Text 943, 78 rader
Skriven 2004-12-06 13:26:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: John's New Venue
============================




 ekurtz99@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:-

> The problem is not some correctable failure of approach or use or 
> representation. It doesn't involve a voluntary act at all. The problem 
> is a chronic inability to understand what is written on the printed 
> page, and spontaneously to substitute some absurdly distorted creation 
> of imagination for the real underlying idea. Nothing is so easy to 
> understand that Edser cannot make a hash of it - Hardy-Weinberg 
> equilibrium, Hamilton's rule, Special Relativity, Set Theory, Godel's 
> theorem, the list is endless.

JE:-
Once again EK, like JMcG, remain happy to 
denigrate without providing any argument 
that proves their case. EK's argument that mass 
is not a constant within Newtonian Mechanics
was just his (comical) argument that a rocket 
reduces mass when it's fuel is burnt. Obviously
this debate is way over EK's head...


Here is something VERY specific for EK reply to:
Hamilton's Rule is logical but NOT rational.
This is because no constant term exists within the 
rule which has been misused as a _stand alone_ fitness
accounting device for over 50 years. This missing constant
is the total fitness of the actor. It was deleted
by mathematicians (who are not scientists) who didn't
think it was important. This deletion reduced the rule to 
just a 100% relative and thus non refutable, supposition. 
This does not matter to mathematicians because they do not 
have to represent anything real about nature but science 
does. When the total fitness of the actor is replaced within
Hamilton's Rule only one condition allows organism
fitness altruism:-

		rb-c > m  ... (1)

Thus Hamilton's Rule remains in error by the enormous
amount m.

The condition (1) was deleted when the
total fitness of the actor was deleted via the process
of modelling oversimplification. It has never been
corrected. All the so called verifications of 
organism fitness altruism allowed by the rule as it stands
remain in hopeless error. All of them, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, 
could be EITHER organism fitness altruism or organism 
fitness mutualism where each stands in total contradiction 
to the other.

All EK has to do is prove that any 100% relative
assumption remains refutable. I can assure him that 
it doesn't. But please, don't take my word for it. 
EK will now provide this long awaited refutation.... 

My Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/6/04 1:26:16 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)