SoylentNews

QI has the same problems all the other theories have. Lack of enough evidence to rule out the other theories. Waxing poetic about how you feel persecuted like Galileo isn't that.

Plus, my view is that weird interpretations of Machian theories

It is a Machian theory in which the mass of an object is determined by the amount of matter the object could have been in contact with in its history, which links to Hoyle and Narlikar and QI in which the mass of objects is determined by the size of the cosmos they perceive.

are barking down the wrong path - particularly given the quantization of gravitational force and acceleration which has no physical basis other than some nebulous experiments.

For a rival set of theories that describes how to obtain mass, there's the Kaluza-Klein (KK) models where higher dimensional spaces without mass are collapsed to our observed 3+1 spacetime with mass. We do have after all three other forces with a bunch of symmetries - there is already a sort of collapse present. Even a theory of gravitation and electromagnetism where a five dimensional space is collapsed to four, generates a theory with mass. (It also generates a theory with an experimentally unobserved scalar field, IIRC, which is why the 5 -> 4 reduction isn't popular these days as compared to the higher dimensional versions.)

One of the key advantages of something like KK models is that they present a local model (that is a theory where the physics of the model can be fully described with small spatial scale interactions) that fits what we observe locally. While things like quantum mechanics have nonlocality, there's no much of a case for a cosmological scale theory to have it.