- Thank you received: 0
The extent of space and time
22 years 2 months ago #3070
by dholeman
Reply from Don Holeman was created by dholeman
I'll try one or two of these but I'd advise reading Dark Matter as these topics are covered (perhaps others here can correct any misconceptions I have about the Meta Model).
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I understand the MetaModel gives time as infinite in extent ... both ways. Does it also have space as infinite in extent?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yes. But not only is space infinite in extent and time infinite in duration but <i><b>scale</b></i> is also infinite in extent up and down. This is a very important concept to grasp with respect to answering your questions on natural laws.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If so, are the conditions at extreme distance separation identical at our size level (I mean simultaneously - granted there is of course no conceivable mechanism to verify this)?
If not identical, then would there be a transition zone?
For instance, our vicinity (out to the Hubble radius) is generally considered to be uniform by virtually all investigators (even I think that the laws are the same ;o). If the laws of the universe were generally maleable as hypothesized by the MetaModel (restricted by internal logical consistency), then ... if different at extreme distances ... is there a transition zone where the different laws of the two adjacent areas change over?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't think that the Meta Model says that the laws of the universe are generally maleable, which implies that they can be changed somehow (is this what you mean?). It certainly does say that our understanding of at least gravitational law is incorrect. It acknowledges thermodynamic laws to be correct but extends the concept of entropy to be one of dynamic equilibrium at the universal scale rather than a source of forever increasing disorder.
Speaking only about gravitational law the Meta Model predicts that Newtonian Gravity applies out to a distance of about one or two kiloparsecs, around the rms distance between collisions of gravitons. Farther than that things start to change. (This is a distance of around three thousand to six thousand light years, if my arithmetic is correct, which is referenced in Pushing Gravity as more than 3 X 10^19 m).
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Or, would there be some sort of instantaneous mechanism for communication between zones with different laws? Or, an instantaneous communication mechanism between greatly separated regions with identical laws?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
In the Meta Model nothing - not even gravity - happens instantaneously across all distances of separation. However, gravitons travel fast enough - far faster than light - so that we perceive gravity to act instantaneously, though it does not. If one could invent a means of making gravitons carry information and of extracting that information then communications might be possible very quickly across long distances. Don't hold your breath for trekkian subspace communicators, though, because we are going to remain dependent on EMF (elysium) for our communications for a long time to come. Gravitons are so small that their existance is yet to be confirmed experimentally so a communications mechanism based on them is a long way off.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Basically, how does the MetaModel set up space and the laws of physics at very great (google-sized) distances given that it does not generally restrict such laws temporally as other models do?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Here's where you get referred to two excellent books - Pushing Gravity and Dark Matter, both available through this website. But here's a two-bit synopsis to get you started.
It all starts with how gravity works (causality). Current models say it's magic, the Meta Model says that matter is bombarded by ultra-high-speed particles that are ultra-small, yet which impart a small portion of thier momentum to matter. Differences in the net momentum due to shading effects of one body on another is perceived as gravity. Hence, gravity is a 'push' not a 'pull'.
As mentioned already, at distances of up to a couple of kiloparsecs gravity follows Newton's Law, which is the classical inverse-square relationship. Beyond those distances gravity starts to 'disappear' as graviton diffusion becomes more influential. So gravity in the cosmological sense is a local phenomenon.
Tom's paper in Pushing Gravity gives the gravitational equation as described by the Meta Model, see p.119 equation 2.1 for the specifics. It contains several terms which require explaination beyond the scope of this response but which are fundamental to an understanding of the Meta Model including the graviton shielding coeffecient and the graviton drag coeffecient.
Also fundamental to the Meta Model is the concept of a physical medium called elysium comprised of particles called elysons through which wave motion propagates electromagnetic forces which we percieve as light. This is discussed by Tom in both books as well. In addition there are other papers in Pushing Gravity that address possibile models of EMF different from the classical ones we learned in physics 101 though these iirc are not part of the Meta Model.
It is also important to understand that gravitons of the Meta Model are not the same as gravitons as proposed by relativistic physics. More precisely, gravity waves in relativistic theory are considered by the Meta Model to be very long wavelength EMF (carried by the EMF medium called elysium), and to have nothing to do with the mechanism by which gravity is propagated. Elysium is as important to the Meta Model as the gravitational medium, Tom's Pushing Gravity paper explains these concepts in great detail.
Best
Don Holeman
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I understand the MetaModel gives time as infinite in extent ... both ways. Does it also have space as infinite in extent?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yes. But not only is space infinite in extent and time infinite in duration but <i><b>scale</b></i> is also infinite in extent up and down. This is a very important concept to grasp with respect to answering your questions on natural laws.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If so, are the conditions at extreme distance separation identical at our size level (I mean simultaneously - granted there is of course no conceivable mechanism to verify this)?
If not identical, then would there be a transition zone?
For instance, our vicinity (out to the Hubble radius) is generally considered to be uniform by virtually all investigators (even I think that the laws are the same ;o). If the laws of the universe were generally maleable as hypothesized by the MetaModel (restricted by internal logical consistency), then ... if different at extreme distances ... is there a transition zone where the different laws of the two adjacent areas change over?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't think that the Meta Model says that the laws of the universe are generally maleable, which implies that they can be changed somehow (is this what you mean?). It certainly does say that our understanding of at least gravitational law is incorrect. It acknowledges thermodynamic laws to be correct but extends the concept of entropy to be one of dynamic equilibrium at the universal scale rather than a source of forever increasing disorder.
Speaking only about gravitational law the Meta Model predicts that Newtonian Gravity applies out to a distance of about one or two kiloparsecs, around the rms distance between collisions of gravitons. Farther than that things start to change. (This is a distance of around three thousand to six thousand light years, if my arithmetic is correct, which is referenced in Pushing Gravity as more than 3 X 10^19 m).
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Or, would there be some sort of instantaneous mechanism for communication between zones with different laws? Or, an instantaneous communication mechanism between greatly separated regions with identical laws?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
In the Meta Model nothing - not even gravity - happens instantaneously across all distances of separation. However, gravitons travel fast enough - far faster than light - so that we perceive gravity to act instantaneously, though it does not. If one could invent a means of making gravitons carry information and of extracting that information then communications might be possible very quickly across long distances. Don't hold your breath for trekkian subspace communicators, though, because we are going to remain dependent on EMF (elysium) for our communications for a long time to come. Gravitons are so small that their existance is yet to be confirmed experimentally so a communications mechanism based on them is a long way off.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Basically, how does the MetaModel set up space and the laws of physics at very great (google-sized) distances given that it does not generally restrict such laws temporally as other models do?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Here's where you get referred to two excellent books - Pushing Gravity and Dark Matter, both available through this website. But here's a two-bit synopsis to get you started.
It all starts with how gravity works (causality). Current models say it's magic, the Meta Model says that matter is bombarded by ultra-high-speed particles that are ultra-small, yet which impart a small portion of thier momentum to matter. Differences in the net momentum due to shading effects of one body on another is perceived as gravity. Hence, gravity is a 'push' not a 'pull'.
As mentioned already, at distances of up to a couple of kiloparsecs gravity follows Newton's Law, which is the classical inverse-square relationship. Beyond those distances gravity starts to 'disappear' as graviton diffusion becomes more influential. So gravity in the cosmological sense is a local phenomenon.
Tom's paper in Pushing Gravity gives the gravitational equation as described by the Meta Model, see p.119 equation 2.1 for the specifics. It contains several terms which require explaination beyond the scope of this response but which are fundamental to an understanding of the Meta Model including the graviton shielding coeffecient and the graviton drag coeffecient.
Also fundamental to the Meta Model is the concept of a physical medium called elysium comprised of particles called elysons through which wave motion propagates electromagnetic forces which we percieve as light. This is discussed by Tom in both books as well. In addition there are other papers in Pushing Gravity that address possibile models of EMF different from the classical ones we learned in physics 101 though these iirc are not part of the Meta Model.
It is also important to understand that gravitons of the Meta Model are not the same as gravitons as proposed by relativistic physics. More precisely, gravity waves in relativistic theory are considered by the Meta Model to be very long wavelength EMF (carried by the EMF medium called elysium), and to have nothing to do with the mechanism by which gravity is propagated. Elysium is as important to the Meta Model as the gravitational medium, Tom's Pushing Gravity paper explains these concepts in great detail.
Best
Don Holeman
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 2 months ago #3116
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
By "generally maleable", I mean that the laws of physics can be different than those we now perceive. Perhaps TVF meant different at "other scales".
Then my question is:
Are the present laws of physics ... at the presently observed scale (the one we are in) ... identical out to any finite distance whatsoever ... at that same scale. Is the universe, shall I say, "logically isotropic" (the same rules in all directions) at any given scale?
Then my question is:
Are the present laws of physics ... at the presently observed scale (the one we are in) ... identical out to any finite distance whatsoever ... at that same scale. Is the universe, shall I say, "logically isotropic" (the same rules in all directions) at any given scale?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 2 months ago #3071
by Jeremy
Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Are the present laws of physics ... at the presently observed scale (the one we are in) ... identical out to any finite distance whatsoever ... at that same scale. Is the universe, shall I say, "logically isotropic" (the same rules in all directions) at any given scale?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
If I understand the MM correctly the basic laws are applicable at all scales but at any given scale there is always phenomena above or below our range of detection i.e. there are "super" forces and wave phenomena that operate at what we currently perceive to be the observational limit.
I would disagree with your comment that we observe uniformity at the largest scales, there are superclusters of galaxies and the deepest sky surveys are hinting at even greater structure.
Are the present laws of physics ... at the presently observed scale (the one we are in) ... identical out to any finite distance whatsoever ... at that same scale. Is the universe, shall I say, "logically isotropic" (the same rules in all directions) at any given scale?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
If I understand the MM correctly the basic laws are applicable at all scales but at any given scale there is always phenomena above or below our range of detection i.e. there are "super" forces and wave phenomena that operate at what we currently perceive to be the observational limit.
I would disagree with your comment that we observe uniformity at the largest scales, there are superclusters of galaxies and the deepest sky surveys are hinting at even greater structure.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 1 month ago #3342
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
The bounds of phenomena are set by the scale. In our range of scales, light and the LCM are our observers for the universe, so naturally we to must obey the rules of the governance of light. If we get smaller and somehow utilize gravity, our level of observational precision increases until we are bound by the rules of gravity, etc.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.330 seconds