copyright (c) 2015,2017
William A. Schaeffer
Friday, June 30, 2017
Corporate Propaganda
"We are all victims of this enforced perception of willingly self imposed virtual servitude. We haven't been given a choice. We don't stand a chance..." - Dr. Tony Bravado
How can you believe?
Question: "How can you believe in anything when you live in a society of lies and deceit and almost nothing you are told is verifiably true?" - Zobo the Clown
Answer: "Dumb luck?" - Whizz Kidder
Answer: "Dumb luck?" - Whizz Kidder
copyright (c) 2017
William Schaeffer
Thursday, June 29, 2017
One Mile driven = One Pound CO2 in the air
Every mile you drive puts an additional one pound of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
The fuel efficiency of New and Used cars varies widely. The average fuel efficiency of brand new cars sold is about 23 - 25 miles per gallon. But as the car is driven -- that fuel efficiency drops, especially if the automobile engine is not maintained properly. Not long ago 18 MPG was considered good mileage. We assume a fuel efficiency of 19 - 20 MPG average for ALL vehicles driving on the roads.
A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.67 pounds and is almost entirely carbon atoms.
The process of burning a gallon of gasoline removes 12 pounds of Oxygen from the atmosphere and replaces it with 19.2 pounds of Carbon Dioxide. The Oxygen is gone for good and the Carbon Dioxide has replaced it.
If we assume that the average car on the road gets a fuel efficiency of 19 - 20 miles per gallon, then after driving 19 miles, you have burned one gallon of gasoline and put 19 pounds of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
The answer requires some averaging, but the averages seem close to reasonable to me.
Every mile you drive puts an additional one pound of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
(if you have a newer car, you put a little less CO2 in the air)
The fuel efficiency of New and Used cars varies widely. The average fuel efficiency of brand new cars sold is about 23 - 25 miles per gallon. But as the car is driven -- that fuel efficiency drops, especially if the automobile engine is not maintained properly. Not long ago 18 MPG was considered good mileage. We assume a fuel efficiency of 19 - 20 MPG average for ALL vehicles driving on the roads.
A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.67 pounds and is almost entirely carbon atoms.
The process of burning a gallon of gasoline removes 12 pounds of Oxygen from the atmosphere and replaces it with 19.2 pounds of Carbon Dioxide. The Oxygen is gone for good and the Carbon Dioxide has replaced it.
If we assume that the average car on the road gets a fuel efficiency of 19 - 20 miles per gallon, then after driving 19 miles, you have burned one gallon of gasoline and put 19 pounds of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
The answer requires some averaging, but the averages seem close to reasonable to me.
Every mile you drive puts an additional one pound of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
(if you have a newer car, you put a little less CO2 in the air)
copyright (c) 2017
William Schaeffer
Oceans Rise 400 Feet
When Antarctica glacial ice melts the Oceans will raise 400 feet world wide. The calculation is easy to do. Antarctica covers 5% of the surface of the Earth. The Ice sheet on Antarctica averages one mile thick. One mile equals 5280 feet. The Oceans cover two thirds of the Earth which is approximately 66%. So .05 x 5280 = .66 x Y where Y is rise of oceans. Y = 400 feet.
copyright (c) 2017
William Schaeffer
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Love is a force of attraction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LzVN8nqg0
"Alan Watts is God for Ten Minutes"
Atwaterpub said:
At 7:33 I tend to think this statement represents a misunderstanding of love. To me, love is wanting to be in the same "space" with someone (or something) else. Love is the universal law of attraction. Love has no real opposite, except possibly apathy or indifference.
Love is a force of attraction. There is no opposite to gravity, there is no opposite to light. Darkness is the absence of light, but darkness does not negate light. Hate is a fearful perversion of love, a twisted mutant emotion that wants to be in the same "space" as someone else, but is fearful and uncertain. This hate manifests itself as wanting to destroy the thing it wants to be close to, but it never succeeds. Hate is never satisfied and is self destroying. Love is always satisfied and is self perpetuating, and self generating, and ever renewing force of growth in the Universe.
ABC said:
Although is light not merely a physical phenomena created by the giant , flaring ball of fire and gas we call "The Sun" ? Is light not merely a physical and observable phenomena that has arisen out of physical processes of billions of years of formulation ? How can Love be a force in the universe when Love is only found n earth in humans and animals ? Human and animals constitute an infinitesimal fraction of the universe . How , thusly , can Love be said to be a universal force ? Please explain ?
Atwaterpub said:
Well, it is largely a poetic turn of phrase.
HOWEVER,
IF we look at the Universe in a slightly different way,
THEN we could think of it as follows (in super condensed form):
Some ideas:
1. One interpretation of the dual slit experiment is that electrons have conscious thought and these electrons actually choose, or decide, their course of action.
2. More than one philosophic tradition talks of all things in life as having a "living soul" (i.e. rocks, stones, hills, plants, trees, insects, birds, animals, "everything").
3. Even our own bodies are made of billions of one celled animals that act with purpose and intent. Are they conscious?
4. "Radical" Physicist Amit Goswami considers that it is consciousness itself that gives form and concrete reality to the Universe we inhabit. This, in my understanding, is a kind of a generalization of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where it is our own conscious intent that "makes the Universe real."
5. Jeremy Narby in "The Cosmic Serpent" claims that psychedelic visions could be messages of photons of light that are embedded in our DNA itself.
6. In one interpretation of electron spin pairs, these electrons are still "instantly connected" across billions of light years of deep space.
7. In any event,
IF we consider the Universe to be teeming with conscious entities,
that are all coexisting and communicating on many simultaneous levels,
AND all behaving with conscious intent;
THEN we could say that,
"LOVE IS A PRIMARY MOTIVATING FORCE Of THE UNIVERSE."
8. Again, the briefest of explanations, full of possible flaws, but a poetic vision of the Universe that in many ways seems more true to experience than the giant impersonal "clockwork" theories of the 19th century academics.
"Alan Watts is God for Ten Minutes"
Atwaterpub said:
At 7:33 I tend to think this statement represents a misunderstanding of love. To me, love is wanting to be in the same "space" with someone (or something) else. Love is the universal law of attraction. Love has no real opposite, except possibly apathy or indifference.
Love is a force of attraction. There is no opposite to gravity, there is no opposite to light. Darkness is the absence of light, but darkness does not negate light. Hate is a fearful perversion of love, a twisted mutant emotion that wants to be in the same "space" as someone else, but is fearful and uncertain. This hate manifests itself as wanting to destroy the thing it wants to be close to, but it never succeeds. Hate is never satisfied and is self destroying. Love is always satisfied and is self perpetuating, and self generating, and ever renewing force of growth in the Universe.
ABC said:
Although is light not merely a physical phenomena created by the giant , flaring ball of fire and gas we call "The Sun" ? Is light not merely a physical and observable phenomena that has arisen out of physical processes of billions of years of formulation ? How can Love be a force in the universe when Love is only found n earth in humans and animals ? Human and animals constitute an infinitesimal fraction of the universe . How , thusly , can Love be said to be a universal force ? Please explain ?
Atwaterpub said:
Well, it is largely a poetic turn of phrase.
HOWEVER,
IF we look at the Universe in a slightly different way,
THEN we could think of it as follows (in super condensed form):
Some ideas:
1. One interpretation of the dual slit experiment is that electrons have conscious thought and these electrons actually choose, or decide, their course of action.
2. More than one philosophic tradition talks of all things in life as having a "living soul" (i.e. rocks, stones, hills, plants, trees, insects, birds, animals, "everything").
3. Even our own bodies are made of billions of one celled animals that act with purpose and intent. Are they conscious?
4. "Radical" Physicist Amit Goswami considers that it is consciousness itself that gives form and concrete reality to the Universe we inhabit. This, in my understanding, is a kind of a generalization of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where it is our own conscious intent that "makes the Universe real."
5. Jeremy Narby in "The Cosmic Serpent" claims that psychedelic visions could be messages of photons of light that are embedded in our DNA itself.
6. In one interpretation of electron spin pairs, these electrons are still "instantly connected" across billions of light years of deep space.
7. In any event,
IF we consider the Universe to be teeming with conscious entities,
that are all coexisting and communicating on many simultaneous levels,
AND all behaving with conscious intent;
THEN we could say that,
"LOVE IS A PRIMARY MOTIVATING FORCE Of THE UNIVERSE."
8. Again, the briefest of explanations, full of possible flaws, but a poetic vision of the Universe that in many ways seems more true to experience than the giant impersonal "clockwork" theories of the 19th century academics.
copyright (c) 2014,2017
William Atwater Schaeffer
To my old friend
I could have had
so much fun --
with a plastic bag
and a lit cigar.
You do not know
how tremendously lucky
that you really are.
Peace.
copyright (c) 2017
William Schaeffer
Nature's palace
The Honey bee is not native to North America. It is an invading species that was brought here by European colonists in 1600.
The earthworm is also not native to North America and is an invading species. Before the introduction of the earthworm, the forests of the East coast had no undergrowth, but a thick matte of decaying leaves that was soft to walk on. The forests themselves were like great cathedrals that stretched for miles in every direction -- a huge open space with a canopy of leaves overhead, supported by columns of tree trunks growing out of a soft carpet of dead leaves.
The earthworm is also not native to North America and is an invading species. Before the introduction of the earthworm, the forests of the East coast had no undergrowth, but a thick matte of decaying leaves that was soft to walk on. The forests themselves were like great cathedrals that stretched for miles in every direction -- a huge open space with a canopy of leaves overhead, supported by columns of tree trunks growing out of a soft carpet of dead leaves.
copyright (c) 2017
William Schaeffer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)