Is the Meta Model necessary?

Its not too important to know what the motivation was but what results come from the attempt. IMO, models are just tools and whatever tool does the job is the best one. And models are very much overated by scientists to the degree they replace thought with dogma. Why is one model worshiped over all other models when none of them is all that useful in scientific terms?

Hi, Jim.

Motivation can sometimes point to shortcomings in a model.
What, in particular, motivated Dr.Van Flandern to create MM?

Gravity-experiments show that the speed of gravity is very great(v>>c).

GR describes acceleration which is defined as v=constant-magnitude/varying-direction.

But, by Dr.Van Flandern's estimation, a problem arises when we invert this definition. When v=varying-magnitude/constant-direction, GR, supposedly, can not describe this type of acceleration. (Imagine a falling apple.) So, he turned to LeSagean particles, and dubbed these 'gravitons'. These, he made to translate linearly and very fast(v>>c). These, he seemed to consider almost as mundane in their properties as steel ball-bearings. (Dr.Van Flandern goes into greater detail in his paper "Does Gravity Have Inertia?," near the end.)

My question, therefore, is, "Can GR explain a falling apple?"
If yes, then MM is redundant, at best.
If no, then, in MM, how does a density-gradient in the gravitational field (elyson-atmosphere) accelerate an object straight-down, without the help of the graviton?


-Joe

Joe,

Tom explains his motivation for (and method of) creating the Meta Model Cosmology in great detail. DRP (the emerging generalization of MM) is pretty much the opposite of a place where light never reaches. It sounds like you either have not read or did not understand his book.

Not agreeing with his conclusions, once you understand them, is a separate issue.

===

Re: Meta Model Cosmology and General Relativity.

Comparing and contrasting two or more theories is fine, but you need to be very careful to make clear (to your audience) which statements apply to which theory. In general, a valid critisism of something in one theory is irrelevant if applied to any other theory. After studying your posts I find that I am not sure, in several places, which theory is being described and/or critiqued.

Would you consider re-wording your observations so that I and the others do not have to spend so much time trying to determine your intent? Either make a new post, or edit your existing posts. Your choice.

Once I'm confident that I understand your arguments, we can talk.

Thanks,
LB

Hi JoeP, I want to ask you a question about acceleration since this detail is mostly avoided in models. It seems objects energy of some kind due to acceleration(or maybe not). Anyway, can you tell how the Earth handles energy generated by acceleration caused by the sun?

JoeP,

Have to comment (which I try not to do). Read Dark Matter. You will see the MM developed DEDUCTIVELY rather than INDUCTIVELY.....it is a vital difference, hence the emphasis....

Hi, Larry and Mark.

No, I have not read his book. Thanks for the advice. I have been perusing his online papers. I'm sorry if I was confusing in my 2nd post.
ADDENDUM: I altered my 2nd post, in order to better express my thoughts.

Question 1:
MM tells us that the local elysium is entrained by the Earth, and at rest with respect to it. Since gravitons and elysons have random, linear motion in the Universe, how can there be any entrainment at all? Should not the elyson-atmosphere be formed anew at every moment, unless this is what is really meant by the term 'entrainment'?

Question 2:
A neutrino can traverse the Earth without contact. Why do gravitons and elysons, which are more sublime, not exhibit the same behavior? (Is not gravity the result of a minority of gravitons being absorbed by the celestial body, never reaching the diametrically opposite side?)


-Joe