From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.    ABIAN replies to CORLEY  (att: INDRA)
Keywords: Principles (A1)  and (A2).  Repelling Forces explained
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:05:40 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <abian.721884490@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>Dear Mr. CORLEY,                           11-15-92
>
>  I (alexander Abian) wrote to Indra:
>
>   Indra, please go to the nearest University, go to the Physics Department
>find the most "prominent" physicist there and ask him/her:
>
>    " WHY , say, TWO NEGATIVE ELECTRICAL CHARGES  REPEL "
>
>My guess is that his/her answer will be  "It is a principle , we do not ask
>why,  we use Coulomb's law to quantify the repelling force"
>
>   Indra, my answer is  "According to (A1), the space tends to maintain
>the status quo of its electrical neutrality and opposes a further concentr-
>ation of negative charges, and repels them.  However, if we overpower the 
>space we may crush  spaces' opposition", and a new Status Quo is created.
>   
>   Then Mr. Corley  you wrote to Indra:
>
>>Indra, the real answer is that this is caused by the electromagnetic
>>force which has been understood for literally centuries.  This
>>may sound like mere posturing, (I can even hear Mr. Abian now,
>>"you don't understand it so you call it electromagnetism"),
>
> THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES ARE CREATED BY COSMOS PRECISELY TO REPEL
> THE LIKE ELECTRIC CHARGES TO COOPERATE WITH THE SPACE IN SPACE'S
> TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO OF ITS ELECTRICAL NEUTRALITY !!!
>  (brilliant explanation - don't you agree !)
>  
>>Let me put that another way.  Gravity (relativistically speaking)
>>is a distortion of the space-time continuum.  If you extend that
>>continuum to 5 dimensions, you get electromagnetism, which
>>causes the two negative charges to repel.  
>
>
>  Mr. Corley, 
>    I do not think that there is a committee of saints who has
>devised the extension of space-time continuum to the 5 dimensions
>just to repel two like charges.  As I explained above,  the reason
>of repelling forces is the TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING SPACES' ELECTRICAL
>NEUTRALITY.
>
No, just a mathematician named Theodor Kaluza who in 1919 (not
the 1920s as I previously posted (sorry)) who was wondering
how Einstein's equations for relativistic gravity (my description
of which you deleted) would look in 5 dimensions.  When he had
finished with the transforms and the equations, it turned out
to be identical to Maxwells equations of electromagnetism.
These results are in the proceedings of the Berlin Academy for
1921 under the title "On The Problem of Unification in Physics"
(I apologize for not having the entire citation).
These results are mathematically correct and are available for
you to check over to your hearts content.  Far be it from me
to say that you would never find an error.  Perhaps there is
an error in Kaluza's mathematics.  If there is, and you find
it, and point out the specific page number/equation it is on/in,
I will be happy to denounce the mathematical unification of
electromagnetism from the rooftops.
>    Then you continue:
>
>>There is no need to resort to these Status Quos and Provokers and Provokees 
>>which are unclear, undefined, un-backed-up by mathematics, unpredictive,
>>unscientific, and (I must admit) rapidly becoming more and more
>>uninteresting.
>     
>  Mr. Corley,
>
>
>    Don't you see how strongly and overwhelmingly you and  the others are
>clinging desperately to MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO's OF YOUR SCIENTIFIC
>INDOCTRINATIONS ....
>
>    You say TIME HAS INERTIA is becoming more and more uninteresting .
>You agree that this is a put-down statement.  Why don't you just ignore the
>Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA ! Why !  Because you feel that there is a
>tremendous content there, a profound and revolutionary idea which
>will pretty soon dominate and open a new phase in Physics!
>  

No, I have several reasons for reading it:
1. I need a good laugh every afternoon.
2. I think it is not right to let people who are incorrect remain
   incorrect (obviously you share this belief).
3. I have invested a lot of thought in your A1 and would be
   very disappointed if I did not share the results of that
   thinking.  (Namely, that  A1 is a tautology and is therefore
   meaningless to debate about, unless you are a mathematician
   arguing the axiom of choice, which should be argued in an entirely
   different way in an entirely different context and through an
   entirely different language.)

Jason (Not the Jason who asked for Abian's credentials, but an
	incredible simulation!)
Organization: Junior, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA