A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: cjcountess on 31 Jan 2010 04:25 On Jan 31, 3:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > > > "the mind of God". > > > > > > D.Y.K. > > > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > > > c^2. > > > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > > > discovery. > > > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > > > their likeness also. > > > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > P.S. > > > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html > > > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit.. > > > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > > > --------------------- > > > Hi Conrad ! > > > i liked that paragraph of yours > > > > quote > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > end of quote > > > > ------------ > > > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > > > see the appendix of my abstract: > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > > > and you can see there AS WELL > > > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > > > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > > > HALF CIRCLES > > > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > > > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > > > it can be more than one oint particle like that > > > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > > > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > > > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > > > linearly connection of such > > > 'rings ' > > > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > -------------------. > > > sorry again that site: > > > http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > hope i typed it right from my memory > > > Y.P > > ---------------------- > > common Porat you are getting older (:-) > there was a miserable slash missing... > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > may be it is more than time that > Google or the net at all -- will be more forgiving for tiny > typing mistakes ..... > > hope at last ... > sorry > Y.Porat > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi Porat I see you have continued to work on your theory that is good I will study it more Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on 31 Jan 2010 05:16 On Jan 31, 11:25 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 3:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > > > > "the mind of God". > > > > > > > D.Y.K. > > > > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > > > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > > > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > > > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > > > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > > > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > > > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > > > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > > > > c^2. > > > > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > > > > discovery. > > > > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > > > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > > > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > > > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > > > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > > > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > > > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > > > > their likeness also. > > > > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > > > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > > P.S. > > > > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html > > > > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > > > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > > > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > > > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > > > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > > > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > > > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > > > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > > > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. > > > > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > > > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > > > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > > > > --------------------- > > > > Hi Conrad ! > > > > i liked that paragraph of yours > > > > > quote > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > end of quote > > > > > ------------ > > > > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > > > > see the appendix of my abstract: > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > > > > and you can see there AS WELL > > > > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > > > > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > > > > HALF CIRCLES > > > > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > > > > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > > > > it can be more than one oint particle like that > > > > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > > > > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > > > > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > > > > linearly connection of such > > > > 'rings ' > > > > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > -------------------. > > > > sorry again that site: > > > > http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > hope i typed it right from my memory > > > > Y.P > > > ---------------------- > > > common Porat you are getting older (:-) > > there was a miserable slash missing... > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > may be it is more than time that > > Google or the net at all -- will be more forgiving for tiny > > typing mistakes ..... > > > hope at last ... > > sorry > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Hi Porat > > I see you have continued to work on your theory > > that is good > > I will study it more > > Conrad J Countess ------------------- HI Conrad !!! as time goes on (it is from at least 1993 copyrighted ) i find more and more fortifications for my theory and i have a strange feeling that combining your above suggestion and insight with my old suggestion **is going to make an earth quake in physics ** dont you see it ??!! both of us did it independently from completely different disciplines and 'directions' (and in a difference of time)- and it seems to me that it fits as 'glove to the palm !!' making one plus one- much more than two !! TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------
From: cjcountess on 31 Jan 2010 05:41 On Jan 31, 5:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 11:25 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 3:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > > > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > > > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > > > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > > > > > "the mind of God". > > > > > > > > D.Y.K. > > > > > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > > > > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > > > > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > > > > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > > > > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > > > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > > > > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > > > > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > > > > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > > > > > c^2. > > > > > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > > > > > discovery. > > > > > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > > > > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > > > > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > > > > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > > > > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > > > > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > > > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > > > > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > > > > > their likeness also. > > > > > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > > > > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > > > P.S. > > > > > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html > > > > > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > > > > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > > > > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > > > > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > > > > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > > > > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > > > > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > > > > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > > > > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. > > > > > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > > > > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > > > > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > Hi Conrad ! > > > > > i liked that paragraph of yours > > > > > > quote > > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > > end of quote > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > > > > > see the appendix of my abstract: > > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > > > > > and you can see there AS WELL > > > > > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > > > > > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > > > > > HALF CIRCLES > > > > > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > > > > > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > > > > > it can be more than one oint particle like that > > > > > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > > > > > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > > > > > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > > > > > linearly connection of such > > > > > 'rings ' > > > > > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > > > > > ATB > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > -------------------. > > > > > sorry again that site: > > > > > http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > hope i typed it right from my memory > > > > > Y.P > > > > ---------------------- > > > > common Porat you are getting older (:-) > > > there was a miserable slash missing... > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > may be it is more than time that > > > Google or the net at all -- will be more forgiving for tiny > > > typing mistakes ..... > > > > hope at last ... > > > sorry > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Hi Porat > > > I see you have continued to work on your theory > > > that is good > > > I will study it more > > > Conrad J Countess > > ------------------- > HI Conrad !!! > as time goes on (it is from at least 1993 > copyrighted ) > > i find more and more fortifications for > my theory > and i have a strange feeling that > combining your above suggestion > and insight > with my old suggestion > **is going to make an earth quake in physics ** > dont you see it ??!! > > both of us did it independently > from completely different disciplines and 'directions' > (and in a difference of time)- > > and it seems to me that it fits > as 'glove to the palm !!' > > making one plus one- > much more than two !! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Indeed, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is a wonderful thing to discover something that no one else sees, at least as far as you know, argue its case in the face of even professional opposition, with confidence, knowing that you will prevail in the end, because it is correct, wheather they can see it, or not, Conrad J Countess
From: artful on 31 Jan 2010 06:19 On Jan 30, 11:10 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > D.K.Y > > Why should energy, momentum, and force, have different equations? They are different things > (F=mv^2), Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > is essentialy (E=mc^2) and (1/2KE=mv^2) Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics > and (p=mv) is (F=mv) Wrong formula .. gees .. this is basic physics Go back to school (if you ever went) and study some physics. You are just posting utter nonsense [snip rest of drivel]
From: artful on 31 Jan 2010 06:20
On Jan 31, 9:41 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 31, 5:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 11:25 am,cjcountess<cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 31, 3:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 31, 10:20 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 am, cjco > > > > > > > > > > Why should energy, momentum, an truth > > > > > > > > or you will always have uncertainties, and/or > > > > > > > > conundrums, and/or paradoxes in your > > > > > > > > understanding of, as put by Einstein; > > > > > > > > "the mind of God". > > > > > > > > > D.Y.K. > > > > > > > > You speak very philosophicaly, but you obviously do not understand as > > > > > > > much as you think. Force is energy, and that is preciesly why (E=mv^2) > > > > > > > is same as (F=mv^2). The only difference is that (E=mc^2), imploys the > > > > > > > highest velocity squared, which is c^2. And momentum, is not much > > > > > > > different. That is why preciesly again, that (p=mv) is identical to > > > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > > > > from (h/2pi) to (h/2pi/2). > > > > > > > > As for the (F=mv^2) as oposed to (F=mv), that was argued on "Einsteins > > > > > > > Big Idea", on PBS Nova, > > > > > > > but the argument is incomplete, because they do not unrstand the > > > > > > > relationship between v^2 and c^2, and how energy turns to rest mass at > > > > > > > c^2. > > > > > > > This is what I bring to the table. A simplest yet most profound > > > > > > > discovery. > > > > > > > > You do not believe that energy and matter are equal and related > > > > > > > through conversion factor of c^2, as I gather from your post, or am I > > > > > > > wrong in this interpretation? And so you dispute what I say. But I > > > > > > > have analogical, logical, mathematical, stitistical, and empierical > > > > > > > evidence, to prove it, and you have an opportunity to correct > > > > > > > yourself, if you can get over your pride. > > > > > > > > Do you realy think you understand the difference between energy, > > > > > > > momentum, and force? Because in order to do that, you must understand > > > > > > > their likeness also. > > > > > > > Do you realy think that you understand the "Mind of God"? In order to > > > > > > > do that, you must first understand your own mind. > > > > > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > > > > > > P.S. > > > > > > > see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein..html > > > > > > > > NARRATOR: Du Châtelet learned from the brilliant men around her, but > > > > > > > she quickly developed ideas of her own. Much to the horror of her > > > > > > > mentors, she even dared to suspect that there was a flaw in the great > > > > > > > Sir Isaac Newton's thinking. > > > > > > > Newton stated that the energy of an object, the force with which it > > > > > > > collided with another object, could very simply be accounted for by > > > > > > > its mass times its velocity. In correspondence with scientists in > > > > > > > Germany, Du Châtelet learned of another view, that of Gottfried > > > > > > > Leibniz. He proposed that moving objects had a kind of inner spirit. > > > > > > > He called it "vis viva," Latin for "living force." Many discounted his > > > > > > > ideas, but Leibniz was convinced that the energy of an object was made > > > > > > > up of its mass times its velocity, s > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > Hi Conrad ! > > > > > > i liked that paragraph of yours > > > > > > > quote > > > > > > > (F=mv), without the velocity being squared. (KE=1/2mv^2), has its own > > > > > > reason for the (1/2), which is the "equal and opposite" "action/ > > > > > > reaction" pair, which each share half the total energy, according to > > > > > > some. But there is another reason it can be employed, and that is the > > > > > > (spin 1/2) aspect of a particle, which splits the angular momentum > > > > > > end of quote > > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > it is very compatible with my Circlon idea > > > > > > see the appendix of my abstract: > > > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > > you see there how a circlon can make the attraction force > > > > > > and you can see there AS WELL > > > > > > HOW TWO BASIC PARTICLES LIKE THE CIRCLON > > > > > > MOVE IN COUNTER SYMMETRIC > > > > > > HALF CIRCLES > > > > > > > collide and withdraw backwards endlessly AND > > > > > > BY THAT CRATE A BASIC PARTICLE!!.. > > > > > > it can be more than one oint particle like that > > > > > > and instead a BUNCH of such Circlons > > > > > > moving that way and becoming a heavier particle > > > > > > and add on it the 'chain of orbitals' that is composed of > > > > > > linearly connection of such > > > > > > 'rings ' > > > > > > as you can see at the beginning of my abstract > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > -------------------. > > > > > > sorry again that site: > > > > > > http:/sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > hope i typed it right from my memory > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > common Porat you are getting older (:-) > > > > there was a miserable slash missing... > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > may be it is more than time that > > > > Google or the net at all -- will be more forgiving for tiny > > > > typing mistakes ..... > > > > > hope at last ... > > > > sorry > > > > Y.Porat > > > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Hi Porat > > > > I see you have continued to work on your theory > > > > that is good > > > > I will study it more > > > > Conrad J Countess > > > ------------------- > > HI Conrad !!! > > as time goes on (it is from at least 1993 > > copyrighted ) > > > i find more and more fortifications for > > my theory > > and i have a strange feeling that > > combining your above suggestion > > and insight > > with my old suggestion > > **is going to make an earth quake in physics ** > > dont you see it ??!! > > > both of us did it independently > > from completely different disciplines and 'directions' > > (and in a difference of time)- > > > and it seems to me that it fits > > as 'glove to the palm !!' > > > making one plus one- > > much more than two !! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Indeed, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. > It is a wonderful thing to discover something that no one else sees, > at least as far as you know, > argue its case in the face of even professional opposition, with > confidence, knowing that you will prevail in the end, because it is > correct, wheather they can see it, or not, > > Conrad J Countess You are both delusional . seek help |