From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND REACTION TO PROVOCATION
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:32:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Oct14.123225.22213
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <abian.719027964@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>  
>     I declared and declare that:
>
>(1)        TIME  HAS INERTIA   (i.e. matter)  and some energy is
>           irretrievably dissipated to move Time forward.  The
>           principles of Conservation of Energy and Constancy of
>           speed of Light must be rejected.
>
>     In fact, I gave the following formulas: (see previous postings for
>detailed explanation):
>
>(2)    E(t) = E(0) exp(-AT)  with  A>0   and   t = (1/A) log(B/E(t))
>
>(3)    E = mcc  must be replaced by  E = m(0) exp(-At)
>
>
>    Some  people reacted to (1) and said  " Instead of (1) you may as well
>have said that  "Time has googoo"". I have no objection if you believe 
>that "Time has googoo".  But do not put words in my mouth !  I have never 
>believed that "Time has googoo".  I declared that "Time has inertia".

     Our 'beliefs' are mostly irrelevant insofar as they cannot
     be falsified.  You have not shown why A should not be *greater*
     than zero, rather less than zero.  You cannot tell me why A
     should not be a quaternion or a rhinoceros for that matter.
     The reason why you have not and will not do so is that these
     'principles' appear unfalsifiable and unconnected with nature.

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

     I suggest that may well have been sarcasm.  However, you don't seem
     to understand that (1) is *not* a physical idea.  As many have
     pointed out it is an incorrect statment of the idea of 'inertia'
     and is more related to the idea of dissipation or friction.
     As such, (1) appears to be simply the juxtaposition of words
     that make no sense together.

>
>    I also declared that a most fundamental and basic overall Principle 
>which governs all the events in Cosmos is:
>
>
>(4)     THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
>        CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO    
>                   
>  I gave many examples and explanations by indicating that (i) to stop 
>being bugged (and return to the status quo of tranquillity)by the drilling 
>of a piece of wood by another, heat is produced to stop the bugging which 
>very often results in burning of both the provoker and the provokee.
>   
>   The principle (4) also explains the reaction of (ii) the  gun powder to
>being struck by a provoking hammer, (iii) the dynamite to being struck by
>a provoking striker, (iv) The  plutonium  in an A-bomb to a provoking
>striker , (v) the tritium in an H-bomb to a provoking striker and (vi)
>a Hitler or a Stalin to a provoking agent which threatens the status quo 
>of their political power.  
>
>   Some people reacted to (4) and said "instead of (4) you may as well
>have said that "motivation behind the actions of objects is their
>liking of cheese or popcorn"".  I have no objection if you believe in
>the "overall motivating power of cheese or popcorn".  But do not put 
>words in my mouth! I have never believed in the "overall motivating powers 
>of cheese or popcorn" I declared (4).  

      Obviously, it is only the DESIRE FOR CAMEMBERT instead of your
      silly principle that 'motivates' these reactions.  And my 'principle'
      is as true and as testable as your 'principle'.  What you apparently
      fail to realize is that science has nothing to do with our
      declarations of our beliefs or spurious and unfalsifiable
      'explanations' of physical phenomena.

      Unfortunately, neither the DESIRE FOR CAMEMBERT nor 'TENDENCY
      FOR MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO' are scientific principles in this
      context.

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

      You deserve a free pass back to 11th grade physics so that
      you may better understand what is science and what is not.

>   However, some people admired my insight exhibited in statement (5).  I
>agree with them.

      Not very modest, are we?

>   I have heard that in Science  the moto is  "QUANTIFY".   My advice is:
>        
>            "QUESTION, TRY TO EXPLAIN AND TRY TO QUANTIFY"

     Such unfalsifiable explanations are not the subject of science.

>  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.

     This will certainly get rid of much of the problem, by getting rid
     of much of the human species.

>   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".

     I am sure that collectively we 'believe' that you are serious
     (though I doubt many are reading your stuff by now).

     Unfortunately, constant repetition of vacuous 'principles' and
     'explanations' does not make them science.    In the pursuit of science,
     you must be prepared to be wrong.  You, sir, clearly are not.

                              dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.physics:16100 sci.math:12840