From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject:  TIME HAS INERTIA     Reply to: Steven Groom
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:43:11 GMT

Summary:  TIME HAS INERTIA
Keywords:  

 You asked me what do I mean by " Time has Inertia " .  By

(1)      " T has inertia"                                           

I mean that                                          

(2)   " Some expenditure of Energy is required to change the status quo of T " 

where in (1) and (2) the symbol  T  can stand for anything.

  Since I maintain that some Energy is spent for moving Time forward, I thus
mean that  Time has inertia. To cut undue cosmetics, and to be more direct, I 
will  equate  "inertia" with  "mass" or even better  with  "matter" and I will simply say that by (1), I mean

(3)    TIME HAS MASS   or even better   TIME IS MATTER  or  TIME IS ENERGY

  I will not define  "MATTER" in (3), since if I could define MATTER, in that 
Definition (out of necessity) I would use words having more primitive
concepts than MATTER.  However, for the present purpose, I have chosen MATTER
as my primitive undefined concept.
  You know, one cannot define everything, and one has to accept some concepts  without definitions. Otherwise, I would ask you to define "DEFINITION" and if  you try to define DEFINITION I will ask you to define every word in your
definition... and this ad infinitum.
  Almost in every book of Physics some concept of INERTIA, MASS and MATTER is 
introduced according to some Physicists such as Newton, Mach, Planck, Lorentz, 
Einstein, etc and in connection with various Postulates, Laws and topics such  as  matter, antimatter, negative matter, etc., and in connection with Physical Laws such  " the validity of Physical Laws for observers possessing uniform    rectilinear relative motion with respect to each other"  Incidentally, I do not believe that there is such a thing as uniform rectilinear motion.  Nothing,   absolutely nothing can be put in a rectilinear motion with constant velocity.  Every thing is in a constant change w



ith the passage of TIME. You ask me to    prove my statements! But who has proved (without virtually postulating it) that there is a rectilinear motion with constant velocity! Who?! 
     
     Now, as far as Axioms, Principles and Postulates are concerned, if I had  to accept a Principle which is convincing to me, I would accept

(S)    THE PRINCIPLE OF THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO

(S) is applicable to Physics, to Chemistry, to individuals, to social as well  as political organizations, etc.  For instance, I have not seen in any Physics book a convincing explanation of "why two like (electrical) charges repel".
I am well acquainted with mathematical formulation of the Coulomb's law, which
only quantifies the the phenomenon but gives no explanation.  To me it is 
quite convincing to explain the above repulsion (via the Principle (S)) by
saying that " the space tries to maintain the status quo of its electrical
neutrality and repels the like electrical charges in order not to allow a
further concentration of the like electrical charges in the space's neutral
territory".  However, the neutrality of the space can be very often compro-
mised.
Similarly, in Chemistry they quantify the amount of the heat produced when a
drop of water is dropped into a jar of sulfuric acid.  But they do not sa-
tisfactorily explain the reasons for the production of the (sometimes immense)
heat.  To me it is quite convincing to explain this (via the Principle (S))
by saying that "the sulfuric acid tries to maintain the status quo of its
concentrated acidity and produces (sometimes immense) heat in order to 
evaporate (annihilate) the intruding drop of water! ". Similarly, when a drop
of acid is dropped into a jar of water most probably there is a reaction 
on the part of the water to maintain its  PH neutrality, but is cannot over-
power the (powerful) intruder and  as a result compromises its status quo of
neutrality.  On the other hand, Newton's gravitational attraction is the 
tendency of matter to be collected together the way they (supposedly) were
before the Big Bang !.
   I am quite well acquainted with Mathematics of Physics.  I have taught 
many course in Mathematics of Physics (at graduate levels) which however is
mainly used to "formulate" (often extremely elegantly and very usefully) and
to "quantify" physical phenomena without giving in depth explanation.  Per-
sonally, I will take  (S) any time over many other Principles.  TIME also
wants to maintain its status quo (and to stay still) and some energy is irre-
trievably used to push TIME forward.    
                                                  Alexander ABIAN