Two New Discoveries Answer Big Questions In Evolution Theory

Wall Street Journal ^ | 07 April 2006 | SHARON BEGLEY

[grey_whiskers]

What is this need or desire to characterize a person in conversation with you?

From your earlier post, it seemed like you were saying that a photon was necessarily, intrinsically a component of an electron.

If you are talking about absorption / emission processes, great.

It seems we've been talking past each other.

No animus intended, and my apologies for misunderstanding.

But I would still suggest you hone up on your reading of these processes, as some of your details still seem a bit confused. The Socratic method is a great way to brainstorm on ideas, but experimentation is a way to separate good ideas from accurate ideas. :-)

Thanks for the kind wishes, I'll wish you a great night as well...

Cheers!

[betty boop]

that which is being exchanged may be non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal. Information (successful communication), geometry, forms, universals, mathematical structures, logic (Logos) would not be "physical".... In that case X+Y would be the physical realm (universe/s) and (X+Y)Z would be the cosmos. And of course man would be a microcosmos.

This is a great model of the "all that there is," Alamo-Girl! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!

[betty boop]

The (positive) energy contained in matter and radiation is (exactly) offset by the negative energy in the gravitational fields.

Fascinating, Doc! Fields, as in more than one? Please go on!

[Doctor Stochastic]

More than one only in the sense that the Moon's gravitational field is not the same as the Earth's. It's still gravity.

[betty boop]

More than one only in the sense that the Moon's gravitational field is not the same as the Earth's. It's still gravity.

Thanks so much for the clarification, Doc!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the encouragements, dear sister in Christ!

[YHAOS]

"It is my pleasure to meet a scholar and a gentleman."

If by that you mean moi, then that's quite the step up for an old ex nozzle-jockey like me.

"it is also my distinct honor and a priviledge to read from and speak to betty boop and Alamo-Girl."

Indeed, as it is for I. We must not let them know this, however.

"When we have made our comments back and forth, I have probably taken my side a little more seriously than I ought."

'Tis always a delicate balance, is it not? I'm sure I've misjudged many a time. But, we've accomplished a few positive things, or at least made our contribution. We've gained a few examples of 'closed systems' and learned that the totality of all that there is is one of those examples. We've learned that a wok is an example of an open system (and here all along I thought a wok was what you thwow at a wabbit). :^)

And we've confirmed what you were sure of all along; that there is no good definition of energy or of matter (mass). As a grade-schooler, some sixty years ago, I seem to recall that we were told that energy was 'the ability to do work' or something along those lines. But I wasn't going to offer something as feeble as that to stand as a definition. And who knows? We may yet have someone checking in to inform us just how terribly wrong we are.

"The day your Doctor asks you, "Are you afraid to die?" may cause you to be a little bit more serious . . . "

Doctors ask that question? My doctor has not yet, although not long ago he might well have. Much to my astonishment, I feel no difference.

"Gold is at 639/oz. That probably means some people are looking at a war around Iran and Israel."

They perceive the near-certainty of an unpredictable, but high level of danger. That's for sure.

"I don't like war . . . "

Hardly no one but Islamic lunatics and ChiCom warlords do.

"I hope our country is on God's side."

You have that sentiment in the right order. Some have it backwards.