🚀 go-pugleaf

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

[ Responding to a misstatement of his Principle ]
>(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVOCATION 
>       AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.

>      Then you state that  (A1) seems to be a useless tautology.
>      Every "true" statement (whether in Math or Physics, or Chemistry
>or Social Science, etc., etc)  is a TAUTOLOGY .  In fact in "LOGIC"
>a  "TAUTOLOGY" is defined as a statement which is always "TRUE"

Your definition of a tautolgy matches my own quite well.
However, I have to disagree that 'true' statements in Physics are
tautologies.  I have quoted "true" since in this case I mean something
more like 'not yet shown to be false' rather than the "true" of logic.

>     For instance, instances of Tautologies are:
>(T1)    Every monotonic real valued function of a real variable (defined
>        on an interval) is differentiable almost everywhere.
[... more tautologies ...]
>(T7)    In every neighborhood of an essential singularity of an analytic
>        function, the latter assumes every finite value infinitely many
>        times with the exception of one at most. 

>  Every (T1) to (T7) is a Tautology.  Now, some are more informative than 
>the other.  But every one is a Tautology.

Yes.  I notice, however, that you have not included any Principles of
physics in your list.  Such principles are axioms for a model of reality,
and an axiom that is tautological is redundant.

>  Thus, your saying that my (A1)
>is a Tautology does not denigrate it.  As far as how informative and useful
>is (A1), to me it is very informative and very useful and explains a great
>deal to me.

If your Principle is tautological, then it is redundant in a physical model.

I do not believe that it is redundant, since it implies (at least) that every
change of the status quo is due to some provocation.  It is untestable,
however, since you can always claim that the provocation is undetectable.

(If 'provocation' is defined as 'something that tries to change the status
quo', then your principle *is* tautological)

>   As far as your asking whether my
>(A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA and SOME ENERGY IS IRRETRIEVABLY DISSIPATED TO
>       MOVING TIME FORWARD (Thus rejecting the "Conservation of Energy")
>has a proof. All I can say is that there are some dark clouds of suspicion
>and unexpected events implying uncertainties about  "Conservation of Energy"
>principle

Can you give an example of such events?  Obviously, they must be 'energy
loss' events, since 'energy gain' events violate (A2) as severely as
"conservation of energy".

>Your next question is:  Why 
>(A4)   ALTERING THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE
>       ORBIT OF THE EARTH.
> Because, VENUS , masswise and sizewise is a TWIN of the planet Earth.  
>The reason that there is no life (as we know it) on VENUS is that 
>VENUS is much closed to the SUN than Earth.

It also has much higher temperature (no liquid water), a much different
atmosphere (with much greater pressure), and other differences.

>  Putting  VENUS in an
>orbit similar to the orbit of the Earth will make  the gradual process of 
>generating life sustaining ecology  on planet VENUS, evolve automatically.

I doubt that moving Venus would change the composition of the atmosphere
in a reasonable amount of time (if at all).  Evolution of an ecosystem
would likewise take millions of years (if at all).  Terraforming the planet
by other means should be much faster.

If the lifelessness of Venus is due solely to the extra energy it receives 
from the Sun (because it is closer), then putting reflectors near Venus to 
screen much of the light would be much easier than trying to move the whole 
planet into a different orbit.

>  As far as 
>(A5)   ALTERING THE TILT (AND POSSIBLY THE ORBIT)  OF THE EARTH TO GET RID
>       OF 18 million YEARS OF METEOROLOGICAL AND EPIDEMIC CALAMITIES.
> The existence deadly virus and bacteria on Earth is a direct consequence of 
>the cosmic parameters of the planet Earth.

Have you any evidence for this claim?  I expect that microorganisms would
be just as prolific with a different tilt/orbit of the Earth.  Furthermore,
they may well have been already eliminated (or controlled) by the time the
technology available to move the Earth has been obtained.

Besides, if your 'cosmic parameter' theory is correct, altering the tilt of
the Earth could eliminate *all* life.  Microorganisms are among the most
hardy of all lifeforms, and conditions sufficient to totally destroy all
of them could very likely kill everything else as well.  All known life is
composed of the same stuff.

>  To get rid of them , we have
>to alter the cosmic parameters of the Earth.  You say maybe we will
>create worse conditions?  Maybe, maybe not.  But cannot be much worse
>than what we have on Earth.  Cholera, Typhoid, AIDS, etc.

On the contrary - things *can* be much worse!  As an example, consider Venus,
which you say is a twin of the Earth, in the wrong orbital position.
Changing the orbit of the Earth could quite plausibly turn it into a twin
of Venus, where no life exists (as we know it).  Consider Mars for a second
example (although Mars is not so similar to Earth in composition).

For now, we only inhabit one planet - experimenting with it invites disaster.
It may well be that a different axis for the Earth would be better in the
long term - but the process of changing it would likely cause catastrophic
geological and meteorological changes.

In short, I have (what I consider to be) good reason to believe that moving
the Earth would not eliminate disease, likewise good reason to believe that
the process would actually cause harm.

(See the rec.arts.sf.science thread on 'Destruction of all Life on Earth')
--
Timothy D Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au