Nonneta's Challenge

The challenge to Meta Science is this: Meta Science is founded on two logically self-contradictory premises. The first is that any force which does not exhibit (appreciable) aberration when the sources are in relative motion must propagate superluminally. Meta Science accepts the fact that the electric force does not exhibit aberration, so according to the fundamental doctrine of Meta Science the electric force (not to be confused with electric waves) MUST propagate many time faster than the speed of light. The second premise is that, in order to account for the observed relativistic effects (as in particle accelerators that operate using a stationary electric field) it is necessary for the electric force to propagate only at the speed of light, and no faster.

Since the two fundamental premises on which Meta Science is founded are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be true. (Actually, Meta Science is wrong about BOTH of those premises, but we need not concern ourselves with this, since for the purpose of showing that Meta Science is untenable it suffices to prove that either one of its foundational premises is wrong.) If the first premise (lack of aberration implies superluminal propagation) is wrong, the entire foundation and reason for existence of Meta Science disappears, but if the second premise (the “propellor” explanation for relativistic effects) is wrong, Meta Science is falsified by an abundance of empirical evidence.

We’ve been unable to find anyone who could or would offer any defense of Meta Science. The closest thing to a counter-argument was the claim that particle accelerators do not work by subjecting charged particles to electric fields, but this claim was falsified by a detailed description of how particle accelerators work, including the kind that work using a purely stationary electric field. (Actually, Meta Science is wrong about ALL accelerators, but we need not concern ourselves with this, since for the purpose of showing that Meta Science is untenable, it suffices to prove that any particle accelerator – showing the relativistic effects of light speed limitation – works using a stationary electric field.)

Since no one could offer any defense of Meta Science, the discussion progressed into questions about general relativity and other scientific theories that have greater empirical viability and are not logically self-contradictory. The discussion quickly focused on a key misconception, namely, the belief that there is an objective distinction between “mathematical descriptions” and “physical explanations”. By examining an example of a purported “physical explanation” in detail, we showed that there is no such distinction. This tangential discussion would perhaps more properly be placed in the General Relativity forum, or better yet, since “Meta Science” has now been conclusively refuted, perhaps the entire site could be changed to just “Science”.

Another alternative, as suggested in the previous message, would be to turn the site into an online tutorial on how to treat incoherent and indefensible ideas respectfully – which will be accomplished by banning people who don’t address such ideas favorably – but I doubt there would be much interest in such a site. Maybe there should be a sub-forum here on “social issues”, since this - rather than science itself - seems to be the topic of paramount interest to some of the participants. Actually, it might be of some general interest, since it may shed light on the question of how a person or group of people responds to falsification of their fundamental beliefs.

What defense do you seek? You refute nothing! Read the literature from TVF please. Quote specific chapters or concepts and then provide a referenced counter-argument. No one here is tender-hearted. If you don't think Meta is correct, that's fine. You're wrong, but not because I am right. You point to the fact that there is abundant empirical data. To which data are you referring. It is difficult to defend claims that we are just not right. Thanks for that, but how? Let's take a concrete example. In the BB, redshift is due to objects moving away from earth. In MM, it is due to increased density of elysium near gravitational masses. There is quality evidence to support the MM on this topic. For an even more concrete example, I would point to TVF's predictions of meteor storms based upon comet trails - calculations which have been made using MM functions. I stood and watched a meteor storm fall over North Carolina while the leading astronomers had folks sitting in Mongolia watching nothing. Also, TVF's work on GPS, corrections to relativity made using the MM, correctly timed the system. You say that we should provide a defense; sir, we are on the offense.



Mark Vitrone

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. If the first is false, then the whole conceptual basis of, and reason for, Meta Science disappears. If the second is false, then Meta Science is contradicted by all the relativistic phenomena demonstrated daily in particle accelerators (to give just one example). This was all described in detail in previous messages, so there’s no point in repeating it.

Comments about meteor storms and comet tails have no relevance here. (Remember, we are making an effort to stay on the topic identified in the Subject of the thread.) Erroneous claims about the GPS system falsifying relativity are also not relevant here. Anyone wishing to learn about the confirmations of both special and general relativity provided by the GPS can find many reputable references. For purposes of the present discussion, it’s enough to point out that Meta Science claims to be empirically equivalent to the accepted scientific theories in the sub-luminal regime, so it is logically inconsistent to claim “corrections to relativity using the MM”.

But, again, the only relevant point is that Meta Science has been conclusively refuted, by showing that it is logically self-contradictory. Therefore, it is not a viable theoretical framework. No amount of bluster or obfuscation can change this fact, nor will ignoring this fact make it go away.

Nonneta,

Gravity has been shown to propogate faster than light. It is a force. MM holds true.
Light has been shown to interact FTL when split (even over large distances). MM holds true.

Premise 1&2 are your premises. I am not aware of a published MetaNote, Journal entry, or web publication that explicitly desribes electricity.

The electrical force (and its accompanying magnetism) travel at light speed. No one here has claimed that light travels faster than light (the very statement is illogical). You seem fixed on the notion that we at Metascience want to claim that light travels faster than light.

I included GPS and Meteor prediction because they are relavant to this thread in that their calculations included the existence of elysium which is really the central idea of this whole debacle.

Regards,

Mark Vitrone

You are evidently unacquainted with the doctrines which you are attempting to defend. TVF has stated repeatedly and explicitly, both in private and in published writings, that the electric force (not to be confused with electromagnetic waves, i.e., light) MUST propagate superluminally, for the very same reason that he contends gravity must propagate superluminally. You see, his argument is that the speed at which a force "propagates" can be inferred from the aberration (or lack thereof) in the direction of the force exerted between moving bodies. He also acknowledges (Maxwell's equations) that there is no aberration in the electric force. The electric force exerted on a distant charged particle by a source particle in uniform motion points directly toward the instantaneous source, not the retarded position of the source. Hence, as TVF has repeated acknowledged, his reasoning about gravity implies that the electric force must also propagate superluminally. He even repeated this claim in this very thread (well, under the previous subject title). This is not a controversial claim. It is not, as you assert, MY claim. The two premises to which I have called attention are TVF's premises. He stated them explicitly in PUBLISHED writings, as well as here on this message board. They form the very BASIS of his proposed theoretical framework. If you are actually unaware of all this, then may I politely suggest that you are not qualified to be involved in this discussion. (I don't know any nicer or gentler way of putting it.)

Again, so as not to let uninformed comments distract us from what has been established, the fact is this: Meta Science has been refuted by showing that its two main premises are mutually exclusive and logically self-contradictory. TVF's only attempted defense was to claim (rather desperately) that perhaps particle accelerators don't work the way we all know they work. To put this to rest, I provided a detailed description of how they work, confirming that the two foundational pillars of Meta Science are logically self-contradictory. At that point, TVF fell silent on the subject, although he has subsequently found time to respond to many other posts here. In his place, various other names have appeared, none of which have offered any attempt to reconcile the fundamentally irreconcilable premises of Meta Science. Now we have someone claiming that Meta Science doesn't make the claims that it obviously makes. This is becoming more and more surreal.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">“The electric force exerted on a distant charged particle by a source particle in uniform motion points directly toward the instantaneous source, not the retarded position of the source. Hence, as TVF has repeated acknowledged, his reasoning about gravity implies that the electric force must also propagate superluminally. He even repeated this claim in this very thread (well, under the previous subject title). This is not a controversial claim. It is not, as you assert, MY claim. The two premises to which I have called attention are TVF's premises. He stated them explicitly in PUBLISHED writings, as well as here on this message board. They form the very BASIS of his proposed theoretical framework.” [nonneta]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is very interesting but can you please cite your sources (with some relevant quotes if possible) for the unbiased readers’ benefit? Even if the source is a past MB post, it would be helpful to reprise it.

Thanks,
Neil