Gravity and Inertia

<br />You are way behind on recent research and developments. The new book <i>Pushing Gravity</i> has a complete gravity model conistent with all experimental evidence, without which no unification effort could succeed. Interest in your topic on this message board would be minimal unless you could make a comparative evaluation and show that the ideas you recommend offer some advantage and no significant handicaps over those in the Le Sage model of pushing gravity.

Especially, in current thinking, there is no logical reason for Mach's Principal to hold because gravity is a force that lacks inertia. -|Tom|-

I am far from an authority on dark matter, but I think it has been postulated to explain A: why the outer reaches of galaxies appear to rotate faster than expected, and B: why the so-called Big Bang appears to be slowing down toward a possible gnaB giB. The Meta Model denies the Big Bang, so it is pointless to discuss argument B at this forum. As for the seemingly too-rapid rotation of the outer reaches of galaxies, I could be wrong, but I think Tom attributes that to the limited range of gravity.

For the rotation of distant matter to affect the local laws of physics---that sounds like a violation of the ancient philosophical aversion to action at a distance without some intervening exchange particle. After all, isn't that the inspiration behind all LeSage-type models?

On the other hand, it does seem plausible to me that classical gravitons (CG's) might possess something very much like mass; and this might amount to many orders of magnitude more than all the mass of MI's in the universe. GR forbids anything traveling at light speed to possess rest mass, though it may have momentum. No such restriction applies in the Meta Model. What we experience as gravity results from the transfer of a minute fraction of CG momentum to MI's.

Conceivably, within our lifetime, a model of the universe will prove to be a workable theory of everything. But it won't happen because we set that as our goal. It will happen because a new explanation of one thing will suddenly make everything clear to us.

PhilJ,

You seem to have a decent grasp of the basic concepts of Meta Model. Congratulations. There are two points (of a more advanced nature) I'd like to point out to you where you might want to do some additional study:

1) Matter ingredients are the conceptual building blocks of all else. IOW, they exist as concepts, not as real forms. So although any real particle is ultimately composed of infinitesimal matter ingredients, no real particle is (or can be) a matter ingredient.

2) It is Special Relativity, not General Relativity, that claims to impose a light speed limit on things. If you use Lorentzian Relativity (no speed limit) rather than SR as GR's starting point, GR is quite happy with FTL phenomena.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />B: why the so-called Big Bang appears to be slowing down toward a possible gnaB giB. The Meta Model denies the Big Bang, so it is pointless to discuss argument B at this forum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To supplement what Larry said, I would point out that it is not pointless to get the interpretation of the observational data right. Under BB premises, the expansion of the universe is presently accelerating, not slowing. Hence the need for dark energy to supplement dark matter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for the seemingly too-rapid rotation of the outer reaches of galaxies, I could be wrong, but I think Tom attributes that to the limited range of gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Correct.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For the rotation of distant matter to affect the local laws of physics---that sounds like a violation of the ancient philosophical aversion to action at a distance without some intervening exchange particle. After all, isn't that the inspiration behind all LeSage-type models?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This mixes "laws" (derived from observations and subject to change) and "principles" (derived from logic and immutable). The universal law of gravitation has infinite range. But that is merely a statement of our ignorance about what limits its range. The principle that the finite cannot become infinite forbids any real force from having an infinite range. So the discovery of an apparent limit to gravity's range fulfills the required principle of physics and helps to complete, rather than violate, the traditional law of physics for gravitation.

So the finite range of gravity affects the force acting on stars in galaxies outside their central halo. Of course, there is no effect of the rotation of distant matter on the laws of physics -- your choice of wording. It's the other way around.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On the other hand, it does seem plausible to me that classical gravitons (CG's) might possess something very much like mass; and this might amount to many orders of magnitude more than all the mass of MI's in the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If gravitons had that much mass, matter ingredients would be destroyed by continual high-speed graviton impacts. However, it is possible that elysons (unit particles for the light-carrying medium) might collectively have enough mass to affect cosmology in the sense you propose. -|Tom|-

This comment has no relationship to any of the modeling being kicked around on this thread but the dynamics of a disk structure can be better understood if gravity is understood to be distributed along with the mass of the disk. All the modeling assumes the gravity is centered at the mass center of the disk and it must be clear to all the model builders the mass is not at that center but all around the mass center. The dynamic details of a disk cannot be understood it the assumptions are that far removed from simple facts.

Jim,

Before you critique a model, you might want to understand it well enough to know what it actually says. There are very specific circumstances that must exist before one can make the simplifying assumption that "gravity is centered at the mass center".

Your objection is only "true" if you misuse the model (demonstrating a significant lack of understanding). Of course at this point you are no longer talking about the model.

Hmmm. Contrary to what others may be telling you (or to what you may be telling yourself) it is never too late to read a book.

LB

Suggestion - You have admitted on several occasions that you don't have any technical training or experience. (Cheap shot - it shows.) Rather than continuing to make "factual" statements that are always wrong ([Jim] "All the modeling assumes the gravity is centered at the mass center ...") , why don't you ask questions?