Strange

So you are telling me that I couldn’t have misunderstood it and so I never said it appeared to be wrong. Good grief. Of course you can use the same mass in both. For example, you can use this to show why two different masses fall at the same rate. You have derived a fairly meaningless equation (uncool explained how it can be interpreted physically). It does not show any contradiction. It can’t. Your comments after this do not deserve a response.

Maybe you don't know what "handwaving" means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving Now, one could throw some pretence of mathematics into a discussion to try and disguise the fact that it is handwaving. But a mathematical description of something is not handwaving. It is nothing to do with "me". It is like solipsism impossible to prove or disprove. If you think that there is a way of providing evidence for a belief like this, then you need to explain what that is. So far, all you have is a subject sense of peculiar. That is not evidence.

Math is the exact opposite of handwaving. It is not science. It is impossible, by definition, for there to be any evidence for it or against it.

As Ghideon has pointed out, your formatting was completely ambiguous. I assumed you meant [math]\frac{F^2}{(\frac{a^2}{r^2})} = F^2 \frac{r^2}{a^2}[/math] whereas it seems you meant [math]\frac{(\frac{F^2}{a^2})}{r^2} = \frac{F^2}{a^2} \frac{1}{r^2} = \frac{F^2}{a^2 r^2}[/math]. The equivalence principle says that acceleration is indistinguishable from a gravity. So inertia is indistinguishable from gravitational mass. Of course, that is just a statement of what we observe, not the reason. But I think this is one of those cases where the "why" question falls outside science. I'm not sure what problem you are referring to. There is no contradiction in anything you have said. Why would they be? Of course not. SR is just a special case of GR (the clue is in the name).

There seems to be an error in the derivation of (3). You go from a2/r2 to a2r2 (sorry for lack of superscript- im on my phone!) But uncool’s answer is spot on.

Blech!

Maybe. But there is no protection for ideas.

Publish it. That’s what scientists do. Who can tell. All you have done is make few vague, and fairly meaningless, statements. You have refused to answer questions or explain what you are talking about. So if you have a theory, you are doing an excellent job of pretending that you don’t.

Why do you think that? Has it ever happened with a scientific theory? When you have completed the other 90% and published the theory in a peer reviewed journal, come back and let us know.

Interaction between what? And what is the nature of the interaction? Sometimes a double negative makes sense this doesn’t. You mean “everything exists”? How many are there? What is the evidence for this? What information? Unless you provide some information we can’t decide if it might be important.

We have an entire thread about this, if you look for it. As far as I know everyone can do it but a small number think it is worth discussing And: no.

And there’s me thinking it was a combination of color confinement, the strong nuclear force, electrostatic repulsion, quantised energy levels, Fermi-Dirac statistics and maybe a few other things (but not the Higgs mechanism). Subjective judgements of “peculiarness” are not evidence.

If it explains everything, can't it provide the help you need?

If not symbionts, feeding on them, at least.

They still do: (Took me a long time to identify this stuff in my garden)

Things function quite systematically without intervention. Unless you think that when you let go of an object your god has to intervene to carry it to the floor and ensure that it accelerates towards the floor at 9.8 m/s2 It seems simpler to allow the gravity and other forces to do their job without a god having to be involved in every little movement or change

Where is that quotation from? But it looks like algae colonised land along with fungi during the Cambrian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants#Colonization_of_land

The first land plants were liverworts and mosses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution

It is interesting that you still haven’t answered the question.

I'm not convinced about the measurement thing. The two things are predicted by theory so they "exist" (if they exist at all) even without measurement. But, of course, we can never observe them unless we make measurements. But the same is true of whether a coin landed hands or tails; we can predict the possible outcomes, but we won't know until we look. So I don't think they are caused by the measurement, but our measurements expose them. If we make a measurement of wavelength, for example, then we will see a wave phenomenon. If we make a measurement of location, then we will see a point particle.

I had not heard of physicalism before, so thanks for that. It is probably a better description of my view than materialism, which would seem to exclude art, music, dreams and emotions which all exist but are not material. My view has also been described as "naive realist" before now: what we see is what there is. However, I also know that these are entirely indefensible beliefs, unsupported (and unsupportable) by any evidence. It is just as valid to believe in solipsism; it is just as consistent with what we experience. But that is just another analogy to to describe the maths. All interpretations of quantum theory are indistinguishable scientifically. They are purely aesthetic choices. I don't like any of them, particularly. I don't understand why you think that is inconsistent with physicalism. But then again, I think there are (at least) two schools of thought about the Copenhagen Interpretation: one is that the wave function is a rather abstract concept, a mathematical description, that collapses to a single value and the other that it is a real physical thing. But in both of these, the wave function is either physical or "supervenes on the physical". So it seems a form of, or at least compatible with, physicalism, to me. Most interpretations are based on some underlying physical reality, so they all seem to fit the description of physicalism. (For anyone else who is not familiar with it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/) I have no idea whether people do or not. It makes no difference to the science so I don't think it gets discussed often. But even if people favour different interpretations, I don't see why you would not wish to discuss these things. You don't want to be in an echo chamber of only people who like the Copenhagen Interpretation, do you? Incidentally, if you want to discuss interpretations of QM then maybe we should request a moderator to move this to the Philosophy forum?

I care. I would be interested to know what you mean by biased.

Biased towards accuracy, maybe?

Again, depends what you mean by the word “ether”. Einstein used it to describe spacetime. Wilczek used it to describe quantum fields. You could call the atmosphere “the ether” if you wanted (close to its original meaning). I think, given the history, such uses just serve to confuse (and, perhaps, cause unnecessary antagonism).

Not forbidden to anyone. Of course, if someone wanted to hihack it with their pet theory, that would be against the rules. Challenging is how science progresses.