TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
Alexander Abian
Regardless the fact that I have explained several times the defini-
tions of 1 Abian MASS and Abian TIME, I receive endless requests
for the definition of 1 Abian MASS and Abian TIME.
Almost every physicists and almost everyone believes in the BIG BANG.
So, if you believe in the BIG BANG and do not consider it as an inven-
tion of the (using you words) crackpotish imagination of (using your
words) crackpot physicists then you must believe in THE MASS OF
THE COSMOS AT THE BIG BANG. Fair enough ?
So, if you believe that the BIG BANG is not invented by a bunch of
(using your words) super crackpot physicists you should understand my
following definition of 1 Abian Mass:
(*) 1 Abian Mass is the Mass of the Cosmos at the Big Bang
If you object to (*) then you are considering the Big Bang (using
your words) a crackpotish perversion of a bunch of crackpot physicists.
Now, to all those people who ask me "tell us how many megatons is
1 Abian" I will answer " if you believe in the Big Bang so you
believe that at the Big Bang the Cosmos had a mass, say A megatons.
Now, if you tell me the value of A that value of megatons will be
equivalent to 1 Abian ". Fair enough ?
Now, about Abian TIME. If you agree that Cosmos has always a
mass (not necessarily the same, in fact I believe that the mass
of the Cosmos decreases without necessarily becoming zero - remember,
Time has inertia and some cosmic energy is spent irretrievably to
move Time forward) then Cosmos always has an ABSOLUTE TIME !!!! T.
(I have explained the following several times, but I still receive at
least 5 requests per day to explain what the ABSOLUTE COSMIC TIME T
is)
The ABSOLUTE COSMIC TIME T AND THE COSMIC MASS M AT T are
given by (now, the well known formula (**) where log is e-log)
(**) 1/T + 1/ log M = 1 positive T, M < 1
and M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian
Example: M = 0.90 Abian at T = 0.095318
M = 0.65 Abian at T = 0.301082
M = 0.50 Abian at T = 0.409384
Now, as to the question of how many hours is 0.09 Abian or 0.30 Abian
etc. I consider it an irrelevant question. Your HOUR is the concept of
(using your words) crackpots such as Lorentz and Einstein. That crackpot
"hour" is NOT AN ABSOLUTE TIME . It is (using your words)a crackpotish
illusion, hallucination and fantasy of (using your words) crackpots.
It does not correspond to a most fundamental concept of ABIAN's ABSOLUTE
COSMIC TIME T, should I repeat once more ? :
the illusory concept of TIME in SR, GR, QM, etc does not have
the fundamental significance of ABIAN's ABSOLUTE COSMIC TIME
on which the Modern Physics will be based !!!!
So, the (using your words) crackpotish notion of Time in the contem-
poraly physics is a sham, it is an illusion, it is not a FUNDAMENTAL
PHYSICAL ENTITY. Your own experiences show that TWO ATOMIC CLOCKS
DO NOT SHOW THE SAME TIME INTERVAL when one is left on the Earth and
the other travels and then comes back. You people yourself admit that
all kinds of paradoxes occur , precisely because the (using your
words) crackpotish notion of time is an ILLUSION.
I am sure that the bright young generation of physicists and the
extraordinary advances in technology will be able to measure M and
the corresponding T in the not too distant future. Yes, the young
bright generation of physicists which will rebel against the crackpotish
indoctrination of the contemporary physics will measure THE COSMIC
MASS M CORRESPONDING TO THE ABSOLUTE COSMIC ABIAN TIME T !!!
With love, Alexander Abian.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Mark Rupright
[Stuff deleted]
>
>So, if you believe that the BIG BANG is not invented by a bunch of
>(using your words) super crackpot physicists you should understand my
>following definition of 1 Abian Mass:
>
>
>(*) 1 Abian Mass is the Mass of the Cosmos at the Big Bang
>
>If you object to (*) then you are considering the Big Bang (using
>your words) a crackpotish perversion of a bunch of crackpot physicists.
[More unnecessary clarification deleted]
>The ABSOLUTE COSMIC TIME T AND THE COSMIC MASS M AT T are
>given by (now, the well known formula (**) where log is e-log)
>
>
>(**) 1/T + 1/ log M = 1 positive T, M < 1
>
> and M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian
[Examples any kid with a calculator could work out and worn-out insults
toward physicists and their views of spacetime deleted]
>I am sure that the bright young generation of physicists and the
>extraordinary advances in technology will be able to measure M and
>the corresponding T in the not too distant future. Yes, the young
>bright generation of physicists which will rebel against the crackpotish
>indoctrination of the contemporary physics will measure THE COSMIC
>MASS M CORRESPONDING TO THE ABSOLUTE COSMIC ABIAN TIME T !!!
>
>With love, Alexander Abian.
>
A voice booms out: "Thou art arrogant mortal. Thou must relearn thy lessons!"
Disclaimer: The above statement makes sense only to those who read
rec.games.hack.
Alexander. It would appear that you forgot some of the basic lessons you
learned which got you to your current position at Iowa State.
You have clearly defined what 1 Abian of mass is -- it is a quantitiy
that we can visualize, even if we do not know the conversion to our units.
You have also clearly defined what 1 Abian of time is: that T which is a
solution of equation (**) for a given M.
What is the theory you are trying to get crackpot scientists to accept?
I thought your theory was equation (**). However, your definition makes
the equation circular. Surely you have learned that the only scientific
theories which can be taken seriously are those which have some
predictability and promise of testability some time in the future.
The fact that the definition of T depends on the theory leaves the
following conclusions about your theory:
(1) The theory is circular, has no predicive or measurable consequences,
and is the logical equivalence of the statement:
"All red cars are red."
(2) The theory is not circular if it is taken as an unprovable axiom of
nature, which makes it the logical equivalent of the statement:
"We're all figments of my dog's imagination."
Please, oh PLEASE tell me where I have gone wrong. As a student of physics,
I would dearly love to see our current understanding of the universe
topple. It would give me a greater chance of getting a job in the
future :-).
____________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright |
UNC Physics | "We're all figments of my dog's imagination."
rupr...@physics.unc.edu |
Alexander Abian
To: ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA ??
Dear Professor Abian,
I am a high school student. Due to the fact that my physics knowledge is
limited, I could not really understand the theory behind the equation,
1/T + 1/logM = 1
However, because of curiosity, I did the following computation.
Assume Time does have inertia in high speed, let's define v as 0.9c.
Assume time is 5, then mass should be 17.6 due to your formula. Using
the relativistic formula for time, t' is 11.47. By the formula
wavelength (/\) = h/(mv)
/\ = 1.3953E-43 and f=1.933729E51.
I used the relativistic formula and the fact wavelength (/\) = h/(mv) and
E=mv^2, derived the following formula
m * {(f (/\)^2 t')/(sqrt(t'^2 - t^2))} = h
I plotted in those values and the result was something like 7E-34, which is
very close to h. Does this mean that your formula is correct?
Benjie
Alexander Abian
Reminder to people who use Abian's Equivalence of Time and Mass
formula (where log is the e-log)
(*) 1/T + 1/log M = 1 positive T, M < 1 Abian
with M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian
In (*) we must have T < 1 Abian and M < or = 1 Abian
So, unless special initial conditions are chosen and the appropriate
constant (instead of 1 on the right side of = in (*)) is considered
you cannot have T > or equal to 1 , say as T = 5 etc. in (*).
James Kibo Parry
In article <2489ir$b...@samba.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright) writes:
> In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> [Stuff deleted]
>
> Disclaimer: The above statement makes sense only to those who read
> rec.games.hack.
The Abian hits!--More--
You are covered with 200 tons of cosmetic lava! You die...--More--
You had 10666 gold pieces when you died, after 13097 moves, with 76% of
your initial inertia remaining. Do you want a Nobel Prize now? [ynq]
-- K.
Alexander Abian
>The ABSOLUTE COSMIC TIME T AND THE COSMIC MASS M AT T are
>given by (now, the well known Abian formula (**) where log is e-log)
>
>
>(**) 1/T + 1/ log M = 1 positive T, M < 1
>
> and M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian
>Alexander,
>You have clearly defined what 1 Abian of mass is -- it is a quantity
>that we can visualize, even if we do not know the conversion to our units.
>You have also clearly defined what 1 Abian of time is: that T which is a
>solution of equation (**) for a given M.
>The fact that the definition of T depends on the theory leaves the
>following conclusions about your theory:
>(1) The theory is circular, has no predictive or measurable consequences,
> and is the logical equivalence of the statement:
> "All red cars are red."
>Please, oh PLEASE tell me where I have gone wrong. As a student of physics,
>I would dearly love to see our current understanding of the universe
>topple. It would give me a greater chance of getting a job in the
>future .
Abian answers: There is no circularity in (**). You will clearly see
where you went wrong if you consider the following example:
Let a right circular cylinder be filled with water. Let at the Big Bang
the Mass of the water be defined to be 1 Abian. Let the Big Bang tear
apart the bottom of the circular cylinder and let the mass M of the
water contained in the cylinder start dissipating.
Now, consider the equation (law):
(***) 0.5 T^2 + M = 1 with nonnegative T < 2^0.5 Abian
and nonnegative M < 1 Abian
where M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian
and M = 0 Abian at T = 2^0.5 Abian
Based on (***), I define the Celestial Time to be T Abians
when the mass of the water in Cylinder is M Abians.
Now, do you agree that we have a nice device which gives us the Celestial
time T in Abians when the mass of the water in our right circular
cylinder is M Abians.
For example if the height of the water level is at half mark of the
height of the cylinder, i.e, when M =0.5 Abian the Celestial Time
T is 1 Abian, as seen from (***).
So, where is the circularity that you mentioned ?!!! In fact, (***)
is a nice device to measure the Celestial Time T.
Similarly, (**) is the ultimate ingenious device to measure the Abian's
Absolute Cosmic Time T which will be accepted along with the
Mass as THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF THE MODERN PHYSICS.
Now, how clearer do you want me to be ? Did I answer your
questions. Do you see that there is no circularity. Just for once
have the intellectual stamina to admit that (**) is the basic fundamental
concept of the REALISTIC, RATIONAL post Abian PHYSICS!!
With love, Alexander Abian
Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus
If you post something about his principle, no matter how polite you
formulate it, the usual thing for Abian is to either answer rudely and with
no real content, or ignore you.
It has been proved that his principle is informationless, unusable, and not
science, but he still lingers on in this newsgroup.
People have tried to explain to him what science is, but he is unable to
understand it. He uses a private language where words like 'science' have a
meaning totally different from that in English. He refuses to learn English
words.
Abian feeds on replies. Please don't feed him.
Kim0
Alexander Abian
>>So, if you believe that the BIG BANG is not invented by a bunch of
>>(using your words) super crackpot physicists you should understand my
>>following definition of 1 Abian Mass:
>>
>>
>>(*) 1 Abian Mass is the Mass of the Cosmos at the Big Bang
>>The ABSOLUTE COSMIC TIME T AND THE COSMIC MASS M AT T are
>>given by (now, the well known formula (**) where log is e-log)
>>
>>
>>(**) 1/T + 1/ log M = 1 positive T, M < 1
>>
>> and M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian
>>I am sure that the bright young generation of physicists and the
>>extraordinary advances in technology will be able to measure M and
>>the corresponding T in the not too distant future. Yes, the young
>>bright generation of physicists which will rebel against the crackpotish
>>indoctrination of the contemporary physics will measure THE COSMIC
>>MASS M CORRESPONDING TO THE ABSOLUTE COSMIC ABIAN TIME T !!!
> Rupright writes:
>.............. Surely you have learned that the only scientific
>theories which can be taken seriously are those which have some
>predictability and promise of testability some time in the future.
ABIAN answers:
Dear Mr. Rupright is your above definition a scientific defini-
tion of the theory of Scientific Definition ? Does your above definition
of a scientific theory of definition have some predictability and promise
of testability some time in the future ?
What is the promise of your above definition that it is a scien-
tific definition of the theory of Scientific Definition ?
How did you test that your above definition is a scientific de-
finition of the theory of Scientific Definition ??
Does your above definition have some predictability of that
it is a scientific definition of the theory of Scientific Definition ?
Mr. Rupright you seem to be a bright young man. However, you seem
to be totally indoctrinated by idiotical status quo definitions of
(using your colleagues words) of crackpotish crackpot scientists
(I will stop using the words like crackpot, crackpotish when they
stop using those words).
Mr. Rupright please do not attempt to define what a science is
or what a scientific "promise of testability some time in the future
is". I can stop you cold just at the very beginning of your DEFINITION
OF SCIENCE by asking you WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF THE
WORD "DEFINITION".
Mr. Rupright no seriousminded scientist has ever wasted his/her
time on the definitions of "Testability", "Falsifiability", "promise
of testability in the future !! in the not too distant future ?
Don't waste your time on "Definition of Science", please ! Or
if you are desperate for a definition , then use the most
convincing statement: "Science is what I say Science is"
or: "Science is that when I encounter it I feel shiver on my spine
because of the beauty of the intelligence of its content ".
Example: The scientific explanation of nuclear fission and
fusion - is the psychological reaction of a psychologically
unstable material (such as uranium, plutonium, etc ) to a
bugging provocation (striking , scratching, hitting etc.,)
Example: It is consistent to have a set theory in which
every set is its own element, its own powerset and its own sumset
@ | a
------|-------- a @ a is read a is an
a | 1 element of a and
| 1 stands for "true"
The above example is a model for Set-Theory in which ZFC axioms
of Extensionality, Powerset, Sumset and Choice are satisfied.
The crackpot professors of French conservatory flunked Debussy
on an exam when they asked him: Define a Sonata. Debussy said:
"Sonata is what I say a Sonata is". Examiners almost fainted and
said "Debussy you are a crackpot: The scientific Definition of a
Sonata is: a musical composition having 4 movements: say, Allegro,
Allegretto,. Andante and Allegro .
Debussy said that its a pre-cambrian Neanthertalish crackpotish
indoctrination and repeated "Sonata is what I say Sonata is".
Mart, rebel against pre-cambrian neanthertalish calcified definitions.
>Mark Rupright
>UNC Physics
With love, Alexander Abian
Alexander Abian
I notices that whenever I post something a couple of careful
followers and faithful readers of my postings immediately
react by posting:
WARNING TO THE READERS OF ABIAN
I want to express my thanks to these promoters of my Postings.
Please continue. Your WARNINGS inflate my ego and make me
feel secure.
Please do not disappoint me and post immediately a WARNING.
Thank you again.
U16...@uicvm.uic.edu
(Alexander Abian) says:
>
>I notices that whenever I post something a couple of careful
>followers and faithful readers of my postings immediately
>react by posting:
>
> WARNING TO THE READERS OF ABIAN
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus Olczyk, University of Illinois at Chicago
olc...@uicws.phy.uic.edu
Clay Smith
>In <2489ir$b...@samba.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright)
>writes:
>>>
>>> [gobledygook deleted for (in?)sanity's sake]
>>>
>> Rupright writes:
>>
>ALBIAN answers:
>
> [scolding of Mr. Rupright deleted]
>
> The albian professors of French conservatory flunked Debussy
>on an exam when they asked him: Define a Sonata. Debussy said:
>"Sonata is what I say a Sonata is". Examiners almost fainted and
>Sonata is: a musical composition having 4 movements: say, Allegro,
>Allegretto,. Andante and Allegro .
>Debussy said that its a pre-cambrian Neanthertalish crackpotish
>indoctrination and repeated "Sonata is what I say Sonata is".
I tend to think that he just didn't know the answer. Wouldn't school
be great if all questions could be answered this way? If only I had known,
I wouldn't have worked so hard in college! That way, I wouldn't have had
to learn anything, such as how to effectively communicate my ideas to others
past childishly insisting that I am right, and I could still be called
a genius because I say I am.
Wait! Is this a lurking parallel to someone else we know?!?
As a side note, anyone who is familiar with the "Calvin and Hobbes"
comic strip should then immediately recognize Calvin as a super genius!
After all, he says he is, and every other week he makes similar arguments
to that of Debussy in order to get out of having to learn anything!
Sheer unbridled genius!
> Mark, rebel against pre-cambrian neanthertalish calcified definitions.
And become a genius today! It's *really* easy, and fun, too!
> With love, Alexander Albian
^^^^^^ Your name is now Albian because I say it is.
Please sign your name accordingly in the future.
Clay Smith
csm...@prism.nmt.edu
csm...@vega.lanl.gov
P.S. - Yes, I know not to feed the Albian, but since I didn't change the
subject line hopefully nobody with a kill fill will be affected.
Alexander Abian
>In article <albian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Albian) writes:
^^^^^^
>> The professors of French conservatory flunked Debussy
>>on an exam when they asked him: Define a Sonata. Debussy said:
>>"Sonata is what I say a Sonata is". Examiners almost fainted and
>>said "Debussy you are a Clay-Schit : The scientific Definition of a
>>Sonata is: a musical composition having 4 movements: say, Allegro,
>>Allegretto,. Andante and Allegro .
>>Debussy said that its a pre-cambrian Neanthertalish crackpotish
>>indoctrination and repeated "Sonata is what I say Sonata is".
Mr. Clay Schit in answering says:
> I tend to think that he just didn't know the answer.
Now, Abian says:
And if I ask Mr. Clay Schit how do you know that Debussy didn't know
the answer, in the final analysis Mr. Clay Schit will also reply:
"because I say so ".
Mr. Clay Schit you are too idealistic. In the final analysis
the only valid answer for an individual to give is "Because I say so".
Then Mr. Clay Schit distorts my Beautiful last name "Abian" to have
somekind of glandular satisfaction and writes
> Your name is now Albian because I say it is.
> Clay Smith
> csm...@prism.nmt.edu
> csm...@vega.lanl.gov
Mr. Clay Schit you are extremely idealistic.
With love Alexander Abian.
James Kibo Parry
> > [stuff deleted]
>
> Then Mr. Clay Schit distorts my Beautiful last name "Abian" to have
> somekind of glandular satisfaction and writes
>
> > Your name is now Albian because I say it is.
Dear Mr. Albian,
You need an enema.
-- K.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALBIAN MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR-FATAL ENEMA TO BECOME ENTERTAINING
Alexander Abian
>In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>> In <1993Aug12....@nmt.edu> csm...@nmt.edu (Clay Smith) writes:
>> > [stuff deleted]
>>
>> Then Mr. Clay Schit distorts my Beautiful last name "Abian" to have
>> somekind of glandular satisfaction and writes
>>
>> > Your name is now Albian because I say it is.
>Dear Mr. Albian,
>You need an enema.
Mr. James Kibo Parshitty - " KIBO PARSHITTY "
You need the same to get rid of the last part of your last name.
Your last name from now on is PARSHITTY and not Parry and you
will be addressed that way until you prove with your behavior
that the enema had worked.
--
Bill Newcomb
>Mr. James Kibo Parshitty - " KIBO PARSHITTY "
>
> You need the same to get rid of the last part of your last name.
> Your last name from now on is PARSHITTY and not Parry and you
> will be addressed that way until you prove with your behavior
> that the enema had worked.
Silly abian, nobody calls him anything but Kibo. Except Spot calls him
something different, which I'm allowed to not say, but Spot isn't.
Besides, I don't think you're allowed to tell anyone they have to prove
ANYTHING :-P
Bill "Time has Chutzpah"
--
Bill Newcomb GSCh d- +p- c++ l m*/-- s+/+ !g w+ t r x+
nu...@reed.edu Stranger than known...
Terry Tao
>followers and faithful readers of my postings immediately
>react by posting:
>
> WARNING TO THE READERS OF ABIAN
>
>
>I want to express my thanks to these promoters of my Postings.
>Please continue. Your WARNINGS inflate my ego and make me
>feel secure.
>
>Please do not disappoint me and post immediately a WARNING.
>
>Thank you again.
>
>With love, Alexander Abian
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF "VENUS MUST BE ..."
>THIS UNIVERSE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTERS T AND M ( ABIAN)
REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY HAS INERTIA
--
Terry Tao Math Dept., Princeton University (t...@math.princeton.edu)
"Om VI. Thou shalt not subject thy god to market forces." - Om (Small Gods)
"Siflay hraka, u embleer rah!" - Thlayli (Watership Down)
Alexander Abian
>
>
>Silly abian, ....
> "Time has Chutzpah"
> Bill Newcomb
Abian answers:
Silly newcomb, Time has no Chutzpah.
James Kibo Parry
> In <CBopD...@world.std.com> ki...@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>
> >Dear Mr. Albian,
>
> >You need an enema.
>
>
> Mr. James Kibo Parshitty - " KIBO PARSHITTY "
I retract my previous statement, "Professor" Abian. You do not need an
enema. You need a 200 GALLON ENEMA OF COSMETIC LAVA.
I would say I wiped my ass with your theory, but it would be very rude
of me to say that in sci.physics, so I will not insult you with that
statement. I am your friend. Have a nice day.
-- K.
Jay Paul Chawla
right to Him!) wrote:
>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>In <24ha7d$g...@scratchy.reed.edu> nu...@reed.edu (Bill Newcomb) writes:
>>Silly abian, ....
You should all know... Mr. Abian has flamed Mr. Nuke with such skill that
Mr. Nuke is now completely dead, and will never post again. Mr. Abian is
a Real net.god... how many miracles can YOU do, Mr. Parshitty?
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
^^^^^^^
At first I read this as "Chawla." So, at least my propaganda campaign
is working on Myself. Soon I will have all the self-confidence I need to
become one of the all-time great minds, like Abian.
Jay
PS
"Jay Dude, don't make it bad"
"Jay now, Jay now, don't dream it's over"
"easy as JBC 123"
"... I can't believe in you.... Dear Jay."
"Jay Bless America"
"In Jay we trust"
"for Jay and Country"
May not make sense, but at least you will be thinking about Me.
David C Winters
>
>Dear Mr. Albian,
>
>You need an enema.
> -- K.
>
>ALBIAN MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR-FATAL ENEMA TO BECOME ENTERTAINING
Kibo, Albian has been entertaining for quite a while now; I just wish I
had the time to wade through all of the physics-related stuff clogging
the *.physics.* newsgroups, so I could read (about) Abian and be amused.
Beats rec.humor.funny hands down.
Actually, I'm trying to pervert my killfile system, so it'll kill
_everything_but_ Abian's posts (and the followups to the same). Not
being a Unix wizard, I doubt I'll be able to make it work, but you gotta
chase your dreams...
--
/ \
David wint...@pitt.edu /<0>\ Vote KIBOTARIAN in '96!
/ \
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Barney /_______\ R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Andrew P. Rhine
already:
Doesn't anyone think that generating huge threads after Abian's posts is an
utter waste of time? We can't keep him from posting, but we _can_ stop
responding. Abian's never going to admit that his ideas are stupid. The problem
here is obviously one of psychology, not physics. As long as we keep responding,
the problem will never go away.
So--could we please, _please_ just ignore this guy?
Andrew Rhine
rh...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu
Android
>responding. Abian's never going to admit that his ideas are stupid.
Well then, Gallieo and Ptolemy were stupid too.
--
BBB Benjie Chen
BCCCB ben...@quack.sac.ca.us
BCCCB No Axiomatic System Could Produce All Number-
BBB Theoretical Truths, Unless It Is Inconsistent.
Alexander Abian
(Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
>here is obviously one of psychology, not physics. As long as we keep
>responding, the problem will never go away.
>So--could we please, _please_ just ignore this guy?
AND YET ANDREW P. RHINE DID NOT IGNORE THIS GUY AND DID NOT PUT
"TIME HAS INERTIA" ON HIS KILL FILE - strange !
>Andrew P. Rhine
ABIAN ANSWERS:
Here is obviously one OF PHYSICS. The reason that physicists do not
ignore me (Abian) is that my notions of THE ABSOLUTE TIME and the
EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
are of profound physics significance. The netters feel it and sense it. Even
if I stop posting completely (which I don't intend), the netters WILL
CONTINUE to discuss, refer, ponder, and develop the idea of the
EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
and the idea of the ABSOLUTE TIME.
Physicists will not tolerate dwelling and basing everything on the
RELATIVE concepts propagated by the SR and GR. Physicists crave and
earnestly long for ABSOLUTES , ABSOLUTE ITEMS and ABSOLUTE Concepts.
The time T in
1/T + 1/log M = 1
IS AN ABSOLUTE ITEM. IT IS AS ABSOLUTE AS THE ENTIRE COSMOS !
I have sown the seed of the notion of THE ABSOLUTE TIME in the minds of the
Physicists. They will not abandon it, on the contrary they will nurture
it to the fullest and reshape the entire Physics based on the notion of
the absolute time T expressed in terms of the mass M of the Cosmos
by my formula
(*) 1/T + 1/ log M = 1
OR BY AN IMPROVED VERSION OF IT.
Even if I keep a total silence (which I don't intend) the physicists and the
netters WILL NOT ABANDON referring, writing, developing and expanding my
notions of the Absolute Time and the EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS.
I am glad that no one anymore mentions that "DIMENSIONS IN (*) DO NOT
MATCH" according to their High School physics!
I am glad that people now accept that in (*) M and T both are in
Abian units, where M = 1 Abian at the Big Bang T = 0 Abian.
So, Mr. Rhine, irrespective of your and some other netters' persuasions of
not to post in the subject: TIME HAS INERTIA , the netters will post
in that subject. TIME HAS INERTIA and EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS are
the guiding beacons of modern Physics - they will put Physics on a SOLID
ground based on the notion of THE ABSOLUTE TIME and they will liberate
Physics from shabby, shoddy, vacillating illusory notions of TIME as given
in SR and GR,
Mr. Rhine, the point of NO RETURN has been passed. TIME HAS INERTIA
and THE EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS ARE HERE TO STAY these notions are
much more exciting, much more intriguing and much more fundamental than
endless compiling of isotopes, and particles which more and more narrow the
horizons of otherwise brilliant minds and creative intellects who should
tackle problems taking into account of the entire Cosmos. There lies the
Absolute !!
With love, Alexander Abian
Mike Weber
What?
Richard Alan Brown
>In <24jc8k$q...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu> rh...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu
>(Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
>
[mucho blather deleted]
>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
bwahahahahahha...... oh man, this just *made* my day. There I was feeling
a little jaded, down, etc... and along comes this twit to cheer me up.
wooo, I think I feel abian's subtle psychic waves penetrating my echoing
gourd....
Alistair Scott (physicist at large)
Pope John Paul II
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
: ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
: VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Hey, bartender? I'll have what he's having...
John
Tord G.M. Malmgren
>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
do you think you could somehow CONNECT this with the FACT that
MOMENTA is NOT preserved?! that would be VERY INTERESTING to KNOW!
---------------+--------------------------------+----------------------------
Tord Malmgren | InterNet: To...@VanA.PhySto.SE | These opinions are my OWN,
| BITNet : TordM@SESUF51 | and NOT of this department!
---------------+--------------------------------+----------------------------
Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden (Northern Europe)
Andrew Bulhak
:
: Doesn't anyone think that generating huge threads after Abian's posts is an
: utter waste of time? We can't keep him from posting, but we _can_ stop
: responding. Abian's never going to admit that his ideas are stupid. The problem
: here is obviously one of psychology, not physics. As long as we keep responding,
: the problem will never go away.
: So--could we please, _please_ just ignore this guy?
No; it's MORE FUN this way!
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Bulhak | |
| a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | "I'm sorry Mr. Shergold, but you know the |
| Monash Uni, Clayton, | rules -- no can tabs, no dialysis." |
| Victoria, Australia | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Salem
>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
If this is true, then doesn't it mean that it is almost inevitable that
Ames, Iowa, will be struck by a large meteorite?
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
Yes, but wouldn't altering the Earth's orbit and tilt increase the chances
of Ames, Iowa, being hit by a large meteorite?
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Wouldn't giving Venus such an orbit cause Mars's orbit to shift, thus
disrupting the asteroid belt, causing more asteroids to pass through the
Earth's orbit, and increasing the chances of Ames, Iowa, being hit by a large
meteorite?
Salem
--
|Salem | "God save thee, ancient Mariner! |
|New Mexico Tech | From the fiends, that plague thee thus!- |
|Socorro NM USA | Why look`st thou so?"-With my crossbow |
|sa...@nmt.edu | I shot the Albatross. --S.T.Coleridge |
Alexander Abian
>In article <abian.7...@pv3437.vincent.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
> do you think you could somehow CONNECT this with the FACT that
>MOMENTA is NOT preserved?! that would be VERY INTERESTING to KNOW!
> Tord Malmgren
> Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden (Northern Europe)
Abian answers:
The thing which is preserved in the Cosmos is the sum of 1/T and
1/log M which remains equal to 1 (real number) and NOT 1 Abian,
i.e., Conservation Law says:
(*) 1/T + 1/ logM = 1 (real number) with positive T, M < 1 Abian
where
M = 1 Abian at (the Big Bang) T = 0 Abian
(in (*) log is the natural e-log)
So, as far as Momenta are concerned: in view of (*) and at Cosmic level
Momenta are not conserved.
Mr. Malmgren, the impact of (*) is that it states the
EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS, in fact, it defines TIME AS MASS !
The significant and profound impact of (*) is precisely that IT
EXPRESSES THE EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS (I am humble and modest
enough to expect that some people will come up with possibly improved
versions of (*). But, it is I who has broken the Enigma of TIME.
I am the first and the only person who singlehandedly has defined
TIME AS MASS and proclaimed
(**) THE EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
(a Nobel Prize deserving breakthrough !). Can you deny that ? Can you ?!
In pre-Abian physics, such as GR the notion of Time is
shabby, shoddy and ILLUSORY, yes ILLUSORY.
(I know that some people tried in vain to attribute (**) to
Maxwell, to Einstein, to Planck, etc.etc. they looked and
consulted many books, papers, people - BUT ALL IN VAIN !!!)
With warm regards, Alexander Abian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
Joel Polowin
> I am the first and the only person who singlehandedly had defined
> TIME AS MASS and proclaimed
>
>(**) THE EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
>
>(a Nobel Prize deserving breakthrough !). Can you deny that ? Can you ?!
>
> (I know that some people tried in vain to attribute (**) to
> Maxwell, to Einstein, to Planck, etc.etc. they looked and
> consulted many books, papers, people - BUT ALL IN VAIN !!!)
I distinctly remember seeing this in a comic book, somewhere around 1968-
1970. One of those super-hero league things. They ended up traveling
backwards in time, and the backwards travel involved conversion of Time
into a sort of reddish dust. Forwards travel (more quickly than the normal
ambient rate, that is...) involved reconversion of the Time powder back into
its normal form.
Can anyone help me pin this one down? The star drive on the spaceships
was sort of rounded at the front end and conical at the back, and worked
by absorbing random light at the front and spitting it out in coherent form
from the conical tip. The comic book included a page called "BackTalk",
which (as I recall) involved the editor coming up with stupid answers to
equally stupid reader questions.
Maybe I should cross-post this to a couple of the comics discussions...
Joel
pol...@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, pol...@chem.queensu.ca,
polo...@qucdn.queensu.ca
Anthony 'SCHWAibo' Hobbs
> In <CBopD...@world.std.com> ki...@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>>Dear Mr. Albian,
>
>>You need an enema.
>
> Mr. James Kibo Parshitty - " KIBO PARSHITTY "
>
> You need the same to get rid of the last part of your last name.
> Your last name from now on is PARSHITTY and not Parry and you
> will be addressed that way until you prove with your behavior
> that the enema had worked.
Dear Mr Abian,
You *are* an enema. And you've definitely worked on me. I haven't
stopped defecating in hours. Due to your incredibly important enematic
discoveries, furthermore, I have ascertained that SHIT HAS INERTIA.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Is it only me who finds Abian theory sexually arousing?
--
*** * *** *** Anthony "SCHWAibo" Hobbs And I will cry a thousand
* * * * * * times, today, tomorrow too,
**** * *** * * hob...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz for the oceanrider -
* * * * * * * it all depends on you.
** * *** *** DISCLAIMER: Fnord. (The Extraneous Hats)
Alexander Abian
>Joel
>pol...@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, pol...@chem.queensu.ca,
>polo...@qucdn.queensu.ca
Abian answers:
Shortly after I read your post, I had a telephone call. The caller told
me that he had also seen what you claimed but he added that in addition
to your report, he also distinctly remembers seeing the caption on that
page which stated:
EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
1/T + 1/log M = 1
I asked him did the comic book stated also that T and M are in
Abian's ? He hesitated and said "I don't remember, maybe "
I said "would you please identify yourself " but he did hang up on me.
So, maybe this added information would help you to pin down the source easier.
I have no reason to question the veracity of you posting, but I doubt if
the telephone caller was telling the truth.
Incidentally, according to my Theory there is no BACKWARDS travel in
TIME since M dissipates irretrievably. I have mentioned this 1000
times.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would let me know of any publication
where EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS is mentioned with or without my formula.
Thank you in advance.
With love, Alexander Abian
Andrew P. Rhine
>rh...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu (Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
>>responding. Abian's never going to admit that his ideas are stupid.
> ^^^^^^^
>Well then, Gallieo and Ptolemy were stupid too.
Uhhhh....no. Not at all. I think I might see why your address is at a
computer called "quack"...
Andrew
Alexander Abian
>In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>> In <CBopD...@world.std.com> ki...@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>
>>>Dear Mr. Albian,
>>
>>>You need an enema.
>>
>> Mr. James Kibo Parshitty - " KIBO PARSHITTY "
>>
>> You need the same to get rid of the last part of your last name.
>> Your last name from now on is PARSHITTY and not Parry and you
>> will be addressed that way until you prove with your behavior
>> that the enema had worked.
>
>Dear Mr Abian,
>
> You *are* an enema. And you've definitely worked on me. I haven't
>stopped defecating in hours. Due to your incredibly important enematic
>discoveries, furthermore, I have ascertained that SHIT HAS INERTIA.
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
>> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
>> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
>
>Is it only me who finds Abian theory sexually arousing?
>--
Mr. Hobbs,
What you said is O.K., so long as due to your deluge of def.... you
will not call yourself Anthony "S...Y" Hobbs. Your sexually being
aroused perhaps is partly due to VENUS. That S... has inertia, as
you mentioned was known since time immemorial. The breakthrough novelties
are TIME HAS INERTIA and EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS.
With love. A. Abian
--
Andrew P. Rhine
>(Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
>>here is obviously one of psychology, not physics. As long as we keep
>>responding, the problem will never go away.
>>So--could we please, _please_ just ignore this guy?
>
> AND YET ANDREW P. RHINE DID NOT IGNORE THIS GUY AND DID NOT PUT
> "TIME HAS INERTIA" ON HIS KILL FILE - strange !
It's not strange, really. I asked that people ignore Abian for two reasons:
1) It could be horribly misleading for some newcomer to glance at this group
and get the impression that the "TIME HAS INERTIA" thread is actually a
serious discussion of physics.
2) It makes the readers/posters of this group, and by possible (albeit strained)
association physicists in general, look STUPID. By this point, paying serious
attention to Abian is like arranging a seminar to listen to the town drunk.
> Here is obviously one OF PHYSICS. The reason that physicists do not
>ignore me (Abian) is that my notions of THE ABSOLUTE TIME and the
>
> EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
>are of profound physics significance. The netters feel it and sense it.
Uh, no. Most just think you're annoying and/or strangely amusing.
>if I stop posting completely (which I don't intend)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now there's a surprise!
Finally, Abian gives the following gem:
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Need I say more?
Paul Tomblin
>you mentioned was known since time immemorial. The breakthrough novelties
>are TIME HAS INERTIA and EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS.
It's true - I've found that now that I weight 230 pounds it takes me far
longer to run 8 miles than it did when I was 190 pounds. So I guess that
extra 40 pounds is distorting time.
Paul "Hi Susan!" Tomblin
--
Paul Tomblin - formerly {pt{omblin},news}@{geovision.}gvc.com
"Ok dear, Want me to call the bike shop and see if they'll sponsor your
mid-life crisis?" "Yeah. Ask 'em if they'll upgrade my shifters, too"
- Calvin's mom and dad
Michael Moroney
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Shouldn't this be:
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> EARTH MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR MERCURY-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME FREE OF EPIDEMICS
Anthony 'SCHWAibo' Hobbs
> In article <1993Aug16...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz> hob...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Anthony 'SCHWAibo' Hobbs) writes:
>>In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>> In <CBopD...@world.std.com> ki...@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>>
>>>>Dear Mr. Albian,
>>>
>>>>You need an enema.
>>>
>>> Mr. James Kibo Parshitty - " KIBO PARSHITTY "
>>>
>>> You need the same to get rid of the last part of your last name.
>>> Your last name from now on is PARSHITTY and not Parry and you
>>> will be addressed that way until you prove with your behavior
>>> that the enema had worked.
>>
>>Dear Mr Abian,
>>
>> You *are* an enema. And you've definitely worked on me. I haven't
>>stopped defecating in hours. Due to your incredibly important enematic
>>discoveries, furthermore, I have ascertained that SHIT HAS INERTIA.
>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
>>> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
>>> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
>>
>>Is it only me who finds Abian theory sexually arousing?
>>--
>
> Mr. Hobbs,
>
> What you said is O.K., so long as due to your deluge of def.... you
> will not call yourself Anthony "S...Y" Hobbs.
I hope you're not under the crackpotish delusion that the word "SCHWAibo"
begins with the letter S. As James "Kibo" Parshitty could tell you, "SCHWA"
is a letter all on its own, and my campaign to get it into the ASCII font will,
if there be any justice in the world, get me the Nobel Peace Prize.
> Your sexually being aroused perhaps is partly due to VENUS.
And to think that in the beginning I scoffed at this man! Ladies and gentlemen,
this man deserves nine Nobel Prizes and the presidency of the World for that
particular observation alone!
> That S... has inertia, as you mentioned was known since time immemorial.
Not to eaters of Indian food. For the unaccustomed stomach, the inertia of
the resulting shit often has negligible inertia.
> The breakthrough novelties
Soon to be available at any decent novelty store, we hope?
> are TIME HAS INERTIA and EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS.
Intriguing. So, how do your theories account for:
(i) the Shroud of Turin
(ii) the Tesla Coil
(iii) Jung's "synchronicity" theory
(iv) the American national debt
(v) the theory of evolution
(vi) cattle mutilations in Boise, Idaho
(vii) Wilhelm Reich's "Cloudbusting" machine's success in shooting down UFO's
(viii) Spot the puppy
(ix) the prevalence of astrology prediction successes
(x) the eye-in-the-pyramid symbol on the American $1 bill?
> With love. A. Abian
Also, will your theories, if correctly applied, make me IRRESISTABLE to WOMEN?
Andrew Bulhak
:
: > AND YET ANDREW P. RHINE DID NOT IGNORE THIS GUY AND DID NOT PUT
: > "TIME HAS INERTIA" ON HIS KILL FILE - strange !
:
: It's not strange, really. I asked that people ignore Abian for two reasons:
:
: 1) It could be horribly misleading for some newcomer to glance at this group
: and get the impression that the "TIME HAS INERTIA" thread is actually a
: serious discussion of physics.
Physics? I thought this was alt.religion.kibology.
Phillip J. Birmingham
> In <24jc8k$q...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu> rh...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu
> (Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
>
>>here is obviously one of psychology, not physics. As long as we keep
>>responding, the problem will never go away.
>>So--could we please, _please_ just ignore this guy?
>
> AND YET ANDREW P. RHINE DID NOT IGNORE THIS GUY AND DID NOT PUT
> "TIME HAS INERTIA" ON HIS KILL FILE - strange !
>
>>Andrew P. Rhine
>
> ABIAN ANSWERS:
>
> Here is obviously one OF PHYSICS. The reason that physicists do not
> ignore me (Abian) is that my notions of THE ABSOLUTE TIME and the
>
> EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
>
> are of profound physics significance. The netters feel it and sense it. Even
> if I stop posting completely (which I don't intend), the netters WILL
> CONTINUE to discuss, refer, ponder, and develop the idea of the
Yeah, like we discuss N-rays, cold fusion and Lamarckism.
> With love, Alexander Abian
Aw, shucks. Now, keep this out of alt.tasteless until you figure
out how time has a head, to which we may apply our Milwaukee
Holeshooters for hours (or is that kilograms) of squicking pleasure!
--
Phillip J. Birmingham birmi...@fne683.fnal.gov
"Tampering in God's Domain since 1965"
Phillip J. Birmingham
> In <1993Aug15....@kth.se> tordm@vana (Tord G.M. Malmgren) writes:
>
> (*) 1/T + 1/ logM = 1 (real number) with positive T, M < 1 Abian
>
> where
> M = 1 Abian at (the Big Bang) T = 0 Abian
I suppose it's fitting that the equation blows up at T=0 then.
*Snort*
SeaWolf
> In article <abian.7...@pv3437.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu
> (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
> >TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
Could some kind person repost the orignal message because I seemed to
have missed it and I would like to see what the original discussion
was about.
Or you could forward it to me so that I can see it and it probably
will save bandwidth.
*************************************************************************
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
Sea...@yesanext.thetech.com
Sameer Manek -- Sysop of the Big Brother BBS
*************************************************************************
Daniel A Ashlock
I have a modest factoid to report. Alex retired last year and
we're short on office space so he has to yield his office (and
computer) by next Monday. It will be interesting to see if he
sets up a net connection from home or really retires.
Terence M. Rokop
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> [Abian has inertia deleted ]
> Incidentally, according to my Theory there is no BACKWARDS travel in
>TIME since M dissipates irretrievably. I have mentioned this 1000
>times.
Just out of curiosity, how many of your numbers make "1000" of everybody else's
numbers?
Terry
Terence M. Rokop
mor...@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>Shouldn't this be:
>>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
>> EARTH MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR MERCURY-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME FREE OF EPIDEMICS
Actually, it should be:
ALTER ABIAN'S ORBIT AND TILT - etc...
Terry
Andrew P. Rhine
> I have an office ten feet down the hall from Alex Abian and
>I have a modest factoid to report. Alex retired last year and
>we're short on office space so he has to yield his office (and
>computer) by next Monday.
And there was much rejoicing....
Andrew
Dave Woodman
>In article <CBtyJ...@news.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
[ prose expunged ]
>> That S... has inertia, as you mentioned was known since time immemorial.
>
>Not to eaters of Indian food. For the unaccustomed stomach, the inertia of
>the resulting shit often has negligible inertia.
>
I am afraid that I have to counter this. In my experience, Indian food has
the effect of increasing the inertia... this is demonstrated by the momentum
apparent at the time of the jet-shit, and further by the energy still contained
within the wide-angle-backwash. Nobody can tell me that shit has that ammount
of momentum under conditions of STP, with a non-turbulent flow. Increase the
pressure, stack the toilet-paper in the fridge and consume plenty of flow-rate
enhancing foods... then you can leave a rent in space-time!
It's been a while...
Dave.
--
==============================================================================
= My e-mail address might be woo...@bnr.ca, but Maidenhead is definitely =
= in Britain... My employer is entitled to disagree with anything but this! =
==============================================================================
Joseph D. McMahon
>
> Ames, Iowa, will be struck by a large meteorite?
>
> of Ames, Iowa, being hit by a large meteorite?
>
> meteorite?
>
Salem, Phil Glass has broken into your account...
--- Joe M.
Andrew C. Plotkin
EQUIV.. Daniel A Ashlock@IASTATE (334)
Thank God that the forces of organized science have finally won. We can
still cling to our high-paying jobs and expensive toys; there is no more
danger that traditional science will be overthrown by Abian's
revolutionary theory that TIME HAS INERTIA.
--Z
:-)
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Clay Smith
Jim Foley
Dan> I have an office ten feet down the hall from Alex Abian and
Dan> I have a modest factoid to report. Alex retired last year and
Dan> we're short on office space so he has to yield his office (and
Dan> computer) by next Monday. It will be interesting to see if he
Dan> sets up a net connection from home or really retires.
Dan> Dan
Dan> Dan...@IASTATE.EDU
I'm sure we'd all like to know a bit more about Dr. Abian. Does he rant
and rave like a biblical prophet? Is he a gentlemanly eccentric like
Immanual Velikovsky? Is it possible to lead a double life as a competent
mathematician and a crackpot physicist, or is his maths as nutty as "TIME
HAS INERTIA"?
Enquiring minds want to know.
--
Jim Foley (303) 223-5100 x9765
Jim....@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM - uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!jimf
NCR MPD Fort Collins 2001 Danfield Court Fort Collins, CO 80525
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullwinkle: You just leave that to my buddy. He's
the brains of the outfit.
General: What does that make you?
Bullwinkle: What else? An executive, of course.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Abian
I have characterized TIME and its measurement in terms of MASS, by now
(many time repeated) formula:
1/T + 1/log M = 1 positive T, M < 1 Abian
where M = 1 Abian at the Big Bang T = 0 Abian
(and where log is the e-log).
Now, my question is:
What is your characterization and measurement method of TIME ?
Please be succinct and please do not refer to any references and please do not
say "it is well known by any high-school student, etc." Just do not evade the
real issue and be as honest and as clear as possible.
I would greatly appreciate your posted responses. Thank you in advance.
Alexander Abian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
Ron Maimon
|> In article <albian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Albian) writes:
>
> >ALBIAN answers:
> >
> > [scolding of Mr. Rupright deleted]
> >
> > The albian professors of French conservatory flunked Debussy
> >on an exam when they asked him: Define a Sonata. Debussy said:
> >"Sonata is what I say a Sonata is". Examiners almost fainted and
> >said "Debussy you are an albian: The scientific Definition of a
> >Sonata is: a musical composition having 4 movements: say, Allegro,
> >Allegretto,. Andante and Allegro .
> >Debussy said that its a pre-cambrian Neanthertalish crackpotish
> >indoctrination and repeated "Sonata is what I say Sonata is".
>
> I tend to think that he just didn't know the answer. Wouldn't school
> be great if all questions could be answered this way? If only I had known,
> I wouldn't have worked so hard in college! That way, I wouldn't have had
> to learn anything, such as how to effectively communicate my ideas to others
> past childishly insisting that I am right, and I could still be called
> a genius because I say I am.
>
I hate to say this, but Abian is much more right than you are.
A sonata is a work of art. Debussy knew this, and he certainly knew enough music
theory to say what the instructors wanted him to say. Knowing, however that this
is a work of art, and that he will write sonatas however he damn well pleased, he
answered correctly (and bravely).
I've been in situations like this too. My `fondest' memory along these lines is
when my high school teacher would give us a graph of displacement vs. time for a
water wave:
| ___
| / \
|/ \
-------------------------- time
| \ /
| \____/
|
and then he asks us to determine the frequency and wavelength of this wave. In
class, we had gone through problems like this, and he told us to get the
frequency off the graph, and to measure the `wavelength' from the graph with a
ruler!
I wrote down the correct answer for the frequency.
on the slot allocated for "wavelength" I wrote that I refuse to answer on
philosophical grounds.
I ended up getting a C in the last quarter of his high school physics class. But
I know I gave the correct answer.
So did Debussy.
> Wait! Is this a lurking parallel to someone else we know?!?
>
> As a side note, anyone who is familiar with the "Calvin and Hobbes"
> comic strip should then immediately recognize Calvin as a super genius!
> After all, he says he is, and every other week he makes similar arguments
> to that of Debussy in order to get out of having to learn anything!
> Sheer unbridled genius!
>
Calvin _is_ a genius.
people who memorize arbitrary definitions, and call it knowledge, are not.
-Ron Maimon
Tim Scott
> [...lot's o' stuff...]
Anybody remember Lawsonomy? Basically, Alfred Lawson (greatest genius
ever to be born on this planet) reduced ALL PHYSICS to two laws:
suction/pressure and "zig-zag-and-swirl."
Lawson lives!
Nathan Asmus 258B8 (237-8191)
:And there was much rejoicing....
I'm amazed...why isn't everyone welcoming the concepts of TIME:INERTIA
with open arms?
It's been well documented in song that...
(hear the music swell...) "Time....keeps flowing like a river..."
We know that rivers have inertia, therefore it only makes sense to
conclude that time has inertia!
Heiko Kiessling
Huahua, that one is good!
|>
|> --- Joe M.
--
Heiko Kie\3ling E-Mail : ki...@ira.uka.de
University of Karlsruhe Telephone: +49 721 608-4055
Department of Informatics
Operating Systems Research Group
Am Fasanengarten 5
D-76128 Karlsruhe
Federal Republic of Germany
Daniel A Ashlock
Jim....@FtCollinsCO.ncr.com (Jim Foley) writes:
> I'm sure we'd all like to know a bit more about Dr. Abian. Does he rant
> and rave like a biblical prophet? Is he a gentlemanly eccentric like
> Immanual Velikovsky? Is it possible to lead a double life as a competent
> mathematician and a crackpot physicist, or is his maths as nutty as "TIME
> HAS INERTIA"?
>
>
> Enquiring minds want to know.
When I showed up here, Alex gave me a handout on blowing up the moon
to fix our climate problems. He tends to be quiet except for occasional
visits to your office when he gets real loud and excited. He says frankly
that he is a publicity hound. He had a tabloid article on himself taped
to the wall outside his office. I can't tell if he is serious about
thinking he's in the same league as Einstein and Newton.
He is a professor of mathematics and specializes in logic and set theory.
These are the most abstract branches of mathematics and deal with things like
uncountable versions of the integers or functions between assorted infinite
sets. He has a unique perspective and I've heard several really cute ideas
that originated with him. He pointed out a bunch of similarities between the
theory of real lines (y=ax+b) and analytic functions over the complex numbers
that might be valuable as motivation for an undergraduate course. Take
Liouville's theorem. "A bounded analytic function is constant". This is also
true of real lines.
Beyond the above I don't know much because I avoid Alex. I'm a card-
carrying, firebreathing skeptic and Alex is over seventy and has a heart
condition. He does _look_ like a biblical prophet except that he's clean-
shaven.
Terence M. Rokop
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>What is your characterization and measurement method of TIME ?
The characterization and the measurement method are the same, that is, time is
what clocks measure.
>Please be succinct and please do not refer to any references and please do not
>say "it is well known by any high-school student, etc." Just do not evade the
>real issue and be as honest and as clear as possible.
Alright. I hope that was good enough. By the way, I hate to ask but what to
you mean "do not refer to any references?"
Terry
Mark Meyer
In article <CBvu8...@ns1.nodak.edu> nas...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Nathan Asmus 258B8 (237-8191)) writes:
> (hear the music swell...) "Time....keeps flowing like a river..."
Speaking of the Alan Parsons Project, does anyone else think
that "Pyramania" would make a great entry in the Skeptics' Songbook?
:-)
How about Weird Al Yankovic's "Midnight Star"?
Any other ideas?
--
Mark Meyer | mme...@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc., Plano TX +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
When an eel bites your thigh / As you're just swimming by / That's a moray...
Mark North
> I have an office ten feet down the hall from Alex Abian and
>I have a modest factoid to report. Alex retired last year and
>we're short on office space so he has to yield his office (and
>computer) by next Monday. It will be interesting to see if he
^^^^^^^^
>sets up a net connection from home or really retires.
The new user will probably have to get a new keyboard since the
caps lock key is stuck on Abians from all the drool.
Mark
Clay Smith
>In article <1993Aug12....@nmt.edu>, csm...@nmt.edu (Clay Smith) writes:
>|> In article <albian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Albian) writes:
> >
> > > The albian professors of French conservatory flunked Debussy
> > >on an exam when they asked him: Define a Sonata. Debussy said:
> > >"Sonata is what I say a Sonata is". Examiners almost fainted and
> > >said "Debussy you are an albian: The scientific Definition of a
> > >Sonata is: a musical composition having 4 movements: say, Allegro,
> > >Allegretto,. Andante and Allegro .
> > >Debussy said that its a pre-cambrian Neanthertalish crackpotish
> > >indoctrination and repeated "Sonata is what I say Sonata is".
> >
> > I tend to think that he just didn't know the answer. Wouldn't school
> > be great if all questions could be answered this way? If only I had known,
> > I wouldn't have worked so hard in college! That way, I wouldn't have had
> > past childishly insisting that I am right, and I could still be called
> > a genius because I say I am.
>
>I hate to say this, but Abian is much more right than you are.
>
>A sonata is a work of art. Debussy knew this, and he certainly knew
>enough music theory to say what the instructors wanted him to say.
>Knowing, however that this is a work of art, and that he will write
>sonatas however he damn well pleased, he answered correctly (and bravely).
Hmmm, I can see I didn't make my point as well as I thought I did.
I think a distinction needs to be made here in these examples between
art and physics, in this case. Music can be whatever people want it
to be, depending on the fashion of the month/year/century, in which case
Debussy could have answered anything short of "a sonata is a type of shoe"
and been correct to *someone*.
I will admit that he answered bravely, and I am a bit out of my field
when it comes to music and music theory, however I don't think that it
is a model for how everyone should think in all situations. I am
certainly not an advocate of blindly accepting what other people have
to say, as should be obvious by now, but most times that there is an
opportunity to learn something new we must accept things without much
detailed explanation.
If the total sum of knowledge that people have at the end of, say,
college were only what they themselves could reason and deduce, most people
wouldn't know much more than when they started. Why? Because it took a
lot of people who are now dead a lot of time to build on the ideas of
other people who were long dead before them! Most people don't have
particle accelerators or gigantic telescopes to explore for themselves,
so we must accept what the people who have them and have used them for
many tens of years tell us.
> [ wavelength story omitted ]
>
>> As a side note, anyone who is familiar with the "Calvin and Hobbes"
>> comic strip should then immediately recognize Calvin as a super genius!
>> After all, he says he is, and every other week he makes similar arguments
>> to that of Debussy in order to get out of having to learn anything!
>> Sheer unbridled genius!
>
>Calvin _is_ a genius.
>
>people who memorize arbitrary definitions, and call it knowledge, are not.
Here is the point: In order to say we know all of the large amount
many of us claim (I'm talking ordinary, educated people and not
necessarily an expert in a certain field), at some level we have to
accept what people whom we think are the experts say. We assume that
these people have good, solid reasons for their ideas and we can
comprehend at least some of these reasons.
Let's assume for the briefest moment that Mr. Abian is a genius.
Therefore, since fate has crippled me and I am not a genius, I see what
he has to say but I can't see any good reason for it. Do I believe this
person that no one has heard of in physics circles before, *just*
because he claims that he is a genius and that this wonderful equation
(with no derivation or other good reason) solves every problem ever
thought of? No, because then I could talk to any fanatic and become
a believer.
Do I think it's wrong or right? I don't know. I do think that
Mr. Abian is a fool to keep ranting about it on the Internet and
making people disbelieve him because of his fanatacism, myself included.
Clay Smith
csm...@nmt.edu
csm...@vega.lanl.gov
Alexander Abian
>In message <abian.7...@pv3455.vincent.iastate.edu>,
> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>What is your characterization and measurement method of TIME ?
>The characterization and the measurement method are the same, that is, time is
>what clocks measure.
>Terry
Abian answers:
That is precisely the weakness and the allusiveness of the above
characterization:
It would depend on whose clock, on which planet of which galaxy.
At best you will have extremely casual, shabby, whimsical notion
of Time !
My characterization gives an absolute notion and measurement of
Time.
Of course, I anticipate your objection, i.e., "How is the
mass M of the Cosmos measured , by what means ? "
But that is a separate issue. I claim, and I become more
and more convinced that THE ABSOLUTE NOTION OF TIME MUST BE
RELATED TO THE (decreasing) MASS OF THE COSMOS. Accepting
this as a most fundamental principle of Physics has nothing
to do with HOW TO MEASURE IT. I am positive that the
brilliant young generation of physicists and scientists will
find the way to measure M and even perhaps give an improved
version of
1/T + 1/log M = 1
relating the ABSOLUTE TIME T to the MASS M OF THE COSMOS
Thank you. Alexander Abian.
Pope Clifton
: In article <CBtyJ...@news.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
: > The breakthrough novelties
: > are TIME HAS INERTIA and EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS.
: > With love. A. Abian
: Also, will your theories, if correctly applied, make me IRRESISTABLE to WOMEN?
No, for that you need Jack Sarfatti's theories, in which your future self
who is a BIG HIT with the BABES can send yourself back *encoded information*
directly into your brain via SUPERLUMINAL means to tell you everything you
need to tell the chicks so that you can SCORE BIG!
That's why Jack Sarfatti is such a BON VIVANT!
I think it is a major defect in the Reverend Mr. Dr. Abian's theories that
he does not allow for this, and I think he should remedy this fault as soon
as possible.
-- Clifton
--
clif...@netcom.com is Clifton Royston is Pope of the Church of the Subgenius
in Paradise is a happily married man is a programmer is a structural fiction.
"I just can't speculate," Reichard was quoted as saying, "ever since I lost
my parietal lobe in a freak TV accident in the third grade." (william reichard)
John McGlaughlin
>Mark
It appears that TIME may HAVE INERTIA but 1 ABIAN I know of DOES NOT.
john
--
-jftm-
Eli the bearded
> I am the first and the only person who singlehandedly has defined
>TIME AS MASS and proclaimed
>
>(**) THE EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
>
>(a Nobel Prize deserving breakthrough !). Can you deny that ? Can you ?!
Aren't Nobel Prizes only awarded to things that can be proven?
Your work, breakthrough or not, would seem far too theoretical
to be deserving of a Nobel Prize.
------
bgriffin
a No Bell Prize could surely be arranged however
Robert Scott
> He has a unique perspective and I've heard several really cute ideas
>that originated with him. He pointed out a bunch of similarities between the
>theory of real lines (y=ax+b) and analytic functions over the complex numbers
>that might be valuable as motivation for an undergraduate course. Take
>Liouville's theorem. "A bounded analytic function is constant". This is also
>true of real lines.
well, i suppose there's an analogy between the theory of harmonic functions of
one real variable and the theory of harmonic functions of two real variables.
is that what albian is getting at?
-james dolan
Milovan_-_Djilas
salem>In article <abian.7...@pv3437.vincent.iastate.edu>
salem> ab...@iastate.edu
salem> (Alexander Abian) writes:
salem>>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1
salem> (ABIAN).
salem>If this is true, then doesn't it mean that it is almost inevitable
salem> that
salem>Ames, Iowa, will be struck by a large meteorite?
No, it means that somewhere within Ames, Iowa there already exists a
large mass. Hmm, interesting. I guess Abian's Theorem explains
small-town growth: when Ames, Iowa's mass is discovered and relocated
elsewhere, it increases time in Ames. This is consistent with the
increase in activity which will take place as Ames's mass is removed
-- more jobs => more people, more entertainment, etc. If we can find
a way to remove Ames, Iowa's mass *without* causing increased time,
however, we should be able to disprove Abian's claim.
Alternatively, depending on the definition and operation of T in M.
Abian's equation (I'm not familiar enough with the complete opus to
know), perhaps the low value of T in Ames, Iowa *does* imply that it
will acquire large mass within a proportionally small T -- but that T
(Ta), when scaled to the universal T (Tg), will increase, causing the
Ma (the mass which Ames, Iowa is to acquire) to decrease. This, in
turn, will cause the Ta to increase, which .... So Ames, Iowa may
never gain mass at all. In that case, the T in Ames will never
change, either, so I guess that's one place you don't want to be
reassigned to.
salem>>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA,
salem> AIDS, ETC.
salem>Yes, but wouldn't altering the Earth's orbit and tilt increase the
salem> chances
salem>of Ames, Iowa, being hit by a large meteorite?
See above.
salem>> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN
salem> EARTH
salem>Wouldn't giving Venus such an orbit cause Mars's orbit to shift, thus
salem>disrupting the asteroid belt, causing more asteroids to pass through
salem> the
salem>Earth's orbit, and increasing the chances of Ames, Iowa, being hit by
salem> a large
salem>meteorite?
Hmm. Causing more asteroids to pass through the Earth's orbit would
effectively increase the mass of Earth, and of Ames, Iowa indirectly.
So Ta would decrease more. Sounds like a bad future for Ames,
Iowa...but then again, they'll probably never notice since their time
is so small.
I had another interpretation of this scenario in formulation, but I
just ate a hot dog, so it hasn't come to me yet.
--
PGP Secret Key available on Inquisition.
"And now," said Max, "let the wild rumpus start!"
David McReynolds
>
> In article <1993Aug16...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz> hob...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Anthony 'SCHWAibo' Hobbs) writes:
> >> In <CBopD...@world.std.com> ki...@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
> >
>
> >Is it only me who finds Abian theory sexually arousing?
> >--
>
> Mr. Hobbs,
>
> will not call yourself Anthony "S...Y" Hobbs. Your sexually being
> aroused perhaps is partly due to VENUS. That S... has inertia, as
I think has more to do with Uranus.
____________________________________________
e-mail dmcr...@hercii.lasc.lockheed.com
Terence M. Rokop
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>In <74560433...@unix6.andrew.cmu.edu> "Terence M. Rokop" <tr...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>In message <abian.7...@pv3455.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>>What is your characterization and measurement method of TIME ?
>>The characterization and the measurement method are the same, that is, time is
>>what clocks measure.
>Abian answers:
> That is precisely the weakness and the allusiveness of the above
> characterization:
> It would depend on whose clock, on which planet of which galaxy.
That's right.
> At best you will have extremely casual, shabby, whimsical notion
> of Time !
Actually, it is meaningful and valuable. So what if it is relative?
Experiment bears it out.
Terry
Duane Takamine
>I know I gave the correct answer.
>
>So did Debussy.
In science, like in other disciplines, it is not enough to give an
answer, you must be prepared to justify it in an appropriate manner. When
anyone says something is what he or she "thinks" it is, well, that is not
a correct or wrong answer, it is a non-answer, since it gives no information
in and of itself. It could be true, it could be false.
If Debussy did not wish to discuss his ideas, he had no business in
a university, period. So his answer was wrong, even if it was factually
correct in hindsight.
Extending into science, it is not important that SOMEONE have the
truth in their heads. People are capricious, they are foolish, and they
make all kinds of mistakes and errors in judgement. It is only worth
anything if that information can be communicated to the scientific community
and presented in convincing manner.
And besides, everyone knows what a sonnet is. Don't they?
Duane
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Takamine du...@shell.portal.com
Island CD Creations Madd Hacker Productions
Home of the Sound Site CDROM - nearly 1400 mods on disc
Duane Takamine
>In <74560433...@unix6.andrew.cmu.edu> "Terence M. Rokop" <tr...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>In message <abian.7...@pv3455.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>>>What is your characterization and measurement method of TIME ?
>
>>The characterization and the measurement method are the same, that is, time is
>>what clocks measure.
>
>>Terry
>
>
>Abian answers:
>
> That is precisely the weakness and the allusiveness of the above
> characterization:
>
> It would depend on whose clock, on which planet of which galaxy.
> At best you will have extremely casual, shabby, whimsical notion
> of Time !
Shabby and whimsical perhaps, but "causal?"
Obviously, it is also clear that:
1) Abian is unconvinced that the laws of physics are the same
everywhere.
2) If measured time is different for two observers, one must be wrong.
We already have overwhelming proof of time dialation and
relative passage of time.
>
> My characterization gives an absolute notion and measurement of
> Time.
Absolutely wrong, but definitely absolute.
>
> Of course, I anticipate your objection, i.e., "How is the
> mass M of the Cosmos measured , by what means ? "
Don't be silly. By your own ridiculous formula, we measure the
mass of the universe with a Casio wristwatch, accurate to several decimal
places of course. Obviously you don't believe your own theories very far.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Well of course any civilization that can change earth's orbit and tilt
is going to have remarkable success stopping epidemics, cancer, AIDS, etc.
Except, of course, cancer isn't an epidemic, really.
Oooh, see, we stopped one already.
Jamie Jamison
understand. This isn't a group for posting about your "crackpotish" (to use
your spelling) theories. It's a group to talk about sex, you know what sex
is don't you. It's what you engage in with your hand every night and with
the neighbor's goat if you can scrape up the two bits.
OBalt.sex Blowjobs are fun
Jamie Jamison
WITH STANDARD_DISCLAIMER
Alexander Abian
>In article <abian.7...@pv3437.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>In <74560433...@unix6.andrew.cmu.edu> "Terence M. Rokop" <tr...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>>In message <abian.7...@pv3455.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>>> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>
>>>>What is your characterization and measurement method of TIME ?
>>
>>>The characterization and the measurement method are the same, that is, time is
>>>what clocks measure.
ABIAN ANSWERS:
TIME is one of the most fundamental items in Physics
(I say) TIME IS WHAT I SAY TIME IS. IT is MASS and IT is measured
by a COSMIC ENERGYMETER or a COSMIC MASSMETER according to
1/T + 1/log M = 1
(you say) TIME IS WHAT YOU SAY TIME IS . IT is MEASURED BY
A CLOCK
Do you see the parallelism ? (in the final analysis everyone says
"because I say so")
>>
>>Abian answers:
>>
>> That is precisely the weakness and the allusiveness of the above
>> characterization:
>>
>> It would depend on whose clock, on which planet of which galaxy.
>> At best you will have extremely casual, shabby, whimsical notion
>> of Time !
> Shabby and whimsical perhaps, but "causal?"
Abian: I said "CASUAL" not "causal"
>
>
> We already have overwhelming proof of time dilation and
> relative passage of time.
>>
Abian: This is precisely my criticism. THE NOTION OF TIME MUST
BE ABSOLUTE, as I have proposed.
so your dilating time IS NOT THE ABSOLUTE TIME THAT I
AM PROPOSING !
Do you understand! Whatever you call Time in GR is
NOT THE ABSOLUTE TIME THAT I AM PROPOSING !!!
Forget about the concept of dilating relative TIME,
That Time is not THE FUNDAMENTAL ITEM OF PHYSICS!
> Don't be silly. By your own ridiculous formula, we measure the
>mass of the universe with a Casio wristwatch, accurate to several decimal
>places of course. Obviously you don't believe your own theories very far.
Abian: Please do not use expressions such as "Don't be silly"
I am quite capable to answer "Don't be silly yourself"!
You know very well that I can answer alike ! So, please
stop the verbal arrogance. It is useless.
Again you are using verbal arrogance "your own ridiculous
formula" My answer is "your own ridiculous formula yourself"
In fact, I will add that E = mcc is ridiculous not
1/T + 1/log M = 1.
Finally, "you don't believe your own theories very far yourself"
I do believe in my theories!
SO, IN SHORT: THE TIME INTRODUCED IN GR IS NOT THE ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL
TIME THAT I AM PROPOSING ! MY TIME IS A MOST FUNDAMENTAL ITEM
IN PHYSICS. THE DILATING RELATIVE TIME OF GR IS ILLUSORY!
I am glad that apparently you did not read my posting: HARMONICITY vs
ANALYTICITY and spared me from reading verbal temerities !
Sincerely, Alexander Abian.
--
Brian Saunders
>Hey Abian, you braindead fuckhead, what part of "alt.sex" don't you
>understand. This isn't a group for posting about your "crackpotish" (to use
>your spelling) theories. It's a group to talk about sex, you know what sex
>is don't you. It's what you engage in with your hand every night and with
>the neighbor's goat if you can scrape up the two bits.
You know, this is a really moronic post when you consider that you
cross-posted to at least 2 other groups which really didn't care to see
this post. You are just as guilty as Abian in being a braindead fuckhead.
Clue: check out the newsgroups line.
I wonder where they get these people from...
>OBalt.sex Blowjobs are fun
Yeah, you probably like giving one to yourself, just so it makes it easier
for you to swallow down all the jizz when you are masturbating.
--
Brian Saunders saun...@luther.che.wisc.edu
Michael Moroney
>>>>The characterization and the measurement method are the same, that is, time is
>>>>what clocks measure.
> TIME is one of the most fundamental items in Physics
>(I say) TIME IS WHAT I SAY TIME IS. IT is MASS and IT is measured
> by a COSMIC ENERGYMETER or a COSMIC MASSMETER according to
> 1/T + 1/log M = 1
>
>(you say) TIME IS WHAT YOU SAY TIME IS . IT is MEASURED BY
> A CLOCK
Obviously the thing you call "time" has nothing to do with real time,
by your own admission. So call the item you mistakenly call "time" something
else so it isn't confused with actual time, call it blort or quatloos for
example. Or call it Abian for that matter.
Now your next mission is to find a physical meaning of the "fact" that the
amount of Quatloos increases if the mass of the universe decreases
according to the corrected version of your formula.
-Mike
Ron Maimon
I can understand where you are coming from, but I feel that you are selling
yourself short. I am just a mortal, but I can confidently say that I know a good
reason for everything that I believe to be true concerning math or physics (art
and music are subjective- but I like to think I have good reasons for liking what
I like there too). This means that I can almost always prove a mathematical
result that I quote, and if I can't prove it I don't quote it. It means that I
have a motivation for every peice of physics knowledge that I know, and a
physical derivation of every equation I know to be true (not mathemtically
airtight of course!) It also means that I have very little faith in experts,
seeing as how often they are wrong, or misleading.
The people who orignially come up with a physical theory struggle with the
concepts, trying to find which ones are applicable, which principles are true,
what experiments are the correct ones. Once the theory is developed, it is
surprisingly easy to retrace their steps with the benefit of hindsight. For
example, before I learned quantum mechanics, I spent a few months trying to
understand the `old quantum theory' as it is called, which was a brilliant
achievement in itself. This allowed me to see where the motivation for much of
what followed came from. I then picked up Dirac's book on quantum mechanics, and
actually understood it! It only requires a little motivation to be able to follow
a concept, it requires a lot of motivation to come up with it yourself.
It's true that we should not be restricted to what we deduce ourselves when it
comes to physics. However, we should be restricted to what we can work out
ourselves after reading a good book, or talking to a knowlegeable professor. I
know it is possible not to accept any arbitrary result on faith, and still
understand physics and math, since thats the way I go about it.
|>
|> > [ wavelength story omitted ]
|> >
|> >> As a side note, anyone who is familiar with the "Calvin and Hobbes"
|> >> comic strip should then immediately recognize Calvin as a super genius!
|> >> After all, he says he is, and every other week he makes similar arguments
|> >> to that of Debussy in order to get out of having to learn anything!
|> >> Sheer unbridled genius!
|> >
|> >Calvin _is_ a genius.
|> >
|> >people who memorize arbitrary definitions, and call it knowledge, are not.
|>
|> Here is the point: In order to say we know all of the large amount
|> many of us claim (I'm talking ordinary, educated people and not
|> necessarily an expert in a certain field), at some level we have to
|> accept what people whom we think are the experts say. We assume that
|> these people have good, solid reasons for their ideas and we can
|> comprehend at least some of these reasons.
|>
Again, I have a difference of opinion here. If they can't explain their reasons
to me, I assume that they are wrong until they do. If they never do, I know that
they are wrong.
This allows you to skip the pretentious people, these are the ones who always
quote theorems they cannot prove. Usually, when you use a theorem you _know_ to
be true, but just cannot prove, you are using it out of its domain of
applicability. If you are using a theorem you know how to prove, you never need
to use the theorem, rather, you just apply the method of the proof to the special
case at hand.
|> Let's assume for the briefest moment that Mr. Abian is a genius.
|> Therefore, since fate has crippled me and I am not a genius, I see what
|> he has to say but I can't see any good reason for it. Do I believe this
|> person that no one has heard of in physics circles before, *just*
|> because he claims that he is a genius and that this wonderful equation
|> (with no derivation or other good reason) solves every problem ever
|> thought of? No, because then I could talk to any fanatic and become
|> a believer.
|> Do I think it's wrong or right? I don't know. I do think that
|> Mr. Abian is a fool to keep ranting about it on the Internet and
|> making people disbelieve him because of his fanatacism, myself included.
|>
|> Clay Smith
|> csm...@nmt.edu
|> csm...@vega.lanl.gov
I would think Abian is a genius the moment he supports his equations with
arguments that are sound. No matter how many `bright' people disagree.
-Ron Maimon
Roland Karlsson
abian> Do you understand! Whatever you call Time in GR is
abian> NOT THE ABSOLUTE TIME THAT I AM PROPOSING !!!
OK, so you are proposing something you call TIME and that is not what
other people call time. And this TIME is defined by:
abian> 1/T + 1/log M = 1.
OK, I can buy that. But it is inconvenient that TIME and time are
pronounced likewise. Or maybe they are not? But your conclusion
abian> TIME HAS INERTIA
is wrong. The correct conclusion is - TIME has log inertia.
--
Roland Karlsson SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Internet: rol...@sics.se Tel: +46 8 752 15 40 Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Telex: 812 6154 7011 SICS Ttx: 2401-812 6154 7011=SICS
Alexander Abian
THERE IS THE ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL TIME T WHICH IS MEASURED IN TERMS OF
THE MASS M OF THE COSMOS ACCORDING TO:
(A) 1/T + 1/log M = 1 with positive T, M < 1 Abian
where M = 1 Abian at the Big Bang T = 0 Abian
(or possible improved version of (A))
THE NOTION OF Time IN GENERAL RELATIVITY IS I L L U S O R Y !
Alexander Abian
In <ROLAND.93A...@helicon.sics.se> rol...@sics.se (Roland Karlsson)
writes:
> ..............
> OK, I can buy that. But it is inconvenient that TIME and time are
> pronounced likewise.
>--
>Roland Karlsson SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Abian answers:
As I have mentioned, my proposed TIME T is THE ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL TIME
since it is measured in terms of the Cosmic Mass M which is indeed
an ABSOLUTE CONCEPT ! What Concept could be more ABSOLUTE than M ?
So in order to distinguish between my TIME and the General Relativistic
Time which is an ILLUSION, I refer to my TIME T as
" THE ABSOLUTE TIME "
and to Time in Special or General Relativity as
" a Relativistic or Illusory Time "
Thank you. Sincerely, Alexander Abian
Roland Karlsson
Thanks Abian that you know have made very clear that what you call
TIME is _not_ what the rest of us call time. Your TIME is just some
function (proposed by yourself) of the total mass in the universe.
This makes it much easier to understand your postings but of course
also makes them less interesting to sci.physics.
By the way, what ORBIT and TILT do you think would be appropriate for
our planet?
--
Roland Karlsson SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
ap...@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
> > I have an office ten feet down the hall from Alex Abian and
> > I have a modest factoid to report. Alex retired last year and
> > we're short on office space so he has to yield his office (and
> > computer) by next Monday. It will be interesting to see if he
>
> still cling to our high-paying jobs and expensive toys; there is no more
> danger that traditional science will be overthrown by Abian's
> revolutionary theory that TIME HAS INERTIA.
I know this is kind of rough, but after busting my
hump to do innovative, leading edge physics for 8 years
of graduate school at one of the finest physics
graduate programs in the country,
publishing several papers in leading
refereed journals, doing a couple of low-paying
post-doctoral slave stints, and then being told
"Your credentials are excellent but there are just no positions"...
it makes me SICK that this fraud Abian was occupying one
of those precious slots.
If this is tenure in action, it should be abolished.
Thank you for allowing me to vent my
frustration.
Norman
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
Hunter Thompson
J. Lewis
Dr. Norman J. LaFave <laf...@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <ggPvL8i00gpIAPEVQ=@andrew.cmu.edu> Andrew C. Plotkin,
>ap...@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>> > I have an office ten feet down the hall from Alex Abian and
>> > I have a modest factoid to report. Alex retired last year and
>> > we're short on office space so he has to yield his office (and
>> > computer) by next Monday. It will be interesting to see if he
>> > sets up a net connection from home or really retires.
>>
>> Thank God that the forces of organized science have finally won. We can
>> still cling to our high-paying jobs and expensive toys; there is no more
>> danger that traditional science will be overthrown by Abian's
>> revolutionary theory that TIME HAS INERTIA.
>
>I know this is kind of rough, but after busting my
>hump to do innovative, leading edge physics for 8 years
>of graduate school at one of the finest physics
>graduate programs in the country,
>publishing several papers in leading
>refereed journals, doing a couple of low-paying
>post-doctoral slave stints, and then being told
>"Your credentials are excellent but there are just no positions"...
>it makes me SICK that this fraud Abian was occupying one
>of those precious slots.
With respect, Abian's work in mathematics appears to have been sound.
The "TIME HAS INERTIA" postings really constitute the pathetic end
to what appears to have been a solid and productive career.
And Abian is certainly not the first person to have become "crankish"
in his later days. Nor will he be the last. "There but for the
grace of God ..."
>
>If this is tenure in action, it should be abolished.
>
>Thank you for allowing me to vent my
>frustration.
>
>Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
Bruce Watson
:In <2489ir$b...@samba.oit.unc.edu> rupr...@physics.unc.edu (Mark Rupright)
:writes:
:
: Mr. Rupright please do not attempt to define what a science is
:or what a scientific "promise of testability some time in the future
:is". I can stop you cold just at the very beginning of your DEFINITION
:OF SCIENCE by asking you WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF THE
:WORD "DEFINITION".
..... AND DEFINE THE WORD "OF" WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.
--
Bruce Watson (wa...@scicom.alphacdc.com)
Alexander Abian
In <ROLAND.93A...@helicon.sics.se> rol...@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes:
>Thanks Abian that you now have made very clear that what you call
>TIME is _not_ what the rest of us call time. Your TIME is just some
>function (proposed by yourself) of the total mass in the universe.
>This makes it much easier to understand your postings but of course
>also makes them less interesting to sci.physics.
Abian answers:
For the past 90 years, people and especially the Physicists were
totally indoctrinated, imbued, mislead and misinformed about Time.
They based the foundation of Physics on a shabby, shoddy and illusory
notion of Time. They built their Physics on a quagmirish grounds.
They built their Physics on a shaky, shivering notion of Relativistic
Time.
The Physicists are so indoctrinated by the dictates and fanaticism
of the "authorities" by the status quo maintaining structure of the
scientific politbureau that they don't want even to admit THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ABSOLUTE TIME !
THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE TIME T it must and will be the cornerstone
of the Modern Physics.
THE ABSOLUTE TIME IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE MASS M OF THE COSMOS
AND NO PHYSICS CAN BE CONVINCING UNLESS IT RELATES TIME TO THE
ENTIRE COSMOS.
Whether T and M are related via 1/T + 1/log M = 1 or by
some improved version of it, is not the immediate issue. The
immediate issue and the immediate agenda IS TO ACCEPT AND ADMIT
THE EXISTENCE OF THE ABSOLUTE TIME.
Mr. Karlsson, THE CONCEPT OF THE ABSOLUTE TIME MUST BE THE
ITEM OF THE IMMENSE INTEREST, Preoccupation, focus, and
research of THE PHYSICISTS and SCIENTISTS. Nothing is and
can be more interesting and more radically important than T !.
>By the way, what ORBIT and TILT do you think would be appropriate for
>our planet?
Abian answers:
I hope that this year's natural disasters, calamities and tragedies
(which by the way are perennial since time immemorial) would convince
people that THE ORBIT AND THE TILT OF THE EARTH ARE DECAYING,
DECADENT AND WICKED. BESIDES CREATING DISASTROUS AND DISMAL MISERIES
ALL OVER THE GLOBE, THE TREACHEROUS ORBIT AND THE TILT OF THE EARTH
CREATES, NURTURES, MAINTAINS , SUSTAINS AND SPREADS DEADLY EPIDEMICS
SUCH AS AIDS.
The perfidious, deceitful, insidious and criminal ORBIT and THE
TILT OF THE EARTH should be overthrown and ALTERED.
Mr. Karlsson, the new parameters of the Earth's orbit and the
Tilt must be determined by a very careful study and computer-
ized simulations, etc.
With love, Alexander Abian.
Ron Maimon
|>
|> In science, like in other disciplines, it is not enough to give an
|> answer, you must be prepared to justify it in an appropriate manner. When
|> anyone says something is what he or she "thinks" it is, well, that is not
|> a correct or wrong answer, it is a non-answer, since it gives no information
|> in and of itself. It could be true, it could be false.
|> If Debussy did not wish to discuss his ideas, he had no business in
|> a university, period. So his answer was wrong, even if it was factually
|> correct in hindsight.
You are right that there is no place in a college for discussing art, while
there is a place for discussing science. Art is a personal, subjective
experience which can't be `taught', there is nothing to teach. You either
get it or you don't, and theres nothing that can be said to help you either
way. In science, you can know things and explain them.
There is a big distinction, though, between knowing something and knowing the
name of something. This has been said by many people, I associate it with
Feynman, and I would just like to second this sentiment.
If you know that light travels in a path of least time, you know no more and
no less when you find out that this is called Fermat's principle. If you know
that Fuv,u = Ju you know no more and no less when you find out that these are
called Maxwell's equations. Many, many times, books offer an `explanation' of
a physical phenomenon by a name, instead of a description. The worst of this
type of explanation is the famous one that everyone gives for "How do Airplanes
fly?" The answer is usually "Bernoulli's principle says that if air is moving
at a higher speed, it has less pressure than air moving at a slower speed, and
the air on the top of the wing is moving faster" It doesn't take a genius to
see that this is not much of an explanation!
(in addition, this is extremely misleading. If you imagine a wing shaped like so:
___
/ \
-----------------------
a long flat part, a bump, and then another long flat part, the air on top
will have to cross the bump, and therefore will have a higher speed, but
somehow, this wing will generate no lift. If you don't believe me, think
about momentum conservation. The air at the beginning is moving horizontally,
and at the end it is moving horizontally. There is no verticle transfer of
momentum from the air to the wing, and therefore no force in the up or down
direction.
The principle of momentum conservation is much more immediate than Bernoullis
principle. It can be demonstrated to hold by a few symmetry considerations
for a large class of collisions, and it is immediatly observable in nature.
a real airplane wing always deflects air downward, that is why it generates lift.
The following discussion gives a physical understanding of the situation. The
statement of Bernoullis principle does not, unless of course, you justify
Bernoulli's Principle! )
|> Extending into science, it is not important that SOMEONE have the
|> truth in their heads. People are capricious, they are foolish, and they
|> make all kinds of mistakes and errors in judgement. It is only worth
|> anything if that information can be communicated to the scientific community
|> and presented in convincing manner.
|>
Well, I must say that the scientific community is often foolish, capricious,
and makes all kinds of mistakes and errors of judgement. I trust my own
understanding of physics much more than anyone elses. This is not to say that
communicating ideas isn't important, in fact most of everything I know I learned
from something someone said or wrote. What is not important, however, is concensus
The truth is the truth (in science), even if only a handful believe it.
|>
|> And besides, everyone knows what a sonnet is. Don't they?
|>
I didn't know until I read the post. I listen to Sugar, not Debussy.
- Ron Maimon
Duane Takamine
>
>ABIAN ANSWERS:
>
> TIME is one of the most fundamental items in Physics
>
>
>(I say) TIME IS WHAT I SAY TIME IS. IT is MASS and IT is measured
> by a COSMIC ENERGYMETER or a COSMIC MASSMETER according to
> 1/T + 1/log M = 1
>
>
>(you say) TIME IS WHAT YOU SAY TIME IS . IT is MEASURED BY
> A CLOCK
>
>Do you see the parallelism ? (in the final analysis everyone says
> "because I say so")
>
Sorry, I must have a problem with parallelism. When most everyone
else says TIme is what clocks measure, that is based on the notion
(reasonable to most) that Time has no meaning outside of the context of
a relative measure of events; we measure the duration of a particular
event relative to the duration of other events, and we pick basis
events (like clock ticks) based on a careful study of their consistancy.
Thus, When I say Time is what a clock measures, I am stating a defintion
of Time which is generally supported by the use of the abstract concept of
Time in a physics setting. I could also have stated that Time is one
dimention of the 4-D manifold that is the fabric of space-time, redefintion
duration definitions into a projecction of the space-time path an event
takes onto that dimention. This is supported by GR, and again is a
defintion of Time which has been shown to have specific uses in a
relativistic setting.
Your definition of Time says nothing specific of any value within
the context of defining event durations. It is equivalent to saying
TIME IS PIZZA, or TIME IS MONEY. Both of these statements might turn
out to mean something, but what they mean lie outside the bounds of
physics.
>> Shabby and whimsical perhaps, but "causal?"
>
>Abian: I said "CASUAL" not "causal"
I apologize, I mistyped. Let me rephrase:
"Casual?"
>
>>
>> We already have overwhelming proof of time dilation and
>> relative passage of time.
>>>
>Abian: This is precisely my criticism. THE NOTION OF TIME MUST
> BE ABSOLUTE, as I have proposed.
This is not valid criticism. First, in relativity the NOTION of time
is absolute, since it is not a physical quantity that changes, but rather
a defintion. Since Time is merely that in which events take place,
relativistic effects don't change the NOTION of time. They do have something
to say about the relative PASSAGE of time. There is a radical difference.
Secondly, while science sometimes advances because someone says "Dammit,
things must be SO!" usually, that feeling, when not directly supported
by facts, turns out to be wrong.
>
> so your dilating time IS NOT THE ABSOLUTE TIME THAT I
> AM PROPOSING !
>
> Do you understand! Whatever you call Time in GR is
> NOT THE ABSOLUTE TIME THAT I AM PROPOSING !!!
>
> Forget about the concept of dilating relative TIME,
>
> That Time is not THE FUNDAMENTAL ITEM OF PHYSICS!
Since that Time that relativity refers to accurately jibes with the
relative duration of events, it is the only Time physics is interested in.
Your Time, if it does match relativistic predictions, cannot be the Time
physics refers to in the context of the passage of events, which is the only
context in which Time has any meaning at all. Whatever your Absolute Time
is, one thing it definitely is is a misnomer.
>
>
>> Don't be silly. By your own ridiculous formula, we measure the
>>mass of the universe with a Casio wristwatch, accurate to several decimal
>>places of course. Obviously you don't believe your own theories very far.
>
>Abian: Please do not use expressions such as "Don't be silly"
> I am quite capable to answer "Don't be silly yourself"!
> You know very well that I can answer alike ! So, please
> stop the verbal arrogance. It is useless.
>
> Again you are using verbal arrogance "your own ridiculous
> formula" My answer is "your own ridiculous formula yourself"
>
> In fact, I will add that E = mcc is ridiculous not
> 1/T + 1/log M = 1.
>
> Finally, "you don't believe your own theories very far yourself"
> I do believe in my theories!
I noticed that you deleted your original statement, but left my
comment to it and referred to it. Let me restate for the home audience.
You stated in your post that you had no way of measuring the
"Absolute Mass" of the Universe, yet your own formula states a relationship
between that quantity and yourr "Absolute Time." If the only thing that
your absolute time quantitatively relates to is the absolute mass of the
universe, then it is a concept of limited value. If, on the other hand,
you think that your Absoute Time is something which can itself be
measured, then clearly you have the means to quantitatively measure
the absolute mass of the universe. So, either your concept of Time
is overly limited, or you were in error when stating your lack of ability
to measure. Which is it? Or are you going to conduct another outburst?
That, in itself, will also be a suitable answer for the home audience.
>
>SO, IN SHORT: THE TIME INTRODUCED IN GR IS NOT THE ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL
> TIME THAT I AM PROPOSING ! MY TIME IS A MOST FUNDAMENTAL ITEM
> IN PHYSICS. THE DILATING RELATIVE TIME OF GR IS ILLUSORY!
Then, merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream, since
the effects of time dilation in relativity have been demonstrated under
controlled, repeatable experiments.
>
> I am glad that apparently you did not read my posting: HARMONICITY vs
> ANALYTICITY and spared me from reading verbal temerities !
No, I was unfortunately not so spared.
Duane Takamine
>In article <abian.7...@du139-202.cc.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>In <ROLAND.93A...@helicon.sics.se> rol...@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes:
>
>>Thanks Abian that you now have made very clear that what you call
>>TIME is _not_ what the rest of us call time. Your TIME is just some
>>function (proposed by yourself) of the total mass in the universe.
>>This makes it much easier to understand your postings but of course
>>also makes them less interesting to sci.physics.
>
>
>Abian answers:
>
>For the past 90 years, people and especially the Physicists were
>totally indoctrinated, imbued, mislead and misinformed about Time.
>They based the foundation of Physics on a shabby, shoddy and illusory
>notion of Time. They built their Physics on a quagmirish grounds.
>They built their Physics on a shaky, shivering notion of Relativistic
>Time.
>The Physicists are so indoctrinated by the dictates and fanaticism
>of the "authorities" by the status quo maintaining structure of the
>scientific politbureau that they don't want even to admit THE
>EXISTENCE OF AN ABSOLUTE TIME !
Perhaps it should just be stated now, for the record. Physics
isn't "based" on any notion of time at all, any more than Physics is
based on a notion of distance. We define distance in a particular
way, and as our understanding of physics grows we realize that certain
ways of defining distance are more useful than others, but Physics
itself isn't "based" on a notion of distance. The concept of space
and distance get improved as our experience grows, but it must always
agree with observations and theories which are based on those observations.
Some people might get the impression that there is some fundamental
"need" for physics to have certain concepts, at the abstract level, and they
have little labels like SPACE, and TIME, and MASS. No way. We define
abstracts like space and time and mass to better encapsulate and
discuss physical observation. Our notion of time is based on that; Time
is the abstract concept which physics defines to allow us to meaningfully
discuss events, causality, entropy, whatever -> the observable universe
in general.
Abian seems to be under the impression that there is a holy
blackboard somewhere, with a big heading on it "SPACE" and he thinks
physicists arbitrarily filled in underneath "What clocks measure."
In fact, the reverse is true. Physics first decided that "what clocks measure"
was an important concept to define, and then wrote "TIME" over it.
Abians "Time" does not connect to the original reason for defining time
in the first place, and thus is a misnomer. Physics is not "based" on
a notion of time, and thus changing that basis to his definition is
literally impossible. His concept of "Abian Time" which is notiong more
than a quantification of mass might one day prove useful, but not in the
context of time, and in any case he has yet to show a context where it is
useful.
By the way, Abian states that the mass of the univese is
absolute, and also that it decreases. I assume, therefore, that he means
the quantification of the mass of the universe is absolute, in which
case, yes, it is, but then again ALL quantifications are absolute.
The mass of my computer is absolute (although changing slightly as
time goes on). Why not "base" physics on it?
It is very easy to make glib statements like "Nothing can be more
absolute than the mass of the unvierse" but demonstrating why such
statements are useful are something else entirely.
Duane Takamine
>In article <CBzEI...@unix.portal.com>, du...@shell.portal.com (Duane Takamine) writes:
>|>
>|> In science, like in other disciplines, it is not enough to give an
>|> answer, you must be prepared to justify it in an appropriate manner. When
>|> anyone says something is what he or she "thinks" it is, well, that is not
>|> a correct or wrong answer, it is a non-answer, since it gives no information
>|> in and of itself. It could be true, it could be false.
>
>|> If Debussy did not wish to discuss his ideas, he had no business in
>|> a university, period. So his answer was wrong, even if it was factually
>|> correct in hindsight.
>
>You are right that there is no place in a college for discussing art, while
>there is a place for discussing science. Art is a personal, subjective
>experience which can't be `taught', there is nothing to teach. You either
>get it or you don't, and theres nothing that can be said to help you either
>way. In science, you can know things and explain them.
Whoa. I did not say that there was no place for art in college.
What I said was the idea of a university is free discussion of ideas,
in an academic setting. Discussing art is not necessarily bad, but
claiming that you know an answer, but nyah, nyah, I'm not going to tell you,
or I know the answer, and I know I'm right so why bother telling you
are not proper in that academic setting. I said I would have, under the
circumstances presented above, flunked Debussy's pompous ass, to be
blunt.
>
>There is a big distinction, though, between knowing something and knowing the
>name of something. This has been said by many people, I associate it with
>Feynman, and I would just like to second this sentiment.
I agree, although I'm not sure how this relates to by initial post.
>|> Extending into science, it is not important that SOMEONE have the
>|> truth in their heads. People are capricious, they are foolish, and they
>|> make all kinds of mistakes and errors in judgement. It is only worth
>|> anything if that information can be communicated to the scientific community
>|> and presented in convincing manner.
>|>
>
>Well, I must say that the scientific community is often foolish, capricious,
>and makes all kinds of mistakes and errors of judgement. I trust my own
>understanding of physics much more than anyone elses. This is not to say that
>communicating ideas isn't important, in fact most of everything I know I learned
>from something someone said or wrote. What is not important, however, is concensus
>The truth is the truth (in science), even if only a handful believe it.
The scientific community is often foolish, capricious, and amkes
all kinds of mistakes and errors of judgement because it is comprised,
for the most part, of human beings. However, while it is true that "the
truth is the truth" it helps no one, educates no one, and improves science
nill, if it is contained in one head which eventually dies. The most
fundamental axiom in Science, with the capital "S" is that the truth will
in the long run win out. It hasn't ever been proven, but it seems to be a
good rule to follow. We have a better understanding of the world today than
yesterday, and the trend is likely to continue. Consensus cuts both
ways. It sometimes makes it hard for the innovators, but it also tends
to strongly delete the cranks, and the premise is that if we never step
very far backward, we will eventually head forward.
Ed Krauss
: In <ROLAND.93A...@helicon.sics.se> rol...@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes:
: >By the way, what ORBIT and TILT do you think would be appropriate for
: >our planet?
: Abian answers:
: I hope that this year's natural disasters, calamities and tragedies
: (which by the way are perennial since time immemorial) would convince
: people that THE ORBIT AND THE TILT OF THE EARTH ARE DECAYING,
: DECADENT AND WICKED. BESIDES CREATING DISASTROUS AND DISMAL MISERIES
: ALL OVER THE GLOBE, THE TREACHEROUS ORBIT AND THE TILT OF THE EARTH
: CREATES, NURTURES, MAINTAINS , SUSTAINS AND SPREADS DEADLY EPIDEMICS
: SUCH AS AIDS.
Is the earth's orbit, in fact, decaying? Do you have data showing
this? And just how, as you it, does the earth's 'treacherous orbit'
cause something like AIDS?
--
Ed Krauss Berkeley, California e...@netcom.com
Ed Krauss
: By the way, Abian states that the mass of the univese is
: the quantification of the mass of the universe is absolute, in which
: case, yes, it is, but then again ALL quantifications are absolute.
If the mass of the universe is an absolute and meaningful quantity,
could one also speak of the center of mass of the universe, and hense
define a preferred reference frame?
John C. Baez
>|>
>|> In science, like in other disciplines, it is not enough to give an
>|> answer, you must be prepared to justify it in an appropriate manner. When
>|> anyone says something is what he or she "thinks" it is, well, that is not
>|> a correct or wrong answer, it is a non-answer, since it gives no
>|>information in and of itself. It could be true, it could be false.
>
>|> If Debussy did not wish to discuss his ideas, he had no business in
>|> a university, period. So his answer was wrong, even if it was factually
>|> correct in hindsight.
>
>You are right that there is no place in a college for discussing art, while
>there is a place for discussing science. Art is a personal, subjective
>experience which can't be `taught', there is nothing to teach. You either
>get it or you don't, and theres nothing that can be said to help you either
>way.
Takamine did not say there was no place in college for discussing art,
he said Debussy had no place in college if he didn't want to discuss
art! It's not true that there is nothing to be taught in art. Consider
music, the art I know best. Harmony theory is a complex and nontrivial
branch of knowledge. Knowing it will not, in and of itself, make one a
good musician. Nonetheless, knowing it has helped many a musician.
This is why, for example, Bach copied the scores of all of Vivaldi's
works by hand, and why Schoenberg wrote a book on classical harmony
theory: despite the fact that both were revolutionaries, they realized
the importance of mastering the tradition. Science and music are not so
different this way. Indeed, for a long period of Western history music was
regarded as a science, part of the quadrivium, right up there with
arithmetic, geometry and astronomy.
Some people, interestingly, take the same attitude with physics that
Maimon does with art: "you either get it or you don't."
Duane Takamine
Not necessarily. A finite curved spacetime, say a hypersphere,
could have its "center of gravity" outside the spacetime manifold,
in essence, no center of gravity.
Alexander Abian
Mr. Takamine writes:
>................................. much deleted
4~
>................... Our notion of time is based on that; Time
>is the abstract concept which physics defines to allow us to meaningfully
>discuss events, causality, entropy, whatever -> the observable universe
>in general.
Abian writes:
Mr. Takamine, believe me that I am not trying to play with words.
But in your above notion of Time, the words:
(*) events, causality, entropy, whatever, the observable universe
that you used, do they convey concepts less complicated and more fundamental
than the concept of my TIME ! or even your dilating Time . Are the
words in (*) more comprehensible and more intuitive than Time ?
Especially your "observable universe " ! who is the observer ?
whose observations ? Show me "an observer of the Universe other than me,
that I can trust !
The words in (*) are repeated by the politbureau of Physics ruling class
and physics political establishment so often, so repeatedly often, so
relentlessly often that they became "party line slogans".
Just as " Marx-Leninistic slogans " and "Stlinian dialectics".
Physicists for 70 years repeated that kind of slogans and were basing
their concepts on them in USSR. They believed in them, they verified
them experimentally, they checked that they are in conformity with
the observable universe, with socialistic dialectic, etc. Even they
cried when Stalin died, morning the death and the passing of the greatest
"observer of the Universe".
GR and its believers are doing precisely the same. I am telling you
TIME is a most fundamental item in Physics. It is equivalent
to Mass. Your party line followers disagree with my views because
they are under the hypnotic indoctrinations of the melancholic,
patronizing Einstein's ocular gaze ! What a sad and patronizing gaze
Einstein's eyes have!.
TIME is fundamental in Physics. It is the Life, the moving spirit
of Physics !
Mr. Takamine writes:
>Abians "Time" does not connect to the original reason for defining time
>in the first place, and thus is a misnomer.
Abian answers:
So according to you there is the original reason for DEFINING time !
Please give me that DEFINITION, please !. But please do not repeat the
party line "Time is what a clock measures " - whose clock ! is it moving
with a fantastic speed in this Universe, is its movement accelerating ?
Mr. Takamine writers:
>Physics is not "based" on a notion of time, and thus changing that basis to
his definition is literally impossible. His concept of "Abian Time" which is
>nothing more than a quantification of mass might one day prove useful, but
not in the context of time, and in any case he has yet to show a context
where it is useful.
Abian answers:
Physics must be based on the notion of TIME and it will be based
on that notion. It is not literally impossible ! It will be done.
You write: " it is very easy to make glib statement "Abian
Time" which is nothing more than a quantification of mass " Yes,
very easy, however, after I introduced that concept. Naturally, after an
enigma is broken there is nothing easier than to state it !!
Moreover, looking for an immediate usefulness of a revolutionary idea of
cosmic magnitude smacks with "the supermarket mentality !"
Mr. Takamine, in another posting you remarked that "Time dilation is
experimentally verified many, many, times " I wish further experiments
show even much more extensive dilation of GR Time. This only confirms my
view that GR's Time is shabby, shoddy and illusory item and should be
discarded as a serious scientific item ! The serious scientific TIME
must be directly connected to the mass of the Universe, as proposed by me !
With best regards and affection, Alexander Abian
Alexander Abian
I am being bombarded with e-mails and messages stating that::
"Experiments have shown over and over again that
Time dilates according to the Theory of Relativity"
I do not deny that, in fact I wish that further experiments will show that the
Relativistic Time dilates much more violently and extensively. This will
only prove my point that the Relativistic Time is a shabby, shoddy, shaky and
illusory item.
I still maintain that TIME is a most essential, basic and fundamental item
in science and particularly in Physics ( many basic Equations of Physics
involve Differentiation w.r.t TIME). In fact TIME is a most essential item
in the Physics of the Entire Cosmos. This is why TIME should be related to
the mass M of the Cosmos. There is no other way !!! That is why I introduced
the notion of the Absolute TIME and related it to the mass M of the Cosmos
by the (many, many times repeated well known) formula:
1/T + 1/log M = 1 positive T, M < 1 Abian
with M = 1 Abian at the Big Bang T = 0 Abian
expressing the Equivalence of Time and Mass.
Alexander Abian.
Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal
: Just as " Marx-Leninistic slogans " and "Stlinian dialectics".
: Physicists for 70 years repeated that kind of slogans and were basing
: their concepts on them in USSR. They believed in them, they verified
: them experimentally, they checked that they are in conformity with
: the observable universe, with socialistic dialectic, etc. Even they
: cried when Stalin died, morning the death and the passing of the greatest
: "observer of the Universe".
When the next paradigm shift comes, you will be first against the wall.
: patronizing Einstein's ocular gaze ! What a sad and patronizing gaze
: Einstein's eyes have!.
Duane Takamine
>
> "Experiments have shown over and over again that
> Time dilates according to the Theory of Relativity"
>
>I do not deny that, in fact I wish that further experiments will show that the
>Relativistic Time dilates much more violently and extensively. This will
>only prove my point that the Relativistic Time is a shabby, shoddy, shaky and
>illusory item.
Relativisitc Time doesn't dilate. Under relativisitic conditions
time dilates. Our concept of time is based on the notion of space-time
events, the only context under which time has any significant meaning.
When we say time dilates, we are saying nothing more or less than events
which are synchronized when they take place in the same frame of reference
need not be synchronized when they take place in varying frames of reference.
This has been demonstrated. Time is not a shaky item because it is not
an item at all. Lets remove the semantic confusion:
Relativity states that events which are synchronized in one frame
of reference need not be synchronized when they take place in varying
frames of reference. This lorentz-invariant effect has been demonstrated.
Therefore, relativity has been shown at least to fit current observations.
Abian states that the universe has a well-defined mass, that mass
relates to an abstract concept which he insists on referring to as Time,
and that this abstract quantity and the mass of the universe obey a
certain relationship. This may or may not be true, but it has not been
demonstrated to have any significance, since it does not tie significantly
to any theories with either testable predictions or simpler models of
complex behavior.
Ric Peregrino
Duane Takamine writes:
>...
> Abian states that the universe has a well-defined mass, that mass
>relates to an abstract concept which he insists on referring to as Time,
>and that this abstract quantity and the mass of the universe obey a
>certain relationship. This may or may not be true, but it has not been
>demonstrated to have any significance, since it does not tie significantly
>to any theories with either testable predictions or simpler models of
>complex behavior.
Ah, but there are testable predictions of a drop in mass over time.
The charge to mass ratio of the electron would increase over time.
I've posted and emailed this to Abian, and he actually came up with some
numbers, but the numbers were such that given current accuracy on the
measure the charge to mass ratio, then several thousands of years would
have to elapse before a noticeable change in the ratio could be detected.
I started to consider if a more sensitive measure might be used, like the
planetary orbits around the Sun of decreasing mass, however, too many other
effects were involved; the Sun loses mass through radiation, etc.
I think Abian's formula is just a hypothesis that should be treated as
any other. I think it's unfortunate that Abian insists that he is right
and ignores verification with experimantal data; not to mention his
incescent repetitious prose denouncing other theories.
R. Peregrino, I speak only for myself. r...@vid.hp.com
Joel Polowin
>I think Abian's formula is just a hypothesis that should be treated as
>any other. I think it's unfortunate that Abian insists that he is right
>and ignores verification with experimantal data; not to mention his
>incescent repetitious prose denouncing other theories.
>
Abian has made a number of testable predictions over the last year or so
that I've been skimming this group. All have turned out to contradict
lots and *lots* of existing experimental data. Examples:
* Concentrated sulfuric acid seeks the security of maintaining its purity
when mixed with water, by creating heat in an attempt to boil the water
away. (Conc. H2SO4 will quite happily absorb water vapor from even rather
dry air, "trying" to become more dilute.)
* The "stability" of a subatomic particle varies inversely with its mass.
(Electrons are stable, mesons tend to decay *really* quickly, protons are
sort of more or less stable, I think, and free neutrons have a half-life
of a few minutes. Perhaps Abian means something else by "stability", but
if so, he hasn't answered when challenged on this point.)
* Most of the interactions that are generally considered to vary as 1/r^2,
such as gravitational attraction, charge-charge interaction, and decrease
of radiation intensity with distance, REALLY vary as 1/r^3. (Need I say
more?)
Joel
pol...@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, pol...@chem.queensu.ca,
polo...@qucdn.queensu.ca
Alexander Abian
> ..............Under relativistic conditions time dilates.
Abian answers:
I never denied that. In fact, as I mentioned, I wish and I hope that the
further experiments will show that Time dilates violently, erraticly and
capriciously. I wish and hope that the further experiments will show that
Time dilates impetuously, furiously, passionately and zealously !
That will only confirm my views that Time in the Relativity Theory,
is a shabby, shoddy, illusory and freakish notion, concept and item.
Takamine writes:
>Our concept of time is based on the notion of space-time
>events, the only context under which time has any significant meaning.
Abian answers:
The above is the Relativity politbureau's party line. It is a myth.
No wonder that there is a multitude of mutually incompatible explanations
of the "Twin Paradox" which miraculously at the end all confirm the party
line.
Takamine writes:
>When we say time dilates, we are saying nothing more or less than events
>which are synchronized when they take place in the same frame of reference
>need not be synchronized when they take place in varying frames of reference.
>This has been demonstrated.
Abian answers:
Demonstrations have been doctored to fit the Relativity politbureau's
party line.
Takamine writes:
>Time is not a shaky item because it is not an item at all.
Abian answers:
If your Time has none of the qualities of an item it must not belong to the
Physics. Physics deals primarily with items !! Everything must be reduced
to the MASS-item. That is why I have defined the UNIVERSAL TIME T (or
ABIAN TIME as others have called it) in terms of MASS, in terms of the Cosmic
Mass M and denote it by capital letters as; TIME !
Do I have to rewrite my formula ?! (it is in my signature>
Takamine writes:
> Abian states that the universe has a well-defined mass, that mass
>relates to an abstract concept which he insists on referring to as Time,
>and that this abstract quantity and the mass of the universe obey a
>certain relationship. This may or may not be true, but it has not been
>demonstrated to have any significance, since it does not tie significantly
>to any theories with either testable predictions or simpler models of
>complex behavior.
Abian answers:
Mr. Takamine, do not assume a theory could be false or not significant just
because it is not immediately experimentally verified ! This kind of
assumption is extremely unwise. There are numerous counter examples
to that assumption. For many many years Copernicus' theories were not
verified experimentally. It definitely motivated Galileo and others to
question the prevailing views of the Physics politburea of that time. Is
this circumstance not significant enough !!!
Sincerely, Alexander Abian