🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep26.004832.20400@athena.mit.edu>, rx1@athena.mit.edu (Stanley H Thompson) writes:
> In article <abian.717352315@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>    
>>    Neither the notion of Time nor its properties nor its nature are satis-
>>factorily treated in Classical or Relativistic or Quantum Physics.
>>    
>>    I say that
>>      
>>         TIME HAS INERTIA AND SOME ENERGY IS IRRETRIEVABLY DISSIPATED
>>                          ON MOVING TIME FORWARD
>>
>>    For instance, the total energy  E(t) of the Universe at time  t  can be
>>expressed as:
>>
>>(1)           E(t) =  E(0)  exp (-At)     for some constant  A > 0
>>
>>    Thus, when  t --> infinity   there will be less and less energy left in
>>the Universe.  However, something will always remain in the Universe since
>>t  will never be equal to infinity.
>>    
>>As (1) shows, the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be rejected.
>>
>>    Also, as (1) shows, the  energy and mass  are more directly related to Time
>>than to each other.  In fact
>>
>>(2)   E = mcc  (Einstein)   may be replaced by   E = m exp(-At)  (Abian)
>>  
>>  The Universal time is obtained by taking the natural log from both sides of 
>>(1) as:
>>
>>(3)   t = (1/A) log (B/E(t))   
>>
>>where  E(t) = the total energy of Universe at t=t.  
>>
>>Dr. Alexander Abian
>>Professor of Mathematics
>>Iowa State University
>>Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>>	E(t) = m exp (-At)
> 	I am only lowly undergraduate, but do the units of the above 
> equation even check?
> 
> 						-Stan
> 
> ---
> Stan Thompson 		I'm only an undergraduate--what's your excuse?
> rx1@athena.mit.edu

The units are pedagocial. Lets hear more on this idea :|

:)

-Garrett