Is the Meta Model necessary?

Theories are ... guesses. Some have a lot of evidence to back them up, some have less. No theory, including DRP, SR, LR, QM and GR, is able to explain all that we see when we look at the universe. Some contradict each other. Hince our quest for new theories, or enhancements of older theories, to advance our understanding.

Many theories can be eliminated from consideration fairly easily, if they cannot predict or describe a routinely observed phenomenon. One frequently invented theory of gravity that falls into this category is the EMT (Expanding Matter Theory). It starts with the observation that acceleration caused by a push and acceleration caused by gravity have the same units when described mathematically. One then postulates that both kinds of acceleration are in fact physically the same thing, and that gravity is therefore caused by all matter physically expanding at a rate that is proportional to the amount of matter. (No reason is ever given, it is just postulated; probably because it seems to provide a physical explanation.) In the case of Earth, that means that the planet's radius is increasing at a rate of 9.8 meters/second/second. A rock released from shoulder height will remain stationary in space, but the planets surface rushes 'up' to meet it (as long as you hold the rock, you force it to gain upward velocity at the planet's rate of expansion; when you release it the rock's velocity becomes constant while the velocity of the planet's surface continues to increase). The planet, the rock and you are all expanding, so it looks like the rock was attracted to the planet.

It is also necessary to assume that the space between masses expands, or else Earth and rock (or Earth and Luna) would soon be in physical contact, and that would falsify the theory because we do not see it happen in the real world.

Sounds like it might work, but ... one of the things that kills this theory is its inability to describe/predict the phenomenon of orbits. Think about it for a few minutes and see if you can work it out.

JoeP, Does the speed of light has an effect on acceleration? It seems to me acceleration is a force vector that is in effect whatever the speed. Can you prove acceleration ends at the speed of light? It seems to me it remains constant whatever the speed is. Why call it any other name than acceleration just because of its direction? Its still acceleration whatever the direction is.

Larry,

Concerning your riddle:
If the gravitational force were replaced by the inertial force, an orbiting body would lose its centripetal force. This would mean no concept of orbit.
ADDENDUM: Even if the concept of orbit still continued after the change to a 1-force (inertial) Universe, this change would be felt by Man, and detected by Machine. The reason is that the inertial force and the gravitational force are qualitatively different. See the paper "Does Gravity Have Inertia?" by Dr.Van Flandern. (The answer is 'no', of course.)

Concerning a limiting speed:
We draw our conclusions for the unseen from the seen. We see that every medium has a characteristic speed. It is only normal; the mechanics of the molecular composition of the materiel can only behave in a set way. Therefore, we conclude that the same must be true for unseen media, be it aether, elysium, etc. Logic demands it.

Concerning the electrostatic force in MM:
I believe the description of charge by Dr.Van Flandern is flawed. And, this is because, especially in the case of the proton due to greater degree, gravitons can NOT actually put downward pressure on elysons to form a compacted elyson-atmosphere. In seen reality, smaller particles push larger particles AWAY from a common focus as particles of all sizes agglomerate toward their common point of destination.
This is a matter of size-difference.
Example 1:
Place a big ball-bearing in a cannister. Fill most of the can with small ball-bearings, leaving room near the top. Place a lid on it. Give it a few shakes. Take the lid off. The big ball-bearing is at the top.
Example 2:
Ever have a big potato-chip at the bottom of a half-filled bag of crumbs? Yeah, you know what to do.


-Joe

Jim,

It is a very common error that any entity in the Universe can be independent of any other entity. In actuality, all entities are interrelated. Logic demands it. But, deep down, I think every person knows that; sometimes, the intellect does not process this instinctive knowledge properly.
So, acceleration is NOT "in effect whatever the speed." As v-->c, energy is continually transfered from the property of acceleration to that of velocity (and others, maybe). Therefore, a-->0. We never reach v=c, and the acceleration is never enough to allow us to hit that goal. This is a law of the Universe. Scientists are trying to find the ultimate equation that ties all these disparate properties together in their right proportions. Such an equation should both describe and predict.
The only proof that exists,to date, to show that acceleration "ends at the speed of light" is intellectual, which I have tried to provide. Experiments at particle-accelerators seem to hint at this reality, though.

I do not understand your question:
"Why call it any other name than acceleration just because of its direction?"
Could you elaborate, please.


-Joe

Hi JoeP, The particle accelerator idea will never solve the problem of getting to the speed of light no matter how they do the math. The acceleration remains the same as the speed of light is neared but more and more energy is required to maintain the rate of acceleration and in fact will reach infinity using the currently popular models. What is needed is a better understanding of force and acceleration not a another new model. We have a very good model from Newton as to how force and acceleration are related but that model needs some updating in light of modern discoveries. Everyone has replaced the good model with an odd model rather than working on updates for the good model. The results have been a whole generation of silly science that now seems to be slowly coming to the surface. As for your question about acceleration: you put words before the concept of acceleration(a very good word by itself)that change the meaning of the word and alter the concept-not good.

Jim,


The scenario that I have provided is not so much a new model, as it is an application of logic to Newton's model.

Your statement gives credence to my scenario:
"The acceleration remains the same as the speed of light is neared but more and more energy is required to maintain the rate of acceleration and in fact will reach infinity using the currently popular models."
The reason that "more and more energy is required to maintain the rate of acceleration" is that a progressively increasing part of that new energy that is added to the acceleration is, in actuality, being utilized to increase speed. This is the scenario that the ultimate equation of the Universe paints. And, the reason for E-->infinity is that v=c is an asymptote on the graph of this ultimate equation of the Universe.

Concerning the definition of acceleration:
Acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time.
Velocity is a vector, so this change can be in direction as well as magnitude. These are 2 DISTINCT accelerations.
Velocity can also be linear or angular, so this change can be linear or angular. These are another 2 DISTINCT accelerations.
Therefore, there exist 6 DISTINCT accelerations:

1. Constant linear speed, changing linear direction.
2. Changing linear speed, constant linear direction.
3. Changing linear speed, changing linear direction.
CORRECTION: #3 is actually linear hyper-acceleration (da/dt) by way of a change in the direction of the linear acceleration 'a'. (Theoretically, of course, we can go on, making incessant changes in magnitude and direction.)

4. Constant angular speed, changing angular direction.
5. Changing angular speed, constant angular direction.
6. Changing angular speed, changing angular direction.
CORRECTION: #6 is actually angular hyper-acceleration (d'alpha'/dt) by way of a change in the direction of the angular acceleration 'alpha'. (Theoretically, of course, we can go on, making incessant changes in magnitude and direction.)


-Joe