"Alternative" to String theory

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />I would like to know what Dr Van Flandern thinks of the similarities and general comments on how feasible this 'alternative' theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Meta Model is the only purely deductive view of the universe. The communtative theory in the article is inductive, which is a form of educated guesswork. And worse, it tries to use mathematics to gain insight into physics instead of vice versa. In MM, the finite cannot become infinite, so singularities are simply wrong math. (The ultraviolet catastrophe and black holes are examples of wrong math trying to provide physical insight.) That means equations requiring renormalization are wrong equations, and cannot help us understand the right physics.

IMO, the physics must come first, and it must be deductive physics or it is just guessing. So I see this new article's theory as no better than string theory because it has all the same flaws.

In MM, the key to understanding gravitation fundamentally is the Le Sage graviton, and appreciating that its speed must be at least 20 billion times faster than lightspeed. Theories focusing on the Higgs particle ignore all this valuable physics, and are the worse off for it. -|Tom|-

Thanks for responding so quickly.

Like I have explained in the past I'm no expert in these matters but I'm fascinated by concept of understanding the world and universe around me.
In MM, is there any 'room' for something like a Higgs particle? Perhaps I'm asking a wrong question but from the little I could deduce from the more 'common' theories it seems they attribute some of the same properties MM attribute to gravitons. Is it merely a coincidence or may it be that deep fundamentally the 'standard' theorists realize there may be a better explanation to things they cannot explain using only inductive theories?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />In MM, is there any 'room' for something like a Higgs particle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no need for a particle to be the basis for "mass" because everything is infinitely divisible. However, the Higgs particle does seem to have some properties in common with the elyson, the unit of elysium, the light-carrying medium, which also serves as the local gravitational potential field. I am not aware that the Higgs has any properties in common with Le Sage gravitons, which are solely responsible for gravitational forces. -|Tom|-