Is the Meta Model necessary?

JoeP, Are you not promoting speed over acceleration in your 6 way model? With F=ma we have no such idea and in fact speed is not even part of the primary subject. Speed is just a part of secondary details. I,m guessing we have a lot in common reguarding this stuff and maybe the focus on why nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light should be maintained rather than nit picking about how best to perceive acceleration. The reason an object can't be accelerated to light speed has nothing to do with the fact that acceleration remains constant, but, because force acts over distance(which you no doubt will say distance is speed times time) and acceleration acts through time(you cannot say time is anything else) and as we all know it(acceleration)acts out in several ways not just changing the speed of an object.

Jim,

I've provided 6 instances of acceleration that exemplify the very definition of acceleration. These do not constitute a "model". And, speed is part of that definition.
F=ma is obviously not the ultimate description of the Universe, since we are still ignorant about the relationships between the various properties of matter. (And, don't forget that F=ma has its angular counterpart.)
The reason for which an object could never attain v=c is because it is a limit provided by Nature. It is not based on math; it is not based on definitions. Force and acceleration BOTH act through time; force is not instantaneous. And, force and acceleration BOTH act through distance; acceleration is defined as the double-derivative by time of position (which has unit of length).


-Joe

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JoeP</i>
<br />Hi, Larry and Mark.

No, I have not read his book. Thanks for the advice. I have been perusing his online papers. I am sorry if I was confusing in my 2nd post. I will flesh out my thoughts over the next few posts.

Question 1:
MM tells us that the local elysium is entrained by the Earth, and at rest with respect to it. Since gravitons and elysons have random, straight-line motion in the Universe, how can there be any entrainment at all? Should not the elyson-atmosphere be formed anew at every moment, unless this is what is really meant by the term 'entrainment'?

Question 2:
A neutrino can traverse the Earth without contact. Why do gravitons and elysons, which are more sublime, not exhibit the same behavior? (Is not gravity the result of a minority of gravitons being absorbed by the celestial body, never reaching the diametrically opposite side?)


-Joe
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Joe going back to your original question and this follow-up, I thought about a reply... In speaking with Tom about the quantum sections of the MM, he was always hesitant...not necessarily do to inadequacies in the model, but more from the viewpoint that he was willing accept that the mechanism at the subatomic level is not understood and (for technical reasons) barely visible to totally invisible (where elysons, gravitons, etc come into play). The model instead makes the assumption that scale is infinite in both directions and that celestial mechanics, observations from earth orbitting satelites, and deductive logic could paint a reason for the actions of gravity at a distance.

The MM suggests that elysons absorb some gravitons (I always argued for graviton wave/particle physics and used a derivative of the photoelectric effect to calculate the heat of the universe as a result of collision of gravitons with the matter ingredient parts of the elysium). Tom was careful (especially earlier on) to say things like, "some light carrying medium" in other words the model does something revolutionary that most scientific models of the 20th century are afraid to do - ask more questions than the model can answer.

I teach high school physics, chemistry, etc. For years kids ask, "what causes gravity?" The answers are unsatisifactory because we are told to assume that some force of attraction exists...but what forces in the universe act at a distance with any type of pull?

You cleverly posited the neutrino as the great mass traverser...however I am not confident that the neutrino that enters the mass is the same neutrino that exits....i am curious if there are electrostatic effects at work or absorption/re-emission....

Basically in a nut-shell the mm explains action at a distance through pushing, a non-relativisic interpretation of red-shift (due to elysium concentrations near bodies of mass), and the mechanisms of solar system change (comet origins, planetary explosions, moon creation, etc).

The MM was never intended to be a theology, instead it is a deductive model that includes room for new questions without depositing widgets in the empty spaces.

Mark Vitrone

JoeP, Saying "its a limit set by nature" can be applied to gravity, the quantum unit of charge. absolute zero or the speed of light. But, it won't explain any of these properties and does nothing to explain how acceleration relates to them. Maybe there is nothing to connect them but it seems a body can be accelerated forever in an orbit caused by gravity with no change in anything. That's a puzzle is it not? F=ma doesn't expain why-would you dismiss it as a limit set by nature?

<b>[Jim[ " ... but it seems a body can be accelerated forever in an orbit caused by gravity with no change in anything."</b>

In some mathematical models of the behavior we call orbiting nothing will ever change. But in the real world this is not the case.

If you make your model more complex, it will predict some changes. Make it complex enough, you begin to see that the size and density and rate of rotation and orbital period and orbital eccintricity and ether drag and a number of other things cause tiny changes that are hard to detect and measure. The latest measurements indicate that Luna's orbital radius is increasing by about one or two centimeters per year, due to the above mentioned and unmentioned factors. In another billion or so years it will take 60 days to complete an orbit, and Earth's spin rate will have slowed to once every 60 days (caused by the same factors). At that point most of these small changes will stop. But probably not all.

But no matter how complex you make your model, comparing it to a specific example will reveal slight differences between your model and your example. Models are great for understanding the general case. But there is no such thing as "a general case" in the real world. They are all specific cases, and every one of them is at least slightly different.

So it is true that "a body can be accelerated forever in an orbit caused by gravity with no change in anything". But it is also not true. Now how strange is that? I guess it depends on whether you think math is what is real, or physics is what is real. Or, maybe neither?

LB

Mark,

Thanks for the response to my queries.

There are thinkers who have tried to replace action-at-a-distance with a local contact-force.
A notable one is Charles Lucas. He believes that a field is just an extension of a charge. Through mathematical manipulation, by the substitution-method, of electrodynamic laws, he created his Universal Force Law.
But, I see 3 problems with it:

1. He seems to have an identical definition for gravity and inertia, although these are very different phenomena.

2. He never discusses the very great speed of gravity (v&gt;&gt;c) -or the instantaneity of gravity- although he discusses the force of gravity. And, I just do not see how it is included within his Universal Force Law.

3. Since gravity is described as an oscillation between charges (electron and proton) within an atom, a free electron or proton could not possibly have its own gravitational field -and therefore its own mass. In fact, no free subatomic particle would have its own mass. This would be especially true for uncharged particles such as neutrinos and Z-particles. Yet, these -and other- subatomic particles do have mass, independent of any definition involving mutual vibrations.


Question 3:
How does MM describe the phenomenon of mass? Whenever Dr.Van Flandern discussed mass in his online papers, his paradigm was always non-MM: Gravitons provide gravitational force, and from this we derive the mass of a body, using the laws of standard physics.



-Joe