pink_trike

Thanks, iNow. Do you think it would be safe to assume that at 500 miles due east the clouds of gas and ash would still have been pretty thick?

Before we start attempting to prevent volcanic explosions we might want to give some very serious thought to whether volcanic explosions in some way serve to protect and renew the ecosphere upon which life (all life, not just human life) depends. The processes that take place within Earth are much more than just inconveniences to human beings (who myopically perceive themselves as the center of all existence).

Hello, I have a question I'm hoping someone can help me out with re: a volcanic explosion that took place in Death Valley approx. 800 years ago, carving a half mile wide crater. This explosion has been described as: "would have created an atom-bomb-like mushroom cloud that collapsed on itself in a donut shape, then rushed outward along the ground at some 200 miles an hour, while rocks hailed down. Any creature within two miles or more would be fatally thrown, suffocated, burned and bombarded" My question is: Taking into account west to east wind patterns, what would be an estimate for how far east the cloud of ash and gases might have traveled before dissipating? Thanks, Jeff

Howdy, I've got a few questions about whatever it is within which "the universe" appears... Is there a distinction between the "universe" and "space"? I see the two terms used interchangeably quite a lot. If the universe is the definition of "space"... then what is the formal scientific name of what the universe is expanding "into" or "out of"? Is the term "universe" just a convenience used to describe patterns and processes of energy/movement taking place within space? If this is the case, then is there any reason why there wouldn't be other, even many universes? Simple, please...I realize there really isn't any boundaries to the universe, and that space is inseparable somehow from time, which complicates any answers there might be to my questions...but I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Or just let me know that I'm asking all the wrong questions, if that's the case. thanks.

Is there a dedicated branch of science that researches the physiological and neurological effects that astrophysical patterns and processes may have on living organisms that exist on Earth? Is this type of research considered a subcategory of astrobiology?

In the field of psychology this is known as internalizing the aggressor, and it is a common development for individuals and groups of people that have been victimized...they become that which they fear and hate without being aware of it, and then go to great lengths to rationalize and project their aggression onto "enemies" and perceived threats.

It would be interesting to see what % of that 4.06% results in execution. That might not be so easy to live with.

How did my posting this cnn.com article interfere with "finding the facts"? How is it indicative of a lack of caring about facts? How is contributing this article evidence of a preference for "rumor that fits our opinion". It may not be compatible with the story you tell yourself and vigorously defend, but others may find what this witness had to say interesting.

Evidence? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.eyewitnesses/index.html

CNN.com June 1, 2010: ***** Hanin Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament, was on board the Miva Marmara, the ship that was the scene of a confrontation between activists and Israeli soldiers. That clash left at least nine people dead. The Israeli Navy fired on the ships five minutes before commandos descended from ropes that dangled from helicopters, Zoabi said during a press conference in Nazareth, Israel. She said passengers on board the ship were unarmed. ***** If they did indeed fire before boarding the ship, then their claim that they fired in self defense is a load of rubbish. Firing at ships from helicopters in international water is an illegal provocation.

It seems to me to be a disrespectful gesture toward women. It could be argued that this gesture contributes to and reinforces a general pattern of disrespect toward women that could easily morph into violence against women if it is regarded as socially acceptable. I would think that a civilized society would want to inhibit such a disrespect for precisely this reason.

Television "News" isn't "reporting"...I thought everyone knew that these days. It's a grab for mind-share and revenue, using whatever marketing strategy works.

In the same way that Earth's atmosphere has an "end"...even though the atmosphere is ultimately inseparable from the larger context within which it exists.

Buddhism doesn't "require" anything of anyone (with the exception of ordained monks). It teaches the reality of cause/effect, impermanence, and relativity, and that we are the heirs of our own actions. Even the concepts of "good" and "bad" are ultimately understood as stumbling blocks on the path to being awake and present. Nor does it require forgoing material possessions (unless one is ordained into a monastic life). There are no rules against material possessions for lay people...the teachings simply ask us to see material possessions clearly for what they are and are not. The same goes for our patterns of thought and our behavior...it asks us to examine carefully the true nature and skillfulness or non-skillfulness (the cause and effect) of our thoughts and actions. There are no strict dogmas, because it is understood that the state of being awake includes the absence of concretized beliefs. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not all practitioners of Buddhism regard it as a religion. For some it is a philosophy, for some a psychology or science of mind, for some it is just a way of life. While the institution has taken on a heavy religious flavor since Westerners discovered Buddhism and projected a western concept of "religion" onto it, many teachers of Buddhism use skillful means in determining how to present the essence of the teachings which are easily transmitted through the conceptual structure of however it is regarded...for example: to those who see it as a science of mind, they will teach it as a science of mind. It's the principles that are important, not the package. If they need to use religion to deliver the principles, they will - but "religion" itself is just another concept to be let go of.

Perceptually, we've moved from clans to villages to states/nations to an understanding of continents, the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, multiple galaxies, and the universe. I think the next perceptual step with be multiversal awareness - dissolving what I believe is an inaccurate perception that "space" and "the universe" mean the same thing. I know this is a "science only" room, so I'll only mention without elaborating that the idea of multiple universes exploding in the vastness of infinite space certainly isn't a new one...it is found in several very complex ancient cosmologies. I think it's likely that in a couple of decades we'll look back at our single universe perceptions as quaint and archaic. And we'll understand that the only "finite" related to space takes the form of mental constructs that block our perception of "infinite", just as "global' and "universal" perception is still difficult for many people to grow into.

Christian mythology has forgotten the original context for these three ideas, a context that dates back into the earliest Egyptian dynasties who likely inherited them from a much older civilization. They are different aspects of the Sun. This context was forgotten during the intellectual darkness of the middle ages.

http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/

Where do you think we are?

It's over my head, but I recall reading an article on Science Daily within the last 2 -3 months that reported similar conclusions.

Oh, the poor dear! My heart goes out to people like this. I hope he finds release from his torment, and experiences peace and balance at some point.

What I saw made me reconsider my skepticism and to consider other possibilities. I can't prove it and I don't need to. I know what I saw, I did years of research, and nothing explains it. This wasn't a weird light, an optical illusion, or a military jet. If you had been there, you'd understand me when I say that the sharp angles and the speed with which it covered vast distances simply isn't possible for anything that humans have built. I wasn't a spring chicken when I saw it, and I'm as skeptical as they come...to the point of annoyance for family and friends. There was nothing vague about what we saw...a clear cloudless night sky and sharply clear movements of red and white tightly focused lights that formed a triangle. No mind altering substances. No beliefs in paranormal or ufos that would have colored our vision.

They'll save 12 million a year by ending DODT.

I have no idea. And as much as I still find it unsettling, several decades ago I observed something that was clearly not a natural event or human made. What I observed in the night sky far out over the Pacific ocean with two remarkably intelligent people not given to whims of imagination, was able to cover great distances at speeds that cannot be duplicated by anything that humans have created, and it was able to execute sharp angles and abrupt stops at these high speeds that would be impossible for a human made craft. Before this observation I had assumed that all UFOs could be identified as something human made or a natural occurrence, and I dismissed ideas of alien visitation as, er...wacko. Since that night, I've been forced to consider other possibilities. It became a bit of an obsession for a number of years, but nothing in all of my research even vaguely explains what we saw.

One possible explanation might be that "our" universe is just one among many that exist in a multiversal space within which unique universes are created and dissipated according to causes that are intrinsic to the patterns and processes of that space.

Isn't it interesting that this question of whether homosexuality is a mental illness continues to surface? Imo, there is something seriously unbalanced in a culture where aggression and violence among hetero men is glorified, even institutionalized (the average child by the time they are 18 has witnessed over 250,000 graphically portrayed murders via electronic media) and that has become a cultural norm with staggeringly bloody statistics - but a large group of homo men who live together in high achieving cooperative communities with virtually no violence is persistently, decade after decade (in some cultures), declared to be mentally ill and by extension "unnatural" by a not small group of hetero (usually) men. The primary justification of this diagnosis/judgement is nearly always based on a seemingly irrational belief that gay men don't do what "nature" supposedly intends them to do...reproduce. I'm genuinely curious...what logic path is used by those who support this belief? How does one arrive at the idea that heterosexual reproduction should be understood as a defining factor of optimal mental health, and by extension, understood as the only mentally healthy "natural" sex drive? It seems evident to me that there are multiple drives associated with the sexual impulse that are equally natural and beneficial to society. (I know that religion plays a large part in devaluing all drives but reproduction, but religion doesn't pretend to be logical so I'm not interested - I'm only interested in how some people attempt to use logic to justify this curious belief). As an example: sexual relationships among men have the marked effect of minimizing aggression and violence, and of promoting cooperation and stability...surely this is vitally important to the human species for it's survival...perhaps even _equally_as important as reproduction. Also,when contrasting homosexual community to heterosexual community, it becomes quickly evident that heterosexuality can't be realistically separated from aggression and violence (although it goes without saying that not all hetero men are violent). In systems theory there is the recognition that all systems have an innate governing mechanism...when a system moves toward a "runaway" status, as all systems tend toward, the governor kicks in to regulate the system toward homeostasis. It seems "natural" to me that in an organism that has a tendency toward runaway aggression, violence, and procreation, all of which are tied to institutionalized heterosexuality and the hetero impulse, that there would be a naturally occurring mechanism for the neutralization of these tendencies in the interest of balance and survival. Homosexuality fulfills this function very nicely...one wonders why it isn't encouraged as an antidote to the runaway system of institutionalized and enforced heterosexuality that destabilizes/threatens society and the ecosystem upon which the species depends on for continued existence. It isn't hard to understand why so many premodern stable cultures developed ways of integrating homosexual people productively into society, and in some cases even institutionalized it. So, how do we account for this pathologization and demonization of homosexuality that persists in some cultures in the face of decades and mountains of research that show that gay people are just as psychologically well-adjusted as hets (and somewhat more well adjusted in some categories, such as the ability to easily incorporate and accept differences)? Is a belief that heterosexuality is a defining factor of optimal mental health, and that homosexuality should be eliminated, irrational? Can this belief become pathological? Can the rejection of homosexuality be considered a mental illness if it is understood that such a belief is inconsistent with reality and detrimental to the species? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Your son is very lucky to have a father who possesses such clarity.