Comments for Prevalencia

Comment on Astrologique by james

james — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:12:58 +0000

I think you will be a staunch supporter of the 2012 prediction, which has the backbone of the works of nostradumus and mayan astrology.Whats your stand?

Comment on Astrologique by Pulkit

Pulkit — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:54:11 +0000

I wonder what gave me away! :p
No.

Comment on Astrologique by sanarao

sanarao — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:24:23 +0000

do you believe in witchcraft ?

Comment on The Golden Thread by Pulkit

Pulkit — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:58:37 +0000

I must differ. Sure, a 1-in-million change in hydrogen concentration is the Sun’s atmosphere may contribute to the very same after long; that does not by any means suggest any “intelligent creation.” That’s the way things interact, requiring no “master puppeteer” to carry out the act.

Comment on The Golden Thread by Anjaney

Anjaney — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:47:48 +0000

Wow pulkit you finally have to agree then, that there is something what we call as the theory of complex universe, which says that universe is so minutely connected that even a 1 in million change in Hydrogen concentration in sun’s atmosphere will lead to end of this earth. Then who is this intelligent creator? the one who created this mesh. There has to be one super closed system containing the whole universe.

Comment on Behavioural Evolution by Anjaney

Anjaney — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:39:02 +0000

Well I have opted for the adaptive approach, the reason is that today is the era of knocking out. I guess no 1 cares about your true “composition”, what they just want is are you fitting in their reqiurements or not. I am talking from a corporate perspective. You have to adapt quickly. If your are more selective thinking of long term gains, i think you’ll be hunted in this jungle full of humans.

Comment on Atomic Universe by will

will — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:24:44 +0000

i am currently writing a paper on this very subject, if you would like to bounce some ideas off me it would be appreciated. weatherit.storm@gmail.com

Comment on Atomic Universe by Pulkit

Pulkit — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:45:44 +0000

To compare the atomic scale to the astronomic scale, as I said, requires some radical thinking. This is because our approach is quite different when exploring these areas.
I suggest looking at the neutrons and protons as the cosmic radiations from the sun. As long as they are within the sun, they hold no unique identity (they are a single solid star body). But an escaping nucleon could be viewed as the solar flare.

Thinking of particles (the fermions in the atomic level) as equivalent to waves (the cosmic radiations in space) opens up new ideas. Nebulae, asteroid belts and other such phenomenon give semblance to entangling of electrons, radioactivity, fission, fusion etc.

There are “anti” particles in space too. A black hole is the polar opposite of a stable star, for instance.

I’m returning on July 12.

Comment on The Uncertainity Principle by Pulkit

Pulkit — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:35:55 +0000

The R.H.S of the two equations need not be different!
In Heisenberg’s principle, both h and m are small (the particle is very small in comparison to the sun). And even if you consider a heavenly body for the particle, whose mass m is large, it may still match the scale of the other R.H.S:
The equation derived in this post has an R.H.S of 2rcθ^3. Here, θ is very small. θ^3 will surely be infinitesimally small.

Oh, and your own thoughts lead to the fact that dual nature is exhibited by all matter. Because, as you rightly deduce, all matter made of electrons should be affected by the uncertainity principle. Infact, a fascinating debate between Niels Bohr and Einstein is based on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Einstein.27s_slit

Comment on Atomic Universe by vatsal

vatsal — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:45:19 +0000

?????