Is the Meta Model necessary?

LB, Yea, I know. What about my question?

<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,

Can I take from your response that a photon has mass? Or, maybe momentum?


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

Joe,

I am comfortable with the photon having mass when encountering matter, yes.

Mark Vitrone

Red shift and blue shift can be caused by anything that removes energy or adds energy (respectively) to an EM wave. The most commonly observed cause of these phenomena is a velocity difference (aka doppler effect) between the observer and the observed object. The velocity of recession of the moon is too small to be detectable this way. Instead, we just bounce an EM wave off of it and make a direct distance measurement. Over the years, we see this increasing at about a centimeter or so per year.

Objects that are at cosmological distances (approximately a few million light years or more) never exhibit blue shift. Something causes their light to lose enough energy by the time it gets here that it is always red shifted.

Main stream science has decided that in all cases the cause has to be velocity. If it is (DRP says that, in general, it is not), it makes finding distance to those remote objects very easy. This is the primary evidence for the Big Bang and the concept of an expanding universe.

Jim,

I figured that you probably didn't mean that guess-work is irrational, but I ended-up assumimg the worse situation -that you DID mean that guess-work is irrational. I'm sorry about that. Also, I'm no more an expert in these matters than the average, interested layman.

Concerning dogmatism:
It's only natural that a person cling to something in life that has served him well. The environment might change, but altering his meaningful possession in accordance is not a given. Any change will necessarily be drawn out, but this is not a bad thing. Steady progress is the result of slow acceptance of fresh ideas. The upstarts should plow forward with their plans; and the old guard should resist. From this clash, wonderful things happen.


-Joe

Larry and Jim,

Without meaning to promote a non-MM model, with which I disagree anyway, the Universal Force Law that Charles Lucas devised contains a rotational term that is supposed to explain elliptical, tilted orbits -something that neither Newton, nor GR, does. Here is the thing that might interest you: Lucas claims that gravity decays, which would explain: a) the distancing of celestial bodies in orbit; b) the expansion of celestial bodies (something close to the heart of all MMers); and c) redshift. (The article is titled "Origin of Gravity, Part3" at Commonsensescience.org. It's near the top of the list, under Newsletter & Articles, which is under Resources.)


-Joe

Larry,

Dr.Van Flandern didn't believe in the Big Bang. But, did he believe in an Inflationary Universe? Are Big Bang and Inflation necessarily synonymous?


-Joe