Nonneta's Challenge

[Gregg] "I don't understand the utility of QED "peeing matches"."

This might shed some light on them.

Are you familliar with the IOCCC? That stands for the International Obfuscatory C Code Contest. Each year the "best and brightest" C programmers get together and chose a task to be performed by writing a program. (They have a Website.)

The winner is the one that can write the shortest, most non-intuitive, non-understandable program that still performs the specified task. (As it turns out, the C language is particularly well suited for this sort of thing.

(Think about this the next time you wonder why Windows crashes so often and has so many other troubles. It is written in C. And yet, it works so well most of the time. Wow.)

Some people really enjoy doing things that are bewildering to most others.

LB

Some people really enjoy doing things that are bewildering to most others.

LB
[/quote]

I have been a supporter of Metaresearch for about 10 years. That doesn't make me special. On the face of it, nonneta appeared to be attempting to "slay" Metascience. If so, such an action doesn't impress me nor even interest me. However, he made the claim of censorship on the part of the people who control the Messageboard. I cannot judge this, but censorship is an open admission that one cannot defend his case. Hopefully, this is not true.

Gregg Wilson

Gregg,

Thank you for bringing up this important issue. It would not surprise me to find that nonneta sincerely believes he was censored. It would also not surprise me to find that he was relieved that I finally gave him an excuse to exit the discussion. If he could have shown that mathematical descriptions and physical explanations are identical, I’m pretty sure he would have done so the first time I challenged him.

===
Here is my impression of what I did.

Nonneta made a number of claims about errors in Meta Science. Some of his claims appeared to be based on the postulates of other theories (something that can’t work for debunking any theory - more on why later). Others were based on lack of familiarity with the various aspects of Meta Model, pushing gravity, etc. (Please note that some of his challenges may have merit. Some parts of Meta Science are still in their infancy, and may ultimately need adjustment or even abandonment.) After I pointed out that a major focus of this Website is finding the physical explanations that have been left out of some mainstream theories, nonneta asked for an example of a physical explanation and claimed that he would then show that the example’s mathematical description and physical explanation were one and the same.

I said cool, show me, and suggested sound as the example. He ignored the opportunity and repeated some of his other challenges.

I gave a more detailed example (the sphere vs. the soccer ball), and asked again for him to demonstrate that math and physics were indistinguishable. He ignored my request again, and repeated his other stuff.

At that point I decided to shift to strict topic enforcement. I deleted the latest (and now off-topic) recital of his challenges and asked him again to show me what he said he was going to show me.

I also indicated that this new topic enforcement was temporary ( [LB] “That is what is on topic, <u>for now</u>.”). (underline added here for emphasis)

He promptly took his marbles and left. One of the reasons I let him avoid answering questions for as long as I did was that I suspected he would cut and run as soon as he had a face saving opportunity to do so.
===

Now, I mentioned that the above is MY impression of what I did. But in judging my own actions I cannot claim to be totally unbiased. If anyone else has a different perception of what I did, I would like to hear from you.

The purpose of such feedback is to help me learn how to present my ideas. Knowing that others do or (especially) do not see my actions the same way I see them would be a big help.

I won’t make any comments about any feedback, unless invited to do so. Off line feedback is an option for anyone that does not want to comment in public.

===

Comments about any other issues that have been raised in this thread are also solicited.

OK, Larry, I am satisfied with your position. He did make "prophecies" that were totally out of line.

Gregg Wilson

Although nonneta seems to have taken his marbles and stomped off instead of awaiting my return, I would like to repeat the answer to his last "challenge". He apparently issued this challenge without benefit of having read any of the references I gave him. Moreover, the answers had already been provided in my messages of February 28 and March 3. But just for the record:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i>
<br />Once again, Meta Science is refuted by the fact that its two foundational premises are logically self-contradictory.

Meta Science Premise #1: Forces with no aberration, such as the electric force (per Maxwell’s equations), must propagate many times faster than the speed of light.

Meta Science Premise #2: The electric force must not propagate any faster than light, because the MM explanation of relativistic effects depends on this premise.

These two premises are mutually exclusive, so at least one of them is false.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Neither of these is a premise of Meta Science. But without dwelling on semantics, #1 is true, and #2 is false. The Coulomb (electric) force does propagate strongly FTL. However, although no body can be accelerated faster than the speed of the forces acting on it, any body can certainly have a much lower speed limit if other forces operate to resist acceleration.

On Feb. 28, I explained to nonneta: "Of course, when a particle’s speed approaches c, we need a specific model for both the particle being accelerated and the particles doing the accelerating. In Meta Science, most particles have an elysium “atmosphere” responsible for its charge and its wave-like properties. And the “field” doing the accelerating consists largely of smaller entities with lots of elysium of their own. So as the original particle (P) is accelerated by collisions from behind from smaller entities (q), each adds velocity incrementally and mass directly. So all the new momentum brought in by many q’s is still present in P, even though their ability to increase P’s speed is approaching zero. The end result will be a momentum for P that consists of mass augmented by the factor gamma, and velocity always incrementally below c: gamma * m * v."

On March 3, I wrote: "In those details, you will see that the “elysium atmosphere” of particles I alluded to will necessarily increase in size and mass as the particle approaches lightspeed because rapid motion through elysium encounters more elysons per second, analogous to a particle at rest in a denser elysium atmosphere. So the fast particle’s elysium atmosphere acquires temporary mass and elongates in the direction of motion. As the particle slows again, the accumulation reverses and the atmosphere resumes normal shape and density."

I am sorry to see nonneta go, having apparently learned nothing of Meta Science. But no one can be forced to read or learn. -|Tom|-