[alandevries (OP)]

A decision must be made before deciphering the nature of the Universe; that decision is whether the universe is physical in every way, shape, and form or is it magical, not requiring a definable/quantifiable foundation. It cannot be both ways; each is contrary to the other. The lens of how one looks at data is how one interprets it. If any aspect of the universe is magical, then it cannot be understood because magic has no discernible reason – it just is. On the other hand, if the universe is physical in every way, shape, and form, then it can be quantified to absolute mechanical detail.

Current science got the following concepts wrong because they based all of these concepts on the supposition of fact, often using mathematical fantasies as the basis for their ideas; two unicorns plus two unicorns equals four unicorns. It works mathematically but fails to prove unicorns exist.

  Relativity
  Time
  Curved Space
  Quarks
  Inflation
  Strings
  Quantum mechanics
  Quantum foam
  Quantum entanglement
  Brane
  Parallel space
  Multiverse
  The big bang
  Black holes
  Dark matter
  Dark energy
  Antimatter
  Strong force
  Weak force
  Electromagnetic force
  God particle

Conceptualizations of relativity, the big bang, quantum mechanics, gravity, magnetism, energy, force (the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetic force,) time, etc. are conceptually wrong; they have absolutely no substantive merit. They are theories formulated from an elaborate compiling of fragmented equations of magical suppositions. Take any one of the structural components apart and you find elusive magical foundations. They do not have factual data supporting any of their formational constructs.

For example, the hypothetical big-bang is stated as starting from a point of singularity that just exists without explanation. Then it exploded outwards – just because. When questioned on where the material composing the singularity came from, what triggered it, and what is it expanding into, scientists postulate fantastical conceptualizations that it possibly came/leaked from parallel/multiverse universes or came from hypothetical quantum-strings collapsing into physical matter and that it somehow creates the volume/space - that it expands into within the frame of nothingness. None of these concepts have any factual merit on any level, instead, they are based entirely on imagination, not fact.

When scientists are questioned about what is matter, energy, gravity, or magnetism, made of, or why they do what they do, scientists postulate they are made from quantum constituents; and when questioned about what are quantum constituents made from, ultimately they say energy. When asked what is energy made of, scientists state that energy is many things; the ability to do work, vibration, temperature, and the old standby, quantum constituents. Every question that you ask scientists about the hypothetical big bang is ultimately answered with suppositional themes and elusive equations. Metaphorically, scientists answer the question of what is energy made of, by saying energy is made of energy… suppositions always rely on suppositions for elusive answers. If you think about what scientists are offering for answers, their answers always resolve to a paradox; something from nothing… or a just because thing. Scientists postulate theory using a ‘simulation of facts’ as factual proof.

All of the orthodox physics has to be disregarded; just as all the concepts wrapped around the Earth being the center of the universe had to be completely disregarded. Paradigms do not change easily; it was not easy then, and it is not going to be easy now. Massive institutionalism has been built around these orthodox conceptualizations. It is a matter of magical versus absolutely physical, just as it was a matter of the Earth being the center of the universe, or not.

Many scientists are uncomfortable with the state of theoretical physics and cosmology, but cannot openly state that something is wrong with our conceptualizations of the universe. They can no more question the institutions of their science, any more than a Baptist can openly question the institutions of the bible or Jesus. Institutions rule and regulate belief.

The fact is that scientists have no clue what composes the nature of the universe, where it came from, how it works, or what matter, energy, gravity, and magnetism, are made of, or why they do what they do.

The truth about our universe is that it is physical in every way, shape, and form, and can be quantified to absolute terms. Do not mistake humanity's ingenuity of exploiting trial and error with the implication that they understand how nature works.

Science believes that nuclear fusion generates a star's internal energy because they cannot imagine anything else that could generate such energy. Solar physics is built upon that assumption. Scientists stating that in quantum theory anything is possible are ridiculous and should have been questioned as irrational. Brane is just fantasized guessing. Modern science is based on unfounded assumptions that have severely fragmented mathematical equations for support. Mathematics is the symbolic representation of values in an event; applicable to any concept whether it is real or not. Any time mathematics goes outside of physical measurements it's no longer based on reality.

Modern physics has sadly become a cascade of Alice-in-Wonderland conceptualizations and equations. Institutionalism has replaced the mental drudgery of real science with the easy celebrity of science fiction. Theoretical scientists are trying to outdo each other with who can propose the most fantastical theories. Physics and cosmology have become idiocracy, lost in the abyss of ignorance. Idiocracy in science has got to stop, it is damaging the cognitive intelligence of humanity's future.

How can science be so wrong if we have computers, TVs, satellites, wireless communications, etc? The technology works because humanity is ingenious. We make use of everything we experience. When Benjamin Franklin demonstrated electricity, hundreds, then thousands, then millions of people experimented with it over hundreds of years. People learned through trial and error what electricity did and how to use its mysterious effects. Innovation did not require knowing what electricity was made of, or why it did what it did, it only needed to know what it did to invent ingenious applications. We take for granted that technology proves our understanding of the material universe, but it is not true. Scientists do not know what an electron is physically made of or why it behaves as it does. Science only knows what an electron does and has learned to exploit that behavior in every technological way they can imagine.

Humans seek answers, when the truth is not available or comprehensible, suppositions are all we have to fill our need for answers. As an industrial example, chemistry and pharmaceutical chemistry is entirely based on trial and error, building catalogs of chemical reactions that produce useful materials and properties. These sciences are based on theoretical ionic or covalent bonding principles, which are electrons said to be causing bonding; yet science has no idea what electrons are made of, or how they cause bonding, they assume that electrons play a role.

Humans are ingenious exploiters; in that light, it is not important to know why something does what it does, it is only important to know what it does and how it can be used to our benefit. We used water to turn wheels that run generators, pumps, driveshafts, etc... long before we understood what water was made of, or that gravity gives it its weight or kinetic ability to perform work. Trial and error can be incredibly productive but does not necessarily explain the phenomenon.

Your, TV, cell phone, or computer, does not prove, quantum mechanics, relativity, or any of its derivatives. They only prove that technology has learned to manipulate electrons and photons into devices that produce pictures and sounds. Humanity inadvertently takes for granted that technology proves scientific understanding of the fundamental structures producing matter, energy, etc. It is a misnomer to use electron and photon technology to substantiate cosmological or atomic theory.

We must completely dump all cosmological and particle theories, start over again at the beginning and reformulate our interpretations of data without magical constructs. When we do not know the answer, we should leave it as - we do not know, instead of postulating something to fill the gap in our knowledge. Postulations misguide us, whereas leaving a question unanswered leaves a clear gap for others to investigate and perhaps decipher. When postulations are inserted in the place of facts, the question seems answered, and other answers are built upon those postulations, creating a cascading compiling of suppositions upon suppositions.

Magical conceptualizations are so pervasive, that we cannot work around them, we only have one choice in the matter... to start over from the beginning... and that beginning is dealing with the most abundant aspect of the universe, its infinite volume/space.

[Kryptid]

Science believes that nuclear fusion generates a star's internal energy because they cannot imagine anything else that could generate such energy.

No, there is actual evidence for it (such as neutrinos: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2934-0).

Your, TV, cell phone, or computer, does not prove, quantum mechanics, relativity, or any of its derivatives.

You're right. It's the actual experimentation that has given support to them.

[Origin]

Magical conceptualizations are so pervasive, that we cannot work around them, we only have one choice in the matter... to start over from the beginning... and that beginning is dealing with the most abundant aspect of the universe, its infinite volume/space.

Pretty silly.  Every claim you made, at least the ones I read, were demonstrably false.  Just another anti-science zealot.

often using mathematical fantasies as the basis for their ideas

I see, if you can't understand, it must be wrong.

[alandevries (OP)]

No, there is actual evidence for it (such as neutrinos

Regarding solar energy and neutrinos, what they actually found through neutrino experiments is that something is likely wrong with their model, possibly by their own implication in a major structural way, see section 9.7 (3) at the link below

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/weinberg.21/Intro/lec9.html

Sadly, the reluctance to abandon loose mathematical 'agreements' and hold on to institutionalized thinking has caused their note at the end of 9.7, where the consensus is to gravitate toward all-new fundamental physics to band-aid their flawed model, like they did with Dark Matter and so many other steps backward.

[alandevries (OP)]

So, for example, one idea that can be put forward if they were open to rethinking with just the data that was gathered rather than trying to make everything fit into their initial guesswork is that only the outer region of the sun produces significant thermonuclear activity, while the core is much cooler (~6,000 degrees rather than 15-27 million), with ~2 million near the surface area. This would account for the 1/4 or 1/2 expected rate of neutrinos. Ideas like this basically aren't entertained or explored because of the institutionalized dogma and desire for everything to fit previous assumptions/models, and this is only one example.

[Origin]

only the outer region of the sun produces significant thermonuclear activity, while the core is much cooler (~6,000 degrees rather than 15-27 million), with ~2 million near the surface area.

That of course would make absolutely no sense thermodynamically speaking, but we are in fantasy land anyway so what the heck, right?

[alandevries (OP)]

The idea that the core of the sun is hotter than the surface comes from the assumption that nuclear fission is taking place a lot there, the data from neutrinos at least suggest this isn't the case, since we know there is some activity from the surface the only place left that could be cooler and account for this is somewhere in the interior. The link I provided earlier even suggested this although in ways that didn't seem to have much thought put into them (the core turning on and off like a light bulb). I'm not putting my idea forward as fact, just as an example of rethinking the assumption-based model rather than inventing new physics to make the model work. It would be one thing if the model wasn't based on pure speculation from long ago about how stars internally work.

[Kryptid]

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/weinberg.21/Intro/lec9.html

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a valid URL, so I cannot see what you are looking at.

This would account for the 1/4 or 1/2 expected rate of neutrinos.

Oh, wait, are you talking about the initial experiments looking for solar neutrinos only finding 1/3 of the predicted value? The explanation for that has already been found: neutrino oscillation: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/solving-the-mystery-of-the-missing-neutrinos/#:~:text=Neutrinos%20are%20missing,indicated%20by%20equation%20(1).

The idea that the core of the sun is hotter than the surface comes from the assumption that nuclear fission is taking place a lot there,

First of all, it's nuclear fusion, not fission. Second of all, it's also due to thermodynamics: the center of an astronomical body is expected to be hotter than its surface in part due to the immensely greater pressure at the center than at the surface and also because the surface can more effectively radiate its heat into cold, empty space while the core has to rely on conduction and convection to higher layers which are already quite hot.

[paul cotter]

Speaking personally, I have a mediocre understanding of special relativity, a poor understanding of general relativity and very little understanding of quantum mechanics. These theories have been proven again and again to be the best models we have to explain observable facts. No one is saying that they are absolute. If you can come up with something better, there are nobel prizes waiting to be disbursed. However the nature of reality is such that a deterministic absolute explanation of every aspect of our universe is probably unachievable. Many years ago I heard of the 4th law of thermodynamics and have not heard mention since: it's a one line non-sentence "the cussedness of the universe".

[Bored chemist]

whether the universe is physical in every way, shape, and form or is it magical,

two unicorns plus two unicorns equals four unicorns. It works mathematically but fails to prove unicorns exist.

You do realise that unicorns are magical, don't you?

The thing is that science can't include magic- even if the magic exists.
The realm of science is the things that are able to be explained logically.

However, as science learns more, we find that there are fewer and fewer things that it can't explain.
The magical realm is being squeezed out of existence.

There's practically none left.

[Bored chemist]

So, for example, one idea that can be put forward if they were open to rethinking with just the data that was gathered rather than trying to make everything fit into their initial guesswork is that only the outer region of the sun produces significant thermonuclear activity, while the core is much cooler (~6,000 degrees rather than 15-27 million), with ~2 million near the surface area.

Did you know that it's actually quite difficult to make baked Alaska?

How would the middle  of the sun stay cold when it was surrounded by a multi million degree furnace?

[evan_au]

It is true that there are things that science can't explain today, and scientists recognize that maybe some of these will remain forever unknowable - but that doesn't stop them trying! But they do see them falling into different categories, eg:
- What happened before the Big Bang: We just don't have access to that time with today's experimental & theoretical techniques
- Branes and string theory: This is a mathematical model which may prove useful some day, but it has produced no new verifiable results to date.

And scientists recognize these limits - there are several pages on Wikipedia listing unsolved problems in various fields, with each page linking to numerous other pages about each problem; see, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
So your list of reasons why Physics is useless is in fact a fertile source of research grants!

The fact that the Sun's corona has a higher temperature than the surface is on the list:

Coronal heating problem: Why is the Sun's corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface?

IN contrast,  the generation of fusion in the Sun's core is quite well understood, both theoretically and experimentally; after all, the Sun is just a very large and rather cool Hydrogen Bomb.

The lack of solar neutrinos (about 1/3) was a mystery for several decades, but it has now been solved, as we now know that neutrinos travel slightly slower than light, they have a small mass,  and they change between the different types of neutrino, in-flight. The first detector could only detect one of these types.

Your, TV, cell phone, or computer, does not prove, quantum mechanics

I studied electronic devices at university, and I can assure you that the operation of these devices is based on quantum theory.
- If quantum theory did not work, they would have generated a new theory which allowed them to develop these devices to the extent that we have today.
- I would say that lasers, smartphones and many superconductor sensors are applications of quantum theory; quantum computers are an application that hasn't quite made it to the public, yet.
- GPS and the detection of gravitational waves is (yet another) application and demonstration of Einstein's relativity. Einstein thought that Gravitational Waves would be undetectable, but by applying lasers & quantum theory (eg squeezed quantum states), we are now able to detect about 1 event per week (before COVID shut it down). Resumption is planned around December 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations#Observation_candidates_from_O3/2019