What is "miraculous"?

I have a question about linking of mass,energy,momentum&entrophy in the MM model. You say they are all conserved. Is entrophy increasing also over time as an assumption? Can you have it both ways-that is it is conserved and increases?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Is entropy increasing also over time as an assumption? Can you have it both ways-that is it is conserved and increases?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, both entropy (disorder) and inertia (force dilution) are properties of forces, not of material bodies or media. So electrodynamic forces always increase entropy, while gravitational forces always decrease it. On balance both locally and over all scales with an infinite number of fundamental forces, entropy is conserved. The feedback mechanism that assures this net conservation is described at the link I mentioned. -|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>

But you did not pose these matters as questions. You posed them as put-downs, as if you are trolling. While the number of such false put-downs you can make is unlimited, my willingness to respond is limited. If you have questions that might be of broader interest, feel free to ask. If you only wish to troll, take it to some other board. -|Tom|-

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

I wonder who is trolling here? The person that raises a serious problem with the MM or the one who attacks him ad hominen style, without defending his model.

I have told you in the past that eternal universe and material flux do not seem to work well together. It's a naive model. You will have to incorporate the material flux (graviton particle flux) concept into the standard model. Otherwise, the contradictions with observation are many, to say the least.

But you really cannot, because scattering diminishes the gravitational field of the universe and you will have to frame another hypothesis to justify the empirically proven universe expansion. For instance, you will need the hypothesis that there is a mysterious unobservable source of gravitons some place.

At any rate, insisting that you are now sitting on your chair because unobservable particles moving at FTL speeds hit every particle of you body is a rather Tom Potterish scenario. Don't you think so? (This is a question mark)

By the way, if the electron is a wave, what is you graviton really targetting for? If you insist electrons are particle, can you explain the double slit experiment with that? Do you claim that at the graviton scale electrons are particles?

Do you know the principle of complimentarity?

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />insisting that you are now sitting on your chair because unobservable particles moving at FTL speeds hit every particle of you body is a rather Tom Potterish scenario. Don't you think so? (This is a question mark)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, I don't. But I assume you must be sitting on your chair in a vacuum, because it would be too "Tom Potterish" (whatever that means) to believe that invisible, high-speed air molecules were striking your body all over at this very moment.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">By the way, if the electron is a wave, what is your graviton really targetting for? If you insist electrons are particle, can you explain the double slit experiment with that? Do you claim that at the graviton scale electrons are particles?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See "The structure of matter in the Meta Model", Meta Research Bulletin 12: 58-63 (2003), which provides a physical model for the electron. In it, electrons are particles surrounded by elysium atmospheres, so they have both particle and wave properties, as most of the physics world knows. Or did you forget that? -|Tom|-

There are too many details to cover here but one that is puzzling to me is an "infinite number of fundamental forces". In the standard model there are 4 or 5 as I understand, so what is the story on the infinite number?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />one that is puzzling to me is an "infinite number of fundamental forces". In the standard model there are 4 or 5 as I understand, so what is the story on the infinite number?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, there are five dimensions, and the universe is infinite in all five. They are space (3), time (1), and scale/mass (1). This last means that everything is infinitely divisible on the small scale side and can assemble into unlimited structures on the large scale side.

The forces active on our scale are made out of elysium and/or gravitons. On much smaller scales or much larger scales, they must be made out of other things. For example, there exists a scale on which galaxy collisions are the main force of nature. Because scale is infinite, the number of forces must be also. -|Tom|-