🚀 go-pugleaf

Abian replies:

> 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.

There are a number of problems with this reply.

1) You maintain that time has inertia. You say it takes energy to move time
forward. Energy is not conserved in your equation over time (the energy used
to move time forward is lost). Here you say that the energy is supplied by
radioactive decay. However, energy is conserved in this decay. In otherwords,
no energy is left over to move time forward.

2) By saying the above, you have destroyed the ability of your theory to
make predictions. This is required for it to be in the realm of science.
If something changes, it can always be explained as due to the stubbornness of
time. If it stays the same it can always be explained as maintaining the
status quo. Thus any eventuality can be explained. It might be said that
the ability to explain any eventuality is the mark of a great theory. Not so.
What you now need in order to make predictions that can be tested to verify
the theory is some way of deciding ahead of time when the stubbornness of
time will act as a provoker and when it will not.

Without such a way of deciding you may be able to always explain things after
the fact but you cannot make predictions that can be tested. Unless you
can make predictions that can be tested, your theory is not science. This
doesn't mean it isn't true. It does mean it isn't science. If it isn't
science, it doesn't belong is sci.physics.

I am not trying to start a flame war with you. I am trying to show you that
what you have proposed either has problems with science, or by fixing it in
such a way that it no longer has problems, you have removed it from the
realm of science. Again, just because it isn't science doesn't necessarily
make it wrong. Historical "facts" are not science either and can be true.
Debating them in sci.physics would be a good way to get people irate.

Now if you can give a way of discriminating ahead of time when time will
act as a provoker and when it will not, your theory might have predictive
ability again.