From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN REPEATS overwhelmingly demanded (A3)
Keywords: attn: CHINTER, SITES TAO, WATTS
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:48:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <abian.724453386@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>   
>   Science and Physics are in a turmoil since I put my fingers on the
>most evasive, elusive, most kept-in closet, most vulnerable, items in 
>Science and in Physics -i.e., 
>    
>    THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST BASIC, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND THE MOST 
>   PRIMAL  CAUSE BEHIND ANY ACTION OF A PARTICLE, AN AMOEBA, A VIRUS, A
>   BACTERIUM, A STONE, A FLOWER, A PERSON, A PLANET, A SOLAR SYSTEM, A
>   GALAXY, etc.,  AND THE ENTIRE COSMOS as my Principle (A3) 
>
>(A3)   THE PRIMAL CAUSE OF EVERY ACTION IS
>       THE GAINING OF A FEELING OF SECURITY
>
>
>
>  I repeat again I cannot give a precise definition of "SECURITY".  Because
>it is the penultimate basic term.  I can describe it by saying that SECURITY
>is the  process of LIFE ITSELF,  it is the DNA of existence it is the marrow
>of the bone of the existence...  
>

And so that you can make _any_ action fit your A3.  Neat how that works
out doesn't it.  You define SECURITY to be everything, and then get
all worked up about how...hey!  Look!  SECURITY is everything!

> People find (A3), unacceptable, beta-sigma, without content, useless,  Mr.
>Tao gives 296 lines of proving that (A3) is false.  The overwhelming major-
>ity of the "Guardians of Physics and Truth" in a state of outrageous temper 
>tantrum stamp their feet and yell hysterically:
>
Well, yeah, and as far as I can see, you didn't respond to a single
line of Mr. Tao's post, which seemed to me to be some of the best
analysis of TIME HAS INERTIA yet.  Not even bothering to respond
anymore, hm?
> My reply is:
>
>    " You people , you hysterically yelling rejectors of my (A3) you are
>      my best experimental verification.  I am shaking the foundations
>      of your precambrian notions of  GR, QM, etc, and you  react
>      viciously, sarcastilcally, spitefully  TO GAIN A FEELING OF
>      SECURITY.  IT MAKES YOU FEEL SECURE TO REJECT RADICALLY NEW IDEAS,
>      WHICH ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR PRECAMBRIAN INDOCTRINATIONS.
>      I CANNOT GIVE A BETTER PROOF OF EXPERIMENTAL VERIFIABILITY OF
>      (A3).  YOU  and 6 billion others are the best experimental veri-
>      fication of my (A3)"   You, as well as I act COMPLETELY AND
>      PREDICTABLY AND EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIABLY ACCORDING TO (A3)
>
And if we had not yelled, then we would still support A3.  Still sounds
like that neo-Godelian dilemma I've mentioned so many times before.
I would yell at you for insulting the intelligence of so many people
so often, but I really don't think it would do any good, as you
obviously truly believe them to be idiots.  I am so sorry.
>
>Also, I explained (and I am not going to repeat again):
     
Promise?
;-)

>      Gravitational attraction, repulsion of like charges,
>      the behavior of particles in test chambers, the behavior
>      of sulfuric acid, the behavior of  water vs a drop of ink
>      etc., etc.,  
>
In other words, EVERY EVENT THAT EVER HAPPENED (whoops.  Its rubbing
off!)  ahem.
In other words, every event, whether it be possible or impossible
is covered by A3, because you defined it that way.

>Also, acquiring and adjusting to a new status quo is based on (A3)
>
>    I know that "Guardians of Physics and Truth"  find my  (A3) use-
>    less, without content since  I consider (A3) as a basic cause of various 
>    two mutually incompatible actions.  They jump  "OH, YOU are  contra-
>    dicting ".  Please do not teach me Logic, I know both Aristotelian  
>    and nonAristotelian  (Brouwerian ) Logic !  I don't have time to
>    give another series of lectures (but I will finish THE elementary
>    derivation lecture of the  Relativistic addition of velocities, 
>    as I promised).
>
>  (A3)  is not self-contradictory:
>

Whoops!  I guess it must not be.  You just said it wasn't, so it
must not be.  Yeesh!  If you don't want people calling your logic
into question, why are you posting in the first place?  And if
A3 can "prove" (I use the term loosely) mutually incompatible and
even impossible events, then what good is it?
   
>      Do Petain and De Gaulle make  (A3) self-contradictory, meaningless,
>without content?  THEY INVOKED MY (A3) IN THE MOST DRAMATIC THE LIFE
>OF A NATION THREATENING SITUATION.   IS THIS PROOF ENOUGH FOR YOU
>"GUARDIANS OF PHYSICS AND TRUTH" OF THE EXPERIMENTAL VERIFIABILITY OF
>(A3)!? and that  (A3) has the most profound life-saving content ! ?
>
Yes, in terms of predictive science, this fact makes A3 self-     
contradictory, meaningless and without content because Petain and
De Gaulle clearly had different meanings in mind when they said
"Security"  (you restate this elsewhere, that different people
have different ideas of security).  Well sure, that's true.  But
you don't even give us a meta-definition of "security" beliefs!
You don't give us a rule that we can use that we can look at a
belief and say "Aha.  This is a security belief, and that belief
is not."  Without this kind of meta-definition, "security" can
be used to explain anything.  It might as well be a meaningless
word like "gripley".  In fact I like "gripley" better because
everyone _knows_ it's meaningless and they don't associate it
with their own ideas of security.

>     Do not jump to Neanderthalish-precambrian conclusions that (A3)
>is self contradictory because I say that it could  the cause of "P"  and 
>the cause of "not P" for any phenomenon  "P".  
>    Do not think that there is only one path to gain a feeling of security.
>

OK, but if you admit this, you admit that A3 is useless as a scientific
tool.  If a theory can say both: "Like charges attract" and "Like
charges repel" with equal justification for each, then it's not much
of a theory in my book.

>   I COUNT ON BRILLIANT  READERS OF  TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE YOUNG
>IMAGINATIVE AND AGGRESSIVE MINDS FOR DEVELOPING AND INTRODUCING
>(A1), (A2), (A4)  based on the CORNERSTONE OF THE NEW REVOLUTION IN THE 
>PHYSICS  -  (A3)
>   I was told that in Russia they are very seriously considering the
>ramifications and implication of  TIME HAS INERTIA - very seriously,
>without sarcasm, without childish kiddings, without putting me down
>without sardonic remarks, without mockery, without vilification,
>without slander and wretched brutish and beastly envy and hostility.

Well, not to your face anyway.
;-)
	Jason
	Not The Jason In Oxford...You Remember Him, Dont You?
PS Sorry this is so long.
PPS I'm 17.  Is this YOUNG enough?
Newsgroups: sci.physics