"Y.Porat" wrote in message
om...
actually i stater to type that postulate by saing:
any messenger ........
but than i realised just like you that in everyday life it is often
that the messenger is actually much stronger than the sender
(a lot in politics, commerce crime world etc etc)
so i added imediately: 'in physics'
anyway
do you get my physics meaning ?
does it look convicing to you?does it look a right postulate?
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------


I know nothing about such things but your politics etc. analogy does
highlight something. ie. An implication that in physics the messenger comes
from within the sender and so must be smaller than it. Is this true?
Intuitively I would guess this is not the case as if it were, each time a
message was sent, the sender would shrink. I would expect instead that the
sender would transfer the message to the messenger which would then deliver
the message ( and then be free to take a message for someone else? )

Maybe the sender interacts with the messenger which alters both in some way.
The messenger then goes somewhere else and has another interaction. This
second interaction is coloured by the state of the messenger which is itself
dependent on the interaction with the first sender so in some way,
information about the state of the sender has been transferred to a change
in the state of the recipient via the messenger.

But maybe all that made no sense?

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm