🚀 go-pugleaf

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux) writes:
> 
> >I think there is at least one case where this is wrong. To be specific,
> >elementary particles decay under no provocation whatsoever. Thus you have
> >change without provocation and you have a tendency over time to change
> >rather than to stay the same.
>  
>    What provokes  an elementary particles to decay -  is exactly the
> annoying tendency of TIME  to stay still and maintain its status quo. 
> So, the elementary particle is annoyed with the stubbornness of TIME and 
> supplies energy to PUSHM TIME FORWARD - and hence the elementary particle
> DECAYS, and TIME MOVES FORWARD.

Oh lawsy.
 
If at first you don't see a provocation, invent one.

	Larry "Lawsy lawsy lawsy" Hammer
--

                         \   The work is rather too light, and bright,
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \  and sparkling; it wants ... a long chapter
sometimes a Wombat         \ of solemn specious nonsense. -- Jane Austen