# TIME HAS INERTIA - A challenge for Abian

14 views

### Doug Simpkinson

Nov 18, 1992, 5:21:18 PM11/18/92
to
use any of the "noises" of famous bravo-sierra purveyors such as Newton,
Einstein, Hamilton, et al. Among the problems you may wish to address:

Compute the trajectory of a particle of mass m in a uniform gravitational
field (or the Abian equivalent) equal to earth's at sea level given an
initial velocity, neglecting air resistance. Simplifying, How high will a 1
kg ball go if I throw it straight up at a velocity of 20 m/s? Where will it
land if I throw it at a 45 degree angle to the vertical?

What is the kinetic energy of the muon in the rest frame of the pion in
the decay
pi+ -> mu+ + neutrino
given the following masses:
Mpi+ = 139.5675 MeV/c^2
Mmu+ = 105.658387 MeV/c^2
Mnu ~ 0

What are the energy levels of the Hydrogen atom? This one took my QM
professor many months to calculate in class (3 hours per week), I'm sure
that with your new theory it should take a few minutes.

Design a nuclear weapon and calculate its yield. Make sure to mention
Hitler at least 3 times.

Design and build a working computer from scratch - and I do mean
scratch. Abandon the silly noises of traditional engineering.
Transistors? I don't got to show you no STEENKING transistors. Start with,
say, sand, and end with something with at least 20 MIPS.

How many people will Ted Bundy kill when provoked with a Marilyn
Monroe-type temptress?

As you can see, the scope of your magnificent theory is very broad. In
fact, of the above questions, the last does not fall into the scope of
physics, and thus should not be addressed in this newsgroup. Is there
perhaps a sci.psychology group you have yet to enlighten?

Awaiting a quantitative answer with baited breath,

Doug Simpkinson
doug...@ocf.berkeley.edu
d...@soda.berkeley.edu

### Alexander Abian

Nov 18, 1992, 10:04:45 PM11/18/92
to
In <1eefku...@agate.berkeley.edu> d...@soda.berkeley.edu

11-18-92

Dear Mr. Simpkinson you wrote:

>use any of the "noises" of famous bravo-sierra purveyors such as Newton,
>Einstein, Hamilton, et al. Among the problems you may wish to address:

I cannot quantify anything with my Theory because I do not know

what A is in my E = M(0) exp(-At)

and I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER. I am expecting that the talent-
ed Physicists will use my brilliant fundamentally revolutionizing idea:

(A2) TIME HAS INERTIA (i.e., TIME IS MATTER) and some energy is
irretrievably dissipated for moving TIME forward. Thus,
the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be rejected.

and accordingly revise all their outmoded 19-th century conservation
principle-based quantifications. Then you will tell me how to quantify
the items raised in your questions.
I supply the radically new and revolutionizing ideas - let the
others quantify. I have said several times:
REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE and if needed QUANTIFY ! (I seldom need
quantification !).

However, based om my very vague intuitive feelings, my vague and nebulous

> Compute the trajectory of a particle of mass m in a uniform gravitational
>field (or the Abian equivalent) equal to earth's at sea level given an
>initial velocity, neglecting air resistance. Simplifying, How high will a 1
>kg ball go if I throw it straight up at a velocity of 20 m/s? Where will it

>land if I throw it (with the same velocity of 20 m/s) at a 45 degree angle
to the vertical?

would be:
(a) around 20.41 meters high

(b) twice as in (a), i.e., around 40.82 meters away.

I may be quite off since I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.

With best wishes and regards,
Alexander ABIAN

REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE and if needed QUANTIFY !

--
The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.
TIME HAS INERTIA and some energy is lost to move Time forward
E = mcc (Einstein) must be replaced by E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)

### Francesco Di Tolla

Nov 19, 1992, 6:18:56 AM11/19/92
to
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

> REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE and if needed QUANTIFY ! (I seldom need
>quantification !).

Let me quntify: you are filling the news with a lot of bullshit!
Let say bullshit in capitals!!
:0
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Francesco D. Di Tolla | Intern. School for Advanced Studies |
| Dip. di Fisica Univ. di Trento | SISSA/ISAS via Beirut, 2-4 |
| I-38050 Povo (TN) | I-34013 Trieste |

### Alexander Abian

Nov 19, 1992, 1:10:47 PM11/19/92
to
In article <1992Nov19....@itnsg1.cineca.it> dit...@itnsg1.cineca.it (Francesco Di Tolla) writes:
>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>> REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE and if needed QUANTIFY ! (I seldom need
>>quantification !).
>
>Let me quntify: you are filling the news with a lot of bullshit!
>Let say bullshit in capitals!!

11-19-92

ABIAN replies to Francesco Di TOLLA:

Mr. Di TOLLA,

You are full of beta-sigma.

Sincerely,
Alexander ABIAN

### Doug Simpkinson

Nov 20, 1992, 7:20:05 PM11/20/92
to
In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>In <1eefku...@agate.berkeley.edu> d...@soda.berkeley.edu
>>use any of the "noises" of famous bravo-sierra purveyors such as Newton,
>>Einstein, Hamilton, et al. Among the problems you may wish to address:
>
>
> I cannot quantify anything with my Theory because I do not know
>
> what A is in my E = M(0) exp(-At)

Then leave your answer in terms of A, and experiment will find A.

>and accordingly revise all their outmoded 19-th century conservation
>principle-based quantifications. Then you will tell me how to quantify
>the items raised in your questions.
> I supply the radically new and revolutionizing ideas - let the
>others quantify. I have said several times:

Not the way to win a Nobel Prize. First of all, your radically new ideas
need be based on something real - i.e. strange results of an experiment,
consequences of existing theory, OR, it must make testable QUANTIFIED
predictions that are different from existing theory, which are born up by
later experiment, or at least conceivable experiments. So, which is it?

> REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE and if needed QUANTIFY ! (I seldom need
>quantification !).

Is the following an acceptable proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra?

(NCC-1701D) Given Lemma (A1), the FTA is proven!! QED.

This is exactly the sort of thing you are saying. If, as you say, you
seldom need quantification, then you are not a physicist in the least. In
this case, Dr. Abian, it is needed. Please do it now, or ask someone better
at whatever it is that makes you vague and nebulous to help you. Simply
stating proofs like my above (NCC-1701D) is useless. Remember, just as
there are rules that apply in mathematics, there are rules in physics. The
prime directive of physics is GET THE CORRECT ANSWER. However, equally
important, SHOW YOUR WORK SO THAT OTHERS MAY FOLLOW. (see below)

>
> However, based om my very vague intuitive feelings, my vague and nebulous
>
>> Compute the trajectory of a particle of mass m in a uniform gravitational
>>field (or the Abian equivalent) equal to earth's at sea level given an
>>initial velocity, neglecting air resistance. Simplifying, How high will a 1
>>kg ball go if I throw it straight up at a velocity of 20 m/s? Where will it
>>land if I throw it (with the same velocity of 20 m/s) at a 45 degree angle
>to the vertical?
>
>would be:
> (a) around 20.41 meters high
>
> (b) twice as in (a), i.e., around 40.82 meters away.

Wow. I am not impressed in the least. Your "vague and nebulous" answers are
correct. They agree with Newtonian mechanics to 1 cm. But, you probably
knew that, as that is most assuredly what you used to calculate them. If I
were to grade this as an exam, you would get 0 points for not showing any
work. I haven't answered anything in this manner since my 3rd grade teacher
work.

>I may be quite off since I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.

No, you are correct, however, this statement might give you minus points for
being a smart-ass. Part of thinking up new ideas is thinking up
theoretically possible ways to test them. Please design a COSMIC
ENERGYMETER, it need not be practical to build, just theoretically
possible. Please design a way to use it, subject to the same constraints.

> REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE and if needed QUANTIFY !

But you create only tautologies, untestable statements, and falsehoods, and
you reason and explain in circles. You have yet to quantify anything, and I
assure you, if you wish to earn a Nobel Prize, or see your theory come to
anything, it is needed.

Regards,
Doug Simpkinson
doug...@ocf.berkeley.edu
d...@soda.berkeley.edu

### E. Mark Ping

Nov 20, 1992, 7:24:02 PM11/20/92
to
In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
}In <1eefku...@agate.berkeley.edu> d...@soda.berkeley.edu
}
} 11-18-92
}Dear Mr. Simpkinson you wrote:
}
}
}>use any of the "noises" of famous bravo-sierra purveyors such as Newton,
}>Einstein, Hamilton, et al. Among the problems you may wish to address:
}
}
} I cannot quantify anything with my Theory because I do not know
}
} what A is in my E = M(0) exp(-At)
}
}and I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER. I am expecting that the talent-
}ed Physicists will use my brilliant fundamentally revolutionizing idea:

[stuff deleted]

}> Compute the trajectory of a particle of mass m in a uniform gravitational
}>field (or the Abian equivalent) equal to earth's at sea level given an
}>initial velocity, neglecting air resistance. Simplifying, How high will a 1
}>kg ball go if I throw it straight up at a velocity of 20 m/s? Where will it
}>land if I throw it (with the same velocity of 20 m/s) at a 45 degree angle
}to the vertical?
}
}would be:
} (a) around 20.41 meters high
}
} (b) twice as in (a), i.e., around 40.82 meters away.
}

I do believe that the challenge was to use *your* theory to make these
calculations.

------------
E. Mark Ping
ema...@soda.Berkeley.EDU

"Stand aside, I take large steps." --Michael Dorn
"Say, that's a nice bike." --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
"Pituita es." --Unknown Latin Scholar

### Alexander Abian

Nov 20, 1992, 8:04:16 PM11/20/92
to
Dear Messrs SIMPKINSON and PING 11-20-92

Thank you very much for your postings.

I wrote:

>>
>> I cannot quantify anything with my Theory because I do not know
>>
>> what A is in my E = M(0) exp(-At)

>Then leave your answer in terms of A, and experiment will find A.

In terms of A my answer is precisely

E= M(0) exp(-A)

and I hope that some brilliant experimentalists will find (as you sug-
gested) A and perhaps also M(0).

By the way, I find myself no match to your knowledge and overall
in TIME HAS INERTIA, but do not expect replies from me. You people
know much, much more than me.

With best wishes and regards.
Alexander ABIAN

### Doug Simpkinson

Nov 21, 1992, 10:56:19 PM11/21/92
to
In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>Dear Messrs SIMPKINSON and PING 11-20-92
>
> Thank you very much for your postings.

You are welcome.

>>> I cannot quantify anything with my Theory because I do not know
>>>
>>> what A is in my E = M(0) exp(-At)
>
>
>>Then leave your answer in terms of A, and experiment will find A.
>
>
> In terms of A my answer is precisely
>
> E= M(0) exp(-A)

I'll assume you mean E = M(0) exp(-At)

Have you read the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy? There is a race of
superintelligent beings that wish to know the ultimate answer of life the
universe and everything, so they build a computer. They ask the computer to
give them "The ultimate answer to l, u, & e." After several billion years,
the computer answers 42. At this, the race was outraged, but the computer
pointed out to them that they didn't really know what the question was. So,
Dr. Abian, to what is the answer

E = M(0) exp(-At)?

Please remember to answer in the form of a question. If the question is
How high will a 1-kg ball go if thrown straight up at 20 m/s at sea level?
then you lose. Since that is the last question of mine that you attempted

### sometimes a Wombat

Nov 19, 1992, 11:19:23 AM11/19/92
to
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

> d...@soda.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>
> I cannot quantify anything with my Theory because I do not know what
> A is in my E = M(0) exp(-At) and I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.

No, but you CAN produce calculations where A is a parameter in the

No?

Give us equations or go away.

Larry "Really" Hammer
--

L...@physics.arizona.edu \ Hidden harmony is better than manifest.
GEnie: L.HAMMER2 \ -- Heraclitus, #47

### John C. Baez

Nov 22, 1992, 8:32:25 PM11/22/92
to
In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
> In terms of A my answer is precisely
>
> E= M(0) exp(-A)
>
>and I hope that some brilliant experimentalists will find (as you sug-
>gested) A and perhaps also M(0).

At last! Abian has gotten rid of that annoying time-dependence. We
don't need an experimentalist to determine A now - a brillian theorist
such as myself will suffice. Since E = mc^2, we have

A = - 2 ln c [BAEZ'S EQUATION]