From: osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn)
Subject: Kool Cats...
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date:  4 Jan 93 06:36:02 GMT

>
>Newsgroups: sci.physics
>Path: socs.uts.edu.au!sequoia!metro!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!ieunet!tcdcs!helix!bubonic!frond
>From: frond@bubonic.helix.csd.edu (Ontic Madness)
>Subject: TIME is Massless, INERTIA persists inspite of time...
>Message-ID: <osborn.726122757@dragon>
>Organisation: Free University of Dental Plaque, Wall Filling, Beijing, TEX.
>Date:  4 Jan 93 04:45:57 GMT
>Lines: 54
>
>Countless undergraduate musings ago, in a diversion from number theory, the
>reverse engineering of physical theories beckoned. A primary artefact of the
>physicists' thought-stuff was the 3D consequential conservation - the inverse
>square laws. 
>
>Unlike A Abian, the young explorer sought not fame and iconoclasm, but instead
>wondered after explanations for things observed, and things recorded. 
>
>The Psychology:
>
>Explanation was a motivating force in the human brain which (in less than
>lazy individuals) was found to be productive - of more useful categories and
>more compact explanations. 
>
>Although the compactness of the explanations appeared to approach an "ABIAN"
>stability, this was a furphy, since categorical definitions to support these
>more and more compact thoughts happened to fill many libraries, with more and
>more refined qualifications and adjustments. 
>
>The weak-minded would circumvent the extent of the libraries by abusing their
>languages and always expected a smaller book to contain more than a larger one.
>Moreover, the output of such scholars was _revolutionary_, but only in the
>sense that forgetting is the act of an anarchist. 
>
>Maybe a radical transformation of language would strengthen a weak mind, but
>only at the price of the uncertainty about whether the language would weaken
>it instead. Best to be of two minds...
>
>The Physics:
>
>Two cats chasing each other's tails would attract the attention of other four
>legged, sensate beings in their vicinity. At any point in time, the further
>of these two cats from an observer would have less influence, until an interval
>of time had passed when the proximal distinctions had swapped. If the influence
>on the observer was somehow out of sync (due to sensational processing delays 
>- system response times), the cats would respond to the observer's reactions in
>a doubly out of sync response. Any CHANGE in the states (apart from running)
>of either of the cats, or the observer would artefactually *attract* the
>remaining two individuals towards the informational barycentre of the
>interactions (due primarily to the difference between the angular extent
>of a diameter of cat rotation, and the maximum occluded angle - when viewed
>at a finite distance - that the pair of moving cats appears closer than either
>of the cats are on average). 
>
>This model of the electron is only feasible if the time delays between the
>cats are massless, otherwise the observer would be subject to uncontrollable
>wobbles. Hence, that cats will chase each other forever, without feeling the
>least bit secure, and the observer will be drawn into the fray...
>
>Corollary:
>
>The most general definition of "stability" is "change". Without "change", the 
>concept of "inertia" is utterly meaningless. "Inertia" is WHY the cats run...
>
>