NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/physics/21957

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 4.6 KB | 95 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!telesoft!kst
From: [e-mail] (Keith Thompson @pulsar)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA       ABIAN replies to  KEITH THOMPSON
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:14:58 GMT
Lines: 84

This exchange of messages seems to have migrated from e-mail to news.
I'll try to provide a little context on the off chance that anyone else
reads this stuff.  8-)}

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alexander Abian) writes:
> Dear  Mr. Thompson
>
> Thank you for your 12-29-92  e-mail message.  I feel more secure replying
> via TIME HAS INERTIA  (I am acting according to (A3)).
>
> You raised good questions.  However, I  do not accept the statement:
>
> "Surely all electrical charges were together prior to the big Bang"
>
> I believe that prior to the BIg Bang  there was electrical neutrality.
> The dispersion of matter created positive and negative electrical
> charges .  Thus, according to (A1) the space tends to maintain its
> electrical neutrality by opposing further concentration of the elec-
> trical like cxharges.  Thus, like charges repel and opposite charges
> attract and neutralize each other.  But  neutral matters attract
> each other trying to maintain their pre Big Bang status.

My point regarding electrical charges was that his theory could equally
well explain a hypothetical universe in which like charges attract and
gravity repels.  I'll admit that my point about charges was weak (no
pun intended), but repulsive gravity could be explained as space
maintaining its sense of security by trying to restore homogeneity.

> Dear Keith,
>   As far as "A THEORY MUST BE FALSIFIABLE TO BE ACCEPTABLE " my
> objection is that  that statement (which itself is a Theory) is self-contra-
> dictory . Indeed in order that the statement be acceptable it must be falsi-
> fiable and therefore must not be acceptable.

For the benefit of others reading this discussion, here's an excerpt
from my e-mail message, to which the quoted article is a response
(i.e., Dr. Abian read this before posting the above):

] That doesn't follow from what I meant; I hope it doesn't follow from
] what I said.  8-)}  What I meant by "falsifiable" is that there must
] be some *conceivable* observation which would contradict the theory.
] By trying and failing to make such an observation, one tends to
] confirm the theory.  Note the distinction between "falsifiable"
] and "falsified".  A theory which *might* be falsified may be valid as
] a theory, and can be tested; a theory which *has* been falsified is
] discarded and (hopefully) replaced with a new theory which explains
] the new observation.  An observation of two masses repelling each
] other, with no forces involved other than gravitational, would tend
] to falsify the theory of gravitation.  The fact that we have yet to
] make such an observation tends to confirm that theory.

I seem to be having some difficulty conveying to Dr. Abian what I mean
by the concept of falsifiability; perhaps someone else can help.

My problem with Dr. Abian's theory is that it can explain anything, and
therefore it explains nothing.  I've asked Dr. Abian to present one or
more of the following:

1. A potential observation, actual or imaginary, possible or
   impossible, which could *not* be explained by, or which would
   contradict, his theory.  Without this, I assert that his theory has
   no predictive power.  It doesn't truly explain observations; at best,
   it merely re-states them in different (and less rigorous) terms.

2. An actual prediction of something that has not yet been observed.
   I suggested the mass (if any) of the neutrino.

3. An estimate of the numeric value of A in his equation E = m(0) exp(-At).

The tendency to maintain a "sense of security" is undoubtedly at least
somewhat applicable as a psychological principle to humans, especially if
one implicitly defines "security" as "that which humans tend to maintain".
I remain extremely skeptical of its meaningful applicability to inanimate
objects.

Also, I have a direct, simple question for Dr. Abian.  Does your theory
allow one to make verifiable predictions of observations that have not
yet been made, or does it only explain observations that have already
been made?  If the latter, how is it superior to currently accepted
scientific theories, which have made many correct predictions?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith)  [e-mail]
TeleSoft, 5959 Cornerstone Court West, San Diego, CA, 92121-9891
"Listen to me, people!  We must stick them with quills -- it's the only way!"