Is the Meta Model necessary?

Mark,

Are you suggesting that there are situations where an otherwise-massive photon would not exhibit mass?
If so, can you describe a couple of these situations?

Thanks.


-Joe

LB, According to NASA the moon is receding 3.8 centimeters per year as per the redshift. How did you determine your figures? Its kind of important to know which method is used to make this estimate. I get so many details mixed up and when one can be set right the attempt is worthwhile. As you know in my world the moon is in a common orbit with Earth rather than a run away satellite of the Earth so this is much more interesting to me than perhaps to you and others.

Jim,

I made a correction to #3 and #6 in my post from Oct.31. Although I know that you're not keen on defining acceleration in a spatial way -temporal only- I wanted to notify you just the same.


-Joe

JoeP, You still miss my point about effects induced by acceleration. Maybe its wrong and only my problem,but, the effects of acceleration are more than just a change in motion. I get this idea from a new rendition of Planck's Law which has been kicked around in another thread on this site several years ago. It seems to me energy has many properties that are hiden in the dogma of the day.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JoeP</i>
<br />Mark,

Are you suggesting that there are situations where an otherwise-massive photon would not exhibit mass?
If so, can you describe a couple of these situations?

Thanks.


-Joe
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Joe,

Photons only exhibit mass when measured (wave particle duality)

Mark Vitrone

Jim,

It is possible, even anticipated, that a specific property would work in concert with other properties. If acceleration changes, then other factors might change with it, each in its own proportion.
Energy is all-important. Energy is the life of every property. No-energy = no-property.

Pray, tell us, what is this new rendition of Planck's Law.


-Joe