MigL

They may not be, but they have no problem convincing their people to be.

Hrumph-hrumph ... ( Japanese guy in the corner loudly clearing his throat ) I don't like pre-emptive attacks, based on the possibility that an adversary might do something. But ... Israel has had nuclear weapons for about 40 years, and although constantly under attack, has never used them. Is any one of you convinced that if Iran had nuclear weapons, the religious fundamentalist zealots that run the country would hesitate to use them ? One problem for Israel is that the Fordow facility is deeply buried ( 80-90m ), and Israel lacks bunker-busting munitions. They need to drag the US into the operation to be able to use American munitions, although D Trump is hoping that the Iranians will now reconsider his 'negotiations' ( so he has at least one 'win' after five months of big beautiful Presidency ). An alternative is to use nukes to penetrate the Fordow facility. I wouldn't put that past Netanyahu, but his armed forces and people might object ( and it would make my second paragraph a lie )

2/3 of galaxies rotate in one direction, the other 1/3 rotate in the opposite direction. Clockwise or counter-clockwise depends on which side you are looking from.

All depends on the mass within the radius you are concerned with. Any mass outside that radius is not a consideration due to Newton's shell theorem ( did you look it up ? ). For the Earth, this is complicated by the fact that density is not uniform ( as Swansont explained, buoyancy in the 'liquid layers cause stratification ) and gravity actually increases, at first, with depth, but then starts dropping off eventually reaching no gravity at the center. This is due to Newton's shell theorem ( did you look it up ? ) Also keep in mind that this is handled quite well by Newtonian gravity; no need for GR. If you did use GR, you'd have to resort to using those 'arbitrary mathematical imaginary surfaces' ( I forgot to mention dimensionally reduced ) to compound your confusion.

Should be more worried that using Semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic, doubles the risk of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. NAION is a condition that deprives the optic nerve ( and related retinal receptors ) of blood flow, causing cellular death and non-reversible vision loss. This is somewhat related to the effects of Glaucoma ( and the reason for my interest ). Don't yet know if the studies that suggest this result were influenced by the test subjects having the pre-existing diabetic condition, which usually causes problems with capillary blood flow. Lose weight the old-fashioned way; reduce caloric intake of eating/drinking to a level below the caloric output of your activitiy/exercise.

Exactly. R Feynman and my 3rd year Physics Prof taught me in 1980 that the HUP is an inherent quality of all wave motion, be it radio waves or the deBroglir waves of quantum particles. As for the OP, every theoretical model has 'flaws', because they are not the actual thing/effect being modelled. But we usually call them limitations of the model, certainly not 'flaws', because every model is useful within its limits

In the first configuration, gravity is strongest on the surface ( not the center ) of the planet, not at some arbitrary mathematical point on an imaginary surface, used to explain General Relativity to noobs. The same goes for the other two configurations; the 'source' of gravity is the Center of Gravity of the mass distribution doing the gravitating. And since mass is proportional to volume ( generally ), and falls off with the cube of the radius, gravity generally decreases within the mass distribution, falling to zero at the Center of mass ( see Newton's shell theorem ). Don't know what your fourth animation is supposed to represent ...

If I understand you correctly ( posting style and language make understanding difficult ), you are implying that gluon 'pressure' pushes quarks together inside nucleons, and that same gluon 'pressure' pushes galaxies together, making the color interaction the same as gravity and the gluon equivalent to the graviton. However ... A neutron is composed of two down quarks ( 2 x -1/3 ) and one up quark ( +2/3 ) while a proton is composed of two up quarks ( 2 x +2/3 ) and one down quark ( -1/3 ) to account for the uncharged neutron and the +1 charged proton. QCD holds that gluons are subject to the color interaction, and since quarks come in three colors, and anti-quarks come in three types of anti-color, to distinguish between all the differing quark/anti-quark species, gluons have to carry nine different combinations of color/anti-color. But because we don't observe neutrons and protons to be in any of these color states, they are in a color singlet state, which allows interaction among neutrons and protons, but not with any other color states. IOW, Protons interact with neutrons but not with quarks or gluons, so that of the nine 'effective states' there are only eight 'actual' states, and the singlet color state does not exist. These eight color states, being independent, help distinguish/group the various combinations of quark flavors that make up protons, neutrons, mesons, etc. So, please tell us what mechanism in your theory ( ? ) distinguishes between the various quarks to form composite particles like protons and neutrons. More precisely, how does 'gluon/graviton pressure' in your so called theory distinguish between an up quark and a down quark ???

Yes they are. But the Planck length is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton, which is only 15 orders of magnitude smaller than us. IOW, there is a smaller difference between us and protons, than there is between protons and the Planck scale. There being a vast difference in how things behave at atomic scales compared to macro scales, how much more prevalent would differences be at Planck scales ? And since we cannot generate the energies needed to investigate even close to Planck scales, the question remains unanswered. Quarks and Gluons are not 'little balls' interacting inside the 'bag' we call a Hadron. They are quantum particles, none of which have a discernible size, display both particle and wave nature ( depending on circumstance ), have an intrinsic angular momentum where nothing is spinning ( no radius ) but is called spin, and occupy distinct states, with nothing ( discontinuity ) in between the states. Your 'logic' immediately fails.

Quarks are only present within the diameter of a hadron, and at that separation the Color interaction dominates; here's what Wikipedia has to say on the matter "At a distance of 10−15 m, its strength is around 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 106 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1038 times that of gravitation." That makes any gravitational force, even Newtonian, acting between Quarks trivial

The 'strong' force is actually a residual force; a byproduct of the Color interaction between Quarks and Gluons. It is called a 'color' interaction because it is modelled by Quantum Chromo Dynamics. At scales less than the diameter of a hadron ( proton or neutron ), Quarks experience color confinement, meaning that the color force does not diminish with separation, effectively making the separation of two Quarks impossible as the required energy of separation will 'create' new pairs of Quarks. This binding energy makes up most of the mass of Hadrons, as individual Quarks only account for approx. 1% of a Hadron's mass. At scales larger than the diameter of a Hadron, a residual aspect of the Color interaction binds Hadrons together, and this is mediated not by Gluons but rather Pi Mesons ( modelled as a Yukawa interaction ), and diminishes extremely rapidly with separation. As to the unification with other forces, here is a quote from Wikipedia ... Strong interaction - Wikipedia "The so-called Grand Unified Theories (GUT) aim to describe the strong interaction and the electroweak interaction as aspects of a single force, similarly to how the electromagnetic and weak interactions were unified by the Glashow–Weinberg–Salam model into electroweak interaction. The strong interaction has a property called asymptotic freedom, wherein the strength of the strong force diminishes at higher energies (or temperatures). The theorized energy where its strength becomes equal to the electroweak interaction is the grand unification energy. However, no Grand Unified Theory has yet been successfully formulated to describe this process, and Grand Unification remains an unsolved problem in physics. If GUT is correct, after the Big Bang and during the electroweak epoch of the universe, the electroweak force separated from the strong force. Accordingly, a grand unification epoch is hypothesized to have existed prior to this."

Thank you2

One fairly persistent idea is that at small enough separation ( Planck scale ), and/or high enough energies like those at 10E-43 sec after the Big Bang, a Grand Unified force existed briefly. Gravity was the first to separate at that time, followed by the Color force, and finally the Weak from the Electromagnetic, through a series of symmetry breaks.

No, no, no and no. Electromagnetism 'couples' to charge. Gravity 'couples' to anything that has energy-momentum, including high frequency, fast moving particles like photons. ( and even itself )

I will agree with String Junky, some Israeli politicians, including B Netanyahu, are criminally insane. But, then again, it's not like there is a shortage of the criminally insane in the Palestinian Government, Hamas. The insane on one side breed the insane on the other, The vicious circle never stops going round until all are insane, including every 'Gazan child'. And I have to wonder ... If Ukraine had killed 1500 peaceful Russian concert goers, kidnapped several hundred, and was STILL holding a lot of them captive, would anyone blame Russia for attacking Ukraine and killing several times the numbers killed in Gaza ? ( just putting things in perspective ) Israel always seems to have differing standards applied to them.

I know both are 'grifters', as apparently all the cardinal showing up for the Papal Conclave were showing up in limos and adorned with all sorts of gold ( my supervisor was vacationing in Rome ), but I would rather have the new Pope as head of the American Government than Donald Trump. So much for the Christian teaching "the poor and meek shall inherit the Earth" ...

I guess you've never seen a pinhole in a pigtail connection leaking liquified Phosphine ( at 700 psi ) shooting like a blowtorch, 20 feet across the room. Or a pump leaking hot, liquified Phosphorus all over the floor, burning at over 1500 degrees, and having to cover it with wet sand to smother the burning. Or a gasholder bell, having reached its stops and blown out the water seal, surrounded by a ring of fire ( much lower pressure ) rising 50 feet into the night sky ( why does this crap always happen at night ? ). And all the accompanying white smoke from the Phosphorus Pentoxide, which turns to Phosphoric acid when it contacts any unprotected mucous membranes, like throat and eyes. Like all fire situations, keep calm, vent down any pressure, and isolate before attempting to fight the fire with all appropriate protection. Ahhh, the joy of being on the Fire Brigade at 66 years of age ...

I'm still not sure you understand 'models'. A model has to fit the available data from observation. If it doesn't the model needs to be amended, or in extreme cases such as QM, a new paradigm is needed. But that makes no difference whatsoever to the observational data, nor its interpretation. Mathematics is the least ambiguous ( and non-interpretive ) model building tool, which is why it is extensively used. I still haven't read all of your OP for the simple reason that it is a derivative of Aether Theory, and the exact same arguments can be made against it as has been done for the past hundred years. What distinguishes your theory from Aether Theory so as to make it viable ? (please keep it to one screen length )

Not sure. The casing is there to isolate the volatile contents from the elements. The drop and the heat of the fire might further break open the casing and intensify the ongoing reaction. X-posted with Exchemist

From my limited understanding of the constantly changing composition of Li-Ion batteries, the Lithium salts are in an organic electrolyte. The Lithium is very reactive with water that may seep in through cracks in the casing developed during the winter months ( for outdoor lighting ) which will catch fire, produce Hydrogen gas, and ignite the electrolyte. Obviously you don't want to put water on it, but a 'reactive metals', D-type fire extinguisher, or possibly even an ABC type, containing Ammonium Phosphate, might mitigate the risks associated with 'handling' such a fire. I have kept two fire extinguishers in the house for the past 40 years ( since I started working with chemicals ), and fortunately, only had the opportunity to use one of them once.

Congratulations ?

In case Veritocrat is wondering ... That is the Ultraviolet Catastrophe , which Max Planck eventually solved with an 'act of desperation', and ushered in the paradigm shift we now call Quantum Mechanics.

Haven't been to McDonald's in many years. If you're in a hurry, and it's the only 'fast food' outlet nearby, it is 'convenient, but it is also convenient to pick up a pre-cooked chicken thigh or breast, with some potatoes and a small salad ( for about the same price as a Big Mac meal ), from your local grocery store. And if about once a year I feel the need for a fast food burger, I go with a Double Whopper with cheese. You can't beat the meat to bun ratio.

I didn't read the whole spiel either, but it sounds like a return to 'aether theory', and your understanding of a model is flawed. A model does not completely describe the whole. It can describe certain parts of the whole, or it may not completely describe all of its aspects. The wave theory of light and the particle theory of light are both incomplete and only described certain aspects, until wave-particle duality gave a more complete model. General Relativity is only applicable to a limited domain, and fails at very small separations and extremely high energies, while QM is only applicable to small separations. Neither is incorrect when applied in their proper domain, but result in infinities and other nonsense if applied incorrectly. As for your solid universe, recall that Michelson and Morley established that the 'aether' was either non-existent, or infinitely 'stiff' but at the same time, infinitely 'pliable' so as to allow for unobstructed motion through it. And since GR doesn't require it ( works fine without it ), such an impossible medium was discarded over 100 years ago. What does your model bring to the table that is not already explained by current models ? IOW, why do you feel the need to complicate matters, with no return in additional knowledge ?

Will this follow a tenet like the Mrs Tilly thread ? ( thanks C Nolan )