Planck limits

AB: I appreciate your response.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The policies you declare allow for too much subjectiveness, and as such contain a potential threat (trap) to posters and to the moderators on this board, IMO.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It is in the nature of language that ambiguities will arise. If someone posts a message that contains an ambiguous remark that might be perceived as an insult, we may caution the poster. If the remark was, in fact, taken as an insult, the damage can be undone by a simple statement from the poster that the insulting meaning was unintended, and perhaps (ideally) even an apology for the ambiguity. (Such an apology is not an admission of fault, but a statement of intentions.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I can only hope that accidents of overly subjective policing never happen at this board in the future, be that with or without my immediate participation.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think that is unlikely. The one incident so far was preceded by two warning messages. The offender responded to those with his worst round of personal insults yet. So he is gone. I can't picture any reasonable person, such as yourself, acting in such a counter-productive manner.

And now (hopefully), back to science. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Is the Planck length the smaller limit for the Universe? Is the Planck time the smaller limit for the passage of time or is it just the limit of our measurements? How can we be sure that there is something in a smaller scale than the Planck scale?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

According to conventional models, the Planck units are the smallest possible. According to the Meta Model, scale is infinitely divisible. IMO, the line of reasoning in chapter 1 of <i>Dark matter...</i> about Zeno's extended paradox for matter shows that scale must be infinitely divisible, much like space and time. Otherwise, contact would be impossible, much the way motion would be impossible if space and time were not also infinitely divisible. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
[/quote]

Does that means that even the basic medium (aether) would be also infinitely divisible so that it is also made of particles? I think it implies that we will never be able to find what causes the events in quantum scales because the regression is infinity...

Off topic: do you have any on-line material showing some math to solve the Olber's Paradox to an infinite Universe in time and space? Basically I know that stars does not have an infinity life and some of them does not necessarily emit light in the visible spectrum. So I think that is what could solve the paradox but I'd like see some math behind it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Does that means that even the basic medium (aether) would be also infinitely divisible so that it is also made of particles?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, but only to the same extent as everything is so composed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think it implies that we will never be able to find what causes the events in quantum scales because the regression is infinity...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We do a pretty good job of studying the compositions and functionality of galaxies, stars, planets, asteroids, and smaller bodies. Being able to see several layers of constituents is good enough to understand and predict phenomena. Sufficiently small constituents do not act as individuals, but only as a statistical aggregate; so those details don't really matter to us.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>do you have any on-line material showing some math to solve the Olber's Paradox to an infinite Universe in time and space?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Math? Only physics can solve the paradox. In the Meta Model, lightwaves lose energy to the graviton medium by friction, causing the lightwaves to redshift. Eventually, they lose all their energy (infinite redshift). Then they cease to add anything to the brightness of the background. So that solves Olber's paradox (that the night sky should appear bright if the universe were infinite). -|Tom|-

"In the Meta Model, lightwaves lose energy to the graviton medium by friction, causing the lightwaves to redshift. Eventually, they lose all their energy (infinite redshift)."

The infinite redshift is one of maybe 5 (if I remember ok) premises that can be used to solve Olber's paradox. But I remember when I studied the paradox someone mentioned that a calculation showed the material needed for infinite redshift if universe were infinite would result in distrubutions so the light from our sun also to be limited severely, which is not the case. This premise was the first and was rejected immediately. Maybe Dr. Van Flandern is reviving the argument on different grounds.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>a calculation showed the material needed for infinite redshift if universe were infinite would result in distrubutions so the light from our sun also to be limited severely, which is not the case.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This argument must also make some other assumption, such as that particles must be quantum-sized. The parameters actually proposed in <i>Pushing Gravity</i> produce effectively infinite redshift in a finite distance without being dense enough to produce detectible drag, let alone obscuration. -|Tom|-

"The parameters actually proposed in Pushing Gravity produce effectively infinite redshift in a finite distance without being dense enough to produce detectible drag, let alone obscuration"

This is a good argument but does it propose a mechanism for converting photon momentum into some other form of energy and of what kind and where does this energy go without causing unbalance of material in the universe (stars, planets..)?