🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <abian.721890631@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>In <1992Nov15.221706.28787@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>>How much ?  Some is a little bit vague.
>   As I have mentioned in my article
>
>           <abian.720308203@pv343f.vincent.iastste.edu>
>the amount of lost energy for moving TIME forward can be determined  via
>a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.  I have also mentioned that  the Technology will
>devise COSMIC ENERGYMETERS which need not require to encompass the entire
>Cosmos.  Please consult my abovementioned article

I think I saw you box up the cosmos and then have a thin wire run
from the cosmos to the energymeter.  I think the technology to get out
of the cosmos is long ways off ;-).  And that string or wire must be
mighty strong.  You could shoot a laser beam if you want, but then you
will kill all of us here IN the cosmos.

>    Then you continue:
>>>       is irretrievably spent by Cosmos to move TIME forward. Thus,
>>>       in particular, the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be
>>>       rejected. 
>
>>For small scales (in laboratories) CoE seems to be doing fine.  For the
>>whole cosmos, your guess is as good as anyone's; there's plenty of debate
>>about whether the universe is closed or open.  
>
>  Mr. Muttiah,
> 
> I am very glad that you do not fanatically believe that THE CONSERVATION
>OF ENERGY PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE COSMOS.  For some people the
>CoE  is a  APOCALYPTIC COMMANDMENT -a religion a life-time commitment!!

Only to the extent that it has been verified with experiment i.e., there's
nothing to prove anything to the contrary.

> It annoys me that people demand: "Abian, prove that some energy of Cosmos
>is irretrievable lost for moving TIME forward " 
> and they have the nerve not to DEMAND from themselves the proof that
>"the Cosmos does not lose any energy" - it is quite hypocritical !!!

But why do you bring up a proof of the CoE for the whole cosmos ? What
you are saying should be observable anywhere in the universe when time
is measured shouldn't it ?  I think that is a problem.  So, the cosmos
loses energy only when I measure time ?  When I'm not measuring time, no
energy is lost ?

>  Mr Muttiah, then you continue by saying:
>>About, TIME.  If there were no observers, who is to measure it ?  It is 
>>pretty much a bookkeeping device invented by humans.  What type of TIME 
>>did you have in mind ? Anyway, according to the Hubble law space (and 
>>time ?) is expanding ...
>>moving forward if you will.
>
>   My reply is that if there were no observers , who is to measure the 
>gravity ? 

Well, according to the Kantian view (something I accept most of the time)
space is a priori.  Don't ask me what all that means :-).

>   I agree with you that any measuring is pretty much a bookkeeping
>device invented by humans.   

Thus your trouble with loosing energy for time.  Does one lose energy
only when one is measuring time ?  If so, that's quite fantastic. We
now have a way of controlling the cosmos.

>  As far as "What type of TIME did I have in mind?" This is explained
>in my abovementioned article  by:  
>                  
>                       t = (1/A) log (B/E(t))

Eh, about the last part ?  It is experimentally seen that the universe is
expanding.  Now if you believe that time and space are on an equal footing
(as in GR) then time would be "moving forward" as well.

I thought you said:

	m(t) = m(0)e^{something -t}    (abian)

I have no idea where you got E(t), A, and B from this.