Vivec

Well, Studiot, that makes a whole lot of since. Collected substances are not made like atoms, do not share geometry and therefore will not show atomic behavior. Instead of a proton nucleolus we're talking hundreds of thousands of proton nuclei. Like the difference between the a one ringed target and a target range. I could smell a stink in my brain, I simply could not find it. I did try a light search before this post, however, I admit that I didn't thoroughly research this. See, I had a chem class, but an awful professor. If I had a question then my professor would tell me "It's right there in yer book, Mr. Cooper. You didn't read it." Oh I read it, alright, but I also understand chemistry enough to know that my ADHD is a chemical problem and I sometimes cannot help when I fail to understand. Well, the subject was chapter two, ionization, and I didn't get it. I don't remember the question anymore but needless to say I failed. My professor failed. I tried but I simply could not understand what the cursed book was saying. This lack of education is likely the cause of this very post. However, that does not mean that the class has ended. I don't give up easily and that class was five years ago. I'm still here on SFN trying to learn a bit of chemistry. Spartans and Marines alike taught me that behavior and I must be proud enough to say HOOWAH! Thank you for the atomic visibility references, Ajb. It sorta killed this thread, serving my intentions well. John, I'm almost positive that you either misunderstood my post completely or you just skipped through it. You can't just stick gold atoms in a place and expect them to look a certain way. A great many different forces act upon an objects geometry. Nearly all of these forces need to be calculated and taken into great consideration. You may be right, well you ARE right, but you didn't back yourself up very well. Realize, I've been on and off chemical subjects for years. I do understand chemistry, just not as well as someone who passed their class. That's why I was asking you. Thank you for your input, though. I did get a nice reference from you as well.

In order for something to be eternal, Time must exist. If time does not exist then "eternity" falls apart. In order to have "nothing" then the "something" must exist elsewhere. If there exists an elsewhere then space must exist. If space exists then this suggests the existence of two or more "somethings." If motion can only happen in relation to "something," then these "somethings" suggest to be moving in relation to other "somethings." It is widely believed that the dimensions are curved ever so slightly. I buy that and I believe the same for "time." What if "matter" is "nothing." What if the "matter" we perceive is really the separation of infinitely dense "everything." Division of an infinite system to create finite space infinitely. If "empty space" were actually "infinitely dense space" then this question is put to rest. "Something" doesn't come from "nothing," but rather the "nothing" is a division of "everything." Nassim Haramein did a flick called "The Black Hole," where he suggested this concept using some rather sound logic.

This odd thought keeps nagging at me and I have been debating whether or not I should even share this on the forum. It may even get trashed and rejected completely. Whatever happens here is cool with me, I simply need some well thought input to help me develop my own thoughts here. Where to begin is even kind of difficult. I believe there is a way to visibly see atomic geometry with the human eye. (I know this sounds weird or maybe even dumb. Just stick with me for a bit.) Atoms are so small that it is "impossible" for us to see them with tools and make visual observations. On the atomic scale we use mathematics to calculate the shape (geometry) and nature of atoms. As I said before, though, no actual visual of atomic geometry currently exists. (To my knowledge we've never been able to see atoms.) What if it is possible to manipulate a visible amount of a pure element in a vacuum and create the circumstances for the visible element to behave as it would as a single atom? Now I realize that there are several things wrong with this statement. For one, what practical relevance would this would-be-theory have in science? For two, even if such a thing were both possible and relevant, how does one come to the conclusion that collective atoms would ever behave in such a way under any circumstances? In short, Vivec, how do you figure? Well, I believe in patterns. If behavior remains consistent then it can be expected to remain consistent. This is a general rule, however I realize it isn't always true. Based on my own observation, I have noticed a direct relationship between the geometry of an object and its own physical attributes while in motion. Okay even I have trouble making since of this so far. Look, Earth is spinning and has density as it revolves around a sun through the vacuum of space. The value of these attributes determines the shape of the Earth in combination with the elements included and the density/volume/mass. For example, at a certain scale in density/volume/mass/speed, due to gravity, objects take on spherical geometry. Take a visible pure element, put it in a vacuum suspended from Earths gravity (like an experiment at the ISS or something), and speed it up along a controlled elliptical path and observe its behavior. Of course, we could not assume that the geometry involved would be the same as the atom, but it may be relate able. Now I haven't explained this whole thought, it's difficult. Some of my reasoning is based on non-scientific concepts and some is based on things I know. However, there is no way for me to be sure if I'm on to something or not unless I try. So I tried. At worst, I just wasted thirty minutes typing this up. (I can't really focus on one thing at a time.) At best, I expect to learn something here.

Hmmm. Killed that point rather easily. I liked the reference though, very resourceful. Taught me something new. Still, there are concepts that can't be translated. These thoughts can't be written into anything except for rough descriptions, which still may become inaccurate. (That's it Vi'vi, recover smooth.) That's all I got. The rest of this kinda died quick... It was an awesome welcome, though, and I look forward to more! This forum is a bit intimidating to me. Like I said, I'm a little bit insane, but I'm eager to learn. I'ma stop following this thread and try to dive into the forum now. I just wanted to start somewhere I knew well. Christianity, attack or defense, is an awesome tool and I use it better than the American government sometimes. Hell, if I tried, I could show the Pope up on a thing or two. It goes two ways so often that even I lose to cynical people. With Christianity we can make many good things and destroy many things as well. Regardless of faith, the truth is a spiritual concept that can be interpreted individually. The fact remains that there exist forces beyond our human control. We do not understand these, yet we name them and give them definition. A pastor would say "be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the lord is." The Buddha would say "seek always the path of understanding." Wiccans use the phrase "wise ones" to describe their leaders. Scientists define their science as the pursuit of understanding. "Life is motion" and the "way" is progression. No matter our God or Science, the two are one and we are only a speck in the Grand Creation. Yet we continually have these conversations. Somehow, we instinctively know what we need in order to move forward emotionally, mentally, spiritually and physically. So here's my interpretation of Gods very first law, and I apologize for not sticking around for the fallout. I just like this forum. Vi'vi's interpretation of God's law: Move!

Well, it's like this: Christianity has done both good and bad with and without the help of powerful people. It is not light nor evil, but respects the balance between the two. The words in the Bible have been translated many times. Anyone bilingual knows that chain translations misconstrue the original thought. I once translated the word "Light" through three different languages and then back to English. I got "Howl." If someone were to take original Hebrew and Aramaic scripts and translate them literally, I'm sure we'd be reading a different bible. The FACT here is that no magical, wish-granting prayer-wizard ever TOLD anyone to kill anyone. This is called psychosis, when people start having daylight hallucinations and vivid delusions. It's skitzo, not divine inspiration. Though, I'm being painfully specific, I have a point: Christians and Jews alike believe that God has commanded the death of human kind before. They also believe that God was directly responsible for the genocide of an entire planet. The hypocrisy here is that "God commanded: Thou shalt not kill." Awfully funny sounding, isn't it? It would appear that humans have been using faith as a means of controlling the mob since the words "In the beginning." And it's not difficult to do, either. Minds are very easily changed and humans are greatly flawed and weak of will.

Okay, new to forum functionality, not doing the "quote" thing. Those passages from Matthew are new to me. It's really difficult to twist those words in any context. Intention is obvious when "swords" are involved, metaphorically or literally. This is the precise reason that discussions such as this are needed to further our understanding. However, in Revelation "Jesus" is described as having a tongue like a "two edged sword." Poets often refer to this metaphor when they describe damage that they've done in their own lives and in others'. I can take up this "sword" with the old testament (as I often do) and be doing no differently than the Christ. Not to mention his talk of "Love" is bound to start a riot somewhere and especially when he says that God and Love are the same entity. Jews everywhere thought themselves "sinners in the hands of an angry God." (Had to, its a good reference.) If you were raised to believe that God had it out for you and some Jo' comes along and says, "No, dude! That guy LOVES you!" things are gonna get a little... Hairy. Frankly, I come from a broken home where my enemies ARE my family. The prophesy came to pass... Who'd'a'thunk? AND they are predominately Christian Baptist... Wow, come to think of it, my issues with my "Christ-like" family stem from my alternate faith and questionable sexuality, both of which "God hates." I love Jesus, but not to "save my soul" or because "he died for my sins." I love Jesus because ALL people deserve love. (Every time I say that, someone mentions Hitler or C. Manson or Elmo.... Never mind Elmo. The point is, yes, even Hitler needed respect and love. That's what Yeshua taught me.) So I take up Jesus' Sword, against an army of hypocristians, gay-haters, intolerant fascists and my own ignorant flesh and blood. I do this in the name of UNCONDITIONAL love and the PURSUIT of peace. I absolutely get high from putting closed minded priests and pastors to religious rest using their own faith as my "Sword." So I get what he meant by those words. It is interesting to note that God "repented" his own sin. Now I'd like to clarify that in order to concede to a God, one must first have a God. Interesting note, indeed. I would like to reference Zeus and his father, Helios. Helios (Kronos, Chronus, etc) fed on his own children, the Gods. He consumed creation for pleasures sake and had no compassion or remorse. So his children, led by Zeus, fought against Kronos and the Titans so that they may have them locked in a Void for "eternity." Well, the same story is told eighty or so different ways, but that's the gist. God had a superior! It begs the question, does a Titan have a superior as well? And then, what if Ascension is humanly possible? What if the Human brain and heart are capable of "God-like" power? We understand so little of the Universe that, even in Science, such a possibility cannot be denied entirely. Arguable, nonetheless, but not impossible. To what levels will humanity reach through our evolution; to what higher consciousness are we destined? We once said that the Sun was the light of God. Galileo found "flaws" he called sun-spots on it's surface. The whole world called him crazy. A. Einstein said that light behaved as if both a particle and a wave and was severely dashed by the scientific community (patent official, looks kinda fishy). Even more recent, still, who ever dreamed that we could be in separate countries and communicate instantly. It takes a scope of understanding to push the limits of reality. Yeah, this paragraph took a tangent, but it's still kinda relate-able. Do forgive me if I show my insanity. Don't be too mean. Oh, I'm just joking, c'mon HIT ME! (And correct me where mistaken, I literally cross referenced none of this.)

Yeah, the OT is really crazy territory. However, Yeshua's stories have a clearly different undertone. Where the OT says "thou shalt not suffer a sorcerer to live," Yeshua said "Live by the sword and you will die by the sword." Where the OT says "An eye for an eye," Yeshua said to forgive a trespasser "seventy times seven times." Christ-ianity is based on Christ. I realize that the most cherished story of his is the crucifixion, but that's one of many stories. He was know for many things before he died, not just the dying part. Frankly, the way the stories are told, Jesus was a cool cat to chill with. He tried to leave a positive mark, but things can get twisted.

So, while I am not a Christian by any means, I can provide a good defense for the faith as a whole. I like a few things that Christianity teaches, but the subject here is that Christianity is evil and I do agree. I don't believe, however, that it was supposed to be. Judaism is a fairly violent story, so as far as the old testament is concerned I really don't think it was even supposed to be a Holy Book. I believe Yeshua (Jesus) was a real human being, but the whole God-Prophet thing is really stretched. Yeshua's teachings were supposed to be in light and love while the old testament feels like a caveman's yearbook. Commandments from the OT have a wrathful and vengeful nature while Yeshua spoke of forgiveness and faith. Many preachers have explained this to me by saying "Jesus came here to re-write God's laws." I, respectfully, call bullschyt. I would imagine that if an almighty God made a law then it would not change. A good example of that is gravity. It is eternal and unchanging. It keeps it's nature. However, I do believe that Yeshua tried to abolish some harmful paradigms of his day. Think about this: If you knock out my tooth and I knock out your tooth then did I get my tooth back? Yeshua tried to tell us that we both don't have to lose teeth. It's actually better all around if I just let it go and enjoy my life with or without my tooth. It's the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Supreme Buddha said to treat our neighbors loss as our own loss and our neighbors gain as our own gain. It's not so different. I think that Yeshua was a very powerful and influential person whose words are sharpened and used against him. Hell, you know there's a Star Trek cult? Yep, it exists because of the influence of the show. Lonely nerds wish to impose superiority upon other by means of controlled influence. The same can happen to any faith. I think no differently of the system referred to as Christianity Inc. Their Jesus would be appalled to see what has become of his teaching.

So let me get this strait. You are implying the impossibility of time travel? Is there any way to simplify the point that you're making? I read through the thread and, while I find myself intrigued, I find it a little difficult to follow. I kind of understand, but what I got (ADHD) was a visual of someone trying to go back to yesterday only to find that yesterday is not the same day as it was then and the instances in space-time have changed. Kind of like what happened to Trunks in Dragon Ball Z. He tried to go back in time to prepare the Z warriors for the arrival of deadly androids and stop the death of Son Goku. What he found was that the timeline he had reached was dramatically different than his own. Goku didn't get sick the same way, there were five unheard of androids and the Z warriors were considerably stronger on top of the fact that the androids weren't evil in the new timeline. It's as if he had only traveled through space, not time, to a universe greatly similar to his own. Now that, along with what I think you're saying, makes sense. But that's what went through MY mind. If you don't care, please restate your point in a different way. It doesn't have to be too much simpler, just different.

Hello everyone! I'm Vivec, I'm a twenty three year old, happily married father of a beautiful baby boy. I'm a stay at home dad with a love of science and education. I don't really have a whole lot of people around me who take an interest to the things that I find fulfilling. I live in Kentucky, an area commonly called the "Bible Belt," and I have a lot of friends, just very few who seek higher knowledge and understanding. I went to the dot-com science forums and found it to be extremely disappointing. Few people on that forum actually have any education or do any real research. They rather liked to argue over nothing and bash on the faiths of the world. Science is not a weapon for ridiculing the spiritually-minded. Science is simply a means of understanding. I have read a bit into these forums and I'm happy to see that many of the childish issues from the last forum are not AS present here. I do look forward to sharing ideas and experiences with you guys and I hope that we can learn a great deal from each other. Thanks for reading, talk to you soon!