🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <abian.721622045@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
}In <1dur09INNqst@agate.berkeley.edu> emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) writes:
}  
}E. Mark PING  writes:
}
}>MR. ABIAN
}
}>  You continually ignore the following question:
}
}>  If your A1 holds, then why does time require energy to perpetuate it's
}>status quo -- i.e. moving forward.  BY YOUR OWN A1 TIME SHOULD RETAIN IT'S
}>STATUS QUO.  ADDING ENERGY SHOULD **CHANGE** IT'S MOTION FORWARD.
}
}>  Until you answer this question, DON'T POST ANYTHING ELSE OR
}
}>****GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP****
}>GO POST IN ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES!!!!
}                                         
}                                                     12-12-92
} Dear Mr. PING,
} 
}  First of all it is a myth that  an object CAN COMPLETELY  
} MAINTAIN ITS STATUS QUO.  You cannot show me an example of an object 
} be it a particle, a person, a flying arrow, a dinosaur, a planet,
} a galaxy which completely maintains its status quo.  (A1)  says:
}
}(Al)    THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO
}     PROVOCATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.  
}     
}The emphasis in (A1) is on  "THE TENDENCY, THE TENDENCY, THE TENDENCY"
}    
}   There is no particle which continues its motion with no expenditure
}of energy by someone.  If in your Physics courses they say that there
}is such a thing it is the result of a fanatic indoctrination.


  You have just stated that your A1 is bunk.  If nothing (Note:  you said no
particle, but time is not a particle to our knowledge, so I assume that a
'particle' is an example) "continues its motion with no expenditure of
energyby someone" then nothing has a tendency to maintain its status quo.
Thank you Mr. Abian.  I expect a public apology to this group for your waste
of bandwidth and time.


}   But why TIME even started to move? Why didn't you ask me that
}question to begin with. I will answer this and  your question.


  I don't CARE why time started to move.  If I did, I would have asked that
question.  The fact that I didn't ask the question would, in most cases,
imply that I'm not looking for the answer.  Otherwise I would have asked the
question.  You might say I have a tendency to not ask a question unless I
want to know the answer -- might even call that P1.


}    MY ANSWERS:     I was trying to maintain my status quo and 
}stay still and silent.  That annoyed and provoked you. My tendency
}of maintaining my status quo provoked you so much so that you gave me 
}an ultimatum "Move out of sci.physics". However, I am not as weak as TIME    
}is and you are not as powerful as Cosmos is and I may not totally succumb 
}to your ultimatum.


  Wrong.  You were not still and silent.  You've been posting this crap for
weeks now.  You'll note that I posted SEVERAL copies of my letter.  If you
look carefully, you'll note that they are all replies to POSTS MADE BY YOU
WITHIN THE LAST 2 OR 3 DAYS.  Doesn't sound "still and silent" to me.

  And as for my "ultimatum," it did not appear because you "annoyed and
provoked" me.  I stated it because your list of inane tautologies is neither
consistent with current physical theory, nor is it a logical extrapolation
from current theories.  THEREFORE IT A NEW THEORY AND BELOGS IN
ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES.  You have ignored this statement in the past
and I expect you to ignore it now.  Sad, really.


}   The TIME  (like I) tried to stay still .  That annoyed and provoked
}the Cosmos.  The Cosmos (like you) gave ultimatum and moved TIME forward.
}Now (LISTEN CAREFULLY, THIS THE CRUCIAL POINT), now, the Cosmos wants
}to maintain its status quo and wants to see that TIME (according to
}Cosmos' ultimatum) keeps on moving.  But for that - Cosmos pays, it
}supplies energy which is dissipated irretrievably.


  Lovely metaphysics.  However, this is sci.physics, not sci.metaphysics.


}   Now, THE CRUCIAL CONCLUSION:  You see that it is the POWERFUL ONE
}who succeeds to maintain its status quo - but again not completely.
}Since  for trying to maintain its status quo, the powerful  one pays
}by irretrievably losing some energy and therefore is left with less
}and less energy and thus does not succeed to maintain completely its 
}status quo.
}
}   With best wishes and regards,         
}                                         Alexander ABIAN
}
}P.S. will be interested in your comments!


  You still haven't answered my question.  You have simply stated that it is
obvious that no particle tends to maintain its velocity without energy
added.  Well, stating that it's obvious to *you* is not an answer to my
question.


I will be interested in your answer...still waiting.

-E. Mark Ping