John Edser  wrote or quoted:
>  Tim Tyler  wrote:-

> > > My critique of the Hamilton's Rule
> > > is in two distinct parts:
> > > 1) Proof of a basic error.
> > > 2) An attempt to remove it.
> > [...]
> > > Hamilton's rule:
> > >                 rb>c ...(1)
> > >
> > > (1) Not a single constant is represented within
> > > the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
> > > Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
> > > i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
> > > sciences any rational mathematical expression must
> > > refer back to at least one constant term in order
> > > to make any sense. [...]
> 
> > TT:-
> > Very funny.
> > I note that:
> >   F = ma;
> > ...doesn't seem to reference any constant terms either.
> 
> JE:-
> I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
> 
> Within Newtonian mechanics
> Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
> which in this case is simply implied by
> acceleration [...]

Mass is a constant?!?

If so what is its value? ;-)

> If you read my posts I have emphasised
> that mathematical expressions that do
> not directly include any constant term
> within the expression must imply one,
> i.e. refer back to one that does include
> such a term if they are RATIONAL. They
> can remain LOGICALLY correct without
> a constant term or referring back to an
> expression that does have a constant but
> this does not mean such expressions
> are rational. Only RATIONAL theories
> of nature can be tested to refutation.

So: is the second law of thermodynamics
"RATIONAL"?

It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
constants I can see: it's expression is
usually of the form delta-S > 0.

....and yet it is easy to imagine the
second law being false - i.e. it is
a testable piece of physics.

> Hamilton's rule:
> 
> 1) Has no constant term.
> 
> 2) Does not refer back to
> any expression that does have
> a constant term. [...]

So what?

That says absolutely nothing about whether it is correct or not.

Plenty of accurate statements don't need to have constants in them.

For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
I throw three dice rather than two.

That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.

The notion that an equation having no constants in it indicates a problem 
with the theory it represents is completely misguided.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/22/04 9:40:51 PM