Strange

Different populations, different survey methods, different questions among other things. For example, the Pew research was of American scientists. The Nobel Prize research included scientists and non-scientists from multiple countries. That alone makes any comparison meaningless.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/sleeping-brain-waves-draw-a-healthy-bath-for-neurons-20191216/

A diagram would help too: where is the current carrying wire, what is the source of the magnetic field, what are the directions of the three forces ([math]\vec{F_1}[/math], [math]\vec{F_2}[/math], [math]\vec{F_3}[/math]), what is the angle [math]\alpha[/math], etc. Sorry, just noticed there is a diagram!

Just goes to show that "popular among users on the Internet" is not as good as evidence for testing the validity of scientific theories.

In what sense is gravity negative? Please quantify your answer. You only know that gravity is stronger at ground level because the math tells you that. It is very unlikely you have measured this yourself. And, importantly, the math tells us exactly how much stronger it is at ground level than at any given distance form the surface of the Earth (or any other planet or moon). Therefore the math can be tested. And confirmed. Unlike your vague waffle.

! Moderator Note Moved to a (hopefully) more appropriate forum

That is not a valid equation. And it certainly doesn’t explain the speed of light. You have not shown any math. Using a few mathy-looking symbols as shorthand for a vague idea is not mathematics.

Right. So you need to learn, too. It is not an equation (clue: there is no equals sign). All it says is that F is less than E, without saying what F or E are. That is bollox.

I would suggest taking a few minutes to learn the basics of Latex so you can post the equations here. That will make them easier (possible) to read, make it possible for people to quote and correct them, etc. (And is a valuable life skill for anyone interested in math or physics.)

You would need to spend a few months, maybe a year, learning some basic physics. The sort of stuff that most people learn at school, would be a start. There are a lot of good online resources. The trouble is that you seem to think you already understand these things when, very obviously, you don't.

And yet another example of you thinking that you know more than you do. That is not mathematics. It is the meaningless combination of three symbols. None of your "mathematics" made any sense for this reason; it was incoherent nonsense. You can't just throw random symbols on the page and say "see, math!" By insisting that there must be a force, you are rejecting the existing explanations - without even studying and understanding them.

And quantum theory tells us that photons do not actually traverse from A to B in the way that classical objects do.

No. Another example of where you think you know things, but don't realise how little you know. c is a constant (299,792,458 m/s). It is the speed of light (and anything massless) in a vacuum. Maxwell's equations tell us how and why a changing electric current (for example) generates electromagnetic waves that propagate at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence). GR also tells us why anything massless must travel at c. (But you reject this: because it involves mathematics and large amounts of evidence).

If you could present your ideas (in the Speculations forum) with mathematics and evidence then people might consider them. But you have already demonstrated you are unable to do that. So why should anyone take your wild unscientific rambling seriously?

You have rejected the given physical reasons

I am suggesting you learn instead of making things up. You have rejected all the answers you have been given (because they don’t math your fairy tales)

! Moderator Note The rules require a level of politeness that this post does not reach. Just the second sentence would have been enough.

Neither. You have been given answers appropriate to your level of knowledge (which is close to zero). More accurate answers would, presumably just confuse you further. Science is a continual process of finding things that we were not looking for: Neptune, neutrinos, dark energy ... As you are unwilling/unable to learn (and apparently don’t realise that you need to) you are not going to accept any answers given, preferring your fairy stories. So I shall request this thread is closed.

! Moderator Note Any further nonsensical comments will be moved or hidden. Wheeler is one of the leading textbooks on this subject. You should take some time to study it before posting again.

The momentum is inherent because it has energy. If there is a force attracting it (there isn't) then one would have to ask what is the nature of that force, what creates it, how does it interact with electromagnetic radiation, why doesn't it interact with other things, etc., etc. One would also have to ask: why do you think that all of established physics is wrong? However, I think you are in danger of moving from asking questions to promoting your own ideas. If you do that then the thread will be moved to Speculations (and the it will be closed because you are not able to provide any scientific support for your ideas). I strongly suggest you actually learn some basic physics before making up more fairy stories. Otherwise you will always be in this twilight zone of making up ideas that are then rejected for reasons you don't understand.

And this perfectly exemplifies how you are attempting to use ideas that you do not understand. Firstly, things can move without a force being applied. That is Newton's first law. A force is required to change the state of motion. Secondly, heat is not a "thing" so there is nothing that a force could be applied to (were it necessary). I don't think you will be able to get answers to your questions until you realise / admit how little you know and realise that, therefore, you need to learn what is known, rather than making up stories that you think make sense.

! Moderator Note Please stop posting your nonsensical comments in the science sections of the forum. Any further comments like this will be removed.

Not easily. Unless you have a background in quantum theory. In which case, you wouldn't be answering the question. There is not really a change in position. The electron (if that is the case we are talking about) goes to a higher energy state, where it has a different range of allowed locations. When it goes to a lower energy state, a photon is emitted. But this is not because the electron "moves" to a new position, it is the state of the system (the whole atom) that changes. Electrons don't move from one place to another in the classical sense. That makes no sense. You might think you do. But, based on what you have said so far, this is probably a case where you have made up a story that makes sense to you and so it seems perfect, because it is exactly tailored to your level of understanding. It will almost certainly not make any sense to anyone else, because it is based on almost zero knowledge of physics. Random motion and statistics. There is definitely no force involved there.

Even if you come up with a more fundamental explanation of why light radiates as it does, you would still be able to ask "why" about that explanation too. For example, in Maxwell's equations, the speed of light depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space (these equations also explain why accelerated charges generate radiation). But then you can ask, why do the permittivity and permeability have those values. But as far as we know, they are just constants of nature. If someone comes up with a theory that gives those values, we can still say "but why that theory". I am not suggesting that we should not ask questions, just that there is always a limit to how far our answers go. There is no reason to think a force is required to make light move and we have two perfectly good theories as to why it does move in the ways it does.

No force is involved. It is just what light does: it is a form of radiation, so it radiates. At the speed of light. By definition. With no constraints, it will radiate evenly in all directions result in the inverse square relationship. If you want to ask "why does light behave like it does" then that probably is not a question physics can answer. What science does is observe things happening and attempt to describe them as accurately as possible.