Earth Quake Relief
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» wisp replied on Thu Dec 30, 2004 @ 10:52pm |
 Coolness: 97570 | no, it shouldn't have happened in bangkok. it shouldn't have happened anywhere. and to think a day before this all happened i was reading up on tsunamis. so weird. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» A_Princess replied on Thu Dec 30, 2004 @ 11:23pm |
 Coolness: 62095 | obviously...but if karma was to hit anyone...the bad ppl r there...but ya...it should never happen... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» wisp replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 9:14am |
| Coolness: 97570 | i was reading this morning about an australian woman who had to choose between her 2 year old and her 5 year old because she couldn't hold on to both. she chose the 2 year old. i could never imagine having to make a decision like that.
next time you have to choose which shirt you're going to wear to a party and you can't decide, be glad at it's at least not one of your kids. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 12:47pm |
 Coolness: 121165 | There isn't just human life that counts.
There are unfortunately hundreds of thousands of dead but that would make quite a difference in the world population in let's say 2-3 generations ahead (which would at least quadriple) and take it's toll on resources. And given their state of living before the disaster makes me wonder if it was a blessing or a curse. And I wasn't talking about karma, I'm talking about people who let this all happen and human stubborness. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» A_Princess replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 2:58pm |
| Coolness: 62095 | Actually most people were doing quite fine. The people in Sri Lanka were sustaining themselves as simple merchants and fishermen and many of the other people were supported by the tourism industry, working in hotels as maids, barmen, tour guides, etc. Please justify how millions of uprooted people and orphaned children is a blessing. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 3:31pm |
 Coolness: 103015 | the problem isn't with world overpopulation. Mother Earth can substain 6.5 billion of people. It is the distribution of ressources that's the problem. Think how much it cost to maintain a US nuclear supercarrier per year. That could feed the whole of Afrika. (1 billion U$ moola)
Of course, in 30 years... when we hit 8 billion humans and third world countries are industrialized, things won't be so good. the tragedy is that the world is reactive and not preventive. Human always do something good after something bad happens, and almost rarely never think/invest in helping society for our children/future. The comment about the earth losing daylight time becasue of the tsunami eathquake is absurd. We have less daylight because it's WINTER. Earth naturally change its axial tilt of every 41 000 years from 21.5° to 24.5°. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 4:16pm |
 Coolness: 81940 | Originally posted by VIOLENCE INC....
Apparently the disaster shifted the world off the axis just a tad and actually sped up the rotation of the earth, causing us to lose day time. Is this actually true?... If so our calender would need to be adjusted to balance out the loss of time per day. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Violence_Inc replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 6:10pm |
 Coolness: 174340 | That's what i was told, ill try to get more info.
Death count 150k approx. I am beating 500k + concerning this after an out break of meseals and other deadly contagion…then there is famine… |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» TONES replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 6:44pm |
 Coolness: 50720 | « Based on seismic modelling, some of the smaller islands off the south-west coast of Sumatra may have moved to the south-west by about 20 metres »
Moreover, heres some insight on the daytime loss - from Reuters - «The deadly Asian quake may have permanently accelerated the Earth's rotation, shortening days by a fraction of a second, US scientists have said. Richard Gross, a NASA geophysicist, theorised that a shift of mass toward the Earth’s centre during Sunday’s quake had caused the planet to spin 3 microseconds or one millionth of a second faster and to tilt about an inch on its axis» |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 6:58pm |
 Coolness: 121690 | Originally posted by ! PHOENIX !...
Originally posted by Violence Inc....
Apparently the disaster shifted the world off the axis just a tad and actually sped up the rotation of the earth, causing us to lose day time. Is this actually true?... If so our calender would need to be adjusted to balance out the loss of time per day. i heard the same |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 7:45pm |
| Coolness: 103015 | Alright, i got curious. i went to look some facts.
quotes from [ www.nature.com ] quake sped up Earth's rotation article at [ nature.com ] The change caused by the Indian Ocean quake, at just a few millionths of a second, is too slight to need correcting, says Tom O'Brian, head of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology's Time and Frequency Division in Boulder, Colorado, which runs an atomic clock. "I would be stunned if there was any change in the rotation rate that would necessitate addition or subtraction of a leap second," he told news@nature.com. It is really nothing. This guy said it best " Come on now, is it really good journalism... because some dork theorizes that the quake may have accelerated the Earth's rotation, but the change would be too small to measure? Please. " Think of it. these earthquakes happens often in Earth lifetime. So why do we still have a 24 hour day? The Moon is dragging our asses. ahhh too much geophysic reading. time for alcohol. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» blop replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 8:15pm |
 Coolness: 200780 | Originally posted by VIOLENCE INC....
That's what i was told, ill try to get more info. Death count 150k approx. I am beating 500k + concerning this after an out break of meseals and other deadly contagion…then there is famine… i heard that the axis is off a little bit too, but not enough to be noticed. the calendar won't change. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Fri Dec 31, 2004 @ 8:43pm |
 Coolness: 201475 | yeah the moon is changing the earth's rotation a lot more |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» scandal replied on Sat Jan 1, 2005 @ 12:32am |
 Coolness: 37405 | Originally posted by G-SPY...
nature's doin its thing not that much time left for humanity i guess .. a couple hundreds of years top .. sad but true nature is fucking bright... there is too much people on earth they said... we juss get eliminate naturally... thats how it goes... but... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix replied on Sat Jan 1, 2005 @ 2:02pm |
| Coolness: 81940 | 3 microseconds is a very minimal but not completely insignificant. Every 333,333 years we'll need to add a leap second onto the calender somehow...but obviously none of us will be alive then anyways so it doesnt really affect us directly. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Sat Jan 1, 2005 @ 2:55pm |
 Coolness: 685840 | And all these people that used to think time is linear and unchanging. An earthquake just proved them wrong. It's by an insignificant amount, but time has actually just accelerated. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Nuclear replied on Sat Jan 1, 2005 @ 10:57pm |
 Coolness: 2604235 |  |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Nuclear replied on Sat Jan 1, 2005 @ 10:58pm |
| Coolness: 2604235 | you don't find it wierd that time works so well? like 365 days and 1/4th is a little too perfect... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PoiSoNeD_CaNdY replied on Sun Jan 2, 2005 @ 7:20am |
 Coolness: 91940 | Originally posted by FLEKSTAH...
Nature takes human over-population in her own hands. Lol. The human population, at any given moment, is exactly what the earth has allowed for that moment. So there is no such thing as 'over-population' because if there were insufficient resources AT THE PRESENT to sustance a given population, than that population would not have the resources to survive and thus would not have existed in the first place. Now, its entirely possible that there are insufficient resources for the current population to continue to survive into the future, in which case the population will naturally shrink. Nonetheless, as humans, its natural and expected for one to feel empathy with fellow humans, and to be sad when many die. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix replied on Sun Jan 2, 2005 @ 7:20pm |
| Coolness: 81940 | Originally posted by THOG...
you don't find it wierd that time works so well? like 365 days and 1/4th is a little too perfect... 365.25 days per year isn't perfect at all... it's a completely random number. It seems perfect because we're used to it being the value which reflects the speed that our planet rotates around the sun,... 8766 hours or 525960 minutes or 31557600 seconds wouldn't represent anything if we evolved on any other planet... in fact our perception of what a minute or second represents wouldn't even be the same as they are all relative to the Earth's orbit around itself. Time only exists based on the meaning we provide...Time is a pseudo term which contains pseudo units of measurement to describe history's events... Amounts of time that we perceive as being short or lengthy are only viewed that way based on their relativity to our own existance as individuals, as a species, or when compared to the larger picture (ie: the lifetime of our solar system). One can only justify a statement such as "fifty years is a long time" based on the fact that they may only live to be a hundred years old (if they're lucky) however it would be insignificant when compared to the lifetime of our solar system which is estimated to be over 5 billion years old. Unfortunately our existance revolves around limitations. We do not even have the mental capacity to fathom 'infinity' because we have never (nor can we ever) experience it beyond acknowledging it's theoretical possibility (as defined in the mathematical equation for "the golden spiral"). All we know for sure is that the universe keeps expanding... this alone is not enough to justify space as being endless but the expanding spiral is represented mathematically as follows... 
Above we see Spira Mirabilis (aka: the Equiangular Spiral, the Geometrical Spiral or the Golden Spiral) is defined as a curve that cuts all radii vectors at a constant angle. First discovered by Phythagoras, It was studied by many including Descartes and Torricelli in the early 1600's. It was then renamed the Proportional Spiral after Halley realized that the lenghts of the segments cut off from the fixed radius by successive turns of the curve were continued in proportion. Jacob Bernoulli then renamed it again, calling it the Logarithmic Spiral. 
These spirals are found everywhere in nature... Mollusk shells: Seeds on flowerheads: 
Pinecones: Fingerprints & DNA: Even humanity depends on this spiral to grow... 
Our spines lays the foundation for the shape of the rest of our bodies. Because the spine is designed as a Golden Spiral, it allows the fetus to take up the least amount of space possible in comparison to its size. If this were not so, and the embryo were too big, the mother would have much more trouble staying active which would be unhealthy for both the mother and child. For more information on how spirals affect our universe and define existance read up on the Fibonacci number sequence defined by: F(n)+F(n+1)=F(n+2) and Phi which represents the golden ratio: X/Y=(X+Y)/X The golden Rectangle: I highly recommend The movie PI to anyone who hasn't already seen it. The movie shows some very interesting similarities between number theory, patterns in the stock market, the Kabbalah, Go, and Chaos theory. Anyways...enough about spirals and theretical infinity for now. Einstein's theory (E=MC²) tells us that Time IS relative. A simple example which may bring it more into perspective is as follows: ...A person can only learn while they are conscious. Say you compared 2 individuals born at the same time. The first individual (person A) sleeps exactly 6 hours every night while the other (person B) sleeps 8 hours every night. Consequently this means that person A is conscious, awake and learning 75% of every day while person B is only conscious, awake, and learning for 66.6666...% of his/her time. Consequently, after 60 years person A has had significantly more life experience eventhough they are both the same physical age... if the 'Y' value repesents a persons age from birth and 'Z' represents their "true age" (or conscious time) based on how many hours/days/years they've been awake and conscious then: A) Z= 3Y ---- 4 B) Z= 2Y ---- 3 Consequently person A could justifyably say that he/she has 5 more years of life experience than person B despite the fact that they are both technically 60 years old. This of course only means that people do not mature mentally while asleep however still age physically which is rather unfortunate. Consequently, a person who is younger than another physically may be more matured mentally because they sleep fewer hours allowing them to experience more with their time as opposed to sleeping (which is important but unproductive at the same time). The way I see it, a person who dies at 90 and sleeps one third of their lifetime hasn't experienced anymore or less than a person who lives to be 80 but only sleeps a quarter of their life away. Remember that you cannot "save" time, you can only spend it more efficiently... |
Earth Quake Relief
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
