Cornelius

Think thats a crazy cross over. Here's the original. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3WJX1cIuY4 Your upset you didn't think of tonic huh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahjwXDGNjno&feature=related

Happy Birthday Kevin. Thank you for the opportunities you give us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c95Bp6On0

Love the Femmes

For all my fellow and honorary Irish today

QFT! Along the lines of what i was trying to express but put more simply and eloquently than I could manage. Excellent post Oh Great Murph .)

Just playing devil's advocate here. I can appreciate the sentiment but you are singling out a specific group of people based on their beliefs and behavior and condemning them. You are asking god to punish them for who they are. How is this spreading god's love? Isn't what you're doing with this the exact same thing as they are with homosexuals? I hate them myself but in my belief system that is ok. I really was hesitant to post this because I don't really disagree I just thought it needed to be said?

A different look at what causes weight gain and the "Obesity Epidemic" in America.

Your presence was missed. welcome Back

Herzlich willkommen zu deine neffe. Viel Gluck!

I enjoy concerts a lot. I was wondering how many of you fine folks like them as well and if you'd list or give us a sample of some of what you have seen. Concerts I've seen. Black sabbath ( all the original members) Iron Maiden (Dickinson maiden but there really isn't another one) Slayer (x3) Rob Zombie (x2) Black Label Society (x2) In This Moment (x2) Marylin Manson Rolling Stones Rammstein Slipknot American Head Charge Mudvayne Five Finger Death Punch Killswitch Engage (x3) In Flames As I Lay Dying Mastodon A Dozen Furies The Haunted Arch Enemy The Black Dahlia Murder(x3) Bury Your Dead It Dies Today Soilwork Gizmachi Trivium (x2) Cannibal Corpse Judas Priest Metallica Godsmack Adema Alanis Morrisette Social Distortion Korn Dry Cell Mushroomhead Radiators Bullet For My Valentine All that remains God forbid Behemoth Job for a Cowboy Whitechapel Atreyu 3 inches of blood Norma jean lamb of God (x3) hatebreed Chaimara Shadows Fall (x3) Winds of plague Powerman 5000 Sevendust System of a Down Filter Halestorm Shinedown Silvertide Taking dawn Staind (x3) 3 doors down Breaking Benjamin Flyleaf POD Taproot Wallflowers Children of Bodom Bruise Brothers Dave Matthews Bruce Springsteen Brand New Sin That enough for now, I've seen a lot more believe it or not. A ton of local bands I don't bother adding. I've attended many times what used to be a local bluegrass festival, that was world famous, where I used to live. I had the honor of seeing a lot of bluegrass legends and very popular groups play. I've also went to a lot of blues and jamband festivals and had the honor of seeing a lot of the greats there as well. Anybody else got any cool shows or stories?

Thank you for the reply. I have heard similar views before and I find it to be an interesting thought. Check out Quantam Death. http://www.quantum-physics-spirituality.com/Quantum-Death.htmlBased on what you have stated before I think you should also check out transcendentalism. If you haven't already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism

Could you please explain this concept further?

Perhaps you missed it.

Telling tales out of school now are we?I recommend reviewing the Tos again. Here is a link to it for you.

As the reverend explained quite clearly and seemed to understand quite well,: "Electrical phenomena does not need another primordial force to exist. When I speak of energy I speak of the electric currents in the universe. Energy works alone, its movement comes from its electrons." (Electrons can be made to move from one atom to another. When those electrons move between the atoms, a current of electricity is created.) The parts in bold are not her words. This is what she stated. Please quote a more reliable source. sub·atom·ic adj \-ə-ˈtä-mik\ Definition of SUBATOMIC 1 : of or relating to the inside of the atom 2 : of, relating to, or being particles smaller than atoms http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subatomic Atoms are composed of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are not composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of three type of particles: protons, neutrons, and electron. Protons and neutrons are responsible for most of the atomic mass e.g in a 150 person 149 lbs, 15 oz are protons and neutrons while only 1 oz. is electrons. The mass of an electron is very small (9.108 X 10-28 grams). Both the protons and neutrons reside in the nucleus. Protons have a postive (+) charge, neutrons have no charge --they are neutral. Electrons reside in orbitals around the nucleus. They have a negative charge (-). It is the number of protons that determines the atomic number, e.g., H = 1. The number of protons in an element is constant (e.g., H=1, Ur=92) but neutron number may vary, so mass number (protons + neutrons) may vary. The same element may contain varying numbers of neutrons; these forms of an element are called isotopes. The chemical properties of isotopes are the same, although the physical properties of some isotopes may be different. Some isotopes are radioactive-meaning they "radiate" energy as they decay to a more stable form, perhaps another element half-life: time required for half of the atoms of an element to decay into stable form. Another example is oxygen, with atomic number of 8 can have 8, 9, or 10 neutrons. http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/atoms.html Her statement was; Electricity is made up of subatomic particles composed of nucleons and atoms. Atoms are composed of subatomic particles, as I said, it is not the other way around. That reliable enough for you? As The reverend said, it could not be self aware. Reread and reflect. The reverend stated; "Energy is power it cannot comprehend therefore it cannot be aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, to comprehend one must have a mind. To have a mind one must have a brain so that they can process, formulate thinks, perceive, judge, grasp and understand. Energy does not have a brain." If you want to get philosophical I could argue against that but otherwise it is a statement that is obvious. which is why it is confusing to me that it even needs to be mentioned. Energy exists without the help of stars, stars are just one energy source. Radiant or solar energy, which comes from the light and warmth of the sun. Thermal energy, associated with the heat of an object.Chemical energy, stored in the chemical bonds of molecules. Electrical energy, associated with the movement of electrons.Electromagnetic energy, associated with light waves (including radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, infrared waves. Mass (or nuclear) energy, found in the nuclear structure of atoms. I am not sure what in my statements you are arguing or refuting against since they do not pertain to what you have stated as a correction of them. Please clarify for me what exactly you are arguing in my statement there. Again, please quote a more reliable source.Mass into energy by NASA; It is not mass into energy, it is mass-energy equivalence. Sorry the link you gave doesn't work right now so thanks for copying and pasting.I would like you to see the red text in your quote. This confirms what I have stated to be correct. It is not mass into energy it is mass-energy equivalence. Thanks for the help Also here is a more reliable link for you. By far, Einstein's best-known equation is "E=mc2 - energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared." According to this equation, any given amount of mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy, and vice versa. http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/nuggets/einstein/speedoflight.html Gravity is indeed a force The force of Gravity by NASA; http://www-istp.gsfc...ze/Sgravity.htm To keep the Moon moving in that circle--rather than wandering off--the Earth must exert a pull on the Moon, and Newton named that pulling force gravity. The current science on gravity is relativity by einstein. Which displaced newtons law of gravity. The large ball will cause a deformation in the sheet's surface. A baseball dropped onto the sheet will roll toward the bowling ball. Einstein theorized that smaller masses travel toward larger masses not because they are "attracted" by a mysterious force, but because the smaller objects travel through space that is warped by the larger object. Physicists illustrate this idea using embedding diagrams. http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result. http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html One of the foremost pioneers of modern science, Isaac Newton developed his three laws of motion and a theory of gravity, not to mention the calculus needed to develop and express these theories in math! He set his concepts in a framework of space and time which he (like everyone else at that time) assumed to be absolute. For two centuries that omission was overshadowed by his triumphs in celestial mechanics and optics. http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinLegacy.html More on relativity; http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/spring98/ast3033/Relativity/GeneralRelativity.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm This is exactly what the Reverend Irma confirmed. A star glows because the fusing atoms are releasing energy and creating iron. This is not why stars glow As I stated. Stars do not produce iron until their final stage. In fact that is the marker for the final stage. Stars glow before their final stage. They actually glow brighter before this stage. The iron being produced is not a reason they glow. it is quite simply because they are hot. Which you confirmed in your statement here. There are much better sources to quote then Wiki. True but this does not make the information any less accurate. I did so for convenience as sorting through a ton of links to find information, I already possess, that is already presented in an easy format at wiki can be a hassle. I do not use wiki to display information that I have not already confirmed and checked out myself, at previous times, with more reliable sources. I also included links to other sources such as Nasa in that post. This is not exactly what she said. Just because you credit correct statements to her does not make her actual statements correct. I also don't believe you speak for her. Unless you have some sort of personal connection with her that i am not aware of.The exploded remains from a supernova travel throughout the universe only to someday clump together with other stardust and give birth to a new star. This is the life of our universe: one energy source vibrates into another energy source until new life is formed. This is what she stated. She never said that it "ultimately made the chemistry of life on Earth possible." She did not reference life on earth she was refering to new stars being formed. Stars are not "life". I am aware of carl sagans work and achievements. This does not make irma's statements correct.

Please show me how I am deviating from the truth and how I am in error. edited for. I'm sorry i didn't notice your posts inside of mine.

This is incorrect. It shows a lack of understanding of what energy is and how it functions. Subatomic particles are SUBatomic (sub means under). Subatmoic particles make up nucleons and atoms. Not the other way around. Are you confusing electrons with electricity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle This doesn't make sense to me. Why and how could electrical phenomena be self aware? they are just natural processes. So why bring this up in the first place? Energy is power, it cannot comprehend, therefore it cannot be aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, or surroundings. In order to comprehend there must be a mind. To have a mind, there must be a brain so it can process, formulate, think, perceive, judge, grasp and understand. Energy is Energy. Power is energy being converted. This is almost correct except that the particles do not come from the energy of the stars but from the leftovers of stars. The sun is a star. It is not mass into energy it is mass-energy equivalence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2 gravity is not a force. Refer to Einstein's general relativity. A star glows because the fusing atoms are releasing energy and creating iron. As a star gets hotter in temperature, the heavier elements like carbon and oxygen are formed. As a star ages, it then fuses the helium with hydrogen to form lithium. Stars glow quite simply because they are hot. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html#lightStars do not produce iron until their final stage. In fact that is the marker for the final stage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star A star is not "life", also the remains from supernovas can also form planets. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html What energy exactly?

Before we start to go in depth on the Gita I thought I would post a little background on the characters and the book. Disclaimer: I am not an expert on Hinduism. I am aware there there are many variations and traditions in Hinduism that have differing beliefs. I am just trying to give a basic idea for the foundation of the beliefs behind the characters for this discussion. For more info on the Gita I recommend this thread. The tale is comprised of two main characters. Krishna and Arjuna. http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/krishna.htmKrishna is called the killer of Madhu. By saying this Krishna is being spoken of as the avatar of the God Vishnu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhu-Kaitabh http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/vishnu.htm http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/deities/vishnu.htmVishnu is a part of the Trimurti or Great Trinity. Brahma the creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. Considered by some the cosmic creation aspects of the Brahman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahmanArjuna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArjunaHermano Luis if you would like to correct anything or share your particular beliefs on the matter it is much welcome, appreciated, and wanted.

I moved the chat to the following sunday. To give everyone time to read it during the holidays. I know I'll be doing 8 hours or more of driving in the next 2 days. The day and time is posted in Chat room stuff

What do you think of the war Fawzo? Thanks for the first post al. The war against his family and his distress over it comes into play in the text and sets the stage for Krishna to reveal truths to him. I found your insights to be revealing and I thank you for sharing your experience. As I continue reading tonight I will post my thoughts. Thanks for being brave enough to be the first