# 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:** 5
### Author:  [@Wilson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wilson)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/81 "2017-04-13T21:13:21Z")
When I saw “waller” I was wondering how the Suicide Squad got involved.
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/82 "2017-04-14T00:13:55Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> ```
> I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter.
>
> ```
This seems to be proposing that matter displaces space in the same way as physical objects displace air. This presupposes that space is some kind of substance in the same way matter is, and that matter can exist without space. That seems to defy the basic definition of _space_ - the physical space in which things fit. You know, length, width, and height.
> [@](#):
>
> When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other?
They are falling in toward each other, they just have enough tangential (sideways) velocity to miss. They keep falling and missing.
> [@](#):
>
> ```
> Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it, having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be.
>
> ```
Your premise seems to be that “space” piles up around matter, and thus prevents matter from moving into lower space densities. This would be like oxygen clinging to dirt, preventing the dirt from floating up into the atmosphere where there is less oxygen.
> [@](#):
>
> ```
> As two particles are forced together, the “displaced space” around them begins to overlap. Once the overlapped space becomes greater than the original displaced space, the particles move into the now greater overlapped space. This now combines the two particles into one nucleus, and the displaced space around the two particles into one “displaced space” around a “two particle nucleus”. Again, the “displaced space” around these two particles is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the two particles side by side in the center. I believe this is describing the strong nuclear force.
>
> ```
This sounds vaguely like bubbles being forced together, and suddenly shifting to become one bigger bubble. All the soap moves to the outer surface rather than creating thin membranes between the bubbles, and the surface tension then makes the bubble one large sphere instead of two or more smaller spheres.
Again, there is nothing that connects this to any definition of “space”.
> [@](#):
>
> Photons of light traveling through space as a wave, enter the “displaced space” of a particle. The photon wave decompresses relative to the displaced space. The wave cannot compress fast enough to exit into the regular space. The uncharged particle now becomes charged, creating a proton. Once all of the particles are charged in the nucleus, any further photon light waves that pass through the “displaced space” decompress and do not enter the normal space outside of the “displaced space” and instead, stack up against the wall of space differential creating an electron.
This is gibberish. How does an electromagnetic wave “decompress”? How does this “decompression” generate an electrical charge? Saying it happens (without any proof or any mathematics to back it up) doesn’t make it so.
How do some “decompressed waves” inside the “displaced space” cause a positive charge, but other “decompressed waves” inside the “displaced space” cause a negative charge?
> [@](#):
>
> ```
> I believe the language of physics is wrong when it describes the electron as a negatively charged particle. All particles are either charged, or not charged, and an electron is a charge free of any particle. If any particle deserves the negative designation. It should be the neutron, as it can accept a charge.
>
> ```
How do you have a charge free of a particle? What is that?
> [@](#):
>
> I do not define the electron as a negatively charged particle. This is misleading, and leads to the belief that there are two different types of charges, and there are not. Only charged particles (protons and electrons) and not charged particles which will accept a charge, (neutrons).
Wait, you just contradicted yourself. Are electrons charged particles or not?
> [@](#):
>
> A planet has more density as you come closer to its core. As matter accumulates, the “displaced stacked space” along with the atoms are being put under pressure by its mass. Different elements are created depending on the amount of pressure and density. As density increases, more space is being displaced around the total mass. At the surface of our planet, it appears weaker because, the “displaced stacked space” is being occupied by less concentrated matter at its surface. Again, the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like a photographic negative of itself. The closer you are to the center of the planet, the denser the matter becomes and so more of the displaced space is filled. Likewise, the closer to the surface (but within the matter) the less dense the matter becomes, and so less of the displaced space is being filled. As you travel way from the surface of the planet (through the photographic negative effect) of the displaced space, the space gradually decreases until you hit the wall of space differential and enter the vacuum of space.
Your proposal is that the different elements are created inside the Earth, at different depths and therefore pressures, which cause the different element sizes and charges. How then do we find these heavier and larger elements at the surface? Wouldn’t they expand/decompress/transform as they moved outward to lower pressures?
I’ve saturated my gibberish limit.
> [@constanze](#):
>
> I think a good physics teacher - or English teacher - could use it as teaching tool:
>
> Analyze each sentence and Point out the mistakes
>
> Rewrite it to make sense.
>
> Because it’s so Long, each Student can get a paragraph.
Impossible without adding or changing concepts.
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#):
>
> The term is “wallow”, which anyone a “spoon fed ivy league egotistical education” would know, as would a simpleton with a mere fork-fed land grant state university educated engineer such as myself. To “waller” refers to the stride style of piano playing popularized by Harlem jazz pianist Thomas Wright ‘Fats’ Waller.
[quote=“wolfpup, post:57, topic:784289”]
[ul]
[li]“Waller” is not a word, at least, not in any language that I speak. You might have meant “wallow”, but it’s hard to know as the entirety of the thing is essentially incomprehensible.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I was thinking the same thing, but bothered to put “waller” in my search engine. There is an [urbandictionary](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=waller) entry for said term:
> [@](#):
>
> Verb. The word originated from farmers who used the term to describe the pigs “wallering” in the mud or their own shit. Today it describes someone who is lying around lazily, doing nothing. When a person is completely worn out or hung over, they “waller” in bed or on the couch. To be slow, heavy, sleepy and/or unmotivated. Often occurs on the day following alcohol or substance abuse. May also be the result of over extending oneself during the workweek. All they can do is “waller” because they are too brain dead to do anything else.
Of course urbandictionary is hardly definitive of anything, since it can’t even agree within itself.
> [@](#):
>
> Noun. The act of masturbation performed in a work-like environment. A waller will usually take place on a break to pass the time in an otherwise uninteresting day; the prospect of getting caught, coupled with a possible lack of sexual stimulus (depending on your job) make for a challenging yet satisfying activity.
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#):
>
> Over at Science Forums, he says:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by \*\*MANTRAPHILTER elsewhere \*\*
> > there has to be some formula for the strength of the vacuum of space and the difference of the conditions at the planet surface, and the mass of the planet. I am not a mathematician so I have a hard time putting it together in the right order. lets use s for surface vacuum and v for space vacuum, U for universe and of course m for mass. something like s-v x m =u or maybe the other way around, S x V / M = U, I’m not sure.
> >
> > I think it would be S / V x M = U, surface divided by vacuum times mass equals universe?
You can’t just arbitrarily string letters together and hope it means something. First off, your definitions of your terms are unclear. When you say s = surface vacuum, what do you mean? What units? Is that a pressure unit? A volume unit? A mass unit? You must make the assigned variables represent actual quantities, not vague concepts. Once you know what the actual quantities are that you are relating to each other, _then_ you can understand the proposed relationships between them.
For example, I only know what _density_ is after I’ve determined what _mass_ and _volume_ are. You need both of those before you can state that density = mass/volume. The concept of density is how matter is spread out. It only makes sense with definitions of amount of matter to spread and amount of space into which to spread it.
“U for universe” is a meaningless expression.
---
### Author:  [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/83 "2017-04-14T00:31:28Z")
Forget all that science shit. I want to know how anybody with more than 3 brain cells can consider Oklahoma to be part of The South!
---
### Author:  [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/84 "2017-04-14T00:37:41Z")
> [@silenus](#):
>
> Forget all that science shit. I want to know how anybody with more than 3 brain cells can consider Oklahoma to be part of The South!
The [census bureau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau#Census_regions_and_divisions) might have more than 3…but I guess that is debatable, being the gub’mint and all.
> [@](#):
>
> Region 3: South
>
> ```
> Division 5: South Atlantic (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C., and West Virginia)
> Division 6: East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee)
> Division 7: West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, **Oklahoma** , and Texas)
>
> ```
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/85 "2017-04-14T04:13:53Z")
I grew up in Arkansas and went to college in Oklahoma (insert joke here), and everyone I knew considered it so. It might not have been part of the Confederacy, but it identifies as the south.
---
### Author:  [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/86 "2017-04-14T12:46:36Z")
I just wanted to say that Physics United would be a good name for an all physics department intramural soccer team.
---
### Author:  [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/87 "2017-04-14T13:03:51Z")
> [@asterion](#):
>
> I just wanted to say that Physics United would be a good name for an all physics department intramural soccer team.
::cough::post 27::cough::
---
### Author:  [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/88 "2017-04-14T14:20:48Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#):
>
> The [census bureau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau#Census_regions_and_divisions) might have more than 3…but I guess that is debatable, being the gub’mint and all.
Yeah…they’re wrong too. It’s plainly (snerk) in the Mid-West. 😉
Delaware? _Really?_ 3 brain cells is being generous.
---
### Author:  [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/89 "2017-04-14T15:08:45Z")
It’s pretty clear from the wiki cite’s map ([United States Census Bureau - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau#/media/File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg)) that the Census Bureau is dividing the US into sections for bureaucratic convenience, not necessarily along cultural lines.
It’s also pretty clear that the cultural South (or linguistic South since this whole side kerfuffle started over the word “waller”) has fuzzy indistinct boundaries that don’t closely align with US state borders.
As if any of us could agree on what the term “South” even means, much less where it’s applicable.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/90 "2017-04-14T15:58:09Z")
> [@silenus](#):
>
> Yeah…they’re wrong too. It’s plainly (snerk) in the Mid-West. 😉
>
> Delaware? _Really?_ 3 brain cells is being generous.
Delaware was a slave state, like Maryland.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/91 "2017-04-14T16:02:30Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#):
>
> It’s pretty clear from the wiki cite’s map ([United States Census Bureau - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau#/media/File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg)) that the Census Bureau is dividing the US into sections for bureaucratic convenience, not necessarily along cultural lines.
>
> It’s also pretty clear that the cultural South (or linguistic South since this whole side kerfuffle started over the word “waller”) has fuzzy indistinct boundaries that don’t closely align with US state borders.
>
> As if any of us could agree on what the term “South” even means, much less where it’s applicable.
I think I can claim I’m from the True South: 13.2 degrees N. and didn’t abolish slavery until January 2nd, 1900.
---
### Author:  [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/92 "2017-04-14T16:27:19Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#):
>
> As if any of us could agree on what the term “South” even means, much less where it’s applicable.
Well, it is already established that “s” is surface vacuum and “u” is universe. “T” is probably time. So we still need to figure for “o” and “h”. (BTW, I see the thread over on the Science Forum has already been locked.)
---
### Author:  [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/93 "2017-04-14T18:28:06Z")
Perhaps “o” is for oblivious and “h” for hubris. But the formula needs to use one or both as negative exponents to come close to a realistic measurement of the theory’s worth.
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/94 "2017-04-14T20:37:19Z")
Oh, look, another text wall of incoherent nonsense attempting to explaining all of physics with classical analogies and no equations. I have to wonder: Do these people think actual physicists, with their “spoon fed ivy league egotistical education” and educated stupid and evil research, are just making shit up? That being a physics professor or running an accelerator consists of saying, “But, what if gravity is just like, space stacking up around a particle?” That asking why gravity doesn’t cause particles to fall into each other is a deeply incisive question rather than a severe misunderstanding of physics from more than three hundred years ago? That concrete predictions are unnecessary, or that the math would just get in the way? That Internet message boards are a great forum to disseminate new ideas in science?
I’ve seen so much of this ridiculous nonsense on the Internet that I’ve become genuinely curious about it. Is it just a masturbatory persecution fantasy, or can some people honestly not tell the difference between actual science and this drivel?
---
### Author:  [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/95 "2017-04-14T20:44:35Z")
[QUOTE=The OP, elsewhere]
. **I am not a mathematician** so I have a hard time putting it together in the right order. lets use s for surface vacuum and v for space vacuum, U for universe and of course m for mass. something like s-v x m =u or maybe the other way around, S x V / M = U, I’m not sure.
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure you’re not a mathematician? This:
[QUOTE=The OP, elsewhere]
I think it would be S / V x M = U, surface divided by vacuum times mass equals universe?
[/QUOTE]
looks like some first-rate mathematics to me. Have you ever considered rewriting your equations as something like G=C\*PHI^n?
---
### Author:  [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/96 "2017-04-14T21:26:45Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> I’ve seen so much of this ridiculous nonsense on the Internet that I’ve become genuinely curious about it. Is it just a masturbatory persecution fantasy, or can some people honestly not tell the difference between actual science and this drivel?
I think about a guy named C. David Parsons (no scientific training) who took it upon himself to rewrite all of science. Things such as water not being able to exist in space and that there is a “gravity crystal” in the core of the Earth that draws water to the Earth’s surface. And that all of the Earth is sedimentary, with little to no igneous rock. And that Jupiter is a solid object and that the patters on it’s surface are actually patches of colored sand blowing around. And something I don’t recall totally rewriting the structure of atoms. And denying relativity and quantum physics. And saying that all spectroscopes in telescopes seem to work because they are physically flawed, and are declared “most hated.” And renaming the planets and the days of the weeks to something that isn’t “pagan.” And of course denying evolution.
This guy planned to write 7 textbooks to be taught in schools everywhere to set the world straight on true science. He actually wrote the first 3 of them and paid to have pallets full of hardback textbooks printed up ready to sell, wrote up press releases (including providing print-ready high resolutions photos of himself holding a copy of one of his books), and spammed the comment sections of many science related sites and blogs. His stuff was so batshit that even the Christian homeschoolers wouldn’t buy it. I’ve sometimes wondered how much money he wasted printing those books, and what happened to them after the project’s failure.
[A review](http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/quest_for_right_review.htm). [One of the blog posts that still survives](https://allusionsofgrandeur.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/the-quest-for-right-its-pretty-wrong/). [More](http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=11249.0). Much of the material seems to have disappeared into oblivion, but [there is still a fair amount to be found](https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&btnG=Search&q=%22the+quest+for+true%22#q=%22The+Quest+for+Right%22+C.+David+Parsons).
Most of these would-be world changers can’t hold a candle to how seriously C David Parsons took himself. He was like Archimedes Plutonium, only slightly more sane.
---
### Author:  [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/97 "2017-04-14T21:31:12Z")
> [@MANTRAPHILTER](#):
>
> Education - good, blinded by ego from education - bad
Yeah, science, with all it’s replication and fancy equations; fuck that shit.
---
### Author:  [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/98 "2017-04-14T21:36:21Z")
Here’s an excerpt from The Quest for Right Volume 1 (lifted from one of the links.)
\*The scheme of coincidence, by definition, is "the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. The scheme mandates that the single pairing of an electron and proton creates an atom of hydrogen. The discovery that the fragmentation of a hydrocluster originally made up of some 400 members does not produce a residual element annuls the scheme of coincidence.
Concerning the law of additives and the disintegration of a hydrocluster [hydrogen] into a nonreactive fragment, the phenomenon has escaped the close scrutiny of scientists due, once again, to the incorrect architecture of the charge. A notable example is the paired bonding [isotope or isometric] of hydroclusters [hydrogen] in the production of hydrogen-3 (3H) radioisometrics. Called tritium, the spontaneously occurring isometric is produced as a result of rogue hydrogen reaching out with its electrostatic attraction to capture a free buttress [electron]. The captured buttress, in turn, brandishes a negative sign in an effort to attract other hydroclusters. A single buttress is limited to three open fields; in the example of a water molecule, two hydroclusters and one oxygen protruband share the same buttress. If the rogue [a hydrogen atom with an attached electron] is successful in pairing up with another hydrocluster in the sharing of its captured buttress, the simplest of molecules is produced: a diatomic hydrogen molecule (H2). The latter is very abundant and is called “hydrogen.” If another successful pairing occurs and the third and last open field is satisfied by a hydrocluster, a hydrogen-2 (deuterium) is produced. The pairing of a fourth hydrocluster requires a second articulate buttress [an electron joining two atoms], contributed by either the second, third, or fourth hydrocluster forming the molecule. The fourth unit transforms the hydrogen-2 molecule into hydrogen-3 (tritium). Tritium may also be formed by the accumulation of two H2 diatomic molecules. The paired bonding of tritium is limited to about one in 1018 ordinary hydroclusters. Tritium is a radioisometric and, upon the emission of one or more struts [protons], does not produce a residual element but a fragment of no further consequence in elementary phenomena. The reason paired bonding often produces a radioisometric will be explained in a later chapter. Moreover, the irrelevancy of labeling a molecular structure consisting of four like hydroclusters as tritium; from the Greek tritos—“third,” will be corrected.
Opposing the true is the quantum approach: hydrogen-3 is produced, via quantum magic, in the upper atmosphere by the interaction between cosmic rays (interplanetary dust consisting of buttresses and energy cells) and nitrogen atoms in the production of neutrons. The neutrons react with still other nitrogen atoms to form tritium. Tritium differs from ordinary hydrogen in that it is equated to possess two neutrons; deuterium is allotted one neutron. The mislabeled Hydrogen-3 is radioactive, has a suggested half-life of 12.5 years, and decays into a helium-3 nucleus and a negative beta particle.
The foregoing impropriety is merely an extension of the storage cell experiment in which beta particles (struts) were misjudged to be helium charges. The conjecture is that, if a beta particle is a helium atom, a hydrogen-3 radioisotope must, by extension, decay into a helium-3 nucleus. The matter of negative beta decay need not be entertained; it is but another quantum abuse conceived in error. Examples: A proton transforming into a neutron upon the emission of a positron and a neutrino; and, the production of an antineutrino as a neutron goes through beta minus decay to a proton and an electron. The neutron, the neutrino, and its antithesis do not exist; a positron is but a cameo performing briefly as a reversed-charged buttress.
There is a logical conclusion: The elementary disintegration; that is, the ejecting of struts from a protruband, may only produce a residual element, one with a lesser count of energy cells. By the same score, the disintegration cannot produce a higher element, one with a greater count of cells than the original. Accordingly, a hydrogen-3 radioisometric, upon the emission of one or more struts, cannot decay into a higher helium-3 isometric because the latter consists of a greater count of energy cells than the former.
The quantum scenario is akin to a small child at a blackboard with a piece of chalk contemplating an exercise in subtraction in which one is to be taken away from two. But instead of arriving at one as the correct answer, the child writes “3.” And so it is with quantum mathematics: when one is taken away from two, the answer may be deemed anything relative; for example, “four”: one alpha particle equals two protons and two neutrons.\*
And yes, you, too, [can own a copy](https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Right-Vol-1/dp/1602477663) of this magnificent book!
---
### Author:  [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/99 "2017-04-14T22:43:41Z")
> [@Itself](#):
>
> looks like some first-rate mathematics to me. Have you ever considered rewriting your equations as something like G=C\*PHI^n?
That takes me back.
---
### Author:  [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2017, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289/100 "2017-04-14T23:03:16Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#):
>
> That takes me back.
So that’s the formula for time travel?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-four-forces-of-physics-united/784289.md?page=6)