This is in continuation as I promised for the last 5th Q & A of the
compiler MR G.
Q5 If Brahma created Manu the first person, why do we say that
humans evolved from monkeys?
KR Rig vedam is the oldest accepted by one and all. Nasadiya
suktham is from Rig Vedam. I had written this many a times already.
However, what exactly it speaks about the Manifestations and the
creations? It is the west who believes that the space and the world were
creation from a small speck expanding forever without any source and the
earth in 7 days and night. The west who said that the matter can neither be
created nor be destroyed, physics-fundamental, for got the, if there is a
creation, it shall also be easily DESTROYABLE. Then it is a creation only
out of matter which remained always. So matter was in existence already?
But Matter is UNREAL in the sense that, it is not a viveka though possess
the life in some form. Matter may be atom also. So, it can move and remain
permanent. AND MATTER LIKE ANY ATOM, MAY EXPAND OR REMAIN A SINGLE ONE
ALSO. So, matter is not exactly an acting individual but in resonance with
the action. And there exactly, lie, another force giving that momentum
which west described it all ,as in different text carefully avoiding the
concept of GOD, which we attributed as Brahmam. Brahmam took many forms as
we are to the rest of the world, described by name and many relationships,
though we are the only one. Thus, the matter which gets out and goes in
(cave in) (GOGI) (GIGO?) which is impermanent is MAYA. If MAYA were a
woman, then the man form is PURUSHA, the part of Brahmam. Hence what one
sees today as matter was in the possession of the Brahmam unknown to
describe (Upanishads) , not only, proving the he theory of the Physics but
also remained the truth as forever unchanged. Hence the Purusha and the
Prakriti became the one and the permanent Brahmam, showing the world that
there is a force for all to react continuously. His is Principle, Physics,
and purana or by whatever name you wish to call. THERE IS ONE WHICH IS
CALLED AS MANY BY PEOPLE (VEDA VAKYA).
Now what NASADIYA SUKTHAM says: Just 7 verses not 7 days and
night.
This is the famous nasadiya Sukta the 129th Sukta of the 10th mandala of
the Rigveda.
nāsad āsīn no sad āsīt tadānīṁ nāsīd rajo no vyomā paro yat | kim āvarīvaḥ
kuha kasya śarmann ambhaḥ kim āsīd gahanaṁ gabhīram || 1
|| Then even nothingness was not, nor existence, there was no air then, nor
the heavens beyond it. *What covered it?* *Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed. **(KR A question
pointing out 5 “W”s raising a doubt but forcing you to answer that; if you
answered it or not, what is the logic behind? THERE WAS SOMETHING.).
[Science without any basis created an object of a life form micro]*
Verse -1: The verse 1 of Nasadiya Sukta describes what existed
(or not existed) before the creation of universe. There was no sky, no air,
and no water. But there was (or wasn't) something. No one can tell what it
was, where it was, and what covered it. In classical Big Bang Theory, this
state is described as the State of Singularity. No one knows what a
Singularity is, they are "thought to" exist as zones of infinite densities
at the core of Black holes. All we actually know is that we are not sure
what existed, or not existed before the Big Bang - described in the hymn as
"*THEN was not non-existent nor existent" *[KR In my interpretation, as all
products of matter arose later only, whatever said that existed or not
before, WILL ONLY BECOME A GUESS AS BUDDHI AND INTELLIGENCE WERE ONLY CAME
ABOUT LATER; AND AS ONE WITHOUT A NAME FOR THE OBJECT, CANNOT AFFORD TO
UNDERSTAND IT, SO TOO EVEN INTELLIGENCE EXISTED (SAY), IT WILL NOT
UNDERSTAND THAT AS THERE WAS NO NAME} 10000 bce DESCRIBED IT CORRECTLY;
WHILE THE MODERN SCIENCE DESCRIBED IT UNAWARE THAT THE GUESS WORK IS NOT A
SCIENCE.] {I USED TO WRITE , HENCE THE Singularity accepted by the world of
science , as Brahmam} AND ASSURED THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING FROM WHICH ONLY
ALL CAME ABOUT IT; AND THAT MUST HAVE EXISTED, because, matter is
indestructible is Veda vakya as well as that of the science. SO THAT BECAME
THE “MANIFESTATION” FROM WHICH “CREATION TOOK PLACE, which are destroyable,
@MAYA.
"கணிகண்ணன் போகின்றான் காமருபூங்கச்சி மணிவண்ணா நீ கிடக்கவேண்டா -
துணிவுடைய செந்நாப்புலவனும் போகின்றேன் நீயுமுன்றன்
பைந்நாகப்பாய்சுருட்டிக்கொள்" 'என் சீடன் இல்லாத ஊரில் நான் இருக்க மாட்டேன்.
பக்தர்கள் இல்லாத ஊரில் உனக்கு என்ன வேலை. நீயும் உன் பாம்புப் பாயைச்
சுருட்டிக்கொண்டு என் பின்னாலேயே வா" என்பது இதன் பொருள்.
"Kanikannan is going “Kamarupoongachi- Manivanna” (Vishnu) don't you wish
to lie down - the brave Chennapulavan(Azhwar at Tiruvekka) is also going
before you roll up your serpent mat pack " 'I will not be in a town without
my disciple. What is your business in a town where there are no devotees.
It means that you too roll up your snake mat and follow me”.
The above Azhwar pasuram is also symbolic in the sense that, as
one stretch out and fold the sleeping mat, so also the matter is MANIFESTED
OUT (AS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AS Physics would advocate, so there was no
creation at all) and at the end puled in to shrink. Who could do it?
PURUSHA. And that PURUSHA with the PRAKRITI was that one Brahmam. And that
EXISTENCE is unknown to any one of us who were created much later after
pancha Bhuta sapta rishis etc. So, creator was Brahma; Manifesto is
Brahmam. The real. Brahma Vishnu Sivan are all disappearable into that
Brahmam. As Pai Nagappai was done, so too the mat of the Cosmas including
the earth were stretched out and folded into.
na mṛtyur āsīd amṛtaṁ na tarhi na rātryā ahna āsīt praketaḥ | ānīd avātaṁ
svadhayā tad ekaṁ tasmād dhānyan na paraḥ kiṁ canāsa || 2 ||
Then there was neither death nor immortality Nor was there then the
torch of night and day. The One breathed windlessly and
self-sustaining. There was that One then, and there was no other.
KR: Absolute fact. Only one existed. Even the air was not there; but that
one could breathe; that shows the air is within HIM. No mortality nor
immortality as all were a total matter into him. As HE was the glower the
need for light and darkness did not arise there at all. (I am reminded of
the passage in A TALE OF TWO CITIES OPENING} There was no necessity for the
existent. All these are needed only for ou existence for a time slot.
Verse - 2 of Nasadiya Sukta
Verse - 2: The Verse 2 further describes the nature of what Modern Big Bang
Theory calls Singularity. As per Big Bang Theory, our universe is "thought
to" have begun from a Singularity: an infinitesimally small, vibrant,
self-sustaining, and intensely dense singularity. There is no theory about
its origination, where did it come from, how it got created and how it
looked like.The only thing that we know is "that One thing, breathless,
breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever."
tama āsīt tamasā gūl ̥ham agre 'praketaṁ salilaṁ sarvam ā idam |
tucchyenābhv apihitaṁ yad āsīt tapasas tan mahinājāyataikam || 3 ||
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness. All this was
only unillumined water. That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.
Tamasa asit tamasa . Darkness wrapped in darkness. WHAT DOES IT
MEAN? When there light, say sun light, even in SAHRA, shadow the darkness,
may exist; but in the darkness, without light, only the darkness embraces
the next darkness. And as we see water in the day light, in the darkness,
dead dark, even that darkness was water all around. Meaning there was no
real water then in the space.
Verse - 3 of Nasadiya Sukta
Verse - 3: The third verse describes the nature of the Singularity, and
what lied inside it. {Inside it all the matter manifested very time of the
beginning of the Chatur yuga} The Big Bang theory "affimes" Singularity
existed at the core of black holes amidst eternal darkness: an area of
extreme gravitational pressure which compresses the finite matter into
infinitesimally small directionless particles of infinite density which are
extremely hot. All we know (or can assume) is that it was void and
formless, and by the great power of warmth was born that Unit. {KR Quanta
in entirety had the same mass as matter was original; and even after the
fissure the mass will be the same (Pl refer to 26th dec Q and A).
This fixes the science. 1 MATTER CANNOT EXIST UNDESTROYED ALOOF AND
ALONE AS IT NEEDS POWER TO START OR RESTYART. 2 MATTER OUGHT TO HAVE HAD
THE INTELLIGENCE TO ACTIVATE IT AND 3 AND THAT IS A SINGULARITY 4 AND IT
IS NOT AGAIN A BLACK HOLE AS BLACK HOLE IN ITSELF IS ALTERABLE AND CAN
BURST TO BE GOBBLED UP BY ANOTHER BLACK HOLE. 5 HENCE THE EXISTENCE OF AN
UNKNOW UST BE THERE E CALL IT AS BRAHMAM.
kāmas tad agre sam avartatādhi manaso retaḥ prathamaṁ yad āsīt | sato
bandhum asati nir avindan hṛdi pratīṣyā kavayo manīṣā || 4 ||
In the beginning desire descended on it. That was the primal seed, born
of the mind. The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom know
that which is akin to that which is not.
Kr Are we barbarians when these lines were recorded? HOW ACTION
WOULD ARISE? Only out of an intentional desire to do. So Brahmam to act
must have the desire to do Kru. THE FIRST CREATION WAS OUT OF THE BRAHMAM
MING THE SEED WAS PRIMAL IT SAYS. And when there are few generations
existing together, you will be taught who is your parent; but the first one
who will tell who is the parent? so those Manasika-putras when searching
their hearts would know that their origin is. But to search the heart mere
emotion is not enough like animals; it needs proof; and for that proof only
the WISDOM IS NEEDED. Wisdom is more than the intelligence or arising out
of the intelligence. So, the manaseeka putras were first.
Verse - 4 of Nasadiya Sukta
Verse - 4: The fourth verse describes the triggering of Big Bang, the
perpetual expansion that got triggered by a Desire: the primal seed and
germ of Spirit. According to Space.com, a point came when this calm
Singularity underwent an extremely brief and dramatic period of inflation,
expanding faster than the speed of light. It doubled in size perhaps 100
times or more, all within the span of a few tiny fractions of a second. The
Desire had risen. What is existent today started to develop from the
non-existent. THAT WHICHXIST PERMANENTLY IS NON EXISTENT BECAUSE, IT IS
UNKNOWN; UNDESCRIBABLE HENCE UPANISHADS USED SO MANY ADJECTIVES TO EXPLAIN;
HENCE THE SAY GOES AS “KANDAVAR VINDILAR; VINDAVAR KANDILAR.”
tiraścīno vitato raśmir eṣām adhaḥ svid āsīd upari svid āsīt | retodhā
āsan mahimāna āsan svadhā avastāt prayatiḥ parastāt || 5 ||
And they have stretched their cord across the void, and know what was
above, and what below. Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.
NOW WHAT? Manaseeka putras started it all by piercing through the
darkness when Boudica created forces and the energy. The nature was being
manifested viz matter expanding one after the other.
Verse - 5 of Nasadiya Sukta
Verse - 5: The fifth verse describes what happened moments after the Big
Bang. The expansion of the universe started, and it had no specific
direction. There were mighty forces, free action and endless energy
generated from the phenomenon.
On similar lines, The Big Bang Theory states that immediately after the Big
Bang, there was a chaos (free action) in a 10-billion-degree sea of
Neutrons, Protons, Electrons, Positrons, Photons, and Neutrinos. The
expansion started, and so was the gradual cooling of the universe. Ref.
NASA
Manaseeka putras could see them all apart from the brahmam and
that kind of energy and the expansions were tolerated by the putras first.
ko addhā veda ka iha pra vocat kuta ājātā kuta iyaṁ visṛṣṭiḥ | arvāg
devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yata ābab || 6 ||
But, after all, who knows, and who can say Whence it all came, and how
creation happened? The gods themselves are later than creation, so who
knows truly whence it has arisen?
Verse - 6 of Nasadiya Sukta
Verse - 6: The sixth verse describes what the scientists know today: No one
can conclusively prove anything about the Big Bang. Einstein's Theory of
Relativity talks about the idea of Singularity, however, the current
researchers such as Sean Carroll from Caltech denies this theory on the
grounds of Quantum Mechanics. According to Space.com, " the very beginning
of the universe remains pretty murky "
So, Rig Veda Nasadiya Sukta finish is the truth on par excellence.
SO, CREATION WAS ONLY AFTER THE MANIFESTATIONS THAT MEANS ALL WE SEE HERE
HEN AND NOW AND IN THE FUTURE ARE ALREADY DESTINED (KARMA). DEVAS AND GODS
33 MILLION ONLY CAME AFTER. So, when MANU came.?
iyaṁ visṛṣṭir yata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na | yo asyādhyakṣaḥ
parame vyoman so aṅga veda yadi vā na veda || 7 ||
Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether
he did not, he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe
even he does not know
Verse - 7 of Nasadiya Sukta
Verse - 7: This self-explanatory verse concludes the Nasadiya Sukta with
the statement that none in the world, even the first born of this creation,
knows about this creation of Universe. It's hard to comprehend by the human
mind, and impossible to be proved conclusively by any living being.
If so, how the science issues statements of guess work as truth.?
How can one say even BRAHMAM will not know it? It is expressions of that
kind of surprises. You are the owner of that glass piece; you are at the
laptop; and suddenly you hear tuning sound of fall and breakage; did you
know how it happened? It is not Brahmam dies not know; but the
manifestations and the creations so much it is a statement of the
exaggeration.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad starts by stating one of many Vedic
theories of creation of the universe. It asserts that there was nothing
before the universe began. Then, Prajapati created the universe from this
nothingness (ASIT vide above N suktham) as a sacrifice to himself, imbuing
it with Prana (life force) to preserve it in the form of cosmic inert
matter and individual psychic energy. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad asserts
that the world is more than just matter and energy; it is also constituted
by Atman or Brahman (Self, Consciousness, Invisible Principles, and
Reality) as well as Knowledge
The Brahmana 4 in the first chapter announces the non-dual monistic
metaphysical premise that Atman and Brahman are identical Oneness. It
asserts that because the universe came out of nothingness when the only
principle existent was "I am he", the universe, after coming into
existence, continues as Aham brahma asmi (I am Brahmam).[NOT BRAHMA THE BRU
BUT THE BRAHMAM THE ROOT OF BRU] In the last brahmana of the first chapter,
the Upanishad explains that the Atman (Self) inspires by being self-evident
(name identity), through empowering forms, and through action (work of a
living being). The Self, states Brihadaranyaka, is the imperishable one
that is invisible and concealed pervading all of reality.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad starts the second chapter as a
conversation between Ajatashatru and Balaki Gargya on theory of dreams,
positing that human beings see dreams entirely unto themselves because mind
draws, in itself, the powers of sensory organs, which it releases in the
waking state. Brihadaranyaka in brahmana 3 asserts that the human mind can
perceive and construct its own reality. Mind is a means, prone to flaws. It
emphasizes the struggle to realize the true, unknowable nature of
Atman-Brahman, described as "neti, neti" (not this, not this), beyond
qualities or characteristics.
BRAHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD EXTRACTS FROM MADHAVA NANDA SCRIPT:
(BOOK 1) There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered
only by (Hiranyagarbha). He created the mind, thinking, 'Let me have a
mind.' He moved about worshipping (himself). As he was worshipping, water
was produced. (Since he thought), 'As I was worshipping, water sprang up,'
therefore Arka (fire) is so called. Water (or happiness) surely comes to
one who knows how Arka (fire) came to have this name of Arka. (II 1)
3. He (Viraj) differentiated himself in three ways, making the sun
the third form, and air the third form. So this Prana (Viraj) is divided in
three ways. His head is the east, and his arms that (north-east) and that
(south-east). And his hind part is the west, his hip-bones that
(north-west) and that (south-west), his sides the south and north, his back
heaven, his belly the sky, and his breast, this earth. He rests on water.
He who knows (it) thus gets a resting place wherever he goes. (II 3)
He desired, ' Let me have a second form* (body). ' He, Death or
Hunger, brought about the union of speech (the Vedas) with the mind. What
was the seed there becoming the Year (Viraj). Before him there had been no
year. He (Death) reared him for as long as a year, and after this period
projected him. When he was born, (Death) opened his mouth (to swallow him).
He (the babe) cried 'Bhan!' That became speech.
1. There were two classes of Prajapati's sons, the gods and the
Asuras.1 Naturally,2 the gods were fewer, and the Asuras more in number.
They vied with each other for (the mastery of) these worlds. The gods said,
' Now let us surpass the Asuras in (this) sacrifice through the Udgitha.'
(III 1)
6. Then they said to the mind, 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us.' '
All right,' said the mind and chanted for them. The common good that comes
of the mind, it secured for me gods by chanting, while the tine thinking it
utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods
would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is
what we come across when one thinks improper things. Likewise, they also
touched these (other) deities with evil — struck them with evil. (III 6)
19. It is called Ayasya Aiigirasa, for it is the essence of
the members (of the body). The vital force is indeed the essence of the
members. Of course it is their essence. (For instance), from whichever
member the vital force departs, right there it withers. Therefore this is
of course the essence of the members.
20. This alone is also Brhaspati (lord of the Re). Speech is
indeed Brhati (Re) and this is its lord. Therefore, this is also Brhaspati
21. This alone is also Brahmanaspati (lord of the Yajus.) Speech
is indeed Brahman (Yajus), and this is its lord. Therefore, this is also
Brahmanaspati. {KR: I WROTE Long BACK Vinayaka is unknown and arose only
later as so many texts ill the beginning of the Kaliyuga never started with
Vinayaka Sruti. But Ganapati form was and is and will be as BRAHMANASPATI.}
1. In the beginning, this (universe) was but the self
(Viraj) of a human form. (Virat Purusha a form of Brahman) He reflected and
found nothing else but himself. He first uttered, ' I am he. ' Therefore,
he was called Aham (I). Hence, to this day, when a person is addressed, he
first says, 'It is I,' and then says the other name that he may have.
Because he was first and before this whole (band of aspirants) burnt all
evils, therefore he is called Purusha. He who knows thus indeed burns one
who wants to be (Viraj) before him. (IV 1)
3. He was not at all happy. Therefore people (still) are
not happy when alone. He desired a mate. He became as big as man and wife
embracing each other. He parted this very body into two. From that came
husband and wife. Therefore, said Yagnavalkiyar, this (body) is one-half of
oneself, like one of the two halves of a split pea. Therefore, this space
is indeed filled by the wife. He was united with her. From that men were
born. (IV 3}
4. She thought, ' How can he be united with me after
producing me from himself? Well, let me hide myself.' She became a cow, the
other became a bull and was united with her; from that cows were born. The
one became a mare, the other a stallion; the one became a she-ass, the
other became a he-ass and was united with her; from that one-hoofed animals
were born. The one became a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one became a
ewe, the other became a ram and was united with her; from that goats and
sheep were born. Thus, did he project everything that exists in pairs, down
to the ants.
KR So it goes on. SO, like Christianity MANU was not
first created as ADAM. It’s a long line of creations from HIMSELF to water
to ……. Under science UNSCIENTIFIC DATA SHALL NOT BE OFFERED.
K RAJARAM IRS 281224
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gopala Krishnan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 at 19:14
Subject: [iyer123] CULTURAL QA 12-2024-10
To: <[email protected]>
CULTURAL QA 12-2024-10
TOPIC- SCIENCE BASE QUORA QA
Q1 Why can't we run engines off of water? Can't science easily
convert H20 to Hydrogen? And I thought we had lots of hydrogen engines
already. Is is too complex or energy intensive to convert? Always wondered,
thanks.
A1 Steve Baker, Senior Software Engineer (2013–present)Sun
You know when you burn something - coal, wood, paper, whatever - you end up
with some ashes and some CO2. If you burned pure carbon - then there would
be no ashes - just CO2.
What you did was to extract energy from a high energy state material and
the result is a low energy state material.
That’s why you can’t burn the ashes from a fireplace - and you can’t burn
things in CO2 (which is why CO2 fire extinguishers work.)
OK - so if you take hydrogen gas and burn that - the “ashes” left over is
the water it generates.
*So just as you can’t burn ashes and you can’t burn CO2 because the energy
has already been extracted - so you can’t burn water because the energy has
already been extracted.*
So there isn’t any chemical energy left in water to extract.
Hence any and all efforts to run an engine on water are 100% guaranteed to
fail.
We CAN convert water into hydrogen - using electrolysis, for example - but
that takes energy.
In fact it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen from water than you
get from burning hydrogen to make water…typically about three times more!
But the process isn’t complicated - if you take a 9v battery (**NOT** a
lithium battery!!!) and drop it into water (to which you’ve added a little
salt to make it conduct electricity) - then you can actually see the
bubbles of hydrogen coming off of one terminal and oxygen coming off of the
other.
https://youtube.com/shorts/azSdq-SXiYA?si=dydsGK1sjBJh0xpy
https://youtube.com/shorts/azSdq-SXiYA?si=dydsGK1sjBJh0xpy
https://youtube.com/shorts/N0O4I4jBTYw?si=SspXGfWEVYXOp5aW
https://youtube.com/shorts/N0O4I4jBTYw?si=SspXGfWEVYXOp5aW
Since hydrogen is a tad explosive - you might want to do that out in the
open air!
*Hydrogen engines are not a great idea - I’ve written extensively on this
subject - but the bottom line is that hydrogen is a TERRIBLE fuel for
things like cars.*
Q2 Are there examples where evolution went wrong?
A2 Kitty Juniper, Lives in Victoria, Australia Thu
There’s plenty of suggestions here already, but here’s one that’s
particularly bad for humans: We’re placental mammals.
This means when we have a baby, it grows inside our body until it’s big
enough to survive outside, and then it has to be born. This isn’t only a
problem for humans, of course – calves and lambs and kid goats and foals
and many other babies can also get stuck during birth, leading to their own
death and often causing catastrophic injury or death to their mother as
well. But *humans’ upright gait has made the problem a whole lot worse by
pushing us to have a narrower pelvis, and therefore a smaller pelvic
opening*.
Human childbirth is so desperately dangerous that until the advent of
modern medical care, childbirth was the most common natural cause of death
of adult women worldwide. Millions more women who have survived giving
birth still have catastrophic injuries, causing infertility, incontinence,
and chronic severe pain for the rest of their lives.
But do you know which animals never die in childbirth? Marsupials!
In the entire history of mammalia, no marsupial ever has had her baby get
stuck in the birth canal. This is because they give birth to a tiny embryo,
which then crawls along a path through the mother’s fur that she has licked
smooth to guide it, into the pouch on the front of her belly where the
embryo will find a teat and settle in to suckle.
That’s where it does its ‘gestation’ – and when it’s big enough to
discover the world outside the pouch, it can climb out to look around, but
go back to the pouch to sleep, or when the mother wants to travel faster
than what the baby can keep up with. The opening to the pouch isn’t
constrained by bones at all, it’s literally on the front of the belly, so
the only limit on the baby climbing back in to the pouch is when the mother
decides the baby is too big for that.
Different species of marsupial handle weaning differently. Koalas have
thick fur and strong claws, and a bulging pouch makes it hard to climb
around in a tree, so they prefer to carry their older babies clinging to
their back rather than in the pouch. Kangaroos’ claws and fur aren’t suited
to that and they travel very fast, so their babies need to be a lot closer
to adult size before they can be banned from the pouch and expected to keep
up with the mob on their own feet.
If humans had been descended from kangaroos instead of apes, no human would
ever have died or even been injured in childbirth. Also, for all the
anti-abortionists out there, it would actually be possible to adopt someone
else’s pregnancy – just transfer that embryo from one person’s pouch to
another! Carrying a baby would still be work, of course; they’re physically
heavy, they demand a lot of nutrients from the body of the person carrying
them, they’re tiring, and they restrict what activities you can do. The
pouch doesn’t seal, because the baby has to be able to breathe, which means
if the mother is forced to swim very far the baby may drown. But having a
baby in the pouch is only actually life-threatening when the mother is
being chased by a predator such as a pack of dogs, and humans sorted out
our relationship with dogs a long time ago.
Make humans descended from kangaroos. They already use their front paws
like hands, so if they had opposable thumbs as well they’d be unstoppable.
They travel so fast on their own feet we may never have bothered
domesticating the horse. Make them omnivores so they’d have access to more
food options than just grass, and give them intelligence .. a lot of
intelligence, because as they stand they’re as thick as two planks
sideways. That skull is built for aerodynamics, not thinking! But with
enough intelligence to choose to limit their own fertility they wouldn’t
breed up in unsustainable numbers every good season and then need to be
culled en masse at the start of every drought to stop them eating every
last blade of grass in the country and then starving, because it turns out
their only natural predators are humans and dogs, and the occasional
crocodile or shark if they stray into crocodile or shark territory.
Being descended from an omnivorous, intelligent kangaroo, with opposable
thumbs, would just be better for us all. We might never have developed the
fancy brachiating shoulder we have, that enables us to throw things like
spears, but with a kangaroo’s top speed we wouldn’t need it – we could run
down any prey we wanted, and kill them with a hand-held spear instead of
throwing it. We’d probably struggle with stairs, and spend a lot more money
on shoes. But no baby and no mother would ever die in childbirth or suffer
the catastrophic and life-changing injuries that are still unconscionably
common even today. No child would have to grow up without the mother who
died in childbirth with their younger sibling, or live with the knowledge
that their mother died birthing them.
Evolution did us dirty. We should have been descended from kangaroos.
MY NOTE- It is the personal opinion of a scientist. Many need not agree to
it.
Q3 Why does fission create a mass deficit? It seems like two
halves of a broken brick would have the same mass as the whole brick.
A3 Silk Road - The Second Act,Studied Physics23h
You are not just breaking a uranium atom cleanly like a brick when you do
this—You are severing the bonds keeping those nuclear particles together—We
call these bonds binding energy; they have mass of their own. Real
mass—like the weight of a bullet in your hand.
Part of that binding energy releases itself when the atom splits. It
follows Einstein's—E=mc² and transforms from mass to pure energy. Not lost
like a card from a deck is the mass "missing" following fission. It has
become raw energy.
Say you have two strong men arm-wrestling. Their grips show the binding
energy. Suddenly separating them releases that tension—that energy of their
grip.
*That released binding energy in an atom has actual mass; when it turns to
energy, that mass vanishes from your measurements.*
Unlike nuclear fission, your brick example is held together by
electromagnetic forces, which lack sufficient mass to be noticeable.
But nuclear bonds are different animals entirely; they pack enough mass
that you could scale what is lost when they break.
Q4 Gravity is a theory. It’s observed. Evolution is also a
theory, but there hasn’t been a pig turning into a chicken or any real
example of evolution. Why do people still believe in evolution?
A4 Patrick,JD from Northwestern University Dec 21
A pig turning into a chicken would disprove evolution. Evolutionary science
does not posit or predict that.
I’m reminded of the comment ascribed to J.B.S. Haldane when asked what
would disprove evolution to him. He said fossilized bunny rabbits from the
Precambrian.
Evolutionary science does make predictions. For example, it predicts that
populations of animals showing the transition between fish and amphibian
existed around the Late Devonian (circa 375 million years ago). Only a tiny
fraction of organisms fossilize, but if fossils of such animals exist, they
would be in strata from that time period.
Behold Tiktaalik. Scientists went looking in Canada, in far-northern
Nunavut, where strata from that period are exposed. After a few years of
looking, they found what they predicted they could find: three intact
fossilized specimens of Tiktaalik.No magic required.
Q5 If Brahma created Manu the first person, why do we say that
humans evolved from monkeys?
A5 Jeevan, Studied at University of Kerala Dec 21
This apparent contradiction arises from differing frameworks: the
mythological and philosophical narratives of Hinduism versus the scientific
theory of evolution. Each has its own purpose and context.
1. The Hindu Philosophical Perspective:
According to Hindu cosmology, Brahma, the creative aspect of the Absolute
Consciousness, created Manu, the progenitor of humanity. "Manu" is both a
specific being and a symbolic archetype representing the origin and
sustenance of human civilization. The word "Manu" is etymologically linked
to "manas" (mind), signifying humans as beings endowed with reflective
consciousness.
Manu is often seen as a metaphysical symbol rather than a historical or
physical figure. The story emphasizes the idea that human life is rooted in
divine will and endowed with the ability to reason and grow spiritually.
2. The Scientific Perspective:
The theory of evolution, as understood in modern biology, posits that *humans
evolved over millions of years through gradual changes in species, with
modern humans (Homo sapiens) sharing a common ancestor with primates like
monkeys and apes*. This is a purely materialistic explanation based on physical
evidence like fossils and genetic studies.
Reconciling the Two Perspectives:
Symbolism in Creation Myths: Hindu cosmological narratives often use
symbolic and allegorical language. The story of Manu can be interpreted as
addressing the emergence of higher consciousness in human beings rather
than detailing the biological origin of humanity.
Different Layers of Reality: Hindu philosophy acknowledges multiple
levels of truth—Vyavaharika (empirical) and Paramarthika (absolute). The
evolutionary narrative belongs to the empirical domain (dealing with
physical reality), while the story of Manu belongs to the spiritual and
metaphysical domains (exploring consciousness and dharma).
Non-Contradiction: If interpreted non-literally, Hindu philosophy does
not necessarily conflict with the theory of evolution. It can be argued
that the "creation" of Manu represents the divine spark of consciousness
emerging within evolved biological forms.
Bridging the Gap:
In essence, the myth of Manu describes humanity's spiritual essence and
purpose, while evolution explains humanity's biological development. The
two frameworks address distinct aspects of human existence and need not be
viewed as mutually exclusive
Gopalakrishnan 27-12-2024
--
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%2B1O3ecxh7nWGi%2By%3DGSe6pG-_uBTjPNpNH9%2BfPNV62YNGA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/CAEE2L%2B1O3ecxh7nWGi%2By%3DGSe6pG-_uBTjPNpNH9%2BfPNV62YNGA%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/CAL5XZoq7_tAMJoZVuyDtnbYUWEHRdar_Gov-1FBu7kvMMNUzOw%40mail.gmail.com.
