So I just want to thank you to have taken the time to write your article. When I typed “quantised inertia” on google I only find your article as a counter to all the articles of McCulloch.

I don’t say McCulloch is wrong or you are (yet my opinion is now largely in favor of one of both of you) because I am not fitted enough regarding these domains to say so. Yet I love the fact that this article reminds to be cautious. We should not blindly believe big announcements with weird words we don’t understand (especially when there are words with “quant” as a radical), otherwise it’s a kind of fanatic enrollment which is really far from what I try to find out: how things works and what can we do with them.
Moreover I still have some hopes for the EmDrive. But “quantised inertia” seems not the right theory to explain how this device “may” work. And yet I am still waiting for more obvious evidence that it does really work. Hoping that the X37-B and Tiangong experiments will bring more light in the future about this.

So thanks again and keep up the good work. I am happy to have discovered your blog which seems really interesting in many ways.
Best regards

The peer reviewed paper on the EM Drive admits the results are not conclusive. I wrote a somewhat positive review of the work, but others have been much less kind. It’s clear that even this peer reviewed article doesn’t demonstrate the effect conclusively.

Some work on string theory is valid. As a mathematical tool it can be quite useful. However folks who go around saying quantum objects ARE strings, or that it’s the only valid theory for physics are straying away from science.

Thank you for taking time to address this. I, for one, value your time, and commend the effort you put forth daily to make this blog useful to me and my family.