🚀 go-pugleaf

Prof. Abian,

On 29-Oct-92 I posted this message and sent it to you directly through
e-mail.  You have yet to respond, if you feel that this points are
meaningless, please tell me so and explain why. If not, then please
respond to them.

The Following is from Re: TIME HAS INERTIA ABIAN replies to
R.J.KNAPP(with slight grammar changes);

>Ok, I accept that in your formula E=m(0)exp(-At). However,  my questions
>are still valid (why hasn't the sun intenstiy drop,why hasn't conduction
>droped, and why are nuclear particles harder to produce in lab (all
>three are as time increases)) becuse of the mass-energy equivalence
>which you have said is the only good[science] Einstien ever did.  Also
>other questions, if E is decreasing, why haven't we noticed the earth or
>any other planet spiraling into the sun? (There is a diff. eq. relating
>energy to orbit, I can't remeber it right now, but it can be found in
>Fowles _Anayltic Mechanics_)

>You claim you do not give "snow jobs," I respectfully sir, (for I am
>only an undergrad.) think your (A1) is a snow job, it quantifies nothing
>(unless you are holding back on us), and with out quatification we would
>not have gotten (technologically at least) where we are today, the very
>computer you are e-mailing us on is infact based on the very theories
>you are trying to modify. Therefore, I feel that you should show
>(mathematically) how your theory approximates ours at small time
>intervals for example:

>How does E=m(0)exp(-At) become at low relative
>velocities and small delta t:

>E=1/2(mv^2) + V (V=potential) ???

>> Mr. Knapp, I would appreciate it very much if you would post in TIME HAS 
>>INERTIA your honest opinion about my explanation and  the above   "... non-
>>abelian gauge theory ..." or that "TIME has to be taken in quantum gravity 
>>as the invariance of classical general relativity under the group of 
>>diffeomorphisms of the spacetime manifold !".   Please >be  truthful
and courag-
eous for once. 

>First as I stated before, I am only an undergrad. (in physics). You will
>have to explain this to me in terms I can understand.(I'm a Junior) 
>Secondly, the "Please be truthful and courageous for once" I feel is a
>personal attack. I have always been truthful and honest (esp. in
>relation to physics), anyone who knows me can attest to this. In fact I
>am normally so honest as to be too blunt (I am obviously not acting so
>because of your higher education then myself).  Please I ask you not to
>make judgement upon my character as a result of one post. I did not
>insult you, so why insult my integrity?

>And my last point, if (A1) governs everything, why did I (raised
>Catholic) convert to Buddhism at the first opertunity?  It seems that if
>(A1) truly governs everything, heuristic insights such as Netwons (that
>the same force that makes an apple fall makes the moon orbit the earth,
>would be imediatly disregarded because they are not in the "status-quo".

>I thank you for your reply, and ask you to consider my points.
>Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp
Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp

Open a book,				|	LEGALIZE
and open your mind			|
the only thing they can't censor	|	[MNIBG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
is logic.				|
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is something to be experinced through the eyes of a child."
                   			-Me