From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA .  REACTION INDEX TO PROVOCATION
Keywords: TENDENCY TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO, REACTION INDEX TO PROVOCATION       
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:56:19 GMT

In article <abian.719266588@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> 
>    So far I have not heard a more convincing explanation than my ex-
>planation of: 
>
>(1)    Why heat is created when a drop of water is poured into a
>       jar of sulfuric acid ?
>
>    Many answered that I should not ask  "WHY" - well I will ask why and
>I will continues to ask why.  They said that "Science's" answer to  "WHY
>IT DOES"  is  "BECAUSE IT DOES".   Many answered that the question should be
>"HOW IT DOES" and when you ask them "HOW IT DOES" their answer is  "THE WAY
>IT DOES".

     Well, bud.  'How' is 'chemical energy is converted to thermal energy'.
     We can get progressively more detailed, but what's the point?

     Ask 'why' all you wish, but only look for the answers in my 
     new CHURCH OF THE HOLY AND DIVINE CHEESEWHEEL (all cheeses accepted).

>    Instead of accepting the "Principle of conservation of energy", 
>"Principle of constancy of the speed of light", Principle that 
>"Every action creates a reaction equal and opposite", etc., etc, I
>accept the Principle:
>
>(2)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVOCA-
>      TION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO

     The 'principle' is not falsifiable.  It is not science.

>accordingly,
>
>(3)   TIME HAS INERTIA AND SOME ENERGY IS IRRETRIEVABLY DISSIPATED 
>      FOR MOVING TIME FORWARD

     This is not even the definition of 'inertia'.  Ignoring for the
     moment that the concept is unquantified and silly, if time had 'inertia'
     it would continue on about its merry way unless acted upon
     by an 'outside force'.  At least get the definitions right.

>and according to (2), my explanation of (1) is

     In exactly the same way as 'Ice cream has no bones' is the
     explanation for 'Tell me why, are there stars up in the sky?'

>(5)   IN SOME CASES THE STATUS QUO OF THE PROVOKEE IS COMPROMISED

     Only if the provokee cannot get his CAMEMBERT.  Cheese is full
     of vitamins and all sorts of other good stuff.  It is tasty too.
     Changes in nature occur only because of the changes in
     availability of this fine cheese.

>    There were some other kinds of reaction, much more thoughtful and in
>line with (2).  Some from Norway and Sweden commented that another answer
>to (1) could be, say (something like):
>
>(6)   The sulfuric acid is excited by the visiting drop of water and
>      creates heat in order to warmly welcome the visitor
>
>   I have absolutely no objection to explanation (6).  However, I HAVE
>NOT GIVEN THE EXPLANATION (6).  IT IS NOT TO MY LIKING.  I GAVE EXPLA-
>NATION (4).  I do not ridicule, put down, or mock (6). If someone is
>more comfortable with (6) - it is fine with me.  I propose  (4) in 
>line with (2).

     Who cares what you like?  Science is only useful insofar as we
     agree on the concept that nature, not some silly 'principle',
     is the final arbiter.

>   As mentioned above, some scientists reacted more violently to my 
>provocations (1) to (5).  They were so provoked that they resorted
>to the posting of a "Crackpot Index"  a well known method of intimidation. 

     I hardly think you are intimidable.  Interminable perhaps.

                           dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics