"Known forces of nature"
Here's an idea, wrt MM's "known forces of nature".
Start with gravity, which is, per his own statements, one such.
IIRC, MM proposed a very simple test which demonstrates that gravity, as a force of nature, exists*; something like this: hold your Tesco plasma ball in one hand, hand facing down; with your other hand underneath it, palm up, let go of the ball ... the ball will drop into your (lower) hand; ergo, gravity exists.
As was pointed out, and as is clear anyway, all this test shows is that the plasma ball falls when released from one's hand; to call that 'gravity' is rather underwhelming.
However, we can proceed empirically - being very careful to define just what we mean by this word - and do lots of tests with lots of different objects, in lots of different places, at lots of different times.
We will find - empirically - that there are plenty of cases where objects do not drop, or fall, when released; for example, a leaf on a windy day, a piece of wood released under water. And we need to confront the problem of induction too.
By being careful, and using induction, we can gradually build more and more powerful summaries of the results of hundreds, thousands, millions, ... of tests, and in the best of these summaries the word 'gravity' will be used, as will the word 'nature'.
In that sense the word 'gravity' may be said to have great explanatory (and predictive) power.
In parallel, and to some extent overlapping, we may develop other summaries of empirical tests (of 'nature') which include another word with great explanatory (and predictive) power, 'force'.
Historically, with some anachronisms and a bit of revisionism, this gets us up to somewhere in the 1500s, maybe a bit earlier, maybe a bit later.
Now we add a true revolution, which I shall term the quantitative revolution ... we can move on from nice word summaries to adding first numbers and then equations, and 'gravity as a force of nature' becomes something whose explanatory and predictive powers expand enormously ... but only if the equations and numbers are understood! We are now in the time of Galileo (more or less).
At that time the heavens and Earth were separate - nature consisted of two almost totally independent parts, each with its own 'forces'; how the planets moved across the sky, for example, had nothing to do with how cannon balls (and feathers) fell when let go.
Then, in the myth, an apple fell on Newton's head while he was gazing at the Moon (it was daytime) ... and nature became unified, and the universal law of gravitation was published.
It was quickly tested, by 'curve fitting' - applying math to points in the sky** - and found to work.
And a century or so later - well after Newton had died - a key part of Newton's law was tested in the lab.
So what does all this have to do with MM's ideas? A great deal actually.
First, 'known forces of nature' are so known via equations and numbers only; if you work at the 'qualitative' level, you cannot have 'known forces of nature'.
Second, a century (or more) may well pass between the first publication of the equations and numbers describing a 'known force of nature' and its testing in the lab.
Third, the application of math to points on the sky can lead to acceptance of a new 'force of nature'.
And so on.
Now we know, from a great many of MM's posts, that he rejects all three of the above points, especially the third one. This alone makes his approach to science very different than that of scientists - or at least physicists - over the past four+ centuries ... and it means that the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, the solar wind, inflation, Einstein's EFE, negative pressure, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics).
If we were to have such a discussion, I think we'd find that a key aspect of MM's approach is an unstated, and possibly unrecognised, misunderstanding of equations and numbers; in short, a world where the quantitative revolution didn't happen.
* I think I've got it right; if not, would someone please point me to his post(s) which say otherwise?
** That's not exactly what MM said, in another context, but it's close, I think.
!
