From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Quasars: near versus far
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:47:57 GMT


mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock) writes:

> You claimed that all particles are made up of "mass subunits" that the
> C-gravitons interact with.  This is in direct conflict with standard
> particle physics (EWD and QCD) in which the fundamental particles are do
> not contain any subunits.  The mass of a fundamental particle is just a
> property of that particle.

     In the Meta Model, the particle's "mass" is also just a property, not
related to its matter content.  But yes, particles are further divisible,
infinitely.  The belief in fundamental particles is more philosophy than
science; and the lack of observational evidence of further subdivisions is
more a statement about the tools we have to observe with than about nature.
It can be compared to astronomers suggesting that we can now finally see
nearly the whole universe with our telescopes.  At every epoch in history man
has thought that, and been wrong.

> You claimed that particle physics in the Meta model was completely
> deterministic and that quantum theory contains a set of hidden variables
> revealed by the Meta model.  You also claimed to have a modified version of
> Bell's theorem worked out.  This is in direct conflict with fundamental
> quantum theory.  Since you have a version of Bell's theorem worked out,
> this should be testable.  Is this presented in your book?

     The Meta Model is developed only up to its interface with quantum
physics, but not beyond.  If you expect my book to contain the solutions to
all the mysteries of physics, it won't.  It simply suggests a new framework
which potentially permits some sense to be made out of quantum weirdness. Its
framework for a new understanding of the Bell theorem is testable.

> You claim the C-gravitons interact with each other on a two kiloparsec
> scale such that gravity becomes a 1/r force on large scales.  This implies
> that the interaction strengthens gravity at large scales.

     No, gravity gets weaker on larger scales.  2 kpc is the mean free path
of the C-gravitons before colliding with one another.  Once they collide and
scatter back into the C-graviton shadow which masses cast on each other, the
force of gravity is diminished (similar to the action of air molecules).

     The force behaves similar to a 1/r force from the galaxy center. However
the galaxy center is not felt much at all by the Sun, 8 kpc away.  Instead
the r^-2 forces exerted by the stars within 2 kpc of the Sun exert a net
force toward the galactic center because a sector toward the center is more
compressed, and an anti-center sector is more diluted than the average
stellar density in the neighborhood.  And this net force dilutes in
proportion to 1/r as distance from the galactic center changes.

> You claim C-gravitons in high density objects are scattered by the
> mass-units and are trapped inside the object.  This seems odd to me.  In a
> star photons generated at the core of star are scattered many many times
> but eventually they do diffuse out.  Once steady state is achieved, the
> luminosity generated at the core equals the observed luminosity.  So it
> seems that your mass units must somehow absorb the C-gravitons rather than
> scatter them.

     I have not attempted to give the essence of the C-graviton model here,
since the principles which lead to it have not been introduced.  Without that
full explanation, I can only tell you now that the answer to your question
lies in the fact that the flux comes from outside the star, not inside.  When
the density is high enough, the flux cannot get in.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.