🚀 go-pugleaf

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

Drivel involving a sticky shift key deleted...

>    The sacro-sanct Law that        
>     
>        "a unit mass at distance  r  units exerts on a unit of mass  
>         k/r^2  units of force"     ( k is a constant )

>   Which is accepted as a sacro-sanct Law and which supposedly  has been  
>billion times verified.  Is not too convincing to me.  
>   
>   I will explain why.  In fact I will even do better than Newton, I
>will even  DERIVE  k/r^2  without forcing you to accept it as a sacro-
>sanct Law.
>   For this all you have to know that the  area of a sphere of
>radius  r  is equal to  4pi r^2.

>   Imagine a  lit candle ( of unit luminosity 1)  at the center of a 
>sphere of radius  r.   Of  course it is not too unintelligent to think
>that  1/ 4pi r^2   unit of light is received by the unit area on the
>surface of the shere.  Hence, the intensity of light (i.e., the force 
>of light) at  distance  r  is given by

>                   1/ 4pi r^2  =  k/r^2

Aren't you leaving something out?  I thought you claimed that time has
inertia and ate up energy from everything in the universe.  If this is the
case (it's not, BTW, I'm just pointing out that you are inconsistent and use
classical physics when it suits you, but RAVE about it being wrong other times)
then your candle should deliver less energy than it gives off.  Sorry, but
for leaving out A2, I can't give you much partial credit...:-)

>     Why I am not too convince that  k/r^2 must be considered as 
>sacro-sanct, because  I think it is more rational to accept that
>the volume of the sphere is more basic than the  area
>of the sphere in matters of  THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE  and  a more
>basic law should have involved  r^3  and not  r^2.  

Why is it more rational to accept volume as more basic than area?  Would
you care to propose a law for gravity involving r^3?  I'm sure we'd all
like to see it.

>  I know, I know that the "Guardians of Physics and Truth" will immediately 
>with foam in their mouths jump on me and  will say that what I am
>saying has been known for 400 years (open any kindergarten text-book)
>it is there.  Besides,   All you have to do is to take 
>the integral of  4pi r^2  w.r.t  r  and get  yourself involved
>with   r^3 and interpret it in an appropriate way.

What exactly are you trying to say here (sure is hard to type with all this
foam on the keyboard, and the library was just a mess....)

>     But I am not even satisfied with  Classical or  SR or GR or QM.

Why not? Could you give a specific example of something you're not 
satisfied with?

> You "Guardians of Physics and Truth"  must accept in your theories the  
> (A3).  There is the elemental craving of gaining a feeling of security 
>among particles among electrons, protons, etc.etc.  THERE IS NO OTHER
>WAY BUT TO UNCONDITIONNALY SURRENDER TO (A3) - UNCONDITIONALLY
>ACCEPT THAT ANY OBJECT ANIMATE OR INANIMATE IS GOVERNED BY (A3).

How can you assign the concept of "feeling" to inanimate matter?  Think
about it.  Can I really describe the rock in my back yard as being happy?
Or lonely?  Or secure?  I think you need to provide some justification for
why what you are doing is valid.  If you turn out to be right, I may go into
a career as a rock psychiatrist....("How are you feeling?  How did it FEEL
to get spewed out of that volcano?  Are you angry with the core for rejecting
you"...."That'll be $4500, Ma'am, but he's all better now...")
0 points for not explaining your answer

>     Do not jump to Neanderthalish-precambrian conclusions that (A3)
>is self contradictory because I say that it could  the cause of "P"  and 
>the cause of "not P" for any phenomenon  "P".  
>    Do not think that there is only one path to gain a feeling of security.

Yes, but using A3, you can describe anything as something that will happen
to increase something's security, even things which don't happen.  This makes
A3 useless.  Sorry, you get 0 points on this one (does it show I just took
a final?)

>    Petain and De Gaulle  are examples of two opposing paths motivated by
>the genius of (A3).  Faynman integral paths are another example of 
> different paths  BOTH CAUSED AND MOTIVATED by the same  

> 
>(A3)   GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY

>   I HAVE NO TIME TODAY TO REPEATING  HOW  (A3)  ALSO IMPLIES
>(A1), (A2) and (A4).  Please consult my previous postings. 
>Unfortunately (and really I regret that) I do not have TIME  for endless
>repetitions.  

Really?  You've been repeating yourself for a good 2 months here...
0 points for an inaccurate answer.

>   I COUNT ON BRILLIANT  READERS OF  TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE YOUNG
>IMAGINATIVE AND AGGRESSIVE MINDS FOR DEVELOPING AND INTRODUCING
>(A1), (A2), (A4)  based on the CORNERSTONE OF THE NEW REVOLUTION IN THE 
>PHYSICS  -  (A3)
>   I was told that in Russia they are very seriously considering the
>ramifications and implication of  TIME HAS INERTIA - very seriously,
>without sarcasm, without childish kiddings, without putting me down
>without sardonic remarks, without mockery, without vilification,
>without slander and wretched brutish and beastly envy and hostility.

Told by whom?  What research group?  What university?  Are you sure someone's
not just sending you fake Email?  Or are you just making this up?  Come on,
answer this one....

>   I love all of you verfy much  (it makes me feel secure),

>                                            Alexander Abian


MY GOD!  HE POSTED A NOTE WITHOUT HIS "REPLACING E=MCC" SIGNIATURE!
(sorry, the shift key got stuck there for a minute...must be Abian's doing)

Marc