Turbulence on Jupiter and the graviton

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />I have one more quick question...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then why are there two question marks in your message? []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do you think it's possible that ALL radioactive decay is due to gravity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Basically, yes. In MM, gravitons are the engine driving radioactivity and photon emission. But other kinds of force might be able to influence the rate at which these things happen.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If I understand a lot of the basic concepts of meta model, the scale dimension would almost certainly demand that if there is critical mass at a small scale, there must be a much larger version of it, and beyond that a larger version still. Am I wrong in this?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well, no scale is special in MM, so "yes" in that sense. And there are a couple of critical points to consider. If a mass gets dense enough, at some point elysons can no longer penetrate. At some smaller scale, there will be a density where not even gravitons can penetrate. The existence of these points greatly changes the character of what can happen at larger or smaller scales. -|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>
Then why are there two question marks in your message? []<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm glad you asked! The answer is relativity! See, in the universe, space-time is defined by the inter-relationship of mass. Well, even on the internet, the "virtual" space we are telling to curve needs mass to define it. You, being the observer, represent one point, the first question represents another, and then the second question represents the third. This establishes three-dimensionality, and thus gives my first question depth. So really there only IS one question, the other just functions to define it, and for that matter so does the observer! I don't know why you even bother with this "Meta Model" nonsense. I just answered the "why are we here" question quite adequately! []


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, no scale is special in MM, so "yes" in that sense. And there are a couple of critical points to consider. If a mass gets dense enough, at some point elysons can no longer penetrate. At some smaller scale, there will be a density where not even gravitons can penetrate. The existence of these points greatly changes the character of what can happen at larger or smaller scales. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Essentially, in Meta Model, there must be a scale which exists right below our graviton level. So the model would essentially dictate that "critical mass" points are probably the same, but much smaller way down at that scale. Sort of like music, the notes should all be in the same place even if you jump up an octave(I'm not showing any favor toward String Theory though, just an analogy!). I would imagine that if we went UP a scale, the speed of something like a nuclear blast that happens on that scale would happen so slow on our scale that it would happen over an amount of time that would probably be even difficult to write out with exponents.

I think I see what you're saying though. A chunk of super dense radioactive metal would reach that "critical" mass much faster than say..... a trillion tons of cheddar cheese.... There's another, essentially related concept of "critical mass" I've been thinking about ever since I read your book(and it's been quite a while). Basically mass collects until it gets so huge that gravity can't reach the inside anymore, and possibly even keeps growing until it becomes like a giant stretched baloon. Then, when the mass gets to a certain size, the shell's thickness relative to the diameter of the mass gets so small that it becomes unstable, and.... boom, new galaxies, stars, etc. Obviously if the shell was made out of uranium, it would start much thinner than if it was made of something like silicon, and probably would break up much more quickly. I would suspect if such a thing exists though, that it is probably always made of a pretty similar mix of things, maybe even a nearly identical mix. I just keep thinking that SOMETHING has to provide a mechanism to counter entropy.... It's been nagging at me.

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />SOMETHING has to provide a mechanism to counter entropy.... It's been nagging at me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I addressed entropy in the other thread on galaxy rotation. -|Tom|-