From: chiriu@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Edwin Ichiriu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND REACTION TO PROVOCATION
Date: 15 Oct 1992 09:24:50 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

[nonsense deleted]

>    However, some people also said that  I deserve a Nobel Prize for the
>radically new idea (1). I agree with them.

You deserve nothing.  You haven't done any work to prove or disprove yourself.

[more nonsense deleted]

>   However, some people said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for my statement 
>of the Principle (4).  I agree with them.

See above.

>   I asked people to give me a better explanation of (5).  Many of them 
>passed the buck by saying "if you want an explanation ask a Chemist"
>   I asked a Chemist.  He said  "if you want an explanation  ask a Physi-
>cist"
>   I asked a Physicist.  He said "if you want an explanation ask a
>Chemist".  The usual very disappointing "run around" !

Well, obviously you are neither a physicist nor a chemist, nor even a
scientist.  As I have said before, when you begin with a false assumption,
you can draw any conclusion from it.  You as a professor of Mathematics
ought to know this.

>   I have heard that in Science  the moto is  "QUANTIFY".   My advice is:
>        
>            "QUESTION, TRY TO EXPLAIN AND TRY TO QUANTIFY"
>(even question the questioning!)

You forgot one thing.  You have to make sure that your explanation matches
the physical phenomena you are trying to explain.  Your few examples may
satisfy your questioning process enough for you to accept this.  But without
quantification, you can't prove it.  Don't "try" to quantify.  Your problem
with quantification is that you can't.

You advocate questioning the questioning.  Isn't it ironic that a man who has
such high opinions of his own ideas has failed to continue probing his
hypothesis?

>  I also proposed that a most rational way of terraforming another planet
>and making it inhabitable for human species is:

Oh, this is rational, is it?  What proof do you have that warrants any change?

>        PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.

>  Also, to get rid of the many million years of inexorable, relentless, per-
>sistent, and unyielding meteorological  and epidemic disasters, calamities
>and catastrophes which continually plague the human species , we must
>       
>        ALTER THE TILT (AND IF NECESSARY THE ORBIT) OF THE EARTH.

>   Also, I like my statement below which follows Darwin's statement:    


>      THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
>      PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
>                                             C. DARWIN  (1859)
>      
>     
>      THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS,        
>      OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
>                                              A. ABIAN  (1992)  

What an ego.  Already he's quoting himself as some expert.

>   Finally, observing that I am very serious in whatever I said in the 
>above and that I try never to mock or put down people, however, to the 
>people who do those to me, my answer is  "the feeling is mutual".

Yeah.  Just remind me never to send my kids to Iowa State.
Newsgroups: sci.physics