How do Planets And Stars Originate

How do Planets And Stars Originate?

Summary: Creation of planets and stars is generally held to be the result of some catastrophe. However, this is not correct. It has to be in accordance with natural laws and one such law is Titus – Bode Law. Every planet and star being a discrete entity can have a characteristic chemical composition.

Western philosophers and scientists have one thing in common. Both are unanimous in their belief that nature and universe advanced through catastrophes, cataclysms, chaos, upheavals, accidents, random events etc. only because they have no scientific explanation to offer. Even in human society ‘Revolution’ is an attractive slogan as a means to advancement of human society.

Theory of Catastrophism was advanced by Cuvier in 1812 to reconcile geology with Moses account of creation in Genesis in Bible. Cuvier was a great comparative anatomist of 19^th century. He appreciated complexities of the process of creation in general and origin of species in particular. To explain origins and creations, he preferred to attribute it to direct intervention of creative powers i.e. Supernatural God.

Darwin likewise attributed biological evolution to accumulation of random variations without ever bothering to explain as to how random variations can account for large number of coordinated variations which accompany origin of species. He out-rightly ignored the collateral issues of identity and integrity of species and varieties that permit only a limited change in any species and variety as a result of variations.

In twentieth century, Physicists attributed origin of universe to Big Bang without ever explaining nature and source of dense matter, only because straight line extrapolation of one particular line of thinking leads to Big Bang. All the irreconcilable differences with collateral evidence and issues were out rightly ignored. No proponent of Big Bang theory has ever bothered to explain as to how the assumed chaos that presumably preceded Big Bang could ever spontaneously (without external intervention) lead to order which is than determined and guided by laws of Physics.       

Theories abound where nature’s creativity is sought to be explained on the basis of Entropy that accompanies each and every irreversible physical and chemical change. In all these theories Entropy was assumed to be directing and driving creations and origins. The question of ‘How’ was out-rightly ignored. These theories never explained as to how Entropy which is nothing but dissipation or decay of thermal energy into universal heat sink, could ever account for creation even if in general. These theorists built elaborate theories but never bothered themselves to explain specificity of creations and origins.

Pre-biotic soup, which must have preceded origin of life and should have led to origin of life in a kaleidoscopic manner through a series of random events, has till date found no evidence in support of its existence. Even theories which postulate extra-terrestrial origin of life and its subsequent plantation on earth, besides being irrational are struggling for evidence in their support.  

 It is pertinent to ask oneself many questions while dealing with the issue of natural origins and creations.

How can chaos ever lead to order without external intervention?

What about self-organizing, self-sustaining character and nature of universe.

What about constancy of natural laws in a universe advancing through catastrophes, cataclysms, chaos, upheavals, accidents, random events etc.?

Why shouldn’t natural laws also keep changing in such a universe?

What about scientific predictions of the past and future in a universe devoid of constant natural laws.

Therefore all acts of natural origin and creation have to be explained with due regard to constancy of natural laws, collateral facts and issues.

Nature can’t advance through cataclysms and catastrophes.

Evolution has to be involution rather than revolution i.e. a change from within rather than a change from without.

Generally speaking all planets and stars and other celestial bodies revolve in stable elliptical orbits. Circular orbits could have been easily explained on the basis of balancing of gravitational force and centrifugal force. But this is not true for elliptical orbits. Stable elliptical orbits involve precise inter-conversion of kinetic energy of the planet into potential energy. Control and regulation of this phenomenon is beyond comprehension on the basis of known laws of Physics.

Therefore, to explain formation of any planet, star and any other celestial body on the basis of some catastrophic, cataclysmic event is clearly farfetched. Concomitant to the said catastrophic, cataclysmic event shall be the issue of their placement in stable elliptical orbits and sustaining them in those elliptical orbits as is the case with artificial satellites. How shall that be managed?    

Planets, stars and other celestial bodies can form only in strict compliance with applicable natural laws and at the same time satisfying all the conditions mandatory to their existence. Therefore their formation as a result of some cataclysm or catastrophe is highly improbable.

Hence in my view planets, stars and other celestial bodies form as a result of condensation of solid dust and gas clouds at specific loci in space. At its specific locus, a celestial body is naturally self-sustaining but how is a matter of further investigation. What natural laws and other factors determine such spatial loci capable of serving as home to celestial bodies is again a matter of further investigation. But one such law already known is Titus - Bode Law.

Under these conditions every celestial body is a discrete entity and may have unique laws of behavior, natural history and chemical composition. Chemical composition of one celestial body may not necessarily be relatable to chemical composition of another. The process of their formation has to be essentially non-catastrophic and non-cataclysmic. However some time in future it may be possible to classify celestial bodies into various types based on similarities of their chemical composition.

Professor Ian Campbell & Hugh O Neil of Australian National University on 29.03.2012 reported to Eagle.com that earth does not have the same chemical composition as Sun implying that earth did not originate from sun.

Junjun Zhang and Colleagues at Origins Lab at University of Chicago reported on 27.03.2012 that chemical composition of moon can’t be explained on the basis of Giant Impact Theory. Visit: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/03/new-evidence-nixes-giant-impact-theory-of-moons-origin.html

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. This article is inspired by author’s understanding of nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Visit: Clipboard

Judiciary and the Chaos

Judiciary and the Chaos

Summary: Judiciary is the custodian of law, system and justice in any society. Effective resolution of conflicts is essential in a healthy society. Failure of judiciary to meet its obligations in any society is bound to lead to chaos.  Judiciary should devise ways and means to achieve its ends effectively and efficiently.

Instances of judicial misconduct are reported by media off and on but they are very mild in character and do not qualify even as tip of the iceberg. Media can afford to be harsh on all other professions but certainly not on judiciary. It is difficult to say, whether it is out of respect or fear of judiciary. So, in any society, judiciary rules unopposed and unchallenged. Only higher judiciary is empowered to question authority and wisdom of a judge lower down in hierarchy. That too, only when the subject matter is placed before a higher judicial forum. But this may often be beyond the means of the learned and the most informed of the litigants. No doubt that this is a systemic constraint but it means that if a judge does not actively and aggressively delivers justice; he is likely to end up as R. Goldschmidt’s hopeful monster acting autonomously according to his own whims and fancies. He can easily override all criterion of reasonableness applicable to him. He can easily defeat all the safety mechanisms built into legal procedure as well as law, facts and legal procedure.

A chaos is a state of lawlessness and is inevitable in any society if its members loose respect and fear of law. Every individual is then at liberty to behave autonomously in the name of individual freedom/independence/self-interest.

If a system of governance is considered to be a stream, than Legislature and Judiciary constitute two banks of the stream, so that contained between its banks stream flows smoothly.

Between the two banks lie people and executives. In any society, politicians are primarily important not so much for their legislative function, as for their executive function. Legislature can be held responsible for laying down questionable laws. But to guard sanctity of established laws and to secure their implementation is solely the function of judiciary. Since in any conflict of interest judiciary is the final arbiter and therefore character of judiciary shall determine character of people in towns and villages. Hence in the event of general lawlessness or chaos in a society, it is essentially judiciary’s failure to discharge its function for whatever reasons.

It is only when judiciary fails to discharge its function and uphold sanctity of law that people and executive get an inspiration and opportunity to act arbitrarily. People’s experience with judiciary in the course of litigation often acts as determinant of their character. Failure to uphold sanctity of law means failure of system of governance and failure of justice which would mean truncated evolution of the society as a whole. Jungle Raj or Rule of the forest is inevitable under such circumstances.  In a society with failed judiciary the only law that prevails over every other law is “Might is the right”. In a chaos, existence is a matter of perpetual struggle.

Judiciary perpetuates chaos actively as well as passively. Some of its ways and means are as under:-

1.     Judiciary stubbornly refuses to evolve to discharge timely and affordable justice in a people friendly manner. Judges listen to litigants only when it is unavoidable and apply their mind only when unavoidable and that is generally at the time of final order. This means that even for the simplest of matters, one has to face a protracted trial lasting several years even when the dispute may be resolvable at the stage of framing of charges or issues, on the basis of material on record and may be a little persuasion of litigants.  The only excuse given is that this is a court.

2.     Judges generally do not critically examine their judgments on the touchstone of reasonableness and comprehensiveness. Therefore, either the personal opinion of the judge succeeds or the better advocate succeeds. This is more likely to happen when a judge is empowered to exercise his discretion under the law or arguments advanced from both sides are incapable of being literally and mathematically-logically precise with reference to established law and established facts. Such a situation may also be the result of ignorance. Under these circumstances, Judges instead of applying the test that for a judgment to be correct, it has to be correct from every possible point of view prefer to be guided by their personal point of view under the color of their authority even if it is unverified and basically absurd. Moreover it is a misconception that a neutral mind shall deliver the right judgment. There is no entity such as a neutral mind. What is really needed is an informed and enlightened mind.

3.     Judiciary routinely fails to discharge its supervisory role in administration of criminal law machinery under the pretext of not interfering with investigations, effectively giving rise to rule of police instead of rule of law. Once an accused, all the human rights of the accused are in a state of suspended animation until proven innocent after a protracted trial. All the deficiencies in police investigation are just ignored.

4.     In the name of reducing litigation, judiciary routinely promotes compromises contrary to law. Law requires that compromises must be legal and valid. This gives the strong every opportunity to prevail over the will of the weak and the sufferer.

5.     Selective enforcement of law on one or the other pretext.

6.     Judges often assume robes of an advocate in defending their judgments presumably delivered as speaking orders.

7.     Justice can’t be expected to be awarded, it has to be extracted. It requires an advocate of skill and standing to secure justice for oneself. A litigant, howsoever well informed about facts and law of his case is miserably dependent on his advocate, for advocate is the only one who knows how to extract justice for his clients.

8.     Judicial orders during trial are often passed as a matter of routine rather than after due consideration of merits of the case and the applicable law. At times even objectivity and rationality is not kept and subjective justifications are advanced in lieu of speaking orders.

9.     Illegal and contradictory orders are passed in breach of merits of the case and law, advancing such interpretation of law and justification to which no sane person in the street would agree.

10.                        Quite often judges have a propensity to decide those issues which they are otherwise incompetent to decide such as a judge in USA decided about merits of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution which 150 years of scientific debate have not been able to decide.

11.                        Often imaginary considerations and unfounded apprehensions guide their judgment. In one case before the apex court I was verbally asked to forget about the law and previous judgments of the apex court.

In any society, judiciary is the ultimate authority in conflict resolution in accordance with law and in this capacity judiciary is the custodian of law, system and justice. In the event of its failure in discharging its designated function, chaos is inevitable.

To do justice to its designated function, judiciary should aim at conflict resolution in accordance with law in a timely and affordable manner. Judiciary should not refrain from listening to common man and should attempt to deliver effective justice at the earliest in accordance with law. An understanding of law should expedite and not delay decision making.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. The book contains two chapters devoted to law and justice respectively.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com          

   http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

What is the rational basis of mental illnesses

What is the rational basis of mental illnesses?

Summary: Mental illnesses often mean breakdown of mental equilibrium caused by inadequately compensated mental stresses which can originate from any source and not only sexual deprivation. This may lead to a vicious cycle which can be often broken by various therapeutic interventions.

In the article “What is the origin of Wants and Desires?” it has been pointed out that many of our motivations or wants and desires are beyond biological needs and can only be explained on the basis of universal instinct to exist, evolve and diversify. Visit: http://www.sciencengod.com/what-is-the-origin-of-wants-and-desires.html

But even that is not enough. Besides being a part of a universal scheme, we all exist as individuals or discrete entities having unitary organization, in a state of dynamic equilibrium aimed at keeping our identity and integrity and meeting our goals and objectives. Besides this, a desire for self-expression and self-realization lurks deep inside every individual inspired by the individuality. All the above, collectively, constitutes individuality or personality of the individual and is the rational basis of inter-individual differences.

Universal instincts coupled with personality or individuality collectively approximate what Sigmund Freud has referred to as ‘Id’. But to be effective, this ‘Id’ has to be duly supported by appropriate structure and function i.e. brain and mind. Mind is defined as the function of brain. But brain and mind have their origin in genome and all the necessary cellular and biochemical machinery that genome creates through regulated gene expression. Therefore, all our behavior, sentiments and intellect have a material basis as detailed above and any malfunctioning of any of the components directly or indirectly involved in keeping the mental equilibrium can precipitate mental illnesses. Neurophysiologists are progressively discovering material/biochemical correlations of mental functioning.

Since, in order to satisfy the universal instinct to exist, everything has to exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium having internal as well as external harmony so that all the inherent conflicts and contradictions (Dialectical materialism) are in a state of effective resolution. This need for harmony inspires ethics, morals, laws (even manmade), a sense of justice, a sense of fair and unfair or a sense of right and wrong. Even need for an order and system is at least in part determined by this universal Law of Harmony. Much of the religion is inspired by the need to keep harmony with in individuals as well as with in human society. This is what has corresponds to Super-ego of Sigmund Freud.

To keep harmony and to meet individual satisfaction a large number of conditions with inherent contradictions and conflicts have to be satisfied all the time. Inherent contradictions and conflicts often demand intellectual resolution which may require at times resetting the fulcrum or state of dynamic equilibrium. This may be done consciously in humans but in all others it is done subconsciously. This is what corresponds to ‘Ego’ of Sigmund Freud.

Sigmund Freud for the first time recognized role of subconscious in determination of human behavior and causation of mental illnesses and even devised Psychoanalysis as the technique to unearth subconscious phenomena. But Sigmund Freud failed to appreciate true significance and scope of subconscious in nature and universe. Further he failed to appreciate that even in the domain of Psychology, most of the needs are satisfied subconsciously only. Nature and universe until the evolution of self-awareness or voluntary consciousness in humans have managed all their affairs subconsciously only. Voluntary Consciousness or self-awareness is only a minute fraction of whole of consciousness that permeates this universe. No doubt that voluntary consciousness is the highest level in the natural hierarchy of consciousness. It not only makes consciousness aware of itself but also allows action at a distance to its bearers.

Universal instincts assisted by consciousness actively and aggressively work to attain their ends and this motivational drive has been variously described by others including Sigmund Freud as libido or energy presumably because this is what gets the things done. However it is a misconception to call it as energy, since it is not the same as energy as understood in Physics. What we may call as libido directs utilization of energy for various ends but is not energy in itself.

So, our motivations, dreams, fantasies, idiosyncrasies, personal preferences, whims and fancies, actions are principally determined, directed and managed by subconscious. We have only a minimal control on our own actions. Prudence and pragmatism is a state of mind and its resultant action where our actions are grounded in comprehensive reality whether internal or external. A prudent and pragmatic mind is amenable to reason. Therefore in a prudent and pragmatic state of mind, role of unrealistic elements in driving our action is adequately regulated leading to a state of harmonious existence and optimum utilization of our resources. But a sick mind may refuse to see reason.

An individual has to cope with conflicts and contradictions all the time since conflicts and contradictions are inbuilt in nature. Inherent conflicts and contradictions often demand intellectual resolution either subconsciously or at the level of self-awareness. Therefore for any individual, existence is the result of a dynamic equilibrium. Nothing exists in a state of static equilibrium. This dynamic equilibrium demands perpetual management to keep existence, to maintain peace and tranquility and to keep body, mind and soul harmony.

Different individuals show differing sensitivity, predisposition and resilience to different disequilibrating factors (mental stresses). Individual’s sensitivity to a particular factor may vary from being hypersensitive to insensitive. This sensitivity can be altered by mental training. Sensitivity and response to various disturbing factors is conditioned not only by universal instincts but also by innate personality, cumulative experiences and other material factors influencing behavioral, emotional and intellectual responses.

A particular behavior may be normal in one set of circumstances but not so in another set of circumstances. Therefore, various behavioral responses require context dependent interpretation. Hence, at times line of distinction between mentally healthy and mentally ill is exceedingly thin and its identification is dependent upon subjective experience of the observer.

Normally, in accordance with universal instinct to exist (Sigmund Freud described this as instinct to life) mind tries to keep its dynamic equilibrium or Zero state but if the mental stress far exceeds the ability of mind to cope, a mental breakdown occurs and mental illness is precipitated. Same mental stress can precipitate different mental illnesses in different individuals. Once mental breakdown occurs, it may lead to a vicious cycle leading to progressive deterioration of mental state. In a sick mental state, mind may refuse to see reason.

In coping with mental stress two options are generally available.

 In repression the conflict is buried deep inside the psyche without any effective resolution. It acts as a time bomb waiting to explode. Sigmund Freud identified underlying repression as the reason behind most of mental illnesses involving sudden outburst of repressed emotions. He particularly emphasized significance of repressed sexuality as the cause of most of mental illnesses. However this is not completely correct. All types of deprivations and repressed emotions can precipitate mental illnesses.

The other option involves resetting or shifting or modifying the fulcrum or the state of dynamic equilibrium so that the individual is able to keep his dynamic equilibrium despite existence of mental stresses in the environment. This can be further improved by mental training. Often a proper understanding of mental stresses helps and this is precisely the reason for effectiveness of Freud’s Psychoanalysis.

Armed with improved understanding of mental stresses, mind in line with universal instinct to exist tries to restore its dynamic equilibrium. Therefore with in any individual, there will always be compensated mental stresses that shape personality of the individual. But uncompensated mental stresses in a state of repression can precipitate mental illnesses any time.

Sigmund Freud has been wrong in laying undue emphasis upon sex as the principal cause of repression. Any unsatisfied, uncompensated demand can be a cause of repression. Hence reasons for mental illnesses may be as wide and varied as human wants and desires.

Summing up, mental illnesses may be viewed as the result of failure of normal compensating mechanisms concerned with maintenance of mind’s state of dynamic equilibrium leading to a vicious cycle which can often be broken by various therapeutic interventions.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book that deals with subject matter of origin of nature and universe beginning from null (Zero or nothing).  This article is inspired by author’s understanding of `nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

        http://www.sciencengod.com/what-is-the-origin-of-wants-and-desires.html
http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Threats Due to Genetically Modified Organisms – A Realistic Assessment

Threats Due to Genetically Modified Organisms – A Realistic Assessment

Summary: There has been much debate about unknown bad effects of genetically modified organisms that might lead to uncontrollable and irreparable damage to environment and ecosystems. Genetically modified organisms are incapable of natural propagation. Therefore, all the fears about them are unfounded. Hence we should not unnecessarily restrict ourselves in their usage.

There has been much debate about safety of genetically modified crops but trading of charges and countercharges for and against genetically modified crops continues unabated even after three decades (since 1986) of intense debate.

Potential threats due to genetically modified crops – products of genetic engineering which generally involves introduction of distantly related genes into a genome, can be broadly classified into short term risks and long term risks.

Short term risks are generally identified early and are easily amenable to experimental verification. Therefore they are also often reported in literature. Hence short term risks are easily manageable before, during and after re easily amenable to human regulation and control can’t be the reason petual debate. All that needs to be done is to manage short term risks as and when encountered. Appropriate control measures can be easily applied at the level of seed production.

As far as long term risks are concerned, the principal threat is the threat of uncontrollable, irreparable threat to ecosystems and environment. Presently this is essentially a theoretical risk, since no such instance has actually been reported attributable to genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified crops have been most extensively used in USA during the past two decades and no untoward long term adverse effects have been noticed.  In fact 90% of food in USA is derived from genetically modified crops.

The principal reason for this is that for all biological species and varieties identity and integrity are big issues. All biological species and varieties tend to keep their identity and integrity in the midst of naturally occurring massive gene flow with in any ecosystem. In fact it can be safely assumed that all the species and varieties in any ecosystem are exposed to all the genes present in the ecosystem, all the time. It is only by virtue of this natural ability to keep identity and integrity, various species and varieties are able to do so.

Therefore, technically speaking, a foreign gene may be relatively easy to introduce within an organism belonging to a particular species or variety, as is being routinely done in the course of genetic engineering, but it is indeed very difficult to sustain and propagate over prolonged periods of time. Later or sooner the foreign gene shall be identified and weeded out with or without the use of terminator technology. This understanding has led the author from a historical definition of heredity to a rational definition of heredity which views heredity as a dynamic phenomenon. The new definition of heredity is as under:-

            “Heredity is defined as the ability of the genome to reproduce parental phenotype with high but not complete degree of fidelity”

Use of the phrase “the ability of the genome” says it all.

In the entire debate about genetically modified organisms we are concerned with ill effects of naturally sustainable genetically modified organisms which normally involves introduction of remotely related or rather unrelated genes into a genome. But what we overlook is the fact even naturally sustainable hybrids occur only as exception to the rule. In hybrids compatibility or identity and integrity issues are much less severe because hybridization always occurs among closely related species and varieties.

Fitzpatrick says that besides the salamander hybrids, he only knows of one other sustainable animal hybrid and three sustainable plant hybrids. Salamander hybrids are naturally sustainable hybrids between California Tiger Salamander and Barred Tiger Salamander. Visit:- http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/salamander_species_interbreeding_hybrids.htm

Keeping in view rarity of naturally occurring sustainable hybrids despite enormous opportunity, incidence of naturally sustainable genetically modified organisms can only be the rarest of rare events and can’t be regarded as a threat for all practical purposes. As a matter of fact introduction of new species and varieties from one geographical region into another poses much greater ecological and environmental threat and has happened many times in the past. In fact all epidemics and uncontrollable weeds such as congress grass in India can be attributed to such events.

Hence, there can’t be any non-verifiable potential risk due to genetically modified organisms that might catch us unguarded. Therefore, let us not fight the Phantom. Summing up, genetically modified organisms are reasonably safe for all environmental and ecological purposes and let us not be carried away by our phobias.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book that deals with subject matter of origin of nature and universe beginning from null (Zero or nothing).  This article is inspired by author’s understanding of nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm
http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

What is the origin of wants and desires?

What is the origin of wants and desires?

Summary: We all have wants and desires beyond our material needs. But what is the source of these wants and desires is an enigma. Source of these wants and desires is traced to universal instincts to exist, evolve and diversify. The need to regulate the same is emphasized.

Have you ever wondered, why at all do we have wants and desires in the absence of any material need? Why can’t we sit idle with all our biological needs satiated? Why at all I am writing this article? Why don’t we ever want to leave this world despite all the hardship we may be facing in this world? Why do we want to progress from one pillar of strength to another? Why the stronger we are, greater is the desire to progress? Why does the rich say that one doesn’t really have enough money? Why rich wants to get richer? Why wise wants to get wiser? Why men of knowledge are haunted by their ignorance and want to know more? Why women are never satiated by their wardrobe and their beauty? Why does the man in authority ever crave for more authority? Why do people climb mountains and indulge in other adventurous acts? Why do we listen to music when it has nothing to do with our biological needs? Why do we want to keep our emotional relations? Why parents worry about their children and why children want to grow bigger?

This can go on and on but for the sake of brevity it may be stated that the key issues are why we want to keep existence, why do we want to progress in life and why do we seek variety and change despite there being no material need? Alternatively, why do we want to progress along our chosen line of natural progression?

We all have biological needs, being living organisms. We all have emotional and intellectual needs for being humans possessed with self awareness or voluntary consciousness. But we still have wants and desire much beyond our needs. Alexander the great wanted to rule the world and Nero wanted to see burning Rome. This is despite the fact that we are born perfect of our type since this is the mandatory precondition to our existence. The Darwinian notion of imperfect forms trying to perfect themselves is absolutely and totally wrong. Therefore, so long as we are able keep our existence our needs must stand more or less satisfied. A Kollicker in 1864 has rightly stated that each animal suffices for its own ends, is perfect of its kind, and needs no further development. A Kollicker has further stated “Assuredly, every organ has and every organism fulfills, its end, but its purpose is not the condition of its existence. Every organism is also sufficiently perfect for the purpose it serves, and in that it is useless to seek for a cause of its improvement. 

To find answer to the question paused in this article, let us travel backward in time when there was no universe, not even time and space existed then. There existed only null (zero or nothing) and not even void (space) but even this null was in a state of dynamic equilibrium with ‘change’ as its inherent property. So we had an ever-changing/ever-oscillating null that was perfect of its type. There was nothing to challenge its existence. Yet within this null existed besides universal instinct to exist, universal instinct to evolve and diversify. All its descendents carried its spirit and hence were endowed with universal instinct to exist, evolve and seek variety or diversity.

These three universal instincts are trans-hierarchically valid principles of nature, valid across the natural hierarchy. Universal instinct to exist operates as a matter of law but universal instinct to evolve and diversify being subject to constrained development do not operate as a matter of law.  In real world variable expression of these instincts is seen along different lines of progression.

Our wants and desires have their origin in innate nature of universe. Our needs can only partly account for our wants and desires. Hence our wants and desires may not always be grounded in necessity. But keeping in view range and reach of human wants and desires, to prevent consequential self destructive conflict of interests, regulation of human wants and desires is mandatory so as to keep dynamic equilibrium of both – nature as well as human society.  

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This article is inspired by author’s understanding of nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm
http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

What Really Ails God Particle Business?

    What Really Ails God Particle Business?

Summary: Following the news of God Particle discovery on July4, 2012, various issues pertaining to God Particle were re-examined by the author and have been reported herein. Several infirmities about the concept as well the experiment are pointed out. It is concluded that Higgs Boson even if truly exist represent nothing more than a process of transformation.

On July 4, 2012, we all heard that scientists at CERN have been able to nearly discover God Particle but the world press preferred to report conclusive discovery of God Particle with all the euphoria associated with the claimed discovery.

This article is a sequel to my earlier article “Why God Particle Demonstration is a Flop Show?” Contents of previous article are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity but stand valid till date. However recent claims of CERN have led to some fresh thinking on my part. Hence the present article. 

About the concept: To call Higgs Boson, God Particle is a misnomer in itself.

1.     The real issue is explaining cosmic phenomena having a beginning from presumed null and not even void. Since ‘void’ means ’space’ and in my understanding time, space, matter and energy have always coexisted in   universe wherein time and space are non-particulate, and matter and energy are particulate. But God Particle concept is totally silent about what preceded particulate stages of the universe i.e. even the so called dense matter of Big Bang Theory. The attribute of God can only be justifiable if given to something that preceded particulate stages of nature or universe as common denominator of universe. Therefore, the phrase “God Particle” fails to deliver its claims. God Particle can never provide comprehensive explanation of natural phenomenon.

2.     Even if we are able to explain origin of mass on the basis of God Particle, how does it explain consciousness or Natural Intelligence without which there can’t be any biological phenomena including human beings?

3.     To understand nature, we have to postulate constancy of natural laws and there is no evidence that natural laws once established have varied thereafter. Therefore if God Particle played any role in origin of mass and origin of universe then it must be doing the same even now and that must be reflected in known natural phenomena. However no evidence supporting such a contention is known so far. Influences leading to origin of universe can’t be purely historical in character. The said influences have to be concurrent in character and must be reflected in concurrent natural phenomena, one way or the other. Therefore historical Big Bang and historical God Particle can be nothing but myths perpetuated by scientific community.

4.               Even Photons, though devoid of mass, have mass equivalent known as Gravitational mass of Photon. Therefore, why should origin of mass in a material particle be such a big issue is beyond comprehension? It can be stated that energy facilitates motion but energy transformed in to mass as per the famous equation E = mc² resists motion. So the dividing line is transformation of mass equivalent into mass. This dividing line is crossed in the reverse direction in all light emitting devices and other electromagnetic radiation emitting devices under ordinary conditions every day, for example in an electric bulb, X-ray machine etc. Similarly conversion of mass equivalent into mass must be happening whenever and wherever electromagnetic radiations are absorbed. So what is the big deal about LHC experiment?

5.     Photons are interactive with gravitational field as reflected by Gravitational deflection of light but suffer no space drag or friction in their sojourn through gravitational fields filling the so called empty space but on the contrary particles passing through Higgs field and interactive with Higgs field suffer space drag or friction and are said to acquire their mass from Higgs Boson through Higgs field and it is said to happen because of interaction. It suggests that physicists are indulging in convenient as opposed to real explanations of natural phenomena.

6.     The real question is why objects in universe have mass and the answer is to acquire stability and hence structure which is essential for evolution of natural hierarchy. This leads us the next question as to how objects acquire mass and this question is, precisely speaking, the subject matter of present debate.

7.     The whole God Particle phenomena even if interpreted positively can’t be regarded as anything more than transformation mechanism.

About the experiment

1.     Originally scientists at CERN wanted to accelerate Protons (Hydrogen atoms) to velocity of light. Since Hydrogen atoms at a velocity of 750 Km/sec mutually collide leading to nuclear fusion and formation of Helium. So how this nuclear reaction was prevented? This being essential to meet their experimental objectives. In the press releases authorities at CERN have not addressed this question to themselves.

2.     No press release has reported that scientists at CERN actually accelerated Protons (Hydrogen atoms) to velocity of light before collision. All that they have claimed is that they have seen certain particles travelling at the velocity of light with Photonic properties. Therefore observed particles are the result of transformation resulting from collision of Protons and if they have Photonic properties, than their velocity needs no further examination. But such transformation is a daily occurrence in all light emitting devices and other electromagnetic radiation emitting devices. So how can one attach any extraordinary meaning to such an event in LHC experiment?

How can such transformation be the key to comprehensive explanation of Cosmic Phenomena is clearly beyond comprehension?  All that may be positively said about the whole episode is that Particulate physics is attempting to discover technical framework for inter-particulate transformation in subatomic plane. But how far they succeed is to be seen.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This article is in line with author’s understanding of nature.

Visit:  http//www.sciencengod.com       http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm   http://www.sciencengod.com/blog/why-god-particle-demonstration-is-a-flop-show

Do We have Unlimited Freedom

Do We have Unlimited Freedom?

Summary: Freedom is a universal sentiment and has been so granted even by law. But in practice it is subject to several constraints. Resolution of these constraints demands perpetual intellectual efforts. Often freedom does not mean more than freedom to perform one’s duties without fear of repercussions and reservations. It does not mean freedom to enjoy one’s whims and fancies.  

Freedom is a universal sentiment which we all relish. We all have a craving for freedom. Freedom to enjoy life according to our values, preferences, selections, interests, fantasies, whims and fancies etc. is something we all desire. We all have idiosyncrasies and we want the freedom to enjoy them too.

In USA, there is even a Statue of Liberty. Article 21 of Constitution of India confers upon its citizens, fundamental right to life and liberty. I presume that this must be true of constitutions of other nations also. Ironically, the fundamental right to liberty is ambiguous in its statement with inbuilt contradiction. It is ambiguous because it leaves freedom undefined and moreover, freedom can never be total. It is self-contradictory because each and every law is a constraint on human freedom. Twentieth century has witnessed several social movements designated as freedom movements. Teenagers can often be seen singing the tune “This is my life”. Spouses can often be seen breaking homes to enjoy personal freedom. Their craving for personal freedom prevails over the need to have homes. Even women liberation movements have moved in the direction of freedom unlimited.

So freedom is individually, socially and legally recognized sentiment. Freedom is easy to dream but difficult to realize. Because of conflict of interests in human society, one has to struggle throughout one’s life to achieve and sustain freedom. Human freedom is subject to several constraints.

1.     Material constraints: One can enjoy one’s freedom only from the material position one is holding at the given moment, like Nero by virtue of his material position had the liberty to enjoy burning Rome. Since material position evolves over a period of time, hence historical or time dependent constraints to freedom are inevitable.

2.     Natural Laws: As stated before that every law is a constraint on human freedom, same is true of natural laws as well. Nature does not function in derogation of its laws. Hence relevant natural laws determine scope, limits and potential of available freedom.

3.     Man made laws:  Law in human society, in the absence of proper understanding of its nature has evolved into a plethora of mutually conflicting principles or a jig saw puzzle upon which judiciary is supposed to adjudicate in the final analysis. Therefore in the absence of proper definition of fundamental rights, all the fundamental rights are subject to descriptive and narrative, event specific definitions evolved by the esteemed judiciary. Even the well defined legal rights are subject to compliance with large number of so called procedural laws, administrative laws, contractual obligations, customs and usage, systemic infirmities etc. Hence no legal right is absolute; it is always subject to a plethora of attendant conditions.

4.     Rationality: The general demand for rationality as we see in human conduct is because nature is self-organizing. Anything can exist and function within the constraints of some harmonized ‘order’ and ‘system’ only. Teilhard de Chardin has summed up the general nature of organization in nature as “a distinct centre radiating at the core of systems of centers”. It implies that nature is organized in to self sustaining units or harmonious wholes and each and every unit has to exist in harmonious interaction with surrounding units. But contradictions’ being inherent in nature such as desire for freedom is antithetical to the need for discipline. Therefore, for anything to exist and function, it has to dynamically and harmoniously resolve all the contradictions it faces all the time. In day to day living in human society it transforms into test of reasonableness of conduct, fair-play and justice.

Therefore, even though emotionally we all stand for unlimited freedom but in fact it is a mirage. We need to understand limits to our freedom as well its scope. We must learn the manner in which freedom is to be enjoyed. We can enjoy our freedom only by following the path of reasonableness, fairness and justice. Otherwise, we are bound to run into additional contradictions and controversies which besides being detrimental to our freedom are bound to be self destructive and socially disruptive. It demands a perpetual intellectual effort. So the sentiment of freedom can’t be enjoyed without commensurate intellectual efforts. This is precisely the reason that if you are in conflict with a fool, you don’t have to hang the fool, the fool will hang himself. You only have to facilitate his movement in the right direction.

Human freedom has as many facets as diversity of human activities, wants, desires and duties. Material definition of freedom is bound to be context dependent but the underlying essence has to be dynamic balancing of various factors and need for harmony in pursuance of defined goals and objectives.. Its determination may often demand intellectual efforts besides sentiment of freedom.  So, merely granting fundamental right to freedom or constructing Statute of Liberty or echoing the sentiment of freedom time and again by celebrating Independence Day year after year is not enough. It requires perpetual intellectual efforts.

To circumvent difficulties due to constraints upon human understanding, this task has often been performed by great thinkers of the past as well as the present in the shape of religious prescriptions, legal principles, morals and ethics etc. even if with imperfections.

In general, in material terms, freedom only means freedom to perform one’s duties without fear of repercussions or reservations. Duties are context dependent and therefore may vary according to nature of relationship, faiths, beliefs, religious prescription, peer group prescriptions, ethics and morals determined by professional bodies, law whether natural or man-made etc.

Therefore deprivation of freedom only means preventing an individual from enjoying performance of his duties. It does not and it can’t mean freedom to act according to one’s whims and fancies or without any rhyme and reason.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This article is inspired by author’s understanding of nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm
http://www.sciencengod.com/blog/feed/