NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/physics/21750

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 3.6 KB

From: [e-mail] (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:20:59 GMT
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA: good science?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpl-opus!hpspdla!ric
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Lines: 69


Abian,

Your new and improved (A3) finally gives a response to one question of
your (A1), which was raised more than once: You explain how (A1) explains
the diffusion of ink in water; I asked how this same marvelous (A1)
explains the non-mixing of oil mixed in water. I see now your (Ai) will
explain everything. I have always seen how your (Ai) also explain nothing.

Besides these (Ai) are too general of statements. Clearly their are people
out there who act not to increase security, but some other vaguely
definable quantity, like pleasure, pain, money, power, happiness, even
such a thing as anti-security.

So to disprove your (A3) requires only one action from one thing to act
to increase their anti-security, like quit a job, commit suicide, start
fights, slide down a snow covered mountain with boards strapped to your
feet, jump out of an airplane at high altitude with silk cloth to slow your
fall, strap yourself to a 1000 HP motor to see how fast you can do 1/4 mi.,
etc.. Of course your superfluous arguments can simply state that such
actions increase security. I won't buy them.

I like science. I can't claim to understand everything, but one thing
I understand, is the reason for the search for a mathematical model that
mimics that which we call reality. Any such attempt thus must provide
a calculable attempt at approximating a real and measurable situation.
In my opinion, most your (Ai) fail in this respect. They are hardly a
foundation for a new physics. However, you did provide one testable
hypothesis:

(A?)  E = M exp(-At), by the way, is it (A) for Abian?

An attempt to verify the validity of this hypothesis can certainly
be carried out on paper, and if warranted and realizable, an experiment
performed. Well ...

1st: E = M c^2 exp(at) is a form of (A?).
2nd: Assume the charge of the same particle is Q = Q(t).

If you have Q a constant, then the charge to mass ratio of an electron
is a measure of E. Find the change due to 10 years time:

X = (q1/m1) / (q2/m2) = (q1 c^2/E1) (E2/c^2 q2) = (q1/q2) exp(10a)

Assume q1/q2 = 1, a = -1/yr, then X = 45e-6. So, assuming we have figures
valid to 50 ppm for a 10 year interval means that this would be just
noticeable. Of course if a = -2/yr, ...

Abian, you must provide the reason for such a choice of E, and with only
this reason as cause (ie, not because it suits you), find at least a 1st
approximation for the value of a. Clearly you can just say a = -google/yr.
Or that Q is not constant but in fact is such that the charge to mass
ratio is constant. Endless patches like these to any a theory require not
just any reason, but a good one (ie. we haven't detected it so it must be
smaller doesn't count). More importantly, this reason must include
something that improves physics (ie. what as yet unexplainable phenomenon
does this theory quantifiably explain?).

Lastly, any good scientist should not approach any attempt at explaining
reality with such steadfast convictions that they are right. Rather, the
good scientist is impartial to any theory, and goes about testing it
without bias via real, repeatable experiments.

With amusement, and sincere concern for your state of mind,

R. Peregrino, [e-mail], I represent only myself, but you knew that.

PS. Are you just prodding the net for some psychological experiment?
    C'mon, fess up !)