swansont

There aren’t. Anyone familiar with physics would know this. And if you are suggesting some new physics, this falls spectacularly short of the requirement to present a model or some kind of evidence. ! Moderator Note To be blunt, you need to put up or shut up (i.e. post science or stop trolling)

Irrelevant. GR’s failure to work in the described situations is not analogous to this.

Not just slavery https://www.thoughtco.com/compromises-of-the-constitutional-convention-105428

Which, to one of the points of this thread, would not be the case if it gave us "reality"

One other thing - magnetic dipole fields drop off as 1/r^3, while gravity drops off as 1/r^2, so even if you could get a solar system to work (you can't have everything attract, as Janus pointed out), it doesn't follow the pattern we see — the planets and moons etc. follow a 1/r^2 attraction.

"I think this theory describes reality" is not the same as "the goal of physics is to describe reality" The latter requires one to cover all the bases. All of physics has to be trying to describe reality. Cherry-picking doesn't count. All it takes to rebut it is a single counterexample, and I have given several. Also, you would have to give assurances that any person you quote is not invoking philosophy in any way.

! Moderator Note If you are going to complain about this, then it might be best if you, too, refrained from pejorative behavior, like the insinuation that iNow called the researchers uninformed uneducated cranks (which is not a reasonable reading of their analogy) or the attack on the media in your OP.

It doesn't Newtonian gravity depends on the mass of the body, so larger masses will have stronger gravity at the same separation. But gravity has been measured for much less massive objects than asteroids., so it's not true that it only exists around stars, planets and asteroids.

"Realism" in physics has to do with whether entities have their properties when they are not being observed. Not whether the theories represent reality. Also, it might help to note that I never claimed that all of physics makes stuff up. Any science that admits it is making up calculational conveniences — even if that's only part of the science — can't be said to be describing reality. And pointing to elements that are not these conveniences does nothing to rebut that claim. It's a distraction to try. If your goal is to show physics describes reality, don't ignore my examples of calculational conveniences. Physics has a lot that can't be directly observed (i.e. by eye) so there's a lot of "what's going on inside this black box" and if the behavior is consistent with there being a stick with a spring attached to it, that's how it's modeled. But since we can't actually know what's inside the box, we don't know if that's the reality. We only know what we get from experiment. We won't know, for example, what color the stick is, or what kind of wood it is, unless that affects an observational outcome. If we don't know the color of the stick, or what kind of wood it is, we haven't described reality.

Those statements are descriptions of their respective models. In Newtonian terms, gravity is a fundamental force. In GR, it's the curvature of spacetime. Such statements should be understood in the context of physics. They are not meant to be taken out of context. One has to be willing to invest in some study of the subject matter to provide that context. If not, too bad. You get what you paid for.

subquantum? It's all ball bearings these days. The question is: Prestone or Quaker State?

How do they not move at the same speed relative to each other? If they are moving relative to each other, at all, they are not in the same frame.

! Moderator Note If you are going to propose such a thing you need to make it rigorous - not just hand-waving. A model. Evidence. Falsifiability. Moved to speculations.

Sound is not a gravitational interaction, so it can't have antigravity properties. No. Endy0816 showed acoustic levitation. We also have mechanical levitation (i.e. standing up, using stairs or an elevator, etc.) We can use air, too - planes and helicopters. It always involves a non-gravitational force that equals or exceeds the gravitational one. From there, application of Newton's second law of motion.

No, that's way off base. I never said we shouldn't believe what physicists say. I never came close to it. I'm saying that there is no basis to say that these discoveries show the underlying reality of the world. (Are you familiar with Plato's allegory of the cave?). Physics tells us how nature behaves, not how it is. Many of the parts of physics are calculational tools that let us more easily describe this behavior. quarks, bosons, etc. aren't "unobservable reality" We observe them, just not with the naked eye. And we are describing behavior. How they interact, and the rules of interaction . The interactions in QCD, for example - do you really think the physicists are claiming quarks and gluons are actually blue, green and red? That's reality? Can you explain how color has a meaning at that scale? Or perhaps, as I'm claiming, it's a convenience, used because of the details of the interaction, i.e. the behavior. We make models that make some kind of sense to us, and use them if they work.

...and...? I mean, so what? Are you saying That one day can't possibly be much warmer than the next, such that the max for one day is reached at 9AM the next day? The days of 24-25 August were quite cool compared to the rest of the month, but the 25th was warmer than the 24th. You found only two examples of this in a six week span. I don't see what the mystery is.

AFAIK the spontaneous transition is probabilistic. More population in the excited state leads to more transitions because the rate is proportional to the number of electrons. Plus you have stimulated emission, which is how semiconductor (and all) lasers work. Your incoming photons will induce some excited state electrons to transition to the lower state, which will vary with both the population and the light intensity. No, since it will not be a blackbody spectrum.

Synchrotron radiation is emitted because you are accelerating a charged particle. There’s no QM involved in solving for the dynamics of the particle (you could try, and discover the energy states are so close together that they could not be resolved). The basic rule is if Planck’s constant doesn’t show up, it’s not QM. Here it’s the acceleration being v^2/r, and equating that with the acceleration from the Lorentz force, qv X B

All one can validly infer from this is that the max did not occur at 9AM or 3PM

It can't be at 0K Ideal is one thing but violating physical law is another.

One other aspect of the problems with thinking physics is telling us what reality is is that over its history we've found better and better descriptions of how nature behaves. So it's ludicrous to think that Newtonian physics described reality, when we know that it was supplanted by relativity and quantum mechanics, and we know that these models are incomplete, and it's likely we will have a better model at some point down the line.

Something with a certain behavior which we call the top quark was discovered. Generally, discussions about this do not split hairs about whether or not we are searching for reality, though there are some good discussions on the bad habit of reifying these things in physics. Mermin's "What's Bad About This Habit?" is a prominent one. Later on he quotes Bohr

This is different from One is asking about science, and the other is asking about scientists. Scientists are free to do things other than science, in this case metaphysics or some other philosophy, and some of them do. I am in no position to say they should or shouldn't. But people looking at the fundamental nature of the world are doing metaphysics, whether they explicitly admit it or not. (similar to the fact that some of what I do is engineering, even though I am a scientist. Disciplines blend together in many ways)

No, of course not. How do you get from what we said to this?

I have already mentioned reflection, recombination and creation of phonons.