From: kenneth@davy.uio.no (Kenneth Ruud)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - BASS JEALOUS AND INSECURE-ABIAN VALIDATED
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
	<klclauss.4.723351158@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Dec11.024139.12143@dmp.csiro.au>
	<1992Dec12.195654.7419@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 12-12-92
	<abian.724200923@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:02:26 GMT

In article <abian.724200923@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>[Stuff deleted]
>

>
>      Nevermind the article in NEW  SCIENTIST, I was told that
>   in France and Germany there are conferences studying TIME HAS INERTIA
>   topic and that THEY ARE MORE AND MORE CONVINCED THAT in all those
>   cases where there is a PUSZZLING LOSS OF ENERGY -  ABIAN's (A2)  IS
>   THE NSWER:
>
>   (A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA (i.e. TIME IS MATTER)  AND SOME ENERGY IS 
>	  IRRETRIEVABLY DISSIPATEED TO MOVE TIME FORWARD
>
>   AND NONE OF THE  existing theories is capable to explain the puzzling
>   loss of energy and that (A2) revolutionized both GR and QM.
>
There has come a lot of postings about this subject lately (and I have always
wondered wether it really concerned the newsgroup sci.chem) and I have tried
to ignore the discussion. As a chemist I see no need to throw myself over
this new "theory" (A2). Until it proves itself worthy as a theory I see no need
to spend my time on this theory.

There are enormously many different ways of discribing our universe at 
different levels of approximations, and I see no need for a theory that might 
be "more correct" than any other, if it does not give results which no other
theory does, or is easier in use than already existing theories.

It is interesting to read that the theory might give an answer to results one
at present cannot understand, but this is a matter for physicists, and until
they show that the theory really explains such phenomenon, I personally say
that this discussion should not take place in sci.chem.
>
>     BASS, why don't you broadcast to the entire Europe and in fact to the 
>   entire globe to discard my  TIME HAS INERTIA based on  nonverifiability, 
>   nonpredictability and nonquantifiability of my ideas.  Do it, save the 
>   decadent status quo of "Scientific verifiability, predictability and
>   quantifiability".  Save the neanderthalish precambrian mentality that
>   matter does not act in such a way as to gain a feeling of security.
>   Why don't you ridicule this too  (which will again, according to (A3)
>   prove that you like to knock people down to gain a feeling of security)
>
>     In fact, to prove my ideas, I need your type of persons - you are
>   a best experimental verification of that 
>
>   (A3)     GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY 
>
>   is the basic, fundamental Physical Law motivating the actions of everything - 
>   of particles, of electrons of SPACE of galaxies of people ( of their 
       ^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^
>   jealousies, their fanaticism, their sarcasm,t heir envy of not being "The 
>   FIrst", etc., etc).    
>
Hmmm, I have to admit that I probably joined to late to get the first 
posting concerning these rules, but this (A3) seems to be a most useless 
principle I have seen (I haven't seen much, but still...). I can understand 
that this principle applies for human relationships, but then the principle is 
more of a philosophical statement than a physical principle.

I do not know how you think that particles and electrons "gains" feeling of
security. It sounds to me as if though you give the particle human attributes
like for instance "feelings", how can that be. I know, as you say later on, the
concept "security" is not to be mistaken with the concept we use when 
considering human relationships, but some connection there has to be, after 
all, you look upon Bass as one of the best verifications of the principle.
>
>       The sooner Science and Physics accepts  (A3) the sooner they will
>   progress from their blind status quo maintaining decadent mentality 
>   (which undoubtedly gives them a feeling of  security - although false) 
>   and gain a more powerful, correct and truthful feeling of security  
>
>      I am trying to put the science on the correct foundation - that gives 
>   me a feeling of security.  
>
>      DO NOT ASK what is the Definition of "SECURITY" - nothing can define it 
>   -it is the basic, the fundamentally elemental term 
>
I am afraid I can't help it. I have to ask what the definition  of the term 
SECURITY is. If it is impossible to define, how are you to apply it? If it is 
possible to see the effects of the principle, then it should be possible to 
define the term, not necessarily by itself, but at least by it's consequences, 
as is the case for the term "Force". If this is not possible, then I can see 
know need for the principle. If it is impossible to apply, it useless at a 
scientific principle.

I myself can make up any theory whatsoever, claiming to explain everything, as
long as all the concepts involved in this theory is impossible to define
clearly. I cannot see that any new insight is gained by such a theory, and I
would for that reason not consider it when choosing a theory for describing the
universe.
>
>	IT IS THE LIFE ITSELF, IT IS THE SCIENCE, THE PHYSICS ITSELF
>
>   (and the above is not a Definition of SECURITY -it is just a vague subconscious
>   description).
>
>   With love                                Alexandrer Abian 
>
And once more, I don't think this discussion is of much interest to the readers
of the newsgroup sci.chem, but if there is anyone out there disagreeing with
me, please say so!

With love 

     Kenneth

















   -- 
      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)
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Kenneth Ruud, doing Chemical Physics at the Department of Chemistry,
University of Oslo, Norway.         E-mail: kenneth@dalton.uio.no

I don't know what the computer language of the year 2000 will look like, but
I know it will be called FORTRAN.
_______________________________________________________________________________