MM Questions

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Is the primary angument your MM makes: You can't get something from nothing =&gt; something must have always existed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "primary argument" of MM is that guesses (inductive theories about the origin and nature of the universe) will always have uncertainty and never rise above the status of guesses; whereas deductive theories have unique, compelling consequences that either do or do not agree with reality, making them very unlikely to survive for long unless they are based on correct premises. The premises of MM are the principles of physics, which arise from logic alone and are therefore not subject to interpretation in the way that experiments and observations are.

These starting principles include the causality principle, no creation ex nihilo, and no demise ad nihil. "No creation" and "no demise" do not just mean at a beginning or at an end. It means that nothing that exists can ever pass into or out of existence at any moment of time. Something existing can only change form as it becomes a building block in a larger form or is broken apart into smaller forms. But every bit of its substance continues to exist, always has existed, and always will exist, at every moment of time.

That is obviously a much stronger conclusion than the one you cite, which appears to refer just to some hypothetical initial moment.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Other than this fact, can you say with absolute certainty (100%) that the plurality in our Universe must have always existed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We can say that the conclusions follow from the premises with absolute certainty because that is the nature of deductive logic. So the conclusion is as certain as the premises. But as I explain in <i>Dark Matter...</i>, it is "possible" for the normally immutable principles of physics (to be contrasted with the laws of physics, which are always subject to change or improvement) to also appear to be violated. For example, if we lived in a holodeck reality, the program generating that reality could follow mathematical rules that are quite impossible in physics. In particular, it could violate any or all principles of physics.

If we saw that happening, we could conclude with certainty that ours was not <i>the</i> reality but rather an artificially generated reality. As Arthur Clarke put it, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Using MM methodology what would exist if all negative and positive charges were cancelled out into neutrality?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To make that happen, we would need to cut off the flow of gravitons, at least in the local universe. Then all the extra-dense and extra-sparse elysium atmospheres of quantum particles would simply become normal density background elysium, and all quantum particles would become normal ballistic particles with no wave properties and no charge fields.

But you would need to read MM and the recent Meta Research Bulletin article about the structure of matter to fully appreciate why. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Using MM methodology what would exist if all negative and positive charges were cancelled out into neutrality?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To make that happen, we would need to cut off the flow of gravitons, at least in the local universe. Then all the extra-dense and extra-sparse elysium atmospheres of quantum particles would simply become normal density background elysium, and all quantum particles would become normal ballistic particles with no wave properties and no charge fields.

But you would need to read MM and the recent Meta Research Bulletin article about the structure of matter to fully appreciate why. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I understand the background elysium, but I have questions about the use of "particles" in such a conceptual reality. Could particles exist without differential charge in the smaller scales of MM. Where would interaction arise that would bond anything?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Could particles exist without differential charge in the smaller scales of MM? Where would interaction arise that would bond anything?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, the universe has five dimensions, not just four. The fifth is scale/mass, and it too is infinite in both directions.

Just as electromagnetism arises from the elysium medium and gravitation from the graviton medium, there are other forces operating on other scales. Galaxy collisions are producing a force of nature on a super-scale that changes so slowly that we cannot see it happening in our lifetimes. Likewise, entities much smaller than gravitons provide forces able to bind gravitons and larger assemblies. -|Tom|-

I understand what you are saying. But, if there was only neutrally charged energy at all scales....would the scales "dimension" have any meaning and could particles exist without differential charge on the scale dimension.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />if there was only neutrally charged energy at all scales....would the scales "dimension" have any meaning and could particles exist without differential charge on the scale dimension.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seem to have in mind some assumed properties of "charge". In MM, charge is merely a type of "gas pressure". Think of two protons immersed in the elysium as being like two balloons floating in air. If the balloons get too close such that they try to compress each other, the denser air inside (not the balloon material, which merely serves as a container but not a source of elasticity) will cause the two balloons to rebound from their mutual compression and appear to repel one another. This is the nature of charge in MM, with protons carrying around dense elysium "atmospheres" (held in place by gravitons) that cause like particles to repel.

This vision takes away many of the special properties we tend to assume for charge, and points out that particles are really uncharged entities immersed in elysium that usually can't avoid "getting wet" with elysium as they move about. Electrons emit gravition and so have elysium deficits, which is why they repel one another but appear to attract protons. See our Meta Research Bulletin article on "The structure of matter in the Meta Model".

With this clarified picture, many of the objections you raise vanish because "charge" has only an indirect role in binding certain types of particles, and can now be visualized as a mechanical force instead of some sort of undefined "energy". -|Tom|-