velocity data. You can't measure a deviation from Newton without dynamics! The 'minimum acceleration' is just JWST's resolution limit overlapping with the tidal disruption limit of the nebula. It's a selection effect

The James Webb telescope discovered odd Jupiter Mass Binaries in the Orion Nebula. They all show the minimum acceleration predicted by Quantised Inertia, backing it over General Relativity. Reality picks the winner. Blog: physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2025/12/elepha… Paper mdpi.com/2674-0346/5/1/1