Whether Or Not Prebiotic Soup Was Ever Needed/Existed For Origin of Life

Whether Or Not Prebiotic Soup Was Ever Needed/Existed For Origin of Life

Summary: For most of modern theories of Origin of Life, Prebiotic Soup is the starting point and much of the research is focused on this point. However till date not an iota of evidence has been detected in support of existence of Prebiotic Soup at any time in the history of Earth. It is concluded that Prebiotic Soup was neither needed nor existed for Origin of Life on Earth. 

Darwin suggested that life could have begun in a warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity present that a protein was formed ready to undergo still more complex changes. At the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

 This gave rise to Primordial Soup Theory which suggests that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids; the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species. This is supposed to happen at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.

This involves kaleidoscopic or random permutation and combination of chemicals with eventual selection and accumulation of useful permutations and combinations of chemicals so as to eventually give rise to origin as well as evolution of life.

Alexander Oparin in 1924 suggested the idea of Prebiotic Soup and today this is the starting point for most of modern theories of Origin of Life. Around the same time J.B.S. Haldane suggested that Earth’s Prebiotic oceans are different from today’s oceans – would have formed a hot dilute soup in which organic compounds could have formed. The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin and Haldane was that conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Arguing along the same line it has been speculated that once upon a time there existed organic matter on Earth in sufficient concentration that its spontaneous, kaleidoscopic random interactions ultimately led to Origin of Life. The principal difficulty with this line of thinking is lack of specificity of organic chemical reactions. This is quite unlike chemistry of life i.e. Biochemistry.

 Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows

1.   The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.

2.   This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").

3.   These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).

4.   By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup.

While steps 1-3 have been basically observed experimentally, step 4 has been criticized as simplistic - a stage of "then magic happens".

However even existence of chemically reducing atmosphere of Early earth has been doubted by geochemists. To quote:

“But is the “prebiotic soup” theory a reasonable explanation for the emergence of life? Contemporary geoscientists tend to doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition used by Miller in 1953.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745.full

Even need for step 3 is doubtful since Biological systems show extraordinary capacity to operate under very-very low concentrations of essential chemicals coupled with ability to concentrate essential chemicals as per the requirements of particular Biological Systems.

Since 1924, much work has been done to gather evidence in support of Primordial Soup Theory but till date not an iota of evidence has been discovered supporting Prebiotic Soup hypothesis or existence of Prebiotic Soup.

What has generally been overlooked by scientific community till date is the fact that Biochemistry or Chemistry of life is unique and distinctive to living state. It is totally devoid of randomness. Rather, Biological Systems in order to keep existence can’t permit random chemical reactions. Some of the salient features of Biochemistry are:

(I)                Specificity, accuracy and precision of reactions — unlike organic chemistry in which a large number of side reactions invariably occur during any organic reaction leading to formation of side products, in biochemistry reactions are highly specific, precise and accurate without any side reactions and free from side products. This is essential to avoid chaos in animate matter.

(II)             In biochemistry, all reactions take place under conditions of existence of given organism or conditions of its internal milieu which are often quite different from conditions in which similar inorganic and organic reactions proceed. Rationally speaking biochemical reactions must have originated under the conditions in which relevant organisms are usually found. Because of vast variation in habitat of organisms, the same potentiality is realized through differently structured enzymes effective under different conditions. Therefore, for evolution of Biochemistry, environment has never been an absolute constraint.

(III)           Biochemistry is deterministic. Deterministic character of chemistry of life is well exhibited by its properties such as specificity of intermolecular interactions, chemo selectivity, homochirality, stereo- specificity of biological molecules. Even the subsequent course of events has been essentially deterministic with a strong propensity to stabilization, fixation, preservation and propagation of useful past and present innovations. Biochemistry may have its roots in stochastic inanimate interaction of matter and energy but stochastic organic chemical reactions can’t account for specificity of reactions seen in biochemistry. Unfolding or evolution of biochemistry requires a surprising lack of side reactions (Smith and Morowitz). How this extraordinary specificity of chemical reactions is achieved in the absence of genes giving rise to catalytic polymers with three dimensional substrate pockets is still a matter of conjecture and contemplation.

So the key questions which we must address ourselves keeping in view homochirality of biological molecules are:

(i)                Why homochirality is so essential that it is a deterministic trait in entire biosphere or operates as a matter of law. Does it imply some constraints of molecular intelligence?

(ii)              How this deterministic homochirality was obtained and sustained, may be from a stochastic beginning and in a stochastic world? The answer to this might be simulation and induction, directed by utility.

All the experimental evidence gathered so far to bridge the gap between inanimate matter and animate matter belong to the realm of stochastic chemistry and the reaction products are devoid of life like intelligent molecular activity. This statement is applicable to both, abiotic monomer synthesis as well as abiotic polymer synthesis.

Time line of origin of life shows that it must have taken at least 200 Ma after formation of earth crust and oceans for life to appear. Life might have begun in the form of fossilized Cyanobacteria in Stomatolites which are known to occur as early as 3.85 Ga. Any theory of origin of life should be able to explain time involved in its origin. Therefore various experiments demonstrating synthesis of monomers over a very short period of time fail to explain as to why the time involved in origin of life was of the ~ 200 Ma. Hence, by whatever mechanisms life originated, it must have been very slow and cumulative over a period of time. Therefore the vast amount of experimental evidence only lends credibility to our belief in abiogenesis and that one day it shall be possible to provide detailed explanation of origin of life from inanimate matter but the accumulated evidence is otherwise not sufficient to explain phenomenon of origin of life. Considering the enormous time involved, processes leading to origin of life must be time dependent, extremely lengthy, cumulative, complex and intricate which at the same time are relatively stable, capable of fixation, preservation and propagation so that advances made are cumulative ultimately leading to origin of life. The process of origin of life should have proceeded through accumulation of a series of small discrete steps giving semblance of gradualism and continuity. Easy switching between inanimate behavior and life like activity should have been widely rampant in very-very early stages of origin of life. Vast distribution of life on earth shows that constraints like U.V. Radiation, Toxic effects of atmospheric oxygen against origin of life are just scientific fictions, since a large number of forms that could exist have evolved only after successfully meeting those constraints. Hence, these constraints, even though may be valid are not absolute or non-negotiable. Origin of life must involve origin of ways and means to circumvent and negotiate these constraints or to tolerate these constraints.

Therefore, life like activity began on earth at any point of time in its history when earth was capable of supporting or inducing life like activity due to some unknown cause-effect sequences. All kinds of life like activity began independent of each other wherever a source of energy, little moisture and relevant chemical elements were available even if in very-very minute amounts. Considering ubiquity of life on earth, environmental conditions could not have been a major deterrent. Rather they influenced type of life and life like activity to which every other type of life and life like activity has a relationship of adaptation and adaptability or harmony. Therefore, all life forms originated in such a way that they were ab initio adapted to conditions of their existence. Time and place has played a more significant role in determining type of life like activity and type of life through yet unknown cause-effect sequences. This is in conformity with time dependent increase in complexity of life on earth as per fossil records and place dependent biodiversity. Even Darwin observed that biodiversity on Galapagos Islands varied according to some geographical rule.

Summarizing all above, for Origin of Life neither Prebiotic Soup was ever needed nor could have ever existed. This is in conformity with all the experimental evidence gathered till date.

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 which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Twenty-ninth chapter of the book deals with the subject matter of ‘Origin of Life’.

 http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

Visit clipbooard

T

  

Is It Possible To Scientifically Explain Star Fixations

Summary: Existence of Fixed Stars was well known to ancient astronomers. Physicists have built the entire edifice of laws of physics upon notion of Fixed Stars despite the fact that the notion suffered a setback in 1718 with discovery of proper motion of Fixed Stars. However to explain the phenomena on the basis of known laws of science is just not possible and so the phenomena continues to be as mysterious as ever.

Night sky looks the same, viewed from any location on Earth.

Stars form patterns known as Asterisms consisting of groups of two or more stars.  Member stars of an asterism bear constant spatial relationship to each other despite being physically unrelated.

Asterisms further constitute defined areas of celestial sphere known as Constellations.

North Pole star Polaris is always aligned to North Pole of Earth and is used to determine latitude and longitude of a place in Northern hemisphere. Likewise South Pole star - Polaris Australis bears a constant spatial relationship to South Pole of earth. North Pole star despite bearing a constant spatial relationship to North Pole does not occur at a specific point in space, it rather occupies the spatial locus defined by precession cycle of Earth’s axis which takes place in a span of 25,772 years. During the cycle actual pole star keeps changing. For example presently, Polaris is the North Pole star but in 3000 CE Gamma Cephei is expected to be North Pole star and in 5200CE Iota Cephei will assume the title.

Ancient astronomers referred to all these stars as Fixed Stars, since they were unable to observe their motion in relation to a geographical locus. However in 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that Fixed Stars are not fixed but have proper motion. The Fixed Star with largest known proper motion is Barnard’s star. Besides Fixed Stars ancient astronomers also defined wandering stars which were seen to move and change their position in the manner of Sun and Moon. They change their position within a band of stars known as Zodiac.

Notion of Fixed Stars even though no longer valid has impacted physicists in a profound way.

In Newton's time the fixed stars were invoked as a reference frame supposedly at rest relative to absolute space. In other reference frames either at rest with respect to the fixed stars or in uniform translation relative to these stars, Newton's laws of motion were supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to the fixed stars, in particular frames rotating relative to the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not hold in their simplest form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious forces, for example, theCoriolis force and the centrifugal force.

 In formulating Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Einstein believed that inertial property of rigid bodies to move along straight lines in accordance with Newton’s first law of Mechanics was due to influence of fixed stars. This was also in accordance with Mach’s Principle which says “Local physical laws are determined by large scale structure of the universe”.

But all the above discussion raises the question of demonstrable connection between Fixed Stars and rigid bodies on earth forcing them to move along a straight line until and unless acted upon by an external force. Unfortunately, no such connection has been demonstrated so far.

Irony of the situation is that notion of fixed stars upon which rest the entire edifice of Newtonian Mechanics, Einstein’s theory of Relativity, Mach’s Principle etc. in itself was found to be incorrect as early as 1718 by Edmund Halley. So, laws of physics stand on a shaky foundation. Hence, there does not arise any question of laws of physics explaining star fixations.

It is quite amazing that two or more celestial bodies apparently having independent motion, having no demonstrable physical connection maintain relative position to each other. Not only this, even actual celestial bodies change from time to time while keeping relative positions all the time. Presently, there are no known scientific laws that can explain the phenomena. Rather, scientists have been misled by the phenomena.

Clearly nature is mysterious much beyond our imagination and presently it is not possible to explain all the known scientific facts on the basis of known natural laws.

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 which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Several chapters of the book are devoted to physics.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

Visit Clipboard

Why Do We Need a Family

Why Do We Need a Family?

Summary: We have seen the trend from extended families to nuclear families and now to family of individuals, enabled by independence gained by individuals through technological change and consequential cultural change during the past and the present century. However, despite all the changes, need for family has not diminished for various reasons.

Institution of family is probably the oldest institution created by humans. The only other institution in competition with institution of family is society. It is difficult to say which one preceded the other. Even it is difficult to say, what led to emergence of institution of family. Whether it was a prudent, pragmatic, intellectually determined decision of entire humanity to organize humans into groups designated as ‘family’ based on the principle of consanguinity or it has occurred  spontaneously due to human preference towards monogamy (demand for exclusivity in intimate physical relationship), relationships, parental care of young ones, care of the sick and elderly, cultural needs etc.

But one thing is certain that it is the oldest surviving human institution that continues to survive. Issues such as nuclear family versus joint family continue to raise heat and dust in human society. Concept of ‘family’ is deeply ingrained into our sense of humanity, ethics, morality and even law. Family is a legally protected and perpetuated institution in several of its facets. Rules of conduct within a family are quite different from rules of conduct outside the family.

But it is equally true that technological advances of the past and present century have enabled relatively independent living and as a consequence existence of institution of family is apparently threatened. Extended families have disintegrated into nuclear families the world over, children being reluctant to bear with and discharge their responsibilities towards their parents, in order to enjoy their individual freedom to the hilt.

Now, with technological advancement brought in particularly by World Wide Web, there is a talk about family of individuals i.e. if there are four persons in a family; that is father, mother and two children; then everybody is leading a totally independent life except the common roof and not even that. There is very little meeting ground left among members of a family.

Against the above background, the original question becomes all the more relevant as to why even in today’s world we need a family.

1.     Sentiments and relationships: We, humans, howsoever objective and rational we may become can’t do away with our sentiments and the need to have relationships. Reduction of human beings to conscious automaton or robots is just not possible.

No doubt, sentiments may be ephemeral in character but have a materialistic basis encoded in our genes and reflected as our innate behavior. That is the reason that parents can’t deliberately hurt their children even if they have done something wrong. People go miles and miles to please their spouse. Children demand love and affection to grow up. Elderly demand company of their children etc.

Relationships are a long term phenomenon and can’t be honored without commitment. This is because each and every relationship has its highs and lows primarily due to fleeting sentiments; and may be conflict of interests. Relationships can be sustained only if commitments are kept through such highs and lows. It often demands holistic approach rather than mechanistic, single minded objective and rational approach.

Somehow only within the institution of a family an arrangement can be provided for satisfaction of short term interests i.e. sentiments as well as long term interests i.e. relationships. Those, who opt otherwise, are often seen to run into difficulties.

2.     Learning Curve: Human learning curve is steep one and technological advances of the past and present century have made it steeper. Gone are the days when age determined wisdom and knowledge of individual, so younger ones naturally falling in line with their elders and taking care of them in return. In several aspects of today’s life, children are better informed than their parents. But members of a family act as ready reckoner for each other and ever ready to provide hands on training in case of need. The only difference between past and present on this ground is that today relationships have become more equitable. The contribution of institution of family towards learning curve is that it eases out or smoothes the learning curve. Without appropriate family support even the most brilliant of individual is liable to get reduced to merely a spoke in the wheel and earn the title of ‘Learned Fool’.

3.     Parental Care: It is amazing that no other species except Homosapiens requires such prolonged parental care in order to survive through Darwinian struggle for existence. But this mandates institution of family for humans. Further, children from broken families often have inappropriate personality development. Children need love and affection not only from both the parents but also from their grandparents for proper personality growth and development. It is highly undesirable to grow them up as monsters steeped in single minded, objective and rational pursuit of self-interest; lacking in comprehensive approach towards life and connected matters. Qualities of character such as compassion, empathy, respect and regard for others are more easily cultivated in a family than without.

4.     Care of the elderly and the sick: Because of advances in medical sciences, life expectancy has increased and diseases are not such dreaded natural phenomenon as they used to be. But somebody has to take care of individuals through their highs and lows. Nothing can beat the institution of family in providing ground level support through thick and thin that permeates human existence.

5.     Inheritance: We all want to live larger than life or we want to live beyond our natural death. So we all have a desire to forward our lifelong gains to the next generation. But the issues such as whom to transfer and how to transfer are best resolved within four corners of institution of family.

Undoubtedly, there can be many more reasons that mandate institution of family even today but for the sake of brevity present discussion is limited to the above.

Summarizing all above, despite all the technological advances of the past and the present century, human need for institution of family has not decreased. Rather, it has increased to ease out the learning curve through rapid technological advances and to provide care of the elderly and the sick.

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 which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.  32^nd Chapter of the book is about Culture, Religion and Science.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

   Visit Clipboard for extracts from the book

Can Terrestrial Life Have Extraterrestrial Origin

Can Terrestrial Life Have Extraterrestrial Origin

Uniformitarianism Versus Naturalism

Uniformitarianism Versus Naturalism

Dr Mahesh C. Jain

Summary: Uniformitarianism is a useful guiding principle and is applicable to all natural laws across time and space but naturalism prevails over uniformitarianism.  It is not possible to lay down law defining nature and context of things and events.

The idea of uniformitarianism has inspired consciously or subconsciously philosophers, scientist, societies and individuals at all times and at all places. Uniformitarianism is the assumption that same laws and processes that operate in universe now, have operated in the past and have universal applicability.

Doctrine of uniformitarianism was first explicitly suggested by James Hutton (1785) as an axiom and was popularized by Charles Lyell (1830) through his book ‘Principles of Geology’. Lyell’s uniformitarianism was based on the assumptions that seemed most plausible to him and included uniformity of law as well as uniformity of things and events (Substantive uniformitarianism). Neither James Hutton nor Charles Lyell ever attempted to define ‘law’. But from their work it appears that by law they meant ‘methodology’.

As per Charles Lyell, the axiom of uniformity of law is essential in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the observable past. Charles Lyell said that the constancy of natural laws must be assumed in our study of the past, because if we do not, then we can’t make meaningful prediction about the past.

Stephen J Gould (1965) in his first scientific paper “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary” upheld uniformity of natural laws across time and space but rightly dismissed the idea of substantive uniformitarianism.

The author in his article “What Does Not Change” has held that natural laws and fundamental nature of things and events do not change. Visit http://sciencengod.com/blog/what-does-not-change/ . This is essential, for existence of natural order and because otherwise there can’t be any comprehensive, consistent, coherent natural explanation of natural phenomena that allows us to understand the present and predict the past and the future.

Impact of uniformitarianism: Doctrine of uniformitarianism has impacted our lives generally, in myriad of ways, many of which have still not come to the level of conscious perception.

Idea of uniformity of laws finds substantial support in legal domain, despite lack of precise understanding of nature of law. The author has defined law in his book but that definition is strictly applicable only to natural laws and not to man-made laws. Uniformitarianism has given rise to such notions as equality before law, case law or law of precedent, uniformity of legal procedure, state/society governed by law etc. All these notions are only partially correct.

1. Equality before law is often granted as a fundamental right in many countries but is undermined by plethora of statutory laws and judicial interpretation. It was bound to happen because it ignores natural differences among things and events that preclude equality. It amounts to attempt to forcefully bridge natural differences among things and events by the agency of law. For example men and women are naturally different, so how can they be equalized by any law. No two things can be treated as equals if there are substantive differences between them. Therefore in real life situations substantive differences between nature and context of things and events have to be accounted for.
2. Law of precedent, alternatively known as ‘case law’ wherein present issues are decided in conformity with past settlements. A precedent can only be an illustration of application of a particular law but does not become a law by itself. To be a law it has to satisfy the definition of law and therefore can’t be enforced as a law. In the event of being guided by a precedent, substantive differences in nature of things and events have to be kept in mind. Notion of case laws commits a society to dogmatism or traditionalism, i.e. whatever has been upheld in the past must hold good today
3. Uniformity of Process or elevation of legal procedure to the level of law meaning thereby that issues can be decided, disputes can be resolved and rights adjudicated on the basis of compliance with legal procedure alone, irrespective of material facts and legal rights. So enjoyment of each and every legally conferred right is subject to fulfillment of large number of conditions, often leading to denial of right. This to the sufferer means breach of promise by the state.
4. State/Society governed by law: This is another popular misconception that any state or society can be managed on the basis of law alone. To govern a state/society one requires goals and objectives directed management. This in turn requires order, organization and system. So, law alone can never be sufficient to govern any society. In fact any society has to be governed by its goals and objectives but in accordance with law. Any law can be wrongly used if its enforcement is not disciplined by its goals and objectives.
5. Gradualism is another popular misconception derived from uniformitarianism. All the natural events do not happen gradually and linearly. Phenomenon of punctuated evolution is well known. Fossil records bear testimony to punctuated evolution. Nonlinearity in physical events is well known and is generally designated as ‘singularity’ by physicists. Any change of state or phase with concomitant change in applicable rules is again contrary to gradualism.

Limitations of Uniformitarianism: A law is nothing more than a mandatory condition. Nature can meet this condition in myriad of ways. For example there are more than 2 million known plant and animal species, all satisfying definition of life but in ways characteristic of particular species.

Therefore, it is not possible to lay down law defining nature and context of things and events. This can only be inferred from natural history of things and events. Hence Stephan J Gould has rightly dismissed substantive uniformitarianism.

Hence in real life situations, one can’t act on the basis of law alone; one also has to factor in nature and context of things and events. Moreover, no law is absolute. Nature’s ingenuity can always devise ways and means to meet its goals and objectives in compliance with natural laws.

Summarizing, all above uniformitarianism is a useful guiding principle but its limitations must be understood. There can’t be any entity such as society governed by law. A society has to be governed by its goals and objectives in accordance with laws.

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/buynow.php

Visit Clipboard

Has Feminist Movement Gone Haywire?

Has Feminist Movement Gone Haywire?

Summary: Feminist movement in its inception sought balanced gender relationship and justice to women. However today it has emerged as a selfish self- seeking movement and has in turn exaggerated gender conflict. Hence feminist movement has betrayed itself from its path.

Feminism initially started as a movement to secure social justice for women. Its purpose was to secure political, economic and social rights for women; besides better opportunities for women in education and employment. It aimed at correcting cultural wrongs done to women due to spontaneously acquired false cultural notions about women and unjustifiably committing women to various cultural traditions. It also aimed to correct women’s drift to weaker position in the survival struggle, caused by biological and behavioral differences between the two genders.  Feminist movement fought for special rights for women under the pretext of gender equality. Feminists vehemently tried to secure their ends, out rightly ignoring finer aspects of spontaneous male female relationship and its familial and social aspects.

Margret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne of 17^th century was among the earliest feminist writers. In 18^th century Jeremy Bentham – a male, said that it was the placing of women in a legally inferior position that made him choose the career of a reformist at the age of 11. Bentham spoke of complete equality between sexes. He advocated women’s right to vote and participate in government. He opposed different sexual moral standards to women and men.  Marquis de Condorcet, another 18^th century philosopher was a fierce defender of equal rights for women.
A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft is one of the first works that can unambiguously be called feminist. For many Commentators, Wollstonecraft represents the first codification of “equality” feminism, a refusal of the feminine. But a refusal of the feminine impliedly meant, refusal of natural, healthy male female relationship. This amounted to advocating over correction of the cultural wrong done to women. This eventually inspired gender clash instead of gender harmony.
But what may be appreciated here is that even in the so-called male dominated society, it is the men who championed women’s cause seeking balanced and just male female relationship based on mutual respect, equality but at the same time taking care of natural differences between men and women. All over the world, it is the male dominated legislatures that have granted special rights or legal privileges to women in order to support them in the event of survival struggle or gender clash.Once, I searched the net for men’s rights and I found that none of the countries in the world have granted any special privileges or legal rights to men in order to protect their interest or to support them in the event of gender clash. Only in the matter of sexuality and reproductive function, consent of the spouse needs to be taken before a woman undertakes any therapeutic procedure affecting mutual interest. On the contrary women have been conferred a large number of legally protected interests or rights.
Therefore, women blaming male dominated society for all their ills are totally unfounded in their allegations. Whatever grudges they have against men spring from their natural dependence on men. All that they now want to have through feminist movement is to have dominant relationship, autonomy without being responsible, unlimited freedom, reckless individualism and even freedom from their biological role. Slut walks all over the world demonstrate women’s craving for reducing their sexuality to mere entertainment. Pro- abortion movements demonstrate the same. They want total control of their body oblivious of their role, responsibilities and interests of all those who matter.Majority among men have always tended to respect, protect and provide for women. As exception, minority of men have deplorable tendency to indulge in sexual violence against women, quite often on provocation of some kind. No society has ever defended such acts against women.Males normally seek companionship as opposed to domination in male female relationship. Males normally assign the toughest of responsibilities to themselves and discharge the same to the best satisfaction of various interests. Society has never appreciated men who have betrayed themselves from this path. This has been essential to keep familial and social integrity. So, all the men can’t be blamed, for acts of minority.Throughout its history, except in inception, feminism has never sought balanced and just relationship with men. It is the will to dominate, individualism, unlimited personal freedom, feminine whims, fancies and fantasies and the desire to live up to them that has been deriving the feminist movement.The whole notion of gender equality is incorrect because nature has not only made both genders unequal but has also granted them different roles and responsibilities. Men are naturally more comfortable doing certain things and the   same is true for women. This has led to physical and mental inequities. Accordingly notion of role and responsibilities or division of labor has evolved in human society accounting for evolution of family culture and social culture as it is seen today. This also led to unfair cultural fixations contrary to feminine interests which need to be corrected and hence the feminist movement. But today feminist movement has turned into a class war between men and women. Home makers are fast emerging as home breakers leading to social disintegration. Nuclear families have become order of the day and old age homes have sprouted in numbers.Women intoxicated by wave of feminism want to enjoy all the individual freedom but want to neither share nor discharge their social responsibilities. They want unconstrained freedom that allows them to live according to their fantasies oblivious of rights of others. They want autonomy literally amounting to monstrosity. I have come across a woman author who advocates women’s rights to wear short clothes in public even if it is provocative for young boys but at the same time demands boys to behave responsibly. They do not even want to take consent of their partner in matters affecting both. They argue for total control of their physical body as if they exist in vacuum totally unconnected to any other soul on planet Earth. Instead of feeling guilty about their unjustifiable, illegitimate demands; they doggedly pursue their agenda to their selfish ends.Therefore, over a period of time women who were once depraved and oppressed have now turned into oppressor. So the time has come to talk about men’s rights or male legal privileges.

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 which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Several chapters of the book are devoted to social sciences.

http://HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencengod.com"www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

 Visit: Clipboard

What Is the Secret of Jupiter and Saturn’s Extra Energy

What Is the Secret of Jupiter and Saturn’s Extra Energy ?

Summary: Both Jupiter and Saturn emit much more energy than they receive from Sun. This can only be due to either creation of energy or low energy nuclear reaction. Which of the two possibilities is correct is a matter of further investigations.

It is well documented that Jupiter and Saturn radiate much more energy than they receive from the Sun.

 Jupiter emits about 1.9 times the energy it receives, so it radiates 6.1 x 10²⁵ ergs per second. This means that Jupiter is radiating 2.9 x 10²⁵ ergs per second of its own energy. The interior of Jupiter is hot: the core is probably about 20,000 K. Presently; the heat is thought to be generated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, the slow gravitational compression of the planet releasing gravitational potential energy. However this mechanism has been ruled out in case of Sun and Moon, so how can it hold well in case of Jupiter? In author’s opinion the whole idea of Kelvin Helmholtz Mechanism is a figment of scientific imagination. For this mechanism to be effective each and every particle must be individually pitted against rest of the universe and it does not happen. Imagine if each and every electron had to individually balance against the whole of nucleus. This is bound to lead to collapse of all atoms except Hydrogen. Moreover, how can there be any phenomenon like ‘slow gravitational compression’?

This mechanism is like saying that it rains because of gravitational collapse of water vapors.  Events involving compression or collapse of any celestial body shall be determined only by properties of matter in gaseous, liquid and solid state or inter-atomic and inter-molecular forces of attraction and repulsion.  Release of energy, if any, shall proceed accordingly. Gravity has no role to play. Therefore, Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism can neither account for temperature of interior of Jupiter nor for extra energy emitted by Jupiter.

 It is generally accepted that Jupiter CAN NOT produce energy by thermo-nuclear fusion as in the Sun; being much too small and hence its interior is too cool to ignite nuclear reactions. Moreover it is yet to be proved that thermo-nuclear fusion is the source of Sun’s energy.

Jupiter’s chemical composition consists of approximately 88 to 92% Hydrogen, 8 to 12% Helium, trace amounts of Methane, Ammonia, water vapors, Silicon etc. Oxygen is just not there. Therefore chemical energy as the source of Jupiter’s extra energy is impossible as no redox reactions are feasible due to absence of atmospheric oxygen.

Saturn emits even more energy than Jupiter, as compared to the amount of energy it receives from Sun. In fact, it emits 2.3 times the energy it receives from Sun. Identical arguments, as in the case of Jupiter have been advanced to explain this anomaly. However, the above mentioned arguments also apply to Saturn and are not being repeated herein. Therefore, Saturn’s extra energy emission can’t be explained on the basis of thermonuclear reactions, chemical energy and release of gravitational potential energy. 

How do we explain this anomaly? There are only two possibilities:-

1.     Both, Jupiter and Saturn create their own energy which is subsequently emitted. Apparently this is a contradiction to law of conservation of energy. But law of conservation of energy is valid only in the domain of physical, chemical and nuclear reactions and there too it is subject to action of universal heat sink or entropy which amounts to decay of energy. Creation of energy in this universe is essential for two reasons:

(a)    To compensate loss of energy to universal heat sink so that it is a self-sustaining universe.

(b)   For the purpose of origin, growth and evolution of universe from null or nothing.

                   Hence law of conservation of energy must be accordingly amended and its             scope and limits accordingly defined.

2.  Both, Jupiter and Saturn generate energy by low energy nuclear reactions and subsequently emit the same. Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) involving mass-energy inter-conversion were first described by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. Recently NASA has also acknowledged occurrence of LENR. Read: NASA Acknowledges Cold Fusion & Low Energy Nuclear Reactions,  http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/14/nasa-acknowledges-cold-fusion-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/. In this way Jupiter and Saturn may be consuming their own mass to emit extra energy.

Which of the two possibilities is correct is a matter of further investigations. Keeping in view self-sustaining nature of universe odds are in favor of Jupiter and Saturn being hubs of energy creation.

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 which deals with origin of nature and universe from null.

http://www.sciencengod.com

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

Clipboard