William is my best friend at this point of my life. He has an uncommon developed talent for understanding processes, though I don't think he fully realizes it yet. He gets close when he says 'they could learn it,' but he misses the point that 'he sought the information and figured out how to use it in practical application.'
William, as most people who think commonly, dreams of seeing the world from new heights in his life. He is, however, a very large man who carries the load of his responsibilities admirably.
The reason I love William, though, is because he is a man of conscience. He is very benevolent despite that he could be very intimidating.
William should probably not think about 'flying to those heights' he dreams of. The Spruce Goose flew, but not well and certainly not safely, yet he would need that design and has (conceptually) wood to work with.
William could build a ladder with the wood, and carry his family up the ladder with him. There is probably even a visual demonstration in some Laurel and Hardy flick. There is too much danger to everyone for William to ascend to the heights he dreams of. Even scaffolding would be safer than a ladder.
The best design I can envision with the resource of wood is the 'stair step.' He could build one step, and just ask his family to step up with him. When everyone is stably on the first 'stair step,' he can build a second one.
He need not cart a load of wood with him for, unless he plans to descend the stairs, he can just use the stairs he has at any point to build another 'stair step' that is upward.
Stairs are not built fully upward. They are both upward and lateral.
So how does one 'step up' and 'step forward?' PLEASE, go walk the stairs and figure it out!
Don't mind the emphasis, please; I've told him what I believe is the 'next step' for him to build!
------------------------------------
So, William tells me this joke his boss told him. It was something about a computer programmer not being able to count past one.
I grabbed a pen and paper and wrote '100' on it. I handed it to William and told him to give it to his boss and tell him his friend has four figured out, but is struggling with five.
He just smiled, and offered up 'you know what he meant.'
-------------------------------------
What he likely meant: in binary systems, there are only two options like 'on/off,' 'yes/no,' or, in numbers, '0/1.'
In the 'common numbering system' (the base ten), the whole number closest to the decimal point is 'ones,' the second is 'tens,' the third is 'hundreds,' etc.
Binaray number systems are similar, but there are no symbols except for 0 and 1. The series, instead of being (1,10,100,1000 . . . ) as in base ten would be (1,2,4,8 . . . ) when considering in which spot either a 0 or 1 would be placed for counting.
He likely meant 'I can't use a symbol greater than '1' for counting.'
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Schrodenger's Cat Paradox: The Problem With Controlled Testing
Deja vu! Not really, I've read about this before, but I was unable to relate to it at that time.
While Einstein was proving that light is really a particle that interacts with atoms creating luminescence, theories that light acts as a wave still seemed to be true. So how could one be 'true' if the other were also 'true.'
The Cat Paradox was proposed to illustrate wherein conclusions derived from controlled experiments with quanta could be erroneous. I would have PETA all over me if I were to demonstrate 'the uncertainty of that which we can prove being certain.' I'll just try to explain it.
If you have an element that will die if exposed to a second element inside a box that we are unable to see through, an error in logical conclusion could occur if we presume that which we see when the box was opened actually was reality when we were unable to see inside the box. It leaves open the possibility that 'the result we saw' was 'because we opened the box.' 'That the state of the living thing was dead when exposed' 'does not determine' 'what the state may have been when the life was contained in the sealed box.' The conclusion is that the state of life inside the box is 'indeterminate.'
When I consider vacuum, if atomic structure is vacuumous, it may be exponentially more erroneous to 'draw conclusions based only on what we see and can prove.' To take it even further, that which we know about the necessity for vacuum for a light bulb, it is even logical to conclude that it was the breaking of the vacuum seal that caused 'air' to be the only ingredient needed for 'fire.'
Also, if atomic structure is vacuumous, we should also be able to logically conclude that the state is 'not indeterminate,' but 'virtually impossible to be anything other than breaking the seal caused the death' as the gas would not disperse in the vacuum (is that correct?), nor would the 'living thing breathe oxygen or any other element comprising air.' In fact, exposure to air seems to kill that life.
Hmmmmmm.
While Einstein was proving that light is really a particle that interacts with atoms creating luminescence, theories that light acts as a wave still seemed to be true. So how could one be 'true' if the other were also 'true.'
The Cat Paradox was proposed to illustrate wherein conclusions derived from controlled experiments with quanta could be erroneous. I would have PETA all over me if I were to demonstrate 'the uncertainty of that which we can prove being certain.' I'll just try to explain it.
If you have an element that will die if exposed to a second element inside a box that we are unable to see through, an error in logical conclusion could occur if we presume that which we see when the box was opened actually was reality when we were unable to see inside the box. It leaves open the possibility that 'the result we saw' was 'because we opened the box.' 'That the state of the living thing was dead when exposed' 'does not determine' 'what the state may have been when the life was contained in the sealed box.' The conclusion is that the state of life inside the box is 'indeterminate.'
When I consider vacuum, if atomic structure is vacuumous, it may be exponentially more erroneous to 'draw conclusions based only on what we see and can prove.' To take it even further, that which we know about the necessity for vacuum for a light bulb, it is even logical to conclude that it was the breaking of the vacuum seal that caused 'air' to be the only ingredient needed for 'fire.'
Also, if atomic structure is vacuumous, we should also be able to logically conclude that the state is 'not indeterminate,' but 'virtually impossible to be anything other than breaking the seal caused the death' as the gas would not disperse in the vacuum (is that correct?), nor would the 'living thing breathe oxygen or any other element comprising air.' In fact, exposure to air seems to kill that life.
Hmmmmmm.
A Ripple in Time
If solids, fluids, and gases all behave the same when something is dropped onto it, then why, considering that it would continue exponentially having more effect, is it inconceivable that this 'dimension of time in the universe' is really just a 'ripple in time?'
If the concept were to be true, then what is beyond the 'outer edge' of the universe is the preceding universe compressing into all its precedent universes, from older ripples in time, and that which would be beyond the 'inner edge' of the universe is the universe that will succeed this one.
The rippling effect just seems to relate best to 'time is infinity.'
Then, it would make more sense that 'the purpose for this life is to unburden one's 'life light/soul/whatever' sufficiently to retain 'whatever will be life' in the next universe. Those 'energies/souls/whatever' that do not 'enlighten themselves sufficiently' in this universe will be doomed to remaining in it 'as it compresses into 'all the other universes' that may have existed before this one creating an immense amount of heat,' perhaps similiar to that described as 'hellfire' in the Bible, and, of course, that would be for ever!
It is the complexities of life that one must resolve in order to rise. Why do people not relate this to the 'higher life,' and realize that 'one rises' by simplifying complexities? Simple algebra. I was a tutor in simple algebra. I wonder if anyone I tutored learned anything, or if they just used it to 'pass that hurdle man puts there for us.'
It all seems so futile.
What's the point?
Damn it, what's the point?
The univers's speed limit is the speed of light. Einstein seems to have proven pretty conclusively that nothing exceeds that speed ever.
So, it isn't that which is bigger than us that is important; it seems be importance lies in that which is smaller than us. That's easily relatable to children, the poor, and the weak, at least in the 'human concept.'
Einstein felt his theory on photoelectricity was his most important research. I need to see if that goes beyond the creation of photons, or if that's even where the photonic theory comes from.
Time to read.
If the concept were to be true, then what is beyond the 'outer edge' of the universe is the preceding universe compressing into all its precedent universes, from older ripples in time, and that which would be beyond the 'inner edge' of the universe is the universe that will succeed this one.
The rippling effect just seems to relate best to 'time is infinity.'
Then, it would make more sense that 'the purpose for this life is to unburden one's 'life light/soul/whatever' sufficiently to retain 'whatever will be life' in the next universe. Those 'energies/souls/whatever' that do not 'enlighten themselves sufficiently' in this universe will be doomed to remaining in it 'as it compresses into 'all the other universes' that may have existed before this one creating an immense amount of heat,' perhaps similiar to that described as 'hellfire' in the Bible, and, of course, that would be for ever!
It is the complexities of life that one must resolve in order to rise. Why do people not relate this to the 'higher life,' and realize that 'one rises' by simplifying complexities? Simple algebra. I was a tutor in simple algebra. I wonder if anyone I tutored learned anything, or if they just used it to 'pass that hurdle man puts there for us.'
It all seems so futile.
What's the point?
Damn it, what's the point?
The univers's speed limit is the speed of light. Einstein seems to have proven pretty conclusively that nothing exceeds that speed ever.
So, it isn't that which is bigger than us that is important; it seems be importance lies in that which is smaller than us. That's easily relatable to children, the poor, and the weak, at least in the 'human concept.'
Einstein felt his theory on photoelectricity was his most important research. I need to see if that goes beyond the creation of photons, or if that's even where the photonic theory comes from.
Time to read.
Mother Teresa: A Saint Amongst Saints
When one considers that a grading curve does not assign grades based on arbitrary points at which a student's grade increases, but, rather, that those in the 'top ten percent' get an 'A.' From that group, the student who did the best gets the only 'A+,' Mother Teresa gets the 'A+' as the 'student who did the best' in the class of those who 'factored in human suffering' of any human who has lived during my lifetime.
When one considers the huge philanthropic and humanitarian contribution Bill Gates has made to 'factor in human suffering,' he still hasn't given it all, and certainly not for his lifetime. The portion of Mr. Gates that is 'selfless' (not amount of money, but the portion of which he contributes back to life) is huge relative to the portion of income that the average person contributes back to life.
Mother Teresa gave everything she had all the time. She left nothing behind. She took nothing with her.
There is no greater balance, nor greater purity, in a life that existed in 'my dimension' of e=mc2. If Jesus was misunderstood when he said he would return, and he really has returned again and again but hasn't been recognized, I would suggest that Mother Teresa was Jesus incarnate. Her soul has to be that pure.
She didn't even consider that which she did as sacrifice. She regarded it as her purpose and duty. She did it enthusiastically. When the world took notice, she accepted what she was given to further what she did.
Her degree of goodness and purity is way beyond my understanding. I'm only up to trying to understand what Mr. Einstein left behind on how light works. He knows what I mean about her. So does Bill Gates.
She probably took only her sub-quanta with no attachments, and gathered no 'life baggage' to shed, if that's how it works.
Dr. MacDougall may not have noticed any weight loss!
When one considers the huge philanthropic and humanitarian contribution Bill Gates has made to 'factor in human suffering,' he still hasn't given it all, and certainly not for his lifetime. The portion of Mr. Gates that is 'selfless' (not amount of money, but the portion of which he contributes back to life) is huge relative to the portion of income that the average person contributes back to life.
Mother Teresa gave everything she had all the time. She left nothing behind. She took nothing with her.
There is no greater balance, nor greater purity, in a life that existed in 'my dimension' of e=mc2. If Jesus was misunderstood when he said he would return, and he really has returned again and again but hasn't been recognized, I would suggest that Mother Teresa was Jesus incarnate. Her soul has to be that pure.
She didn't even consider that which she did as sacrifice. She regarded it as her purpose and duty. She did it enthusiastically. When the world took notice, she accepted what she was given to further what she did.
Her degree of goodness and purity is way beyond my understanding. I'm only up to trying to understand what Mr. Einstein left behind on how light works. He knows what I mean about her. So does Bill Gates.
She probably took only her sub-quanta with no attachments, and gathered no 'life baggage' to shed, if that's how it works.
Dr. MacDougall may not have noticed any weight loss!
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Positive Side of Light: Is that Heaven?
If we correct some adages from long ago and far away, we might be able to understand what others who didn't have historical reference to Mr. Einstein have realized.
We've heard that 'our eyes are the windows to our souls.' I suspect that adage is older than the cameral lens, and, because whoever said it 'saw the light,' but didn't have the theory of refractory to reference, 'mistook the camera lens he was really seeing for a window.'
When one considers the inspiration Lewis Carroll had to 'take Alice through the looking glass,' just beyond that material that absorbs all light that hits it, 'causing our minds to deduct the image as positive reflection,' also occurred prior to Einstein's e=mc2, did 'he just mistake the mirror for that fine line that divides a light particle's positive cycle from its negative cycle?
We only see the negative side of light. Our gravity, will weigh us down when it is subject to a larger object's gravity.
Everything we know about the mind is that we subtract to think (deduce) and our brains necessarily needs to be cross-wired.
Dr. MacDougall attempted to prove that the soul was the same in every person. His results were consistent that there was weight loss, but it occurred irregularly between subjects. That has bothered me, but that irregularity may be theorized within a life concept that takes into consideration that others have seen this, but they just didn't have today's science to refer to in order to 'know that which they saw.'
Here is where I'm at: our minds work deductively; we see color by subtracting what is missing (I think); our eyes work through refractory of light; we know that science depicts light through a spectrum that appears to begin and end, but is really infinite (I think); we know if one continues an arc infinitely, we really just 'keep going around in a circle.'
Who wrote the Wizard of Oz, and what inspired that? That story also depicts a dream or near-death-experience, or halleucination, or whatever one prescribes to with their principles, in which there was a more colorful realm.
Folks, if this is adding up, you better look up to the light and try to find it, because, if you don't, you're bound for a place the Bible conceives as hell! However, if you're not too bad, you can stay in a place the Catholics conceive as Purgatory, which, if it is as it seems right now, would be a reincarnation without ascent or descent, as in . . . here? Who knows? I don't.
So is everything we see really here and out there? Yes, but 'we see it in only in the negative light.'
I would suggest that had Dr. MacDougall not been prejudiced on his first study, he may have detected a much smaller departure, with 'most of the weight leaving at once and finally.' Perhaps that subject had a 'lighter soul' having shed 'his life's burdens;' whereas, those with more balanced departures had heavier, more laden souls, and shed less of "their lives' burdens."
Dr. King may have been referring to this phenomena when he said that unjust suffering is redemptive.
Is what the Bible describes as Heaven really 'that which exists/is visible on the positive cycle of light?'
While we understand through nature that a rodent's main 'purpose in life' is to be food for predators, and how important flies are to the eco-system, we tend to want to regard humans as 'the highest form of life,' because, of course, 'we are at the top of the food chain' 'where we are at in' 'the cycle of life.'
If this were to prove out to be true, then, logically, our physical form's purpose here is for the soul's use/consumption to lighten its load, become more emburdoned, or remain about the same. A ghost could really exist if one soul were to amass sufficiently to be barely visible. Aside from the purpose, ghosts and angels are both 'mythical manifestetations of dead people.' Could it just be that soul's lighter load the reason those images which allegedly have manifested as angels appear to fly, relative to the heavy load of the souls that are the rather morbid and scary images described in alleged manifestations of ghosts?
If this were to prove out to be true, conceptually, 'those alive here are really the lives that are in the graves from the higher form of life,' and 'we are living on the other side of the looking glass!'
One could then conclude that 'life on the negative side of light' is the 'illusion/halleucination/reflection' of that which is reality! People may be those who died in a higher life form, and carried too much burden from that realm; the ascending souls of that which have shed sufficient burden from lower life forms, and those who just keep going around the proverbial circle. It has the essential balance of positive, negative, and neutral.
Whether we ascend, descend, or stay the same would then be determined by how much of life's baggage we are able to shed while we are here!
-----------------------------------
Mother Teresa, you must be next to study, but I am nowhere near worthy to be in the light you must see. Thank you for the comfort and love your image brings to me. I know of no one from my lifetime who has been as beautiful as you are.
We've heard that 'our eyes are the windows to our souls.' I suspect that adage is older than the cameral lens, and, because whoever said it 'saw the light,' but didn't have the theory of refractory to reference, 'mistook the camera lens he was really seeing for a window.'
When one considers the inspiration Lewis Carroll had to 'take Alice through the looking glass,' just beyond that material that absorbs all light that hits it, 'causing our minds to deduct the image as positive reflection,' also occurred prior to Einstein's e=mc2, did 'he just mistake the mirror for that fine line that divides a light particle's positive cycle from its negative cycle?
We only see the negative side of light. Our gravity, will weigh us down when it is subject to a larger object's gravity.
Everything we know about the mind is that we subtract to think (deduce) and our brains necessarily needs to be cross-wired.
Dr. MacDougall attempted to prove that the soul was the same in every person. His results were consistent that there was weight loss, but it occurred irregularly between subjects. That has bothered me, but that irregularity may be theorized within a life concept that takes into consideration that others have seen this, but they just didn't have today's science to refer to in order to 'know that which they saw.'
Here is where I'm at: our minds work deductively; we see color by subtracting what is missing (I think); our eyes work through refractory of light; we know that science depicts light through a spectrum that appears to begin and end, but is really infinite (I think); we know if one continues an arc infinitely, we really just 'keep going around in a circle.'
Who wrote the Wizard of Oz, and what inspired that? That story also depicts a dream or near-death-experience, or halleucination, or whatever one prescribes to with their principles, in which there was a more colorful realm.
Folks, if this is adding up, you better look up to the light and try to find it, because, if you don't, you're bound for a place the Bible conceives as hell! However, if you're not too bad, you can stay in a place the Catholics conceive as Purgatory, which, if it is as it seems right now, would be a reincarnation without ascent or descent, as in . . . here? Who knows? I don't.
So is everything we see really here and out there? Yes, but 'we see it in only in the negative light.'
I would suggest that had Dr. MacDougall not been prejudiced on his first study, he may have detected a much smaller departure, with 'most of the weight leaving at once and finally.' Perhaps that subject had a 'lighter soul' having shed 'his life's burdens;' whereas, those with more balanced departures had heavier, more laden souls, and shed less of "their lives' burdens."
Dr. King may have been referring to this phenomena when he said that unjust suffering is redemptive.
Is what the Bible describes as Heaven really 'that which exists/is visible on the positive cycle of light?'
While we understand through nature that a rodent's main 'purpose in life' is to be food for predators, and how important flies are to the eco-system, we tend to want to regard humans as 'the highest form of life,' because, of course, 'we are at the top of the food chain' 'where we are at in' 'the cycle of life.'
If this were to prove out to be true, then, logically, our physical form's purpose here is for the soul's use/consumption to lighten its load, become more emburdoned, or remain about the same. A ghost could really exist if one soul were to amass sufficiently to be barely visible. Aside from the purpose, ghosts and angels are both 'mythical manifestetations of dead people.' Could it just be that soul's lighter load the reason those images which allegedly have manifested as angels appear to fly, relative to the heavy load of the souls that are the rather morbid and scary images described in alleged manifestations of ghosts?
If this were to prove out to be true, conceptually, 'those alive here are really the lives that are in the graves from the higher form of life,' and 'we are living on the other side of the looking glass!'
One could then conclude that 'life on the negative side of light' is the 'illusion/halleucination/reflection' of that which is reality! People may be those who died in a higher life form, and carried too much burden from that realm; the ascending souls of that which have shed sufficient burden from lower life forms, and those who just keep going around the proverbial circle. It has the essential balance of positive, negative, and neutral.
Whether we ascend, descend, or stay the same would then be determined by how much of life's baggage we are able to shed while we are here!
-----------------------------------
Mother Teresa, you must be next to study, but I am nowhere near worthy to be in the light you must see. Thank you for the comfort and love your image brings to me. I know of no one from my lifetime who has been as beautiful as you are.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
The Diamond that Shouldn't Exist
Imagine a horizontal line. Above it is 'positive,' and below it is 'negative.'
For this, positive shall represent 'that which is empirical,' and negative shall represent 'that which is natural,' and the line shall be 'life.'
If we were to simulate almost every 'measurement of life,' logically the 'flow of life' would look like a wave.
From that line and waval flow, remove one complete wave (zero - intersect zero - zero).
If we were to draw lines from '0' to points at 'empirical 1' and 'natural 1' such that the lines intersect at ninety degree angles with similar lines intersecting '1' on the life line, the 'entire wave' would be inside 'what may appear to be a diamond,' but is really a 'square on end.'
Now, imagine that Aristotle is at the top of this square at the highest point on the 'empirical side of the line,' and Charles Darwin at the bottom of this square at the deepest point of the 'natural side of the line.'
---------------------------------------
Since we have 'one complete wave,' we'll start at '0' to represent atheists who contend that to be the number representing God, and end at '1' to represent monotheists who contend that to be the number of God.
Let's now consider what these two believed they knew about God:
Darwin, himself, didn't 'believe or understand' that there was no God; he claimed that 'he didn't know' (agnosticism). He claimed '0' 'knowledge (science) of the empirical.' If we consider what one thinks of himself as worthy of one-half the gravity as public perception, Darwin ascends, but, remains in the natural at -.5, or 'about where the bottom of the wave should be at its lowest point in the flow.'
Aristotle regaled at being lauded as 'the man who knew it all.' He believed he had the answers, so he regarded himself as '1.' Since Aristotle gave himself negative gravity (levity) at 1, his personal factor would raise him to empirical 3.
We now have a 'diamond,' and:
Those at '0' contend 'Aristotle is incorrect because Aristotle is correct;' those at '1' argue back 'Aristotle is correct because Aristotle is incorrect.'
To the natural side, those at '0' contend 'Darwin is correct because Darwin didn't know.' Those at '1' argue back 'Darwin didn't know because Darwin is correct.'
Why don't people see that?
--------------------------------------
Aristotle is the father of biological science, which those at '0' contend proves there is no God; he is also the source for some of the scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, which those at '1' contend is proof of God. Each side uses his 'flawed conclusions' to prove 'both' 'that God exists and doesn't exist.'
Darwin's theory of natural selection is given more gravity to 'proving there is no God' by those at '0,' while those at '1' also give more gravity to it as they 'believe Darwin's theory includes that there is no God.'
----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider how many times these two guys' conclusions have been proven flawed:
Aristotle: (1) the universe is far larger than a 'mere millions of miles,' (2) there is an abundance of atomic, particle, and sub-particle movement outside the human body, (3) we do not all see the same thing just because we look at the same thing, (4) women have the same number of teeth as men, (5) protecting the female gender within a species is not because males are empirically dominant, but, more likely naturally, because females are that much more important to continuation of a species than the random need for the male gender, (6) Earth is in a solar system.
Darwin:
-----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider a possible manifestation (including commentary from these two men).
Atheist: Darwin proved there is no God. (Darwin: no I didn't.)
Monotheist: Darwin's work was inspired by the devil. (Darwin: Actually, I went well out of my way to disprove wholly natural theories once my own prejudices about monotheism were challenged.)
Both: Darwin was an atheist! (Darwin: I was not!) Prove there is/is not a God.
Monotheist: The Bible says that God exists, and explains it. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: All one has to do is understand biology. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Monotheist: Heaven is in the sky. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: There is no life outside our physical bodies. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Hopefully, you get the point.
------------------------------------
In the end:
Darwin: died suffering personal guilt and utter despair for 'realizing' the exponential odds negative familial traits common between he and his wife/cousin, who he adored, were inherited by their children, as 'the truth unfolded for him.'
Aristotle: encountered death trying to run from it.
-------------------------------------
Conclusion: if one will step back from the line so 'depth' can be seen, it is possible to see that Darwin is both given more gravity by those at '0' and '1' than 'he gave himself;' whereas, the source of contradictory empirical arguments eminate from Aristotle are given 'the same levity' by those at '0' and '1' 'as the source gave himself.'
Darwin was correct, or, at least, more correct: 'the truth of life lies at the zero intersect' and 'that his work does not prove the existence, or non-existence, of a godlike concept,' 'except to the degree' that 'Aristotle was incorrect' on 'both contradictory accounts.'
Though diamonds may have great value, this diamond should not exist.
=============================================
Afterthoughts:
7/9/07 - Though diamond shape, it is upside-down from the way one would normally display or mount a diamond. The 'brilliance' of this diamond' would eminate from that portion which is in the natural. However, I am starting to see a strong correlation between the 'flow of life' and the 'flow of light.'
Consider light as a fifth dimension; explain the ripple effect in application to the theory of the universe - it gives us the answer to what lies beyond the edge of the universe, and beyond that.
For this, positive shall represent 'that which is empirical,' and negative shall represent 'that which is natural,' and the line shall be 'life.'
If we were to simulate almost every 'measurement of life,' logically the 'flow of life' would look like a wave.
From that line and waval flow, remove one complete wave (zero - intersect zero - zero).
If we were to draw lines from '0' to points at 'empirical 1' and 'natural 1' such that the lines intersect at ninety degree angles with similar lines intersecting '1' on the life line, the 'entire wave' would be inside 'what may appear to be a diamond,' but is really a 'square on end.'
Now, imagine that Aristotle is at the top of this square at the highest point on the 'empirical side of the line,' and Charles Darwin at the bottom of this square at the deepest point of the 'natural side of the line.'
---------------------------------------
Since we have 'one complete wave,' we'll start at '0' to represent atheists who contend that to be the number representing God, and end at '1' to represent monotheists who contend that to be the number of God.
Let's now consider what these two believed they knew about God:
Darwin, himself, didn't 'believe or understand' that there was no God; he claimed that 'he didn't know' (agnosticism). He claimed '0' 'knowledge (science) of the empirical.' If we consider what one thinks of himself as worthy of one-half the gravity as public perception, Darwin ascends, but, remains in the natural at -.5, or 'about where the bottom of the wave should be at its lowest point in the flow.'
Aristotle regaled at being lauded as 'the man who knew it all.' He believed he had the answers, so he regarded himself as '1.' Since Aristotle gave himself negative gravity (levity) at 1, his personal factor would raise him to empirical 3.
We now have a 'diamond,' and:
Those at '0' contend 'Aristotle is incorrect because Aristotle is correct;' those at '1' argue back 'Aristotle is correct because Aristotle is incorrect.'
To the natural side, those at '0' contend 'Darwin is correct because Darwin didn't know.' Those at '1' argue back 'Darwin didn't know because Darwin is correct.'
Why don't people see that?
--------------------------------------
Aristotle is the father of biological science, which those at '0' contend proves there is no God; he is also the source for some of the scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, which those at '1' contend is proof of God. Each side uses his 'flawed conclusions' to prove 'both' 'that God exists and doesn't exist.'
Darwin's theory of natural selection is given more gravity to 'proving there is no God' by those at '0,' while those at '1' also give more gravity to it as they 'believe Darwin's theory includes that there is no God.'
----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider how many times these two guys' conclusions have been proven flawed:
Aristotle: (1) the universe is far larger than a 'mere millions of miles,' (2) there is an abundance of atomic, particle, and sub-particle movement outside the human body, (3) we do not all see the same thing just because we look at the same thing, (4) women have the same number of teeth as men, (5) protecting the female gender within a species is not because males are empirically dominant, but, more likely naturally, because females are that much more important to continuation of a species than the random need for the male gender, (6) Earth is in a solar system.
Darwin:
-----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider a possible manifestation (including commentary from these two men).
Atheist: Darwin proved there is no God. (Darwin: no I didn't.)
Monotheist: Darwin's work was inspired by the devil. (Darwin: Actually, I went well out of my way to disprove wholly natural theories once my own prejudices about monotheism were challenged.)
Both: Darwin was an atheist! (Darwin: I was not!) Prove there is/is not a God.
Monotheist: The Bible says that God exists, and explains it. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: All one has to do is understand biology. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Monotheist: Heaven is in the sky. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: There is no life outside our physical bodies. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Hopefully, you get the point.
------------------------------------
In the end:
Darwin: died suffering personal guilt and utter despair for 'realizing' the exponential odds negative familial traits common between he and his wife/cousin, who he adored, were inherited by their children, as 'the truth unfolded for him.'
Aristotle: encountered death trying to run from it.
-------------------------------------
Conclusion: if one will step back from the line so 'depth' can be seen, it is possible to see that Darwin is both given more gravity by those at '0' and '1' than 'he gave himself;' whereas, the source of contradictory empirical arguments eminate from Aristotle are given 'the same levity' by those at '0' and '1' 'as the source gave himself.'
Darwin was correct, or, at least, more correct: 'the truth of life lies at the zero intersect' and 'that his work does not prove the existence, or non-existence, of a godlike concept,' 'except to the degree' that 'Aristotle was incorrect' on 'both contradictory accounts.'
Though diamonds may have great value, this diamond should not exist.
=============================================
Afterthoughts:
7/9/07 - Though diamond shape, it is upside-down from the way one would normally display or mount a diamond. The 'brilliance' of this diamond' would eminate from that portion which is in the natural. However, I am starting to see a strong correlation between the 'flow of life' and the 'flow of light.'
Consider light as a fifth dimension; explain the ripple effect in application to the theory of the universe - it gives us the answer to what lies beyond the edge of the universe, and beyond that.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Aristotle and Atheism
I was reading today, and came across a line that contended that the concept that nothing exists past our senses, the basis of atheism, is also from Aristotle. On that, he disagreed with 'Plato's other students' (and likely Socrates as a consequence) who contended that our senses act as filters to give us the 'illusion of reality.'
Both poles of religion are embracing the same person's thoughts, and challenging the thoughts that eminated from him in contradiction to those they are told to believe!
Is that not wild?!
It's at the bottom of page one.
Both poles of religion are embracing the same person's thoughts, and challenging the thoughts that eminated from him in contradiction to those they are told to believe!
Is that not wild?!
It's at the bottom of page one.
One Hot August Afternoon, . . .
. . . probably around 1923, the kids had gathered at the swimming hole there in North Dakota. 'Freed from church,' it was time for some fun.
The Titanic had long settled on the bottom of the Atlantic, the problem with exposure to gas during the war had mostly died out, and America's 'Teddy Bear' was but lore and history. That day would be of no danger to those whose day had already passed.
Young Cyril jumped into that swimming hole, and didn't come up for a while. It was the most dangerous day in the history of the world - at least from Cyril's perspective. It was a sad day for his family, but it wasn't anybody else's 'most dangerous day;' at least nobody in their family or sight.
In Chicago that day, a child got caught up in some cross-fire. No one was aiming at her; it just happened for no rhyme or reason. In Kansas, a father misjudged the speed of the train, and he, his wife, and their four children are all killed at the intersection. In London, a lamp is tipped over, and three children die in the resultant fire.
The lineage ends for those children, and, in Kansas, for the parents, too.
In many other places, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers.
The lineage continued.
Today, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, who were only babies on the world's most dangerous day for Cyril; the day they were taken to the funeral so their parents could pay their final respects to their grandparents.
Today, there are no families to gather for those children who died that hot August afternoon in North Dakota.
The story has been over for them for decades.
The Titanic had long settled on the bottom of the Atlantic, the problem with exposure to gas during the war had mostly died out, and America's 'Teddy Bear' was but lore and history. That day would be of no danger to those whose day had already passed.
Young Cyril jumped into that swimming hole, and didn't come up for a while. It was the most dangerous day in the history of the world - at least from Cyril's perspective. It was a sad day for his family, but it wasn't anybody else's 'most dangerous day;' at least nobody in their family or sight.
In Chicago that day, a child got caught up in some cross-fire. No one was aiming at her; it just happened for no rhyme or reason. In Kansas, a father misjudged the speed of the train, and he, his wife, and their four children are all killed at the intersection. In London, a lamp is tipped over, and three children die in the resultant fire.
The lineage ends for those children, and, in Kansas, for the parents, too.
In many other places, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers.
The lineage continued.
Today, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, who were only babies on the world's most dangerous day for Cyril; the day they were taken to the funeral so their parents could pay their final respects to their grandparents.
Today, there are no families to gather for those children who died that hot August afternoon in North Dakota.
The story has been over for them for decades.
Edison's Voice Machine
Edison not only determined how to convert electrical particles into superior light particles, he also did amazing things with sound. He figured out how to record what was said, which had always been accomplished through writing, and play it back to create 'new sound waves' that were actually 'replications of past sound waves.'
I've heard that Edison, at the time of his death, was working on an invention with which he could 'record Jesus.'
It is not logical that he was trying to 'go back in time' lest his research would have been on materials to withstand friction. He also lived before Einstein, so he wouldn't have known how Einstein defined time.
So, 'if Edison thought he could record Jesus,' it makes more sense that he thought 'he could go out and retrieve it as a sound wave.' Edison had to understand gravity, so what would make him believe that he could 'find the words of Jesus amongst the mass of noise, especially the words other people have spoken?'
It is logical, then, that he believed the waves that are 'commonly spoken' would 'amass,' 'creating physical weight or gravity.' That which is 'uncommonly spoken,' would amass only with that which others have 'uncommonly spoken,' thus having little physical mass, and, consequently, drawing no matter to it and so small as to create weight to attract it to larger masses.
First, was Edison really working on such a machine?
I've heard that Edison, at the time of his death, was working on an invention with which he could 'record Jesus.'
It is not logical that he was trying to 'go back in time' lest his research would have been on materials to withstand friction. He also lived before Einstein, so he wouldn't have known how Einstein defined time.
So, 'if Edison thought he could record Jesus,' it makes more sense that he thought 'he could go out and retrieve it as a sound wave.' Edison had to understand gravity, so what would make him believe that he could 'find the words of Jesus amongst the mass of noise, especially the words other people have spoken?'
It is logical, then, that he believed the waves that are 'commonly spoken' would 'amass,' 'creating physical weight or gravity.' That which is 'uncommonly spoken,' would amass only with that which others have 'uncommonly spoken,' thus having little physical mass, and, consequently, drawing no matter to it and so small as to create weight to attract it to larger masses.
First, was Edison really working on such a machine?
The Quantum Leap
Einstein said, 'reality is an illusion - albeit a very persistent one.'
The quantum leap is a phenomenon that occurs with some, maybe all, sub-atomic particles. (A light particle is an example of something that is sub-atomic.)
It has been observed that, at least some (my lack of research, not that others don't already know), sub-atomic particles 'appear to be one place at one moment,' and 'then another place at the next moment,' 'with no lapse in time.'
Simple. It's moving there 'at the speed of light.' No time lapses to us, but it actually 'aged' 'relative to the time it took to get there.' 'If it actually took no time,' 'then its age remains relative' to 'how much we aged in no time.'
Since we see this phenomenon occur as 'the light was here at one moment' and 'there the next moment' with 'no lapse in time,' we presume that the second event happened 'later in time.'
I can think of two phemomenna that may be actually happening if these particles are really 'moving faster than the speed of light.'
1. There may be fewer of these particles than we believe exist because the same particle may actually give 'an illusion' that 'there are many of these particles,' though 'it is really just the same particle in different places at the same time.'
2. The second event actually occurred first, and the particle actually is 'aging in reverse to time.' As such, 'when we see that the particle is created,' 'we are actually seeing its death.' Paradoxically, 'that which we see as its demise,' 'would actually be its creation.'
Please Mr. Einstein, is the relative heat presence factor increasing or decreasing?!
The quantum leap is a phenomenon that occurs with some, maybe all, sub-atomic particles. (A light particle is an example of something that is sub-atomic.)
It has been observed that, at least some (my lack of research, not that others don't already know), sub-atomic particles 'appear to be one place at one moment,' and 'then another place at the next moment,' 'with no lapse in time.'
Simple. It's moving there 'at the speed of light.' No time lapses to us, but it actually 'aged' 'relative to the time it took to get there.' 'If it actually took no time,' 'then its age remains relative' to 'how much we aged in no time.'
Since we see this phenomenon occur as 'the light was here at one moment' and 'there the next moment' with 'no lapse in time,' we presume that the second event happened 'later in time.'
I can think of two phemomenna that may be actually happening if these particles are really 'moving faster than the speed of light.'
1. There may be fewer of these particles than we believe exist because the same particle may actually give 'an illusion' that 'there are many of these particles,' though 'it is really just the same particle in different places at the same time.'
2. The second event actually occurred first, and the particle actually is 'aging in reverse to time.' As such, 'when we see that the particle is created,' 'we are actually seeing its death.' Paradoxically, 'that which we see as its demise,' 'would actually be its creation.'
Please Mr. Einstein, is the relative heat presence factor increasing or decreasing?!
Magnetism
Magnetism is a physical force in which ions within a mass are super-actively moving from the positive pole to seek the negative pole. We can extend a magnet by placing the positive pole to the negative pole of another magnet. Though physically two magnets, the ionic movement flows from the positive pole of the first magnet, and seeks the negative pole of the second magnet, as if it were one mass. The strength of the 'magnetic field,' then, is calculated on the 'number of ions relative to the mass which comprises that which is magnetized.' If the second magnet is the same size, but has a greater number of ions, then its addition to mass containing fewer ions, will 'increase the power of the magnetic field,' and the 'new magnet' will be 'stronger than the weaker, first magnet, but weaker than the stronger, second magnet.'
Once in the 'magnetic field,' it seems logical to me that the magnet would then 'bear the physical weight of the attracted mass' 'in relative proportion' 'to the density of ionic content in that which it attracts,' and 'to the distance between the source of magnetism and that which is attracted to it.'
Let's get into sub-atomic particles.
Once in the 'magnetic field,' it seems logical to me that the magnet would then 'bear the physical weight of the attracted mass' 'in relative proportion' 'to the density of ionic content in that which it attracts,' and 'to the distance between the source of magnetism and that which is attracted to it.'
Let's get into sub-atomic particles.
So, If One Object is Larger Than Another Object . . .
. . . will the larger object always have more gravity than the smaller object?
Not necessarily. Gravity is based on the 'mass' of the object. The mass of an object is created not only by an object's size (area), but also by its density. For example, a bowling ball has more mass than a balloon the same size because a bowling ball has more density than a balloon.
How does an object's mass work within another object's gravity? It becomes weight.
'When two objects the same size,' 'but with different densities,' 'are both subject to the gravity of a third object,' 'the one that is more massive' 'will weigh more.'
The differences in densities, and therefore the 'relative weight,' causes air to float above the more massive water, and water to float above the more massive minerals.
Not necessarily. Gravity is based on the 'mass' of the object. The mass of an object is created not only by an object's size (area), but also by its density. For example, a bowling ball has more mass than a balloon the same size because a bowling ball has more density than a balloon.
How does an object's mass work within another object's gravity? It becomes weight.
'When two objects the same size,' 'but with different densities,' 'are both subject to the gravity of a third object,' 'the one that is more massive' 'will weigh more.'
The differences in densities, and therefore the 'relative weight,' causes air to float above the more massive water, and water to float above the more massive minerals.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Vacuum
Because the physical force of vacuum is applied to a common household cleaning utensil, most people think vacuum is 'something that creates suction.' It isn't and doesn't.
Vacuum is 'space without air.' A vacuum cleaner does not 'suck air in.' It creates uneven air pressure by removing air from a canister. Air, then, rushes in through an orifice to fill 'the void of air in the canister.' The air entering the canister is not pulled in; it is actually pushed in by the air behind it.
A more common household item that uses vacuum is the light bulb. Inside the bulb of glass, there is no air. It is essential that there be no oxygen around the filament, because, otherwise, we would have all the necessary elements for 'fire' (ignition, fuel, and oxygen), and the filament (fuel) would last about as long as someone holding the string of a kite if the kite is struck by lightning. When a light bulb breaks, it does not 'explode;' rather, it 'implodes.'
The largest vacuum that is visible to the human eye is in the sky just beyond the atmosphere, a.k.a. space or outer space.
So, why doesn't the air in Earth's atmosphere rush to fill that vast void?
It tries, but the Earth's gravity pulls air particles toward the center of Earth against the vacuum of space. The air within the gravitational pull creates the atmosphere.
That's how powerful gravity is.
Vacuum is 'space without air.' A vacuum cleaner does not 'suck air in.' It creates uneven air pressure by removing air from a canister. Air, then, rushes in through an orifice to fill 'the void of air in the canister.' The air entering the canister is not pulled in; it is actually pushed in by the air behind it.
A more common household item that uses vacuum is the light bulb. Inside the bulb of glass, there is no air. It is essential that there be no oxygen around the filament, because, otherwise, we would have all the necessary elements for 'fire' (ignition, fuel, and oxygen), and the filament (fuel) would last about as long as someone holding the string of a kite if the kite is struck by lightning. When a light bulb breaks, it does not 'explode;' rather, it 'implodes.'
The largest vacuum that is visible to the human eye is in the sky just beyond the atmosphere, a.k.a. space or outer space.
So, why doesn't the air in Earth's atmosphere rush to fill that vast void?
It tries, but the Earth's gravity pulls air particles toward the center of Earth against the vacuum of space. The air within the gravitational pull creates the atmosphere.
That's how powerful gravity is.
Ladies, It's Been Out of My Control
I'm aware that mothers are far more important than fathers.
I'm aware that the matriarchal concept of Mother Nature makes much more sense than the patriarchal concept of God as to the birth of life.
I'm aware that the person deserving the most gravity in my lifetime has been Mother Teresa.
Thank you for exercising that extraordinary gift of patience, which God so wisely thought to give you, while I rambled about those from the least important gender. I'm just following where my thoughts lead as my thoughts lead me there.
Women: you can't live without them for women are the source of life.
I'm aware that the matriarchal concept of Mother Nature makes much more sense than the patriarchal concept of God as to the birth of life.
I'm aware that the person deserving the most gravity in my lifetime has been Mother Teresa.
Thank you for exercising that extraordinary gift of patience, which God so wisely thought to give you, while I rambled about those from the least important gender. I'm just following where my thoughts lead as my thoughts lead me there.
Women: you can't live without them for women are the source of life.
An Interesting Paradoxy
Had Robert E. Lee accepted Lincoln's offer to lead the union, there would likely have been much less blood shed during the war. Lee's strategic genius allowed an inferior army from a land with little industry and vulnerable resources drag the war on for four years, and the death toll to well over one million.
Robert E. Lee is also misunderstood. Those of 'southern white heritage' often demonstrate their 'disgust with Dr. King's holiday' by declaring it 'Robert E. Lee day.'
Anyway, when Robert E. Lee finally surrendered, he also promised to live with the terms of that surrender.
One Sunday shortly after that, a black man had the audacity to leave the seats in the back of the church reserved for the lesser people, and was the first to arrive at the altar to kneel and receive communion. No one knew what to do, not even the minister; this was not to happen, but it was in a church. They couldn't lynch him there, for God's sake.
A white man broke the awkward silence by standing, walking forward, and kneeling next to the black man so he would be the second to receive communion that day. Soon, the congregation followed Robert E. Lee's lead, knelt, and took communion as a united congregation.
So, while most of America celebrates the memory of a black man who would walk with white people for the cause of equality, some prefer to celebrate a white man who would take communion with black people for the cause of unity!
We should all be so principled as General Lee and Dr. King to demonstrate, as leaders, that which we espouse.
Robert E. Lee is also misunderstood. Those of 'southern white heritage' often demonstrate their 'disgust with Dr. King's holiday' by declaring it 'Robert E. Lee day.'
Anyway, when Robert E. Lee finally surrendered, he also promised to live with the terms of that surrender.
One Sunday shortly after that, a black man had the audacity to leave the seats in the back of the church reserved for the lesser people, and was the first to arrive at the altar to kneel and receive communion. No one knew what to do, not even the minister; this was not to happen, but it was in a church. They couldn't lynch him there, for God's sake.
A white man broke the awkward silence by standing, walking forward, and kneeling next to the black man so he would be the second to receive communion that day. Soon, the congregation followed Robert E. Lee's lead, knelt, and took communion as a united congregation.
So, while most of America celebrates the memory of a black man who would walk with white people for the cause of equality, some prefer to celebrate a white man who would take communion with black people for the cause of unity!
We should all be so principled as General Lee and Dr. King to demonstrate, as leaders, that which we espouse.
Abraham Lincoln: A Life and Death of Conflict
The climb to President was not an easy journey for Honest Abe, but he was a tremendously determined and hard working man. From the humblest of beginnings, Lincoln just started learning. He worked hard at it, and became a lawyer. His political career was mixed with success and failure.
What we must factor into the myths we learned in school about Mr. Lincoln is that he did not like slavery, but he also regarded black people as less than equal to white people.
This is evident in the text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates: "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Another factor about Lincoln's e=mc2 as President, is that he succeeded James Buchanan who succeeded Franklin Pierce. Pierce and Buchanan are so lowly regarded as Presidents that many historians consider William Henry Harrison to have been a better President. (Harrison gave his inaugural speech, went to bed sick, and died three weeks later.) The country was in tremendous turmoil, and the masses had gathered at the ends.
His marriage lacked harmony. His brothers-in-law lived in the south. He lost children to illness. The greatest general in the land turned down his offer to lead the union so he could lead the southern forces against him. The tremendous internal pressure was added to by outside threats.
Nothing was easy for Lincoln, and yet he kept a 'divided nation whole.'
Then, about a week later, he was killed while taking a moment to relax.
Even his death was confliction.
Lincoln defied gravity his entire life through his dedication, hard work, and constant thirst to learn and understand. Life returned to him some of the most complex problems any President has ever had the misfortune to face, and the complexity was constant.
Even today, many people consider Abraham Lincoln to have been our greatest President, but, to some who choose to view him from a different perspective, he is regarded as the worst. Either way, he's at the 'lineal end' one way or the other, which is tremendous conflict.
During his entire Presidency, there was less than a month of 'no war,' and even that was not anywhere near 'peace;' more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other war, perhaps any other two wars; the country was in conflict when he entered office, and it was in conflict when he died in office. Despite all that, he still defies gravity and rises to the top of the list of those who have ever served the office.
When one ponders how differently things may have ended about four score years later had the wholeness in division not been maintained, one might better appreciate how much Lincoln means to humankind even today, even if he didn't regard black people as his equal.
Oh well, nobody's perfect.
What we must factor into the myths we learned in school about Mr. Lincoln is that he did not like slavery, but he also regarded black people as less than equal to white people.
This is evident in the text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates: "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Another factor about Lincoln's e=mc2 as President, is that he succeeded James Buchanan who succeeded Franklin Pierce. Pierce and Buchanan are so lowly regarded as Presidents that many historians consider William Henry Harrison to have been a better President. (Harrison gave his inaugural speech, went to bed sick, and died three weeks later.) The country was in tremendous turmoil, and the masses had gathered at the ends.
His marriage lacked harmony. His brothers-in-law lived in the south. He lost children to illness. The greatest general in the land turned down his offer to lead the union so he could lead the southern forces against him. The tremendous internal pressure was added to by outside threats.
Nothing was easy for Lincoln, and yet he kept a 'divided nation whole.'
Then, about a week later, he was killed while taking a moment to relax.
Even his death was confliction.
Lincoln defied gravity his entire life through his dedication, hard work, and constant thirst to learn and understand. Life returned to him some of the most complex problems any President has ever had the misfortune to face, and the complexity was constant.
Even today, many people consider Abraham Lincoln to have been our greatest President, but, to some who choose to view him from a different perspective, he is regarded as the worst. Either way, he's at the 'lineal end' one way or the other, which is tremendous conflict.
During his entire Presidency, there was less than a month of 'no war,' and even that was not anywhere near 'peace;' more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other war, perhaps any other two wars; the country was in conflict when he entered office, and it was in conflict when he died in office. Despite all that, he still defies gravity and rises to the top of the list of those who have ever served the office.
When one ponders how differently things may have ended about four score years later had the wholeness in division not been maintained, one might better appreciate how much Lincoln means to humankind even today, even if he didn't regard black people as his equal.
Oh well, nobody's perfect.
The Honorable Thurgood Marshall: Working the System
In my opinion, Abraham Lincoln gets way too much credit for freeing black people from slavery. Slavery existed because economic necessity made the notion of one human owning other humans 'common sense.' Slavery was becoming 'economically unnecessary' with Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, and the onslaught of other machinery that 'could do the work of many men.'
As industry progressed, owning slaves started becoming economically unfeasible. Liberia was purchased, so unnecessary slaves could be dumped off in a homeland foreign to them, when Lincoln was just a child.
All black men got after the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, if you prefer) was forty acres and a mule; black women didn't get that much. Black people didn't get rights, educational opportunities, or even a fair shake in business. They would, with thier 'newfound wealth and freedom,' combine their land, build a bunch of shacks on part of the new whole, and live as sharecroppers, because that was the only way the knew how to live here. Believe me, this was better for the 'white economy' because 'white society didn't even have to care if they lived or died' like it did when it needed slave labor the next day.
When you do the math, the freed blacks were better off as slaves! They not only didn't gain anything by being freed, they actually lost social status!
For many decades to come, blacks were lynched for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the right time (or the right place at the wrong time). They were relegated to a status of 'separate but equal,' but nothing was really equal; even in the north where they were more accepted, they had the status of 'integrated but not in white neighborhoods.'
'There was no true justice' until . . . (enter Thurgood Marshall).
To say Thurgood Marshall was the most significant black person in the 20th century does not give him sufficient gravity. Thurgood Marshall is one of the most significant people in American history.
'One argument from Thurgood Marshall' rocketed education for blacks to unbelievable new heights, and educational opportunities for blacks has never stopped accelerating since his argument. Imagine that in physical concept. Now consider the 'exponential benefit' of 'adding that ascending level of knowledge' to the 'whole of knowledge.'
Thurgood Marshall did not just help black people get equal opportunity in education. 'His one argument' will benefit 'all of humankind' 'from that point forever.' (Math works like that.)
Regardless of whatever motive he may have had, Lynden Johnson's greatest decision as President was to nominate The Honorable Thurgood Marshall for the 'highest court in the land.'
Thomas Edison, given better resources and tools, failed 10,000 times before shedding his light on the world; Thurgood Marshall shed the light of justice on his country, and the light of education on the world, with one argument. He should probably be given similar gravity as Edison.
As industry progressed, owning slaves started becoming economically unfeasible. Liberia was purchased, so unnecessary slaves could be dumped off in a homeland foreign to them, when Lincoln was just a child.
All black men got after the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, if you prefer) was forty acres and a mule; black women didn't get that much. Black people didn't get rights, educational opportunities, or even a fair shake in business. They would, with thier 'newfound wealth and freedom,' combine their land, build a bunch of shacks on part of the new whole, and live as sharecroppers, because that was the only way the knew how to live here. Believe me, this was better for the 'white economy' because 'white society didn't even have to care if they lived or died' like it did when it needed slave labor the next day.
When you do the math, the freed blacks were better off as slaves! They not only didn't gain anything by being freed, they actually lost social status!
For many decades to come, blacks were lynched for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the right time (or the right place at the wrong time). They were relegated to a status of 'separate but equal,' but nothing was really equal; even in the north where they were more accepted, they had the status of 'integrated but not in white neighborhoods.'
'There was no true justice' until . . . (enter Thurgood Marshall).
To say Thurgood Marshall was the most significant black person in the 20th century does not give him sufficient gravity. Thurgood Marshall is one of the most significant people in American history.
'One argument from Thurgood Marshall' rocketed education for blacks to unbelievable new heights, and educational opportunities for blacks has never stopped accelerating since his argument. Imagine that in physical concept. Now consider the 'exponential benefit' of 'adding that ascending level of knowledge' to the 'whole of knowledge.'
Thurgood Marshall did not just help black people get equal opportunity in education. 'His one argument' will benefit 'all of humankind' 'from that point forever.' (Math works like that.)
Regardless of whatever motive he may have had, Lynden Johnson's greatest decision as President was to nominate The Honorable Thurgood Marshall for the 'highest court in the land.'
Thomas Edison, given better resources and tools, failed 10,000 times before shedding his light on the world; Thurgood Marshall shed the light of justice on his country, and the light of education on the world, with one argument. He should probably be given similar gravity as Edison.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Fighting Peacefully and Dreaming Aloud
Dr. King is lauded as the most significant civil rights leader of his era, and very rightfully so. Dr. King sought equality for all. His e=mc2 and race lent nicely with the civil rights movement for our black sisters and brothers, but he led 'anyone willing to walk with him,' much like Jesus, for the cause of 'equality for all.' Also similar to Jesus, those who sought to silence him gave him the added immortality of martyrdom. Unlike Jesus, though, we get to hear what Dr. King really said, not what others said he said, in his own beautiful and resonating voice.
His dream is both beautiful and timeless. The 'vision' he gave us with 'his dream' is one we all ought to see and strive for.
There is no more need for additional commentary from me on Dr. King's dream. He said it himself:
I Have A Dream
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
---------------------------------------
ed. note: Dr. King gave this famous speech on August 28, 1963, the hundredth anniversary of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 1964 would be the the first Presidential election in which black people in every state had the right to vote. Dr. King would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, also in 1964.
His dream is both beautiful and timeless. The 'vision' he gave us with 'his dream' is one we all ought to see and strive for.
There is no more need for additional commentary from me on Dr. King's dream. He said it himself:
I Have A Dream
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
---------------------------------------
ed. note: Dr. King gave this famous speech on August 28, 1963, the hundredth anniversary of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 1964 would be the the first Presidential election in which black people in every state had the right to vote. Dr. King would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, also in 1964.
So, If the Universe is Expanding . . .
. . . wouldn't it have to be created, or at least begin, at some point?
That seems logical.
So, why wouldn't that be the beginning of time?
Because time already existed, it has always existed, and it never began. It's bigger than the universe. It affects whatever is beyond the edge of the universe, and whatever is beyond that.
If you can't imagine that, then you're starting to 'get a picture' of infinity.
That seems logical.
So, why wouldn't that be the beginning of time?
Because time already existed, it has always existed, and it never began. It's bigger than the universe. It affects whatever is beyond the edge of the universe, and whatever is beyond that.
If you can't imagine that, then you're starting to 'get a picture' of infinity.
My Guess at the Number One Cause of Death Today
My guess is live birth.
I'll almost certainly be wrong if Wyoming erupts today.
I'll almost certainly be wrong if Wyoming erupts today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)