1) Ring of Fire is an American neoclassical/… Read Full Bio ↴Two bands by this name:
1) Ring of Fire is an American neoclassical/progressive/power metal band from Chula Vista, California formed in 2000. Fronted by former Yngwie J. Malmsteen collaborator Mark Boals.
2) Ring of Fire is a NYC punk band circa 83-87
--==--
1) A neo-classical / progressive / power / melodic metal band originally featuring former Rising Force vocalist Mark Boals; guitar virtuoso Tony MacAlpine, bass player Philip Bynoe and Virgil Donati on drums (Tony, Philip and Virgil have also played in Steve Vai band. Keyboards virtuoso Vitalij Kuprij also played in this band, but was replaced by Steve Weingart in 2003.
Ring of Fire released three studio albums between 2001 and 2004, as well as a live album, Burning Live In Tokyo 2002. After disbanding, Boals, MacAlpine, and Donati later formed Seven the Hardway. Boals, MacAlpine, and keyboardist Vitalij Kuprij returned in 2014 with their fourth studio album Battle of Leningrad.
Ring of Fire released their fifth studio album, Gravity, on November 11, 2022. Founding member/vocalist Mark Boals and long-time keyboardist Vitalij Kuprij are joined by guitarist Aldo Lonobile, bassist Stefano Scola, and drummer Alfonso Mocerino to round out the latest lineup.
CURRENT LINE-UP:
Mark Boals - Vocals
Vitalij Kuprij - Keyboards, Piano
Aldo Lonobile - Guitars
Stefano Scola - Bass
Alfonso Mocerino β Drums
Change
Ring of Fire Lyrics
Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴
Downtown conversations
I'm only seeing nothing but lies and reputations
Caught in a landslide no easy way to go down
Desperately dancing through all the tears
That I found
Open another sail
Get over this dry prevail
The lyrics to "Change" by Ring of Fire capture the feeling of being stuck in a situation where you can only see lies and manipulation. The singer is reflecting on past conversations and saying that they were only filled with lies and talk that only helped build up reputations. The singer feels helpless as if they are caught in a landslide without any easy way down. Despite the tears and despair, the singer still tries to find a solution and keep a positive outlook.
The lyrics suggest that the solution to this problem is to change. The singer wants to open another sale and get over the dry spell that they are experiencing. The singer wants to find a better way to twist things around and make them work in their favor. The song is about finding the courage to change your life, even when things seem overwhelming.
One interesting fact about "Change" by Ring of Fire is that it was released on their 2004 album "Dreamtower." The band was formed by Tony Mills, who was the lead vocalist for TNT, a Norwegian hard rock band. Mills passed away in 2019, but his legacy with Ring of Fire continues.
Another interesting fact about the song is that it has been covered by several other artists, including Labyrinth and Space Elevator. The original version of the song was sung by Mark Boals, who has also performed with other famous bands like Yngwie Malmsteen's Rising Force and Dokken.
Line by Line Meaning
All those times you tabled them
You ignored all my concerns and dismissed them like they were insignificant.
Downtown conversations
Our discussions were shallow and lacked depth, just surface-level chitchat.
I'm only seeing nothing but lies and reputations
I can't trust anything you say or do because all I see is a facade and a reputation to uphold.
Caught in a landslide no easy way to go down
I feel trapped and overwhelmed, with no clear path out of this situation.
Desperately dancing through all the tears
I'm putting on a brave face and trying to stay positive, but I'm really hurting inside.
Open another sail
I need to try something new and take a different approach to solve this problem.
Get over this dry prevail
I need to overcome this difficult phase and move on to something better.
Finding a better play to twist things around
I'm looking for a new strategy to turn things in my favor and create a better outcome.
Contributed by Miles P. Suggest a correction in the comments below.
ForumLight
Hello. Making up stories that they can only believe in and give reasons to believe in it is not knowledge. Along with this belief they push a common descent evolution anti-science belief as well. But science, while great, is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'.
The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table.
Here's what is science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by,
no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations",
no matter how much "change in allele frequencies",
no matter how much "development of new species",
no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals",
no matter how much "adaptation",
no matter how much "mutation",
no matter how much "speciation",
no matter how much "migration",
no matter how much "genetic drift",
no matter how much "insert other claims here"
no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of:
fish remain fish
amphibians remain amphibians,
canines remain canines,
felines remain felines,
reptiles remain reptiles,
birds remain birds,
viruses remain viruses,
animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs
animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts
animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes
animals that never had brains do not evolve brains
animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths
living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system
animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on.
There are many more such groups.
Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science.
Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science.
===== Part TWO =====
Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts:
Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.
Science is fine and requires no belief.
In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems andd many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations
Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related.
At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they claim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees.
At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations.
Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway.
If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind". Which again is clearly deception. Science shows populations over generations do not do what they claim.
Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it, which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA that never happens does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them.
Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy. For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some MORE possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree).
Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable. So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's not repeatable and not verifiable. There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not repeatable and not verifiable. And so itt goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not repeatable, not verifiable, it's not even observable either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course.
===== Part Three =====
Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well.
That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead.
John 3 : 14-21 "[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
Live forever, friends!
Fireslingerpirate
Rocks are made up of a crystalline structures called lattices. How the elements making up the rock align in these lattices determine what mineral you are looking at (for example, look at the lattice structure of coal vs diamond vs graphite. All are carbon molecules combined together but the result is very different because they're combined in different patterns). The strength of the bonding in a rock (determined by its lattice or how the elements are combined into layers to form the rock) will determine its physical and chemical properties of which melting point is one.
There are two ways that water can interact with rocks: 1) It can be trapped in holes in the rock (we are talking about at a microscopic level but for a larger example imagine dunking a lava rock in water then pulling it out - water will be in the many holes but can easily dry out), 2) it can become chemically included in the rock's structure
In case 1, nothing really changes. But, in case 2, the water is an impurity in the crystal structure of the rock. Imagine if you had a bunch of blocks stacked on eachother and then you replaced a block with a sphere. You would introduce a weak point in your stack of blocks because the sphere doesn't support the blocks the same way a block did. This is relatively similar to how water being introduced into a rock lattice works. The more water you chemically include, the more wobbly your stack of blocks become because the more "spheres" you are replacing (there is an upper limit to the amount you can include).
So, when you are looking at melting point, it is just the amount of energy (heat) needed to chemically break the bonds of the lattice structure of a solid. They don't want to come apart (they're very attracted to eachother at a molecular level which is why they form hard rocks) but with enough energy they will come apart. Impurities in the lattice mean that the bonds require less energy to come apart. Less energy means less heat -> lower melting point.
Hope that helps a bit.
Keaton Smith
I love that history channel is on YouTube now. Need more content like this.
GrummanPilot99
Keaton Smith Yeah recently theyβve really stepped up their game posting full episodes. Hopefully they keep it up, this is my favorite show along with the universe
Doug Raddi
@GrummanPilot99 yes the universe is a great show
Benjamin Sorenson
They are just uploading what they have already aired for two decades or from the last decade to 5 years ago.
Jessica Oppegard
Same and they do!
$mizz
Agreed
Michael B
Being old myself, it's the limited science from school that has gotten me to enjoy watching these so much..
It's a privilege to live in the age of unlimited knowledge at your fingertips..
ForumLight
Hello. Making up stories that they can only believe in and give reasons to believe in it is not knowledge. Along with this belief they push a common descent evolution anti-science belief as well. But science, while great, is about the repeatable portion of reality, not things like common descent evolution that contradict repeatable reality, can only be believed in, and they call reasons to believe in it 'evidence'.
The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table.
Here's what is science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by,
no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations",
no matter how much "change in allele frequencies",
no matter how much "development of new species",
no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals",
no matter how much "adaptation",
no matter how much "mutation",
no matter how much "speciation",
no matter how much "migration",
no matter how much "genetic drift",
no matter how much "insert other claims here"
no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of:
fish remain fish
amphibians remain amphibians,
canines remain canines,
felines remain felines,
reptiles remain reptiles,
birds remain birds,
viruses remain viruses,
animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs
animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts
animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes
animals that never had brains do not evolve brains
animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths
living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system
animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on.
There are many more such groups.
Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science.
Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science.
===== Part TWO =====
Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts:
Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.
Science is fine and requires no belief.
In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems andd many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required.
Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations
Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related.
At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they claim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees.
At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations.
Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway.
If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind". Which again is clearly deception. Science shows populations over generations do not do what they claim.
Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it, which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA that never happens does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them.
Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy. For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some MORE possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree).
Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable. So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's not repeatable and not verifiable. There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not repeatable and not verifiable. And so itt goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not repeatable, not verifiable, it's not even observable either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course.
===== Part Three =====
Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well.
That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead.
John 3 : 14-21 "[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
Live forever, friends!
Hollywood
Thank you for the upload! I loved History channel channel back when you actually taught history, especially this series
TMONEY
What happens when the plume of an eruption begins to fall?