Is the Meta Model necessary?

Jim,

The ultimate description of all properties exists in the ultimate equation that interrelates all these properties.
Thinkers are still working to discover this ultimate equation. Science works by increments. We must find our satisfaction in a piecemeal way. It might be that, ultimately, there is no ultimate equation. Life might just be a universal mystery. In this case, you can really take things in stride because fretting over anything scientific would be foolish.

Concerning a perpetual state of equilibrium:
This might be possible. But, without a final Theory of Everything on hand, we just can not be sure.
F=ma is only 1 small (implied) part of the ultimate equation. It can not describe a complex reality by itself.
We abstract equations from Nature. If Nature sets a limit, then we, too, place a limit in our equations to reflect Nature. We do not disregard any aspect of Nature. And, that includes limits.


-Joe

Joe, Who is the we you have made reference to several times here? I see dogma in your latest post and that seems to me to be a huge part of current problems in science. Looking for the theory of everything is not of any interest to me but, gravity, mass and energy are very interesting. Can you not accept these things are not understood and still see some value in science while rejecting the dogma modern science has created?

LB, You say the moon is moving away from the Earth according to the latest measurements. Isn't a redshift of the light from the moon that is measured rather than an actual moving away? Just nit picking I guess but can't a redshift be caused by several forces?

Joe,

The MM does not dismiss physics, instead it builds deductively, rather than inductively. All particles have mass - and all particles behave as waves. Matter is a wave the interacts with each other....the energy contained in matter (which Einstein shows as E=mc^2) exists as an extension of the deBroglie wave of matter.........more mass = greater frequency = more energy. Mass exists for all particles (regardless of their wave status, notice that particles of exceedingly tiny masses have exceedingly greater wave properties....

At the quantum particle level the MM has problems, not from a lack of an appropriate model, but from the lack of observation = since the MM is more scientific than more mainstream models (because of its inherent reliance upon observation) it has flaws - once again though, those flaws are not holes to be filled with widgets but further questions to be asked and tested. That makes it more consistent in my view because the main premises are the model are quite well-supported.

Mark

Jim,

By "we", I'm referring to us, rational human beings. All my statements are rather common-sensical. Do you recognize any instance of illogic in them?
If you find gravity, mass, and energy to be very interesting, then you should be striving to find relationships between them. Yes, I accept that these are not fully understood. And, yes, I still see some value in science, regardless. The 1st part of my earlier post says as much:
"Science works by increments. We must find our satisfaction in a piecemeal way."


-Joe

Mark,

Thanks for the response.

You mentioned that "Mass exists for all particles".
This would lead to

Question 4:
What about the photon? Does it have mass in MM? If so, how? If not, then how is masslessness described in MM? Dr.Van Flandern seemed to prefer the concept of light-wave (a disturbance in elysium) to that of photon (particle).


-Joe