🚀 go-pugleaf

                                             12-21-92
 Dear Messrs  Neill and  David (Boucher)
  
    In your recent postings you give examples and you question and
try  to refute (A3) by pointing out that I explain two mutually
opposing phenomena invoking the same (A3).  Thus invalidating (A3)
as a "useless nonexplanation".

    I strongly disagree with the above .  Yes (A3) can explain
(and therefore is not useless) two opposing phenomena (1) and (2)
below:


(1)
    A person commits suicide. The night before suicide he leaves
    a note explaining the reasons of his decision. Every line,
    every word in the note breaths with fear, with insecurity,
    with desperation and despondency. 
    My explanation for the suicide is  to end the intolerable
    state of devastating insecurity and succumb to the primal craving 
    for gaining a feeling of security. 



(2) 
    A person to prolong his life subjects himself to numerous
    food and activity regiments.  Restrains himself from the
    usual indulgences. Adopts a severe spartan stoic type of
    life. Although loves to smock, but forces himself not to
    smoke. Although loves to drink, but forces himself not to
    drink.  He suffers from all these restrains.  But all
    these  makes him feel secure that he is doing the right thing. 

   Now, these two opposing ends are caused by the same
   (A3)  i.e. by  TO GAIN A FEELING OF SECURITY !

    Does the above makes (A3) nonexplaining ? !! No, no, on the contrary 
it explains  and explains it rationally. 
    
    Is (A3) useless ? !!  No, no, on the contrary it is immensely useful.
It prevents us from acting as ignoramuses by calling the person in (1) "a 
crazy coward" and by calling the person in (2) "a crazy hypochondriac".
  
    In fact, (A3) will hopefully enlighten us and lead us to find a
rational and helpful solution to prevent  both (1) and (2).

   It is high time that Physicists accept (A3) as one of the utmost
(if not the utmost) primal cause of action of  particles et al.  Other-
wise they will be drowning in the quagmire of inventing hundreds and
hundreds nonconvincing explanations for the behavior of particles et al.

   Of course, the DYNAMISM THRU WHICH  (A3) MANIFESTS ITSELF IS:
 
(A1)  THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO
      PROVOCATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.   

     
   Messers NEILLE and DAVID, because of lack of time, I cannot comment
on all your questions and  "seeming counterexamples"
   As far as LASER is concerned, if you follow it  long enough , you
will find that it  also will be diluted in space.

  Mr. Neille  or Mr. David, one of you wanted some references ,
I gave  8 names  belonging to quite  "accredited" scientific institutions.  
What are your credentials !? 

  I repeat that PHYSICS will not progress radically, unless it accepts
 besides (A1) and (A3) also (A2), i.e.,  that   TIME HAS INERTIA  and 
 some energy is irretrievably dissipated to move TIME forward.
                                    
  With love,                                                 Alexander Abian