swansont

The original question was (emphasis added) “Anyway, the question in short: Is gravity a force or not? (In layperson's terms, insofar as possible)”

Good. Now please explain what you mean by the fifth force, and why you phrased it as if this were mainstream physics.

What are you saying is the fifth force? The mainstream interpretation is that it’s speculative. In physics, there are four observed fundamental interactions (also known as fundamental forces) that form the basis of all known interactions in nature: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Some speculative theories have proposed a fifth force to explain various anomalous observations that do not fit existing theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force Expansion of space is not a force. Matter feels no acceleration from space being added between it and other matter. i.e. it acts on space. Dark energy gives us acceleration of expansion, not the expansion itself.

If that were the case then you’re reiterating a point that’s been made several times, and studiot spoke of the force of gravity, putting us in the Newtonian realm, so I figured that can’t be it.

Gravity isn’t a force in GR, so this is moot. In Newtonian terms, something in freefall is still experiencing a force - it’s accelerating.

How is this 0.9fs a “pulse”? You have a proton traveling 30m, which is an arbitrary distance. What’s the connection to the radiation emitted? Is this radiation observed in linear accelerators? Please provide evidence.

What leads you to this conjecture? There is no fifth interaction in mainstream physics.

But that’s not the case. Expansion occurs where gravity is too weak to stop it, but that’s not the same thing as no gravity, as you acknowledged earlier. Frankly, this does not seem to be a difficult concept; the concepts of motion and force it evokes are Newtonian. If gravity in a region is strong enough to prevent expansion, that’s what happens.

The OP asked a physics question (which was answered) so there’s no reason to relocate it. You might be thinking of a question asked in a later post.

Charges undergoing acceleration (e.g. via collisions) will emit photons

! Moderator Note Several of your posts are assertions. If you stick to asking questions, there isn’t a problem. But e.g. “Because sound waves have anti gravity properties” is not a question

Where is your calculation that shows the wavelength?

All inertial observers are at rest in their own frame, so saying two observers are at rest does not fully specify that they are at rest with respect to each other. We can be moving with respect to each other and each claim to be at rest. So as zapatos notes, rest (and motion) always has to be specified with respect to something.

Already did, in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts The Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Jacobson in Zucht v. King (1922), which held that a school system could refuse admission to a student who failed to receive a required vaccination

The basic idea in relativity is that one observer notices time dilation and another observer notices length contraction. This is how they reconcile the speed of light being the same. A lab observer sees the electron’s clock running slow, and the electron “sees” its path as being shorter. That reconciles (qualitatively, at least) each noticing more distance traveled in a span of time, and the frequency going up as the energy increases, even though the speed doesn’t change much.

They must be at rest with respect to each other to be in the same frame

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.