MigL

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 )

Neil deGrasse-Tyson does have advanced Degrees in Astrophysics, however he is best known as an Astronomy/Physics popularizer. In his studies and professional career, Tyson's research has focused on "observations in cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic astronomy, bulges, and stellar formation. He has held numerous positions at institutions including the University of Maryland, Princeton University, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Hayden Planetarium" from his Wikipedia page Neil deGrasse Tyson - Wikipedia I would suggest that if you need an expert on Black Holes to help out with your 'monumental breakthrough', Neil is not the person to ask for help. Your thinking that he is means you don't know enough about the subject to be taken seriously, and you just 'dropped' a popular scientist's name. Maybe you should have Googled some Black Hole researchers, and used one of their names ...

Thanks. I saw the claim of it being the most accurate 'clock' ever, and I thought I'd ask an expert, as understanding the technical article would have required a lot of research on my part. So what is a frequency standard used for ? Calibrating atomic clocks ? And if this new standard has only an incremental accuracy improvement over standard atomic clocks, wouldn't calibration with such a standard provide only minor improvements in accuracy ?

On April 15, the National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST ) in Boulder, Colorado, claimed, in the journal Metrologia, to have developed the world's most accurate timepiece, to less than 1 sec/100 million years. Here is the article Accuracy evaluation of primary frequency standard NIST-F4 - IOPscience that details the NIST-F4's workings. This would mean that having synchronized your watch with a T-Rex 100 000 000 years ago, it would be currently off by less than a second. I'm not sure how 'ground-breaking' this is, as I'm not aware of the accuracy of current atomic clocks, and most of us are fairly ignorant of such things. Perhaps @swansont can elaborate further and educate us ...

Seems to be re-normalizable for first order loops, and further work is needed to make sure infinities don't arise from higher order loops. But even after establishing consistency of the mathematics, of course, there are predictions to test its viability, and since it reduces to standard GR at low energies/large separations, any tests will necessarily be at energies and separations we may not be able to reach. Would be interesting to get @Markus Hanke take on this, as frankly, the maths involved are way above my pay scale.

Repeating over and over that the Physics doesn't work will not make your claim true. The Physical model for levers and fulcrums perfectly describes what happens in reality. Perhaps, instead of repeating the claim once again, you can tell us exactly what aspects don't match up with the reality. ( simply try it yourself on a see-saw )

Ran across this article today. Haven't read a copy of the actual paper yet but supposedly promising and re-normalizable. https://www.aalto.fi/en/news/new-theory-of-gravity-brings-long-sought-theory-of-everything-a-crucial-step-closer And the paper https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/adc82e Keeping my fingers crossed ... Keeping my

That myth is the prevalent opinion in many places. After all, D Trump's Republicans are setting spending records and tanking the American economy. My example was only related to the situation in Canada, where the new Liberal Government has already promised years of much increased deficit spending. Their previous unchecked immigration policies only served to increase housing costs such that even Canadians could not afford them, never mind new immigrants. The Conservatives proposed an immigration system tied to the housing market; no sense bringing in immigrants to freeze on the streets. We should be looking at governing policies, not at the 'label' they assign to their party, nor what they could possibly do because they have the same 'label' as a party in another country. I would hope we don't become like Americans, who have no idea what policies they are voting for, but go to the polling station and simply tick off the same party that they have always voted for, sometimes for several generations.

I'm not sure about Germany or Australia; I can only speak to Canada. The Liberals in Canada, under J Trudeau, saw their support fall to the teens while the Conservatives were at better than 50 %, until D Trump started fiddle-fu*king with tariffs, and within a week, the Liberals, now under M Carney, pulled ahead of the Conservatives, where they stayed for the next three weeks until the election. This was all before they had presented and costed their platforms; it was all due to the fact that M Carney is perceived as better protection against D Trump's madness, after all he is a businessman and can make the 'best deals' ( how did that work out with D Trump ?). I'm hopeful that all's for the best, as Carney didn't get a majority, so it won't be 'back to J Trudeau's ways' too soon, and P Poilievre lost his seat in Parliament, but I would consider it interference if the only reason we have the current Government, is the head of our neighbor's Government.

Seems Australia went the same as Canada. D Trump is making all conservative leaders in elections seem like 'boogeymen' and costing them votes, even when they might have viable platforms, or the opponent is a 'dud'. Used to be Russia and China that did the election interfering; now it's the US.