# 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:** 20
### Author:  [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/381 "2017-05-16T15:42:19Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> For me, I find crackpots oddly intriguing. Not their actual theories, of course— that’s worthless nonsense---- but I find the psychology interesting of someone who would be that obsessed with an idea that’s manifestly completely wrong. They all follow the same pattern:
> [ol]
> [li]Making grandiose claims (it’s always a Theory of Everything or a disproof of relativity or quantum mechanics, never (as actual scientists have to content themselves with) a modest improvement);[/li][li]Ranting about sheeple, the scientific orthodoxy, etc.;[/li][li]Dismissing any proposed or existing, already-established experiments that disagree with the theory;[/li][li]Obsession with minor details, like a choice of terminology;[/li][li]Insistence that their theory would be rigorous if someone could just help them with the math, or (as here) that math just gets in the way of Real Science;[/li][li]Ignoring questions about the theory and just restating the same very flawed thesis over and over again (also, as in this case, pointing toward a brief blurb on a website and claiming that that answers all the questions).[/li][li]Not understanding the problem they’re trying to solve. In this case, for example, the OP clearly has no understanding of general relativity (see whatever the hell he’s talking about with gravity around atoms), quantum mechanics (electrons as collapsed wave functions of light waves), the weak interaction (atoms decay because they’re squeezed by light, and that’s apparently all that interaction does), dark energy (it’s like energy, but negative). He doesn’t even understand the difference between electric charge and energy, which is high-school level stuff.[/li][li]Not even understanding what science _is_, despite claiming to overturn it. They have no interest in experiments, mathematical models, existing theories and their experimental confirmations, or scientific rigor. They can’t tell the difference between something like the OP here and, say, any random undergrad-level physics textbook.[/li][/ol]
>
> Yeah, but it’s not like that time could be better used elsewhere. I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the OP is not making his posts in between, say, performing surgeries.
I agree with 100% of what you’ve posted. For me, I like to think that people can learn and everything in your list is something the OP could learn if only he would realize that learning is the key. Hence my post earlier today. I’m an eternal optimist I guess that if somebody is truly interested in science, like I think the OP is, I would love to see them pursue it but pursue it sensibly by first learning about it. I feel bad for the OP because this is never going to go anywhere and it won’t go anywhere because he just doesn’t want to take the time to learn first.
---
### Author:  [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/382 "2017-05-16T16:05:08Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> As an experiment of my own, I predict that he’s going to ignore your question, just reiterate the same nonsense he’s been spewing here for the last pages, and add in some bits about the sheeple are too cowardly or educated stupid and evil to recognize the truth of his theory. It’s like people who pass out tracts on subway corners, then can’t understand why reciting a Bible verse to someone doesn’t instantly convert them.
As a teacher I see challenges like these as a no-stress game where the goal is to figure out some of the central misconceptions preventing the person in question from absorbing real knowledge. If they do, woohoo, victory for me, and if they don’t, no skin off my nose.
Of course with a hard case like this, it’s unlikely to have permanent effect, even if they do learn something they’ll find a way to adapt or ignore the small nugget of truth, but it still improves my knowledge of what basic knowledge I assume people have and which they don’t always possess.
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/383 "2017-05-16T16:22:26Z")
> [@naita](#):
>
> Forget anti-matter and dark energy. You need to start by explaining everyday phenomena. And this idea of yours where there’s either charge or no charge is incompatible with them.
>
> If I rub a glass rod vigorously with a polyester cloth something happens to the glass rod. Among other effects there’s the fact that if I touch it to two very light objects, like tiny pieces of cork, suspended by insulating string, the objects will repel each other. If I bring the glass rod near again, especially after further rubbing, it will also repel the pieces of cork.
>
> I can repeat the experiment with an ebonite rod and nylon cloth, and this appears to be the same phenomenon, but if I try to cross over I find that the ebonite rod **attracts** the cork pieces treated with the glass rod, and the glass rod attracts the cork pieces treated with the ebonite rod.
>
> How do you explain this without accepting the concept of opposite charges?
>
> And before you just type out the first explanation that pops into your mind, know that similarly basic experiments tie these results directly to the concept of electrical current, and that magnets do nothing observable to the corks or the rods.
In my model, it’s pretty obvious to me what is going on. why don’t you scratch your head a little and see if you can figure out.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/384 "2017-05-16T16:36:04Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my model, it’s pretty obvious to me what is going on. why don’t you scratch your head a little and see if you can figure out.
I think I figured it out: In your model, it’s pretty obvious only to you what is going on. This means that either you a mega-genius along the lines of Einstein or Galileo…or you are incredibly wrong.
Ever hear of Occam’s Razor?
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/385 "2017-05-16T16:57:29Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my model, it’s pretty obvious to me what is going on. why don’t you scratch your head a little and see if you can figure out.
Why don’t you provide us with your experimental data and methodology in support of your hypothesis? You know - _evidence_ - the foundation of scientific theory.
Or are you just going to continue to ignore the inconvenient?
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/386 "2017-05-16T16:59:26Z")
Responses like this will get this thread shut down. Either you discuss in good faith or I’m closing it.
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my model, it’s pretty obvious to me what is going on. why don’t you scratch your head a little and see if you can figure out.
---
### Author:  [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/387 "2017-05-16T17:40:09Z")
Re: Itself’s crackpot observations–I see this in other areas, too, especially where money is potentially involved. For instance in the area of meteorites. Among others, there was this guy who was sure that he was discovering all sorts of rare meteorites around him left and right (google “boggy creek collection” and every expert that disagreed with him was part of a conspiracy against him, often getting legal threats from him . There was another guy convinced that a “glacial erratic” bolder he had discovered was a large meteorite from Mars (God told him it was in a dream) and listed it on EBay over and over for millions, expecting to use the money to fund a ministry, and he also was immune to any contradictions of his identification. Similar people in paleontology, too, convinced that a vaguely suggestive rock is a rare and valuable fossil, and everyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to either hide an uncomfortable revelation or to steal the valuable fossil.
---
### Author:  [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/388 "2017-05-16T17:52:59Z")
MANTRAFILTER,
Putting it bluntly, there are hundreds of people who daydreaming late at night come up with theories that they claim explain all of the laws of physics. We get one of these once every couple of months here on the straight dope. There are even [cartoons](https://xkcd.com/1758/) about it.
Please explain clearly why we should accept your theory as opposed to all those others, and more importantly why we should accept your theory as opposed to the current scientific understanding of the laws of nature which have been borne out in independent experiments again and again.
State clearly an experiment that could be done that would demonstrate that your view of the universe is the correct one, not just a post hoc handwaving that says “My theory will explain aether” but an explicit prediction that will go one way according to your theory and another way according to the scientific consensus.
Also note that in order to create such an experiment you are going to need to fully understand what the scientific consensus says. They may be totally wrong and your theory totally right, but you still need to know your opposition. You can’t say that your soft drink tastes better than Coke until you have tasted Coke.
Then once you have designed your experiment, explained what your theory predicts (and why) and what the scientific concensus predicts (and why). You can run your experiment and see who is right. If it comes out in your favor, and furthermore if other scientists can perform the same experiment and get the same results, then congratulations you are on your way to becoming the next Einstein and getting a Nobel Prize, and then you can come back here and we will all admit that we were wrong to doubt you.
But until that happens, your theory is just one of hundreds of competing day dreams that no one will seriously pay attention to.
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/389 "2017-05-16T17:57:24Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#):
>
> Re: Itself’s crackpot observations–I see this in other areas, too, especially where money is potentially involved. For instance in the area of meteorites. Among others, there was this guy who was sure that he was discovering all sorts of rare meteorites around him left and right (google “boggy creek collection” and every expert that disagreed with him was part of a conspiracy against him, often getting legal threats from him . There was another guy convinced that a “glacial erratic” bolder he had discovered was a large meteorite from Mars (God told him it was in a dream) and listed it on EBay over and over for millions, expecting to use the money to fund a ministry, and he also was immune to any contradictions of his identification. Similar people in paleontology, too, convinced that a vaguely suggestive rock is a rare and valuable fossil, and everyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to either hide an uncomfortable revelation or to steal the valuable fossil.
Wow, that’s impressively awful. It’s odd that you mention money, because my experience is exactly opposite: crackpots talk about grandiose ideas in math or physics (or, at least, what they think is math or physics), which are typically not high-paying fields. The driving force seems to be that they’re smarter than all the ossified guardians of the orthodoxy, and they have alone have the brilliant insight (if not the execution) and courage to bring about the Big New Idea.
And that one incoherent idea all they think that math and physics is: just announcing “but, what if everything is just displaced space” and collecting their Nobel prize. They have no notion of what makes a theory rigorous or falsifiable; no idea of how or why to conduct experiments; no knowledge of prior theories or experiments (the nonsensical OP here is claiming that electrons have no mass and variable charge, which contradicts Thomson’s and Millikan’s experiments more than a century ago); no real understanding of what problems they’re trying to solve (apparently whatever the OP is babbling about explains all the physics ever) or why those problems actually are problems (the OP’s claims about dark energy and negative electric charge as being some kind of anti-energy, for example).
It might be sad if the people involved in such masturbatory conspiracy theories were more sympathetic. As it stands, there’s not much to do besides point and laugh.
---
### Author:  [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/390 "2017-05-16T18:06:49Z")
The problem with this kind of crackpottery isn’t lack of scientific training, or lack of understanding of real scientific theories. It is (among other things) a much more fundamental absence of introspective insight, and it isn’t ever going to be fixed or even ameliorated by pointing out the flaws in the “science”. To put this as delicately as possible, the underlying problem with crackpot theories is not to be found in the theories.
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/391 "2017-05-16T18:07:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> This means that either you a mega-genius along the lines of Einstein or Galileo…
The guy who was one of the first of what would be recognized as experimental scientists, invented observational astronomy, and constructed a mathematical theory of basic kinematics before Newton? And the guy who was a physics professor (with a PhD and everything), developed a theory of the photoelectric effect in response to and verified by experiment, and developed the mathematical theory of special and general relativity (both of which have been extensively verified by experiment)?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/392 "2017-05-16T18:22:53Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> The guy who was one of the first of what would be recognized as experimental scientists, invented observational astronomy, and constructed a mathematical theory of basic kinematics before Newton? And the guy who was a physics professor (with a PhD and everything), developed a theory of the photoelectric effect in response to and verified by experiment, and developed the mathematical theory of special and general relativity (both of which have been extensively verified by experiment)?
Actually, I was referring to Bob Einstein(aka Super Dave Osborne) and Galileo Briscotti(owner of Galileo’s Bar and Grill at O’Hare Airport).
---
### Author:  [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/393 "2017-05-16T18:30:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Actually, I was referring to Bob Einstein(aka Super Dave Osborne) and Galileo Briscotti(owner of Galileo’s Bar and Grill at O’Hare Airport).
WHAT!?! Super Dave Osborne’s name isn’t Dave Osborne?!?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
My childhood is ruined.
😃
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/394 "2017-05-16T18:33:58Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#):
>
> WHAT!?! Super Dave Osborne’s name isn’t Dave Osborne?!?
>
> Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
>
> My childhood is ruined.
> 😃
The best part is not only that his brother’s name is actually Albert Einstein, but that he changed it to…Albert Brooks.
---
### Author:  [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/395 "2017-05-16T18:41:04Z")
Re:Itself’s latest post (having a clumsy time trying to quote on these phone) it reminds me of this comic:
> **[Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for February 12, 2016 | GoComics.com](https://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2016/02/12)**
>
> Chagrin Falls
> "Breaking Silence"
>
> Gavin! Dinner.
> Gavin: one sec….
>
> \-if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?
>
> click
> Gavin: There
>
> Man1: Gavin Smythe? I want to shake your hand!
> Man2: we just saw your Facebook comment and rushed...
---
### Author:  [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/396 "2017-05-16T20:00:33Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> In my model, it’s pretty obvious to me what is going on. why don’t you scratch your head a little and see if you can figure out.
I found your description of your model do be incomprehensible gobbledygook. If you’re not going to attempt to explain how these phenomena fit in your model, I’m not going to waste my time worrying about it.
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/397 "2017-05-16T21:30:18Z")
What do you say, **MANTRAPHILTER** … back to the drawing board?
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/398 "2017-05-17T01:26:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> I think I figured it out: In your model, it’s pretty obvious only to you what is going on. This means that either you a mega-genius along the lines of Einstein or Galileo…or you are incredibly wrong.
>
> Ever hear of Occam’s Razor?
the rods are positively charged one rod will push the cork, crossing the rods changes the flow of charge. When you say negative charge, you are only describing the direction the charge is moving through the rod, not the charge itself.
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/399 "2017-05-17T01:38:38Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> the rods are positively charged one rod will push the cork, crossing the rods changes the flow of charge. When you say negative charge, you are only describing the direction the charge is moving through the rod, not the charge itself.
I thought you said never to cross the rods.
Seriously now. What does this even mean?
---
### Author:  [@MANTRAPHILTER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MANTRAPHILTER)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/400 "2017-05-17T01:41:23Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#):
>
> MANTRAFILTER,
>
> Putting it bluntly, there are hundreds of people who daydreaming late at night come up with theories that they claim explain all of the laws of physics. We get one of these once every couple of months here on the straight dope. There are even [cartoons](https://xkcd.com/1758/) about it.
>
> Please explain clearly why we should accept your theory as opposed to all those others, and more importantly why we should accept your theory as opposed to the current scientific understanding of the laws of nature which have been borne out in independent experiments again and again.
> State clearly an experiment that could be done that would demonstrate that your view of the universe is the correct one, not just a post hoc handwaving that says “My theory will explain aether” but an explicit prediction that will go one way according to your theory and another way according to the scientific consensus.
>
> Also note that in order to create such an experiment you are going to need to fully understand what the scientific consensus says. They may be totally wrong and your theory totally right, but you still need to know your opposition. You can’t say that your soft drink tastes better than Coke until you have tasted Coke.
>
> Then once you have designed your experiment, explained what your theory predicts (and why) and what the scientific concensus predicts (and why). You can run your experiment and see who is right. If it comes out in your favor, and furthermore if other scientists can perform the same experiment and get the same results, then congratulations you are on your way to becoming the next Einstein and getting a Nobel Prize, and then you can come back here and we will all admit that we were wrong to doubt you.
>
> But until that happens, your theory is just one of hundreds of competing day dreams that no one will seriously pay attention to.
You have heard about the discovery of the tetra neutron? How do you think four neutrons are held in a nucleus without displaced space to hold them?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=19)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=21)