Bigger Questions...... (BQ)
- Thread starter DSM
- Start date
One needs to go through angioplasty when one's arteries or veins get blocked so that they can be widened but there are lesser know but much effective methods to remove the blockage altogether. There is unani method in which we mix one cup juice of ginger, garlic, lemon and apple cidar vinegar, heat it till it reduces to 3 cups, let it cool then add 3 cups honey to it. This has to be taken each morning empty stomach for about a month and one can take angiography after that to test the effects.
Its a proven method which has appeared in media number of times. No operation is needed and cost is nothing. Compare this to angioplasty where a single stent costs about 1 lakh minimum(overall cost is well above 3-4 lakhs) and the pain the family and the patient has to go through. But will the doctors inform you about simple yet highly effective treatments like these ? or this will this get so much publicity in media ? absolutely NO ... who will make money this way ?
Yes there are great ppl working in medical field today but most doctors treat their patients as bakras to halal today( and why should it be a surprize ? arent they a part of society only where most important thing is to make money...honesty, values have taken a backseat). I would say second opinion is a must in all major cases and keep your eyes and ears open.
Its a proven method which has appeared in media number of times. No operation is needed and cost is nothing. Compare this to angioplasty where a single stent costs about 1 lakh minimum(overall cost is well above 3-4 lakhs) and the pain the family and the patient has to go through. But will the doctors inform you about simple yet highly effective treatments like these ? or this will this get so much publicity in media ? absolutely NO ... who will make money this way ?
Yes there are great ppl working in medical field today but most doctors treat their patients as bakras to halal today( and why should it be a surprize ? arent they a part of society only where most important thing is to make money...honesty, values have taken a backseat). I would say second opinion is a must in all major cases and keep your eyes and ears open.
Remember the olden days when water was stored in copper pots? Also, copper glasses were quite in use in many homes.... These days ofcourse, all this has been replaced by water purifiers made of plastic and other synthetic material. Any guess why it is so? Because plastic is cheaper, (but may not necessarily be healthier) The below link is quite an eyeopener - The benefits of using copper utensils supported by scientific research.
Antimicrobial properties of copper
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216120436.htm
Metallic copper surfaces kill microbes on contact, decimating their populations, according to a paper in the February 2011 issue of the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology. They do so literally in minutes, by causing massive membrane damage after about a minute's exposure, says the study's corresponding author, Gregor Grass of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. This is the first study to demonstrate this mechanism of bacteriocide.
"When microbes were exposed to copper surfaces, we observed contact killing to take place at the rate of tens to hundreds of millions of bacterial cells within minutes," says Grass. "This means that usually no live microorganisms can be recovered from copper surfaces after exposure."
Thus, such surfaces could provide a critical passive defense against pathogens in hospitals, where hospital-acquired infections are becoming increasingly common and costly, killing 50,000-100,000 Americans annually, and costing more than $8 billion, according to one estimate. Still, Grass cautions that "metallic copper surfaces will never be able to replace other hygiene-improving methods already in effect," although they "will certainly decrease the costs associated with hospital-acquired infections and curb human disease as well as save lives." However, he expects this strategy to be inexpensive, because "the effect does not wear off."
Critically, the researchers provide strong evidence that genotoxicity through mutations and DNA lesions is not a cause of dry copper's antimicrobial properties. This is important, because mutations can cause cancer in animals and humans, and the lack of such mutations in bacteria from copper means that copper does not endanger humans.
The relevant experiment was particularly interesting. The bacterium, Deinococcus radiodurans, is unusually resistant to radiation damage, as its DNA repair mechanisms are especially robust. The hypothesis: if metallic copper kills by causing DNA damage, D. radiodurans should be immune to copper. It is not.
It is important to note that only dry copper surfaces are amazingly lethal to bacteria. The difference between dry and wet surfaces, such as copper pipes, is that only dry surfaces are inhospitable environments for bacterial growth. Bacteria can easily grow and reproduce in wet environments, and in so doing, they can develop resistance to copper. Resistance has not been observed to develop on dry copper surfaces.
Antimicrobial properties of copper
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216120436.htm
Metallic copper surfaces kill microbes on contact, decimating their populations, according to a paper in the February 2011 issue of the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology. They do so literally in minutes, by causing massive membrane damage after about a minute's exposure, says the study's corresponding author, Gregor Grass of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. This is the first study to demonstrate this mechanism of bacteriocide.
"When microbes were exposed to copper surfaces, we observed contact killing to take place at the rate of tens to hundreds of millions of bacterial cells within minutes," says Grass. "This means that usually no live microorganisms can be recovered from copper surfaces after exposure."
Thus, such surfaces could provide a critical passive defense against pathogens in hospitals, where hospital-acquired infections are becoming increasingly common and costly, killing 50,000-100,000 Americans annually, and costing more than $8 billion, according to one estimate. Still, Grass cautions that "metallic copper surfaces will never be able to replace other hygiene-improving methods already in effect," although they "will certainly decrease the costs associated with hospital-acquired infections and curb human disease as well as save lives." However, he expects this strategy to be inexpensive, because "the effect does not wear off."
Critically, the researchers provide strong evidence that genotoxicity through mutations and DNA lesions is not a cause of dry copper's antimicrobial properties. This is important, because mutations can cause cancer in animals and humans, and the lack of such mutations in bacteria from copper means that copper does not endanger humans.
The relevant experiment was particularly interesting. The bacterium, Deinococcus radiodurans, is unusually resistant to radiation damage, as its DNA repair mechanisms are especially robust. The hypothesis: if metallic copper kills by causing DNA damage, D. radiodurans should be immune to copper. It is not.
It is important to note that only dry copper surfaces are amazingly lethal to bacteria. The difference between dry and wet surfaces, such as copper pipes, is that only dry surfaces are inhospitable environments for bacterial growth. Bacteria can easily grow and reproduce in wet environments, and in so doing, they can develop resistance to copper. Resistance has not been observed to develop on dry copper surfaces.
Man is a social animal (needing interaction with other human beings) and always asking questions, wondering what is beyond, wanting to know more. One question that is haunting the human race since the time our human civilization has been founded is to know if there is life beyond our planet earth. And a bigger question still, if there is, what will it be? Will this life / race, civilization be more intelligent, powerful and stronger than us, and if so, should we try to contact them - if at all?
Here the author says that trying to broadcasting our existence and contacting other civilizations would be akin to shouting in the jungle.... not knowing who is there, and the consequences thereof.... an interesting article.
Should We Keep a Low Profile in Space? - By SETH SHOSTAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/opinion/sunday/messaging-the-stars.html
For more than a half-century, a small group of astronomers has sought intelligent company among the stars. They’ve done so by turning large radio antennas skyward, hoping to eavesdrop on signals from an advanced society. It’s a program known as SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
But now some researchers propose that we should do more than simply don headphones and await E.T.’s call: We should make serious efforts to encourage a response from putative aliens by deliberately transmitting our own messages. It’s a simple idea, akin to tossing a bottle into the cosmic ocean. But recent arguments for what’s termed active SETI have loosed a storm of controversy, one that has even washed into the halls of academe.
Why is this? Why has the sending of dispatches to worlds many trillions of miles distant suddenly become a hot-button issue? The simple answer is that there’s now a perception that advertising our existence could be a mortal threat to the planet.
The reasoning is this: While no one has yet offered decisive proof for life beyond Earth, in the past two years astronomers have learned that tens of billions of habitable planets suffuse our galaxy. Consequently, to believe that only Earth has spawned intelligence is to insist that our world is the site of a miracle. That point of view rarely appeals to scientists.
The aliens could very well be out there. And that realization has spurred a call by some for broadcasts intended to elicit a communication from at least the nearest other star systems. But we know nothing of the aliens’ possible motives or behavior. Therefore, it’s conceivable that betraying our existence might prompt aggressive action from space.
Broadcasting is likened to “shouting in the jungle” — not a good idea when you don’t know what’s out there. The British physicist Stephen Hawking alluded to this danger by noting that on Earth, when less advanced societies drew the attention of those more advanced, the consequences for the former were seldom agreeable.
It’s a worry we never used to have. Victorian-era scientists toyed with plans to use lanterns and burning pools of oil to contact postulated Martians. In the 1970s, NASA bolted greeting cards onto spacecraft that will leave our solar system and wander the vast reaches between the stars. The Pioneer and Voyager probes carry plaques and records with information about what humans look like and where Earth is, as well as a small sampling of our culture.
Those messages move at the speed of rockets. But in 1974, a three-minute encoded pictogram was transmitted using the large radio antenna at Arecibo, Puerto Rico. It moves at the speed of light, 20,000 times faster. More recent radio transmissions include a Beatles song beamed by NASA to the North Star, a Doritos advertisement launched to a planetary system in the Big Dipper, and a series of broadcasts sent to nearby stars using an antenna in Crimea.
When most people believed that aliens were no more than easy black hats for Hollywood, the idiosyncratic nature of these messages could be easily dismissed. But if cosmic company is a legitimate possibility, shouldn’t we offer up something more edifying than pop music and snack food? A deliberate transmission should represent all of humanity — not short-circuit the important question of who will speak for Earth.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Consequently, recent conferences on the merits of active SETI have sought the advice of social scientists. Among their worries is whether to be up front about humanity’s seamy side: Should we tell the extraterrestrials about war and injustice?
Personally, I think this concern is overwrought. Any society that can pick up our radio messages will be at a level of development at least centuries beyond our own. They would be no more incensed by our bad behavior than historians who learned that Babylonians attacked one another with spears. It seems naïve to imagine that, by shielding aliens from the less flattering aspects of humanity, we would somehow lessen any incentive to do us harm. If there’s a danger, mincing words is unlikely to eliminate it.
A better approach is to note that the nearest intelligent extraterrestrials are likely to be at least dozens of light-years away. Even assuming that active SETI provokes a reply, it won’t be breezy conversation. Simple back-and-forth exchanges would take decades. This suggests that we should abandon the “greeting card” format of previous signaling schemes, and offer the aliens Big Data.
For example, we could transmit the contents of the Internet. Such a large corpus — with its text, pictures, videos and sounds — would allow clever extraterrestrials to decipher much about our society, and even formulate questions that could be answered with the material in hand. Sending the web on its way would take months if a radio transmitter were used. A powerful laser, conveying bits much like an optical fiber, could launch these data in a few days.
Sending messages — even big ones — is technically feasible. However, there’s still the highly controversial matter of whether to broadcast at all. Who decides? One could simply let the public weigh in, but doing so wouldn’t address the security issue. Even if a majority is comfortable with a transmission, how does that mitigate the possible danger?
The inability to gauge this peril prompts some critics to argue that, given the possibly existential threat posed by active SETI, we should choose the side of caution. We should simply forbid powerful transmissions to the skies. Indeed, a small consortium of academics in California has drafted a petition urging this.
It’s a wary approach. It’s also poor insurance. Any extraterrestrials with technology advanced enough to threaten us will surely have antennas larger than our own, instruments that can pick up the television and radio signals broadcast willy-nilly since World War II. We are already shouting into the jungle, albeit with less volume than a deliberate signal. But the dangerous creatures may have good hearing.
Additionally, if we forbid high-powered transmitters aimed at the sky, we shut out such obvious future technologies as better radars for aviation and tracking dangerous asteroids. Do we really want to hamstring our descendants this way?
A decision to engage in active SETI has not been made. The benefit — learning our place in the cosmos — is only hypothetical, and so is the danger. But I, for one, would hesitate to let a paranoia based on nothing more than conjecture shackle the activities of our children and our children’s children. The universe beckons, and we can do better than to declare that future generations should endlessly tremble at the sight of the stars.
Here the author says that trying to broadcasting our existence and contacting other civilizations would be akin to shouting in the jungle.... not knowing who is there, and the consequences thereof.... an interesting article.
Should We Keep a Low Profile in Space? - By SETH SHOSTAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/opinion/sunday/messaging-the-stars.html
For more than a half-century, a small group of astronomers has sought intelligent company among the stars. They’ve done so by turning large radio antennas skyward, hoping to eavesdrop on signals from an advanced society. It’s a program known as SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
But now some researchers propose that we should do more than simply don headphones and await E.T.’s call: We should make serious efforts to encourage a response from putative aliens by deliberately transmitting our own messages. It’s a simple idea, akin to tossing a bottle into the cosmic ocean. But recent arguments for what’s termed active SETI have loosed a storm of controversy, one that has even washed into the halls of academe.
Why is this? Why has the sending of dispatches to worlds many trillions of miles distant suddenly become a hot-button issue? The simple answer is that there’s now a perception that advertising our existence could be a mortal threat to the planet.
The reasoning is this: While no one has yet offered decisive proof for life beyond Earth, in the past two years astronomers have learned that tens of billions of habitable planets suffuse our galaxy. Consequently, to believe that only Earth has spawned intelligence is to insist that our world is the site of a miracle. That point of view rarely appeals to scientists.
The aliens could very well be out there. And that realization has spurred a call by some for broadcasts intended to elicit a communication from at least the nearest other star systems. But we know nothing of the aliens’ possible motives or behavior. Therefore, it’s conceivable that betraying our existence might prompt aggressive action from space.
Broadcasting is likened to “shouting in the jungle” — not a good idea when you don’t know what’s out there. The British physicist Stephen Hawking alluded to this danger by noting that on Earth, when less advanced societies drew the attention of those more advanced, the consequences for the former were seldom agreeable.
It’s a worry we never used to have. Victorian-era scientists toyed with plans to use lanterns and burning pools of oil to contact postulated Martians. In the 1970s, NASA bolted greeting cards onto spacecraft that will leave our solar system and wander the vast reaches between the stars. The Pioneer and Voyager probes carry plaques and records with information about what humans look like and where Earth is, as well as a small sampling of our culture.
Those messages move at the speed of rockets. But in 1974, a three-minute encoded pictogram was transmitted using the large radio antenna at Arecibo, Puerto Rico. It moves at the speed of light, 20,000 times faster. More recent radio transmissions include a Beatles song beamed by NASA to the North Star, a Doritos advertisement launched to a planetary system in the Big Dipper, and a series of broadcasts sent to nearby stars using an antenna in Crimea.
When most people believed that aliens were no more than easy black hats for Hollywood, the idiosyncratic nature of these messages could be easily dismissed. But if cosmic company is a legitimate possibility, shouldn’t we offer up something more edifying than pop music and snack food? A deliberate transmission should represent all of humanity — not short-circuit the important question of who will speak for Earth.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Consequently, recent conferences on the merits of active SETI have sought the advice of social scientists. Among their worries is whether to be up front about humanity’s seamy side: Should we tell the extraterrestrials about war and injustice?
Personally, I think this concern is overwrought. Any society that can pick up our radio messages will be at a level of development at least centuries beyond our own. They would be no more incensed by our bad behavior than historians who learned that Babylonians attacked one another with spears. It seems naïve to imagine that, by shielding aliens from the less flattering aspects of humanity, we would somehow lessen any incentive to do us harm. If there’s a danger, mincing words is unlikely to eliminate it.
A better approach is to note that the nearest intelligent extraterrestrials are likely to be at least dozens of light-years away. Even assuming that active SETI provokes a reply, it won’t be breezy conversation. Simple back-and-forth exchanges would take decades. This suggests that we should abandon the “greeting card” format of previous signaling schemes, and offer the aliens Big Data.
For example, we could transmit the contents of the Internet. Such a large corpus — with its text, pictures, videos and sounds — would allow clever extraterrestrials to decipher much about our society, and even formulate questions that could be answered with the material in hand. Sending the web on its way would take months if a radio transmitter were used. A powerful laser, conveying bits much like an optical fiber, could launch these data in a few days.
Sending messages — even big ones — is technically feasible. However, there’s still the highly controversial matter of whether to broadcast at all. Who decides? One could simply let the public weigh in, but doing so wouldn’t address the security issue. Even if a majority is comfortable with a transmission, how does that mitigate the possible danger?
The inability to gauge this peril prompts some critics to argue that, given the possibly existential threat posed by active SETI, we should choose the side of caution. We should simply forbid powerful transmissions to the skies. Indeed, a small consortium of academics in California has drafted a petition urging this.
It’s a wary approach. It’s also poor insurance. Any extraterrestrials with technology advanced enough to threaten us will surely have antennas larger than our own, instruments that can pick up the television and radio signals broadcast willy-nilly since World War II. We are already shouting into the jungle, albeit with less volume than a deliberate signal. But the dangerous creatures may have good hearing.
Additionally, if we forbid high-powered transmitters aimed at the sky, we shut out such obvious future technologies as better radars for aviation and tracking dangerous asteroids. Do we really want to hamstring our descendants this way?
A decision to engage in active SETI has not been made. The benefit — learning our place in the cosmos — is only hypothetical, and so is the danger. But I, for one, would hesitate to let a paranoia based on nothing more than conjecture shackle the activities of our children and our children’s children. The universe beckons, and we can do better than to declare that future generations should endlessly tremble at the sight of the stars.
Interesting you bring this up.... because few days ago, I posted a video in a new thread named "Priceless Info".... which explains Cancer and chemotherapy (its accurate but it is in layman's language)
I have been also wanting to experiment on one another plant whose leaves are potent enough and consuming the leaves in regular dosages is supposedly able to cure the cancer.
Intelligent life (way more intelligent and way more advanced) exists everywhere on every planet including Sun, the fiery hot burning star.
The western scientific intelligence has been sitting on a classical oxymoron for decades now. We, as humans, admit to a possibility that more intelligent lifeforms could be existing elsewhere, somewhere. However, at the same time, we also expect that we'd be able to detect a superior life-form using our technology (admittedly inferior).
Go figure .... :clap::clap: ... Oddly enough this classical oxymoron keeps hollywood and bollywood formula movie makers happy and hence we have movies after movies of aliens. Also, this very Oxymoron keeps scientist community well-fed and well taken care of and explains all of the communication attempts made so far.
According to Vedic philosophy, Humans and every living species on earth that we know about is made out of five matters (the panch-mahabhoot) that exist on this planet in relative abundance (Air, Water, Earth, Fire, and Ether). The Soul, the imperishable, as long as it is inside the body, keeps the body operating and when the soul departs, the earth matter has to be recycled back. Some life-forms can live for 100s of earth-years. Some life-forms perish in matter of earth-minutes ...
Because our body was made of earth, we are able to survive without any extra devices in most parts of the planet and where we do need extra tools, we are able to create whatever we may need using the very same earth-matter. Those who have to travel to the moon or outer space, need protective gears that recreates (re-simulates) the earth environment in small confines for him. In short, a living body (an astronaut) may escape out of the earth's gravitational pull but in order for him to stay alive, he has to hide within earth's environment and he can never escape out of earth's environment no matter where he goes.
A soul that took birth is able to take back nothing (absolutely nothing) from this earth matter (the mother earth) at the time of the demise of the body in which the soul was situated. The soul however can, and, does carry lessons learnt (in life), intelligence acquired, experiences learnt, wealth earned and fragments of memory that may be recalled and relied upon in his next life ...
Now, coming back to life on the Sun, Vedic philosophy emphatically states that life exists on Sun and name of the current King on the Sun is Vivaswan... Just like a material body on this planet is made of earth matters, body for those who reside on Sun is made up of Sun matter. Such bodies can naturally adapt to the heat there even though nothing we know is capable of going even close ... Body of those who live on Mars will be made up of Mars matter and so on and on....
Last edited:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | Some Octafx questions | Forex | 0 | |
| S | Few questions for Traders and Investors | General Chit Chat | 0 | |
| S | The longer the base the bigger the BO. Why? | Technical Analysis | 13 | |
|
is VIX TRADING a BIGGER CHEAT | Options | 8 | |
| A | The Stocks That Are Bigger Moneymakers | General Trading & Investing Chat | 0 |
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
The Stocks That Are Bigger Moneymakers
- Started by adiefendal
- Replies: 0