From: "david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com>
Subject: time has inertia
Reply-To: "david gebhardt" <david.gebhardt@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:08:11 EST

On 00-00-00 at 12:00am, Alexander Abian wrote to All:

[Statements about jealousy proving (A3) deleted]

AA>(A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA (i.e. TIME IS MATTER)  AND SOME ENERGY IS
AA>       IRRETRIEVABLY DISSIPATEED TO MOVE TIME FORWARD

AA>AND NONE OF THE  existing theories is capable to explain the puzzling

Is this a theory? Yes. Is it correct? Well, nothing has been presented
to prove its validity.

I could just as easily propose a theory that fairies from another
dimension are using some of the energy in our dimension. But I'd at least
want some sort of evidence to corroborate my theory.

AA>decadent status quo of "Scientific verifiability, predictability and
AA>quantifiability".  Save the neanderthalish precambrian mentality that

And what's wrong with those three qualities? It's fine to have a theory,
but it will be attacked unless you can provide compelling evidence in
favour of your theory. It is your right, and anyone else's, to defend
your theory if they believe it is true.

AA>(A3)     GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY

AA>    The sooner Science and Physics accepts  (A3) the sooner they will
AA>progress from their blind status quo maintaining decadent mentality
AA>(which undoubtedly gives them a feeling of  security - although false)
AA>and gain a more powerful, correct and truthful feeling of security

AA>   I am trying to put the science on the correct foundation - that gives
AA>me a feeling of security.

AA>   DO NOT ASK what is the Definition of "SECURITY" - nothing can define it
AA>-it is the basic, the fundamentally elemental term

Your (A3) is all well and fine, but again you offer no evidence other
than the actions of various people. This does not prove that particles
are responsible for this, and as such does not prove that particles
follow this theory.

The next difficulty I have is that (A3) and (A2) are totally unrelated.
So how can you use (A3) to prove (A2)? In addition, you have not proved
the validity of (A3), so you cannot prove (A2) using (A3).

The next problem is with the non-definable term ``security''. If you
can't define it, why use it? You can't prove anything if one of the
terms you use can't be defined. If you care to elaborate on what
``security'' is, that's fine.

If you wish to address my concerns, by all means go ahead. I'm perfectly
willing to listen to any rational argument that you may wish to present.



AA>--
AA>   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
AA>                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.
AA>    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward
AA>  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
AA>---
AA> * PCB/UseNet Gateway from Sparkware #1


AA>HEADER:USENET

AA>Xref: canrem sci.math:14253 sci.physics:18601 sci.bio:3844 sci.chem:4589 misc.education:5079
AA>Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.chem,misc.education
AA>Path: dosgate!canrem!uunet.ca!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu!abian
AA>From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
AA>Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - BASS JEALOUS AND INSECURE-ABIAN VALIDATED
AA>Message-ID: <abian.724200923@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>
AA>Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
AA>Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
AA>References: <abian.723244875@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> <klclauss.4.723351158@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1992Dec11.024139.12143@dmp.csiro.au> <1992Dec12.195654.7419@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

David Gebhardt
ComputerPlus
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #8170  Electricity was invented by rubbing cats backwards
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044