Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Thought
There are many people who reach their conclusions about life like schoolboys; they cheat their master by copying the answer out of a book without having worked out the sum for themselves. -Soren Kierkegaard, philosopher (1813-1855)
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Astratomology
About 4.6 billion years ago, a giant molecular cloud experienced a gravitational collapse and a part of it evolved into our community - our solar system. As the cloud collapsed, the angular momentum made it rotate faster and the center of it where the most of the mass was collected became hotter than the surrounding disc. The central mass then evolved into a star - our own Sun. The surrounding matter clustered together and evolved into planets and other matter. Due to the difference in distance, temperature and other parameters, each planet's matter differed in composition. Going further back in time, there was a Big Bang which resulted in expansion of matter and formation of several such molecular clouds from a single source of matter.
Coming back to our solar system, we can infer from science that at one time all the planets came from a cloud of matter which mingled and mixed as it evolved and then concentrated into balls of matter having its own gravitation and other characteristics. In other words, matter we find on earth - sand, rocks, water, plants, living matter and other substances - were once a part of the molecular cloud.
A molecule consists of atoms. Atoms can be seen as an independent planet having its own forces - magnetic, electrical and other (so far unknown?) forces that are independent or a function of each other. When such an atom interacts with another atom, the net effect can be repulsion, attraction or balance OR changing states dynamically between these based on distance, angle and other forces in the environment.
Let us chose a random atom. Assume this is of type A (type defined by number of electrons, etc..). When this atom is under the influence of the same type A matter, the resultant force is felt by the atom in some way. When the same atom is under the influence of another type (say B) of matter, the resultant forces could be different from the earlier case. When all the different types of matter influence the atom at the same time, the net resultant force is a function of all the individual forces. The force exerted from each of the different matter varies based on its distance, angle and possibly other parameters.
All the matter on earth - dead and living - are made up of matter that was there in some gross form or the other from the early days of formation of the solar system. In other words, our gross body contains some molecules/atoms of types that can be found on other planets! Our body is made up of gross matter and mind is made up on fine matter. They are inter-related. In other words, how the body behaves is a function of mind and vice versa.
Stitching all these facts and arguments together, we can conclude:
1. Our body (and mind) has matter similar to what can be found on other planets (and even other stars) in some proportion, however small.
2. Just as in any matter that is mixed, each mass of physical entity can have varying quantities of each matter.
3. The behavior of molecules/atoms is a function of the influence of big mass of matter (planets) on similar/dissimilar molecules/atoms of target/small mass of matter. In other words, behavior of body and mind is a function of the influence of planets on body/mind.
4. The net resultant force on molecules/atoms is a function of distance/angle (and other forces) from each other.
Taking it further, it is possible to empirically formulate the amounts of each of the type of molecules/atoms contained in a small mass of matter (say, body). To be more specific, a human body evolves from a single embryo. The evolution of the body and the time of separation of this mass into an independent entity (namely, birth) having a mind of its own, are again a function of all the forces exerted by all the big masses of matter.
To conclude, first of all, it is very likely that variation in behavior of body/mind is influenced by movement/position of Sun, planets and other big masses (eg moon) in the sky. Further, it is likely that we could find what exactly is the influence.
Astratomology - Is the topic appropriate or not? Is this a new term?
Credit to a lot of sources on the web and vedic texts
Coming back to our solar system, we can infer from science that at one time all the planets came from a cloud of matter which mingled and mixed as it evolved and then concentrated into balls of matter having its own gravitation and other characteristics. In other words, matter we find on earth - sand, rocks, water, plants, living matter and other substances - were once a part of the molecular cloud.
A molecule consists of atoms. Atoms can be seen as an independent planet having its own forces - magnetic, electrical and other (so far unknown?) forces that are independent or a function of each other. When such an atom interacts with another atom, the net effect can be repulsion, attraction or balance OR changing states dynamically between these based on distance, angle and other forces in the environment.
Let us chose a random atom. Assume this is of type A (type defined by number of electrons, etc..). When this atom is under the influence of the same type A matter, the resultant force is felt by the atom in some way. When the same atom is under the influence of another type (say B) of matter, the resultant forces could be different from the earlier case. When all the different types of matter influence the atom at the same time, the net resultant force is a function of all the individual forces. The force exerted from each of the different matter varies based on its distance, angle and possibly other parameters.
All the matter on earth - dead and living - are made up of matter that was there in some gross form or the other from the early days of formation of the solar system. In other words, our gross body contains some molecules/atoms of types that can be found on other planets! Our body is made up of gross matter and mind is made up on fine matter. They are inter-related. In other words, how the body behaves is a function of mind and vice versa.
Stitching all these facts and arguments together, we can conclude:
1. Our body (and mind) has matter similar to what can be found on other planets (and even other stars) in some proportion, however small.
2. Just as in any matter that is mixed, each mass of physical entity can have varying quantities of each matter.
3. The behavior of molecules/atoms is a function of the influence of big mass of matter (planets) on similar/dissimilar molecules/atoms of target/small mass of matter. In other words, behavior of body and mind is a function of the influence of planets on body/mind.
4. The net resultant force on molecules/atoms is a function of distance/angle (and other forces) from each other.
Taking it further, it is possible to empirically formulate the amounts of each of the type of molecules/atoms contained in a small mass of matter (say, body). To be more specific, a human body evolves from a single embryo. The evolution of the body and the time of separation of this mass into an independent entity (namely, birth) having a mind of its own, are again a function of all the forces exerted by all the big masses of matter.
To conclude, first of all, it is very likely that variation in behavior of body/mind is influenced by movement/position of Sun, planets and other big masses (eg moon) in the sky. Further, it is likely that we could find what exactly is the influence.
Astratomology - Is the topic appropriate or not? Is this a new term?
Credit to a lot of sources on the web and vedic texts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Himalayas
I wish I was free enough to scale the Himalayas of the world. Allow me, the Great One, to scale the Himalayas of the mind in search of higher truth.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Infinity
Infinity is akin to a circle. How? No matter which way you go, you keep going.
You go either inside out or outside in. You start with gross matter and keep dividing it till you reach "infinity". This is same "infinity" as what you reach when you keep going outwards from your world. They both meet at infinity.
Infinity: Its a circle without radius and circumference. But, most importantly with a centre.
You go either inside out or outside in. You start with gross matter and keep dividing it till you reach "infinity". This is same "infinity" as what you reach when you keep going outwards from your world. They both meet at infinity.
Infinity: Its a circle without radius and circumference. But, most importantly with a centre.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Development v/s Environment
Argument: Development is critical for developing and under-developed countries. There is a huge population without access to proper sanitation, drinking water, electricity and secure shelter. Infrastructure should be created that includes roads, drains, water pipes and electricity grids that are local to the area. Then to support these, electricity generation units, tools and machinery manufacturing units, cement factories, dams, etc. have to be built elsewhere. This requires some portion of the nature to be "reclaimed" for these purposes.
Counter-argument: Man has already spoiled the environment by building dams, electricity generating units, factories, etc. Hence, no more of these should be allowed. The "green" technologies to tap solar, wind and other "renewable" natural resources should only be allowed. Bio-fuels and other non-polluting fuels should be used in vehicles.
My stance: Humans have never been friendly to the environment. We have used our intelligence to find ways to defy nature. At the same time, we have not been intelligent enough to understand fully that we have been cutting a tree branch while sitting on the same branch towards the unconnected edge.
On one side, we have invented artificial methods (like medicine) to improve the longevity of ourselves and increase the chances of survival. On the other side, we want to deny basic quality of life to others amongst us!
Some of us live comfortably in a secure home with running water, modern sanitation and electricity for lighting, TV (and AC). At the same time, we oppose building new infrastructure similar to what enables us to do these!
Some of us are blind and fail to see that no technology is 100% environmental friendly. Each have their own costs to be paid by someone or the other. If the vehicles directly steal the food from the poor's mouth (in the form of bio-fuels), then solar photo-voltaic power generation are enemies of the environment, as that requires storing electricity in batteries, which are polluting during it's life cycle.
We can only delay the inevitable. Nothing is black and white. There are no Heroes and Villains in the real world. If you have to cut 10 trees to enable someone to improve the quality of life from below average to average, so be it. But make sure you plant 100 trees. Mother earth has abundant barren land.
No "green" technology can exist without doing a bit of environmental damage. If solar panels require manufacturing and batteries, then windmills require manufacturing too. And then there is another dimension to it: economics. No one has infinite resources to build "green" technologies. It's a balance. For example, we cannot expect an individual to give up his petrol car to buy a 100% "green" car (which itself is only theory) that is 10 times as costly if he can't afford it.
To be 100% environment-friendly, one has to:
- quit living in homes (made of artificial material)
- quit taking medicines (made of artificial chemicals)
- quit wearing clothes (made in factories that require some form of energy)
- start living in the wilderness without any modern amenities
So, let's learn not to take 0 or 1 approach, black or white approach and hero or villain approach. Let's learn to appreciate the fact that humans have never been 100% nature-friendly and would never ever be.
Let us strive to understand ways to push the inevitable as far as possible.
Counter-argument: Man has already spoiled the environment by building dams, electricity generating units, factories, etc. Hence, no more of these should be allowed. The "green" technologies to tap solar, wind and other "renewable" natural resources should only be allowed. Bio-fuels and other non-polluting fuels should be used in vehicles.
My stance: Humans have never been friendly to the environment. We have used our intelligence to find ways to defy nature. At the same time, we have not been intelligent enough to understand fully that we have been cutting a tree branch while sitting on the same branch towards the unconnected edge.
On one side, we have invented artificial methods (like medicine) to improve the longevity of ourselves and increase the chances of survival. On the other side, we want to deny basic quality of life to others amongst us!
Some of us live comfortably in a secure home with running water, modern sanitation and electricity for lighting, TV (and AC). At the same time, we oppose building new infrastructure similar to what enables us to do these!
Some of us are blind and fail to see that no technology is 100% environmental friendly. Each have their own costs to be paid by someone or the other. If the vehicles directly steal the food from the poor's mouth (in the form of bio-fuels), then solar photo-voltaic power generation are enemies of the environment, as that requires storing electricity in batteries, which are polluting during it's life cycle.
We can only delay the inevitable. Nothing is black and white. There are no Heroes and Villains in the real world. If you have to cut 10 trees to enable someone to improve the quality of life from below average to average, so be it. But make sure you plant 100 trees. Mother earth has abundant barren land.
No "green" technology can exist without doing a bit of environmental damage. If solar panels require manufacturing and batteries, then windmills require manufacturing too. And then there is another dimension to it: economics. No one has infinite resources to build "green" technologies. It's a balance. For example, we cannot expect an individual to give up his petrol car to buy a 100% "green" car (which itself is only theory) that is 10 times as costly if he can't afford it.
To be 100% environment-friendly, one has to:
- quit living in homes (made of artificial material)
- quit taking medicines (made of artificial chemicals)
- quit wearing clothes (made in factories that require some form of energy)
- start living in the wilderness without any modern amenities
So, let's learn not to take 0 or 1 approach, black or white approach and hero or villain approach. Let's learn to appreciate the fact that humans have never been 100% nature-friendly and would never ever be.
Let us strive to understand ways to push the inevitable as far as possible.
Time
Something I thought during an email exchange with a close friend... Time is the toughest of all. It is absolutely non-negotiable and absolutely consistent. This is also probably the only absolute reference that a common man can easily understand.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Faith and religion
Recently, I was witness to a heated debate among my friends on the subject of religion and faith. Particularly, the contrasting views of two of my friends were interesting to debate on. One argued that there is no God. The other said God is definitely there.
My atheist friend contended that science so far has not proved existence of God. And that its nature that sets up the laws based on which the rest of the things play out. According to him, science has proven that there are laws like survival of the fittest, which gave rise to (and giving rise to) variety of species on earth. He believes in Big Bang theory that created the universe and not God.
On the other hand, my religious friend argued that God created the universe and that science has NOT YET discovered God. He argued that God lives somewhere in the universe, but keeps watching us all the time. He also argued that going to temples and worshipping the God’s idols was the only way to connect with God.
Who is right amongst the two?
One point worth noting here is that, one maybe an atheist, but he has a faith! His faith is science. He has faith in science, reasoning, logic and evidence. The other friend’s faith is more traditional religion. He has faith in idol-worship, god and prayers.
I would say both are right in their own rights (refer my previous entry on truth). It is, however, important to have a faith – a strong one at that. If you do, then rest is immaterial.
As Swami Vivekananda said, “same size fits all” argument is wrong. Each person would have his/her own level of intellectual development. A highly developed intellectual maybe better off having faith is science (at least for some time till the real power of the super-conscious attracts him). An innocent commoner maybe better off idol-worshipping, as he may never be able to appreciate abstract thinking and philosophy involved in higher knowledge.
Hence, its not correct to argue which faith is correct. I would debate on how to achieve complete faith on something. Are you willing to?
My atheist friend contended that science so far has not proved existence of God. And that its nature that sets up the laws based on which the rest of the things play out. According to him, science has proven that there are laws like survival of the fittest, which gave rise to (and giving rise to) variety of species on earth. He believes in Big Bang theory that created the universe and not God.
On the other hand, my religious friend argued that God created the universe and that science has NOT YET discovered God. He argued that God lives somewhere in the universe, but keeps watching us all the time. He also argued that going to temples and worshipping the God’s idols was the only way to connect with God.
Who is right amongst the two?
One point worth noting here is that, one maybe an atheist, but he has a faith! His faith is science. He has faith in science, reasoning, logic and evidence. The other friend’s faith is more traditional religion. He has faith in idol-worship, god and prayers.
I would say both are right in their own rights (refer my previous entry on truth). It is, however, important to have a faith – a strong one at that. If you do, then rest is immaterial.
As Swami Vivekananda said, “same size fits all” argument is wrong. Each person would have his/her own level of intellectual development. A highly developed intellectual maybe better off having faith is science (at least for some time till the real power of the super-conscious attracts him). An innocent commoner maybe better off idol-worshipping, as he may never be able to appreciate abstract thinking and philosophy involved in higher knowledge.
Hence, its not correct to argue which faith is correct. I would debate on how to achieve complete faith on something. Are you willing to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
