michel123456

I don't understand why you are waving hands. The answer to my question is yes and the details are here. "The following hypothesis offers an explanation for the mechanism of gravity. The hypothesis presented herein claims that gravity is the result of composite electrostatic forces between electrical charges in particles and bodies. To understand the mechanism I am suggesting that (...) (see link)(...) the electrical charge interactions and charge posturing described above cause what we refer to as gravity." from the link above. I am not in a position to make any judgment.

"and put an object that takes up 2% of the square it would still fit in the square whether it was spread out then made into just length or width" is wrong. or I don't understand what you mean.

One bullet for: "You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is ...blahblahblah." I see no problem. And i agree with Miss issippichem.

something like CATIA?

As much as I can see, the "Purple Pelicans" team made the hand with LEGO for a FLL contest

Duplicated post removed by Michel

from here (link from your link) Is this statement part of your theory? ! Moderator Note Moved from another thread

This is the best answer I ever dreamed of. You just made history.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Z-wDqlOIA

Hi Captain, me again. Today a old thread of december 2009 was resuscitated. I answered, but my post does not appear in the "My Content" entity, although it appears in "View new content" & "today's post". Thanks.

Hm. O.K. let's see it that way. What is the "flawed premise" in this particular case? What is the preconceived notion that contradicts investigation?

Woups a resuscitated thread. You made me read it again from the beginning. It makes me see I still agree with my own comments, what a pleasant surprise! No I don't comprehend and I don't understand. I strongly believe that some kind of logic must be maintained when observing phenomenas. When someone in his lab makes an experiment from which it appears that a single particle interacts with itself, to me logic says something is wrong. Maybe the problem is in the experiment, maybe in the measurement, maybe in the way we take conclusion, maybe in the Theory, there are many possibilities. But it may also be hidden in some basic statement, so basic that we cannot figure we made that statement at all. I think we should focus on this last point. Anyway, I am not prepared to say logic is wrong.

I want to know: in this case, who is the "target"?

"The target..." That makes me sick.

You wrote: The graph shows that Homo reached the most intelligence with Neanderthals. The gradual rise stopped about 100.000 years ago.

in this graph from your link the winner is a Neanderthal. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy

You are 51, isn't it? When did the symptoms appear?

Good example of wall of text. And also, when you have more than one idea to explain, it is really really difficult. When a reader disagrees or doesn't understand the first idea, he stops. The whole process crumbles down since the rest of the text becomes blah blah to him, even if it has a real profound meaning for the author.

Newyear back effect? I noticed also a hate message of Dennis (I presume it was him again) that went deleted quickly. I guess loneliness is to blame.

Bad news, see here. Better news, look here.

Still wondering: In gravitational field there are 3 possible situations: 1. the 2 bodies are free falling in the direction of the gravity well.(as falling from an airplane,the one at t1, the other at t2, without friction) 2. one body is at rest on the external surface and the second body is free falling. (as standing on Earth's surface and observing a stone falling in a well, without friction) 3. the 2 bodies are at rest at different altitude (as one standing at sea level and one standing on Mont Everest). I guess equations must be different for the 3 situations.

Now that you have understood the basics of scaling, take a look here. It's not mine but if your drawing look like this, it is very good beginning. Note the square background is not a must.

1. a dog. But it smells 2. a girl. The odor is better, you will generate water vapor not the system, the system may require no water whisky or champagne will do, and the substances produced are non toxic. I whish you excellent holidays. ----------------------------------------------------------- More seriously: There are on the market several products of radiative electric heating systems, either from the floor or from the ceiling. Both are build-in and usually suitable for small rooms (corridors, bathrooms). Since electricity becomes green (when produced by wind or sun), I think this kind of system meets your requirements. _You can also use common electric radiative heater (simple panels without oil or water), IIRC there are some systems that incorporate electric wiring into marble stone that radiate. You can also use more simply light bulbs. Note that efficiency is not high, and if your electricity provider uses gas, it is one of the worst choice environnementaly speaking. There are also those storage heaters that use electricity at low cost (at night) to accumulate energy in fire bricks that radiate during the day. _you can burn wood. Emission of co2 from wood is not considered a damage for environnement because wood is not fossile energy. But it smells. Good. And it fits well with the girl previously mentioned. -------------------------------------------------------- BTW as Captain suggested, conventional radiators (with water) make the ambiant air dry: you must use a humidifier*, not a dehumidifier. *these are those old fashioned vases that you hang in contact with the radiator, and you fill with water. Or high-tech electrical devices you pay a bunch of money for exactly the same purpose & the same result.

Absolutely correct.

Athena, you made me realize the difference between reason and wisdom. Although I am far from a god, I used reason to act in wisdom.