Piggybacking off newtboys comment. Mylar balloons, are the one thing i find more than anything else, when i'm hiking off trail in nature. Those things never break down.

Interestingly with my global journal access through academia, not anywhere is the article I linked shown as peer reviewed media accessible through the common university publications...must just be a nature journal thing to want to rort people for money no matter what their affiliation.

At first glance, I read this article to mean that the area is a sink in so far as it contains a large quantity of methane, and its 'consumption' or 'uptake' rates are shown in negative values...indicating a release of the gas.

In checking peer reviewed articles through my academic channels, I come across many that are saying pretty much the same deal, heres a tl;dr from just one of them;

"Permafrost covers 20% of the earth's land surface.
One third to one half of permafrost, a rich source of methane, is now within 1.0° C to 1.5° C of thawing.
At predicted rates of thaw, by 2100 permafrost will boost methane released into the atmosphere 20% to 40% beyond what would be produced by all other natural and man-made sources.
Methane in the atmosphere has 25 times the heating power of carbon dioxide.
As a result, the earth's mean annual temperature could rise by an additional 0.32° C, further upsetting weather patterns and sea level."

Source: Methane: A MENACE SURFACES. By: Anthony, Katey Walter, Scientific American, 00368733, Dec2009, Vol. 301, Issue 6

Those are some weird results that shouldn’t really be possible, since the female is born with the eggs and thus the genetic material for the future offspring is already set when the mother is born. But nature is full of surprises.

But the other thing that separates Darwin from Lamarck, and even Wallace, was how much he really got completely right about evolution. Common decent, gradualism and the fact that evolution happens as a change in populations are all , in addition to natural selection, things that Darwin got spot on , and this was before we had even discovered genes. These insights is why we call it Darwinism, and not Wallaceism

There was actually a really great segment by PBS recently called "What Plants Talk About". They argued that plants do in fact communicate and change behaviors rapidly based on their active environments.

I think what Sheldrake and the like encourage is that humans know little to nothing about the inherent nature of anything.

More than anything this should be exciting, we are barely out of a 1 year perception of what anything actually is or how this world or the Universe works, let alone why humans even stand today to be sitting behind a bunch of computers poking fun at or trying to figure out the nature of things.

People love thinking that we are elevated modern humans or something. It's fairly laughable and will be even more laughable even 50 years from now.

DMT is proof. Smoke it and see for yourself how little you know about your "consciousness" and what is "real".

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^dannym3141:
Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).
This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured

The way i read it is, if you understand some about physics you may think you know the universe and it all makes sense. However if you start to look deeper and at the minor details of the universe, aka the quantum level, things start to become much less logical and intuitive. Therefore you must dig hard to find the true nature of things at this level, and often times the truth will be more strange or surprising than you ever imagined.
When people were first discovering that there was a charged particle orbiting a nucleus do you think they assumed it was actually a cloud or probability and not a constant circling point? Of course not that would seem absurd at first, much as it would be absurd to think that the umbrella man was a guy protesting actions by JFKs father!


That's a decent explanation of what he was trying to say, but i still think he said it poorly. A quantum dimension? A very small dimension? I hope it wasn't foolish to misunderstand.

I agree that it would be absurd to assume he was protesting JFK's father but that's not the point being made is it? I thought the point being made was that it was absurd to think anything other than him being there for 'shenanigans', which i think is bullcrap. I think it's an expected result to find he's there innocently.

>> ^dannym3141:

Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).
This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured


The way i read it is, if you understand some about physics you may think you know the universe and it all makes sense. However if you start to look deeper and at the minor details of the universe, aka the quantum level, things start to become much less logical and intuitive. Therefore you must dig hard to find the true nature of things at this level, and often times the truth will be more strange or surprising than you ever imagined.

When people were first discovering that there was a charged particle orbiting a nucleus do you think they assumed it was actually a cloud or probability and not a constant circling point? Of course not that would seem absurd at first, much as it would be absurd to think that the umbrella man was a guy protesting actions by JFKs father!

>> ^Porksandwich:

Don't think nature would take over the world so much in just 15 years as they show in a few of those clips, especially urban paved areas.

It's amazing how fast nature reclaims things once they are no longer used or maintained. The ruins of The Concord had trees growing out of the concrete floor in the lobby less than a decade after it was abandoned.

Yep, Lucretius was a great mind indeed! One must also give credit to Epicurus, though, the philosophy of whom inspired that of the roman poet.

>> ^bamdrew:

Great article about "On the Nature of Things", by Lucretius,... the article makes the point that the rediscovery of this ancient Roman poem about godless physics is thought to have pulled European society out of the dark ages.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_greenblatt
http://www.newyorker.com/online/2011/08/08/110808on_audio_greenblatt (good audio podcast by article's author)

Great article about "On the Nature of Things", by Lucretius,... the article makes the point that the rediscovery of this ancient Roman poem about godless physics is thought to have pulled European society out of the dark ages.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_greenblatt

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2011/08/08/110808on_audio_greenblatt
(good audio podcast by article's author)

I think the problem as I see it Shiny, is that you're OK with not questioning where God's own morals come from. God says what he says, and you're fine with it, because he created the universe so you can trust his infinite wisdom or judgement or whatever. I understand that it's a big part of Christianity that god is something we can't possibly understand.

Now, science doesn't claim to be able to explain the existence of the universe and the reasons (if any) behind it. But a lot of us can't help but question the nature of things like morality. Your answer is that morality comes from god. But where does god get his morality from, and why? I'd like to know.

That just might be the fundamental difference between the way that we think.

Everything will probably stay fucked though due to the simple fact that as it is welth is power and its exsponataily esear to make money when you have more money. so unless there is a revolution in western countries or some sort of massive natural disaster things will stay exactly as they are.

you have to think of the super ritch as the kings in the castels middel and lower midel class are the people tilling the feilds and suporting the kings , and then u have pessents that steal beg and do general shit just to stay alive.

so long as most people can get access to clean water , food and are not massively dying out of desize then there wont be an uprising the super ritch know this and thats why things are as they are now. as time goes on its allso the case that the kings have built ever more secure and stronger walls.

using money you don't need physical walls you can simply employ police forces and military to protect you , also having hardly anyone know you are a king is a huge benefit.

Spoco2 isn't talking about how the kid shouldn't have defended himself, he's talking about how such a horrible situation should never have happened. His apparent resolution is to punish all individuals that contributed to the situation.

But, let's say that you're a kid in school who realizes that the social atmosphere is completely horrible. What do you do? Do you stand on a soapbox and make a momentus Martin-Luther-King-like speech to get everyone to stop treating each other like shit, and to care about each other instead? Outside the box looking in, perhaps you can do something. The teacher who made a long comment on here has obviously figured out very clever ways of doing it by manually adjusting the social environment...at least in their own classroom. But, if you're one of the people stuck inside the problem trying to deal with it, the situation is exponentially more difficult.

In short, it's going to take much more than 'punishing all those involved' to correct the atmosphere; every kid in the school would need to be punished. For any school fight, you still see people forming a circle around the two people watching and commenting. Such is the default nature of things for humans. Back in elementary/middle school, I was pretty low on the totem pole, but I also am guilty of treating other people like shit (those lower than myself), and relishing violence whenever I saw it. If you're going to override the default, it's going to take major torrents of social reprogramming.

Something is wrong here.

Terribly, terribly wrong.

I see...a cat's anus...yet Blanfist is nowhere to be found.

There is a disturbance in the nature of things.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Mcboinkens:
The universe into bowling ball size was actually interesting. Obviously false, but space between particles is a pretty cool concept. Mostly seen in stars. Neutron stars blow my mind.

It's probably not far off, the whole of humanity could fit into the volume of a sugar cube if all empty space was removed, so the universe is going to shrink in similar amounts.


Argh... you're missing the point. It's not saying you CAN or COULD, it's merely highlighting how much of everything around us is actually empty space, it's a handy concept to get across things. I'm not saying you COULD compress the human race into a sugar cube, I'm saying that for all our 'size', most of us is nothing physical.

This does not in any way validate a word these charlatans are saying re homoeopathy... it's just a statement about the nature of things.