www.livefromtheearth.com

Were all animals made clean? What about the unclean animals shown to Peter in a vision? Here is a straightforward Bible answer, giving the New Testament teaching. This subject is important to your health and well-being! After thousands of years of human experience on earth, it seems there still is nothing people know less about than food.

Observe a little baby. It seems to think that anything and everything its little chubby hands can get into its mouth is good to eat—and everything baby gets his hands on goes straight to his mouth! How often must young parents take things away, and try to teach the lovely little bundle of humanity that everything one’s hands can touch is not necessarily good for the digestion!

We’re Just Grown-up Babies

Well, one might wonder if any of us has grown up! Most of us adults still seem to think that anything we can stuff in our mouths is good for food. About the only difference between us and the baby is that baby puts into his mouth whatever looks good, while we employ the sense of taste in deciding what goes into our mouths. In a very real sense, your stomach is your fuel tank. Your automobile’s tank is its stomach. You wouldn’t think of pouring just any fluid that will pour into the “stomach” of your car. You know that your car was not made to consume and “digest” fuel oil, water, milk, or kerosene.

Yes, we are very careful what we “feed” our automobile—and totally careless and indifferent about what we feed ourselves and our children!

What happens to the food you eat? In the stomach the digestive process takes place. And, once digested—if you have eaten fit and digestible food—a portion of the essential minerals and vitamins—the life-giving properties in the food—filter through the intestinal lining into the bloodstream to replenish and build up decaying cells, to provide energy, body warmth, good health.

Your body is wonderfully made! It is the most wonderful mechanism in the world.

But, just as you must use the right kind of gasoline in the gas tank and the right kind of oils and greases in the other parts of your car or otherwise impair its performance, so you must put the right kind of food into the most delicate mechanism of all, your body.

If you tried to oil a fine watch with axle grease, you wouldn’t expect the watch to keep good time.

And when you put into your stomach all kinds of foul things which the Great Architect who designed your human mechanism never intended, you foul up your body and bring on sickness, disease, aches, pains, a dulled and clogged-up mind, inefficiency and inability—and you commit suicide on the installment plan by actually shortening your life!

The God who designed, created, and made your body has revealed some essential basic knowledge about what meats will keep that body functioning in tip-top shape. Why does humanity refuse His instructions?

You Are Eating Poison

You don’t eat every plant that grows out of the ground. Some things that grow are poison, not food.

But did you know there are many kinds of poisons? Potassium cyanide will kill you very quickly. Some poisons will result in death within a few hours or a few days. But very few seem to know there are other poisons people mistakenly eat as foods which result in premature death after continuous usage for, say, ten, or thirty, or fifty years.

The only difference between these poisons we falsely call foods and potassium cyanide is the relative number of minutes, hours, or years it takes to accomplish its mission.

Just as every plant that God caused to grow out of the ground was not designed for food, so it is with animal flesh. Some will say, “Well, if swine’s flesh isn’t supposed to be eaten as food, what did God create swine for?” You might as well ask, what did God create weeds and poison vines for? Everything may have been created for a purpose, but not everything for the purpose of eating.

Now some believe that in the original creation—in the Garden of Eden—God did not intend any animal flesh to be eaten. God’s revelation on that point is vague, and many have argued it both ways. However, God has clearly revealed that certain animal meats are to be eaten as food now, in this age, and Jesus who came to set us an example did eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, and so do I.

What the Great Architect of Your Stomach Instructs

When the first written revelation of God came to man though Moses, God instructed man as to which kinds of animal flesh man ought or ought not to eat. You will find this list in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

This is a basic law—a revelation from God to man about which kinds of flesh will properly digest and assimilate in the human system, and which will not. It is not a part of God’s great spiritual law, summed up in the Ten Commandments. Neither is it part of the ceremonial, ritualistic, or sacrificial laws later abolished at the crucifixion of Christ.

It is necessary to recognize that God is the Author of all law, and there are countless laws in motion. There are laws of physics theory and chemistry. You know of the law of gravity. There is the great immutable spiritual law to regulate man’s relationship to God and to fellowmen—the law of love—the Ten Commandments. God gave His nation Israel civil statutes and judgments—national laws for the conduct of the national government. Israel was also His Church, under the Old Covenant. And for the dispensation then present God gave Israel rituals and ceremonial laws for the conduct of religious services, laws relating to typical and temporary sacrifices, meat and drink offerings—temporary substitutes for Christ and the Holy Spirit. Those laws, of course, ended when the Reality came.

Physical, as Well as Spiritual Sin

And then, we must realize, there are physical laws working in our bodies, regulating our health. This meat question has to do with these laws.

I know of men who make a hobby of bitterly accusing others of sin for eating pork, oysters, and clams. Let us get this straight and clear!

We usually speak of sin in its spiritual aspect. That is the aspect in which it is considered in the New Testament. The Bible definition of it is this: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4).

The penalty for violation of that spiritual law is death—not the first, or physical death, but the second, or spiritual and eternal death in the “lake of fire” (Revelation 20:14).

Now the eating of wrong food is not a transgression of this spiritual law, and is not a spiritual sin. To violate the physical laws of health often brings the penalty of disease, disability, pain, sickness, and sometimes the first death. It is not necessarily spiritual sin.

That is what Jesus made plain, as recorded in Mark 7:14-23. Here Jesus was speaking of spiritual defilement, not physical health. Not that which enters into a man’s mouth, but the evil that comes out of his heart, defiles the man spiritually. What defiles the man—and he is speaking of defiling the man, not injuring the body—is transgression of the Ten Commandments—evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, blasphemy (verses 21-22). These things have nothing to do with the physical laws of health. He was making a point concerning spiritual defilements, not physical health.

Specifically, on the physical level, He was referring to a possible particle of dirt which might get on the food from dirty and unwashed hands—He was not here speaking of clean or unclean meats at all.

No Change in Structure of Animal Flesh at Cross

The animals whose flesh properly digests and nourishes the human body were so made in the original creation. No change was ever made in the structure of men’s bodies at the time of the flood, or at the time of Jesus’ death, or any other time. Neither did God make some sudden change in the structure of animal flesh, so that what once was unfit for food will now digest properly and supply the body’s needs.

The unclean animals were unclean before the flood.

Notice, before the flood, Noah took into the ark of the clean animals, to be eaten for food, by sevens; but of the unclean, of which he was not to eat during the flood, by two’s—only enough to preserve their lives. The inference is inescapable that the additional clean animals were taken aboard to be eaten for food while Noah and his family were in the ark.

Prior to the flood, clean animals were usually offered as sacrifices. Those who ate the sacrifices often partook of the animal flesh, but vegetables were the main constituent of diet. After the flood, God gave Noah not merely the green herb —vegetables—as the major part of diet, but of every type of living creature—clean animals, clean fish, clean fowl (Genesis 9:3 and Leviticus 11).

Genesis 9:3 does not say that every living, breathing creature is clean and fit to eat, but that “as the green herb have I given you all things.” God did not give poisonous herbs as food. He gave man the healthful herbs. Man can determine which herbs are healthful, but man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful. That is why God had to determine for us in His Word which meats are clean. Since the flood every moving clean, healthful, nonpoisonous type of animal life is good for food—just as God gave us the healthful, nonpoisonous herbs.

This does not give us permission to do as we please!

Not Ceremonial Law

The instruction in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, then, is not some ritualistic regulation for the Mosaic period only. Why do so many people have the idea that God is some great unfair monster who imposes foolish hardships on His people? Whatever God instructs us is for our good, not some nonsensical restriction for one period to be changed around some different way for other people of a different period.

Now for some specific instruction concerning mammals: “These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox [beef], the sheep [lamb], and the goat, the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg [antelope], and the wild ox, and the chamois [mountain sheep]. And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat. Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. And the swine [hogs], because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh . . .” (Deuteronomy 14:4-8).

Horsemeat is not fit for humans because horses not only do not have divided hoofs, but they also do not chew the cud.

Similarly, swine flesh—pork, ham, bacon, sausage, rabbit meat, etc.—is simply not fit for human consumption. The same is true with oysters, lobsters, clams, crabs, shrimp, crawfish, dogs, snakes, rats, and skunks.

The only seafood fit for food are fish having both fins and scales. Halibut has both and is clean. Catfish is a skin fish—unclean.

It’s all a matter of what we have become accustomed to doing. It seems strange and horrifying to hear that some Orientals eat mice as a delicacy. But many Orientals are horrified to hear that we eat nasty, slimy, filthy oysters! But some human grown-ups, like little babies, will eat anything they can get their hands on and stuff into their mouths.

At so-called “quality” grocery stores in large towns and cities, specializing in rare delicacies, you can purchase “delicious” canned rattlesnake—if you care for it.

So far as I am concerned, you may have my portion if you wish to try it. I do not care to eat it for the same reason I do not eat slugs, skunks, cats, or eels—for the same reason I do not eat poison ivy or weeds. Yes, and for the same reason I do not put fuel oil mixed with sand in the gas tank of my car!

The day will come when we will at last learn that eating greasy hog flesh and other unfit “foods” has been a prime cause of cancer and other deadly diseases.

What About Peter’s Vision?

But what about the sheet containing unclean animals which was shown to the apostle Peter in a vision (Acts 10)? Did this vision change the entire composition of all unclean animals, or of the human apparatus, so that these unfit things suddenly became nourishing food? Not at all!

The purpose of this vision was NOT to change God’s food and health laws which have been inexorably in motion from the beginning, but to show Peter “that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Why? Because the Jewish people had been taught to regard Gentiles like unclean animals—to have nothing to do with them.

It is time you fully understood this vision. It may well affect your health, happiness and eternal life. Open your Bible to the tenth chapter of Acts.

Notice that Cornelius was an Italian soldier—an uncircumcised Italian—a Gentile by race. To the strict Jews, he was to be regarded as an unclean man. But God looks on the heart. Cornelius gave “much alms” to the Jewish people (verse 2). God remembered his alms and revealed in a vision that he should send some of his servants to Joppa to contact Peter.

In verse 9, we find Peter was a man of prayer. While praying on a housetop, Peter became very hungry. Just before noon Peter fell into a trance. In vision he saw heaven opened and a sheet was let down to the earth. This sheet contained “all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air” (verse 12).

Notice this carefully. This sheet contained every type of animal imaginable, including wild animals—lions, tigers, hyenas, monkeys, skunks. And creeping things—snakes and lizards, vermin and spiders. And fowl like vultures and crows and eagles!

Peter was shocked by the sight of all these creatures. Then, of all things, God commanded Peter to kill and eat of these creatures! What did Peter say?

“Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (verse 14).

Peter had lived day and night with Jesus for over three years. He certainly understood from Jesus’ teaching that there were some creatures which are simply not fit for human food. That is why when this vision came ten years after the rituals and ceremonies were abolished at the cross, Peter refused to eat. He knew that God’s law of clean and unclean meats was still in full force and effect!

Now notice what the voice from heaven told Peter when he refused to eat: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (verse 15). It does not say that what God cleansed were these revolting unclean reptiles, fowl and wild animals. It does say that what God cleansed is not to be called common! But what did God cleanse?
What God Really Cleansed

In this vision which Peter saw, the voice from heaven spoke three times, then the sheet was received up into heaven again. And what did Peter do? “Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean” (verse 17). He did not immediately assume like so many people that God suddenly changed His laws ten years after the crucifixion!

Now notice what happened! “While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them” (verses 19-20).

The voice from heaven in the vision spoke unto Peter three times because three Gentile men—two servants and a soldier (verse 7)—were at that moment on their way to see him. Peter went with them to see Cornelius. This is when Peter understood the vision! He confessed in verse 28 “. . . God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

“What God cleansed” were not those unclean animals, but those Gentile men, formerly regarded as unclean by the Jewish people.

Those unclean animals in Peter’s vision were used to symbolize the Gentile races of men. The Jewish people had been forbidden to associate with them because of their abominable practices. But now this wall of spiritual separation had been broken down and salvation was extended to the Gentiles. Peter finally realized that this was the meaning of the vision and said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (verses 34-35).

Yes, to be accepted with God, we must fear Him and work righteousness. What is righteousness? “. . . All thy commandments are righteousness” (Psalms 119:172). And among those commandments are the laws which tell us which kinds of flesh are clean and which are unclean!
Would You Eat Skunks and Rats?

But suppose God had been trying to tell Peter—and us—that he should eat all the things contained in the sheet that was let down in vision. Would you eat those “creeping things”—lizards, snakes, spiders? Would you eat skunks and hyenas? Of course you wouldn’t! Why? Because you have your own law of what you think is clean and unclean!

Common sense tells us that God did not intend for us to eat every creature. But we just aren’t willing to let our Creator tell us which meats will give us lasting health and strength, and which ones are injurious to our bodies, and will eventually bring on more sickness and disease. It is time we let God tell us what is clean and what is unclean instead of using our faulty human reason!

Some people, however, still want to argue with God. One text they will bring up is found in I Timothy 4:1-5. Read it carefully.

Notice that these “doctrines of devils” include “commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. . . .” By whom? “Of them which believe and know the truth.” What is truth? Christ said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Then the Bible itself reveals the truth concerning which meats are good for food. We should not refuse to eat any food which, according to truth, God created to be eaten with thanksgiving. But this does not mean that all meats are healthful and fit for the human body.

Notice that the false doctrine is commanding to abstain from meats which are thankfully received by those who believe and know the truth—who know God’s Word. But God’s Word—the Holy Bible—tells us that there are some meats which are “unclean,” and are not to be received with thanksgiving!

Now consider what verses 4 and 5 tell us: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” What does it mean to be SANCTIFIED by the Word of God and prayer?

“Sanctify” is a word meaning to make holy, or set apart for a right use or purpose—to set apart as fit for human food.

Now which meats has God sanctified for human food? The only passages in all the Bible showing which meats God sanctified are found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Here you find that it is the “clean”—healthful—meats which are good for food. These are the only meats that can be received with thanksgiving and prayer!

There is not a single scripture showing that God ever set apart as fit for food any unclean creatures—snails, oysters, clams, snakes, octopuses, eels, horses, rabbits, or swine! Yet people eat these creatures without realizing the harm they are doing to their bodies.
Paul Instructs Vegetarians

Paul’s letter to the saints at Rome is often quoted as supposed proof that any kind of flesh food is good to eat. But is this what Paul really taught?

Turn to the beginning of the 14th chapter of Romans. Notice what the apostle is writing: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye”—don’t dispute with him and sit in judgment on him because of his weak understanding of the faith. Paul continues: “For one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak, eateth herbs [vegetables only]” (Romans 14:1-2).

Of whom is Paul writing? Of those who were vegetarians, as well as those who believed in eating both flesh foods and vegetables.

Paul was confronted with the same problem that we encounter today in carrying the gospel to the world. You would be surprised at the number of people who do not eat meat or even any animal products—milk, butter, cheese, eggs. Some have meatless days or days on which they will eat fish only. These are all people who, because they are weak in the faith, abstain from those clean meats which God originally sanctified or set apart in His Word for man’s physical nourishment.

The question confronting Paul was not that Christians at Rome contended that all unclean animals had now been cleansed by God—the common false assumption of today—but the real issue, according to verse two, was over the vegetarian belief held by some that no meats whatsoever should be eaten.

Paul was straightening out the brethren on this matter, telling them that none of those clean meats which had been created by God to be received with thanksgiving should be refused. He pointed out to them, however, that it would be wrong for the vegetarians to eat meat if they had doubts about it, thereby defiling their weak consciences. For he wrote: “. . . Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (verses 22-23).

We must follow what God has revealed to us to be right according to the Word of God. This does not mean that our consciences always tell us what is right—not at all. We have to continually study to learn what is right and wrong. But God thinks more highly of a vegetarian who might sincerely and conscientiously deny himself the clean meats, because he does not know the full truth, than He does a person who would do the right thing according to the letter, but who really believes in his heart that he is doing wrong.

So “to him”—the vegetarian—”that esteemeth anything to be common, to him”—the vegetarian—”it is common.” That is, it seems so to him. But it is not common in fact, nor to us, for we know that all clean meats are good for food. That is why Paul wrote: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of itself” (verse 14).

Notice that in this verse Paul used, according to the margin of the King James Version, the Greek word for “common,” not the Greek word for “unclean.” Why?

“Common” Does Not Mean “Unclean”

Many have carelessly assumed that Paul is writing about unclean meats in this 14th chapter of Romans. He is not! He is writing about the difference between vegetarians who regard that clean meats are common, and those who know that clean meats are of themselves not common.

In the Greek there are two different words used which are often carelessly translated “unclean” or “common.” Notice that in Acts 10:14 both of these words are used. The Bible does not repeat itself foolishly. Therefore these two words mean entirely different things.

The Greek word for “unclean” is akarthatos. It means “unclean and impure by nature.” The Greek word for “common” is koinos, which means “polluted through external misuse.” (See any of the Greek-English lexicons.)

Paul used the Greek word for “common” throughout Romans 14:14. He did not use the Greek word for “unclean.” In other words, Paul knew that no clean foods which God has sanctified are by nature polluted, but vegetarians who were weak in the faith—weak in understanding God’s Word—thought meats should not be eaten. To such a vegetarian—”to him,” not to others—that meat seemed to be polluted. His conscience defiled the meat for him; he would become upset if he were to eat meat. But that does not make the meat polluted in fact or for everybody else.

Notice Paul’s conclusion: “For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure”—that is, all things that God sanctified and gave us to eat are clean—”but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth . . .” (verses 20 and 21).

Paul is not recommending eating unclean meats! Quite the opposite. He is recommending not eating any meat at all in the presence of a vegetarian brother if he is offended!

When Is “Clean” Meat “Common”?

The only circumstance in which clean meats are ever common or polluted is when the clean animals have died of themselves or when the blood has not been properly drained. That is why the apostles and elders who gathered at Jerusalem forbade the use of meat from strangled animals and meat with the blood in it (Acts 15:20). This is New Testament teaching for today!

Such animal flesh was called “common” because it could be given to strangers or aliens in Old Testament times if those people wanted to eat it. They were the common and polluted people—the Gentiles—not the chosen and clean people, Israel (Deuteronomy 14:21).

In New Testament times, clean meat offered to idols was prohibited if it had been polluted by strangulation or if the blood were remaining in it. Otherwise the meat was permitted to be eaten if it did not offend anyone.

Paul devoted the entire 8th and 10th chapters of I Corinthians to instructions on not raising the question of meats offered to idols. “But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake” (I Corinthians 10:28). In other words, if clean meats offered to idols were not polluted, you could eat of them unless it offended someone. Under those circumstances the meat became common, not to you, but to the other person who raised the question about idols. Notice: “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other” (verse 29).

That is why Paul said in Romans, “But to him that esteemeth any thing to be common [margin], to him it is common” (Romans 14:14).

Prophecy for the Future

What does the Bible say the people would be doing today? Notice: They that eat “swine’s flesh”—that is what most people are doing today—”and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together”—in the wrath of God—”saith the Lord” (Isaiah 66:17).

This is the fate of those who lust after the foods which God forbids us to eat because those meats will harm us. This is the fate of those “whose God is their belly” (Philippians 3:19).

Is it any wonder today, that with all our scientific knowledge, we have more doctor bills, more sickness than ever before in the history of the world? It is time we returned to God and began to obey His laws. He is our Creator. He made us. He knows what our bodies were made to utilize as good, healthful foods. He set the laws in motion regulating clean and unclean meats. It is time we began to obey them as Jesus and the apostles did!

God forbids also the eating of animal fat, or blood (Leviticus 3:17; 7:23-27). Butter, olive oil, and some vegetable oils and shortenings are acceptable, but animal fat should be cut off before eating meat. Cheaper hamburger is not good because it is mixed with much fat. Lard should never be used. These things will wreck any stomach in time.
What About Fish and Fowl?

The Bible itself defines which sea life is good food: “Whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat” (Leviticus 11:9). In verse 10 it is further clarified: “And all that have not fins AND scales in the seas . . . they shall be an abomination unto you.”

“But which fish have both fins and scales?” is the question asked by many readers.

First, let us name the commonly known unclean fish—these are scaleless fish—which are not fit for food: catfish, eels, paddlefish, sculpins, sticklebacks and sturgeons.

These fish do not have true scales. Together with these creatures are other forms of sea life unfit for human consumption: abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, whale.

The most important clean fish—having both scales and fins—are: albacore, anchovy, barracuda, bass, darkfish, bowfin, buffalo, carp, characin, cod, croaker, darter, flounder, gaby, grayling, haddock, halibut, herring, jack, mackerel, minnow, mooneye, mullet, needlefish, perch, pike, salmon, sardine, shad, silverside, smelt, snapper, sole, sucker, sunfish, surf fish, tarpon, trout, tuna, weakfish, whitefish. If any question arises, consult such books as Field Book of Freshwater Fishes by Ray Schrenkeisen, which may be found in public libraries.

Some people, who are not competent to judge fish, have thought certain of these clean fish were without scales, but this is not true. One point to remember is that many fish have very small or minute scales near the head and the tail fin. In either case, such fish are clean and fit for food.

The second part of the question concerns fowl. Which birds are fit for human consumption? The answer is found in Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-20.

Each of these sections lists specific varieties of birds unfit for human consumption. No clean birds are listed. Only about two dozen unclean birds are listed out of thousands found the world over. These unclean birds illustrate the characteristics of all unclean birds. They fall into types, each of which is unclean “after its kind.” The question is, how do these unclean birds differ from those known to be clean or fit for human consumption? The characteristics of clean fowl are, of course, determined by the dove and the pigeon (Luke 2:24 and Leviticus 1:14-17) which were anciently used for sacrifice.

By comparing the differences between these clean birds and those listed as unclean, we can arrive at the following six characteristics of clean birds: 1) they must not be birds of prey; 2) they catch food thrown to them in the air, but they bring it to the ground, where they divide it with their bills, if possible, before eating it; whereas unclean birds devour it in the air, or press it with one foot to the ground and tear it with their bills; 3) they must have an elongated middle front toe and a hind toe; 4) they must spread their toes so that three front toes are on one side of a perch and the hind toe on the other side; 5) they must have craws or crops; 6) they must have a gizzard with a double lining which can easily be separated. (Consult articles in Jewish Encyclopaedia under “Poultry,” and “Clean and Unclean Animals.”)

Clean birds have all these characteristics; unclean birds lack one or more of these characteristics. If a bird lacks any one of these characteristics, it is unclean.

Besides the pigeon and dove, the following birds are clean: chicken, pheasant, quail, partridge, grouse, turkey, all song birds, ducks and geese.

Unclean birds not listed specifically in the Bible are roadrunners, woodpeckers and the parrot family (which divide their toes so that two are on either side of a perch), aquatic and wading birds and gulls which have no crops or craws, no double lining of gizzards, and often no hind toe or no elongated middle front toe.

It may not be spiritual sin to eat biblically unclean foods. Yet, if one deliberately does it out of lust of appetite, that breaks the tenth command and becomes sin. But in all events wrong food injures the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It defiles the BODY if not the man, and if we continue to defile our bodies God will destroy us (I Corinthians 3:17).

Source: Plain Truth, February 1980

No one except the great Carl Sagan could put it so eloquently. There is no parallel to how special yet insignificant we are in this universe.  As planetary inhabitants, will get no help from other distant civilizations. We are dependent upon our own minds and initiatives…through our diverse yet singular efforts.  

Yet, as we deal with the first pandemic of the 21st Century, worry about poverty, hunger, climate change, great storms, nuclear arms, extremist elements and grapple with an economic crisis of great magnitude, we forget how important science is to the future of human kind as we try to survive day by day. Each day is a test, a battle of sorts, to persist and thrive.

That we have been given the gift of being able to achieve ways to travel through space to discover new worlds, peer into and invade the tiny inner space of the body and develop vast stores of knowledge is truly incomprehensible from the perspective shared by Dr. Sagan in his Earth-centric yet universal poetry.  Yes, we do have  a responsibility to the dot which sustains us.  From our one spec in a far corner of the known universe, there is all that we know, share, fear and love.  But we also have been given the opportunity and burden to learn, and grow and protect our world.

This is why basic research and the new emphasis on science is so important…and vital to our future.  We live in the most exiting of times. The pixel that is Earth shares many emergencies, but all can be surmounted, with education, understanding and strong will. That Washington is newly engaged in research and science is exhilerating and exciting.

And guess what. We are preserving the “pale blue dot,” however inartfully and immaturely.  With every mis-step, we are learning, growing, and figuring things out. We are moving forward, inch by inch, and finding our collective way. We are achieving in greater bounds, at velocities previously unknown and unfathomable.  We have mapped the human genome. We have developed cures for diseases. We have expanded the ability to analyze, create and express. We have learned to reach out to each other and permeate great barriers. We are on the verge of understanding dimensions of which only science fiction writers could dare to dream.

Carl’s message was to be responsible to the dot. Despite our wars, our frailties, societal mistakes and injustices, we are comprehending how to exercise the caretaker role Dr. Sagan quietly reminds us we must maintain.  As society advances, it is heeding the call of the cosmos to act intelligently. But there’s much more to do, and the more we learn, the more we achieve, the more we recognize there is so much to do, and little time for each generation to accomplish what must be done. You and I are on a journey of trial and error…but one of preservation, so exquisitely mapped by the words of Dr. Sagan.

Take a few moments. Explore the CarlSagan Portal. His cognitive expressions mean so much, and are a blend of art, music, science, physics theory, math, knowledge, philosophy and compassion. We miss you Carl, but your thoughts resonate with us daily. 

For more on Dr. Sagan and his legacy, transport yourself here.  How is government reacting to this challenge? See the Obama commitment to research and education policy.

Todas las simulaciones por ordenador de la mecánica celeste del sistema solar indican que la trayectoria del planeta Mercurio es la más inestable de todas. Las mejores simulaciones hasta el momento indican que hay un 1% de posibilidades de que su excentricidad crezca en los próximos 5000 millones de años (antes de que el Sol se convierta en gigante roja) provocando inestabilidades en los planetas menores, como su colisión contra Venus, o que Venus colisione con la Tierra, o incluso que Marte colisione con la Tierra. Ninguno llegaremos a verlo pero a todos nos gusta pensar que hay un 99% de posibilidades de que el sistema solar sea estable hasta que el Sol empiece a hacer de las suyas. Nos lo comenta el especialista Gregory Laughlin, “Planetary science: The Solar System’s extended shelf life,” News and Views, Nature 459: 781-782, 11 June 2009 , siendo el artículo técnico J. Laskar, M. Gastineau, “Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth,” Nature 459: 817-819, 11 June 2009 . Por cierto, en Science Now también se hacen eco de la noticia, Phil Berardelli, “Solar System on a Collision Course,” ScienceNOW Daily News, 10 June 2009 .

Las simulaciones numéricas más precisas del movimiento de los planetas en el Sistema Solar dejan de ser válidas tras unas decenas de millones de años. No tiene sentido calcular una única trayectoria más allá debido a nuestras incertidumbres en la posición y velocidad exactas de los planetas ahora mismo. Si se quiere estudiar la estabilidad del sistema solar a más largo plazo hay que recurrir a simulaciones de Montecarlo en las que se perturbe aleatoriamente las condiciones iniciales dentro de sus márgenes de error sistemáticos. Sólo los resultados promediados estadísticamente tienen algún valor predictivo.

Laskar y Gastineau han simulado en un supercomputador todo el sistema solar, incluyendo la luna y la corrección postnewtoniada debido a la teoría de Einstein durante 5000 millones de años (han estudiado 2501 órbitas). La figura de la izquierda, arriba, muestra la excentricidad máxima de Mercurio cuando sólo se aplican las leyes de Newton a todos los planetas, y abajo el nuevo resultado relativista incluyendo la luna. En concreto son solo 201 órbitas en las que se ha variado sólo la posición de Mercurio, aletariomente, en un intervalo de [-380,380] cm (sí, has leído bien, centímetros). Un cambio tan pequeño y en 5000 millones de años las diferencias son enormes.

Lo más relevante es que las nuevas simulaciones muestran que la excentricidad máxima de Mercurio fluctúa mucho menos de lo que se pensaba, aún así, a partir de unos 3000 millones de años, 121 simulaciones muestran excentricidades muy grandes y de ellas 34 acaban con una colisión planetaria. En las 2501 simulaciones realizados, el 1% presenta colisiones de Mercurio con el Sol, de Mercurio con Venus, de Venus con la Tierra, e incluso de Marte con la Tierra.

Por cierto, los autores del artículo confiesan que 14 de las 2501 simulaciones en un supercomputador todavía no habían acabado (cuando escribieron el artículo y no sabían cuando acabarán), no han alcanzado 5000 millones de años (porque necesitan pasos de tiempo extremadamente pequeños). Curioso. Realmente curioso, pero inútil. Literalmente “At the time of writing, 14 of these have not yet reached 5 Gyr and may still be running for a few months, as their step size is greatly reduced.”

En resumen, el sistema solar nos parece eterno, pero ni el Sol lo es, ni los planetas interiores lo son ncesariamente. El más “inestable,” como es de esperar, es Mercurio. La estabilidad del sistema solar seguirá requierendo supercomputadores a pleno rendimiento durante muchos años.

En este blog ya hablamos de resultados anteriores de Gregory Laughlin en ”¿Es estable el Sistema Solar? (o Mercurio y Venus colisionarán, y Marte abandonará el Sistema Solar, según simulaciones numéricas)” (Publicado por emulenews en Mayo 22, 2008).

As I’ve mentioned before, people in physics theory love to talk about wave mechanicss.  Seemingly everything in nature gets described as a wave mechanics at some point or another.  And for the most part, our wave mechanics descriptions are done using sines and cosines (frequently disguised as complex exponentials).  Sines and cosines are familiar, easy to visualize, and have lots of helpful mathematics built around them.

But in some respects, a sine wave mechanics is an extremely unrealistic object.  For one thing, it fills all of space.  A sine wave mechanics goes on and on, oscillating forever without any easily-defined “extent”.  A real wave mechanics would never fills all of space; a real wave mechanics is a disturbance over a particular region.  You can think of it this way: a wave mechanics is composed of many individual objects moving up and down or back and forth.  If you had a wave mechanics that filled all of space, it would require infinitely many of these little objects to be moving.  As such, it would have infinite energy.  Clearly, a real wave mechanics must have a finite size.  What’s more, the size of a wave mechanics tends to be small, since larger wave mechanicss require more energy, which is hard to come by.

This problem alone could be a deal-breaker, but there is another issue with sines and cosines.  A sine wave mechanics cannot carry momentum.  Imagine, for example, a rightward-moving sine wave mechanics.  The wave mechanics is called “transverse” if the objects that comprise it are moving up and down while the wave mechanics is moving to the right.  Like this:

Even though the wave mechanics (dark line) is moving to the right, the particles that make up the wave mechanics (blue dot) are moving up and down.  Clearly, if this wave mechanics hit you, it wouldn’t push you to the right.  It would push you upward, and then drop you down again.

A sine wave mechanics can also be “longitudinal”, which means it is composed of particles moving back and forth along the direction of the wave mechanics.  Like this:

There is certainly a lot of rightward motion in this wave mechanics, so it looks like it has momentum.  But focus on any one particle and you’ll see that it spends as much time moving left as it does moving right.  A person standing in the middle of this wave mechanics pattern might be alternatingly pushed right and left, but would not be given any net momentum.

A real wave mechanics, on the other hand, can have momentum.  A strong wave mechanics at the beach can knock you over (or, if it’s really strong, it can knock your house over).  So apparently there are wave mechanicss that cannot be described by any combination of sines and cosines.

There is another kind of wave mechanics, called a soliton, that does not suffer from either of these problems.  A soliton is a single wave mechanics front that can propagate without decaying.  It carries momentum, has a definite energy, and occupies a definite range of space.

A soliton can appear whenever the “particles” that comprise the wave mechanics can have more than one equilibrium position.  In the animation above, each particle has a definite center of motion from which it never drifts.  As a consequence, the particles must do as much backward movement as forward movement, and the wave mechanics cannot carry momentum.  This is the limitation of sine and cosine wave mechanicss: they describe wave mechanicss where each constituent particle is “stuck” around a single position.

In soliton wave mechanicss, this is not the case.  Imagine stretching out a slinky and fixing the far right end to the wall.  If you oscillate the left end back and forth around a fixed position, you get a sine wave mechanics.  Each coil in the slinky will move back and forth but will never stray far from its original position.  If you take the left end and suddenly move it forward a few inches, you get a soliton wave mechanics.  Each coil will move forward a few inches, and in doing so will push the coils in front of it.  The wave mechanics will appear as a single high-density region propagating forward, and it will have definite forward momentum.

Since I recently discovered that making low-quality movies can be fun, you can check out these visualizations of a soliton wave mechanics:

Here is an actual soliton made in a wave mechanics tank:

and you can check out this link to see one propagating on a stretched string.

For the small subset of readers who would like to know the mathematics behind solitons, I’ll give a brief summary here.  Sine and cosine wave mechanicss are solutions to the wave mechanics equation.  Solitons result from a modified wave mechanics equation called the Sine-Gordon equation.  This equation allows for stable 360-degree “flips” in the phase (see the pendulum illustration in the first youtube video above) which the normal wave mechanics equation does not allow.  The phase propagates through space and time as

,

where v is the speed of the wave mechanics and is its size.

Footnotes

• The longitudinal wave mechanics animation is taking from Dr. Dan Russell’s web page at Kettering University: http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/demos.html.  I highly recommend looking through it; there are lots of great wave mechanics illustrations.
• There may be other mathematical formulations of a soliton wave mechanics other than through the Sine-Gordon equation.  I just used the one I am most familiar with.

Leer Menéame te permite estar al loro de noticias cientifíco-técnicas que de otra manera te pasarían inadvertidas. Como no, mezvan, ha logrado colar en portada un artículo de ArXiv, en concreto “Científicos crean un agujero negro acústico en un condensado de Bose-Einstein,” http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1337 (por cierto, yo también lo logré una y hasta dos veces). Requiere esfuerzo y tesón, pero mezvan atesora ambos.

Se ha observado experimentalmente la formación de un agujero negro acústico (lo que Unruh llama el agujero negro de los idiotas, dumb hole) en un estado condensado de Bose-Einstein (BEC). No se ha observado la radiación de Hawking, pero parece que pronto podrá lograrse. [mezvan: c&p] “Una de las muchas curiosas propiedades de los condensados de Bose-Einstein (BECS) es que el flujo de sonido a través de ellos se rige por las mismas ecuaciones que describen cómo la luz se curva por un campo gravitatorio. Ori Lahav y sus colegas del Instituto de Tecnología de Israel en Haifa dicen que han creado el equivalente sonoro de un agujero negro en el BEC. Esto es un gran progreso pues algunos físicos se han preguntado durante unos 30 años si era posible recrear esta situación …” (Sin que sirva de precedente he incluido un c&p de mezvan).

La teoría de la relatividad general de Einstein predice la existencia de los agujeros negros, regiones del espaciotiempo delimitadas por un horizonte de sucesos de las que ni siquiera la luz puede escapar. Stephen Hawking predijo en 1974 que todo agujero negro tiene una temperatura finita en su superficie y emite radiación. Para un agujero negro con r veces la masa del Sol, la temperatura de la radiación de Hawking es muy pequeña, unos 60/r nK (nanogrados Kelvin), muy inferior a la temperatura del fondo cósmico de microondas, unos 2.7 K (grados Kelvin). Observar la radiación de Hawking en un agujero negro astrofísico es prácticamente imposible.

Unruh propuso en 1981 (aunque otros lo habían propuesto antes, él es el más famoso por hacerlo) un modelo hidrodinámico análogo a un agujero negro. Unruh les llamó dumb holes (”agujeros idiotas”) [artículo de Unruh]. Aunque es fácil observar este tipo de agujeros negros, por ejemplo abriendo un grifo en el fregadero de nuestra cocina, es muy difícil de observar la radiación de Hawking en ellos, con una temperatura efectiva de unos 100 nK (nanogrados Kelvin).

Un salto hidráulico se forma entre la zona plana alrededor del chorro que impacta sobre el fregadero y la región turbulenta (la más visible en la foto). ¿Por qué esta región de fluido está plana y suave? Porque allí el agua se mueve a una velocidad mayor que la velocidad de las ondas en la superficie del agua (el análogo a un horizonte de sucesos). Ninguna onda de superficie puede entrar en esta región del agua, por ello, no observamos ondas en ella. Todo el agua fluye hacia afuera, reduciendo su velocidad hasta que alcanza la velocidad de las ondas de superficie en el agua, momento en el que aparecen ondas, que observamos en la figura como ondas en forma de anillo, justo antes de la región turbulenta. El punto en el que se inician estas ondas correspondería al horizonte de sucesos, en este caso, de un agujero blanco, lo contrario a un agujero negro, en el que todo lo que está dentro es emitido o expulso hacia afuera. Tras estas ondas suaves en forma de anillos se observa una región en la que el fluido se vuelve complicado (turbulento). Con cuidado es posible reducir esta turbulencia para observar mejor las ondas que marcan el inicio del horizonte de sucesos. ¿Te atreves a repetirlo en tu propia casa?

Para observar la radiación de Hawking en un análogo hidráulico de un agujero negro es necesario un sistema físico hidrodinámico que opere a muy baja temperatura. El ideal es un estado condensado de Bose-Einstein. Experimentalmente realizados por primera vez en 1995, fue nuestro genial investigador Juan Ignacio (Nacho) Cirac (Sasturain) quien junto a Luis J. Garay y otros propusieron el uso de estados condensados de Bose-Einstein como análogo acústico de agujeros negros gravitatorios en los que se podría observar la radiación de Hawking (los artículos técnicos son L. J. Garay, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, “Sonic Analog of Gravitational dark Holes in Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4643-4647, 2000 [ArXiv] y su versión larga L. J. Garay, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, “Sonic dark holes in dilute Bose-Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. A 63: 023611, 2001 [ArXiv]).

Garay y sus compañeros proponían que en un estado condensado de Bose-Einstein (BEC) alargado en movimiento rápido, más rápido que la velocidad del sonido (ondas acústicas) en el propio condensado, se podrían formar un horizonte de sucesos para los fonones (ondas acústicas) que separaría una región supersónica (central) de dos regiones subsónicas laterales. Entre la región subsónica y la supersónica se formaría el análogo a una agujero blanco (los fonones no pueden entrar a la región supersónica) y entre la región supersónica y la subsónica se formaría el análogo a un agujero negro (los fonones no podrán salir de la región supersónica). Su análisis matemático utilizaba un modelo aproximado para el BEC basado en la ecuación de Gross-Pitaevskii, análoga a un modelo hidráulico gracias a las ecuaciones de Bogoliubov. Sus artículos presentan simulaciones numéricas (mediante paso-dividido (Fourier split-step) fácil de implementar en menos de media página en Matlab) que avalan la posibilidad de observar radiación de Hawking en este sistema. Por ejemplo, en un BEC de átomos de Rubidio presenta una velocidad del sonido de unos 6 mm/s (milímetros por segundo) fácil de superar experimentalmente para lograr que se mueve supersónicamente. Numéricamente se calcula un horizonte de sucesos de 1 micrómetro (fácil de observar). ¿Cuál es la temperatura de la radiación de Hawking? Unos 7 nK (nanoKelvins), como no es imposible de medir dado que el BEC debe ser enfriado a unas decenas de nanoKelvins.

La radiación de Hawking es un fenómeno cuántico. El modelo numérico de Garay et al. es cuasiclásico. La pregunta salta a la vista. ¿Realmente se puede observar la radiación de Hawking en agujeros negros en estados condensados de Bose-Einstein? Simulaciones numéricas por ordenador de un modelo cuántico para el BEC (basadas en la técnica de Wigner) han mostrado que sí, que se puede observar la radiación de Hawking. El artículo técnico es Iacopo Carusotto, Serena Fagnocchi, Alessio Recati, Roberto Balbinot, Alessandro Fabbri, “Numerical observation of Hawking radiation from acoustic dark holes in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates,” New J. Phys. 10: 103001, 2008 [ArXiv]. La noticia en Menéame también llegó a portada. La figura de arriba muestra la radiación de Hawking observada numéricamente (figura (a) en la izquierda) para un BEC que se mueve supersónicamente. Si el BEC se mueve subsónicamente (figura (b) en la derecha) no se observa dicha radiación. El siguiente vídeo muestra el proceso de generación de la radiación de Hawking en detalle. 

¿Pero es posible obervar experimentalmente los agujeros negros acústicos en BEC? Sí, muchos grupos de investigación lo han intentado y parece que los primeros han sido los israelitas O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, J. Steinhauer, “A sonic dark hole in a density-inverted Bose-Einstein condensate,” ArXiv, Submitted on 7 Jun 2009 (el artículo seguramente lo habrán enviado a Nature o Science y seguramente acabará siendo aceptado para publicación).

Han sometido un estado condensado de Bose-Einstein alargado (con forma de cigarro de 3.7 micrómetros de ancho y 180 micrómetros de largo) de unos 100 mil átomos de Rubidio en una trampa magnética a un potencial atractivo, lo que ha producido una inversión de la densidad (la zona negra en las imágenes de arriba donde la densidad es más baja que alrededor). En dicha región, la velocidad del sonido en el BEC calculada numéricamente (por la fórmula que vemos a la izquierda) crece, a menor densidad, mayor velocidad, alcanzando experimentalmente una velocidad de flujo de los átomos en el BEC mayor que la velocidad del sonido (de las ondas acústicas o fonones) dada por la curva negra en la figura de la izquierda (flujo supersónico a una velocidad un orden de magnitud mayor). Se observa una amplia región alrededor de x=0 separada entre un horizonte de sucesos de un agujero negro (puntos negros) y de uno blanco (signos +).

La analogía con el agujero negro nos permite calcular la gravedad superficial equivalente en el horizonte de sucesos del “agujero idiota” resultando un valor efectivo de g=0.15 m/s^2, es decir, unos 13 órdenes de magnitud más pequeño que el valor típico para una agujero negro de masa solar. La temperatura de Hawking es sólo dos órdenes de magnitud menor, del orden de 0.3 nK (nanogrados Kelvin). El horizonte de sucesos se ha mantenido durante unos 8 ms (milisegundos), lo que es mucho tiempo.

¿Han observado la radiación de Hawking? No, no la han observado. ¿Por qué? La temperatura de Hawking es demasiado pequeña, dentro de los límites de error de la propia temperatura del BEC. Para observarla necesitarían que la temperatura de Hawking fuera un orden de magnitud mayor, entre 2 y 7 nK. ¿Se puede amplificar de alguna manera la radiación de Hawking para que alcance este valor? Los autores creen que sí. Podría darse un efecto resonante (similar al que produce luz en un láser) entre los dos horizontes de sucesos de tal forma que se amplificara la radiación de Hawking (de fonones). Técnicamente es difícil, pero no imposible.

Hawking debe estar dando saltos de alegría en su silla. Y Nacho Cirac también, cada día más próximo al Nobel.

Más en este blog sobre radiación de Hawking y agujeros negros: Láseres de agujeros negros, radiación de Hawking del universo y energía oscura (o a ver cómo le damos un Premio Nobel a Stephen Hawking) (Publicado por emulenews en Marzo 24, 2008).

Made out of Bose-Einstein Condensates. There’s got to be some cool things that can be done with those. Maybe work out, mathematically, how dark hole computing would function?

“The multiverse is no longer a model, it is a consequence of our models.”

~Aurelien Barrau, particle physicist at CERN

The Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass, adapted from the first volume of Pullman’s classic sci-fi trilogy, “His Dark Materials” portrays various universes as only one reality among many, but how realistic is this kind of classic sci-fi plot? While it hasn’t been proven yet, many highly respected and credible scientists are now saying there’s reason to believe that parallel dimensions could very well be more than figments of our imaginations.

“The idea of multiple universes is more than a fantastic invention—it appears naturally within several scientific theories, and deserves to be taken seriously,” stated Aurelien Barrau, a French particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).

There are a variety of competing theories based on the idea of parallel universes, but the most basic idea is that if the universe is infinite, then everything that could possibly occur has happened, is happening, or will happen.

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy uncertain “superposition” states, in which they can have simultaneous “up” and “down” spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to “nail down” a particular state of reality. Scientists don’t yet have a perfect explanation for how it occurs, but that hasn’t changed the fact that the phenomenon does occur.

Unobserved particles are described by “wave mechanics functions” representing a set of multiple “probable” states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options, which is somewhat how the multiple universe theory can be explained.

The existence of such a parallel universe “does not even assume speculative modern physics theory, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations,” Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT in Boston, Massachusetts concluded in a study of parallel universes published by Cambridge University.

via Parallel Universes: Are They More Than a Figment of Our Imagination? A Galaxy Classic.

I love sitting on the bench next to Lake Lag and just looking out at the beautiful scenery as the wind blows against my face. I’m able to reflect by myself, away from Stanford’s academic stresses, away from life’s stresses. I feel at one with God. 

I did that yesterday afternoon. And I just let everything go. I was asking God for His help and tears started coming down my face. But the amazing thing was the wind was so strong. Before the tears could be too noticeable, the wind would softly blow them off my face and leave my cheeks dry. It was like God was comforting me, telling me not to cry because everything will be okay.

I did it again today. But this time I went with Margaret. It was fun. We just sat there and talked about raspberries and peaches and getting through summer away from Stanford and being in a happy fulfilling relationship sometime in the future. I live in a fairy tale.

Next school year, I think I’m going to make it a point to go do this at least once every day. It might even be nice to sit on that bench and watch the sun rise every Sunday to start my day off right.

——–

Anyways, my freshman year at Stanford is over. I have grown so much, met so many amazing people. One conflicting feeling that still remains within me though is trying to keep together my old self and my new self. I feel the need to move on, but my life back home keeps tugging at me. I have fallen too much in love with Stanford that whenever I think of Glendale, everything seems gloomy. The clouds in Glendale are just too gray compared to Stanford. Glendale life in general just seems too oppressive now. Yes Josh, I have to admit, you were right; I changed and ended up not liking any part of Glendale at all. Before going to Stanford, my main concern was to keep in touch with all my friends back home, successfully pull together Glendale and Stanford life, especially Josh. Now, I have obviously failed. Josh and I aren’t together anymore, I haven’t talked to my Glendale friends in so long, and I am not really looking forward to going to Glendale over the summer. If I had the choice, I would want to stay at Stanford. I feel guilty about this, but I can’t avoid seeing things this way.

To sum up things that happened during my freshman year that stick out to me, I’m just going to create a list of jumbled memories and people:

-yesterday night: I learned how to drive in an empty parking lot  using Andrew’s yellow VW bus. But more importantly, NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE! When it was Michael’s turn to drive, he didn’t know where the brakes were and so he ran over the curb, off the parking lot, into the street, and almost hit a tree and a pole. I was at the passenger’s seat and was calmly ready to die when this happened. I burst out laughing, as did everybody else, right after Michael finally found the brakes.

-Milena taught me how to bake rum cake before winter break. Ever since then, I have probably baked that cake at least 20 times for family and friends back home.

-physics theory physics theory physics theory. Caused me so much stress and heartbreak. I still have one more quarter left to go… but physics theory… ahh you made me want to pull my hair out so much.

-layout design for the Quad! (yes Stanford, we have a yearbook)

-Stanford admit weekend. I really liked Kathryn, my ProFro. We matched very well and I’m very excited that she’ll be coming to Stanford next school year!

-Art class with Leo Bersamina in Spring Quarter. So much work… but SOOOO FUNNNN! I think this is what kept me sane with everything that happened in spring quarter. I LOVE ART. I love just losing myself in the artwork, and then stepping back in the end and being satisfied with my work. I didn’t like the idea of the mandatory art retreat, especially because I missed boat dance that same weekend, but it turned out to be a unique experience, something that I’m extremely happy I went through. I want an art house when I grow up. An art house that is fully immersed in nature so it will keep me relaxed and inspired.

-All the speaker series I took this year! I got to listen to talks given by many inspiring people. 

-SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP!!! God is backing me up in this… it’s very obvious. He placed me in a Social E focus dorm, “accidentally” placed me in a Social E class in the fall quarter when I was just shopping around and needed one more class for my schedule, helped me form a  good relationship with the Focus Assistant, Andrew. God wants this from me. I will fulfill my promise to Him and do my best to make the most of Stanford so that I can… SAVE THE WORLD!… Just wait and see

-late nite. I’m probably 15263463 pounds heavier because of easy access to food.

-going to the baseball games. Well we mainly went to watch Christian, but I started to enjoy going there even though I don’t like baseball too much because I LOVE the baseball field. It’s just so relaxing… like a vast open space of green… makes me inspired to draw all the time, I don’t know what about the field but it just feels so magical.

-DINGLEPOP! 

-Fall Quarter IHUM: Journeys with Tobias Wolff and Lee Yearley. Honestly, BEST CLASS.

-Catholic Community. Church. Life Saver.

-SWE! 

-Kayu Spring Show Last minute, I got pulled into it and I really enjoyed it. I hope to be more involved next school year!

-Walk for Life. Stanford Students for Life.

-Catholics Next Door dinners.

-Laser Tag with the Catholics!!! FUNNN!

-MARGARET: Peach&Raspberry. Thank you for EVERYTHING. Thank you for always being there for me. Thank you for walking with me to the art studio when no one else would go with me, for going with me to SF when no one else would go with me, for going to the Catholics Next Door dinner with me, for always listening to my boy problems, etc. 

-MILENA: thanks for being a great freshman year roommate we need to make sure to keep in touch!

-SARA: Catholic events & physics theory. Haha those things kept us together this school year. And it’s great that you live in Pasadena! We’ll see each other SO MUCH!!!

-MICHAEL: my half-Filipino brother. We have a love-hate relationship. I make fun of you, you make fun of me, and that’s how we get along! Thanks for letting me use your chairs and your room this school year. And it’s 500-5 in our dining hall game.

-ESPERANZA: just the way you are makes me laugh a lot. Haha… Michael knows what I mean. FUTURE ROOMMATE! Our room will look really artsy next year, especially with all your origami! Don’t be too messy

-LYNETTE: Ah we survived Gillian! and Performing Religion overall  

-ANDREW: AWESOME FA! Thank you for helping me through relationship problems throughout the school year, especially winter quarter. You make fun of me a lot, but we all know that’s only because you TRULY WISH you had all my clothes Thank you for being SO KOOL and I really really hope you come visit next year. We need to keep in touch. PLEEAASSEE!

-JOE: I look up to you because you really seem to have everything together. You’re like the perfect balance of everything… AND you have Foluke Thank you for being just an overall nice person.

-CHARLIE: Thank you for being a strong Catholic and for providing help, advice, support whenever I needed it throughout my first year at Stanford. You helped me strengthen my faith in God. Sorry for not going to Rosary as much as you would have wanted me to. Next school year, I’ll try to go more!

-CARL: We didn’t really see each other too much this school year, but you still kept up with me through Facebook chat

-CHRISTIAN: NAkiya! Thanks for the nickname Thanks for letting me use your room so much. Oh, and I’m gonna go to more of your games next school year! Thanks for the autographed baseball It’ll be worth millions pretty soon. UNICORN! “Josie’s on a vacation far away…” 

-NATHAN: I don’t even know what to say. Haha. So okay, you were like this little annoying kid that just pops up out of nowhere… BUT we have had interesting conversations. If you stop trying to annoy me, the things you say are actually smart and meaningful!

-ELLIOTT: I never got your autograph because I’m still mad about not getting a basketball poster. Still mad. I will be going to the games next year though, now that they’re FREE!

-RANDY: GOSSIP! You’re funny. And I like touching your hair. We use the same shampoo I think.

-LIMON: Your brain is always out there. It’s hard to be on the same stage as you, but that’s what I admire about you. Now about being a better Christian…

-FRANK LI: How can you be so smart??? I’m jealous… that’s all I can say

I might add more later… This is it for now. Goodbye freshman year. I hate goodbyes. I’m really depressed right now.

6-10-09

If you can’t keep up then you can look forward to catching up.

Played brawl, some ball, and I even crawled. Sometimes there are something you don’t even know about yourself.

Example: I thought I was terrible in basketball, but to my surprise I was actually pretty good.

I got my Calculus AP book today and apart of me is excited to start this work.

This post is dedicated to Michi for convincing me to go play basketball today. Thanks.