Re: Did you know / Fact thread

[El Gunner]

^^purely hypothetical situation you just made up which would never happen. But let's run with that, why are you saying the concept of God would come back in a different form as that would be a problem - when words/language is just a human level medium that is abstract mind fragments attached to other abstract things, feelings and happenings in life to make sense of life. Surely the pure essence of a God nature in its finest state stays the same, doesn't matter what form it takes up?

so you think we've only developed a conceptual module for God because of fear, and not because we're self-conscious creatures who are just curious of where we come from and why we exist, let alone the possible truth that we are actually God's creation/a form of God expressing/experiencing life so such a intuition to feel a deep affinity towards God's way/accordance can be said to be a natural manifestation of human nature?

[Myesyats]

^^purely hypothetical situation you just made up which would never happen.

Yeah and what's more hypothetical than debating whether a god created the Universe? There is not an ounce of proof to that, purely hypothetical. No scientific or empirical evidence.

why are you saying the concept of God would come back in a different form as that would be a problem - when words/language is just a human level medium that is abstract mind fragments attached to other abstract things, feelings and happenings in life to make sense of life. Surely the pure essence of a God nature in its finest state stays the same, doesn't matter what form it takes up?

I'm not or at least didnt mean to say that as if it were a problem, just saying it is not based on anything therefore wouldnt be re-created similarly, as in the Bible wouldnt have been re-written in the same way. There would be a notion of a superior being but dressed in different attire, figuratively and literally. Its because the human race believes in the concept of a food-chain (someone is at the top, in the middle and down below) and to explain our existence there needs to be someone above, someone all-powerful because we are unable to. I believe it is fear and anxiety based more than anything, yes. Thats why some people who apparently didnt believe, call out for god in last moments of their life.

Pretty much everything in nature can be explained and measured but there's that one thing which is tricky to comprehend so the answer is GOD that we should all bow to and follow his rules? I'm not trying to offend anyone but once upon a time people couldnt understand what an Eclipse was so they were quick to assume it was God sending them a message etc. We fear what we do not know and understand.

I, as a human, dont feel absolutely any affinity towards a god-like creature. It is people's natural instinct to categorize themselves (low, middle, upper class, elected officials and president at the top), earlier it was peasants, middle class, knights & clergy, king. I can't believe it is a natural manifestation invoked by "our creator" as I don't believe in one, but rather I feel like it is how intelligent creatures categorize themselves as you can see in other animal species, there is always the pack leader and others below in different "classes".

[El Gunner]

you still refer to God as something other than you, outside of you - e.g: "god-like creature". There's a perceptive disconnect in that in my opinion - like you do not really know God yet.

I'll leave this for now, and i leave it onto God to show you a miracle one day.

[Arquitecto]

272+-Year-Old Shark Is Longest-Lived Vertebrate on Earth, if not centuries older

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/08/greenland-sharks-animals-science-age/

IT'S NO FISH tale: The Greenland shark is the longest-lived vertebrate on the planet, a new study says.

The animal, native to the cold, deep waters of the North Atlantic, can live to at least 272 years—and possibly to the ripe old age of 500. (Related: "Meet the Animal That Lives for 11,000 Years.")

“We had an expectation that they would be very long-lived animals, but I was surprised that they turned out to be as old as they did,” says study leader Julius Nielsen, a biologist at the University of Copenhagen.

Because of its remote habitat and elusive nature, the giant shark is poorly understood, including how long it lives.

Some research had suggested they grow extremely slowly, less than half an inch (a centimeter) per year, suggesting a life span well beyond those of other vertebrates.

Determining a bony fish's age can be easily done by analyzing their otoliths, or ear stones. But sharks, which are made mostly of cartilage, lack this kind of hard, calcified tissue. (Read more about sharks, the lords of the sea, in National Geographic magazine.)

TODAY’S
POPULAR STORIES

MAGAZINE
Meet Flamingo Bob, the poster bird for conservation

ANIMALS
Alaska is the best place to see wild bears. A new mine could change that.

SCIENCE
How the dinosaur-killing asteroid primed Earth for modern life
So scientists found another way to figure out the age of Greenland sharks: looking into their eyes.

Fishy Estimates
The researchers analyzed 28 female Greenland sharks that had died accidentally during the Greenland Institute for Natural Resources’ commercial fish-monitoring program.

“The secret behind the success of this study is that we had young and old animals, medium-sized and large animals, and we could compare them all,” Nielsen notes.

Greenland sharks have a unique eye structure in that the lens grows throughout an animal’s lifetime. The older an animal gets, the more layers are added to the lens. Scientists can't count the layers as they would tree rings, but they can remove all the layers that have been added over the years until they reach the center, or the embryonic nucleus, of the lens. (See "Rare Whales Can Live to Nearly 200, Eye Tissue Reveals.")

This tissue is composed of proteins that were formed when the shark was a young pup. Scientists can analyze the chemical composition of the eye lens nucleus to estimate an animal’s age.

Radiocarbon dating of the 28 Greenland sharks' lens nuclei revealed a maximum life span of at least 272 years, according to the study, published August 11 in the journal Science.


The largest shark in the study, at 16.5 feet (five meters) in length, was estimated to be approximately 392 years old. Nielsen says there is some uncertainty around that estimate. He and his colleagues determined with 95 percent certainty that the shark was between 272 and 512 years old, and it was most likely around 390.

What’s more, because female Greenland sharks are reported to reach sexual maturity at lengths greater than 13 feet (four meters), they likely would start breeding at 156 years of age.

It's unknown why they live so long, but cold environments cause low body temperatures, which in turn means slow metabolism—and thus less damage to animals' tissues.

Troubled Waters?
These results are crucial, Nielsen says, because the Greenland shark population is unknown. If the species is rare, the death of even one long-lived animal could be a huge loss. (See "Slow Sharks Sneak Up on Sleeping Seals [and Eat Them]?")

Not only is the shark sometimes caught by accident during fishing—a phenomenon called bycatch—but its habitat may be disturbed by climate change and many countries' increased focus on the Arctic for fishing, oil, and other natural resources.

“The longevity is remarkable, but I hope the public recognizes how important that is with regard to how we manage and conserve Arctic and deepwater ecosystems,” says Aaron Fisk, an ecologist at the University of Windsor who was not involved with this research.

“If Greenland sharks live this long and don’t reproduce until they are 150 years old, their population is vulnerable to exploitation.”

Nielsen agrees: “It’s important for policymakers to keep in mind that this is an extremely long-lived and slowly maturing animal.

"Fisheries should do what they can to minimize bycatch. We need to have some respect for them.”

[Nishankly]

Thanks Arq for your post, I will delve into it soon.

I am not surprised God came into the picture when we were talking about Science because let's face it we don't have the answers but if we as a species take a stand back and accept God as an answer we fail. Sure you can also categorize Science as our understanding of how god works, I have no problem with it but please do not stop us in our tracks.

We could do take this stand 1000s of years ago and stop and we wouldn't be able to define things that are still perceivable to us. To me ultimately, its our limitation, the fact that we can only perceive 0.0035% percent of light shows how meager and unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things. We are nothing more than a primitive form of life that's still trying to figure out things and the moment we take a step back and stop and associate everything to a god, we fail.

So please go ahead and have faith in a god but please do not disprove science and everything we have achieved from naught to now, to satisfy your notion of accepting things around us. Nothing more to add here.

[Nishankly]

Thanks for the explanation, guys.

But if I'm understanding this correctly, Nish's "fact" that the earth is 680 light-years from the star still stands for non-relativistic speeds, correct?

The major fact that stands here is that the observer is inertial.

We are assuming a frame of reference to define the parameters.

The distance is so large between two frames that you can safely assume that the distance is constant because of the amount of time it takes to change that value.

The North Star for the world has changed over the course of the years, it was Thauban during the Egyptians and now its the Polaris.

I feel (without any research or input from experts) that we are both true here. It's just that the parameter time is so large to change, at the moment the distance can be assumed constant to us.

I have no proper idea here, so please feel free to debunk and throw this post into the trash.

[El Gunner]

Thanks Arq for your post, I will delve into it soon.

I am not surprised God came into the picture when we were talking about Science because let's face it we don't have the answers but if we as a species take a stand back and accept God as an answer we fail. Sure you can also categorize Science as our understanding of how god works, I have no problem with it but please do not stop us in our tracks.

We could do take this stand 1000s of years ago and stop and we wouldn't be able to define things that are still perceivable to us. To me ultimately, its our limitation, the fact that we can only perceive 0.0035% percent of light shows how meager and unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things. We are nothing more than a primitive form of life that's still trying to figure out things and the moment we take a step back and stop and associate everything to a god, we fail.

So please go ahead and have faith in a god but please do not disprove science and everything we have achieved from naught to now, to satisfy your notion of accepting things around us. Nothing more to add here.

fair enough, i certainly never said we should leave behind science just to appease ourselves with knowing there is a God.

But then again, i must say i personally have become very ambivalent towards what science has done for humanity in recent years. Medical and technological advancements is what it has given us, and that's good and all, we certainly live more comfortable and longer than right before these advancements.

But should we really be living longer? Why is humanity so obsessed with immortality or just wanting to live longer? it's like science has created a subfield in human life of wanting to find God or play God. And i don't know if that is such a good idea tbh. To the point now where we are cloning living organisms and some neuropsychologists are obsessed with trying to recreate consciousness through computer algorithims - but they haven't even made a teeny tiny step's progress in that regard because luckily consciousness is so elusive

And what also bugs me through this scientific development is that people waste so much money, energy and resources in trying to explore what's beyond Earth, and then they simply tell us the Earth is going to waste. But why not try and focus to repair the Earth and make it more suitable for human life with all that money and resources, there's so much open land in some countries in Africa, and I'm sure there's more in some other parts of the world.

How do we really know that the overpopulation problem is as bad as they tell us? I mean, they only tell us that through news cycles and academic papers, but do we really know if it's such a huge problem that governments of our world can't simply solve just through a few reasonable negotiations or is even such a huge problem in the first place - could it just be mass media mind control to create paranoia in the collective?
I mean sure in some countries like China and India it's obvious, but in other places is it really such a bad problem?

I also feel like more comfortable living has just uprooted our natural link to the Earth. I once read this very interesting article by a psychologist where he theorized and attempted a few correlation studies between the spike of depression and anxiety in the collective in the past few years in relation to the lack of natural play for children outside in natural Earth element conditions. And of course in lots of cities this isn't possible anymore.

I just feel like maybe there was a time ago when our ancestors didn't live life as anxiety-ridden and disconnected to God and our more spiritual roots. I mean just look at the pyramids in Egypt as well, that's like the only real big monumental thing we still have left today that scientists can't begin to explain for shit.

These are just my thoughts though, but i know there are other people too out there who question these sort of things as well. But i certainly won't be going out there in the streets raising placards about this, and try to persuade people to stop to pursue scientific careers/endeavours, i know that's not possible lol, but as i said, i can only share my critical thoughts.

[Nishankly]

No problem, I disagree with a lot but you have full rights to express yourself here.

[Nishankly]

Also in this thread, I'd like to introduce another concept and that is a difference of when we say "Why" rather than "How".

"Why" has no meaning, "Why" assumes purpose, "Why" always means "How" unless there is some hidden intentionality and then you assuming the answer before the "Why" before you ask the question. There maybe no reason that we can't comprehend so it always should be "How".

[Nishankly]

Whales?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM77aTk1XyI

Whales have survived on this Earth 50 millions of years more than Man who only came around 200,000 years ago (Assuming you believe in evolution)

Whales communicate using "clicks", Whales can control the nature, pitch and wavelenght of every "click"

The range of frequencies that whales use are from 30 Hertz (Hz) to about 8,000 Hz, (8 kHZ). Humans can only hear part of this.



Whales have brains 6 times as big as us, they can decode sound much better than Humans.

These clicks are so loud, they can be heard nearly 1000 miles away by other whales since (Fact:) Sound travels faster in water.



Whales also have a empathetic behavior where they protect other animals with their own lives from predators even if they aren't their own species, something only portrayed on Earth by Humans.

The biggest moral enemy of full grown Whales are Humans, yet they never attack us and swim with us.

If we can continue to understand this form of communication, there is a possibility that this would be the first species that would identify itself with a name.

Do watch the Ted talk if this seems crazy.

[Myesyats]

you still refer to God as something other than you, outside of you - e.g: "god-like creature". There's a perceptive disconnect in that in my opinion - like you do not really know God yet.

I'll leave this for now, and i leave it onto God to show you a miracle one day.

Won't comment on it now but wanted to recommend this interview in relation to this discussion we had some time ago. \

brian greene:

[El Gunner]

two very good videos^^Brian Greene is a smart and well-spoken man a lot of the things i've brought up here he also brought up in those videos
The point at the end is - that i've also tried to nail in home many times before - there's no difference in he believing he wasn't "converted" and me believing in God. The difference only exist in linguistic (mis)communication.

And at the end also, when it comes to science - in the grander scheme, time is merely an illusion, just as reality.
"rationality" v "irrationality" is just an illusion of control, perhaps even more accurately you can say "rationality" is just abiding to the system you've been taught

just for interest's sake, that feeling of melting away and fitting into the collective he speaks about in the second video can also be felt on psychedelics (im sure others that have done it here will attest to that as well)
and that's why you get people like Terence McKenna likening psychedelics to God

[Harmonica]

Whales?

Also Blue Whale is the largest animal that has ever lived on Earth. Something that most people don't know.

[RealGunner]

You clearly haven't met my mother in law

[Myesyats]

I'm sure some dinosaurs could give your mom a good run for her money

[Thimmy]

Have I missed something? Did you get ninja-married, RG?

[RealGunner]

nah lol it's an age old joke

[Warrior]

Underwear and trousers absorb a large part of the gas that's passed in farts. When you fart in the shower, the gas immediately enters the surrounding atmosphere, and hence they smell worse. The warm air may also be a factor as convection currents will cause the gas to rise straight to your nose.

[Nishankly]

Underwear and trousers absorb a large part of the gas that's passed in farts. When you fart in the shower, the gas immediately enters the surrounding atmosphere, and hence they smell worse. The warm air may also be a factor as convection currents will cause the gas to rise straight to your nose.

What if you fart under a blanket while sleeping?

[Unique]

Underwear and trousers absorb a large part of the gas that's passed in farts. When you fart in the shower, the gas immediately enters the surrounding atmosphere, and hence they smell worse. The warm air may also be a factor as convection currents will cause the gas to rise straight to your nose.

What if you fart under a blanket while sleeping?

my brother thinks is funny to fart in bed and hold his wifes head under the covers. yes its disgusting but he finds it funny

[Warrior]

[El Gunner]

Not trying to prove anything or whatever the thought just came to me when I read this article and thought I'd post it here since we've had space talk here recently

https://www.space.com/amp/rogue-star-kick-earth-out-solar-system.html

Anyone else think it's funny how many times before there have been close calls of a big meteor hitting the earth or some sort of celestial event causing disruption to the earth's orbit, and some scientists predicting one will hit the earth in x amount of years. I've read a couple of such articles in my lifetime haha

[Unique]

[Nishankly]

Not trying to prove anything or whatever the thought just came to me when I read this article and thought I'd post it here since we've had space talk here recently

https://www.space.com/amp/rogue-star-kick-earth-out-solar-system.html

Anyone else think it's funny how many times before there have been close calls of a big meteor hitting the earth or some sort of celestial event causing disruption to the earth's orbit, and some scientists predicting one will hit the earth in x amount of years. I've read a couple of such articles in my lifetime haha

Never been "x amount of years", other than Apophis or some comet, every other event has been quoted after billions of years if you read the fine print after the clickbait.

Even if you read most of those articles, they show you odds with the lowest one being about 1 in millions.

There is an entire Sentry risk table that is regularly updated for all to see indicating these events.

Clubbing all of this with 190 impact craters visible on the Earth even after the millions of years of Erosion while nearly 50,000,000 craters on the moon, half of which you see with a decent telescope yourself because there is no erosion on the Moon, it all adds up.

This is the the asteroids that have hit the atmosphere of the Earth in the very least from 1994 to 2013.



I don't find it funny since there have been no close calls quoting impact, there have been flybys. I find it funny that we will be ultimately be wiped out from something outside the Earth before we destroy the planet ourselves.

[Nishankly]

Also I recommend checking your source, that is an independent website. They use uninformed people for the clickbait ad money.

The rogue star will pass way way way outside in the Oort cloud at the worst case scenario. The worst problem that would happen is Icy bodies there become Comets as they are propelled towards the sun, most of which will be eaten up the bigger planets.

Its been well documented and I can share the links if you want. Especially how NASA or ESA writes it compared to these poverty Buzzfeed websites.

[Unique]

https://www.space.com/biggest-cosmic-explosion-universe-discovery.html

[Sponsored content]