On further thought, considering the rash of PM’s and posts on this subject, I will continue hashing this out and will do so in the tone already set for this debate.
I might like to offer my opinion on these one at a time, also
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bonsaial1
Nature does not make rules. Man makes rules. Nature breaks rules all the time. It is called Chaos. Chaos is what makes a drop of water run the same drip after drip, till suddenly it takes a different path. There are countless scientists out there that come up with theoretical probability charts about chaos on a boundless array of subjects from horse racing to Skydiving. Nothing in the Universe is bound in stone. To make an absolute statement like that is losing objectivity.
|
Al, your “Jurassic Park” physics are incorrect.
Nature does in fact have rules and very strong ones at that and they are never broken. Gravity, thermal exchange, E=MC2 are just a few of many rules of nature. Without these unchanging rules, we could not exist. Oh sure, the uncertainty principle set things into motion in the first few nano seconds after the big bang but there has been order every since. Remember that there is even order is disorder.
I would suggest boning up on modern physics before making such statements as you did above. The dripping faucet is much more likely to be affected by Edward Lorenz’s butterfly effect than Chaos Theory, although both are related concerning deterministic systems as oppossed to quantum chaos theory that studies non-deterministic systems following the laws of quantum mechanics. Your Chaos theroy would best be applied to such systems as the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth. Either way, none of this has squat to do with the conversation at hand and only serves to distract from the issue.
Lets just agree that everything in the universe is in fact bound in stone, yes even chaos theroy has rules. Face it, the odds that the atoms in body will suddenly rearranging themselves into a eight breasted, six armed white ape from Mars are so slim as to be impossible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bonsaial1
Nature is not genius. Genius is a human trait, not one found in nature. It has no soul nor a nervous system. It does not feel nor does it have a conscious. Trees in nature simply survive by doing whatever necessary to remain alive. If that meant growing a root on the side of the plant to compensate for winds out of that direction for a certain part of the year, it would do it. Plants do not grow in nature with the same artistry we try to hold our bonsai accountable to.
|
Al, ALL SCIENCE is the direct result of man attempting to understand, control, or duplicate nature’s remarkable genius. In fact bonsai is all about creating the idea tree in miniature, we use nature as guidelines because in all honesty, nothing else would look “natural.”
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Will heath
4. The nebari on the side away from the lean also acts as a visual balance, which is needed on most slanting styled trees.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bonsaial1
With this statement I agree. This is by far the only thing that goes without dispute. This agrees with the ideals of artistry. This alone is something which would separate good from average slanting bonsai. The tree above is average, because it has roots on one side. It is not bad because you feel the roots are on the wrong side. Just on the wrong side for the sake of artistry. Don’t get confused with the artistry aspect so much that you lose objectivity. Objectivity is what allows us to keep working with the plants we have and not just giving up. This would be far easier.
|
Then why are we even debating? You have agreed to my point, to use your own words, “this is not rocket science.” Objectivity would be
admitting that the roots are on the wrong side, but you are working on it anyway.
And one other question that has nothing what-so-ever to do with our debate…What in God’s name are you trying to say with your signature?
With all due respect,
Will Heath