Why does only time has an infinite quality. All the other properties of the universe is not infinite?
I have a question
Time is always there, space also. Imagine reality without space and time. How fucked up would that be?
Although you are right about a certain point, the big bangs and black holes are singularities where there is 0 space and 0 time. 🙂
Although you are right about a certain point, the big bangs and black holes are singularities where there is 0 space and 0 time. 🙂
Posted by THE JESUS
The most logical state is 0.
Expansion of matter viewed from an eternal perspective = nothing exists that requires conditions.
time is never 0, just like the number infinity. The number infinity can never be 0.
But thank you Jesus 😄
well, theortical 0 is just like the model of a colorless color.
time must exist even if everythingh ceased to exist.
Is there such a thing as a colorless color, this is just like the model of theortical 0 of anything.
time must exist even if everythingh ceased to exist.
Is there such a thing as a colorless color, this is just like the model of theortical 0 of anything.
Well in reality we don't really understand either.
Einstein's spent years until he got his formula right, and H.G. Wells did nothing more than write stories about the possibilities and later many of them became reality. Then there is Da Vinci. Hundreds of years before his time, there were concepts that he came up with that became reality later. If it can be dreamed, it can be conceived. We have only the continuum to delve into and come up with the concept.
Emptiness...if the heart is empty...is it devoid of all emotion? I think not... For it is a space that folds in upon itself and is multi-dimensional. Time is also something, that though, from what we currently believe, we have not mastered, it folds upon itself. Of course, one could also study Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus.
This is why Newton's apple fell. The whole gravitational theory is what got Einstein thinking in the direction of relativity in the first place. It was conventional thinking, the standard by which all had been developed before, and for which a simple equation obliterated.
One could consider 0 a base...but not a non-entity.
Even in the supposed state of nothingness...there is something.
Einstein's spent years until he got his formula right, and H.G. Wells did nothing more than write stories about the possibilities and later many of them became reality. Then there is Da Vinci. Hundreds of years before his time, there were concepts that he came up with that became reality later. If it can be dreamed, it can be conceived. We have only the continuum to delve into and come up with the concept.
Emptiness...if the heart is empty...is it devoid of all emotion? I think not... For it is a space that folds in upon itself and is multi-dimensional. Time is also something, that though, from what we currently believe, we have not mastered, it folds upon itself. Of course, one could also study Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus.
This is why Newton's apple fell. The whole gravitational theory is what got Einstein thinking in the direction of relativity in the first place. It was conventional thinking, the standard by which all had been developed before, and for which a simple equation obliterated.
One could consider 0 a base...but not a non-entity.
Even in the supposed state of nothingness...there is something.
Posted by THE JESUS
"time must exist even if everythingh ceased to exist."
"Even in the supposed state of nothingness...there is something."
HERETICS! The topic should have been I THINK I HAVE AN ANSWER! You 2 have made Christ upset and someone will be burned at the stake for this! 😢
sounds kinky...rotflmao...but seriously, I meant you no harm...I speak only allegorically. I would much prefer we speak of frivolous matters, though I cannot avoid such deep conversation...it absolutely arouses me.
Another dimension? How about 11 dimensions rather than three spatial and one temporal, and how about we attribute it to something so small that we can't even test? 42 is the answer to the universe.
Posted by THE JESUS
"I would much prefer we speak of frivolous matters"
That would made me angrier than angriest.
Do it then, annoy my sensitive nature!
Fear not, oh gentle deity. I do not seek to generate your ire. I only seek the succor of fulfillment to my soul. It is not in disrespect I pose my query, but in supplication.
Posted by THE JESUS
The "interrogation" continues tomorrow, I am not allowed to be up this late. Good night!
I am interested in this interrogation and welcome the onslaught. I am wanton and you are warned that it is not in scorn that I would answer you, but that it is inherently woven into my character. Delve into my psyche, I welcome the assault.
Thank you for your blessing and for your kind words. They are manna to my ears.
apparently religion is not compatible with physics.......
Posted by red_aries
apparently religion is not compatible with physics.......
Sure it is, it depends on your position,,,
Posted by StefyleighPosted by red_aries
apparently religion is not compatible with physics.......
Sure it is, it depends on your position,,,click to expand
Creating a mathematically "perfect" explanation to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity that in turn cannot be tested nor proved scientifically is essentially the science community's version of theology. Disciples in both cases are required to simply believe, heretics be banished!
Scientifically things look for proof and validation.
Faith is validated by one's belief.
The two can be synonymous.
Faith is validated by one's belief.
The two can be synonymous.
Posted by Stefyleigh
Scientifically things look for proof and validation.
Faith is validated by one's belief.
The two can be synonymous.
Science proves before it believes
Faith believes without proof
Not synonymous at all. Both seek to perfect their understanding of the universe by different means, but both fail to do so beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus both require some leap of faith...there in lies the tension.
If one did not have faith in their convictions, one would not expend the energy to scientifically disprove it.
Faith in and of itself is prood enough and does not need validation.
If both.can require the leap, is there not synonymity?
Faith in and of itself is prood enough and does not need validation.
If both.can require the leap, is there not synonymity?
Proof*
Sorry, replying on cell phone. This is difficult to do between pelvic exams.
Sorry, replying on cell phone. This is difficult to do between pelvic exams.
No worries.
Posted by Stefyleigh
If one did not have faith in their convictions, one would not expend the energy to scientifically disprove it.
Faith in and of itself is prood enough and does not need validation.
If both.can require the leap, is there not synonymity?
Well I think this gets a little hairy: As I understand it, you are saying the source of a scientist's drive to prove or disprove something starts with "faith in their convictions". While I would say a scientist starts with their curiosity and is motivated by the need to separate fact from fiction.
They are not attached to the end result, but are ardent followers of process. That is the key difference...not synonymous at all. They would never believe that "faith in and of itself is proof enough" because in that case you have arrived at the conclusion without properly evaluating alternatives and making provisions for doubt.
Ironically, both sides in trying to assert themselves as being more "true" than the other ultimately fails to do so...that's where I see them being the same. The universe being ever expansive cannot be explained in its entirety by one or the other...at least not in a satisfactory way that would be accepted by both sides.
pelvic exam? ouch..............i don't know if i should even ask...tmi
Posted by xonsie
pelvic exam? ouch..............i don't know if i should even ask...tmi
I am in my residency to be a nurse practitioner, and the current rotation is Obstetrics. So in between cases, as best I can, I attempt to answer these messages via my blackberry.
I do want to give your comments my fullest attention and respect. I will address them when I have completed this rotation.
Posted by StefyleighPosted by xonsie
pelvic exam? ouch..............i don't know if i should even ask...tmi
I am in my residency to be a nurse practitioner, and the current rotation is Obstetrics. So in between cases, as best I can, I attempt to answer these messages via my blackberry.click to expand
That makes more sense. I'm at work too... bored beyond belief right now..urgh
No worries
Posted by xonsiePosted by Stefyleigh
If one did not have faith in their convictions, one would not expend the energy to scientifically disprove it.
Faith in and of itself is prood enough and does not need validation.
If both.can require the leap, is there not synonymity?
Well I think this gets a little hairy: As I understand it, you are saying the source of a scientist's drive to prove or disprove something starts with "faith in their convictions". While I would say a scientist starts with their curiosity and is motivated by the need to separate fact from fiction.
They are not attached to the end result, but are ardent followers of process. That is the key difference...not synonymous at all. They would never believe that "faith in and of itself is proof enough" because in that case you have arrived at the conclusion without properly evaluating alternatives and making provisions for doubt.
Ironically, both sides in trying to assert themselves as being more "true" than the other ultimately fails to do so...that's where I see them being the same. The universe being ever expansive cannot be explained in its entirety by one or the other...at least not in a satisfactory way that would be accepted by both sides.
click to expand
If a scientist did not have faith, he would have doubt or some form thereof. Even curiosity is fueled by faith or belief in one's ideas, which is essentially what faith is.
The dictionary states that faith is an allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs .
In other words, belief. A scientist BELIEVES in his concept. His belief fuels his curiosity. His motivation would be apathetic and sink into utter despair without motivation. From what do we get motivation. I would say belief. I would state faith, as I have stated it prior.
When I stated faith is itself proof enough, I was only addressing the concept of what faith was.
Sometimes in our differences we find that
Sometimes in our differences we find that we share common goals. I do not think there needs to be dissension to find coalition. I think some of life's mysteries would be more easily realized, if more people wedded faith to the doctrine of science and had the fortitude to see their results out.
But even, if only in failure, are the synonymous, then there is some cause for cases similar. If one can but prove it, in ONE instance, then the whole argument is mute.
And the argument is not about acceptance or proof. It was only that faith and science could be synonymous.
You make rationale arguments, but you deviate from the original question. But I do not find this amazing, for many would do the same in order to emphasize their point. But the question was more focused, and we must keep it narrow, in order to focus.
But honestly, I can talk the paint off a wall, and we could talk in perpetual circles, and never see the end of this. We can agree to disagree, call a truce, bless each other for each, their contribution, and bid one another good evening as we smile and conjecture on privately.
But even, if only in failure, are the synonymous, then there is some cause for cases similar. If one can but prove it, in ONE instance, then the whole argument is mute.
And the argument is not about acceptance or proof. It was only that faith and science could be synonymous.
You make rationale arguments, but you deviate from the original question. But I do not find this amazing, for many would do the same in order to emphasize their point. But the question was more focused, and we must keep it narrow, in order to focus.
But honestly, I can talk the paint off a wall, and we could talk in perpetual circles, and never see the end of this. We can agree to disagree, call a truce, bless each other for each, their contribution, and bid one another good evening as we smile and conjecture on privately.
And the argument is not about acceptance or proof. It was only that faith and science could be synonymous.
You make rationale arguments, but you deviate from the original question.
1)My point made a while back very clearly addresses your question Science proves before it believes. Faith believes without proof. Not synonymous at all. Its a fundamental difference in PROCESS that you can't confuse one with the other
2)If you want to get technical, the original question is actually: Why does only time has an infinite quality. All the other properties of the universe is not infinite? ....
You've now changed the topic to building coalition...cooperation?...as in you now accept they may have different methods, but you are saying they'd be better if they weren't at odds with each other and forged cooperation to find better understanding of the universe?
But even, if only in failure, are the synonymous, then there is some cause for cases similar. If one can but prove it, in ONE instance, then the whole argument is mute.
Its actually the opposite. If one can prove it FALSE in one instance, then the whole argument is moot...otherwise you run into the problem of the false negative (typeIIerror). Case in point: everyone in the world strives to be happy, optimizing their resources (see Maslows hierarchy of needs)--this is your common goals argument--. But in striving to do so, there is not only difference in the means/methods by which everyone tries to achieve those things, but also much dissension as one person's means may be in direct conflict with another person's means, even though you can claim they are striving for a common goal (due to finite resources, zero-sum game etc)
Your point about science and religion working together has a nice ring to it...but I think it oversimplifies the situation. We're not just talking about finding a simple marriage between religion and science. Organized religion within itself can't even find consensus amongst its many sects and historically these differences have yielded more violence and further divisions of belief rather than cooperation. Heterogeneity in this case may be the answer to a more harmonious union...as they say the devil is in the details
But the question was more focused, and we must keep it narrow, in order to focus. we are talking in abstract, neither you nor I have yet to ask focused questions...
Sigh...so serious...back to fun...
You make rationale arguments, but you deviate from the original question.
1)My point made a while back very clearly addresses your question Science proves before it believes. Faith believes without proof. Not synonymous at all. Its a fundamental difference in PROCESS that you can't confuse one with the other
2)If you want to get technical, the original question is actually: Why does only time has an infinite quality. All the other properties of the universe is not infinite? ....
You've now changed the topic to building coalition...cooperation?...as in you now accept they may have different methods, but you are saying they'd be better if they weren't at odds with each other and forged cooperation to find better understanding of the universe?
But even, if only in failure, are the synonymous, then there is some cause for cases similar. If one can but prove it, in ONE instance, then the whole argument is mute.
Its actually the opposite. If one can prove it FALSE in one instance, then the whole argument is moot...otherwise you run into the problem of the false negative (typeIIerror). Case in point: everyone in the world strives to be happy, optimizing their resources (see Maslows hierarchy of needs)--this is your common goals argument--. But in striving to do so, there is not only difference in the means/methods by which everyone tries to achieve those things, but also much dissension as one person's means may be in direct conflict with another person's means, even though you can claim they are striving for a common goal (due to finite resources, zero-sum game etc)
Your point about science and religion working together has a nice ring to it...but I think it oversimplifies the situation. We're not just talking about finding a simple marriage between religion and science. Organized religion within itself can't even find consensus amongst its many sects and historically these differences have yielded more violence and further divisions of belief rather than cooperation. Heterogeneity in this case may be the answer to a more harmonious union...as they say the devil is in the details
But the question was more focused, and we must keep it narrow, in order to focus. we are talking in abstract, neither you nor I have yet to ask focused questions...
Sigh...so serious...back to fun...
Posted by xonsie
And the argument is not about acceptance or proof. It was only that faith and science could be synonymous.
You make rationale arguments, but you deviate from the original question.
1)My point made a while back very clearly addresses your question Science proves before it believes. Faith believes without proof. Not synonymous at all. Its a fundamental difference in PROCESS that you can't confuse one with the other
2)If you want to get technical, the original question is actually: Why does only time has an infinite quality. All the other properties of the universe is not infinite? ....
You've now changed the topic to building coalition...cooperation?...as in you now accept they may have different methods, but you are saying they'd be better if they weren't at odds with each other and forged cooperation to find better understanding of the universe?
But even, if only in failure, are the synonymous, then there is some cause for cases similar. If one can but prove it, in ONE instance, then the whole argument is mute.
Its actually the opposite. If one can prove it FALSE in one instance, then the whole argument is moot...otherwise you run into the problem of the false negative (typeIIerror). Case in point: everyone in the world strives to be happy, optimizing their resources (see Maslows hierarchy of needs)--this is your common goals argument--. But in striving to do so, there is not only difference in the means/methods by which everyone tries to achieve those things, but also much dissension as one person's means may be in direct conflict with another person's means, even though you can claim they are striving for a common goal (due to finite resources, zero-sum game etc)
Your point about science and religion working together has a nice ring to it...but I think it oversimplifies the situation. We're not just talking about finding a simple marriage between religion and science. Organized religion within itself can't even find consensus amongst its many sects and historically these differences have yielded more violence and further divisions of belief rather than cooperation. Heterogeneity in this case may be the answer to a more harmonious union...as they say the devil is in the details
But the question was more focused, and we must keep it narrow, in order to focus. we are talking in abstract, neither you nor I have
lol...your post was so long, it cut my response off when I quoted it...
Anyhow...I am totally up for fun.
I do not concede, nor do I agree, but I do not wish to tarry over the matter any longer, especially Maslow {vomit}. I have studied such matters to the point, I am sure one of those termagants are in my family tree somewhere...
Anyhow...I am totally up for fun.
I do not concede, nor do I agree, but I do not wish to tarry over the matter any longer, especially Maslow {vomit}. I have studied such matters to the point, I am sure one of those termagants are in my family tree somewhere...
lol...sorry i'm verbose...thanks for putting up with me
i'm such an aries...i've already reached the limit to the quote function on dxp...haha
i'm such an aries...i've already reached the limit to the quote function on dxp...haha
Posted by xonsie
lol...sorry i'm verbose...thanks for putting up with me
i'm such an aries...i've already reached the limit to the quote function on dxp...haha
Oh no worries, I quite enjoyed the whole thing. If I understand this whole astrology thing well enough, we are solar opposites, and as such, are bound to see things exactly opposed diametrically to each other.
Ain't it cool?
I am impressed with you intellectually,,,even if I would gad on in Stefy fashion.
Thank you for the debate. We seemed to have run all the others off...(lol)
agreed! i have a libra moon though 🙂
der ??bermensch existiert?....this is getting heavy
First I have to say that I have not read The Will to Power...bear with me:
All I know is that Nietzsche never intended to form logically consistent thoughts of the whole of existence. Unlike the likes of Kant, he does not build a system of philosophy because he thought that partial knowledge was simpler and more convincing. He abhors the collective and is singularly fixated on the individual.
So if he never intended to speak for all of society, how can we then link these aphorisms and extrapolate to the broader society? And even if people conspire together for power, how do we explain all the individuals who colluded to conquer societies but only imploded from internal strife or coups? Empirically how do you deal with people who are in various stages of transcendence to have the self-awareness to join hands?
I am curious, please explain....
First I have to say that I have not read The Will to Power...bear with me:
All I know is that Nietzsche never intended to form logically consistent thoughts of the whole of existence. Unlike the likes of Kant, he does not build a system of philosophy because he thought that partial knowledge was simpler and more convincing. He abhors the collective and is singularly fixated on the individual.
So if he never intended to speak for all of society, how can we then link these aphorisms and extrapolate to the broader society? And even if people conspire together for power, how do we explain all the individuals who colluded to conquer societies but only imploded from internal strife or coups? Empirically how do you deal with people who are in various stages of transcendence to have the self-awareness to join hands?
I am curious, please explain....
Actually, that's exactly what his concept of the will to power is--a theory concerning the entirety of existence ... every aspect of it: physical, biological, societal ... right down to the molecular level
He provides a nice contrast to utilitarian theories by proposing human behavior is motivated by power rather than the search for happiness, slave/master morality, etc That I can accept. But can you see how his philosophies are limited to the role of a critic...capable of poking holes in an existing body of work but not erecting a new theory to stand in its place? That's the point I'm trying to make. Sure there are some among us who readily live by those words, but would Nietzsche himself ever intend it to be used in that way?...extrapolated to the higher standard of how society SHOULD operate? There is a greater burden that system philosophers understand, but critics are not held to...
1. If some humans, species, etc are —naturally?? more dominant than others and that justifies the exploitation of some species by others...why have we not gotten rid of all the weak people yet? I'm already starting to believe in the concept of unintelligent design...oh world...or is it just not as efficient of a theory?
2. Superiority is relative: get rid of half the people in the world you would consider "weak" and the remaining half will split themselves once again into half, so on and so forth... Say the end game leaves us with 3 people, one superior to the other two. Would the two weaker individuals readily sacrifice themselves or unite to defeat the one who is perceived to be superior, two against one. In that case, you are left with #2 or #3 winning in the end...does his theory still hold true?
3. What is TRUE is that there is power in numbers. Maybe his thought that religions serving to encourage weakness and the survival of the weak-minded masses can actually be turned around to say smart people who stay in the herd wield greater power under the guise of "GOD" than those who defiantly announce themselves to be superior to society's mass of "weak" people? Its all about what game you play, and how well you play it. Those defined as objectively weak might actually win against those who are objectively superior.
Not attempting "to speak for all of society" does nothing to lessen the persuasiveness regarding his ideas concerning it.
Yes, if allowed to tease out singular truths...aphoristic...with no intention to tie it to
He provides a nice contrast to utilitarian theories by proposing human behavior is motivated by power rather than the search for happiness, slave/master morality, etc That I can accept. But can you see how his philosophies are limited to the role of a critic...capable of poking holes in an existing body of work but not erecting a new theory to stand in its place? That's the point I'm trying to make. Sure there are some among us who readily live by those words, but would Nietzsche himself ever intend it to be used in that way?...extrapolated to the higher standard of how society SHOULD operate? There is a greater burden that system philosophers understand, but critics are not held to...
1. If some humans, species, etc are —naturally?? more dominant than others and that justifies the exploitation of some species by others...why have we not gotten rid of all the weak people yet? I'm already starting to believe in the concept of unintelligent design...oh world...or is it just not as efficient of a theory?
2. Superiority is relative: get rid of half the people in the world you would consider "weak" and the remaining half will split themselves once again into half, so on and so forth... Say the end game leaves us with 3 people, one superior to the other two. Would the two weaker individuals readily sacrifice themselves or unite to defeat the one who is perceived to be superior, two against one. In that case, you are left with #2 or #3 winning in the end...does his theory still hold true?
3. What is TRUE is that there is power in numbers. Maybe his thought that religions serving to encourage weakness and the survival of the weak-minded masses can actually be turned around to say smart people who stay in the herd wield greater power under the guise of "GOD" than those who defiantly announce themselves to be superior to society's mass of "weak" people? Its all about what game you play, and how well you play it. Those defined as objectively weak might actually win against those who are objectively superior.
Not attempting "to speak for all of society" does nothing to lessen the persuasiveness regarding his ideas concerning it.
Yes, if allowed to tease out singular truths...aphoristic...with no intention to tie it to
I think we are playing rock, paper, scissors here.
I wish I weren't working so I could extrapolate and rant on too (smile).
I wish I weren't working so I could extrapolate and rant on too (smile).
Never said 'eradication' as in murder/annihilation of a people ...but over time by evolution (a cornerstone of his theories)...why are we stuck with mental, physical, developmental diseases?...if this theory holds true for the "physical, biological, societal ... right down to the molecular level"...there is undoubtedly a level of efficiency you are ignoring with your simple and glib answer. Who is left to exploit?...well that goes to my second point, its all subjective, every generation the term "weak" gets redefined...inches closer to the "superior" group...and if you play this game XXXXXXX times, you get to the end game I spoke of...
This is the fundamental difference between a system philosophy and an aphoristic conjecture: One holds that underlying all motives, society acts in interest of self-preservation...the other states that life exists without a beginning in a cause and an end in a goal. I can be very persuasive too if I do not have to navigate around assumptions of any kind.
This is the fundamental difference between a system philosophy and an aphoristic conjecture: One holds that underlying all motives, society acts in interest of self-preservation...the other states that life exists without a beginning in a cause and an end in a goal. I can be very persuasive too if I do not have to navigate around assumptions of any kind.
*rock*
*paper* weight
i cover and i crush..mwhahaha
i cover and i crush..mwhahaha
NewDayRising--Don't assume because you've read his work that you actually get him. To be honest, I'm very disappointed by your unwillingness to participate in a discussion and effectively articulate his philosophies without repeating cliche phrases a 10 year old who has access to google can produce. If you do feel like you REALLY understand his theories, wouldn't you be in an even better position to help someone like me understand. But instead of answering my questions, you respond with snarky remarks that serve more to deflect my questions than to really drive any point of your own. Don't hide. I just want to learn. If I'm wrong, I can just as easily admit it...it doesn't cost me anything.
Paper smothers rock, scissors shred paper, and rock is still looking for her chastity belt key under all of it.
(Grin)
(Grin)
Posted by Loyalist Rebel
What if paper is sanding paper? It will sand the rock hell out and give some nasty shape to scissors?
Well, they do say, some like it rough?
Not to mention, shape is not as important as application and effort...
But in this scenario, all things would be hard (thereby a preponderance male)...nothing soft (a very sad lack of femininity)...and more is the pity (for we would either be rendered neutered or in search of batteries).
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
so i got a crush on this aqua lady we never went out but i been wanting her since 1994 she always gave me her number but
Just got over a CRAZY stomach virus...now im contaminating all of you who dared to click into this thread ENJOY lol (I d
Ok tuesday i met a very beautiful aquarius woman we hit it off pretty well actually i was very bold with her. I ask her
Would you ever have a serious relationship with someone without a bacholer's, Master's or Doctorate degree? Does th
Aquas, do u guys normally really care about seeing ur bf/gf? Because I havent seen my Aqua for 2 weeks since Im away in
ever have one? If you are a woman that is, have you ever had a male roommate?
I am a Virgo who does what Virgos do best, analyse. Now my girlfriend has an Aquarius friend, who is hung up like a d
So there's this aquarius guy who's a neighbor of mine. He's friendly in general, but a womanizer. My roommate really l
Just wondering what all your typica; aqua bad habits are— Mine is jumping from one thing to another, always wantin
Do Aquas tend to get bored and fall out of love quickly? I've been with my Aqua guy for 7 months now (been friends a lot
I haven't posted in a while because I've had nothing to complain about. Since end Dec we've been living together - prac
Pre Mardi Gras My half catfish half oyster PoBoy Yum!! I ate so much this past weekend OMG Bead Mania
ok so ive been dating this aquarius guy for 2 months and just when i thought that everything was going so great he disap
Hey Im new here.... I was just wondering what do people misconcieve about you, if anything. Since my friends believe
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY FAVORITE GUY!!! Devil's_The_Name's Official Birthday Song Just girl to boy I'd like to sha
a Scorpio rising and moon. I'm scr'd.
An Aqua man I'm with just cried in front of me and told me that I broke his heart...I only commented that he was abit to
Which job would you take? A. One that was temporary and offered more hours (full-time) B. One that was stable and
HELP! LOL! Ladies some input from you wise ones please. You have all i am sure heard of the whole Aqua male relationsh
My aquarian guy LOVES clingy girls. It's actually kind of weird... until you realize that his moon is in cancer and his