Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
why not one name for all-- stolon, rhizomes, runners; strawberries
So clover calls it stolon and brome grass calls it rhizomes and
strawberries call it runners. Why not just call them all one name of rhizomes. Now I plan to experiment on the strawberry rhizomes as to how to maximize both fruit and number of plants. By the way, the best thing I ever did with my strawberries was put them in huge pots so that I can control them always. I also lined the ground with used- sheet metal so as to keep out the weeds between the pots. The leaves on my strawberries are just tremendous huge and deep green and each plant has handfulls of berries coming. Also I want to experiment on topsoils for these strawberries. I have the notion that the topsoil from wooded areas is the finest topsoil because of the mycorrhiza (a good spelling-be word). So that is a interesting experiment to see if the woods topsoil is better than the grassland plains topsoil. I am acting as a sort of strawberry selector, so that the plants that deliver good fruit, I reward them with getting more of that plant and providing with more fertilizer. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
why not one name for all-- stolon, rhizomes, runners; strawberries
wrote in news:594139d9-3345-4ad2-85eb-
: So clover calls it stolon and brome grass calls it rhizomes and strawberries call it runners. Why not just call them all one name of rhizomes. A horizontal stem that is above ground is called a stolon, if it is below ground, it is a rhizome. Strawberry runners are stolons. Iris rhizomes are stolons too. Bermuda grass grows both. Confused yet? Sean ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
special about animal intestine why not one name for all-- stolon,rhizomes, runners; strawberries
Sean Houtman wrote: wrote in news:594139d9-3345-4ad2-85eb- : So clover calls it stolon and brome grass calls it rhizomes and strawberries call it runners. Why not just call them all one name of rhizomes. A horizontal stem that is above ground is called a stolon, if it is below ground, it is a rhizome. Strawberry runners are stolons. Iris rhizomes are stolons too. Bermuda grass grows both. Confused yet? Naming is not actual science. But let me ask you a question of science. If I had a wagon load of grass clippings to spread on a lawn as fertilizer and if instead I fed the grass clippings to a horse so it goes through the intestine of a horse and then spread the horse manure. Does the horse intestine add nitrogen to the manure? And is there more nitrogen in horse manure than in grass clippings that decompose? I want to know the value of going through an animal intestine as opposed to vegetation that decomposes for fertilizer. Has anyone quantified the nitrogen that comes from animal intestine versus vegetation decomposition. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
#1 new book: Chemistry: Complementarity of nitrogen between plantsand animals
Malcolm wrote: (snipped) Has anyone quantified the nitrogen that comes from animal intestine versus vegetation decomposition. Grass cuttings contains up to twice as much nitrogen as horse manure, 2-4% compared to 1-2%. Some of the nitrogen in the vegetation eaten by a horse is converted by its gut bacteria into protein. -- Malcolm I am not going to have time to expand this. I wrote of this idea in the 1990s, the idea that there is Complimentarity going on between animals versus plants. Much like the Complimentarity that plants give off oxygen and utilize carbon dioxide whereas animals do the opposite. So there is a Complimentarity going on here as far as oxygen to carbon dioxide. Now I reckoned in the 1990s that there is Complimentarity for plants giving food to animals but that animals do return the favor by giving food to plants in terms of their waste and their bodies in death. The kind of answer I seek is not someone crudely estimating how much nitrogen in a bale of grass that decomposes versus the nitrogen of that bale of grass gone through a horses body. The kind of answer I really seek is to find out the actual chemistry of where nitrogen is formed on the bale of grass that decomposes versus the nitrogen on the horse manure of that bale of grass. I rather doubt the accuracy of Malcolm's numbers " 2-4% compared to 1-2%" Those numbers suggest that plants are better at fertilizing themselves than in the prescence of animals. I have mowed my fields for 5 years and never were they as lush and green and vibrant as this year after 1 year of horse grazing. I can tell exactly where last years horse droppings were from the lush green grass. Maybe I am too narrow on the nitrogen and maybe there are other nutrients as important as nitrogen. But what I want to know is this Complimentarity relationship of exactly where in an animal's body is nitrogen fixed to some molecules that end up as horse manure. I can easily trace how carbon dioxide is turned to oxygen by plants and vice versa both in process of Metabolism and in Photosynthesis, but, however it seems as though noone has focused on how nitrogen via animals and plants is a Complimentarity relationship. I should write a whole book on this when I return in August. Call it the Chemistry: Plant & Animal Complimentarity of Nitrogen I should compile my old posts of 1990s where I made this conjecture. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
#2 new book: Chemistry: Complementarity of nitrogen between plantsand animals
wrote: Malcolm wrote: (snipped) I rather doubt the accuracy of Malcolm's numbers " 2-4% compared to 1-2%" Those numbers suggest that plants are better at fertilizing themselves than in the prescence of animals. I have mowed my fields for 5 years and never were they as lush and green and vibrant as this year after 1 year of horse grazing. I can tell exactly where last years horse droppings were from the lush green grass. Maybe I am too narrow on the nitrogen and maybe there are other nutrients as important as nitrogen. But what I want to know is this Complimentarity relationship of exactly where in an animal's body is nitrogen fixed to some molecules that end up as horse manure. I can easily trace how carbon dioxide is turned to oxygen by plants and vice versa both in process of Metabolism and in Photosynthesis, but, however it seems as though noone has focused on how nitrogen via animals and plants is a Complimentarity relationship. I should write a whole book on this when I return in August. Call it the Chemistry: Plant & Animal Complimentarity of Nitrogen I should compile my old posts of 1990s where I made this conjecture. I doubt Malcolm's numbers because I suspect that he does not include the fact that the decomposition of clippings probably has to go through the digestive process of bacteria to gain that 2 - 4% nitrogen. So I suspect Malcolm is overlooking the fact that he replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine. And I would call the bacteria in this case part of the Animal Kingdom. So I want far more of answers than the superficial answers. I want actual chemistry of a Nitrogen cycle, just as one can follow the oxygen and carbon dioxide complementarity in respiration, metabolism in plants and animals. I want the nitrogen to what?? complimentarity between plants and animals. What is the compound that is compliment to nitrogen? For respiration we have carbon dioxide compliment to oxygen. So what is the nitrogen the compliment of? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
#2 new book: Chemistry: Complementarity of nitrogen between plants and animals
wrote in news:ddfe6177-75d8-4a6b-9783-
: I doubt Malcolm's numbers because I suspect that he does not include the fact that the decomposition of clippings probably has to go through the digestive process of bacteria to gain that 2 - 4% nitrogen. So I suspect Malcolm is overlooking the fact that he replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine. And I would call the bacteria in this case part of the Animal Kingdom. Malcolm got his numbers from studies of the contstituents of grass and animal manure. These studies use chemistry to extract the elements that are contained in the substance studied. There are no bacteria involved in these measurements, in fact, most of the nitrogen that is in the horse droppings is contained within bacteria. These bacteria must die in order for plants to be able to use the nitrogen they contain. That isn't a real problem though, horse intestinal bacteria don't survive well in soil. Soil bacteria will break down the grass clippings, using the nitrogen for their own purposes, and then at some point, will die, and release their nitrogen to the system that includes plants, to take it up and make protein out of. Horses might eat the grass, but like most animals, they need protein, which they extract from the grass in their intestines, which is why there is less nitrogen in their droppings than in the food they eat. Sean ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
#3 what is the complement of Nitrogen? new book: Chemistry:Complementarity of nitrogen between plants and animals
Malcolm wrote:
In article , writes wrote: Malcolm wrote: (snipped) I rather doubt the accuracy of Malcolm's numbers " 2-4% compared to 1-2%" Those numbers suggest that plants are better at fertilizing themselves than in the prescence of animals. I have mowed my fields for 5 years and never were they as lush and green and vibrant as this year after 1 year of horse grazing. I can tell exactly where last years horse droppings were from the lush green grass. Maybe I am too narrow on the nitrogen and maybe there are other nutrients as important as nitrogen. But what I want to know is this Complimentarity relationship of exactly where in an animal's body is nitrogen fixed to some molecules that end up as horse manure. I am going to have to look up "my history" on this topic of the Complimentarity of plants to animals where I include bacteria as part of the animal kingdom. I think it was the late 1990s. I can remember making some assertion that carbon was complimentary to calcium since the function of a backbone in both plants and animals. Actually, I am not sure that biologists include all bacteria as part of the animal kingdom so that is another item I have to look up. This is all very important because what is happening here is that the physics of Quantum Mechanics is going to make some "order" in the classification of plants to animals. Prior to this application of Complimentarity, biologists had a "linear and 1 dimensional one way view of biological processes between animals and plants". Complimentarity implies that the first creation of plants was contemporary with the creation of animals. So that first life on Earth was not a sole entity but a group of entities, where they lived nearby one another in order to live at all. There is one obvious Complement that everyone knows-- oxygen with carbon dioxide in respiration. So, what is the complement of Nitrogen in plants? It is probably a molecule. Nitrogen is essential for ATP and for DNA. So probably the ATP or sugars is the complement of nitrogen. Now calcium in plants is not the backbone, but carbon is the backbone in plants. So what in animals is the backbone? It is calcium. In plants, calcium serves as a transport system, but in animals, calcium function is the skeleton and backbone. So it is likely that calcium is the complement of carbon between animals and plants. So perhaps in the above I have located three preliminary Complements between plants and animals. In other words, if all the animals were dead tomorrow, it would be impossible for life to remain on Earth for all the plants would soon be dead shortly thereafter, and vice versa. This is because of Complementarity. I can easily trace how carbon dioxide is turned to oxygen by plants and vice versa both in process of Metabolism and in Photosynthesis, but, however it seems as though noone has focused on how nitrogen via animals and plants is a Complimentarity relationship. I should write a whole book on this when I return in August. Call it the Chemistry: Plant & Animal Complimentarity of Nitrogen I should compile my old posts of 1990s where I made this conjecture. I doubt Malcolm's numbers because I suspect that he does not include the fact that the decomposition of clippings probably has to go through the digestive process of bacteria to gain that 2 - 4% nitrogen. Go away and learn some chemistry. Well you do not include the fact that bacteria are animals and that the computation of the grass clippings gone through the bacteria as well as the horse manure gone through the bacteria. The reason that a lawn given horse droppings from a grazing horse is far better than the same lawn given grass mowing, is because the amount of nitrogen fertilizer from horse exceeds the nitrogen fertilizer from mowing. So I suspect Malcolm is overlooking the fact that he replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine. And I would call the bacteria in this case part of the Animal Kingdom. You really don't understand the digestive processes of horses, do you? You do not understand the conversation and where it is going. And your claim that it is a "fact" that what I said "replaces a horse intestine with bacteria intestine" is just a completely meaningless, indeed nonsense, statement. If you doubt my figures, which are verifiable, then produce some of your own. Anyone can come to the sci newsgroups with their mind made up that they hate someone and then fish around for some angle which they think they can upset or disprove their object of hate. I do not need a Malcolm who counts how many nitrogen atoms are in a blade of grass compared to grass in a horse intestine. I need a chemist who knows the metabolism of plants that convert nitrogen to making of proteins and why that nitrogen is essential, and why nitrogen is not essential in making of proteins in animals. And thus, what is the Complement of nitrogen between animals to plants. So I want far more of answers than the superficial answers. Don't accuse me of being superficial, when you can't produce a single figure yourself. You are superficial when you cannot answer the flow of the conversation and you are proven superficial by your childish attitude now in leaving without ever learning anything. I want actual chemistry of a Nitrogen cycle, just as one can follow the oxygen and carbon dioxide complementarity in respiration, metabolism in plants and animals. I want the nitrogen to what?? complimentarity between plants and animals. Then go and find it. I've given you a factual answer and your non-acceptance of it shows that I wasted my time trying to help you. You counted how many nitrogen atoms in grass compared to grass in horse intestine. That was not my question. My question was why does a field that is pastured by horse so much better fertilized than if the field were simply mowed? Why does passing through the intestine of a horse a far better fertilizer. You countered that question by saying I was wrong. I was not wrong. You do not want to answer questions, you only want to prove me wrong, because you are a hatemonger, not a scientist seeking answers. What is the compound that is compliment to nitrogen? I suppose you mean "complement". For once you got onto the wavetrain of this conversation, but as usual, you dropp it as quickly as you enter it in a fleeting moment. Do you know quantum mechanics? Do you know the Complimentary Principle. Do you know that carbon dioxide is the compliment of oxygen in respiration between plants and animals? Apparently you do not know any of this. For respiration we have carbon dioxide compliment to oxygen. So what is the nitrogen the compliment of? See above. Goodbye. I've wasted enough time on you. -- Malcolm Good riddance for your aim was never to do science but your sole aim was to try to hatemonger and rattle my conversation. Anyone that replies to a post of Archimedes Plutonium should ask themselves a question before they hit the "send key". They should ask themselves, am I replying because I love science and love to know some truth, or are they replying because they said to themselves "I hate this guy, and aha, I think I have an angle which will disprove or rattle his conversation". The majority of replies to Archimedes Plutonium are from hatemongers who never should have been in science in the first place. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
#4 exactly where is Nitrogen essential for plants; new book:
Sean Houtman wrote: (snip) Malcolm got his numbers from studies of the contstituents of grass and animal manure. These studies use chemistry to extract the elements that are contained in the substance studied. There are no bacteria involved in these measurements, in fact, most of the nitrogen that is in the horse droppings is contained within bacteria. These bacteria must die in order for plants to be able to use the nitrogen they contain. That isn't a real problem though, horse intestinal bacteria don't survive well in soil. Soil bacteria will break down the grass clippings, using the nitrogen for their own purposes, and then at some point, will die, and release their nitrogen to the system that includes plants, to take it up and make protein out of. Horses might eat the grass, but like most animals, they need protein, which they extract from the grass in their intestines, which is why there is less nitrogen in their droppings than in the food they eat. Sean ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Sean, I said as much in one sentence as what you are saying in a paragraph. I said that Malcolm was not including the bacteria that digest the grass clippings and that bacteria are part of the animal kingdom. The problem here is not the science pursuit but the understanding of my questions. So let me ask you for a website that discusses the Nitrogen in plants that makes proteins in plants. Why is nitrogen essential in the making of proteins in plants? And why is nitrogen not essential in the making of proteins in animals. I suppose that would have been the more clear question. So do you know of a website, Sean that begins to pinpoint where the Nitrogen is this essential plant requirement whereas this same nitrogen is not essential for the animal to perform that function. The Complimentarity of oxygen to carbon dioxide in respiration between plants and animals is readily seen and understood. What is not readily seen and understood are the other Complements between plants and animals such as this Nitrogen to what? Is it sugars? Is it ATP? The trouble I am having here, is that most biologists would never dream or try to understand that plants to animals is a Complimentary relationship, and that biologists are very much naive on this idea. That they see things only in a one way 1 dimensional view. So, Sean, can you point to a website that tells me where exactly is it in plants that Nitrogen is this essential ingrediant for which that same function in animals, the nitrogen is not essential? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
#4 Complementary relationship of nitrogen in plants to what in
Sean Houtman wrote: The nitrogen in the grass clippings are going to be in the form of proteins. The horse that eats them is going to extract as much of that protein as it can for its own metabolism and use. Some of that will be returned to you as the urea in the horse's urine, which is somewhat easier for plants to access, as there are fewer steps involved in bacteria turning it into a form that the plants can use. But in the end, there is less nitrogen in the grass after the horse has finished with it than before. I am not chasing after the numbers of nitrogen atoms. I am chasing after the concept of "essential". So the question I am after is where in plants is this nitrogen "essential" whereas in animals, nitrogen was never "essential" for that function. The function, I am guessing is, protein synthesis. So, I suppose that in protein synthesis in animals, nitrogen is irrelevant. But in plants, in order to do protein synthesis the nitrogen is essential. So, Sean, can you point to a website that pinpoints this essentialness. What I hope to find is what molecules are the complimentary counterpart in animals. I want to know the value of going through an animal intestine as opposed to vegetation that decomposes for fertilizer. Going through the animal intestine benefits the animal. Some animals grind the plant parts up quite a bit, but horses aren't one of them. Has anyone quantified the nitrogen that comes from animal intestine versus vegetation decomposition. That has been done as well. Animals extract more nitrogen from the plants that they eat than they leave behind, until they die that is. Sean I do not expect biologists to readily accept or even understand Complementarity in biology. In fact, I expect this sort of meshing of minds, where every word of a sentence has a derailing potential. The easiest way is to say " look at respiration in that plants need carbon dioxide and emit oxygen and animals need oxygen and emit carbon dioxide" Look at that and realize it is a complimentary relationship. Now, look at nitrogen in plants as essential so, where is the other half of the complimentary relationship? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
#6 is carbon to calcium a Complimentary relationship in animals to
I seem to have mixed up the numbers in the posts. This is #6 and the
previous one was #5. You can tell I love science for even on vacation, it is as intense as ever. One of my last books will be a book of Happiness. What is "happy" and what is happiness defined by science. It is the desire of "order". And the desire to know the truth is a form of order. So to do science is to want order and to want order is to be happy. So my vacation itself is a wanting of order because it is a wanting of happiness. But I stray. This Complementarity in biology is another chapter of the disproving of Darwin Evolution theory, because Darwin Evolution does not allow for complementarity. Complementarity does not evolve. Complementarity is physics. So the first life on Earth could not have been solely plant kingdom awaiting millions and billions of years before animals were created and evolved. Complementary in biology means that the first life on Earth had to be a group of living particles, some plants and some animals (bacteria in the animal kingdom). Now I have touched on the basic Complimentarity of plants to animals: (1) oxygen to carbon dioxide in respiration but there are others and I suspect these: (2) carbon to calcium in the function of body structure (3) nitrogen to sugar in the function of energy gain There are many others. The point of Complimentarity is that it is the least energy consumption to organize life. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
#7 exactly where is Nitrogen essential for plants; new book:
Bob wrote: On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:07:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Why is nitrogen essential in the making of proteins in plants? And why is nitrogen not essential in the making of proteins in animals. The N is protein is the same regardless of organism. Thus the need for N is the same in all organisms. (However, organisms vary in what form of N they can handle. For example, you may know that about 10 of the 20 amino acids are essential in humans; we are unable to make them, so must consume them, pre-formed, in our diet.) bob Thanks for the remarks. Looks like I need to expand the search from proteins to amino acids. Can you elaborate where the N atom or atoms lie in a protein molecule of a plant versus an animal. I need some picture of the N atom in a plant protein versus a animal protein. Is the N atom/s in plant protein any different from the N atom in animal proteins? You say that about 10 of the 20 amino acids are essential in humans. That is about half. So is it somewhat true that the other 10 are essential in plants, but not humans? If the universe of amino acids is 20, then is there a even split of 10 essentials for plants whereas the other 10 are essential to animals? Are there any catalysts involved with the Nitrogen uptake in plants and animals? If so, are they different for plants versus animals? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
#8 perhaps it is horsemanure + horse urea that is greater supply of N
wrote: Sean Houtman wrote: The nitrogen in the grass clippings are going to be in the form of proteins. The horse that eats them is going to extract as much of that protein as it can for its own metabolism and use. Some of that will be returned to you as the urea in the horse's urine, which is somewhat easier for plants to access, as there are fewer steps involved in bacteria turning it into a form that the plants can use. But in the end, there is less nitrogen in the grass after the horse has finished with it than before. According to Malcolm's figures of 2-4% for grass clippings versus 1-2% nitrogen for horsemanure of whatever source for those figures, can be explained as not including the horse urea while pasturing. Perhaps the urea contains even more nitrogen fertilizer than the manure. So that would explain why for 5 years of simply mowing was never as good as one year of a horse pasturing and the subsequent lush growth. One of my apple trees where the horse spent a long time in emitting waste (bathrooming for the quesy reader) has now become the most outstanding growing apple tree. So what I am saying is that I have a experiment to base my opinion, that having mowed the field for 5 years with never explosive growth, yet with 1 year of a horse pasturing that the trees and bushes and grass are in explosive growth. And the easy answer is that the nitrogen provided by Horsemanure + Horse**** is far more richer in nitrogen than the grass mowed clippings. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
#9 Complimentarity between plants and animals; new book: Chemistry:Complementarity of nitrogen between plants and animals
Bob wrote: I need some picture of the N atom in a plant protein versus a animal protein. Is the N atom/s in plant protein any different from the N atom in animal proteins? no, of course not. I meant whether the N bonding in plants was surrounded by different atoms than that found in animals. For example, the N in plants maybe bonded to H whereas in animals to O. That is why a picture is helpful. You say that about 10 of the 20 amino acids are essential in humans. That is about half. So is it somewhat true that the other 10 are essential in plants, but not humans? If the universe of amino acids is 20, then is there a even split of 10 essentials for plants whereas the other 10 are essential to animals? I didn�t say animals, I said humans. Your point is not even logical. All my points are highly logical, once you understand them. I start with an irrefutable logic that plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen and vice versa for animals. This is Complimentarity in biology. So, I want to see whether there are more Complimentarities. Let's see, using our elementary understanding of plants, wouldn't we expect that none of the amino acids are essential for them? I don't know for sure; would be interesting to check that. It is rare for biology to have any universals, so there probably are alot of exceptions to your above. One could say, and I have said it before on the Internet that biology is physics in motion and thus there are exceptions to every law of biology. Are there any catalysts involved with the Nitrogen uptake in plants and animals? If so, are they different for plants versus animals? They vary all over. There are all sorts of uptake systems, and obviously there is some correlation with diet. I hope you aren�t hoping to find some "principle" here. bob Let me change that question. Can anyone think of a catalyst in animals that is complimentary to a catalyst in plants. Do plants have a catalyst that animals use and alter and for which plants later use. I kind of suspect molybdenum. But then again I just remembered that iron in the oceans is rare except in the bodies of animals in the ocean. So the plants in the ocean rely on animal blood for iron. But whether iron is a catalyst in plants is unknown and whether a catalyst in animals unknown. This maybe what is called a "cycle" and not a catalyst. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
#10 new and good progress on Complimentarity of Nitrogen between
Alright, I had a small diversion with looking at the nitrogen in the
"burn sensation of liquors". A rather pleasant diversion to help me see what is so special about Nitrogen for plants versus animals. Nitrogen is essential for both plants and animals, but especially for plants. And why is it so special? It is because nitrogen is the pivot between acid and alkaline. And now that I see that, I can make more progress in answering what is the Compliment of nitrogen in plants. Going by the confirmed compliment in respiration plants take in carbon dioxide, emit oxygen and vice versa for animals. So what is the compliment of nitrogen in plants? Well, since nitrogen is this boundary-point of alkaline chemistry versus acid chemistry, then animals are on the other side of this boundary dealing with "more acid than with alkalinity". In the respiration Complimentarity, there is no pivot point or boundary point for it is the exchange of carbon-dioxide to oxygen. But with Nitrogen Complimentarity, we have this actual boundary point of nitrogen itself. The nitrogen compounds animals produce is waste products, where the animal chemical transactions are acidic. People in biology and chemistry are going to have a very difficult time in understanding this book because they are all oriented in a belief that Darwin Evolution is true. It is not true, but false, and biology is governed by Quantum Physics with Complimentarity. Animals and Plants came into existence not through evolution but came together at once and were created by high energy gamma rays or Cosmic Rays. The first life on Earth was two things-- both plants and animals at once. First life on earth was a colony of life of some energetic gamma ray. Virtually everyone who believes in Darwin Evolution is too dumb to read or understand this book. Life is Complimentarity of Quantum Mechanics, and that means it is not evolution. We can use Darwin Evolution to get a sense of the flow of changes in life forms, but the real science behind the changes in life is physics. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Scientific Name Eschsclozia californica COMMON NAME CALIFORNIA POPPY Family Name Papavaraceae | Garden Photos | |||
Scientific Name Salvia mellifera COMMON NAME BLACK SAGE Family Name Lamiaceae | Garden Photos | |||
Few strawberries; many runners | Edible Gardening | |||
Why are my strawberrys sending out runners this early??!!! | Edible Gardening | |||
Java ferns -no rhizomes | Freshwater Aquaria Plants |