🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <abian.721860217@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>(A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA, i.e., TIME IS MATTER  and that some energy
						         ^^^^
How much ?  Some is a little bit vague.

>       is irretrievably spent by Cosmos to move TIME forward. Thus,
>       in particular, the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be
>       rejected. 

Apologies to Indra, but Abian, you are a blithering fool.  If you would
take a few minutes to learn some real physics before trying to revolutionize
the world, you would save us all a good deal of time and wasted energy.

Everyone who has studied General Relativity knows full well that 
conservation of energy, though valid locally, is not believed to be 
valid on a cosmological scale.  In other words, everyone but you seems to
know that energy is not conserved in the Universe according to our best
model of how these things work.

I suggest that your "sacred principle" is a figment of your own imagination,
born of your complete ignorance of the physics which you are pretending
to discuss.  

Anyone who wants to learn something real about conservation of energy
is invited to read the FAQ, which has an article entitled "Red Shift
and Conservation of Energy," which is the summary of a thread on this 
subject which we had about nine months ago.  It contains a fair summary
of the collective understanding of the readers of this group at the time,
and some references to texts which discuss the idea further.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas