Text 1318, 93 rader
Skriven 2005-01-03 15:01:00 av Ekurtz99@whoknowswhere.Co (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: What is R (relatednes
=================================




>>>EK:-
>>>It doesn't help that he
>>>starts with an obviously flawed notion of ordinary fitness ("units of
>>>fertile organisms produced").

John Edser wrote:
> It remains brain dead to allow genes trapped in
> sterile bodies to have any fitness, at all.
> These genes are all dependently selected within the
> fertile body they came from and NOT within any
> sterile body. Suggesting that genes within infertile
> forms are selected for within these forms 
> makes about the same sense as EK's proffered 
> notion 

I have never mentioned the fitness of genes in infertile forms. My 
objection to "units of fertile organisms produced" is that (from the 
fuel ot evolution thread):

The "number of fertile offspring" .. fails in the case of a species
that contains one type of female that produces a large number of weak
but fertile offspring and another than produces a small number of strong
and fertile offspring. A sufficiently large proportion of the strong
type could survive and ultimately displace the "fitter" weak type.

It fails also in the case where the "fitter" type produces, say, 8
offspring every year and the "less fit" type produces 6 offpring every 6
months.

> that because a rocket loses mass as
> it's fuel is burnt that this somehow, proves that 
> mass within Newtonian mechanics is not constant.

This is a reference to the Publishing scientific information thread in 
which Edser demonstrated his versatility - he is not just seriously 
confused about biology, but physics as well.

 > > JE:-
 > > This very basic assumption of Newtonian
 > > mechanics was refuted by the Michealson-Morely
 > > experiment.
 > EK:-
 > Wrong again; the MM experiment established that the speed of light is the
 > same for all observers.

 > JE:-
 > EK's argument remains irrational.
 > Originally, the only way you could "established that
 > the speed of light is the same for all observers"
 > was to establish that c remains the _maximal_ velocity
 > of light in a vacuum for observers. Originally,
 > no way existed of putting different observers into
 > large enough velocities or measure the tiny time dilation
 > at different velocities for many different observers. All
 > that could be done is prove that c did not change with
 > a supposed aether as Newtonian Mechamics predicted
 > that it must otherwise Newton stood refuted.

QUOTE
In the early 19th century, light, electricity, and magnetism began to be 
understood as aspects of the electromagnetic aether field. Maxwell's 
equations showed that accelerating a charge produced electromagnetic 
radiation which always traveled at the speed of light. The equations 
were based on the ether idea in which the speed of radiation does not 
change with the speed of the source. This is consistent with analogies 
to mechanical waves. Presumably, however, the speed of the radiation 
relative to the observer would change based on the speed of the 
observer. Physicists tried to use this idea to measure the speed of the 
Earth with respect to the aether. The most famous such attempt was the 
Michelson-Morley experiment. While these experiments were controversial 
for some time, a consensus emerged that the speed of light does not vary 
with the speed of the observer, and since—according to Maxwell's 
equations—it does not vary with the speed of the source, the speed of 
light must be invariant for all observers.
END QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Id be happy to explain to anyone who cares how mass is treated 
differently in Newtonian physics and relativity, and why in F = ma the m 
does not need to be constant. Just not Edser; with Edser, every 
explanation gives rise to more of what he seems to have in abundance - 
confusion.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/3/05 3:01:42 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)