TIME HAS INERTIA AND REACTION TO PROVOCATION
Alexander Abian
I declared and declare that:
(1) TIME HAS INERTIA (i.e. matter) and some energy is
irretrievably dissipated to move Time forward. The
principles of Conservation of Energy and Constancy of
speed of Light must be rejected.
In fact, I gave the following formulas: (see previous postings for
detailed explanation):
(2) E(t) = E(0) exp(-AT) with A>0 and t = (1/A) log(B/E(t))
(3) E = mcc must be replaced by E = m(0) exp(-At)
Some people reacted to (1) and said " Instead of (1) you may as well
have said that "Time has googoo"". I have no objection if you believe
that "Time has googoo". But do not put words in my mouth ! I have never
believed that "Time has googoo". I declared that "Time has inertia".
However, some people also said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for the
radically new idea (1). I agree with them.
I also declared that a most fundamental and basic overall Principle
which governs all the events in Cosmos is:
(4) THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
I gave many examples and explanations by indicating that (i) to stop
being bugged (and return to the status quo of tranquillity)by the drilling
of a piece of wood by another, heat is produced to stop the bugging which
very often results in burning of both the provoker and the provokee.
The principle (4) also explains the reaction of (ii) the gun powder to
being struck by a provoking hammer, (iii) the dynamite to being struck by
a provoking striker, (iv) The plutonium in an A-bomb to a provoking
striker , (v) the tritium in an H-bomb to a provoking striker and (vi)
a Hitler or a Stalin to a provoking agent which threatens the status quo
of their political power.
Some people reacted to (4) and said "instead of (4) you may as well
have said that "motivation behind the actions of objects is their
liking of cheese or popcorn"". I have no objection if you believe in
the "overall motivating power of cheese or popcorn". But do not put
words in my mouth! I have never believed in the "overall motivating powers
of cheese or popcorn" I declared (4).
However, some people said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for my statement
of the Principle (4). I agree with them.
Also, I have explained
(5) Based on (4), the reason that the sulfuric acid creates immense
heat (and sometimes explosion) when a drop of water is poured
in the jar containing the sulfuric acid is that the acid wants to
maintain the status quo of the concentration of its acidity and
creates heat to evaporate (and annihilate) the provoking intruder.
I asked people to give me a better explanation of (5). Many of them
passed the buck by saying "if you want an explanation ask a Chemist"
I asked a Chemist. He said "if you want an explanation ask a Physi-
cist"
I asked a Physicist. He said "if you want an explanation ask a
Chemist". The usual very disappointing "run around" !
However, some people admired my insight exhibited in statement (5). I
agree with them.
I have heard that in Science the moto is "QUANTIFY". My advice is:
"QUESTION, TRY TO EXPLAIN AND TRY TO QUANTIFY"
(even question the questioning!)
I also proposed that a most rational way of terraforming another planet
and making it inhabitable for human species is:
PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.
Also, to get rid of the many million years of inexorable, relentless, per-
sistent, and unyielding meteorological and epidemic disasters, calamities
and catastrophes which continually plague the human species , we must
ALTER THE TILT (AND IF NECESSARY THE ORBIT) OF THE EARTH.
Also, I like my statement below which follows Darwin's statement:
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
C. DARWIN (1859)
THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS,
OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
A. ABIAN (1992)
Finally, observing that I am very serious in whatever I said in the
above and that I try never to mock or put down people, however, to the
people who do those to me, my answer is "the feeling is mutual".
Alexander ABIAN
Professor of Mathematics
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
Cameron Randale Bass
>
> I declared and declare that:
>
>(1) TIME HAS INERTIA (i.e. matter) and some energy is
> irretrievably dissipated to move Time forward. The
> principles of Conservation of Energy and Constancy of
> speed of Light must be rejected.
>
> In fact, I gave the following formulas: (see previous postings for
>detailed explanation):
>
>(2) E(t) = E(0) exp(-AT) with A>0 and t = (1/A) log(B/E(t))
>
>(3) E = mcc must be replaced by E = m(0) exp(-At)
>
>
> Some people reacted to (1) and said " Instead of (1) you may as well
>have said that "Time has googoo"". I have no objection if you believe
>that "Time has googoo". But do not put words in my mouth ! I have never
>believed that "Time has googoo". I declared that "Time has inertia".
Our 'beliefs' are mostly irrelevant insofar as they cannot
be falsified. You have not shown why A should not be *greater*
than zero, rather less than zero. You cannot tell me why A
should not be a quaternion or a rhinoceros for that matter.
The reason why you have not and will not do so is that these
'principles' appear unfalsifiable and unconnected with nature.
> However, some people also said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for the
>radically new idea (1). I agree with them.
I suggest that may well have been sarcasm. However, you don't seem
to understand that (1) is *not* a physical idea. As many have
pointed out it is an incorrect statment of the idea of 'inertia'
and is more related to the idea of dissipation or friction.
As such, (1) appears to be simply the juxtaposition of words
that make no sense together.
>
> I also declared that a most fundamental and basic overall Principle
>which governs all the events in Cosmos is:
>
>
>(4) THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
> CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
>
> I gave many examples and explanations by indicating that (i) to stop
>being bugged (and return to the status quo of tranquillity)by the drilling
>of a piece of wood by another, heat is produced to stop the bugging which
>very often results in burning of both the provoker and the provokee.
>
> The principle (4) also explains the reaction of (ii) the gun powder to
>being struck by a provoking hammer, (iii) the dynamite to being struck by
>a provoking striker, (iv) The plutonium in an A-bomb to a provoking
>striker , (v) the tritium in an H-bomb to a provoking striker and (vi)
>a Hitler or a Stalin to a provoking agent which threatens the status quo
>of their political power.
>
> Some people reacted to (4) and said "instead of (4) you may as well
>have said that "motivation behind the actions of objects is their
>liking of cheese or popcorn"". I have no objection if you believe in
>the "overall motivating power of cheese or popcorn". But do not put
>words in my mouth! I have never believed in the "overall motivating powers
>of cheese or popcorn" I declared (4).
Obviously, it is only the DESIRE FOR CAMEMBERT instead of your
silly principle that 'motivates' these reactions. And my 'principle'
is as true and as testable as your 'principle'. What you apparently
fail to realize is that science has nothing to do with our
declarations of our beliefs or spurious and unfalsifiable
'explanations' of physical phenomena.
Unfortunately, neither the DESIRE FOR CAMEMBERT nor 'TENDENCY
FOR MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO' are scientific principles in this
context.
> However, some people said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for my statement
>of the Principle (4). I agree with them.
You deserve a free pass back to 11th grade physics so that
you may better understand what is science and what is not.
> However, some people admired my insight exhibited in statement (5). I
>agree with them.
Not very modest, are we?
> I have heard that in Science the moto is "QUANTIFY". My advice is:
>
> "QUESTION, TRY TO EXPLAIN AND TRY TO QUANTIFY"
Such unfalsifiable explanations are not the subject of science.
> Also, to get rid of the many million years of inexorable, relentless, per-
>sistent, and unyielding meteorological and epidemic disasters, calamities
>and catastrophes which continually plague the human species , we must
>
> ALTER THE TILT (AND IF NECESSARY THE ORBIT) OF THE EARTH.
This will certainly get rid of much of the problem, by getting rid
of much of the human species.
> Finally, observing that I am very serious in whatever I said in the
>above and that I try never to mock or put down people, however, to the
>people who do those to me, my answer is "the feeling is mutual".
I am sure that collectively we 'believe' that you are serious
(though I doubt many are reading your stuff by now).
Unfortunately, constant repetition of vacuous 'principles' and
'explanations' does not make them science. In the pursuit of science,
you must be prepared to be wrong. You, sir, clearly are not.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
John C. Baez
I count roughly 83 capitalized words, leaving out Darwin's and Abian's
name just to be nice. Minus the point credit we get 405 points.
Plus one point for a statement widely agreed upon to be false, namely
the exponential decay of energy with time. (Note that I am very lenient
about false statements, especially when the index is so high. Most of
Abian's statements are not sufficiently testable to really deserve the
label "false".) Also, Abian sets himself up as an equal to Darwin by
lining up his quote in capital letters right after Darwin's, and while I
had only singled out Newton and Einstein as folks whom crackpots like to
compare themselves with, we clearly have a case of the same syndrome
here, so chalk up another 10 points. We also have a claim to have
revolutionized science with the discovery of a new key principle,
without any good evidence that anything new has been explained.
Toss in another 30 points. We don't quite have a conspiracy of
scientists here, only the "usual runaround" so I will be nice and only
add 2 points rather than the usual 20 for a full-fledged conspiracy
theory. For repeated silliness in the face of widespread correction -
aggravated by claims of having supporters (who, however, are too
sensible to make themselves publicly known), add 5 more points.
We get 452 points, if my addition is holding up. Clearly Abian and the
Larsonites are neck-and-neck, with perhaps Sarfatti as the only close
contender for leading crackpot on sci.physics!
I encourage others to calculate the index for various classica Beckmann
posts, etc.. My own crackpot rating probably soars to 20 or so when I
get annoyed and start using caps a lot.
Blair P. Houghton
You are a pillock.
> Also, I like my statement below which follows Darwin's statement:
>
>
> THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
> PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
> C. DARWIN (1859)
>
>
> THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS,
> OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
> A. ABIAN (1992)
These may be statements (in the Quaylean sense) but they
aren't sentences. So, what are they supposed to mean?
And, as we've seen, "rational alteration of the cosmos" does
not inexorably lead to "the future of species". It's much
more likely that we'll make a grand sociological
mistake--certainly for eminently rational reasons--and nuke
all land-dwelling, mammalian life out of existence, than
that we'll develop our factor inputs and economic efficiency
to the point that we can effect any sort of alteration of
any astronomically significant feature of the universe.
What THAT means is that there's little chance, unless the
human race grows to a size far larger than this solar
system can reasonably support for the time necessary to
succeed, for us to devise (through sheer number we increase
our probabilities to discover the means) and implement (all
wealth, all progress, all growth comes from human endeavor
and the natural resources of the universe) technology that
can move a planet such as Venus from its orbit to the
Earth's.
THE FUTURE OF CRACKPOTS BY MEANS OF RATIONAL INTERCONNECTION
OF WRITING INSTRUMENTS, OR THE PRESERVATION OF UNIVERSITIES
IN THE STRUGGLE FOR FEDERALLY GUARANTEED STUDENT-LOAN LIENS.
BLAIR. P. HOUGHTON (1993)
--Blair
"Here's one you might
be able to handle:
What's two and two?"
P.S. Iowa State has a bitchin' wrestling team, so they
shouldn't be judged in this particular vacuum.
Blair P. Houghton
>
>We get 452 points, if my addition is holding up. Clearly Abian and the
>Larsonites are neck-and-neck, with perhaps Sarfatti as the only close
>contender for leading crackpot on sci.physics!
Fie! I say. Fie on you for demeaning the genius of
Sarfatti by comparing him with Abian. In the world of
physicist crackpots, Sarfatti is a fucking artist among
these elephants-who-paint.
--Blair
"Ten, maybe twelve years,
then we'll have him declared
a national treasure."
Michael Edwin Ichiriu
[nonsense deleted]
> However, some people also said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for the
>radically new idea (1). I agree with them.
You deserve nothing. You haven't done any work to prove or disprove yourself.
[more nonsense deleted]
> However, some people said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for my statement
>of the Principle (4). I agree with them.
See above.
> I asked people to give me a better explanation of (5). Many of them
>passed the buck by saying "if you want an explanation ask a Chemist"
> I asked a Chemist. He said "if you want an explanation ask a Physi-
>cist"
> I asked a Physicist. He said "if you want an explanation ask a
>Chemist". The usual very disappointing "run around" !
Well, obviously you are neither a physicist nor a chemist, nor even a
scientist. As I have said before, when you begin with a false assumption,
you can draw any conclusion from it. You as a professor of Mathematics
ought to know this.
> I have heard that in Science the moto is "QUANTIFY". My advice is:
>
> "QUESTION, TRY TO EXPLAIN AND TRY TO QUANTIFY"
>(even question the questioning!)
You forgot one thing. You have to make sure that your explanation matches
the physical phenomena you are trying to explain. Your few examples may
satisfy your questioning process enough for you to accept this. But without
quantification, you can't prove it. Don't "try" to quantify. Your problem
with quantification is that you can't.
You advocate questioning the questioning. Isn't it ironic that a man who has
such high opinions of his own ideas has failed to continue probing his
hypothesis?
> I also proposed that a most rational way of terraforming another planet
>and making it inhabitable for human species is:
Oh, this is rational, is it? What proof do you have that warrants any change?
> PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.
> Also, to get rid of the many million years of inexorable, relentless, per-
>sistent, and unyielding meteorological and epidemic disasters, calamities
>and catastrophes which continually plague the human species , we must
>
> ALTER THE TILT (AND IF NECESSARY THE ORBIT) OF THE EARTH.
> Also, I like my statement below which follows Darwin's statement:
> THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
> PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
> C. DARWIN (1859)
>
>
> THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS,
> OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
> A. ABIAN (1992)
What an ego. Already he's quoting himself as some expert.
> Finally, observing that I am very serious in whatever I said in the
>above and that I try never to mock or put down people, however, to the
>people who do those to me, my answer is "the feeling is mutual".
Yeah. Just remind me never to send my kids to Iowa State.
Jason D Corley
>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>> PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.
>
>> Also, to get rid of the many million years of inexorable, relentless, per-
>>sistent, and unyielding meteorological and epidemic disasters, calamities
>>and catastrophes which continually plague the human species , we must
>>
>> ALTER THE TILT (AND IF NECESSARY THE ORBIT) OF THE EARTH.
>
>> Also, I like my statement below which follows Darwin's statement:
>
>
>> THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
>> PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
>> C. DARWIN (1859)
>>
>>
>> THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS,
>> OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
>> A. ABIAN (1992)
>
I am reminded of the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episode in which
Joel, the interplanetary janitor says, "Iowa State, the high school
after high school." Apologies to all the other IA Staters out there.
Jason
Ono-Sendai R&D
Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus
> (4) THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
> CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
The STATUS QUO of a system, defined as non-change, can be described by N bits.
There is then 2^N possible ways to change the STATUS QUO.
Since there is no further simplification of what is ment by provocation
and reaction, one have to use the general formula, namely a table with
2^N bits representing what changes are provocations, and another table
of N*2^N bits with all the reactions to provocations.
Since mr Abian haven't supplied more than a few examples from those tables,
and no simplifying rules, only mr Abian can use his Principle to anything,
thereby making his posting completely useless.
According to mr Abian, his Principle is the best Explanation, and much better
than science. This must mean that complex models are better than simple ones,
and that it is unnecessary to explain how thing things happens, i.e. supplying
the tables.
This enables me to construct a principle better than mr Abian's.
The 'Principle of Øyhus', which is based on getting the next state of a
system just by indexing a table with N*2^N bits.
My Principle: CHANGE
Much simpler, isn't it?
Kim0
Jim Bowery
over by people who received their primary and secondary outside
of Iowa -- where public education test scores were consistently
leading the nation.
Thus, in one generation, we see a transition in the image of the
Iowa professor from James Van Allen to Alexander Abian.
The explanation for why the farmer-types in Iowa's university system
would be exceptionally attractive prey for politically sophisticated
but technically worthless individuals is left to the reader's
imagination.
--
INTERNET: j...@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Robert Coe
> Starting in the 60's the university system in Iowa was taken over by people
> who received their primary and secondary outside of Iowa -- where public
> education test scores were consistently leading the nation.
>
> fessor from James Van Allen to Alexander Abian.
>
> The explanation for why the farmer-types in Iowa's university system would
> cally worthless individuals is left to the reader's imagination.
Now, WAIT A MINUTE!! Suddenly we've generalized the crackpot index to in-
clude not just the crackpot but the entire university from which he posts his
remarks! I'm rather new to this thread, but so far I've seen no confirmation
of Abian's claim to be a professor at ISU. How do we know he isn't a fresh-
man? Or a prankster laughing at our absurdly overblown reaction to his pro-
nouncements? Has anyone with access to an ISU catalogue bothered to look him
up? Maybe he *is* (or was) a professor, but one whose mental faculties are
not what they once were. If so, that's hardly his fault or that of the "far-
mer-types in Iowa's university system" who hired him. And that crack about
leaving the "explanation ... to the reader's imagination" is the intellectual
equivalent of another recent remark: "I'd like to tell you what I really
think, but I don't have any evidence."
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
Dave E Woon
This should NOT be necessary.... Prof. Abian is a real person, a real
mathematics professor, at a real school. A local colleague's roommate
was one of his (Abian's) graduate students. But then why should you
believe me? After all, maybe I'm just a freshman somewhere myself.
Flame level to SIMMER...
In recent posts Prof. Abian has promulgated a set of ideas which run
counter to established science. The existence of sci.physics allows
people to air their ideas outside of the archival literature. Of
course, this also makes it possible for anyone to "referee" anyone
else's ideas with or without any expertise of their own. The signal-
to-noise ratio is correspondingly orders of magnitude lower for
sci.physics than it is for, say, Physical Review.
If Prof. Abian or anyone else were to submit something to a journal in
the informal style of his posting, it would probably not even be sent
out to a referee. A manuscript with a little bit of personality would
possibly get through, but not this much. At the same time, if a referee
were to come back with ad hominen remarks aimed at the author, there
would be hell to pay. The author would be within his rights to request
a more objective referee, to say the least.
I admit, however, that I read sci.phys and other newsgroups more for
entertainment than for the science content. Although I'd prefer to see
fewer ad hominen attacks and slurs, but I don't expect it: it's too easy
to say things over the network which you would swallow if you were in
the same room with the person.
I'm glad the network exists, but I'm even more glad that real science is
done through peer review.
David E. Woon (that's Dr. Dave, thank you)
Molecular Science Research Center
Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
Richland, WA 99352
SCOTT I CHASE
>Flame level to SIMMER...
>
>In recent posts Prof. Abian has promulgated a set of ideas which run
>counter to established science.
No. They cannot run counter to "established science" if they are not
scientific statements to begin with. They are simply meaningless. They
do not in any way contradict any known results of which I am aware. So
far as I can tell, Abian has been unable to make a single prediction with
his drivel which is counter to established predictions, on which a test
could be made.
>The existence of sci.physics allows
>people to air their ideas outside of the archival literature. Of
No. Although this group is not moderated, there *are* limits to what
may be posted here. Alt.sci.physics.new-theories was created for
*exactly* this purpose - to provide a newsgroup for Dr. Abian and
his ilk to exchange ideas which are not normally considered part of
physics. If he were to post his stuff there, he would receive no
slack from any of us. As long as he continues to post, inappropriately,
to sci.physics, he will deserve any ad hominem attacks that come his
way - it is *he*, and not his theory, who is responsible for posting
to the wrong group.
>I admit, however, that I read sci.phys and other newsgroups more for
>entertainment than for the science content. Although I'd prefer to see
The quality of the discussion clearly varies, but I have been fairly
impressed with the possibility of interesting and educational dialog.
You just need to play the game by the correct rules.
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having
been a single cell so long ago myself that I
have no memory at all of that stage of my
life." - Lewis Thomas
Jim Carr
>Flame level to VERY HIGH...
>
>This should NOT be necessary.... Prof. Abian is a real person, a real
>mathematics professor, at a real school. A local colleague's roommate
>was one of his (Abian's) graduate students. But then why should you
>believe me? After all, maybe I'm just a freshman somewhere myself.
I Canceled my post observing that there was no indication of his
existence in the APS membership or the 2-year-old list of the ISU
physics department after I read this post, and trucked on down to
the library to peruse the citation index.
A. Abian was quite active in the 1970's, publishing several dozen
papers (mostly on algebraic topics it would seem). Not much after
about 1981. Clearly he knows what is required to publish in the
peer-reviewed literature in mathematics, since a few of his papers
are still cited once in a while in the last few years.
It is not clear if he understands the need to express his ideas
about physics in as sharp a fashion. Certainly the concept of
testability of an hypothesis is very different in math than it
is in a science like physics.
--
J. A. Carr | "The New Frontier of which I
j...@gw.scri.fsu.edu | speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University B-186 | -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute | John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
J. Lewis
more or less deranged. The derangement often manifests itself in the
promulgation of pseudoscientific ideas. I don't think that this
is predictable, and I don't think it should be blamed on any
particular institution. Is it not cause for sympathy rather than indignation? -
"There but for the grace of God go I ..."
Cameron Randale Bass
Absolutely, why should Abian reflect badly on Iowa State?
(As if reflecting badly here has any real import.)
However, though you are right that people oft times become
deranged, none of us here are qualified to determine that.
He may be irrational, in that he seemingly refuses to
play by the well-defined rules of science, but it is a rather
large step to being deranged.
So we must take him at face value. On the face, these appear
to be firmly held beliefs that are portrayed as science, in our
little science discussion newsgroup, that are clearly not science.
I would not have even bothered responding but with one-liners
but for the fact that he appeared to have some impramatur of
authority (It was rather easy to locate publications of his, I found
his three books within 10 seconds of reading his first posting).
However, I hope we all made it very very clear to any people who
might be viewing this, that Abian's stuff is not science, no matter
what university position he holds or how many books and papers
he has published.
re...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>
> (1) TIME HAS INERTIA (i.e. matter) and some energy is
> irretrievably dissipated to move Time forward. The
> principles of Conservation of Energy and Constancy of
> speed of Light must be rejected.
You, of course, have the evidence to show that matter is being destroyed
specifically to keep time "moving". This is odd, because time can only
be measured by observing things changing - nothing changes, nobody can
tell if time is pasing. Fine, destroying matter can indicate passing
time, but there are other ways too.
> In fact, I gave the following formulas: (see previous postings for
> detailed explanation):
>
> (2) E(t) = E(0) exp(-AT) with A>0 and t = (1/A) log(B/E(t))
>
> (3) E = mcc must be replaced by E = m(0) exp(-At)
>
> Some people reacted to (1) and said " Instead of (1) you may as well
> have said that "Time has googoo"". I have no objection if you believe
> that "Time has googoo". But do not put words in my mouth ! I have never
> believed that "Time has googoo". I declared that "Time has inertia".
I think you're better off saying that "Time has googoo", you might
be on firmer ground.
> However, some people also said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for the
> radically new idea (1). I agree with them.
I think "Time has googoo" is a radically new idea, and that deserves
a Nobel Prize too.
> I also declared that a most fundamental and basic overall Principle
> which governs all the events in Cosmos is:
>
> (4) THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
> CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
>
> I gave many examples and explanations by indicating that (i) to stop
> being bugged (and return to the status quo of tranquillity)by the drilling
> of a piece of wood by another, heat is produced to stop the bugging which
> very often results in burning of both the provoker and the provokee.
What is the terminal I'm typing on now doing to return itself
to its STATU QUO?
> Some people reacted to (4) and said "instead of (4) you may as well
> have said that "motivation behind the actions of objects is their
> liking of cheese or popcorn"". I have no objection if you believe in
> the "overall motivating power of cheese or popcorn". But do not put
> words in my mouth! I have never believed in the "overall motivating powers
> of cheese or popcorn" I declared (4).
>
> However, some people said that I deserve a Nobel Prize for my statement
> of the Principle (4). I agree with them.
See above. The day you get a Nobel Prize is the day I lose all faith in
peoples critical faculties.
> in the jar containing the sulfuric acid is that the acid wants to
> maintain the status quo of the concentration of its acidity and
> creates heat to evaporate (and annihilate) the provoking intruder.
>
> I asked people to give me a better explanation of (5). Many of them
> passed the buck by saying "if you want an explanation ask a Chemist"
> I asked a Chemist. He said "if you want an explanation ask a Physi-
> cist"
> I asked a Physicist. He said "if you want an explanation ask a
> Chemist". The usual very disappointing "run around" !
I suggest you read some very basic books about physics and chemistry, before
bothering Physicists and chemists with your trite questions.
> However, some people admired my insight exhibited in statement (5). I
> agree with them.
Like yourself, do you?
> Also, I like my statement below which follows Darwin's statement:
>
>
> THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
> PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
> C. DARWIN (1859)
>
>
> THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS,
> OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
> A. ABIAN (1992)
Fine, we don't quite like the way things are set up, so let's change them
even if we're not entirely sure of the consequences.
> Finally, observing that I am very serious in whatever I said in the
> above and that I try never to mock or put down people, however, to the
> people who do those to me, my answer is "the feeling is mutual".
Present your evidence, listen to criticism, observe the rules of
scientific enquiry and we'll all get along a bit better.
>
> Alexander ABIAN
> Professor of Mathematics
> Iowa State University
> Ames, Iowa 50011
Jason REESE
BSc(Hons.) Physics, Imperial College, London
MSc Mathematics, Oxford University
currently studying PhD Mathematics, Oxford University
Alexander Abian
You said:
>7) Science is a system of observation, attempted explanation,
>and *experimental* testing of explanations. It exists separately
>from the egos of you and I. It is *not* what you or I *define* it
>to be, nor what you or I *believe* it to be.
But, Mr. Snyder your above 4 lines are your personal (and your
ego's) attempt to explain what science is. There is no way out !
In the last analysis it is your and my egos that define, explain
and state (for each of us) what science is. I repeat again:
" Science is what I say Science is,
Physics is what I say Physics is,
Mathematics is what I say Mathematics is "
and in the last analysis everybody's saying amounts to what I said.
Also, please note that my Principle (A1) has been experimentally tested
at least 100 times during the past two weeks. Your reaction, and other's
reactions to my views and my reactions to your reactions are ALL,
ALL EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF MY (A1). How much more verifi-
cation do you need ?
You are verifying my (A1) right now! According to (A1) you are tending
to maintain the status quo of your convictions as to what science is,
what physics is , etc., and you rather energetically and adversely
react to my statements and my convictions. Do you need more experi-
mental verification of (A1) !?
I guess , I once commented on your logic:
>8) Beware the following mistake of logic:
>Some of the greatest ideas of science were scorned by the establishment.
>My ideas are scorned by the establishment.
>Therefore my ideas are some of the greatest ideas of science.
and corrected it by saying that it should be as follows:
SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE WERE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
MY IDEAS ARE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
THEREFORE MY IDEAS MAY BE SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE.
If you have logicians at Carnegie-Mellon, show the above to them.
With best wishes and regards,
Alexander ABIAN
--
The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.
TIME HAS INERTIA and some energy is lost to move Time forward
E = mcc (Einstein) must be replaced by E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Cameron Randale Bass
>and state (for each of us) what science is. I repeat again:
>
> " Science is what I say Science is,
> Physics is what I say Physics is,
> Mathematics is what I say Mathematics is "
>
>and in the last analysis everybody's saying amounts to what I said.
Analysis isn't your strong suit, is it?
> SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE WERE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
> MY IDEAS ARE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
> THEREFORE MY IDEAS MAY BE SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE.
>
>If you have logicians at Carnegie-Mellon, show the above to them.
>
> With best wishes and regards,
> Alexander ABIAN
Nor, apparently, is logic.
Another valid conclusion in the same vein is that
'ABIAN MAY BE A WILDEBEEST'.
sometimes a Wombat
>
> SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE WERE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
> MY IDEAS ARE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
> THEREFORE MY IDEAS MAY BE SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE.
>
> If you have logicians at Carnegie-Mellon, show the above to them.
I think we're seeing Abian make a botched attempt at a joke. However,
a) evidence of his previous posts indicate he is generally incapable of
recognizing irony, and ii) he has elsewhere claimed they definitively
*are* the greatest ideas of science.
Larry "Man alive!" Hammer
--
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ One like a wombat prowled obtuse
GEnie: L.HAMMER2 \ and furry -- Christina Rossetti
Alexander Abian
>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>
>> SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE WERE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
>> MY IDEAS ARE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
>> THEREFORE MY IDEAS MAY BE SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE.
> ^^^^^
>>
>> If you have logicians at Carnegie-Mellon, show the above to them.
>I think we're seeing Abian make a botched attempt at a joke. However,
>a) evidence of his previous posts indicate he is generally incapable of
>recognizing irony, and ii) he has elsewhere claimed they definitively
>*are* the greatest ideas of science.
> Larry
j
Dear Larry,my being able to correct the 2000 year old the usual third line
conclusion as stated in Mr. Snyder's message.
You probably did not expect my conclusion on the third line and,
judging by your reaction ("botched attempt at a joke") it seems that you are
envious of my being able to correct 2000 year old usual third line conclusion
as stated in Mr. Snyder's message.
Let me repeat again that I do not joke in my replies and I do not
like practical or theoretical jokes!
I reply only to postings in Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA
sometimes a Wombat
to my questions about the mcc replacement?
Anyway, the statement in question is:
> SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE WERE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
> MY IDEAS ARE SCORNED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.
> THEREFORE MY IDEAS MAY BE SOME OF THE GREATEST IDEAS OF SCIENCE.
In today's exciting instalment we pick up with (Abian):
> You probably did not expect my conclusion on the third line and,
> judging by your reaction ("botched attempt at a joke") it seems that you are
> envious of my being able to correct 2000 year old usual third line conclusion
> as stated in Mr. Snyder's message.
Actually, I knew how to correct it already, so envy has nothing to do
with it.
And to answer the point seriously, the fact that some of the greatest
ideas of science were scorned as crackpot provides exactly as much
information about the quality of your own ideas as the fact that black
crows have cackled in their roosts at non-crackpot ideas -- I.e., none.
Your putting the statement that you MAY be providing us with the
greatest ideas of science with the other two statements implies a
logical relationship with some of the greatest ideas science. Which
they do not have.
To reiterate in brief my earlier (ignored) points:
> E = mcc (Einstein) must be replaced by E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
If m(0) has units of mass, then your equation's units do not match up.
If m(0) has units of energy, then why oh why did you label it m
(traditionally a mass) and expect people to understand that without
explanation? If time has inertia, then its status quo is to remain in
"motion" once it has been "impelled" into "motion". By your principle
of maintaining the status quo, no energy would be required to keep it
there. That would be its new status quo. If this is not what you
meant by "inertia", then why oh why did you use it in a sense that is
contrary to standard meaning?
Larry "One more attempt" Hammer
--
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ People ought to fight for their law as
GEnie: L.HAMMER2 \ for a wall. -- Heraclitus, #100