Saturday, December 09, 2006

Negate being Hindu, Muslim, Christian ....





From Mahavir's post on Yahoo 360



Can we negate being Hindu, Muslim, christian,Jews or any constuction that thought has put together since thousand of years. And will not say a thing we don't know. Where there is division there must be conflict. In this consciousness whee there are so many fragments, there must be conflict. In this world he is a muslim and i am a hindu, and that is breeding war and hatred. All religion / society and we all talk of unity and keep on with our divisions. All problems of world lies somewhere within me, and if we have to change, not from one set of thoughts to another set of thoughts or organisation, but negate everything which are not. I also see many of us don't see the urgency of this and float along in this conflict, becasue identification gives security and a sense of being. But when conflict becomes acute there is war, war between nations, war betweens people Hindu, Muslims, Christian, these are not just indications of our set of thoughts or knowledge, but big platforms or gounds of bloody wars, of hatred, killings end less sorrows

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Philosophical, Not Spiritual!





I'm Philosophical. I'm NOT Spiritual! I Like it that way. Every person have their own philosophy of life, they practice it to be a better human being. I also have my own! This does not indicate that I'm spiritual! We tend to mix up both mostly. It's different! These definetely can be the enablers of life and can be connected, but they are different! Spirituality invokes Philosophy. Philosophy need not invoke Spirituality. I believe in GOD-the SuperNatural Power. I believe in Nature-the flawless mysterious art! Somethings are best kept as Secrets! They have a certain mystery in them that its beauty increases even more, like most people like the not-so-bloomed flower than a completely bloomed flower (Rose bud-half-bloom). So some secrets are best as they are. So Lets live life as it is meant to be, rather than trying to find GOD/define GOD, when we know that GOD is everywhere and what GOD is capable of. Lets do what we were born to do! What?? Live life to the fullest! of course! Just have loads of fun and go crazy! Life is not about being serious but seriously having fun!! Chill-out!



For atheists, GOD could be anything that gives you satisfaction/pleasure/peace in life! I definetely believe so! Its only that we also know those in other names as well



PS: This could be of no meaning to you! Still you read it! Thanks for that! :).

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Celestial dance called "The Love"

Post by Angelina Jolie on Yahoo 360

Mmm...so you want more, uh?!...OK, here is a little bit of biology before I start:

Our body has cells, and each cell has nucleus, each nucleus has a bunch of chromosomes, each of this stuff has complex molecule called DNA and DNA contains genes...also I presume you know that gene is the blueprint of our body. Interestingly, the gene is not prefect and the best part is that it "knows" it is not perfect! Hilariously enough it also has a backup to fix the mess!

Ok here are the details: Each chromosome is complemented by its pair - we have 23 pairs or 46 chromosomes in all. BTW, species that has one backup like us are called diploid, some species have 3 or even more called polyploidy and of course there are some which have no backup called haploid! Anyway, these backups are not exact replicas of the original but a variant. For instance an original gene may define a blue eye and a backup one will define a brown eye; well we will defer the discussion on what eye will that person have to a different time, but the point here is that these trait defining components (called "allele") are constantly under scrutiny and even being repaired constantly. This process is called "the gene repair".

Now coming to the women’s body, by nature, it is designed to reproduce. A precursor to this mission’s nature, a woman performs a special function, you may call it “gene hunting" if you want, because that is what she does. Her gene first tries to repair the deficiency from the back as said before, but when it fails to find the fix; it looks for gene from out of her body (not for her own selfishness, but for her offspring). But the principal driving force behind this is the principal of life itself: "survival of the fittest". The woman's body always strives to get the best fix for all its deficiencies so that it’s offspring is "fit" to survive, and the only outside source is a man's "sperm"! OK, now the biggest question is how to find a man (the source of the sperm) who has the allele that she wants? Also, how does man in his part advertise what he has? Well, this process is what traditionally called the primeval mating dance, or the fertilization tango or simply put courting! In modern days dating! It was hilarious to see in discovery channel how a crazy bird literally did a seduction dance to its "potential" mate advertising his allele!! How the mate did decode the allele information from his dance; I have no idea but decoding did happen!! Smart females you see...ha...ha...ha

Well now, how does modern man does the tango? Show-off his muscles, show-off his wealth & career stability, show-off his talents, in painting, singing, spend lavishly on her to prove that he cares and what not!! Have you done that guys? l.o.l...(Some of the entities mentioned here, such as wealth, are meme substitutes, which I will discuss in my next blog, probably). In olden days men's genitals were the main source of an allele advertisement; they are meticulously examined and tasted by his woman before accepting him; his erected penis length and thickness defined whether he could pump her deep in, his massive balls advertised that he can eject massive sperm (cum) into her! To complement him, she proves that she could be the fertile vessel to propagate his allele to the next generation by exposing her huge breasts and wide vaginal openings, if she has such. Actually, even today many do that, and scientists believe that irrespective of the fact whether massive genitals provide her the required allele, this act in the male part is the best advertisement a man could do to win a woman!! (Of course when and where and how, they didn't tell, hence many couples mess-up this technique...he…he…he)

Here are the celestial dance steps and the truth:


1. During the dance, the woman is very curious gathering cues for her deficient alleles,

2. And man desperately advertising all his strong alleles; desperately try to lock her attention.

3. If the woman finds a match in him she makes her first move!! (Remember, she is just making an optimistic guess here, that's all).

4. Man's heart delights but confused as to which of his trait triggered the fire!!

5. Well, if he is smart (has an allele to read between the lines) he can read her cues, because at this juncture, she does show him distinct interests in certain traits, not all of them of course.

6. Detailed exposure of an allele happens rapidly between them, mostly very explicit; no subtle dance any more.

7. If the decoding is successful on both sides, then the woman goes for the kill. (Watch who makes the decision!)

8. If decoding fails, (it invariably always fails on one side only for some reason!) The looser (whoever screwed-up the dance) keeps wondering what went wrong, while the other takes the next chance on someone else!!

9. Also remember, the advertiser may or may not advertise to many "potential" mates at one time, but the hunter, sure in most cases, always looks for the missing/best allele from many advertisers, simultaneously!! In other words a woman is always looking for the best, while keeping the better as a stand by! The man's strategy is to make sure no better suitor is around than him, at least during step 6!!


Ok, here are the common “word” mappings for the above scientific truth:


a) Items 1 & 2 or the initial encounters, you can call them courting, that trigger the spark. "Love at first-sight" or "head-over heals falling" or what not...

b) Items 3 & 4 is when they decide to go out on a date, first few confused outings may be…. Both parties mostly deny "Love" but secretly desire "could this be the one?”

c) Item 5 is going steady exclusively, lots of sharing & exchange of words. Identifying common interests, differences and so on…. In most cases, both openly proclaim that they are "in" love, and publish this message to as many as possible! Pathetically!

d) Item 6 is getting very close to each other, secrets exchanged, some times even negatively, includes physical pleasure in most cases. Talks about marriage, children, commitment etc., even behave like already married; spending and saving together, trial run may be…l.o.l

e) Item 7 is the "mission accomplished" sort of scenario; ends in marriage or at least successful impregnation. Also remember, item 1 to 6 is no more required, meaning, eventually one will complain "you are not my old blah, blah...." So the best part in the dance is steps 1 to 6! That's why western women keep repeating 1 to 6 and reach 7 only when they run out of dance partners! Are you laughing?

f) Item 8, well it’s very obvious, either the man did not advertise properly, or he got tired reading her cue! Or the woman is too slow to send her cues or simply found him not containing her required allele!!! In either case there is a heartache and frustration. Some give a long warning but many do break-up just like that.

g) Item 9 is just to warn that all during (and after) steps 1 through 7, both parties secretly do keep "backup plans", especially the woman… Hey, you know what? A fall-back system is always good, uh!! This is a proven fact by scientists (read the white paper on the subject called "sperm competition"!)

Well, I hope this summarized the celestial dance called the "love" between the potential mating partners, but remember during all steps from 1 to 8, both parties are spell-bound, kind of having an incurable fever: they don't listen to anyone but to each other, don't believe in anyone but each other, don't even see that the world exists around them! In one world, the word "rational thinking" simply disappears from the dictionary!! Well, the feeling "world to each other" might sound like an attribute of the divine love that I quoted in my earlier blog, but it is far from a toddler son or daughter who believes the world is just composed of dad and mom alone!! Because, the former happens in the "absence" of rationale thinking, and in the later case, the toddler consciously rationalizes his/her world with his/her tiny brain!

Veganism Explained!


OK; I’ve been asked to explain veganism and I don’t think I can do better than to reproduce the following from the ‘Viva!’ website (link below this post). I’m not trying to preach, just to give the information for those who are interested! I’ve been vegan for three years now (after being vegetarian for 10 years) and, like it says below, it’s a natural step to take from vegetarianism.

What is a vegan?

A vegan is a person who eats and wears no animal products of any kind. That means that as well as avoiding meat, we don’t eat or drink dairy products (cow’s or goat’s milk or cheese) or eggs and honey. That also means, of course, that we eat nothing which includes any of those products as an ingredient. We also wear no leather, fur, silk or wool.

Why go vegan?

There are many reasons for going vegan – just as there are for going vegetarian. Being vegetarian helps immeasurably in reducing animal suffering, environmental damage, hunger in the developing world and risks to our own health. Veganism takes all those advantages just a little further. For very many people concerned about any or all of these problems, it seems the natural step to take from vegetarianism.

Saving Animals

Cattle reared for milk production are exploited and made to suffer, just like animals reared for meat. They suffer from lameness, mastitis (inflammation of the udders) and other illnesses and – worst of all – they are forcibly separated from their calves just days after they are born so that humans can drink their milk. Cows are not some kind of special animal that produces milk automatically: just like every other animal, including us, they only produce milk to nurse their young. Male dairy calves, meanwhile, are useless to the dairy industry and are usually shot at birth. Meanwhile, egg-laying hens may be crammed into battery cages or disgusting, disease ridden percheries and forced to produce twenty times the number of eggs as are natural to them. Even free range and organic layers face disease and parasites – and are slaughtered for cheap meat as soon as their productivity falls below the level that the egg business will accept. Male chicks are as useless to the industry as male dairy calves and all are killed – including those on free-range and organic systems.

Like leather, wool is a vital part of the profitability of the meat business – and animals suffer to produce it. Over 90% of British sheep flocks have problems with lameness and almost 1 in 5 lambs die before getting to market. Even honey bees are prone to infectious diseases and the ill-effects of intensive production. All animals kept for profit are exploited in one way or another: the only way to ensure that animals are not harmed is to ensure they are not farmed at all.

Saving the Planet

Dairy cattle and laying hens consume land, water and resources just like other farmed animals. They eat pesticide-soaked fodder, produce polluting slurry, consume chemicals and drugs produced at environmental cost and generate greenhouse gases. They are a drain on our resources that this planet cannot afford.

Saving Others

Again, dairy cattle and laying hens are consuming resources that could go to feeding human beings. As the developing world increasingly industrialises its animal agriculture, farming animals in order to generate revenues instead of food that problem will get worse – and as more dairy and egg produce is consumed in the developing world, so its people are at risk of falling prey to the diet-induced illnesses of Western society.

Saving Yourself

Human beings are the only animals which consume milk after infancy – and the milk of another species at that. It is neither natural nor healthy. A study published in 2003 found that a vegan diet could reduce the most harmful form of cholesterol by 29%. The American Dietetic Association has declared that a vegan diet can provide all the nutrition that human beings need – from cradle to grave. Veganism is infinitely closer to the diet human beings evolved to thrive on than a normal, animal fat-soaked western diet – and the health benefits of a well-balanced vegan diet reflect that.

This is from: http://www.viva.org.uk/
For more information, see

Thursday, September 07, 2006

What's this crazy thing called "LOVE"?


Post by Angelina Jolie on Yahoo 360

I too had lots of confusion about this 'crazy little thing’ called 'love' when I was young; lots of misinterpretations, lots of misguided definitions from friends and folks and so on… All I needed was one solid definition that answers all questions about love, defines all its behavior, and tells where to find one; interestingly when I found the answer, it took me by my surprise (and I am sure that it might happen to you as well)!! :D

Here is the premises (or facts) first:

1. Love has only one definition and it applies to all individuals, all relationships and at all situations. Its characteristics are:

a) is patient and kind;

b) It is not jealous or conceited or proud;

c) is not ill-mannered or selfish or irritable;

d) does not keep a record of wrongs;

e) is not happy with evil, but is happy with the truth.

f) never gives up; meaning, it’s faith, hope, and patience never fail.

g) finally, it is eternal (transcends from earth through heaven)

2. It is common in society to call lots of specific behaviors, emotions and acts by the name 'love' for many good reasons; here are some:

a) Some acts don’t have rationale reason behind them, but they become immensely meaningful if they label these acts as 'love' such as grand-standing charity, peaceful war etc…

b) Institutions such as church, school, family etc., use certain unpopular emotions to bind it’s members, these emotions such as anger, jealously etc., cannot hold the members together except if they are called as 'love' for some weird reason!

c) Finally, certain behaviors are legitimized or made acceptable on moral grounds by deliberately substituting this word 'love' for example it’s a taboo to say "I am horny, come and fuck me" but the same thing if rephrased as "I am in love, come and make love to me" is considered legitimate and natural!! Hilarious!

And here is the discourse:

The first one, as you see, is divine, and we cannot see it’s full manifestation in the world. Although some traces are seen between parents and children, between siblings of same parent, between matured couples and in certain gifted soul like Angelina Jolie :D The truth is that infatuations of the teens, dating passions of the youth, and even marriage fever between the couples many times do not fall into this first rule.

The second one is the consequence of the ever growing war between the 'genes' and the 'memes'. These are tremendous forces that alter our life, our culture and what not!! Once we know what's happening behind the scenes it will be so interesting to see how rational, the reason behind every act falls in place like magic. For example, have you ever asked a question why a) only nice looking girls have dates, most of the ugly ones are left out for arranged marriages? On the contrary b) sloppy but with good-career men normally have young, good looking wives, same as ugly but career-smart women bag hunks? Former example (a) is the success story of a gene and the later one (b) is the success story of a meme! Interestingly, couples in both these categories call their mystical attraction to each other as 'love'!!

Mmm…feel a mild shock? Nevertheless, life is not as simple as 1,2,3… hence don't assume fact 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive… guess I have completely messed up your head, uh? It will be a long discourse if I start explaining this drama of 'love' in the context of gene and meme, so I thought I can just give the synopsis first and if you've not still run away, probably I will continue….L.O.L.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Common sense – a senseless term!


Post by Tamil Selvi on Yahoo 360

Common sense by definition is what people in-common would agree or naturally understand; meaning, the "thing" that all (at least most) people perceive in common - to be precise, the knowledge and experience most people either have, or believed to have. Note an important distinction here: unlike an axiom which is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest or other knowledge is built up, these so called common-sense elements instead are endoxa (commonly held beliefs accepted by the wise and by the elderly) in a social group; actually the word endoxa is more than just a belief because it adds an attributed "tested" before belief (or went though argumentative struggles before it became a common sense element)!

The problem with this assertion is that most people don't think, hence how can an idea be considered as "sensible" just because most people "think" it is sensible!! lol!

To make things worse, there is a thesis Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke where he claims that the mind of a newborn is a blank slate and that all ideas are developed from experience... and he goes on to classify all ideas as either simple or complex; simple as red, sweet, round, etc., and complex as numbers, causes & effects, abstraction, identity, diversity and so on... but both of them are rather "learnt" and not "born with", leading to the fact that there is no such a thing called "Common sense"!

On the contrary, some classical thinkers (like René Descartes) claimed that we were born with some "innate" idea, hence an innate concept or item of knowledge could be universal to all humanity - that is, something people are born with rather than something people have learned through experience, and that should be the thing called "Common sense"! uh.. They rationalize their argument by quoting the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed even by very young children, like a language, for instance! Nevertheless, they don't disregard the influence of the environment and accept that the environment does aid in triggering and developing the dormant ideas that we were born with; if I understand this concept clearly, it looks like we are born with some set of switches in normally-off position and as we interact with the rest of the world one or more of these switches gets turned-on!! (no clue why none of my switches were turned-on as of today! lol).

But I also see an alarming misuse of this term; especially when people start drawing parallels to this function, such as other faculties of the mind, viz. morals, norms, sin... I covered this in some of my previous blogs, as we see in many occasions even in most developed countries, common sense is appealed to/in political or religious debates, particularly when they are loosing an intelligent argument with their opponent! lol... insane arguments against abortion by the conservative-clowns is a good example of this argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people")! .

Since everyone is born with a clean slate, thereby there is no way we could have "One Truth" to which all humanity will agree upon, Locke argued in detail, against many universally accepted truths, for instance the principle of identity such as Cultural, Gender etc., goes on to add at the very least children and idiots are often unaware of these; brutal! lol... (mmm... does a newborn baby know that it is a "she"? :)).

In closing, I do believe that Common sense is a hindrance or an obstruction to reasoning and abstract thinking, take science or even mathematics for that matter; where human intuitions has always conflicted with documented, provable and verifiable results!

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen - Albert Einstein, LOL, I am not a teen, not even close BTW!
Common sense – a senseless term!
Common sense by definition is what people in-common would agree or naturally understand; meaning, the "thing" that all (at least most) people perceive in common - to be precise, the knowledge and experience most people either have, or believed to have. Note an important distinction here: unlike an axiom which is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest or other knowledge is built up, these so called common-sense elements instead are endoxa (commonly held beliefs accepted by the wise and by the elderly) in a social group; actually the word endoxa is more than just a belief because it adds an attributed "tested" before belief (or went though argumentative struggles before it became a common sense element)!

The problem with this assertion is that most people don't think, hence how can an idea be considered as "sensible" just because most people "think" it is sensible!! lol!

To make things worse, there is a thesis Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke where he claims that the mind of a newborn is a blank slate and that all ideas are developed from experience... and he goes on to classify all ideas as either simple or complex; simple as red, sweet, round, etc., and complex as numbers, causes & effects, abstraction, identity, diversity and so on... but both of them are rather "learnt" and not "born with", leading to the fact that there is no such a thing called "Common sense"!

On the contrary, some classical thinkers (like René Descartes) claimed that we were born with some "innate" idea, hence an innate concept or item of knowledge could be universal to all humanity - that is, something people are born with rather than something people have learned through experience, and that should be the thing called "Common sense"! uh.. They rationalize their argument by quoting the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed even by very young children, like a language, for instance! Nevertheless, they don't disregard the influence of the environment and accept that the environment does aid in triggering and developing the dormant ideas that we were born with; if I understand this concept clearly, it looks like we are born with some set of switches in normally-off position and as we interact with the rest of the world one or more of these switches gets turned-on!! (no clue why none of my switches were turned-on as of today! lol).

But I also see an alarming misuse of this term; especially when people start drawing parallels to this function, such as other faculties of the mind, viz. morals, norms, sin... I covered this in some of my previous blogs, as we see in many occasions even in most developed countries, common sense is appealed to/in political or religious debates, particularly when they are loosing an intelligent argument with their opponent! lol... insane arguments against abortion by the conservative-clowns is a good example of this argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people")! .

Since everyone is born with a clean slate, thereby there is no way we could have "One Truth" to which all humanity will agree upon, Locke argued in detail, against many universally accepted truths, for instance the principle of identity such as Cultural, Gender etc., goes on to add at the very least children and idiots are often unaware of these; brutal! lol... (mmm... does a newborn baby know that it is a "she"? :)).

In closing, I do believe that Common sense is a hindrance or an obstruction to reasoning and abstract thinking, take science or even mathematics for that matter; where human intuitions has always conflicted with documented, provable and verifiable results!

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen - Albert Einstein, LOL, I am not a teen, not even close BTW!
Common sense – a senseless term!
Common sense by definition is what people in-common would agree or naturally understand; meaning, the "thing" that all (at least most) people perceive in common - to be precise, the knowledge and experience most people either have, or believed to have. Note an important distinction here: unlike an axiom which is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest or other knowledge is built up, these so called common-sense elements instead are endoxa (commonly held beliefs accepted by the wise and by the elderly) in a social group; actually the word endoxa is more than just a belief because it adds an attributed "tested" before belief (or went though argumentative struggles before it became a common sense element)!

The problem with this assertion is that most people don't think, hence how can an idea be considered as "sensible" just because most people "think" it is sensible!! lol!

To make things worse, there is a thesis Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke where he claims that the mind of a newborn is a blank slate and that all ideas are developed from experience... and he goes on to classify all ideas as either simple or complex; simple as red, sweet, round, etc., and complex as numbers, causes & effects, abstraction, identity, diversity and so on... but both of them are rather "learnt" and not "born with", leading to the fact that there is no such a thing called "Common sense"!

On the contrary, some classical thinkers (like René Descartes) claimed that we were born with some "innate" idea, hence an innate concept or item of knowledge could be universal to all humanity - that is, something people are born with rather than something people have learned through experience, and that should be the thing called "Common sense"! uh.. They rationalize their argument by quoting the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed even by very young children, like a language, for instance! Nevertheless, they don't disregard the influence of the environment and accept that the environment does aid in triggering and developing the dormant ideas that we were born with; if I understand this concept clearly, it looks like we are born with some set of switches in normally-off position and as we interact with the rest of the world one or more of these switches gets turned-on!! (no clue why none of my switches were turned-on as of today! lol).

But I also see an alarming misuse of this term; especially when people start drawing parallels to this function, such as other faculties of the mind, viz. morals, norms, sin... I covered this in some of my previous blogs, as we see in many occasions even in most developed countries, common sense is appealed to/in political or religious debates, particularly when they are loosing an intelligent argument with their opponent! lol... insane arguments against abortion by the conservative-clowns is a good example of this argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people")! .

Since everyone is born with a clean slate, thereby there is no way we could have "One Truth" to which all humanity will agree upon, Locke argued in detail, against many universally accepted truths, for instance the principle of identity such as Cultural, Gender etc., goes on to add at the very least children and idiots are often unaware of these; brutal! lol... (mmm... does a newborn baby know that it is a "she"? :)).

In closing, I do believe that Common sense is a hindrance or an obstruction to reasoning and abstract thinking, take science or even mathematics for that matter; where human intuitions has always conflicted with documented, provable and verifiable results!

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen - Albert Einstein, LOL, I am not a teen, not even close BTW!

Thursday, August 17, 2006

A Brief History of Time

Post by Shari D Sturdivant on Yahoo 360


Our Picture of the Universe

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory... Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory. 11




Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories - the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics... The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, that is, the structure on scales from only a few miles to as large as a million million million million (1 with twenty-four zeros after it) miles, the size of the observable universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hands, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct. 12




The discovery of a complete unified theory, therefore, may not aid the survival of our species. It may not even affect our life-style. But ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in. 14




Space and Time

In addition to his laws of motion, Newton discovered a law to describe the force of gravity, which states that every body attracts every other body with a force that is proportional to the mass of each body. Thus the force between two bodies would be twice as strong if one of the bodies (say, body A) had its mass doubled. This is what you might expect because one could think of the new body A as being made of two bodies with the original mass. Each would attract body B with the original force. Thus the total force between A and B would be twice the original force. And if, say, one of the bodies had twice the mass, and the other had three times the mass, then the force would be six times as strong. One can now see why all bodies fall at the same rate: a body of twice the weight will have twice the force of gravity pulling it down, bit it will also have twice the mass. According to Newton's second law, these two effects will exactly cancel each other, so the acceleration will be the same in all cases. 16




... if one sets aside for a moment the rotation of the earth and its orbit round the sun, one could say that the earth was at rest and that a train on it was travelling north at ninety miles per hour or that the train was at rest and the earth was moving south at ninety miles per hour. 17




[James Clerk] Maxwell's equations predicted that there could be wavelike disturbances in the combined electromagnetic field, and that these would travel at a fixed speed, like ripples on a pond. If the wavelength of these waves is a meter or more, they are what we now call radio waves. Shorter wavelengths are known as microwaves (a few centimeters) or infrared (more than a ten thousandth of a centimeter). Visible light has a wavelength of between only forty and eighty millionths of a centimeter. Even shorter wavelengths are known as ultraviolet, X rays, and gamma rays. 19




... at 10 percent of the speed of light an object's mass is only 0.5 percent more than normal, while at 90 percent of the speed of light it would be more than twice its normal mass. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get it there. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light. 21




... the meter is defined to be the distance travelled by light in 0.000000003335640952 seconds, as measured by a caesium clock. 22




The theory of relativity does, however, force us to change fundamentally our ideas of space and time. We must accept that time if not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined with it to form an object called space-time. 24




... we do not know what is happening at the moment farther away in the universe: the light that we see from distant galaxies left them millions of years ago and in the case of the most distant object that we have seen, the light left some eight thousand million years ago. Thus, when we look at the universe, we are seeing it as it was in the past. 30




Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in curved space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest) path between two nearby points.

The mass of the sun curves space-time in such a way that although the earth follows a straight path in four-dimensional space-time, it appears to us to move along a circular orbit in three-dimensional space. 32

Light rays too must follow geodesics in space-time... this means that light from a distant star that happened to pass near the sun would be deflected through a small angel, causing the star to appear in a different position to an observer on the earth. 34




The Expanding Universe

The nearest star, called Proxima Centauri, is found to be about four light-years away, or about twenty-three million million miles. Most of the other stars that are visible to the naked eye lie within a few hundred light-years of us. 37




We now know that our galaxy is only one of some hundred thousand million that can be seen using modern telescopes, each galaxy itself containing some hundred thousand million stars... We live in a galaxy that is about one hundred thousand light-years across and is slowly rotating; the stars in its spiral arms orbit around its center about once every several hundred million years. 38




Newton, and others, should have realized that a static universe would soon start to contract under the influence of gravity. But suppose instead the universe expanding. If it was expanding fairly slowly, the force of gravity would cause it eventually to stop expanding and then to start contracting. However, if it was expanding at more than a certain critical rate, gravity would never be strong enough to stop it, and the universe would continue to expand forever. 42




A remarkable feature of the first kind of Friedmann model is that in it the universe is not infinite in space, but neither does space have any boundary. Gravity is so strong that space is bent round onto itself, making it rather like the surface of the earth. If one keeps traveling in a certain direction on the surface of the earth, one never comes up against an impassable barrier or falls over the edge, but eventually comes back to where one started. 47




The present evidence therefore suggests that the universe will probably expand forever, but all we can really be sure of is that even if the universe is going to recollapse, it won't do so for at least another ten thousand million years, since it has already been expanding for at least that long. This should not unduly worry us: by that time, unless we have colonized beyond the Solar System, mankind would long since have died out, extinguished along with our sun! 49




The Uncertainty Principle

Einstein never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement "God does not play dice."

It [quantum mechanics] governs the behavior of transistors and integrated circuits, which are essential components of electronic devices such as televisions and computers, and is also the basis of modern chemistry and biology. The only areas of physical science into which quantum mechanics has not yet been properly incorporated are gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. 60




Elementary Particles and the Forces of Nature

Aristotle believe that all the matter in the universe was made up of four basic elements, earth, air, fire, and water .These elements were acted on by two forces: gravity, the tendency for earth and water to sink, and levity, the tendency for air and fire to rise...

Aristotle believed that matter was continuous, that is, one could divide a piece of matter into smaller and smaller bits without any limit: one never come up against a grain of matter that could not be divided further. 67




There are a number of different varieties of quarks: they are thought to be at least six "flavors," which we call up, down, strange, charmed, bottom, and top. Each flavor comes in three "colors," red, green, and blue. 69




... a particle of spin 1 is like an arrow: it looks different from different directions. Only if one turns it round a complete revolution (360 degrees) does the particle look the same. A particle of spin 2 is like a double-headed arrow: it look the same if one turns it round half a revolution (180 degrees)... there are particles that do not look the same if one turns them through just one revolution: you have to turn them through two complete revolutions! Such particles are said to have spin ½. 71




We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. There could be whole antiworlds and antipeople made out of antiparticles. However, if you meet your antiself, don't shake hands! You would both vanish in a great flash of light. 73




The value of the grand unification energy is not very well know, but it would probably have to be at least a thousand million million GeV. The present generation of particle accelerators can collide particles at energies of about one hundred GeV, and machine are planned that would raise this to a few thousand GeV. But a machine that was powerful enough to accelerate particles to the grand unification energy would have to be as big as the Solar System - and would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate. 79




... one can calculate that the probable life of the proton must be greater than ten million million million million million years (1 with thirty-one zeros). 80




Black Holes

... a star that was sufficiently massive and compact would have such a strong gravitational field that light could not escape: any light emitted from the surface of the star would be dragged back by the star's gravitational attraction before it could get very far... Such objects are what we now call black holes... 86




As the star contracts, the gravitational field at its surface gets stronger and the light cones get bent inward more. This makes it more difficult for light from the star to escape, and the light appears dimmer and redder to an observer at a distance. Eventually, when the star has shrunk to a certain critical radius, the gravitational field at the surface becomes so strong that the light cones are bent inward so much that light can no longer escape. According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Thus if light cannot escape, neither can anything else... 90




The event horizon , the boundary of the region of space-time from which it is not possible to escape, acts rather like a one-way membrane around the black hole... One could well say of the event horizon what the poet Dante said of the entrance to Hell: "All hope abandon, ye who enter here." Anything or anyone who falls through the event horizon will soon reach the region of infinite density and the end of time. 94




... the movement of the earth in its orbit round the sun produces gravitational waves. The effect of the energy loss will be to change the orbit of the earth so that gradually it gets nearer and nearer to the sun, eventually collides with it, and settles down to a stationary state. The rate of energy loss in the case of the earth and the sun is very low - about enough to run a small electric heater. This means it will take about a thousand million million million million years for the earth to run into the sun... 94




We also now have evidence for several other black holes in systems like Cygnus X-1 in our galaxy and in two neighbouring galaxies called the Magellanic Clouds. The number of black holes, however, is almost certainly very much higher; in the long history of the universe, many stars must have burned all their nuclear fuel and have had to collapse. The number of black holes may well be greater even than the number of visible stars, which totals about a hundred thousand million in our galaxy alone. 100




Black Holes Ain't So Black

... the lower the mass of the black hole, the higher its temperature. So as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase, so it loses mass more quickly. What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission, equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs. 114




A black hole with a mass of a few times that of the sun would have a temperature of only one ten millionth of a degree above absolute zero... If the universe is destined to go on expanding forever, the temperature of the microwave radiation will eventually decrease to less than that of such a black hole, which will then begin to lose mass. But, even then, its temperature would be so low that it would take about a million million million million million million million million million million million years to evaporate completely. 114




... One such black hole could run ten large power stations, if only we could harness its power. This would be rather difficult, however: the black hole would have the mass of a mountain compressed into less than a million millionth of an inch, the size of the nucleus of an atom! If you had one of these black holes on the surface of the earth, there would be no way to stop it from falling through the floor to the center of the earth... So the only place to put such a black hole, in which one might use the energy it emitted, would be in orbit around the Earth - and the only way that one could get it to orbit the earth would be to attract it there by towing a large mass in front of it... 115




One can therefore say that the observations of the gamma ray background do not provide any positive evidence for primordial black holes, but they do tell us that on average there cannot be more than 300 in every cubic light-year in the universe. This limit means that primordial black holes could make up at most one millionth of the matter in the universe. 116




The Origin and Fate of the Universe

At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and so to have been infinitely hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees. This is about a thousand times the temperature at the center of the sun, but temperatures as high as this are reached in H-bomb explosions. 123

About one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one thousand million degrees, the temperature inside the hottest stars. 124

Within only a few hours of the big bang, the production of helium and other elements would have stopped. And after that, for the next million years or so, the universe would have just continued expanding, without anything much happening. 125




Our own sun contains about 2 percent of these heavier elements [oxygen and carbon] because it is a second- or third- generation star, formed some five thousand million years ago out of a cloud of rotating gas containing the debris of earlier supernovas. Most of the gas in that cloud went to form the sun or got blown away, but a small amount of the heavier elements collected together to form the bodies that now orbit the sun as planets like the earth. 126




If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. 128




"We see the universe the way it is because we exist." 130




According to this theory [strong anthropic principle], there are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: "Why is the universe the way we see it?" The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here! 131




There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.

"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch." 136




One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. 144




The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? 149




The Arrow of Time

Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one can go north, one can turn around and head south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to be able to turn around and go backward. This means that there can be no important difference between the forward and backward directions of imaginary time. On the other hand, when one looks at "real" time, there's a very big difference between the forward and backward directions, as we all know. Where does this difference between the past and the future come from? Why do we remember the past but not the future? 151




Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases. 156




The progress of the human race in understanding the universe has established a small corner of order in an increasingly disordered universe. If you remember every word in this book, your memory will have recorded about two million pieces of information: the order in your brain will have increased by about two million units. However, while you have been reading this book, you will have converted at least a thousand calories or ordered energy, in the form of food, into disordered energy, in the form of heat that you lose to the air around you by convection and sweat. This will increase the disorder of the universe by about twenty million million million million units - or about ten million million million times the increase in order in your brain - and that's if you remember everything in this book. 161




The Unification of Physics

Why don't we notice all those extra dimensions, if they are really there? Why do we see only three space and one time dimension? The suggestion is that the other dimensions are curved up into a space of very small size, something like a million million million million millionth of an inch. This is so small that we just don't notice it; we see only one time and three space dimensions, in which space-time is fairly flat. It is like the surface of an orange: if you look at it close up, it is all curved and wrinkled, but if you look at it from a distance, you don't see the bumps and it appears to be smooth. So it is with space-time: on a very small scale it is ten-dimensional and highly curved, but on bigger scales you don't see the curvature or the extra dimensions. 173




... if there were a complete set of laws, that would infringe God's freedom to change his mind and intervene in the world. It's a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? But the idea that God might want to change his mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time: time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, he knew what he intended when he set it up! 176




A complete, consistent, unified theory is only the first step: our goal is a complete understanding of the events around us, and of our own existence. 179




Conclusion

Einstein once asked the question: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?"

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him? 184




... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God. 185


http://360.yahoo.com/profile-DiHvN_cic6dTxk7WPjpwp7kq