🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <abian.721544742@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>     My principle (A1) is the best scientific principle.  It describes
>behavior of particles and people and everything in between.  In case you
>have forgotten, it states:
>
>(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVOCA-
>       TION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.
>
>    (A1)  is scientifically verifiable  your actions, my actions, the
>actions of Uranium, plutonium, etc., are all governed by (A1).

Yes, but it is an utterly empty statement because you have not defined
what a status quo is.  I think I know what you mean, but by stating
your principle in such terms you invite criticism of a superficial sort.
Read a book on Lagrangians and quantum action.  Read Feynman and Hibbs.
You will see that the mathematically precise way of stating (A1) is by
the principle of least action.  It is certainly not new with you, it
is, in fact, as old as Aristotle.  However, if you really want to do this
right and make predictions, you have to be a little bit more precise.
Of course, as I said before in a previous post, as soon as you write
down a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism in which to make your statement
(A1) definite, you will be led inexorably to certain conservations principles
which are in contradiction to your nonsense about time having inertia,
statement (A2).

Just go away and do it right and you will see what I am talking about, 
but please stop clogging up the net with your drivel.

>   Likewise, my (A2) is extremely  informative, revolutionary and will
>change the aspect of Modern Physics and will be the central theme of
>the 21-st century Physics.  In case you have forgotten, it states:
>
>(A2)  TIME HAS INERTIA and some energy is irretrievably dissipated for
>                 moving TIME forward.  Thus the Principle of Conser-
>                 vation of Energy must be rejected.
>
>With best wishes and regards,                Alexander ABIAN
>