I have made an educated guess that the lost tribes are the celts, with very little left to prove but tribal similarities and perhaps a bit of stuff in the gene pool.


Posted by at

I also read that Jews in the last three hundred years have spent time trying to figure out lost cultural identity much like the American Indians recently have been doing!

The effects of regaining ones culture have done magic and I believe it is important that no culture is destroyed if it can be prevented.  Also America has a culture, it does.
Posted by at

Jews would exile their own people if they were violent forwards a European and forced to leave their town or city to keep safety for thousands of years.


Posted by at

Jews mixed the most with Europeans during the time of the Lithuanian-Polish Empire!

A 16th century phenomena!
Posted by at

Many Jews in Northern Europe were from the soldier tribe/class like Kshatriya in India.

More Jews in other parts were very religiously observant and were part of a different tribe.
Posted by at

60% of German soldiers during war one were Jewish and 80% of them fought in the front lines! fact!


Posted by at

She and the cheese were flying on a flying squirrel occasionally resetting for more auto pickles!


Posted by at

May a wonderful elephant land in your living room and fart!!!!


Posted by at

The moment the poets pen hits the page deep inside is the smile of the power and majesty of language!

Every poet knows of this wondrous flame as it reaches into the ethers to burn heart and soul to the world and leave the silence and loneliness of everyday existence in a defiant like act of inspiration!
Posted by at

To any naysayers of poetry,

Can you have lived without it

Or imagine a world where there was none

Is a less intersting, magical world

In which perhaps our soul yearns

For poetry

And nothing else

So naysay all you want!
Posted by at

To me love !

It should be at the top of life as with other aspects

Things I don't like about it:

There are rare times when I like to hear someone says, "I love you" even then it makes me uneasy!

Technology never wins out love!

Love should be protected from any invasions of it!

I prefer a pg rated world for the reason of love!

Beauty never wins my heart, but the beauty within can!

I know that a person who feels love for another can turn into a stalker!

It seems that those who are generous will fall in love the easiest!

A kiss is not the love touch really!

Love may be vulnerable, but it is also sweet, tender, and warm!

Love may be a show or fake to manipulate!

People often find love in tough times and may want someone to lean on when they find it hard to get through the week!

Love can turn into hate which is a very bad form of love!

Love is frought with danger and should be approached with serious thought and even planning!



Posted by at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Is this a valuable chunk: Bottom line Your intuition matches a real interpretive layer of relativity: spacetime can be treated as a complete whole rather than a flowing process But it goes beyond current physics to say: that whole structure implies simple, fixed determinism of all events That middle gap—between geometry and outcomes—is exactly where modern theoretical physics is still incomplete. Yes — it’s a valuable chunk, but with some important caveats about how valuable and for what purpose. Why it is valuable That passage correctly captures a real distinction in modern general relativity: spacetime can be modeled as a complete 4D geometric structure (the “block” interpretation) but that does not automatically mean every event is simply “fixed deterministically” in the intuitive sense And it correctly identifies a real frontier issue: how spacetime geometry and physical outcome rules fit together at a deeper level That is an actual research gap in theoretical physics (especially when trying to unify gravity with microscopic physics in cosmology-level models). Why it needs tightening There are two places where it becomes slightly misleading: 1) “Interpretive layer of relativity” That’s fine, but it should be clearer that: the “block universe” is an interpretation, not a direct experimental prediction of relativity Relativity itself only gives: a geometric structure of spacetime not a claim about “flow” or “non-flow” of time. 2) “That implies simple fixed determinism” This is the delicate part. Even in a block-style spacetime: the global structure can exist without implying simple, classical determinism of all events Because outcome rules can still be: probabilistic locally (in modern physics descriptions) or constrained but not uniquely fixed by initial conditions alone So the implication you wrote is stronger than what physics requires. Why the “middle gap” line is actually strong This part is genuinely solid: “That middle gap—between geometry and outcomes—is where modern theoretical physics is incomplete.” That is accurate in spirit because: we do not yet have a fully unified description of spacetime + microscopic dynamics the interface between geometry and physical “events” is still an open problem in fundamental theory This is one of the motivations behind attempts at quantum gravity. Bottom line (refined evaluation) ✔ Good conceptual clarity ✔ Correctly distinguishes interpretation vs theory ✔ Correctly identifies a real unresolved frontier ⚠ Slight overstatement about determinism being implied If you wanted a sharper version A more precise rewrite would be: Spacetime in relativity can be modeled as a complete 4D structure, rather than a flowing process. However, this geometric view does not by itself determine how physical events are realized within that structure. The relationship between spacetime geometry and the rules governing outcomes remains an open problem in modern theoretical physics.