From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN REPLIES TO TALBOT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:50:51 GMT

In <BzD4v8.J31@news.cso.uiuc.edu> met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot) writes:
                                  12-16-92
Mr. Talbot you write       

>abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:



>>    The sacro-sanct Law that        
>>     
>>        "a unit mass at distance  r  units exerts on a unit of mass  
>>         k/r^2  units of force"     ( k is a constant )

>>   Which is accepted as a sacro-sanct Law and which supposedly  has been  
>>billion times verified.  Is not too convincing to me.  
>>   
>>   I will explain why.  In fact I will even do better than Newton, I
>>will even  DERIVE  k/r^2  without forcing you to accept it as a sacro-
>>sanct Law.
>>   For this all you have to know that the  area of a sphere of
>>radius  r  is equal to  4pi r^2.

>>   Imagine a  lit candle ( of unit luminosity 1)  at the center of a 
>>sphere of radius  r.   Of  course it is not too unintelligent to think
>>that  1/ 4pi r^2   unit of light is received by the unit area on the
>>surface of the sphere.  Hence, the intensity of light (i.e., the force 
>>of light) at  distance  r  is given by

>>                   1/ 4pi r^2  =  k/r^2

>Aren't you leaving something out?  I thought you claimed that time has
>inertia and ate up energy from everything in the universe.  If this is the
>case (it's not, BTW, I'm just pointing out that you are inconsistent and use
>classical physics when it suits you, but RAVE about it being wrong other 
times)
>then your candle should deliver less energy than it gives off.  Sorry, but
>for leaving out A2, I can't give you much partial credit...:-)
    


Abian replies
    
  I do not accept  classical k/r^2.  I only gave an example that IF
I WAS TOLD TO  TEACH  IT , I would use a very elegant way to present it.
In fact, I will not even mention KEPLER's or NEWTON'S  prehistoric  or
today's protozoic approach. I will not even talk about these petrified
methods.  
   And, This because a bright student  will ask
     
    why  k/ r^2   and  not     k/ r^1.9     or   k / 1.999^r

Why that SACRED  2  ?
     

   The usual pliocenic  answer which is used even today is THE EXPERIMENT
   SAID SO   (Ticho-Brahe's experiments)

     If I had to explain I would simply say that because
    
   The area of a sphere   is    4pi r^2   and  the intensity

   of candle light is therefore   k/ r^2   at distance  r,
      AS EXPLAINED ABOVE   read the above carefully.


    I did not say I accept Newton's Laws.  I said I will present
 k/ r^2  without  basing on any  pliocenic experimentation.


    I regret very much that my answers are short.  I CANNOT ANSWER THE
DELUGE OF QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO ME AT

                     TIME HAS INERTIA

  Would the people who want   to Eliminate  TIME HAS INERTIA FILE
be more persuasive  in their attempts.  Just a little more !


  With love                         Alexander Abian
  




-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics