MigL

Yeah, you see videos of people doing surveys all the time. Every time some guy in camo fatigues, with an assault rifle and 30 round clip, is asked about things like medicare for all, living minimum wage, carbon tax, legalizing pot or forgiving student debt, they are all for it.

That is the Newtonian model of gravity. As to where Gravity needs to take into account quantum effects ? Separation, on sub-atomic scales , can be considered in terms of energy. ( The amount of energy needed to overcome the separation distance ) Gravity, and other forces, tend towards a common strength at energies in excess of 1019 GEv ( 1032 deg. K ). That is normally called the Planck scale. You would need to get pretty close to these scales before gravity starts being 'modified'. Otherwise, any quantum effects are as trivial as to the world at large.

Joigus says "get in the box" and study its contents. Dara O'Briain says " get in the sack" and take your lumps. The choice is up to you. Sorry if I was somewhat abrupt ( possibly rude ) with you last night. I was feeling 'testy' and you got on my nerves with what you call 'science' ( it isn't ). But we have seen their effects and consequences of their existence. So even if some things ( Swansont likes to use 'phonons' ) aren't real, they are built into the model, or theory, to account for the effects which we observe. Division by zero is undefined. You can certainly devide by zero, but don't expect it to mean anything. Again, we look at effects, so you tell me, how is 2x different from 2x1 ? That is the self consistency of math, as opposed to words.

Base 10 is the number system in common usage ( 0,1,2,...9 ) Two others in less common usage are base 2 ( 1,2 ), and base 16 ( 0,1,, 9,A,B,...F ) . ( familiar to computer scientists/programmers ) Infinity is best describes as a concept.

Infinity is NOT a number. And it doesn't follow one. Your thinking is common, but certainly not sensical.

I just wish you would start making sense ... Woops, my bad 🤣🤣 .

And why would quantum gravity be described as a particle or a wave ? Two leading contenders describe space-time as either 11 dimensional, where particles, and supersymmetric particles, are open or closed vibrating strings ( sstring theory ), or, quantized space-time elements are 'looped' together ( LQG ). The only particle or wave to be considered is the massless, spin 2, virtual particle that mediates gravity ( like the photon does for Electromagnetism ), which has gained the popular name, graviton.

So you think there is a 'last' number just before you reach infinity ? That's another thing you don't understand. ( and you don't even seem embarrassed about it )

You must be talking about Swansont because I'm not a scientist 😄 . But even I know that ignorant wild-ass guesses are not what people expect from 'out of the box' thinkers. And I've yet to see any reasoning in your posts; never mind authentic ( ? ).

Why would you think that ? Any two masses are attracted with the same force, at the same distance, whether one is a Black Hole or not. Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetism, which can more accurately be described as space-time curvature. How or why would it manifest itself as a particle or a wave ?? No, more likely you are putting no effort into understanding your educational sources, and spectacularly misinterpreting them.

There are an infinite number of points, or numbers if you will, between zero and one. But infinity has no 'beginning' and no 'end'. What is the last number before infinity begins ???

So many misconceptions. So many wrong assertions. Remember what I said about looking stuff up, before putting your ignorance on display ? Ask one question at a time, and don't go jumping to conclusions. The only gravity there is, is classical, whether Newtonian or GR. Yes, atomic particles interact gravitationally. For an atomic particle, the Electromagnetic interaction is approx. a billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than the Gravitational interaction. The Strong interaction, mediated by gluons and binding quarks below its asymptotic limit, is 137 times stronger than the Electromagnetic interaction, but only 'residual' force binds nucleons inside the nucleus, and quickly drops off after that. So why would you conflate the two, and go on to make all the other ignorant assertions ???

Maybe in your 'make believe world', no one knows. In the real world, they most certainly do. Maybe if you asked sensible questions, instead of nonsense, people might tell you.

I tend to agree Doc. It would be statistically impossible for all Republicans to be idiots. And I'm starting to think that no matter how much some of the members of this forum ( along with some progressive Americans, and the rest of the free world ) may want it, America, as a whole, is not yet ready to embrace a progressive agenda.

More nonsense... It doesn't have a beginning; how can it have an end ?

Funny how people who know very little are always so sure of themselves. You keep living in your make believe world. The rest of us prefer the real world.

No problem at all, Studiot. Just making sure we're all on the same page.

Mathematics is the very definition of NOT subjective. Everything is clearly defined so that everyone can understands the 'terminology'; there are no hand-waving descriptions. Maybe, before using terms, in your posts, which you don't understand, do an on-line search for what they mean. Again, it'll save you some embarrassment.

No, that's a yard. A meter is 100 cm ( or approx. 39 inches ). No, that's a rounded off figure. Actually c = 299 792 458 m/s ( but has been measured to many more significant digits ) I can't even begin to guess what you mean by this ... That would be because 'kilo' means 1000 gm. IOW, 103 gm. No, numbers, or digits, count the amount of units. Similarly Pi is a number counting the amount of radian ( sections of arc ) units. Remember the advice I gave you about not embarrassing yourself ...

Maybe my understanding of a 'model' is not the same as everyone else ? We have a 'model' for dams, Studiot. It comprises the interactions of the stresses and strains, with loads, material strengths, and gravity. We simply 'plug in' different parameters and conditions to arrive at the five different configurations. Similarly with climate science, Ken. We have a model of the atmospheric interactions with solar heating, oceanic heat sinks, and greenhouse gas insulation. We simply 'plug in' the differing parameters/conditions to arrive at a possible outcome. The 'model' is the theory of the interactions that govern ( where applicable ) the parameters/conditions we wish to investigate. For example, the theory of gravity is the model which tells us how different masses, with different speeds will orbit. While EM theory is the model into which we 'plug in' the charge of a particle and we know which direction it will curve in a particular field. Or did you mean the scale model of an AVRo Vulcan, which you assemble with plastic cement, paint, and hang in your bedroom. ( yes, I had one of those 🙂 .

OK, you don't know what dimensional analysis is either. ( what have you been doing for years ??? ) A radius is a DISTANCE, such as meters. A velocity is a DISTANCE/TIME, such as meters/second. Notice how meters =/= meters/second ??? ( that is dimensional analysis; making sure your units are consistent )

Has it ever occurred to you that the inherent paradoxes involved in time travel, such as any causality breaking or 'grandfather' paradox, suggest time travel is unreal ???

Fundamental fermions gain the property of mass through the Higgs mechanism. That means electron, quark, and neutrino families. Any composite particles they make up also have the property of mass, but it is not a strictly linear addition. As mass and energy can be equivalent properties, altering the configuration of a system can alter the energy, or the mass, of the system. This is usually seen in terms of binding energies. As an example, the fermions that constitute the proton/neutron are combinations of 3 up/down quarks, where the mass of the fermions makes up just 2 % of the total mass; the other 98 % is binding energy.

Not to me. But he might have a different opinion .

The 'model' describes the 'modelled' where applicable. The model is usually mathematical and the modelled is usually 'what we observe' ( reality ? ) In NO case is the model a full description of the modelled; models are, by definition, reduced representations of the modelled, so they have some areas where they are no longer valid representations.