Acme

Yes; art is subjective. So while you may not consider an unambiguously rigorously rendered drawing -such as the Mandelbrot set or piece thereof- as art, that does not preclude the rest of us from labeling it so. What concept would Mandelbrot have conveyed by the set's equation alone? How many folks would be familiar with the set or 'know' what it means without the 'subjective' illustrations of it? Little I wager.

Benjamin Franklin.

Well, there is a whole class of ET fixation called 'reptilians', and perhaps those would be better images to post than those of the 'grays'. Then too, there is a widespread fear of spiders in humans and I don't off-hand recall any spider alien stories so I don't think you can lay the alien phenom to snakes. Before aliens were all the rage, folks were seeing, being probed, and otherwise sensing visitations by angels, ghosties, demons and the like. source: http://www.heise.de/ix/raven/Literature/Lore/TheRaven.html source: http://www.hpj.com/archives/2012/mar12/mar26/0301UniversalFearofSpiders1.cfm

...redacted Chomp on with your snicker snack Vampires soulless entities trapped in the dark Do you see yourself in a mirror or not?

Ahh well, you may run but you can't hide from Gödel's hammer. As to Einstein und Gödel: *source: http://discovermagazine.com/2002/mar/featgodel As to positioning your head, what you need is Escher's box for holding optical illusions. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvedere_(M._C._Escher)

What honestly does not make any sense here is that you seem to argue that you don't see yourself in a mirror. Shall we next discuss vampirism?

You're welcome. However, do not put words in my mouth. While I did say/write "...when it comes to discussing things, words is all we has.", that is not the same as "'Words are absolutely essential ' [to everything]". If nothing else, because of Gödel's proof; i.e. if a formal axiomatic system is internally consistent it must be incomplete and if it is complete it must be internally inconsistent.

Keep in mind that when it comes to discussing things, words is all we has. Trying to trivialize this fact by referring to semantics is a fool's folly. Yes a thing may be both scientific and artistic; no, not all things are both scientific and artistic. Mr. Tea asked, "Or do you have some examples of scientists using art* to communicate with other scientists? *in a non-trivial fashion.". Yes says Acme; I do. source: Vitruvian Man @ Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man

There is no such qualification as 'pure' matter.

Sounds like you have some specific example(s) in mind, so it would be helpful in answering your questions for you to share that information. In general however, 'fruit' trees may flower and produce no fruit due to a simple lack of pollination.

Pettle balling the kot cack? source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ironshrink/201001/the-art-fine-whining

Seeds. And can you post some pics for us? Vielen dank.

However, illustrations/compositions/depictions are not necessarily not art as you seem to imply. By the same token, if Mike means to imply every illustration/composition/depiction is necessarily art, then I disagree with that too. Nonetheless, if either an illustrator/composer/depicter or a viewer sees/hears art, then art it be's. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye. ~ Miss Piggy source: http://www.searchquotes.com/quotes/author/Miss_Piggy/

Art is as art does. source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/art Mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences. ~ Carl Friedrich Gauss Wherever there is number, there is beauty. ~ Proclus It is impossible to be a mathematician without being a poet in soul. ~ Sophie Kowalevski

Mmmmm... I find your assessment rather lacking in scientific curiosity and imagination. Is it unlikely that under real-life situations Maple seeds don't fly as they do when a person throws them up under similar conditions of temperature, moisture, etcetera, etcetera? Would you -as a professional geneticist- really suggest Maples have not evolved flying seeds? Rather than poo-pooing the general idea I have presented, wouldn't it be more fruitful if you addressed some of the specific mechanisms I have proposed? Yes; of course it would. If you find the experiments I have suggested as inadequate, then give your specific arguments to support your conclusion(s). Then too, you might propose experiments of your own.

Perhaps you could elaborate on 'far-fetched'. As to Arabidopsis, I handle them a lot too when I pull the introduced ones such as Thalecress as weeds.I haven't handled them with paper, but I don't find it surprising that other plants than O. suksdorfii may take advantage of electrostatics for seed dispersal.

Maybe. I would have to see more documentation than supplied in that article. Relevant or not, I agree that your example is different than the plant I'm discussing & while I appreciate your effort I see no practical use for my investigations. I seem to be currently balloon deficient and so haven't performed any experiments. However, as I was unsure what charge the wool-rubbed balloon would carry I did some reading and found it would be positive. Also found that if I rubbed leather on the wool it would acquire a negative charge, so I'll be trying both. Also of help in this area was a Wiki article on 'triboelectric effect'. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect At last check there were no views of the video I linked to of a pod exploding. It might be helpful to have a look in order to form an opinion on my suggestion that the explosion event may be responsible for imparting a charge to the seeds. Just sayin'.

What exactly do you mean by "Well good it is a very opportunistic species" ? I would have to read an authoritive source before I believe your claim that O. suksdorfii is in Pennsylvania. Do you have such a source? Again your writing is quite incomprehensible. What do you mean here? More apparent gibberish. What does any of this have to do with the topic of electrostatic seed dispersal as a plant strategy? Word salad. Please stay on topic or don't post. Thank you.

No; I had no dissiculty. I suggest we fight of invading aliens by thumping them with holy books.

Risk? Give us a break. Aren't you claiming knowledge of a creator after all? That's rhetorical so don't bother answering. Of course you are. Good grief.

I used to appreciate the weight business but that was weigh before 8000gm bikes. These days I trundle along on an 80's Columbia tricycle and my signaling to pedestrians is a "sorry!" shouted over my shoulder. I'm glad I was able to contribute something to your venture; happy trails.

Well, so-called miracles Jesus were probably attributed to him after his death. St. Paul (the man who de facto created Christianity) did not know Jesus personally. But he was a zealous believer. When religious figures die, their disciples begin telling stories about them and their greatness, they attribute miracles and supernatural powers to their gurus. Then, with the passage of time, these stories become even more distorted. AFAIK the whole Old Testament was created this way. I have no idea what your comment means in relation to my post. Probably nothing.

They are at my house now to pick me up so we can go cover-up what we did to that Malaysian flight. Do you think it's an accident SFN got a thread on it right away?

Jesus may well have been a con man and accomplished stage magician. Steeped in stories of Moses outwitting Pharoh's magicians, he taught himself magic and fitting his act to prophesy and his patter to scripture, he took his show on the road. Think David Blain dazzling common folk on the street. Think phishers of men. He had a life of leisure as he lived off the good will of others. His carpentry skills served well to build stage props such as the false-bottom basket he used to perform the loaves and fishes 'miracle'. Likely some of the disciples were in on the game, but not all of them. No wonder the Sanhedrin were pissed. The crucifixion was just another trick. Things were getting hot so he payed off the Romans and staged his 'death'. Saw a lady in half, nail a guy to a cross. Ain't no thang. On the third day, he then cut and ran for India.

source: >> http://www.artofeurope.com/shakespeare/sha8.htm PS If I am caught or killed, SFN will disavow any knowledge of my actions.