Have an account?

Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Sun (Part 1 of 6)

Source: www.youtube.com
The Sun (2007)











Part 4:



How would be life on earth without sun?

In short DARK! Along with light comes heat. So very cold as well. Most of the activity and life on earth are due to the energy from the Sun. Without light, photosynthesis will not take place.

Most plants cannot grow. Every other living thing would be without food. Almost nothing would survive if light were removed.
No Sun would mean not heat or any other radiated energy sufficient to creat the movement of air and water as we know it.

The Earth would be frozen and likely not to have an atmosphere.
Without the Sun, the Earth would have not gravitational pull to a central star... so would be in a totally different motion and relationship to the rest of the universe.
Life on Earth without the sun would not exist.

Our Sun has inspired mythology in almost all cultures, including ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Native Americans, and Chinese. Our Sun is actually the closest star to Earth. The Sun is a massive shining sphere of hot gas. The connection and interaction between the Sun and the Earth drive the seasons, currents in the ocean, weather, and climate. Discover more about the sun and its place in our solar system.1. The sun is by far the largest object in the solar system.

The sun is the center of our solar system. Without the sun, there would be no life on Earth because it would be cold and dark. The sun was formed by gas almost 5 billion years ago. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? This question was unanswered until Sir Isaac Newton discovered that the sun’s strong gravity pulled the planets to revolve around it.


Why we need the sun
The sun is not just a star that provides Earth with heat and light. The sun also gives us many other things we need to live. Energy is one example. The sun is the main source of energy on earth and energy produces a lot of things that we use today. Our electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels; coal, oil, and natural gas. These all come from sunlight. Our electricity comes from fossil fuels, which come from the sun because creatures that lived a long time ago needed the sun to live and when they died they were buried. Over the millions of years that passed the creatures turned into fossil fuels, which are the coal, oil, and natural gas, we use today. Even windmills and hydropower plants get their energy from the sun. Windmills move because the sun causes winds to blow. First, the sun’s rays in the form of radiation hit the surface of Earth. The warm ground heats the air above. Warm air at the equator moves north and south to the cooler regions at the poles, creating winds.

Hydropower plants generate energy because the sun causes rivers to flow. The sun causes rivers to flow because the sun creates warm air that gets trapped into some parts of the earth’s atmosphere. Then the warm air heats up the water in the river. Then the part of the river that is not warm hits the warm water and since warm water rises because it is less dense than cold water that creates a circulation that creates winds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avwu3V-MDHo&playnext_from=TL&videos=RbjluHBhjPs&feature=grec
"

The African Origins Of Christianity - Part 1 - Anthony Browder

Source: www.youtube.com
A fantastic lecture by Anthony Browder. www.AfricanHistoryNetwork.com
Anthony Browder
Over the years,I've come to understand the power of deception' and how it manifest itself in many ways, and how difficult it is for people who have been deceived over time, to accept new interpretations, particularly if they conflict with what people to believe to be true. so this is the dilemma that i'm face with,particularly when i discuss this issue with my people' see because What i found over the years you can talk to our folks about history .you can talk about the pyramids, you can talk about science, you can talk about philosophy,you can talk about engineering,you can talk about medicine.

you can talk about all of these great things,philosophical things,but when it comes to talking about religion, folks don't want to hear it'

and they don't want to hear it because they are afraid of hearing something that is going to challenge what they believe in.

and so the challenge for me is,and has been for the last ten years or so,is how do you, enlighten the follows of the minister,who makes his living presenting falsehoods as sacred truths'particularly when neither the parishioners, or the the pastor, realizes that the falsehood was derived from a falsehood,which was derived from a falsehood,which was derived from a falsehood,which was derived from a falsehood that was a deliberate distortion of spiritual truth'.

The issue is that the challenge is,just because a truthful person speaks a falsehood,truthfully ' and with conviction ,doesn't make that falsehood any less false' you can be convince to believe anything! that doesn't mean that its true' and so when i make statements like that,I always get that 'look' and people ask you,you know,or ask me specifically if i believe in God' and my responds is, no!

I don't believe in God! because a belief is something that you accept without prove. as a person,consciousness, living in the world,you need to know,and not believe! alright. So personally,I don't believe in God,I know that a creator exist! I know that this creator has been called by many names' by many people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz2zTG0zsP0
"

Cosmos: "Kepler's Persecution"

Source: www.youtube.com
Clip from Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Episode 3 on Kepler and his Somnium. http://www.kipesquire.com
Somnium (Kepler)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSomnium (Latin for The Dream) is a fantasy written between 1620 and 1630, in Latin, by Johannes Kepler.

In the narrative, a student of Tycho Brahe is transported to the Moon by occult forces. It presents a detailed imaginative description of how the earth might look when viewed from the moon, and is considered the first serious scientific treatise on lunar astronomy.

Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov have referred to it as the first work of science fiction.[1]Somnium began as a student dissertation in which Kepler defended the Copernican doctrine of the motion of the Earth, suggesting that an observer on the Moon would find the planet's movements as clearly visible as the Moon's activity is to the Earth's inhabitants.

Nearly 20 years later, Kepler added the dream framework, and after another decade, he drafted a series of explanatory notes reflecting upon his turbulent career and the stages of his intellectual development. The book was edited by his heirs, including Jacob Bartsch, after Kepler's death in 1630. It was published posthumously in 1634 by his son, Ludwig Kepler.[2]The story is the tale of Duracotus, who was the son of an Icelandic witch named Fiolxhilda.

During his youth she banished Duracotus to Denmark for five years. Upon his return, she decided to share some of her secrets with him. She explained that her instructor had been a demon who dwelt on the Moon. During a Solar Eclipse, the lunar demons were able to travel between the Earth and the Moon via a bridge of darkness.

The son decided he wanted to make this journey, and so he was transported to the Moon by demons.[3]To ease his journey he was given a drowsing draught and moist sponges to hold under his nose. He was carried to the point of neutral gravity between the Earth and Moon, then allowed to drift down to the lunar surface.

Thus the author understood some of the effects of gravity and the need for environmental protection above the atmosphere.[3]Fresh Aire V by the Mannheim Steamroller is a concept album based on the work.

In my dream, I could read the 'Book of Worlds', a vast encyclopedia of a billion planets within the Milky Way. What could the galactic computer tell me about this now darkened world? They must have survived some earlier catastrophe. Their biology was different from ours. High technology. I wondered what those lights had been for; there must have been signs they were in trouble. The possibility of survival in a century -- less than one percent, not very good odds. Communications interrupted. Their world society had failed; they had made the ultimate mistake. I felt a longing to return to earth.

The television transmissions from earth rushed past me, expanding away from our planet at the speed of light. Then suddenly -- silence, total and absolute. But the dream was not yet done.
Had we destroyed our home? What had we done to the earth? There had been many ways for life to perish at our hands; we had poisoned the air and water; we had ravaged the land. Perhaps we had changed the climate. Could it have been a plague or nuclear war? I remembered the galactic computer. What would it say about the earth?
There was our region of the galaxy; there was our world. I had found the entry for earth: HUMANITY: THIRD FROM THE SUN. They had heard our television broadcasts and thought them an application for cosmic citizenship. Our technology had been growing enormously (they got that right).

Two hundred nation states, about six global powers, the potential to become one planet. Probability of survival over a century -- here, also, less than one percent. So, it was nuclear war, a full nuclear exchange.
There would be no more big questions, no more answers. Never again a love or a child; no descendents to remember us and be proud; no more voyages to the stars, no more songs from the earth.


I saw east Africa and thought, 'a few million years ago we humans took our first steps there. Our brains grew and changed. The old parts began to be guided by the new parts, and this made us human -- with compassion and foresight and reason. But, instead, we listened to that reptilian voice within us, counseling fear, territoriality and aggression.

We accepted the products of science; we rejected its methods'.


Maybe the reptiles will evolve intelligence once more. Perhaps, one day, there will be civilizations again on earth. There will be life, there will be intelligence; but there will be no more humans -- not here, not in a billion worlds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CE4owAfDow&NR=1
"

Sankofa Part 3

Source: www.youtube.com
While visiting an old fortress from the slave-trade era in Ghana, Mona (Oyafunmike Ogunlano) encounters a colorful local character, an elderly mystic going by the name of Sankofa. Mona is a black American model visiting the country for a photo-session. ...
Dr Clarke’s Words on HISTORY

“History is a clock that people use to tell there political and cultural time of day. It is also a compass that people use to find themselves on the map of human geography. History tells a people where they have been and what they have been, where they are and what they are. Most important, history tells a people where they still must go, what they still must be. The relationship of history to the people is the same as the relationship of a mother to her child.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM3KgixXYG8&feature=related
"

Christianity: A History | Cape Coast | Channel 4

Source: www.youtube.com
This slave fortress in Ghana was also used by missionaries... | Sundays 7pm, Channel 4 | Watch Christianity: A History FREE on Catch-Up http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless-catchup.jsp?vodBrand=christianity-a-history ...
African-Americans have not yet learned that no other people have continued worshipping another's God, especially their slave master's god or gods and freed themselves from cultural and physical genocide. Why should Africans and African-Americans be the only exception to this historic reality.
Dr. Yosef A.A. Ben-Jockannan

Osho on Imitation - Imitation will make you very stupid, unintelligent


Question - Can not people learn by Imitating others?
Osho - THAT'S HOW PEOPLE LEARN, but that s how people remain stupid. too. The only way practiced hitherto is that of imitating others. That makes you knowledgeable but it does not make you intelligent. It makes you more informed but it does not release your wisdom. It will make you efficient as far as outer world is concerned -- you will become a better mechanic, a better technician -- but as far as the inner dimension is concerned you will become more and more stupid if you imitate.

There are things which are learned by imitation: for example, language you have to learn by imitation, otherwise you won't know any language. Science has to be learned through others. But the inner world is totally different; it follows a totally different law. There imitation is a barrier not a bridge, a wall not a bridge. There you have to learn on your own. But people go on doing the same kind of imitation in the inner world too, so they start imitating Buddha, they start imitating Jesus, they start imitating Mahavira, and they end up by being only carbon copies. They become more and more stupid. They cannot find their original face.

You can sit like a Buddha, you can close your eyes like a Buddha, you can use the same posture, you can sit under the same kind of tree, you can eat the same kind of food in the same quantity, you can sleep the way Buddha used to sleep, get up at the time Buddha used to get up -- you can do everything in the minutest detail exactly like a Buddha, but it will be all acting; it won't make you an awakened one.

Commit as many mistakes as possible. Commit new mistakes every day -- be inventive, be creative about mistakes. Just remember one thing: don't create the same mistake again; that is not intelligent. But if you commit the mistake for the first time it is beautiful, it is great, because that will help you to grow; that will help you to find out who you are. Just following somebody, even if you reach heaven it will not be worth reaching. You will reach like a child; you will not be able to enjoy, and you will remain foolish even there, and you will go on doing your foolish things even in heaven. It is better to fall into hell but remain unique, remain yourself; then even hell can be transformed into a heaven.

Imitation will make you very stupid, unintelligent. It is the way of the mediocre. Beware of it. In the inner world -- and that is the world I am concerned with and that is the world you are here for -- imitation won't help not at all. You have to drop imitating completely, totally entirely, because each individual is unique, so unique that if he imitates anybody else he will miss his uniqueness, and in that uniqueness is his spirit, is his very being. In his uniqueness is hidden his god.

Cannot you observe that Jesus happened only once? And for two thousand years, how many people have tried to imitate him? Millions. And how many have become Jesus Christ? Not a single one. The same is true about Zarathustra, about Lao Tzu, about Buddha, about Mahavira, about Krishna. Not even a single person has been able to repeat, and it is not that people have not tried; people have tried in every possible way. Millions of people have tried to be like Buddha -- who would not like to be like a Buddha? -- but they have all failed, utterly failed. Is it not a great lesson to be learned? Just open your eyes and see that God never creates two persons exactly similar; he does not repeat. He is really a creator.

God is not repetitive; he is always original. Rejoice in the fact, Ramakrishna, that he has created you an original being. You are not supposed to be anybody else but yourself It is disrespectful towards God, it is ungrateful towards God -- even the effort, even the desire to be somebody else. Feel thankful and grateful that he has never created anybody like you and he will never create anybody like you. Don't miss this opportunity by imitating.

And why people imitate? -- because they don't trust their own intelligence. They are afraid that if they move on their own they may commit some mistake, so it is better to follow somebody who knows. That is the greatest mistake in life, to follow somebody who knows, because then you will never mature. One grows by committing many mistakes.

Ramakrishna, be a little more intelligent. In the outer world, imitate, or whatsoever you want to, do. But in the inner remain original, remain authentically your own selfI would like to see each of my sannyasin a unique peak, incomparable to anybody else. That's why I don't give you any discipline: I want you to discover it. I will help you to become more conscious, but I will not tell you what to do; that has to come out of your own consciousness. I will not give you ten commandments, I will not make rules and regulations for you. You all hanker for rules and regulations because that is easy: I tell you, 'Do this, don't do that,' you need not use your own intelligence. It is perfectly good: you trust me and you go on doing whatsoever I say, but that will be only control, repression; it will not be freedom, it will not be consciousness.

And in the world of freedom the first step is the last step too. You have to begin from the first step. If the first step is taken in slavery, the last step will also be part of it. The first step has to be taken in tremendous freedom. If you are here you are here on your own accord. If you are sannyasins it is your surrender, it is your own decision, it is your own commitment. I don't make any conditions on you and I don't want you to make any conditions on me from your side.

We can share. I can share whatsoever I have, but it is not an imposition on you. You are not to follow it, you have only to understand it. And if out of your understanding something starts happening in you, then you are the source of that happening, I am not the source of that happening. You need not even be grateful to me.
Source - Osho Book 'Tao : The Golden Gate, Vol2'
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Osho/oshodiscourses/osho_on_imitation.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggg-WnVQ8Cc&feature=channel
"

Christianity: A History | Slave to the Religion | Channel 4

Source: www.youtube.com
Kwame Kwei-Armah sets out to discover the historical roots of his own beliefs... | Sundays 7pm, Channel 4 | Watch Christianity: A History FREE on Catch-Up http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless-catchup.jsp?vodBrand=christianity-a-history ...
Dr Clarke’s Words on HISTORY

“History is a clock that people use to tell there political and cultural time of day. It is also a compass that people use to find themselves on the map of human geography. History tells a people where they have been and what they have been, where they are and what they are. Most important, history tells a people where they still must go, what they still must be. The relationship of history to the people is the same as the relationship of a mother to her child.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-KS8Vckqnw&feature=channel
"

Carl Sagan on Epicycles, Ptolemy, and Kepler

Source: www.youtube.com
Carl Sagan on Epicycles, Ptolemy, and Kepler
Pathological Science - #2
The Copernican myths

The real story of how the scientific and religious establishments greeted the Copernican revolution is quite different from the folklore. And it's a lot more interesting.


Nicolaus Copernicus(1473–1543) Perhaps the most famous of all scientific revolutions is the one associated with Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543). The popular version of the story goes as follows:


The ancient Greeks, although they were great philosophers and good at mapping the motions of stars and planets, tended to create models of the universe that were more influenced by philosophical, aesthetic, and religious considerations than by observation and experiment.

The idea that Earth was the stationary center of the universe, and that the stars and planets were embedded in spheres that rotated around Earth, appealed to them because the circle and the sphere were the most perfect geometric shapes.

In the Christian era, the model also pleased religious people because it gave pride of place to human beings—God's special creation. The prestige of Greek philosophers like Aristotle was so great, and commitment to religious doctrine so strong, that many scholars stubbornly tried to retain Ptolemaic astronomy even though increasingly complicated epicycles had to be added to make the system work even moderately well.


So when Copernicus came along with the correct heliocentric system, his ideas were fiercely opposed by the Roman Catholic Church because they displaced Earth from the center, and that was seen as both a demotion for human beings and contrary to the teachings of Aristotle. Therefore the Inquisition persecuted, tortured, and even killed those who advocated Copernican ideas.

Johannes Kepler(1571–1630) Because of the church's adherence to philosophical and religious dogma, scientific progress was held back for a millennium. It was the later work of Tycho Brahe (1546–1601), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), and Isaac Newton (1642–1727) that finally led to the acceptance of heliocentrism.

Variations on this breezy version of the Copernicus story are common in science textbooks.1 How much of the story is true? Apart from the final sentence, not much. But it's a good illustration of how scientific folklore can replace actual history.

Galileo Galilei(1564–1642) Let us start with the myth that the Copernican model was opposed because it was a blow to human pride, dethroning Earth from its privileged position as the center of the universe. Dennis Danielson, in his fine article on the subject,2 shows how widespread that view is by quoting the eminent geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky. With Copernicus, Dobzhansky contends, 'Earth was dethroned from its presumed centrality and preeminence.' Carl Sagan described Copernicanism as the first of a series of 'Great Demotions . . . delivered to human pride.' Astronomer Martin Rees has written, 'It is over 400 years since Copernicus dethroned the Earth from the privileged position that Ptolemy's cosmology accorded it.' And Sigmund Freud remarked that Copernicus provoked outrage by his slight against humankind's 'naive self-love.'

The squalid basementDanielson, however, points out that in the early 16th century, the center of the universe was not considered a desirable place to be. 'In most medieval interpretations of Aristotelian and Ptolemaic cosmology, Earth's position at the center of the universe was taken as evidence not of its importance but . . . its grossness.'

In fact, ancient and medieval Arabic, Jewish, and Christian scholars believed that the center was the worst part of the universe, a kind of squalid basement where all the muck collected. One medieval writer described Earth's location as 'the excrementary and filthy parts of the lower world.' We humans, another asserted, are 'lodged here in the dirt and filth of the world, nailed and rivetted to the worst and deadest part of the universe, in the lowest story of the house, and most remote from the heavenly arch.' In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a prominent persecutor of Galileo, said that 'the Earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world.'2

n Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy, hell itself is placed in Earth's innermost core. Dante also speaks of hell in ways consistent with Aristotelian dynamics—not full of flames, which would be displaced skyward by the heavier Earth, but as frozen and immobile.

By contrast, heaven was up, and the further up you went, away from the center, the better it was. So Copernicus, by putting the Sun at the center and Earth in orbit around it, was really giving its inhabitants a promotion by taking them closer to the heavens.

When and why did the history become distorted? Danielson doesn't pinpoint when the erroneous view gained supremacy, But he says that from 1650 onward one can find some writers making this revisionist claim. By the late 18th century it had taken hold completely. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832), for example, wrote: 'Perhaps no discovery or opinion ever produced a greater effect on the human spirit than did the teaching of Copernicus. No sooner was the Earth recognized as being round and self-contained, than it was obliged to relinquish the colossal privilege of being the center of the world.' Here Goethe managed to propagate another major distortion: the notion that before Copernicus (and Columbus) it was not known that Earth was a sphere.3,4

Aristotle's cosmologyEven Aristotle did not believe Earth to be the center of the universe. He thought it rather to be at the center. This fine distinction was not driven by religious dogma or human self-importance but by physics arguments: In Aristotle's cosmology the universe was finite and the heavens existed beyond its outermost sphere. The universe had a center—defined as the center of the large outer sphere in which the stars were embedded—and matter was drawn to that center. In that cosmology, 'up' and 'down' were well defined. 'Down' was toward the center of the universe and 'up' was away from it, toward the sphere containing the stars.


The elements were earth, air, water, and fire, and each element had its natural affinity for a location in the universe. As could be seen from the fact that rocks fell to the ground, earth, being heavy, was drawn to the center. Flames leaping upwards showed that fire, being light, was drawn towards the heavens. The model explained many things, such as why objects fell to the ground when released from any point and why Earth's surface was spherical. It also explained why Earth was motionless at the center. For it to move, there would have to be something that took it away from the center. And no such agent was in evidence.
http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/PatholSci2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faqjmAoXpM4&playnext_from=TL&videos=-QnG3Yzgui0&feature=grec
"

Black and Missing but Not Forgotten