<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 />How does the model deduce explosions of stars and planets? I see no way for this to happen in the real universe. But, in all models it does.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In MM, gravitons have such high speeds and are so numerous that they are continually depositing energy in massive bodies. So MM has the opposite problem of other models -- how to keep large bodies stable over long periods because their natural tendency is to accumulate too much energy too quickly and explode. The shedding of the excess heat is via elysium, and is explained in our MRB article "Planetary explosion mechanisms". Planets and stars only get into trouble when something interferes with the free flow of elysium through these bodies.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />Just a correction: The Meta Model does make assumption. It makes a starting assumption and then reasons deductively based on that assumption. The beauty of the Meta Model is that it reasons deductively (forwards) rather than inductively (inductive reasoning don't lead to a unique result), so that we can be more sure of its merit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Jim was quoting me saying that MM does not use assumptions. During my career I tried every assumption that I or others could think of, and none of them worked.
To develop a model, one needs a starting position and tools, but one does not need assumptions. The starting position for MM is a total void and something non-void. Both are specifically devoid of properties and assumptions. The tools available to advance from that starting position are logic and the principles of physics, themselves products of logic and not subject to change.
You could make the argument semantic by asserting that the principles of physics are assumptions. But that is not the ordinary meaning of the word because they are arrived at by reasoning, as explained in chapter 20 of <i>Dark Matter...</i>. Any violation of a principle of physics would require a miracle, and would thereby prove that this is not a genuine reality, but something like a holodeck simulation. That gives the principles of physics a status that differentiates them from pure assumptions. -|Tom|-
Topic Author
