swansont

You did not say history, you said philosophy. Those are different disciplines. So please, don't move the goalposts. You're basically telling the ballplayer they don't understand baseball well enough, And you, as someone without any baseball creds. They might retort "Don't tell me about baseball" or even "WTH does philosophy have to do with baseball?" (something, as with the laser alignment issue, I would be interested in finding out) You should learn about renormalization. Well that would go back to Nobel and the invention of dynamite. What philosophy, specifically?

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients.pdf a recent report showed that 85% of all male patients treated in a particular centre with ivermectin in the recent past who went to the laboratory for routine tests were discovered to have developed various forms, grades and degrees of sperm dysfunctions including, low sperm counts, poor sperm morphologies (two heads, Tiny heads Double tails absence of tail’s, Albino sperm calls), azoospermia and poor sperm motility

"Personally speaking, I believe a little delving into the philosophy of science would help scientists understand their own enterprise better" I quoted it earlier.

And this underscores my point. You are admittedly not a physicist much less an experimental physicist, and yet you are making a proclamation about how experimental physicists should go about their jobs. And physicists are hardly alone at getting annoyed when people start telling them how to do their jobs. I think the number of people who never played baseball who are knowledgeable about baseball, to the point at being able to tell an accomplished player (on par with a scientist) is quite small. There is some knowledge you can't appreciate without having done it. “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.” (Hugh Keough)

Which is beside my point. One can't validly make the blanket assertion that scientists, as a whole, would benefit from philosophy, and then carve out such exceptions (oh, we were ignoring experimentalists. And certain aspects of theory. And...) You want to say that people investigating e.g. foundational aspects of science would benefit from philosophy, then sure, go ahead. I think you will find that most of those people are already doing that.

As I have asked before, what philosophy will help me align a laser into a single-mode optical fiber? The issue I have is that the topic is wielded as a blunt instrument. Are there areas of physics where philosophy would be helpful to scientists? Certainly. And I read about some of this, and the scientists are discussing philosophical issues (involving interpretations of QM, for example) But it is often stated such there is the insinuation that every scientist would benefit from adding philosophy to the mix (and worse, IMO, when it comes from people who have demonstrated not understanding the science) and I suspect that is a source of the hostility.

One might ask one's self which of these involve behavior apparent to the minimally-aided eye or simple instrumentation, and which do not.

It's not just mirrors. A heated gas will not give you a population inversion, which is a requirement for lasing. A neon tube won't lase without adding helium, so you can get He excitations by electron collisions and transfer of this excitation energy to the neon. More importantly, this has nothing to do with laminar flow.

citation needed.

I think it’s accurate to say physicists* use some vocabulary that doesn’t mean what a lay use of those words mean. Physicists also use jargon, because they understand what the jargon means, and in both cases if you hear the discussion without an appreciation for this, you will not get the same message. So yes, physicists might speak differently to a lay audience, for fear of being misunderstood. *(true of all scientists, not just physicists)

The gymnastics was constrained by math and (in part) existing theory, which was supported by evidence.

Can you post the info here, so we don’t have to wade through a video?

You didn’t explain why your numbers are physically relevant.

To this I would add that even if one person thinks a particular model is reality (especially if its their theory), it doesn’t mean that this is true of all of physics. “this bit is real” says nothing about the rest. (plus all the counterexamples, of course)

You mentioned antigravity, and cited a fifth force as if it were an accepted thing. You agree that expansion is not a force, so your question/comment makes no sense, because you refer to it as a force. You can’t have it both ways. Expansion adds space between two objects, so they move apart, even if locally there is no motion. Space doesn’t exert a force on them. They don’t move apart if they are gravitationally bound, because space doesn’t exert a force on them.

I’m not sure “preference” tells the story here. It’s where the ideas led him. A spinning wheel’s circumference can’t be described by 2pi*r owing to length contraction leads you to a non-Cartesian system. Add to this the notion that don’t feel gravity in freefall, you feel a force of something else when you aren’t in freefall, leads you to the idea that being stationary in a gravitational field is the accelerated frame.

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.