In the criticism section of the Wikipedia article to Quantized Intertia it is stated that QI is considered pseudo-science. Unfortunately none of the linked but in none of the provided links can I find a solid critique of QI and why it should be considered pseudo-science.

While I lack the required to follow the math provided in Mike McCulloch's papers, the argument seems plausible. Since QI is - according to the Wikipedia article - not only considered a fringe theory but pseude-science, I must be missing.

What are the obvious flaws and problems that make QI pseudo-science?


closed as off-topic by Qmechanic Jan 31 at 23:20

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/436874/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jan 31 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think that Physics SE should contain a bunch of questions along the lines of 'Why is Theory X not considered mainstream?', so there is that. Second, one might contemplate why, if you can't follow the math, you still find the argument plausible. Somewhere there is a disconnect there, from a physics perspective. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Jan 31 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ This review by an astrophysicist in a "popular" magazine (Forbes) has various criticisms of the theory: forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/02/15/… $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Feb 1 at 2:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Quantised inertia is a fringe theory but clearly not in the same category as weird rants on personal websites: there are plenty of publications about it in mainstream physics journals (and it fits alongside other ways like modified Newtonian dynamics as a way of explaining galactic rotation without dark matter). So it isn't clear why discussion is being closed because it sits with "unpublished personal theories". $\endgroup$ – matt_black Feb 4 at 0:51