A Starter for a Theory o Everything

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jaycrooks</i>
<br />In The light of nearly 99% of all matter and Energy being undetectable isn't it time to look at the origin of Gravity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Those familiar with Meta Science are unlikely to be Big Bang supporters. Replacement cosmologies such as the Meta Model have no such problems because they do not need "dark matter" or "dark energy".

Moreover, the complete origin and nature of gravitation are solved problems, already published. See the book <i>Pushing Gravity</i> or our more complete "Gravity" CD. metaresearch.org/publications/CDs/GravityContents.asp
-|Tom|-

I was leary of the initially-posted link when it had "theoryofeverything" in the URL. Surely, a theory is subsumed in "everything" and not the other way around.


On the other hand, may I be as bold (surely not as bold as the MM itself) to ask whether we should exercise the same restraint.

quote:

---

Originally posted by <i>tvanflandern</i>

the complete origin and nature of gravitation are solved problems...

---

Does <i>Pushing Gravity</i> or the Meta Model really do this?

The MM gravity cycle is closed and integrated; yet the equally elegant Kreb's cycle does not go so far as to explain the origin and nature of chemical energy exchange. It does approximate the exchange in measurable terms.

Much of academia lacks the level of understanding of the Meta Model -- because it invariably "arrives" at the limits of measurement which somehow also turn out to be the limits of the application of laws. Let us continue to retain the term "empirical" in our laws, to distinguish the notion of reality from observed reality.

I thought this was the whole reason for the Meta Model. This is what makes it so appealing and real. It identifies those limits that are merely artifacts of our observing apparatus, and correctly assumes that the limits themselves are as artificial as the tools we've made to measure them.

Even when the observations are in, something still slips through the cracks. Please find someone who can tell me why every 15-millionth water molecule must necessrily be H30, and not H20 [are chemists concerned about this?], and I would be tempted to say "Your Krebs cycle has explained the origin and nature of chemical energy exchange." -- but I would be still wrong, wouldn't I?.

Explain the self-stabilization concept?


The gravity I feel here on earth is dependent on the motion of mass on the other side of the galaxy. What links us and what are the mechanics?

At first glance it is interesting, I just need to understand the concept a little better.

What experiment that has not been done could disprove your theory and not support the standard theory?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jimiproton</i>
Please find someone who can tell me why every 15-millionth water molecule must necessrily be H30, and not H20<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, it's because energy is randomly distributed. Imagine a lot of water molecules jiggling (the violence of the jiggle depends on the temperature). Here and there, a molecule will be hit by all its neighbors simultaneously; elsewhere, another molecule will find all its neighbors moving away from it. The first molecule will experience high pressure (=high potential energy); the second, low pressure. Also, collisions between molecules will be more or less violent. Rarely, a collision will be extremely violent. The probability of violent collisions goes down exponentially as a function of the level of violence.

It takes energy to split an H2O into an H+ and an OH-. So, rarely, a molecule will be split and the H+ will grab onto a neighboring molecule to form an H3O.

Throw a dart at a dartboard many times. The holes will be randomly distributed. Occasionally several holes will be crowded together. If something interesting happened when the hole density exceeded a critical minimum (e.g. a piece of the dartboard fell out) we would have something similar to the formation of H3O.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks rodschmidt. I take your explanation as the answer to the mysterious 15-millionth water molecule.

And now, let's assume that the explanation is quantified, and the data has been added to the Krebs cycle, which in turn has been updated to the corresponding level of accuracy. How long before the tedium of the intricate adjustments leads to it being discarded in practice?

Here is where the Meta Model continues to operate, when other scientific methods have shut down and started to think about unifying the forces of nature. If the dimensions of space, time, and scale are indeed infinite, then we deny any hope of "arriving" at something like a Unified Field Theory. Why shouldn't we instead aim for something like a Unified Intellectual Theory, where the intellect is unified with the objects that it considers. Once this is achieved, anything would be possible.