Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 06:05 pm 12-01-05 -0500, you wrote: >> Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> At 03:24 pm 12-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: > > >> Your protons and neutrons are not like the protons and neutrons >> known to physics. Neutrons and protons both have inertia and gravity, >> but for "the sake of argument" you have divested the neutron of >> inertia and the proton of gravity. >> >> Harry > > > Oh dear. I'll try just once more! > > I am only too well aware of the fact that protons and neutrons have > inertia and gravity, which is precisely why I prefaced my remarks with > the words "for the sake of argument". I couldn't use the names of the > particle [Thing 1 say] which is "seen" by gravity, nor could I use the > name of the particle which is "seen" [Thing 2, say] by inertia coz .... > > .....to adapt those immortal lines from Tom Lehrer's "The Elements" to > to the sub-elements. > > # And there may be many others but they haven't been disca-vard. > Bum, ba-da-ta tum tum, bum bum! ... # > > Thing 1 and Thing 2 are empty spaces in a minimalist table; > analogous to the empty spaces in the Mendeleev table before > the elements that occupied those spaces were disca-vard. > > Cheers
Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? Harry
