CULTURAL QA 12-2024-04
TOPIC- SCIENCE- BASE QUORA QA
Q1 What are some scientific facts that are hard to deny?
KR: Scientific facts stated elsewhere and brough down here, must be
thoroughly verified; Fact is ONLY A PART TRUE; REST IS HESHYAM. So better
to say the science and not a cognitive convincing connectivity, which can
never happen.
In just 30 minutes, the human body produces enough heat to boil 4 liters of
water.
KR This is what we see in FB and in a few media as:
Can the human body produce enough heat in 30 minutes to boil a gallon of
water? [KR A gallon is 3.78 litters only but made as 4 here]
The body can produce *enough heat* in just half an hour to boil water. Each
hour, the human body creates 350,000 joules of energy, which creates the
same amount of energy as a 100-watt light bulb. This ends up being enough
heat to boil a half gallon of water in just 30 minutes
Fact is 175000 joules energy in half hour as heat if a human is
allowed to bear as a heater, to boil water, well, body will also burn. So
scientific fact is energy produced in a body, which is not so easily
measurable as well as it will vary from body to body also, so not entirely
universal also. And if you place 4 liters of water, it will never be boiled
also. Even if a 100 watts bulb places 4 liters of water, it will not boil
at all. So the scientific facts are hard to deny only; yet facts of science
partly also cannot be denied.
How much heat is required to boil 4 liter water?
The amount of heat required to boil 4 liters of water depends on the
initial temperature of the water:
20°C: 336,000 Joules of heat is required to boil 1 liter of water at 20°C.
1 atm: 2,257 kilojoules per kilogram (kJ/kg) of energy is required to boil
water at 1 atm.
The boiling point of water is usually 100°C (212°F) at sea level, but it
can change depending on the pressure and composition of the liquid. For
example, at an elevation of about one mile (1,600 m), water boils at around
95°C (203°F).
So under the scientific truths, generally a few media play havoc
combining 2 facts erroneously and say one is connected to 2. So the nexus
is a truth, far away from the real science.
The right lung is slightly larger than the left to accommodate the space
for the heart.
KR The lungs are made of a soft, elastic, spongy tissue (it is pink in
colour - the image above is grey in order to help you visualize the
branches, which are in different colours). It is easy to imagine their
structure much like the inverse of a tree. Air enters the lungs via the
"trunk", the trachea. The trachea branches in two, to form the bronchi .
Each bronchus continues to branch out (each branch is a different colour in
the image above) until, at the end of each bronchiole, we reach a cluster
of alveoli (like grapes on the bough). Alveoli are small sacs where the
gas-exchange of CO2 and O2 takes place. There is an intricate web of blood
vessels which wrap around each sac, allowing the transfer of gases to take
place through the extremely thin walls of the alveoli. The total surface
area of the alveoli is very, very large - roughly the size of a tennis
court.
The lungs are not equal in size. The right lung is shorter, because the
liver sits high, tucked under the ribcase, but it is broader than the left.
The left lung is smaller because of the space taken up by the heart (see
diaphragm for an image of this). Each lung is separated into lobes
branching off the main bronchus; the right lung has three lobes, while the
left has only two lobes. As the bronchi branch out, the total area of the
two new branches is larger than its parent bronchus, making it extremely
easy for the air to rush into the lungs.
Each lung is encased in a sack of tissue called the pleura. The lung is
"stuck" to this sack by a small amount of liquid, which creates surface
tension. It creates a very smooth surface so that as the lungs expand and
contract they can ride over the heart and surrounding elements. Since each
lung is in a separate pleural sac, if the chest wall gets punctured, only
one lung will collapse. The lungs are "stuck" to the inside of the thorax,
also by surface tension. As the ribcage and diaphragm move, the lungs are
stretched, drawing air into the lung, or the lungs are compressed, pushing
the air out.
There are two types of breaths:
Involuntary Breathing:
the unconscious breath, for instance when you're sleeping;
Voluntary Breathing:
the breath you choose to "take", when you regulate your breathing
Lung Volumes
There are a number of useful terms related to the volume of the lungs at
various stages of the respiratory cycle, and related to the measurement of
the air that can be inhaled/exhaled and the air that cannot be exhaled.
Tidal volume:
The quantity of air used in a regular inhalation and exhalation cycle
Men: rest 750 cc, light work 1670 cc, heavy work 2030 cc
Women: rest 285 - 393 cc
Average Tidal Volume at Rest: 500 cc
Inspiratory & Expiratory Reserve Volume:
the maximum that can be inhaled or exhaled beyond normal tidal volume
approx. 1500 cc to 2500 cc (males).
Residual Volume:
the quantity of air that remains in the lungs and airways, even after a
maximum exhalation -
approx. 1000 - 1500 cc (males).
So it is not only large and small but also short and expendable
according to the needs of the liver and the heart.
Q2 Does your body emit light when water evaporates from your
body since electrons return to a stable state by emitting a photon? This
phenomenon is called incandescence, especially when it results in the
emission of visible light.
KR Q1// 1 contradiction of science facts. When you generate 336000
joules in 30 minutes 336000 joules what will happen to your body?
The main focus in this material is on fatalities and from the
graphs one can read that deaths are thought to occur (but then with low
probability) in the range of 100 to 140 Joule. For low weights (less than 1
kg), the DROPS limit is approximately 100 Joule but for a weight of 10 kg
the limit is about 140 Joule. So in 30 min 336000 joules , not only heat 4
liter of water but would have seen off that human long ago as 140. The
average adult who simply wants to maintain their weight needs 8,700 kJ
(870000joules viz 336000 2.4 times for 24 by 7 life time). to sustain
themselves throughout the day, so you should strive to burn a little more
energy than what you're consuming. And if you do exercise well its burned
down; or the body sweats immediately to cool the system. So one can never
place any water on the body to heat. And when evaporation occurs through
the tiny holes of the skin, evaporation causes the cooling as a AC unit
functions. During evaporation, molecules gain enough thermal energy to
escape from the liquid surface into the air as water vapor. Water-vapor
molecules spread out, breaking completely free of each other, and then
disperse or spread out among the other gas molecules in the air. Remember
that all molecules move. The principle underlying evaporative cooling is
the fact that water must have heat applied to it to change from a liquid to
a vapor. When evaporation occurs, this heat is taken from the water that
remains in the liquid state, resulting in a cooler liquid. In the water
cycle, evaporation occurs when sunlight warms the surface of the water. The
heat from the sun makes the water molecules move faster and faster, until
they move so fast they escape as a gas. Once evaporated, a molecule of
water vapor spends about ten days in the air.
Yes, the human body emits light, including during evaporation:
Thermal radiation
All objects, including the human body, emit thermal radiation, which is
electromagnetic radiation. The wavelength of this radiation depends on the
body's temperature. Most of the radiation emitted by the body is in the
infrared region, with a wavelength of around 12 microns.
Biophotons
The body generates photons, or light particles, called biophotons, which
can be measured from the skin.
Body glow
The body emits a faint glow of visible light that's linked to the body's
metabolism and circadian rhythms. The glow is most intense at around 4 PM
and least intense at around 10 AM. Faces tend to glow more than the rest of
the body because they're more tanned.
This glow alone is mistaken as glowing with wisdom after a face wash with
cool water, especially from a woman. And 12-micron light is not exactly a
light so far to name it; but as friction does occur there are sparks as you
sieve an iron or metal on another.
Q3 Why do science fiction writers consider FTL (faster than
light) travel possible if physicists agree that nothing can exceed the
speed of light?
KR As on date there is nothing speedier than light ; but already, Particles
whose speed exceeds that of light (tachyons) have been hypothesized, but
their existence would violate causality and would imply time travel. The
scientific consensus is that they do not exist. ( see elsewhere also I had
mentioned it). Einstein said time would stop if any matter exceeded the
speed of light. And our Vedic literatures had shown that the time stopped;
especially in Mahabharata; so f time were to stop. There ought to have been
running speedier than the light.
Q4 What if I told you I figured out a way that the afterlife and
reincarnation could scientifically and atheistically exist?
KR How many times the compiler would write re write and re re write
ADE?
The idea of life after death, or the afterlife, is a fundamental belief in
many religions. The afterlife is the idea that a person's identity or
consciousness continues to exist after their physical body dies. The form
of life after death varies by religion, and even among members of the same
religion. Some beliefs include:
Reincarnation: A continuous cycle of death and rebirth in new bodies or
forms. The nature of the continued existence is determined by the
individual's actions in their previous life.
Eternal life: The dead go to a specific place, such as heaven or hell,
based on their actions and beliefs during life.
Spiritual realm: The individual's essential aspect continues to exist in a
spiritual realm.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that a deceased person can come
back to life.
ONLY AN ADVAITHI MAY CONDESCEND TO THESE AND DUALITY NEVER ACCEPTED
INCLUDING VAISHNAVISM THE REINCARNATION, ETERNALITY IMMORTALITY ETC.
DEEPAK CHOPRA AN EMINENT USA CITIZEN WHO WROTE MANY VEDIC TREATISES AS
BOOKS HAD STATED:
Despite all of its advances, science has stripped away any
reassurances about life after death, and most people in the modern world
accept the scientific model. In doing so it logically follows that when the
physical body dies, in all likelihood the immaterial aspects of being human
— mind soul, memory personality, thoughts, feelings, etc. — are
extinguished at the same time.[KR pl remember my question when body is
buried or burnt…?] What this set of beliefs doesn’t offer is proof, in the
form of facts, data, information, and so on. In place of religious
certainty, modern people face death, not only with fear, doubt, dread, and
foreboding but without a shred of empirical evidence about what happens
after death. The reason that we casually believe that life ends with
nothing isn’t because that’s true. Nothing is simply the absence of facts.
When facts end, science has nothing to say.
If you follow this train of thought, both worldviews, the
religious/spiritual and the scientific, amount to stories built around
assumptions that can’t be proven. When you ask, “Where do we go after we
die?” The two main stories — we go to heaven/hell or we vanish into a cloud
of atoms and energy waves — are hollow. They confront a mystery that
refuses to reveal its secrets. Where this leaves us is really where we
begin, with the individual knowing that death is inevitable but leading a
life dedicated to avoiding that fact. Fear of death isn’t necessary. At
worst, we go to sleep just as we do every night, and going to sleep isn’t
fearful. “I’ll know what happens when it happens” is a good working
attitude, but let’s see if there is a better way.
A better way is hinted at in T.S. Eliot’s famous line of poetry, “In my
end is my beginning.” This isn’t a religious or mystical statement,
although Eliot was deeply religious. What these words mean is true for
everyone, atheists and believers alike.
You can’t know how things end until you know how they began.
This looks like a simple statement of cause and effect. If you observe that
putting a jar upside down over a candle makes the flame go out, you cannot
explain this until you know the laws of chemistry, which reveals that fire
needs oxygen to keep going. Use up the oxygen, and the flame goes out.
But there’s a deeper meaning to “You can’t know how things end until you
know how they began.” What really matters about death is the survival of
consciousness. We observe the flame (the physical body) go out (die), but
the mystery revolves around what happens to the non-physical part of
ourselves. The things previously listed — mind, soul, memory, personality,
thoughts, feelings, etc. — are all experiences in consciousness.
No matter how unique anyone’s life is, consciousness brings every human
being together in the same place. Life is experienced in consciousness.
Therefore, if we know how consciousness begins, we know how it ends. The
opposite is also true. If we don’t know how consciousness begins, we can’t
possibly know how (or if) it ends.
Suddenly there is an opening for a true revelation. If consciousness has no
beginning, then it has no end. In other words, the cause-and-effect model
doesn’t work when it comes to consciousness. It can only be explained as
existing on its own, independent of everything that does obey the rule of
cause and effect.
Can anything really be outside the realm of cause and effect? Absolutely.
The universe sprang from a state preceding the Big Bang that offers no clue
about matter, energy, space, or time. Without those things, there is no
cause and effect. At the smallest scale of nature, the quantum field
creates the physical universe through ripples of potential that emerge as
subatomic particles and energy waves. There is no cause for this to happen;
it just does. Existence has no cause, an obvious fact once you think about
it.
The New Age phrase, “Be here now,” isn’t a goal. You cannot help but be
here now, since that’s the definition of existence. There are more
controversial examples of things that have no cause. Many of your thoughts
aren’t caused by the thoughts that preceded them. Thoughts spring up
unpredictably from a state that isn’t a thought. It is a silent domain of
possibilities.
Here we are at the crux of the answer. If you don’t know how thoughts arise
from total silence, you can’t possibly know how or if thoughts end. You
already rely on the domain of silent, invisible possibilities all the time.
You fetch memories from this domain, along with your vocabulary, your next
desire, and your identity, which is nothing more than a constant process of
filing away the experiences you identify with, calling them “me.”
The nice thing about existence is that it can be relied upon even when you
have no idea where it came from. “To be or not to be” is the wrong
question. We are, period. Packaged in with being here now is consciousness.
In a basic, irrefutable way, existence and consciousness go together. They
are our home. We didn’t invent or create this home. It is our beginning and
therefore our end, wrapped into one.
Except that the words “beginning” and “end” are deceptive. There’s no
reason to assume that existence had a beginning. Whatever you imagine as
non-existence is a concept, and concepts, being mind-made, exist. Trying to
nullify existence becomes circular. We are all at home here and now. We
couldn’t be conscious without consciousness, the infinite, causeless,
invisible, inconceivable origin of everything.
Where do we go after we die? Nowhere in physical terms. We never leave home
because there’s no alternative. Non-existence is a fantasy born of fear. I
realize that making existence the same as consciousness sounds alien. I’ve
tried to state the argument in simple statements that anyone is free to
ponder. The answer has to be personal. You have to look at what life is,
here and now, to gain anything like a stable set of conclusions. Explore
what it is like to be at home, and you will realize that you can never
leave home. A new worldview emerges if you look deep enough.
Q5 Does Cambridge have a particularly strong reputation in math
and science subjects, whereas Oxford is often noted for humanities and
social sciences?
KR: Yes, Cambridge and Oxford have separate reputations for some
subjects, but both universities are consistently ranked among the world's
top institutions:
Mathematics
Cambridge is generally considered to be the better choice for mathematics,
with a reputation for flexibility in choosing pathways and a traditional
exam style. Cambridge's Part III mathematics course is especially
well-regarded in the finance and tech industries.
Science
Cambridge ranks higher than Oxford in natural sciences, engineering,
materials sciences, physics, and chemistry.
Arts
Oxford is generally considered to be the better choice for humanities. The
Oxford Art Journal is internationally recognized for publishing innovative
art history criticism.
However, the differences between the two universities are generally very
minor. Both universities are consistently ranked among the world's top 10,
and the Oxbridge brand is extremely strong. The best university for you
depends on your preferred learning style, desired research area, and
whether you prefer a lively city or a serene riverside setting
Mr Sekar stated:”Re 4: I have heard lectures where the speakers on Vedanta
said that there is no Heaven or Hell but what we experience here in this
world is either Heaven or Hell or a mixture of both. We see people in
miserable conditions - financially, physically, mentally and
psychologically and that is Hell. Even if one has all the money and
comforts he is not happy and feels miserable due to several factors hich
again is hell. On the other hand, some poor fellows lead a happy life even
if they have no material comforts and that is heaven.Peace of mind is
heaven. Lack of it is hell. Generally a man who is at peace with himself
falls asleep within a few minutes of going to bed while most others
struggle to sleep.In short, as Milton said"The mind is its own place; it
can make hell out of heaven and heaven out of hell".We reap now what we
sowed in this and previous births, although we give various names for our
fortunes and sufferings. Ultimately it is our Karma. What we sow is what we
reap. Consequences of action, (or rather the intentions behind those
actions) - good or bad, will follow, like day follows night. One has to
atone sincerely to minimize the effects of bad karma.”
KR in One sense may be accepted as logical, but though I had written a lot
on the after death component, without going through them, observing
self-served statements may entail the next generations away from sanatana
dharma; and a person who also advocated arise and awake could raise the
theory after going through all Let me write again when time permits. But
indeed, it is scientific that punarapi jananam punarapi maranam.
K Rajaram IRS 181224
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gopala Krishnan <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 19:05
Subject: [iyer123] CULTURAL QA 12-2024-04
To: <[email protected]>
CULTURAL QA 12-2024-04
TOPIC- SCIENCE- BASE QUORA QA
Q1 What are some scientific facts that are hard to deny?
A1 Anna Sebastian,Dec 12
In just 30 minutes, the human body produces enough heat to boil 4 liters of
water.
The right lung is slightly larger than the left to accommodate the space
for the heart.
Humans cannot breathe and swallow at the same time.
**Our thumbs are the same size as our noses, just try it!!!
My note- ** I tried. I could insert my thumb freely in the Nose hole
Q2 Does your body emit light when water evaporates from your
body since electrons return to a stable state by emitting a photon?
A2 Bob Myers, Electrical Engineer, Technologist, and Tech Geek
Dec 10
Your body emits “light” (electromagnetic waves) all the time; all matter
above absolute zero does. It’s just that this light isn’t in the visible
range until the object in question gets quite hot, at least as humans view
temperature. *Once you get up above roughly 500 deg. C (almost 1000 deg.
F), in starts to glow in the visible range*, becoming a dull red in color
and then progressing through a brighter red, orange, yellow, and finally
white as the temperature increases (and hence, for example, the notion of
“red hot” and “white hot” metal, etc.). Objects at more typical
temperatures (in the “room temperature” range through the low hundreds)
emit mostly in the infrared range and so their light isn’t visible to the
human eye.
*This phenomenon is called incandescence, especially when it results in the
emission of visible light.*
Q3 Why do science fiction writers consider FTL (faster than
light) travel possible if physicists agree that nothing can exceed the
speed of light?
A3 Clive Gordon, BSc Physics from Imperial College London
(Graduated 1986)Mon
They don’t. They’re writing FICTION. You do know what fiction means, don’t
you?
The point is that if you stick to the real universe as we know it, the
entire genre of fiction set in space and involving travel between different
planets, a galactic empire or federation, meetings with aliens and all
other such stuff is completely impossible. Therefore you have to invent a
propulsion system that DOES make it possible, conventionally called
travelling in hyperspace or warp drive. Just that one piece of complete
fiction makes the rest possible. We’d be deprived of a huge amount of fun
reading if you insisted that the real relativistic universe must be used.
(Oh, and they also ignore time dilation, or it’d get REALLY complicated.)
There is space sci-fi in which the relativistic universe is strictly
adhered to, most famously Arthur C Clarke did this, and then if you’re
going to travel outside the solar system you have to consider a
multi-generation ship where only your descendants - probably your distant
descendants - will arrive at the destination. But that’s a bit limiting.
(Ben Bova did it too in his Exiles Trilogy, and there the plot itself
depends on the fact that FTL travel doesn’t exist.)
Look, it’s FICTION. In fiction you can do what you bloody well please to
make your chosen plot possible.
Q4 What if I told you I figured out a way that the afterlife and
reincarnation could scientifically and atheistically exist?
A4 James Wilkes, Fri
There is something called past life regression. Hypnotists can do it and
you can also put yourself into that trance that allows you to visit your
past lives. This goes along with the idea of reincarnation and it matches
pretty well. There is just one thing about past life regression. No one
that has been through the process speaks of heaven or hell.
Now as to the accuracy of past life regression. While under hypnosis living
through or watching the past life, people give information that can be
confirmed by old police records old fire records old government records or
old medical records. That's the kind of accuracy we see in soul memories.
BUT that doesn't mean God's in the mix. What this means is that the soul
is a 100% natural phenomena and it shows that our souls are basically
recycled birth death rebirth.
Now if you found some way to tag a spirit a soul and follow it through the
birth death rebirth cycle then you would be the most important person or
the most important target of the church because if souls are a natural
phenomenon and not given by God they lose their business.
Q5 Does Cambridge have a particularly strong reputation in math
and science subjects, whereas Oxford is often noted for humanities and
social sciences?
A5 Benjamin Murphy, Studied at University of Oxford Upvoted by
Sarah Chamberlain,, BA History, University of Oxford and Michael McEllin,,
MA PhD Theoretical Physics & Radio Astronomy, University of Cambridge
(1976)Jun 22
Cambridge has the best reputation for mathematics and physics.
Oxford has the best reputation for producing successful politicians -
successful in being elected to important positions, at least, where they
often make a terrible mess.
Would be politicians usually study humanities or social sciences (not
always of course - Margaret Thatcher studied Chemistry, for example).
Oxford has not necessarily led the way in the humanities in the way that
Cambridge has led the way in maths and physics - rather would-be
politicians have spent time making useful contacts at Oxford while pursuing
a humanities degree. Of course, Oxford has had some brilliant philosophers,
historians and so on, but so has Cambridge (e.g. Ludwig Wittgenstein and F.
R. Leavis). Also, the fact that Cambridge is better for mathematics and
physics doesn’t mean it is better for every science subject. When Oxford
produced a Covid vaccine, some people seemed to be amazed that there are
actually laboratories at Oxford where people do ground-breaking research.
*The most important point to bear in mind if you are looking for a place to
study in the UK is, of course, that the best place for your subject might
be neither Oxford nor Cambridge.*
*GOPALAKRISHNAN 17-12-2024*
--
To go to your groups page on the web, login to your gmail account and then
click on https://groups.google.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"iyer123" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAEE2L%2B3s4_-GEA79Sk-EzW21n3sNjR%2BsrTZtY6LU2gvQqoV56g%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAEE2L%2B3s4_-GEA79Sk-EzW21n3sNjR%2BsrTZtY6LU2gvQqoV56g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoo9kpG_7QLt%3DH32isY%3DU1TVssr%2BDJQB7QMz%3Dq-%2Bmv-0VA%40mail.gmail.com.
