I have recently come across a set of peer-reviewed conference papers (https://petermarkjansson.com/research/machs-principle/) reporting observations of electromagnetic markers of Mach's Principle. In short, anomalies in the discharge of batteries are observed, and the claim is that they are related to the angular position of major astronomical masses (Earth, Sun, Moon, Virgo Supercluster).
Holding an MSc in Physics myself, these claims seem to me as outright crackpottery.
However, these claims do not come from some random forum, but from papers that are technical in their form, and publicly presented at conferences by an academic.
Now, were they just papers about malfunctioning equipment, it would only be a matter of some conferences' standards on how (un)interesting contributions they are willing to accept.
The potential crackpottery arises when the authors relate the anomaly to some Mach Effect, without stating what physical quantity is the source, or why such a large effect has gone unnoticed so far, or why it only affects their specific electric appliance.
Moreover, I was not able to find other works along the same research line.
So, my question is: have I been missing a legitimate line of research up until now, or have I walked into what is some reiterated malpractice (to say the least) in peer-review scrutiny?
NOTE. I am aware that some red flags can be spotted: the targeted conferences are minor; the research topic, as well as the citations, look quite isolated; the emphasis on contributions from undergraduate students is unusual; the team's Mach Field Sensor/Detector is patented, which might have pushed some non-scientific interests. However, I am not interested in these aspects here, nor in the motive of the pattern; I am only interested in the physical claim being made, plus (if possible) a judgment on the review process.
Thanks in advance.
Best Answer
Having looked at the web site what stands out is the misuse of the concept of Mach's principle; the failure to give quantitative information; the failure to engage the obvious questions; the apparent lack of a self-critical mindset.