Molectrical movement… no proof

    Story:  Thoughts on death, molecules, and electrical movement within our bodies.

Before reading further, it may do some good to alter your thinking before proceeding.  As an example:

    a.  When looking at a bright, shiny, red sports car, what color is the sports car to you?

    b.  Before answering, remember that colors we see are the colors which are reflected by objects, not absorbed by objects.

   c.  So...if that sports car is any color, the last color it may be is red!  That is because it is reflecting the color red; therefore,  the car is not really red....!

    d.  What we see is the reflection of that color, not the real color of the object.  

    e.  If we  were to see the colors the object absorbed, or did not emit, we would absolutely be seeing the real colors of the object; unfortunately, we do not see them.  We only see what the outside coating on the car, is not!  

    f.  The car is all colors but red.

    g.  By pigmenting the paint or coating applied to the outside/shell of the sports car, we have 'glued' particles to the car that reflect the colors which red is compiled; particles that reflect red, or fail to absorb red.  Does this make any sense to you?   If so, 

please continue: Molectricity-Point of view...

1. Since all of our ‘mechanics’ (sight, sound, touch, smell, movement, etc., ) are controlled by electrical impulses within our bodies, and if this is an acceptable way to look and describe our physical functions; why is it these same electrons, or electrical pulses do not need to ‘go to ground’?  Or do we possess our own unique solar system, and is that system contained and separate from the outside world as we know it?  That is to say, “is each persons unique biological make-up or configuration separate and apart from all other physical matter in our universe? 
   
   a. Reason:  Our physical electrical systems on earth do not work if the electrons or electricity cannot reach/go to the earth’s ground!  You can hold a live electrical wire in you hand and not get electrocuted unless the electricity/electrons within that wire can pass through your body and physically reach the earth’s surface, i.e. ground.
   b. The electrons must be able to reach their source.  That is to say, as with cars, the electricity that is needed to operate the vehicle comes out of the positive + post of a two post battery; passes through whatever needs to be run with electricity and returns to the other post, this post being negative – or ground.  The electrons must be able to leave the battery, follow a path (wire) to what ever apparatus needs to operate on electricity, and after the electrons pass through whatever apparatus that may be (i.e., electric motor, fan, lighting, gauges, distributor, spark plugs, etc.) those same electrons must return to that same battery via a ground (or common wire which connects to ground via a buss bar) wire and terminate at the negative post on the battery.  Some of the electrons are lost along the way and are absorbed or disbursed in various manners; hence, the need for a generator or alternator to re-charge the battery with new electrons.
   c. The electricity in our homes is supplied in various ways, a dam, solar panels, wind machines, gas and diesel generators and the like, produce electricity for us which is sent to us through wires on poles or underground utility apparatus and instead of it returning directly to the generating apparatus via a ground or common wire (like with a battery), after being ‘used or routed through’  our homes and offices, it is sent to ‘ground’, or the earths surface via a ground wire from our electrical panel and via a ground wire via the poles or underground apparatus.
   d. The process above being described to the best of my knowledge and simplified to the best of my ability; I ask you, where is the generating unit and where is the ‘ground’ within our bodies?  Since most of the time we are wearing shoes with rubber soles (and not physically touching ground (the earth’s surface)) how does the electricity traveling within our bodies ‘go to ground’?  For electrons to ‘flow’ and for this to occur the electrons must be afforded a direct route or path back to the generating source, or ‘ground’.  Where is this ‘ground’ and where is the generating source within our bodies? 
   e.  If you were to simplify the process even further, you could say electrons need to complete a ‘loop’ or ‘circle’ in order for them to be of any value.  If they are stopped (broken wire) (broken path) from returning to their origin or ‘ground’ they are useless.  They cannot ‘flow’.  Sooooooo, since we are insulated from the earth via our clothing, is the moisture in the air our ‘ground’ conduit or ‘common wire’ to the earths surface?  Or are we as individuals simply unique, self contained units of electron generation, (replete with generation and grounding) separate and apart from the rest of the planet and each other?  Separate and apart from all other matter? 
   f. Perhaps ‘air’ is more important than we think.  Perhaps ‘air’ is the ‘ground’ encompassing our bodies for our electrical system to work?  But you say “ we go swimming, what happens then?”  Whereas I say to you, “water has air molecules in its soup of molecular configuration.  Whereas you say to me, “I have on a rubber ‘wet suit’ that insulates me from the water, “what then?”  Whereas I say “maybe ‘air’ is not the conduit?”  Whereas I say “we as humans must be a self contained universe, we must be a self generating and self grounding system of our own, totally separate from each other and the universe as a grounding medium.
   
   
2. Ok, now try this on for size:  H²O is a common scientific notation for water.  What this represents is that water has two Hydrogen atoms bonded to one Oxygen atom in a covalence bond which produces the atomic configuration of a molecular structure.
   a. That being said and agreed upon: If I were small enough to look at the molecule H²O on the same size difference we now enjoy with the earth, the molecule would simply look like three balls floating in space,  Kind of the same thing we see when looking up in our back yards at night.  So this being the case when does H²O  get ‘wet’?
   b. That is to say; a cup of water is simply a horrendous amount of H²O’s clustered together in one confined location.
   c. Soooooo, that being said and agreed upon:  How many of them must be ‘clustered’ together before they are what we call ‘water’ or ‘wet’?  Is one molecular structure of two Hydrogen and one Oxygen ‘wet’?  Not on a molecular size level as described above; therefore, I think not.
   d. Let’s look at it a different way for a moment:  If we look at this on a ‘molecular’ plane (that is to say we are the same size as the molecules or smaller) and we look at the two Hydrogen and one Oxygen in front of us and we are the same size, we would see three balls, floating in a void.  They possess electromagnetic ‘fields/bonds’ that keep them in close proximity to one ( just like planets) another and also those same ‘fields’ keep them at a precise distance from one another; my point is the three of them are not ‘wet’!  There is no ‘water’.  They are not 'liquid'.  How many do you need for them to 'get liquid'?
   e. Soooooo, my point is there is a direct relationship between our (human) observation of matter and our physical size.  That is to say, if we remain the same size as the molecules of water, H2O, it’s no matter how many of them are in concentration or floating in front of us; there is still no ‘water’ or ‘wet’ regardless of how many there are floating in space, in front of us if we are the same size.
   f. It is not until we return to our massive (on molecular standards) size of human standards that we presently enjoy that,  we are able to see a distorted visual view of matter.  In this instance, H²O or water is not 'water/wet' until we are much, much larger and our limited vision distorts that which is actually passing by on the river bank.  At this size differential, we see and taste ‘wet’ or ‘water’; when in actuality we are simply pouring massive concentrations of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms into our mouths.
   g. Remember that ‘space’ between the Hydrogens and Oxygen as they float in front of us?  Well, to me that begs the question; when transporting ‘wet’ or ‘water’ can we save space by separating the two?  Can we compress Hydrogen in one container and Oxygen in a separate container until we need them?  This would eliminate the ‘space’ between them and thus save ‘space’, right? Or do their respective magnetic fields forbid it?  I would think some kind of matter control could be gained simply by not having 'water/wet' on board a space craft until we needed it; then we would simply mix Hydrogen and Oxygen together and drink it.
   h. Do we even need to re-assemble them in order to get our ‘wet’ or ‘water’ requirements for survival?  Can we just take two million Hydrogen in one pill and one million Oxygen in another pill to get the benefits of a cup of ‘wet’ or ‘water’?
   . Isn’t it the same?  Still working on this one...
   
   
3. I pose another question:  If somehow we are smaller than the Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules, that is to say infinitely, minutely, smaller ( the same size comparison and relationship we presently have, being on the earths’ surface), you know, if we were as small as we are now on the earths’ surface only instead of standing on the surface of the earth, we are standing on the surface of a Hydrogen or Oxygen ‘ball’ floating in ‘space’; wouldn’t the ‘view’ look identical to the ‘view’ we now have on a clear night when looking up, while standing in the back yard?   Yea….you see where I’m going with this.
   a. Would the physical surface of the Hydrogen look the same?  You know… rivers, mountains, etc., perhaps like Mars?
   b. Does any known molecules surface possess the same physical composition as the earth? Is it possible?  And if so you must also agree it is possible for life on that same surface.
   c. Can it?
   d. If it can or may, can there be life as we know it?
   e. Does our universe just keep growing exponentially? 
   f. Are we in a ‘middle’ universe with regards to that theory?  That is to say, are the planets we now see every night and/ or the universe as we know it, just another universe or mirror image on another ‘size’ level? 
   g. Just as I have done above, is there someone in a ‘larger’ universe looking at the ‘earth’ molecule and wondering if there is life on it?
   h. Is what we refer to as ‘our earth’  part of a molecular structure in a larger universe?
   i. If so, which molecular configuration are we part of?  Would our magnetic fields designate our participation?
   j. If we could figure that out, could we not microscopically look at similar molecules, in similar molecular structures to see if there is ‘mirror’ life on a molecular surface in another ‘size/plane’ of existence?  When is there nothing smaller?
   k.  Could we not look to the molecules or planets in our own ‘solar system’  and try to replicate or trace any molecular/planet formations or structures floating out there to see if there are any structural matches to the molecular structures we know see and know to exist in our ‘size/plane’ of existence?  Is there a 'periodic table' for space?  Simply said, are there any planet orbits and/or configurations in our solar system that are identical to H²O?  Is there any planet formation that resembles ‘wet’ or ‘water’?  Is there one planet that possesses the same physical characteristics, the same composition of ‘our’ Hydrogen atoms in a symbiotic relationship with one planet that resembles the composition of ‘our’ Oxygen atoms?
   
   
4. Imagine the possibilities.  Imagine death.  We are comprised of molecular configurations in a middle universe.  Upon death, we do not go anywhere;  there is no death to molecules (other than their dis-assembly), there is no death to atoms, they do not cease to exist; therefore, on a molecular size/level how can one ever say we cease to exist!  Ever!  Simply because our body fails us, and we (die) because of it (we do not die because of our thought process, or thinking process; our body ceases to provide us with a vehicle with which to communicate with each other.  WE do not stop anything.   Why would our though process stop?  On a molecular/atomic level, the process does not need food, water, or air to function.  It is the body that needs these molecular configurations to function, not our thoughts.  The electrical, molecular, atomic 'motion' of 'US' do not stop; why would it?  The only thing our body has done for us, is provide a mechanism with which to gather information and communicate with each other.  No small thing, yet it is not needed for the thought process to continue.....atomically.   Fun huh?
5. Remember everything in our universe, everything as we know it, and that which we have not discovered is commensurate with 'OUR' physical size!  If you look at a water molecule H²O, it is not water or wet until you view it from where we view it.   The water we see, drink, and taste does not exist if we become the same size as the molecules water is comprised of.  Our bodies vanish when viewed on that molecular level of size.  That's right, our bodies vanish and become as the star constellations if view from a molecular/atomic size.   If we were the size of a Hydrogen atom, all that we know, all that we have ever known would be invisible to us.  We would just see planets, stars and solar systems.  Just as the stars, planets, constellations may comprise a much larger 'unit or object' on a much larger plane of size, that 'unit' or 'object' is invisible to us on this level of size because when observing from this level of size, we are looking through the spaces between the molecular structures that comprise that 'object'.  Simply said, the earth could be in the center of a molecular structure of a baseball on a much larger scale.  Since we revolve around a sun/energy emitting orb, we must free ourselves from the boundaries of conventional/restrictive observation/thinking and look for molecular structures on our size plane that resemble identical or similar molecular/planetary structures in the size plane we refer to as the solar system/universe.  If we find one constellation or configuration of planets that mirror a known grouping of molecules on our level of size, just one, we may have answered a very big question.  Is everything as we know it, relative to size?  Think hard.... Can we take all the configurations of planets as we now know them, and using a computer model, compress all the planets, solar systems, etc., and garner an image of what we are part of?  Although I realize it may take generations and generations of us working the problem, will we one day find a molecular/atomic match, here on earth that identically matches a solar configuration of planets?  What if a cluster of known planets matches the molecular structure of a diamond?  Then is it a diamond; a diamond that is invisible to us at this size level?  If we were to physically grow, would we eventually see a diamond, not a constellation of planets?
6. I use to think man destroyed nothing.  He only re-aligned matter.  He only assembled and disassembled molecular/atomic structures to suit his query.  What I have come to realize is that man destroys nothing tangible, I am sorry to say.......that which he destroys is originality.  He destroys the 'fingerprint' of that which is, has been, originally existing before we collectively decided we needed to communicate with each other.  And using that which is at hand, and millions of years, have succeeded.  Man has changed the 'canvas' of that portion of what is.  Simply said, he has moved things around.  He has moved things from their original position in that which is and that which was.  Has he destroyed anything; not really, he simply has tinkered with the originality that existed before we knew it existed.
7. Man destroys nothing.  Man re-distributes molecular/atomic structure.  He alters outward and inner appearances (we already know these appearances are subject to the physical size of the viewer when referring to human beings as entities.)  We re-assemble molecules and atoms in different, alternate, structural configurations.
8. Nothing man wants to do, or has done can happen without motion.  Nothing on any level of size can occur without motion.  It is the only constant.  Motion was here before we could communicate with each other, and we used it.
9. Consider the atom bomb.  A projectile is forced into an atom.  The atom splits and the residual pieces collide with molecular/atomic structures within close proximity of the event, and they intern continue the destruction of what was.  There you have it.  Boooom!  When thinking of the splitting of atoms, I find it odd the 'domino effect' is short lived.  That is to say, why did the explosion stop, when it reached a particular size?  What contained the explosion after a certain distance?  I'm sure 'they' know, but I don't.  I'm sure the fusion didn't run out of atoms for the pieces to split, so I can only surmise, the explosions force or speed slowed down in the fusion because the pieces/fragments reached a certain denseness of activity and perhaps the fragments simply collided with each other and diffused the situation?  Not enough contained force to continue splitting 'loose rather than confined atoms'.  Perhaps the atoms moved out of the way of the shock wave in a glancing manner?  If confined, I'm sure the explosion/fusion may still be occurring.  I simply don't know.  Perhaps one day I'll read something on it.
10. Now, I know what you are thinking.  Envision the 'big mushroom rising' the shock wave traveling across the surface of the earth, obliterating everything in its way, whew, scary!  That shock wave of course are molecular structures and atomic fragments flying across the surface of the earth.  They are minute, solid objects or spheres or jagged pieces of split atoms colliding with other stationary atomic structures held in covalent bonds and relatively stationary in the earth's atmospheric plasma.  For me, the fear of course when they made the bomb, was that maybe one of those other molecular structures may collide with other atoms with such force the explosion or magnificent collisions would continue until there was noting left to collide with.  In other words, total extinction as we know it, but not total extinction.  Just a major relocation of atoms.  Well that didn't happen, whew!!!  Stupid bastards, lucky guess, or did that fantastic 'devil math' have something to do with it?  And all that to make other peoples do what we say and to protect ourselves.   Boy, the lengths man will go to to control his brother and to protect an ideology.
11. Now for another moment, consider that explosion as pretty big on our size level, controllable, and destructive to a fault.  Consider if you will, what happened to the universe, solar system, and matter on a much smaller level of size.  Consider your view of what we did, viewing it from the surface of a hydrogen atom?  Consider your impression of the event if you were comparable in size, living on the surface of the  'H'  in H²O!  You know, comparable size comparisons to where we are living now, on the surface of the earth (just for a moment consider the earth an H in H²O and you saw the explosion we just described!)  Your life as we know it would most likely be gone, because your molecular structure would be disbursed elsewhere in your universe.  Then again, perhaps nothing would have happened on a atomic scale unless just one of the astronomical number of 'meteorites/comets' hit us!
12. The view would be like us looking to the stars one night and seeing millions of  projectiles moving through the planets at astronomical speeds and then colliding with our moons, planets, and solar systems, splitting them into millions of pieces, and watching as those pieces collided into the planets within close proximity of the event.  We would most likely be gone.   Maybe not, I suppose some might exist floating around on a piece of the earth.  Well, that's about how controlled an atom bomb is.  There is no awareness of what has occurred on a smaller size level.  On what I call a molecular size level.  Did you ever think for one moment we exist on the surface of an atom or molecule in someone else's size level; a much larger size level?
13. If we want to really see if we are alone in our universe, we may just send an nuclear warhead towards Saturn with enough power to split it in two, and watch to see if someone comes to see us from a much larger universe.  On a smaller universe, a molecular size universe, they may already know they are not alone, because of our 'tinkering' with their planets by sending projectiles at astronomical speeds through their space to collide with a planet in their solar system, their much smaller solar system.  

1. Cont:

    

   1. In the world as we know it, our physical size defines/dictates ‘solidity’.  If we were to shrink ourselves small enough to view atoms and molecular structures as a microscope may, there is no solidity as we know it.  Nothing as we know it, would be a solid.
   2. On a larger note:  Man must start comparing our known molecular structures to the planetary structures above us.  We must do overlays, looking for comparisons in planetary orbital structures as compared to atomic/molecular orbital structures on our present size level of comparison.
   3. The proximity and concentration of molecular galaxies is what produced that which we as a result, our physical size and physical view of objects is a direct result of size dictates objects and hence, solidity in our known molecular universe.  A universe simply being that which is an observation dictated by physical size of the viewer.
   4. If you look at wood or concrete with a microscope they are not solid, they are micro-universes in a symbiotic/electrical relationship.  Just as H2O is not wet when viewed on a molecular level of sight.  H2O are simply three orbs floating in space.  My question is:  How many do you need, and how big does the viewer need to be before H2O becomes that which we are familiar with; water/liquid?
   5. As human beings, we are symbiotic clusters of atoms which are themselves in symbiotic relationships with other atoms in molecular structures of which are themselves in symbiotic relationships with each other in their individual universes; a very similar, yet much smaller universe than the one we view differently because of our physical size.
   6. It is arrogant to think it is us (as humans) who are expanding and conquering the universes mysteries.  Can we, just for a moment consider it is not us which is multiplying and expanding our universal horizons, but much like the computer; a complex electrical, self aware and molecularly intricate atomic relationship may have started a very long time ago, and thus far, we are simply the result of that process?  We are the result of the evolution of that which has evolved to visually inspect or scrutinize the much larger molecular universe we now find ourselves occupying?  As such, we are now in the process of continuing our innate, molecular directive to search for data; to continue the perpetual search for the unknown by expanding our search out into space.  Perhaps a mirror image of that which has already occurred on a molecular level of size as we know it.  We are simply in the next step of our journey.
   7. Presently, man is going in both directions simultaneously.  Nano technologies are taking us ‘visually’ back into perhaps whence we came, and space travel is taking us into an ever-growing, much larger (molecularly speaking) in size, universe of existence, atomic structure, and that which may prove many theories, that which we refer to as ‘Space Travel’.  We are traveling away from this planet/atom, using the ‘Space’ between molecules (planets/atoms) to search for knowledge. 
   8. We cannot destroy that which sustains this directive; i.e., sustains us.  We cannot environmentally ‘burn our bridges’ or ‘molecular stepping stones’ to accomplish or mission.  Surely, an innate directive is that which forbids the destruction or manipulation of that which sustains our life, our existence?  No seeker, no person, no molecular collective can be left behind in our quest.  Surely it is known we search for that which we do not know?  What do we posses, but that innate directive which forbids harm to other searchers/seekers, and our quest for knowledge?  I do not know how, but there must be penalties for seekers who destroy seekers.  Remember, the atomic/molecular thought process within each and every one of us does not cease to function nor seek to exist on a molecular/atomic level when our bodies deteriorate and cease to function.  Molecularly, why should they?  On an atomic and/or molecular size, the decay of our bodies is simply one 'player' in a molecular symbiotic relationship which cannot or is not replaced ceasing to play the game.  
   9. It is obvious, there are molecular structures/atomic concentrations which are presently attacking our bodies for one reason or another.  Perhaps they too have quests?  Why would something exist that lives solely to stop us?  To destroy that which molecular evolution has created?  
   10. It is my contention, there are others out there on their own quest and with the splitting of the atom (an incident which could have destroyed both universes as we know them) simply by the domino effect/results, it's no wonder we have visitors.  We told them where we are.
       
       
   11. Cont:
       
       

       However…

        

        

       1. One could also ask:  When do molecules, atoms become static?  As far as I can see, never.  They are always in motion.  They are always an integral part of all.
       2. One could use a mass spectrograph to delineate solidity; however, this only defines molecular cluster boundaries, not when matter becomes solid to us.
       3. Consider a baseball size granite rock.  When does it become solid?  When does it become visible?  Consider the smaller we are the less visible objects/matter becomes.  If we were to shrink ourselves to a size relationship we now experience with regards to our relationship with earth and transpose that same ‘size relationship/percentage on a hydrogen molecule, and earth was represented by a Hydrogen atom, one oxygen represented by the moon, the other hydrogen represented by Mars ‘water’ as we know it would not exist.  Much like the planets we see at night, these three atoms would not be wet...there is no fluid.  But look at those same three objects and millions of others and cluster them together from the size we now represent and guess what , we have water, fluid, wet.  Size does matter.
       4. So, the questions arise: 
              a. When does H2O become water/wet?  This is a loaded question because first of all no one knows how many H2Os you need before this occurs, because no one knows how large the observer is.
              b. Basically, if we weren’t the physical size we are, and did not acquire information and observation the way we do, we would not see water, ever.  We would not see granite in rock form.  We would not see the earth if we were considerably smaller. 
       5. Therefore, it is my contention all matter is invisible until it is observed from a great distance (or from a greater size differential).   The distance dictates when and if molecules, atoms ever become clusters of matter.  If we use a microscope, we can physically ‘see’ enzymes, cells, etc.  If we view these entities even closer we could not see the enzymes, cells, etc.  We would be looking through them, the same way we now view the solar system.  We are of the size described above.  We are standing on the Hydrogen looking out into that which we call space.  We are looking between the atoms when we look to the stars. 
       6. Again, I reiterate, man needs to compare known molecular structures as we know them Carbon, H2O, etc., with the celestial bodies and their structures to see if we can get a match.  What if we can?  What if there are planetary configurations which are identical to the H2O molecule, “OUR” water molecule?  Does that mean on a much larger scale, a combination of these planetary configurations are ‘wet/water’ in a much larger world or universe?
       7. Basically, the closer we physically view/look at matter, the more invisible it becomes.  It may seem odd, but to view objects through a microscope, this process actually makes us smaller by proxy.  To view molecular structures and see them enlarged like we see the planets on a clear night, we must be smaller, infinitesimal.
       8. Our known planetary universe as we know it appears to be no more than a larger ‘view’ of that which we are. 
       9. If we were to simply say there is a smaller view (molecular) and a larger view (universal/planetary) of what is, who would be wrong?
       10. Are human beings between both sizes/views, so as to have the ability to view both?  The smaller with the aid of microscopes, the larger with the aid of telescopes, and the nearer, larger planets with the naked eye?
           
           
       11. Cont:

        

       1. Remember, on a molecular level/size there is no 'wet' or 'water' there is only molecules and atoms.  There is physical 'space' between atoms and distinct molecules regardless of their symbiotic relationships.
       2. Our bodies are 90% H2O or what we call 'water', what does that tell you?
       3. Again, remember, on a molecular level/size there is no 'water' or 'wet'; therefore, there is no 'body' on a molecular level/size as we know it.  Our bodies would be invisible to us if we were molecular is size.  The same as the 'body' the solar system represents is invisible to us now, instead, we see through molecules and atoms when looking to space.  Space could well be a real 'celestial body' now, at this size differential, and a human body if we were larger.  The difference, the size we are when we view it.
       4. Our bodies are that which we observe because of our physical size; our limited abilities to magnify that which is.  
       5. If we were as small as a single atom, our physical bodies would be invisible to our naked eye!  The view would be the same as that which we see now when we look to the stars at night.
       6. There is no reason not to surmise that when we look to the stars we are not also looking at life on a different level/size plane of physical sight.  We are simply the ones on the atoms (standing on an atom looking up) which they cannot see, and they are the ones on/in the middle level/size plane with invisible bodies because they are so much larger in physical size than we are; and therefore, we are looking past the atoms and molecular structures of life and instead we are seeing the enormous amounts of space between molecular structures that exists on differing planes of physical sight.
       7. Therefore, on that same molecular level/size, there is no reason that our molectricity thought process should stop simply because our body gives-out because our molecular structure does not recognize 'wet' or 'water' for survival.  Water or moisture simply does not exist on a molecular level/size and therefore has no effect on thought  unless H2O is simply a conduit to carry electrical signals?  
       8. And if that is the case, any atmosphere we can survive in will also perpetuate our thoughts.
       9. Remember, mass is simply a cluster of molecules and atoms.  
       10. Mass is only mass because of our physical size.  
       11. Remember, that which dictates mass is simply and literally in size of the eye of the beholder!  
       12. Man only sees/views objects because of his/her physical size.  Shrink us and we see nothing of this level/size plane; we would instead see/view that which is of another level/size plane.
       13. It may be interesting to note:  Simply by increasing the distance between molecules and atoms, which configure/constitute a particular object on our level/size plane, we could render the object invisible to our eyes.  Think of it like a pot of water (H2O); add some heat and boil it (all we are really doing is increasing the distance between molecules) and what happens?  The water becomes invisible, we call it evaporation, I call it increasing the space between molecular structure with heat; and what is heat?  It is atoms hauling ass, and if atoms are crashing into molecules (H2O), what happens?  The knock them apart and away from one another (flying atoms increase that space we were talking about earlier), and Yahoo! we have invisibility!
       14. It is always good to remember:  if you shrink small enough you will invariably end up a mass of molecules, molecular structures and compositions, no more.  Again, the view from a hydrogen atom is the same view from your backyard on a clear night when you look to the stars.  
       15. Again, we need someone matching our known molecular structures and compositions against the planetary structures and compositions in our solar system to see if any match.  If they do, boy are we going to have fun in the next millennium! 
           
            

       16. Consider this:  In the future when we realize there are links between our consciousness (the now….that which you are doing this moment, precisely now, information gathering using the body’s senses), sub-consciousness (consciousness on a molecular/atomic size/relationship) and the information gathering, and interaction processing biological apparatus (the body) there will be no reason to send the whole body to the Moon, to Mars or anywhere else!  The craft sending us on an experimental, information gathering mission can be as small as a grain of sand to send hundreds of us to start a new extension of our race; in fact, if we can send our molecular consciousness without the ‘body’, imagine the possibilities!  On a much larger scale, just as we can genetically, biologically, fertilize the egg in ‘vitro’ we can certainly do this in flight!  We can freeze embryos and sperm for many years (we do this already).  There is no reason we cannot proceed with the process of thawing and fertilization in flight.  That is to say, since we have not yet mastered the craft of protecting the ‘body’ to live forever, we can prolong its conception until closer to the objective.  If it takes two hundred years to reach a planet using our current technologies and the average life span of our pilots dictates they will not reasonably live long enough to be of any use, we can simply send a much lighter, smaller, craft with the technology to ‘in vitro’ fertilize human eggs in flight; approximately fifteen to twenty years before arrival.  Of course all training, orientation, and indoctrination equipment will also ‘come alive’ at that time to conserve energy in during the two hundred year flight.  This concept of course brings to the surface many more problems to solve, not least the fact that we will have no control over the ultimate result.  Will these humans be ‘human’ to us?  Initially yes.  Since we are already rearing our young this way (schools, universities, etc.) we may survive the concept.  Obviously lacking are the interaction of senses with their own, diverse kind.  They may be very similar in mannerisms or each could be ‘taught’ slightly different behavioral and technological curriculums in an effort to at diversity.  Either way, sending molecular/atomic physical conciseness into space to eventually co-exist with a ‘created’ (which already happens) new body upon arrival, or sending ‘in vitro’ genetics and apparatus to ‘create’ a new body upon arrival can happen.  As far a rearing, raising the infants in flight, this is also possible.  The point is, there is no reason to send a defective 'body' which starts deteriorating upon creation on length solar fact finding expeditions when we can send infants or pre-infants to gain one hundred years of flight.  If we can prolong fertilization (as we are doing now) and initiate the process instead, in one hundred years, these offspring will be ten to twenty years old upon arrival at their destination.  Keep in mind, the craft will be dropping buoys along the route to leap-frog information/communication signals back to origin.  Down side, it may very well be, no one who knows about the mission will be alive to receive those signals.  There will have to be a computer time clock to 'awaken' the scientists on earth to the fact that a one hundred and twenty year old mission is due to communicate for the first time, and the senders are not in this solar system!
            

       17. How about that word in the dictionary "inanimate"? The American Heritage® College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1993/1997, page 685 "inanimate" 1.  Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms; not animate. 2.  Not animated or energetic; dull.  3.  Gram. Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things."  Then we look to "animate" as in #1, page 53.  "animate" 1. To give life to; fill with life. 2.  To impart interest or zest to" enliven. 3.  To fill with spirit, courage, or resolution; encourage. 4. to inspire to action; prompt. 5. To impart motion or activity to. 6. To make, design, or produce so as to create the illusion of  motion.  And the description continues to symbiotically attach life to a the description.
           
           a.  Of interest to me is nothing in our universe is void of motion.  As stated in # 5 in the first "inanimate", "to impart motion or activity to".  We can only disperse or condense motion, we cannot impart motion to anything.  Remember  "All" is moving.  All molecular structures/configurations, all atoms, all electrons, all ions,.....All is moving.....all has motion.  We cannot stop it, we cannot start it.  We can disperse it and/or condense/confine it.  As far as #1 of the second paragraph "animate", "To give life to; fill with life."  We cannot mimic the perception of a god or the god.  We cannot presume to "give life" or " fill' anything with life.  To me, life is a finite molecular, atomic configuration which does not lend itself readily to duplication.  It is said, scientists can create life in a test tube.  I believe it may be possible to conceive or do that which is currently a genetic assembly of molecules; however, I believe to use a phrase like "To give life" is reaching at best.  You cannot give something which is already.  Nothing works without electricity, nothing!   Not your sight, brain, heart, lungs, blood, pissing.....nothing.  We are electrical currents and conduits, and all receptors, senders, etc.  Scientists cannot construct such systems, they can only re-assemble them out of their normal (womb) habitat.  Somewhere else other than where on would normally find them, under construction/assembly.  Life is not theirs to give, only use.
           b.  To exist is to live.  Is the definition of life, motion?  No living organism or non organism can exist without motion.  No molecular configuration or atomic configuration, or ionic configuration can exist without motion; therefore, is it not reasonable to suggest life is motion?  The caveat of course it that when our body deteriorates to the extent it cannot support us/we in this present molecular configuration, and we/us say whisper the words "death, or dead, or dieing" it may do us good to know, the body does not molecularly stop moving!  That is to say, the molecular structures/configurations which comprise our body may collectively loose particular symbiotic functions which allow us to communicate with each other (eyes, nose, ears, brain, voice, smell, etc.) and we are returned to a "non-body" state of existence, is no small thing.  We do not 'die', we simply do not have that particular, deteriorated,  'body' with us anymore.  The 'motion' which kept the body 'alive' has moved on, has disassociated with that particular configuration (which was what most people referred to as "YOU"  You will be in another body again.  Molecularly, there is no reason for you not to!  You are not going anywhere!  You will never be inanimate!  You are we.....you are us....you are special....you are unique and of a particular molecular configuration.  You will see me again and I you.  Cheer up, for our love for each other is a personal thing, it is in you and mine is in me.  No one gives it to me.  I love you because we are one and we will always be one.  We must keep the good, there is no need for harm.  Maybe one day there will be no need for the words "tear, or fear, or famine, or hurt, or frightened, or shame, or weapons......"  We can do it together!  I will never need to be anywhere other than standing next to you and seeing your smile.  We can do it!  Is there anything better than a smile?
           
            I heard a joke the other day.....a guy asked me "how do you know who loves you more, your wife or your dog?  I said I don't know!  Then he said, on a one hundred degree day, throw both of them in the trunk of a car, lock it, and come back two hours later.  Open the trunk, and tell me which one is happier to see you!   Haaaaaaaaaaa.......haaaaaaaa.........haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
            

       
       to be continued...RJ...

   
   
       I was out the other night for a walk and could swear I was being watched.... just joking…cheer up!  Who would want to keep an eye on me/us?  Hell, if they were big enough, they would be invisible to us anyway...because at the size we are today, their molecular structures would simply look like planets and stars to us (how foolish) do you think they saw that atom bomb, or one of our nuclear explosions? Do you think we were molecularly put here on this atom to garner information for others physically much larger in an effort to investigate universes much smaller than their known solar system?....To be continued…..RJ
   
   Back