Five Profound Scientific Facts!

[DalTheJigsaw123]

1. You came from the stars, literally.

2. Your mind is a universe.

3. Atoms are mostly empty space.

4. 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct

5. An observer can alter reality.

 

http://practicalbuddhist.com/?p=175

[Fu_dog]

Those take me back to my old college physics classes.

 

Pretty cool stuff though....including the concept that all is energy.

[Aaron]

Too cool... It's funny, I've actually been discussing most of this with a friend of mine.

 

An interesting thing I learned is that the iron in our bodies is the same iron that was around when the big bang occurred, so we're literally billions of years old in a sense.

 

Aaron

[Owledge]

4. 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct

Keep telling that to species extinction scaremongers.

 

No wait, they will misunderstand and think that back then there were 100 times more species. It might take a while to explain.

 

Not saying that we have the same amount of species today than back then, but the insight is gained by looking at the implications.

When you track a species, you will notice when it died out, but when a new species arises, it will take a long time before it is discovered.

 

Here's a fun fact:

People wouldn't say that the political attitude of environmentalism is comparable to conservatives, but it can be. Species evolve, they come and go. Trying to freeze time in evolution is conservative or worse, and very much not progressive.

It's also a bit like the global warming scare. Even if more variety regarding species can have advantages, planet Earth is such a huge ecosystem that if you removed 99% of today's species, I'm pretty sure Earth would do just fine.

It might even be that a reduction in the number of species is nature's innate principle of evolution and efficiency. Nature is all for efficiency in her design, and by that, she increases abundance - by making more with the same amount of material.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Owledge

[joeblast]

Too cool... It's funny, I've actually been discussing most of this with a friend of mine.

 

An interesting thing I learned is that the iron in our bodies is the same iron that was around when the big bang occurred, so we're literally billions of years old in a sense.

 

Aaron

Ever heard of the big bang nucleosynthesis? There wasnt a shred of iron in the universe for millions of years.

[Aaron]

Ever heard of the big bang nucleosynthesis? There wasnt a shred of iron in the universe for millions of years.

 

Hmm... Well I must have heard wrong. Anyways, it's the same iron that's been around for billions of years. I cite the discovery channel show about cosmic collisions as my source.

 

Aaron

[Owledge]

By the way, how did they find out that it's the same iron?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

The universe: Infinite recycling center.

 

 

 

 

 

All that is, has been, and will be again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Size, shape, color, frequency, changing always, but the material never wasnt there.

[joeblast]

No biggie, Aaron Depending on the presentation sometimes some details get missed or glossed over.

 

By the way, how did they find out that it's the same iron?

Where else would it have come from? All iron is from stellar nucleosynthesis, not BB nucleosynthesis. Iron is actually the endpoint of stellar nucleosynthesis, for making iron consumes more energy than it produces - therefore all elements heavier than iron are made via "supernoval nucleosynthesis." In other words, the production of Iron in a star basically bring fusion to a close (not that the star wouldnt continue to fuse other lighter elements, there's plenty enough iron abound - there needs to be a large preponderance where most of the other material has already been fused into iron in order for it to halt the fusion.) BB nucleosynthesis was really only able to produce a few light elements, almost entirely hydrogen and helium and isotopes thereof.

 

If you look at it this way, the primordial soup before recombination didnt allow for heavier elements to form because the overall energy was high enough that nuclei were not able to capture electrons and form elements; thus there was no balance as basis for heavier nuclei to form; the universe was opaque and no visible light penetrated. We have to look at other wavelengths in order to try and see through recombination (~200k yrs.)

[Owledge]

Sound like a proper explanation, although I don't fully understand it.

Sure there was no transmutation going on anywhere after that time that put iron on Earth?

[Vmarco]

1. You came from the stars, literally.

2. Your mind is a universe.

3. Atoms are mostly empty space.

4. 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct

5. An observer can alter reality.

 

 

That may have been the facts in 1912,...but in 2012 they are somewhat different.

 

1. Your perceived body came from the stars.

2. Your mind is as a universe.

3. Atoms do not exist. ( "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such." Max Planck, Nobel laureate)

4. 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct

5. An observer can alter perception.

'The idea of an obersver and an observed implied a human connection, which falsely gave the impression that human consciousness causes things into reality. The truth is, there is no need of human involvement in quantum physics.' Niels Bohr

[Vmarco]

planet Earth is such a huge ecosystem,...I'm pretty sure Earth would do just fine.

 

With over 750 million combustion engine vehicles in the world pumping CO2 into the atmosphere from limited oil extracted from the earth, many people feel that the Planets eco-system will take care of it just fine.

 

Of course, Christian Fascists have a different idea,...the Washington Post once paraphrased Secretary of the Interior James Watt, "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand....after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

 

However, some (non-Tea Party) Republicans hold a different view,...[Frank]Gaffney [President Reagan's former undersecretary of defense], who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said....gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

 

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

 

Thus, it could be said that anyone who shuns alternatives to oil is a supporter of terrorism.

 

Unfortunately, Gaffney is in the silenced minority.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Vmarco

[Owledge]

@Vmarco

"2. Your mind is as a universe. "

I guess mind unlike consciousness, so I won't disagree. The statement is extremely vague anyway.

 

"3. Atoms do not exist."

"Atom" is a definition of an observation, being a core made of protons (and neutrons in most cases) with electrons circling around it. If you say atoms don't exist, just because it might be an inaccurate view, then nothing exists, since every word you could use for something is derived from our limited understanding. So I assume your statement was not meant to be accurate, but promarily mind-opening (like "There is no spoon.").

 

"4. 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct"

Interesting that you agree with the initial statement. Do we really have found remains of all species that every lived since the beginning of living organisms on this planet? Maybe 99.9% of all species are extinct.

By the way, the statement has to be amended with "on Earth", since we don't know about species on other planets.

 

"5. An observer can alter perception.

'The idea of an obersver and an observed implied a human connection, which falsely gave the impression that human consciousness causes things into reality. The truth is, there is no need of human involvement in quantum physics.' Niels Bohr "

Theorizing here based on recent experiences: An observer can alter reality in so far as there is only one observer, the one consciousness, from which all 'reality' emerges. Our mind is limited to our own bodies, so it cannot understand how the observer is the same in all beings. Thus, also, the observer does create all reality, but as soon as we try to 'do' it, it looks like it doesn't, when in fact it does above the level of the egoic mind. The egoic mind might attempt to 'hijack' the omnipotence of the observer/creator, which shows how little it understands. Once you perceive the 'creator', you realize that everything that happens is already freely chosen, and that your mind is just one of so many, thus cannot determine anything by itself, and thus not change reality 'like magic'. That only works once you get the mind out of the way and work from a higher level, and then it will naturally be in accordance with the 'creator's will'.

Just look at it like this: Omnipotence is a no-bullshit-zone, and from 'up there', EVERYTHING that our mind comes up with is bullshit. Once you lose your mind (haha), you WILL be be able to do anything you like, and you are doing that, but because no ego is involved, you can't really enjoy it. It just happens. No, it just is. Happening would require the existence of time.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Owledge

[Owledge]

With over 750 million combustion engine vehicles in the world pumping CO2 into the atmosphere from limited oil extracted from the earth, many people feel that the Planets eco-system will take care of it just fine.

 

Of course, Christian Fascists have a different idea,...the Washington Post once paraphrased Secretary of the Interior James Watt, "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand....after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

 

However, some (non-Tea Party) Republicans hold a different view,...[Frank]Gaffney [President Reagan's former undersecretary of defense], who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said....gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

 

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

 

Thus, it could be said that anyone who shuns alternatives to oil is a supporter of terrorism.

 

Unfortunately, Gaffney is in the silenced minority.

Wow, this is surprisingly unenlightened.

 

1) Look at the Taiji: Yang contains within it the seed for yin, and vice versa. Humans are part of the planet's ecosystem. The more we, through folly, shape the environment in a way that harms our own quality of life, the more likely it is that developments will turn around.

 

2) "gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism. "

The USA are the greatest source of terrorism (supporting and executing), and they consume a lot of oil. That's one reason why they are terrorizing the world. So in a way, Gaffney is right about the connection, but so mistaken about the process.

 

That you support a (Bush-like) witch-hunt statement like "Thus, it could be said that anyone who shuns alternatives to oil is a supporter of terrorism." is kinda sad. History provides plenty of examples for where thinking like that leads to.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Owledge

[joeblast]

With over 750 million combustion engine vehicles in the world pumping CO2 into the atmosphere from limited oil extracted from the earth, many people feel that the Planets eco-system will take care of it just fine.

 

Of course, Christian Fascists have a different idea,...the Washington Post once paraphrased Secretary of the Interior James Watt, "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand....after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

 

However, some (non-Tea Party) Republicans hold a different view,...[Frank]Gaffney [President Reagan's former undersecretary of defense], who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said....gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

 

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

 

Thus, it could be said that anyone who shuns alternatives to oil is a supporter of terrorism.

 

Unfortunately, Gaffney is in the silenced minority.

Seriously, still on about CO2? Radiative and convective physics beg to differ pretty substantially, the carbon markets are falling apart, its a shell of a sham at this point. Go on about the other actual pollutants if you want, but the pseudo science charade has played itself out.

 

All the more reason to develop our own resources, utilize them to their fullest.

[ralis]

Seriously, still on about CO2? Radiative and convective physics beg to differ pretty substantially, the carbon markets are falling apart, its a shell of a sham at this point. Go on about the other actual pollutants if you want, but the pseudo science charade has played itself out.

 

All the more reason to develop our own resources, utilize them to their fullest.

 

Your arguments don't hold water! Not once have you submitted a formal document written by you without cut and paste graphs refuting global warming. Almost every climate scientist on this planet is in agreement that global warming is caused by CO2. Only your TV weatherman and a few other pseudo scientific hacks are in opposition. I was a science major and I know the difference!

 

You pretend that climate scientists know nothing in regards to radiative and convective physics. Actually you are the one in the extremely slim minority that has no understanding!

Edited April 4, 2012 by ralis

[Owledge]

Almost every scientist on this planet is in agreement that global warming is caused by CO2. Only your TV weatherman and a few other pseudo scientific hacks are in opposition. I was a science major and I know the difference!

http://www.petitionproject.org

[ralis]

http://www.petitionproject.org

 

I researched this fraudulent petition and anyone with any degree can sign it. Means nothing. I was referring to climate scientists and related fields of research. That petition is laughable!

[Owledge]

You should be careful with the word "fraudulent". You could get showered with all the fraudulent stuff going on on the other side of the dispute.

[joeblast]

Yeah, I gave up shooting fish in a barrel in the pit on the AGW thread there because it was a joke, after there was no rebuttal to be had, ralis starts getting on me about why dont I write a formal paper for submission!

 

and he claims to know what a straw man argument is

[ralis]

Yeah, I gave up shooting fish in a barrel in the pit on the AGW thread there because it was a joke, after there was no rebuttal to be had, ralis starts getting on me about why dont I write a formal paper for submission!

 

and he claims to know what a straw man argument is

 

Given that you have no basis in fact to refute global warming, why would any intelligent person even participate in a discourse that is a contrived diversion created by Republican operatives. The media has overindulged the corporate funded shills that wish to deny scientific evidence.

 

Exactly why do you bring up this issue time and again on a Taoist forum? Why not take your gripes to a real scientific forum. I predict that if you did, you would be ostracized from the debate.

Edited April 5, 2012 by ralis

[joeblast]

Given that you have no basis in fact to refute global warming, why would any intelligent person even participate in a discourse that is a contrived diversion created by Republican operatives. The media has overindulged the corporate funded shills that wish to deny scientific evidence.

 

Exactly why do you bring up this issue time and again on a Taoist forum? Why not take your gripes to a real scientific forum. I predict that if you did, you would be ostracized from the debate.

First off, I didnt bring it up. Just responded to parroted misinformation. Bolded is quite instructive on how you view things. You dont want to hear anything that doesnt fit match what you hear in the echo chamber and you simply disparage disagreement - utterly unable to rebut. I gave you plenty of chances to rebut. Plenty. But you have nothing but foul words and disparagement, so I'm not sure why I'm replying to you, because it is quite unfruitful - you arent going to acknowledge the truth of a million holes in your argument and you will obstinately call yourself correct no matter what is presented to you that destroys the foundations upon which your opinion is formed, so we're again at a bit of an impasse.