SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A physicist is using a theory he advanced to explain how EmDrive could work to explain how dwarf galaxies can be held together without the requirement of dark matter:
British physicist Dr Mike McCulloch, who previously used quantised inertia to explain how the controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology EmDrive works, says that he has new evidence showing his theory can also explain galaxy rotation, which is one of physics' biggest mysteries. McCulloch, a lecturer in geomatics at Plymouth University's school of marine science and engineering, says he now has even more evidence that his "new physics theory" about quantised inertia works, and that it makes it possible to explain why galaxies are not ripped apart without using theory of dark matter.
[...] There are 20 dwarf galaxies in existence from Segue-1 (the smallest) to Canes Venatici-1 (the largest), and dark matter is only meant to work by spreading out across a wide distance, but it is still used to explain dwarf galaxies, even though this requires dark matter to be concentrated within these systems, which is implausible. Instead, McCulloch asserts that quantised inertia can be used to explain how galaxies rotate without using dark matter, and he has written a paper that has been accepted by the bi-monthly peer reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space Science.
Reprint of the IBT link here.
From the abstract of Low-acceleration dwarf galaxies as tests of quantised inertia (DOI not yet published):
Dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way appear to be gravitationally bound, but their stars' orbital motion seems too fast to allow this given their visible mass. This is akin to the larger-scale galaxy rotation problem. In this paper, a modification of inertia called quantised inertia or MiHsC (Modied inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) which correctly predicts larger galaxy rotations without dark matter is tested on eleven dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, for which mass and velocity data are available. Quantised inertia slightly outperforms MoND (Modied Newtonian Dynamics) in predicting the velocity dispersion of these systems, and has the fundamental advantage over MoND that it does not need an adjustable parameter.
Previously: Study Casts Doubt on Cosmic Acceleration and Dark Energy
Dark Matter Beats its Latest Challenge
Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
Space Race 2.0: China May Already be Testing an EmDrive in Orbit
Milky Way is Not Only Being Pulled—It's Also "Pushed" by a Void
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:07PM
The Chinese claimed to be actually testing the EM-Drive in space late December. They've been oddly quiet about it, though. Something tells me it failed.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by VLM on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:46PM
Rumor has it the testing was being done on Tiangong-2
Todays TLE orbital elements for Tiangong-2 are available but its only 380 KM up so there is some natural decay plus various BS factors and its heavy and most TLE only have 4 or 5 sig figs of accuracy so something that heavy would need like "many pounds of force" to show up as changes in the TLE over time.
So if they pointed it out that window and aimed for Pluto at any reasonable power level its too small of a force to show up in the air force observations... at present.
Maybe multiple generations later a nuclear power plant is launched and an enormous engine goes to Jupiter or WTF. But not a toy sized test. Not today.
My guess is they installed two and the ends and powered them up and we'll see if a microscopic rotational force results in a long term variation in positioning thruster fuel use. Hmm so after 1000 hours of full power operation rotating clockwise we burned 0.001% more impulse counterclockwise than clockwise hmm. Thats how I'd do it, anyway. Of course a big flying stick has a hell of a moment of inertia so again that too might get lost in the noise.
The whole situation is kinda like cold fusion when I was a kid, or when I was younger anyway. You're using powers and forces that are very high and making very small long term measurements and one little boo boo and ohshit.jpg the whole project is a waste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:47PM
Or successful, why would they want other governments to think its a viable tech?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:20PM
Or maybe it failed, but they prefer to let the rest of us learn that at our own expense, not theirs.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:51PM
> Something tells me it failed.
Or it succeeded beyond their expectations, and they realised it is better to keep quiet and keep refining the concept, rather than tip off all the other superpowers that they potentially have space-resource unlocking technology, resulting in a race to who gets to be first up there to dominate the area (something the Chinese are likely to lose Vs the USA in a head-on race, due to the discrepancy in wealth and technological development between the two).
No idea which is true, but both are options.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday February 15 2017, @08:32PM
I don't think there's any particular reason to think that China would lose a race to develop new technology. The US has been eating its seed corn for so long that its ability to develop is getting weak. And our politics certainly don't encourage long term investment.
That said, China has the problem of a basically rigid mindset, which also isn't good for developing new technology. They might need to depend on immigrants, or possibly someone from a minority ethnic group. (I don't know anything about the mindsets of the minor ethnic groups in China, or how well they get educated.)
OTOH, please remember that what I'm talking about here are generalized social trends. There can always be individuals who don't match the over-all trend, and sometimes they don't get squashed. It's notable that to of the best nuclear physicists in the early days were previously a patent clerk and an elevator operator. But they had to leave where they originated because they didn't fit in. (FYI, I'm talking about Einstein and Fermi.) Where would they go today? I don't think the US is currently much more hospitable to such than is China.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:00PM
The whole thing is pretty unfathomable. Maybe they announced that as a reaction to the NASA paper and flurry of interest surrounding it. A propaganda piece. We won't know more until they say something or results/lack of results leak.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by corey on Wednesday February 15 2017, @10:16PM
On the contrary, if a nation successfully invents a new technology that would give them a strategic advantage, they will keep it very quiet. It might not seem like a military asset just yet but it will be when space becomes a war zone, which it most likely will. A lot of technology we use now was secret for a while as the military used it for advantage.