# All Four Forces of Physics United
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [April 12, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289 "2017-04-12T04:17:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 14
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/261 "2017-05-12T22:51:47Z")
> [@pulykamell](#):
>
> Ha! The “sheep”/“sheeple” comes out. That tells me all I need to know about the person and their ideas, whatever claim they may be making.
Ha! Exactly. Had to be a conspiracy theory in there just struggling to get out.
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/262 "2017-05-12T23:57:50Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> when you rely on measurements taken in any relative space as a basis for developing a mathematical equation to describe the universe, your equation is only relevant in the teeny tiny relative space that you took your measurement at.
This might be a worthwhile point (spoiler: it isn’t) if we hadn’t already used those measurements to land astronauts on the moon; to predict the motion of planets to ridiculous accuracy (the GR correction to the precession in Mercury’s orbit amounts to just 43 arc-seconds/century); to predict and then detect subatomic particles ranging from the electron to quarks to the Higgs particle; and so on. Science works. That’s the difference between what scientists do and what you’re fumbling around with: science presents a coherent theory that allows specific, falsifiable predictions. Anything else is simply bullshit.
This is not new or advanced stuff; Newtonian mechanics dates back to the middle of the 17th century. Whining about how the sheep don’t understand your awesome brilliance is a waste of everyone’s time. Putting forth an incoherent, ill-defined, meaningless theory that makes no predictions, has no rigor, and offers no improvement over existing and experimentally verified models is a waste of everyone’s time.
To avoid making this thread a complete waste of time, here’s a clip from [Futurama](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ced3--puZI).
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/263 "2017-05-13T00:03:28Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> the only math I am concerned with is the Fibonacci sequence as they are real numbers to me.
Incidentally, the _n_th Fibonacci number is given by F[SUB]n[/SUB] = (φ[SUP]n[/SUP] - (-φ)[SUP]-n[/SUP])\sqrt{5}, where φ = (1 + \sqrt{5})/2 is the golden ratio.
I’m not saying it’s PHI…but it’s PHI.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/264 "2017-05-13T02:30:04Z")
may you slide down the pike of eternal impalement
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/265 "2017-05-13T13:32:46Z")
If the pike was in space, would he slide faster?
---
### Author:  [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/266 "2017-05-13T17:25:52Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#):
>
> If the pike was in space, would he slide faster?
But what if the pike is frictionless?
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/267 "2017-05-13T18:27:51Z")
**MANTRAPHILTER** , this type of insulting post is not acceptable in this forum. You’re new here, so perhaps you don’t realize it, but you can earn warnings for insulting posters outside the Pit.
Don’t do this again.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> may you slide down the pike of eternal impalement
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/268 "2017-05-13T19:31:40Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Math is only a language, the universe is much more complicated. So quit Idolizing math as the supreme language.
Math is only a language, true. The problem is, you’re not using something superior to math to express your ideas.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/269 "2017-05-13T21:34:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#):
>
> Math is only a language, true. The problem is, you’re not using something superior to math to express your ideas.
Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity. As space is changing relative to whatever mass is displacing it, and there is no way numbers can represent the idea. if a formula were possible it would have to include the weight, the density, and the circumference of the mass. Since a planet is not perfectly symmetrical and has varying density’s there is no way to calculate how much space is being displaced at a given relative point in the field of displaced space.
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/270 "2017-05-13T21:58:34Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity. As space is changing relative to whatever mass is displacing it, and there is no way numbers can represent the idea. if a formula were possible it would have to include the weight, the density, and the circumference of the mass. Since a planet is not perfectly symmetrical and has varying density’s there is no way to calculate how much space is being displaced at a given relative point in the field of displaced space.
Just because you don’t understand math does not mean it can’t be used to do exactly what you are saying it can’t.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/271 "2017-05-13T21:58:38Z")
I just got an Idea, A single proton is consistent so, if you know the weight of a proton, you could take the known weight of a mass and divide it by the weight of a proton then multiply it by the amount of space that a single proton displaces. Only problem is to measure the distance that an electron orbits its proton in order to get the amount of space that is being displaced by the proton, is relative to the field of displaced space that you measure it in. Maybe the average distance that an electron orbits its proton, measured at both the surface of the planet and at where space becomes a vacuum. So the weight of a mass divided by the weight of a proton multiplied by the average distance a proton orbits its electron in said masses field of displaced space would be - some sort of formula for the gravitational field of a planet?
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/272 "2017-05-13T21:59:27Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity. As space is changing relative to whatever mass is displacing it, and there is no way numbers can represent the idea. if a formula were possible it would have to include the weight, the density, and the circumference of the mass.
OMG, you’re right. I don’t think anyone has ever worked with THREE variables before.
> [@](#):
>
> Since a planet is not perfectly symmetrical and has varying density’s there is no way to calculate how much space is being displaced at a given relative point in the field of displaced space.
If there’s no way to calculate it using maths, I don’t think rambling strings of words like “relative to the less space farther away from the more space” are doing it better.
The ideas you’re proposing here aren’t complex - they’re just not coherent.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/273 "2017-05-13T22:01:41Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> I just got an Idea, A single proton is consistent so, if you know the weight of a proton, you could take the known weight of a mass and divide it by the weight of a proton then multiply it by the amount of space that a single proton displaces. . . .
How is this not math?
---
### Author:  [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/274 "2017-05-13T22:02:15Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity.
This right here is all we need to know about your “theory”
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/275 "2017-05-13T22:05:54Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity. As space is changing relative to whatever mass is displacing it, and there is no way numbers can represent the idea. if a formula were possible it would have to include the weight, the density, and the circumference of the mass. Since a planet is not perfectly symmetrical and has varying density’s there is no way to calculate how much space is being displaced at a given relative point in the field of displaced space.
And yet, [the math exists to do just that](http://www.physics247.com/physics-tutorial/mass-planet.shtml).
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2017, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/276 "2017-05-14T00:24:12Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity.
Yes, because repeated strings of the word “displace space” is inherently more clear. :rolleyes:
> [@](#):
>
> As space is changing relative to whatever mass is displacing it, and there is no way numbers can represent the idea. if a formula were possible it would have to include the weight, the density, and the circumference of the mass. Since a planet is not perfectly symmetrical and has varying density’s there is no way to calculate how much space is being displaced at a given relative point in the field of displaced space.
That’s what calculus is for. Seriously, the concepts of limits and infinitesimals were derived specifically to be able to calculate using variables changing in varying ways and interacting in non-linear manner.
**Quicksilver** , to be fair, your formula doesn’t address the question **MANTRAPHILTER** is describing. He has cobbled up his own confusing use of the words “space” and “displaced” to mean something that is not the straightforward reading of physical volume. Rather, it’s more analogous to the curvature of space-time due to gravity. Except it’s nothing like that.
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/277 "2017-05-14T00:51:30Z")
After six pages of this, I finally know enough about Mantra **phi** lters’ theory to write it up with all the math gobbledygook that the high priests of science looooove so much, send it to the King of Physics under my own name, and win a Nobel prize! See you in Stockholm, suckers! Or, rather, I won’t see you there, because you’re going to be stuck here whining about math while I enjoy my millions of dollars and physics groupies. Bwahahahaha!
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/278 "2017-05-14T01:35:37Z")
> [@Irishman](#):
>
> Yes, because repeated strings of the word “displace space” is inherently more clear. :rolleyes:
>
> That’s what calculus is for. Seriously, the concepts of limits and infinitesimals were derived specifically to be able to calculate using variables changing in varying ways and interacting in non-linear manner.
>
> **Quicksilver** , to be fair, your formula doesn’t address the question **MANTRAPHILTER** is describing. He has cobbled up his own confusing use of the words “space” and “displaced” to mean something that is not the straightforward reading of physical volume. Rather, it’s more analogous to the curvature of space-time due to gravity. Except it’s nothing like that.
Yes, how can you use math to describe how much time speeds up or slows down because of the curvature of space created by the mass that displaces it.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2017, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/279 "2017-05-14T01:45:05Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> This might be a worthwhile point (spoiler: it isn’t) if we hadn’t already used those measurements to land astronauts on the moon; to predict the motion of planets to ridiculous accuracy (the GR correction to the precession in Mercury’s orbit amounts to just 43 arc-seconds/century); to predict and then detect subatomic particles ranging from the electron to quarks to the Higgs particle; and so on. Science works. That’s the difference between what scientists do and what you’re fumbling around with: science presents a coherent theory that allows specific, falsifiable predictions. Anything else is simply bullshit.
>
> This is not new or advanced stuff; Newtonian mechanics dates back to the middle of the 17th century. Whining about how the sheep don’t understand your awesome brilliance is a waste of everyone’s time. Putting forth an incoherent, ill-defined, meaningless theory that makes no predictions, has no rigor, and offers no improvement over existing and experimentally verified models is a waste of everyone’s time.
>
> To avoid making this thread a complete waste of time, here’s a clip from [Futurama](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ced3--puZI).
so your saying my theory does not show how gravity and the strong nuclear force are the same force.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2017, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/280 "2017-05-14T01:56:14Z")
I wrote this theory to show how gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and magnetism are all part of one simple idea. It is the space displaced by a mass that causes all of the four nuclear forces. My language may not be up to your well educated standard, but the theory is sound.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=13)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=15)