Big Numbers

Relating big numbers to other big no's out of context is an easy way to get a sense of them.

The biggest source of confusion:

Lets first clarify international standards. This simplifies things tremendously in the minds of many people, especially many over 50 year olds. 

The old UK meaning of a billion was actually one million million, or one followed by twelve noughts (1,000,000,000,000).

The US meaning of a billion is in fact a thousand million, or one followed by nine noughts (1,000,000,000).

Many people hesitate at the possibility the old figure may still apply, or need a bit of clarification about whether the old English billion was 100, 1'000 or 1'000'000 million.

Increasingly most countries are starting to use the more recent USA meaning** of a billion for these big numbers, and the number name "trillion" is being utilised for the old UK meaning of one followed by twelve noughts. 

The UK government has even been using the American meaning of billion since 1974 for the stats it gives out. 

**This is a notable point of departure culturally speaking because the US typically is the worlds most conservative nation regarding all things measurement, they are very comfortable with the imperial units in most measurements while most of the world has has gone metric for standardisation purposes.

Image courtesy Astronomy Trek

Seconds, Minutes, Hours:

Getting a sense of the difference between thousands, millions and billions

One million seconds counted in real time would take: 

11 days, 13 hours 46 minutes and 40 seconds.

One billion seconds in real time is a bit over:

31 and one half years.

Tool: Very Long Number Time Calculator

Stars VS Sand

Lets have a look at quite a common mental device, a question used to gain some perspective on this issue:

Q) Which Is Greater, The Number Of Sand Grains On Earth Or Stars In The Sky?

Turns out the answer is stars, and to be fair that's just based on what we can so far observe. Likewise for fairness, we are comparing only against the top layer of sand.

What about comparing atoms in one of those grains of sand to the number of stars in the observable universe?

As for atoms in a grain of sand, Google says that there are supposedly about 2 x 10^19 atoms in a grain of sand. This means there are less atoms in a grain of sand than stars in the sky, there are supposedly 10^21 stars in the observable universe.

Distance.

Off the top of your head, which would you say is a greater distance:

A) 0.000000001 of a light year.    Or     B) 100 Kilometers.

The answer is actually (A) which equates to just under 10 000 kilometers.

An astronomical unit (AU) is 1xdistance from earth to the sun.

Composition of our bodies:

According to Wikipedia:

Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life. The remaining elements are trace elements, of which more than a dozen are thought on the basis of good evidence to be necessary for life.[1] All of the mass of the trace elements put together (less than 10 grams for a human body) do not add up to the body mass of magnesium, the least common of the 11 non-trace elements.

You may note with some interest how closely the above tracks the abundance of atomic elements in the galaxy.

Hydrogen 

739,000

Helium

240,000

Oxygen

10,400

Carbon

4,600

Neon

1,340

Iron

1,090

Nitrogen

960

Silicon

650

Magnesium

580

Sulfur

440

Potassium

210 

 

I think it is quite a reasonable assessment to say that the atomic elements, matter at its most fundamental for practical purposes of chemistry, are in abundant supply for life. Some say this correlation may even explain why these form the above ratio in organic chemistry.

It gets murkier the further we go!

Find out more about why we are clueless with cosmic distance HERE

The Universe.

That being said, the electric nature of atoms needs a much more profound elaboration since it yields an even more fundamental aspect of this same matter.

Plasma is known as the fourth state of matter (Solids, liquids and gasses being the first three) although in truth it should be known as the first since plasma actually makes up over 99% of matter in the universe. The influence of gravity as a very weak force compared to the electromagnetic force is well established (Electromagnetism - the force we know best - is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That's actually a staggering 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!) and this fact has been well integrated into the plasma physics used by Plasma Cosmology.

Click HERE for the homepage (or use the navigation button for a drop down menu at the top right of the screen.

Audio: Scientific consensus is that consensus is overturned... 100% of the time.

Here is an embedded audio file for listening to this post. I was requested to generate this version for a third party. When I get time I'll link podcasts again but I'll use a speech engine and have it generated automatically when this not possible.

Click on the embedded file above

Due to the contentious nature of this topic I was forced to include over a dozen source links which are critical and reputable. The audio file loses this aspect. It's particularly important on this topic though so all the links, sources and references are on the transcribed version below (click link)

Written Article:
http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/03/scientific-consensus-is-that-consensus.html?m=1

US Economy: Teetering On The Brink. My Shortest Post Ever.

             Case Closed!             

17) Washingtons Iron Curtain in Ukraine

NATO leaders are currently acting out a deliberate charade in Europe, designed to reconstruct an Iron Curtain between Russia and the West.

With astonishing unanimity, NATO leaders feign surprise at events they planned months in advance. Events that they deliberately triggered are being misrepresented as sudden, astonishing, unjustified “Russian aggression”. The United States and the European Union undertook an aggressive provocation in Ukraine that they knew would force Russia to react defensively, one way or another.

Article Here: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/june/07/washington%E2%80%99s-iron-curtain-in-ukraine.aspx





On the Subject of NATO's transparency:

http://rt.com/news/165268-nato-accountability-audit-demanded/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

6) Conspiracy Theories

As I write this the United States is in the process of drumming up support for a Strike on Syria.  The reasoning offered is that the strike is necessary as a result of chemical weapons having been used by the Syrian government against it’s own people.  The difference between the few thousand dying by chemical warfare and the previous 90 000 dying by conventional weaponry isn't immediately apparent; perhaps the distinction will be clarified later. Before getting into this issue specifically or making comparison in the rhetoric used by George W. Bush previously in getting the support required for the invasion of Iraq (using non-existent WMD’s as his main selling point) I would prefer to take step back and look at the bigger picture.

The truth is that almost none of us understand what goes on behind closed doors in affairs governing world politics.  The issues themselves are certainly more complex and inter-related than the reasoning provided in the casual conversations I've been privy to. One thing does strike my as very relevant to the themes being introduced by this blog, that aspect is that many people appear very certain in their world view and align their pride and ego with a particular position.  Once the line is drawn in the sand the views and strong opinions invariably need to be defended and eyes are no longer open and free to process information clearly.  We become politically or ideologically aligned and begin to confuse our issues once we commit to a “side”.

I’m incredibly disappointed by this because I feel that the issues are not dealt with in a satisfying manner and the reporting via the already heavily politically aligned news networks reflects this polarizing stance.  Western political lobbying systems and corporate/political interchangeability have inherently built this element into the system even though no particularly sinister puppet master is required to pull the strings.

On the opposite side of the spectrum we have a collection of thematically interesting maverick perspectives that are either fervently supported or vehemently written off as crack-pot conspiracy theorists.  Many of the people or groups to get it wrong in the sense that they often claim to have all the answers or draw conclusions from incompletely formed or half true essential facts.  What has sent a chill down my spine is the fact that for every idea that turns out to be false, there is one that turns out to be true.  I have been following many of these theories for some years now, and while I am not a follower or supporter of many of these perspectives in the true sense, I have been struck by how much of it is verifiable or predicted in advance.  I lost a frustrating long argument in this vein recently with a well informed friend who predicted the “US Empire builders shopping list” as Afghanistan – Iraq – Syria – Iran – (in that order) in the early 2000’s.  He even went as far to mention political destabilizing movements in Libya, Egypt and Turkey.  It’s hard to completely dismiss the fact that something that resembles an agenda is a possibility.  It’s even more difficult to accept that the news “As Reported” is unfolding for the reasons we led to believe.

I’ll be getting stuck into some of these issues in my next post, but I’ll be following public attitudes closely to see if there is any maturing of public assimilation and processing of these ideas, and whether any balance or even perspective is appreciated over the taking of contrary positions without having all the information available to us.

As far as dismissing people wholesale as “crack-pots” or “conspiracy-nuts”, I do not, because for me some of these people do not have to be 100% on the money, just a kernel of truth is worrying enough.  There are those that have elements of such truths and the evidence is overwhelming yet pitted more often against spin and propaganda that evidence to the contrary.

In the meantime here are some links; each has something to offer, even in those cases where some have been exposed to varying degrees (often by unscrupulous attempts to discredit the sources due to the inherent agendas).  Add the awareness's to your mental arsenal without committing to them.  Use them as consideration points if you must, disagree if need. I do not advocate subscribing wholesale to any of them, but believe me, there is an important message in most of them if you are free to read and process without emotional reaction.  I must confess, have included one or two more extreme perspectives, just for fun:

• http://wikileaks.org/
• http://ronpaulinstitute.org/home.aspx 
• http://occupywallst.org/
• http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
• http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid 
• http://www.thevenusproject.com/
• http://www.johnperkins.org/
• 
  

5) RESPECT

I always thought this word described something that was earned.  A sincere and genuine sentiment inspired in us by another.  I Respect Rafael Nadals ability to hold his own, even on clay, against the rising talent of Novak Djokavic despite the latter’s apparent talent dominance in men’s tennis at the moment. I respect him because he still able to win quite often, even though arguably outgunned.  It shows a certain mental quality that I recognize, admire and possibly even envy.

I’m sure the above is a simple enough statement and an understandable sentiment.  It’s what I feel rightly or wrongly, so I can state it freely.  Nobody should be able to hold your true feelings against you, even though they can perhaps moderate how you express them if there is a danger they may harm others.

What is to be the appropriate reaction then, to a screaming politician like former youth league leader Julius Malema demanding respect but not showing it?  What about a terrorist organization demanding respect for the Prophet Mohammed, and threatening death to those daring to render his image in cartoon or otherwise?  How much respect can be shown to someone’s symbol when they have made clear their reciprocal value on your life?

Can respect be demanded or even requested?  Can it only be earned?  What is the feeling out there?

In terms of our cultural identities and the inherited ritual and ceremony inherent in them, there are two aspects to re-individualizing or freeing ourselves.  The first aspect is severing the ties that currently bind us to a value system.  The second is finding and knowing ourselves, developing the self awareness to get in touch with that part oneself that makes us an individual.

Let’s look at the first aspect, severing the ties.  What holds us back? 

I seriously put forward that respect, unnecessary respect, is corrupting our ability to recognize ineffectual and outdated value systems, and holding us tied to them because respect is seen as an absolute noble quality with context and application largely misunderstood and ignored.  

What happens if we experiment with the context and application to highlight true motives of control and hypocrisy inherent in them?

Let’s look at religion in particular, a huge cultural identifier.

I propose that you cannot possibly respect somebody if you have to pretend to respect their unrealistic beliefs in order to keep the peace.  You can only show respect to them if you feel free in front of them to express to them that you feel their beliefs are out of touch with reality, but that you respect and defend their right to believe what they want, as long it does not infringe on the rights of others, surely?

As an atheist/agnostic whatever your definition requirements are, I seldom receive this “respect” in return for my lack of belief in a supernatural creator from the religious, only requests to respect their particular deity/dogma.  I’m often called cowardly or a “Fence Sitter” (illogically if you think about it). Why respect is typically only expected to work this way around is a mystery, why can’t I be the one getting offended if I am made to say “grace” or whatever, just out of some sort of expected manners protocol?  I say poor manners the other way around rather by expecting me to do it!?

The consequence of embarrassment should be felt by person that believes in magic and want to have it seriously put forward as an option for everyone, not by the reasonable person who relies on evidence and tangible sensory perception?  Why get embarrassed by offending people who are choosing to take offence by restricting your freedom of expression?

They are free to pursue their beliefs, but I respect them too much as a person to respect their supernatural beliefs and I would rather engage in occasional healthy honest debate if they require it, than avoid them a permanent basis because I threaten their particular delusion and I have to pussyfoot around the topic in case I offend.

Nobody has the right to take offense if you speak about how you feel in a way that is not insulting.  I can think religion is absurd and still have religious friends, I can think lime milkshake is revolting and still have friends that drink it.  I do not think they are absurd or revolting.  We need to learn to not confuse our issues, that’s where respect comes into the picture honestly.

Viva la difference, lose the fear and ditch the unnecessary respect, cut the first tie that binds!

This is the first freedom we take for ourselves, nobody will give it to you, and you need to take it!