Colors

The apple is absorbing every spectrum (color) in the light cast upon it, except red, and because the red spectrum of color is not being absorbed by the apple, it bounces off the apple and this is why we see the color red.

1

Black is the amalgamation of all color. It absorbs all color spectrums in a light wave and reflects nothing for the human eye to observe. The result is, we see a color which we call ‘black’… but it is not a color. It is the complete absence of observable color.

The color black, is a proverbial ‘black hole’ of light! All light and color spectrums enter a ‘black’ object and none escape it.

This is the signifance of the color black as used by the occult. It is a force which devours light.

White is simply the opposite, in that it reflects all light and color spectrums back at us. The combination of all colors and light frequencies together is what we call ‘white’. In truth, white is similar to black in that it is not a normal color. All normal colors from green to blue to red and yellow are reflections of particular light waves.

White is the reflection of all light waves and black is the absorption of all light waves.

Advertisements

Olbers’ Paradox

Why isn’t the night sky uniformly at least as bright as the surface of the Sun? If the Universe has infinitely many stars, then presumably it should be. After all, if you move the Sun twice as far away from us, we will intercept one quarter as many photons, but the Sun’s angular area against the sky background will also have now dropped to a quarter of what it was. So its areal intensity remains constant. With infinitely many stars, every element of the sky background should have a star, and the entire heavens should be at least as bright as an average star like the Sun.

(We say “at least as bright” because the stars of such a bright universe would begin to absorb heat from their neighbours, and precisely what happens when a star is heated is a technical matter for thermodynamic and nuclear theories. We don’t expect such stars to cool down, but neither do we expect them to heat up indefinitely. Olbers’ Paradox originated before physicists had developed the nuclear theory of how stars shine; thus, it was never concerned with how old the stars might be, and how the details of their energy transactions might affect their brightness.)

The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the Sun is called Olbers’ paradox. It can be traced as far back as Kepler in 1610, and was rediscussed by Halley and Cheseaux in the eighteen century; but it was not popularized as a paradox until Olbers took up the issue in the nineteenth century.

There are many possible explanations which have been considered. Here are a few:

There’s too much dust to see the distant stars.
The Universe has only a finite number of stars.
The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars,
but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them.
The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity.
The Universe is young. Distant light hasn’t even reached us yet.

If the universe were infinite and filled with stars in a uniform distribution, then every line of sight would terminate on the surface of a star and should be bright. To be sure, those further away would be fainter, but there would be more of them. Careful analysis suggests that the sky should be as bright as the surface of an average star.

Noting that the night sky is obviously not that bright, there are two lines of explanation. First, the universe appears to be of finite age and that light from stars at an infinite distance would not have reached us in the age of the universe. Second, we observe that the universe is expanding and that stars further away from us are receding at a faster rate. The result of this expansion is that the light from more distant stars is Doppler shifted more toward the red and beyond a certain distance would not contribute significantly in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Jupiter’s role in impacts on Earth – Is Jupiter Earth’s Guardian or Ultimate Destroyer?

Recent computer simulations on Jupiter’s role as guardian of the terrestrial planets has shown that while the gas giant’s mass appears to provide increased protection against asteroids, the total effect on all orbital bodies within the Solar System is unclear.

Some studies show that Jupiter has caused more impacts on Earth than it has prevented.[54] Such models would appear to invalidate the argument that Jupiter-like planets as necessary protectors.[citation needed] The role of Jupiter, has since been revised by the Nice model.

Rare Earth hypothesis – Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward,

The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life requires an Earth-like planet with similar circumstance and that few if any such planets exist.
The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the widely accepted principle of mediocrity (also called the Copernican principle), advocated by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others. The principle of mediocrity concludes that the Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in a non-exceptional region of a common barred-spiral galaxy. Hence it is probable that the universe teems with complex life. Ward and Brownlee argue to the contrary: planets, planetary systems, and galactic regions that are as friendly to complex life as are the Earth, the solar system, and our region of the Milky Way are very rare.

-A planet that is too small cannot hold much of an atmosphere. Hence the surface temperature becomes more variable and the average temperature drops. Substantial and long-lasting oceans become impossible. A small planet will also tend to have a rough surface, with large mountains and deep canyons. The core will cool faster, and plate tectonics will either not last as long as they would on a larger planet or may not occur at all.

-The Moon is unusual because the other rocky planets in the Solar System either have no satellites (Mercury and Venus), or have tiny satellites that are probably captured asteroids (Mars).

Search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is the collective name for a number of activities people undertake to search for intelligent extraterrestrial life. Some of the most well known projects are run by Harvard University, the University of California, Berkeley and the SETI Institute. SETI projects use scientific methods to search for intelligent life on other planets. For example, electromagnetic radiation is monitored for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other worlds. The United States government contributed to early SETI projects, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.

Bracewell probe

A Bracewell probe is a hypothetical concept for an autonomous interstellar space probe dispatched for the express purpose of communication with one or more alien civilizations. It was proposed by Ronald N. Bracewell in a 1960 paper, as an alternative to interstellar radio communication between widely separated civilizations.

A Bracewell probe would be constructed as an autonomous robotic interstellar space probe with a high level of artificial intelligence, and all relevant information that its home civilization might wish to communicate to another culture. It would seek out technological civilizations–or alternatively monitor worlds where there is a likelihood of technological civilizations arising–and communicate over “short” distances (compared to the interstellar distances between inhabited worlds) once it discovered a civilization that meets its contact criteria. It would make its presence known, carry out a dialogue with the contacted culture, and presumably communicate the results of its encounter to its place of origin. In essence, such probes would act as an autonomous local representative of their home civilization and would act as the point of contact between the cultures.

Since a Bracewell probe can communicate much faster, over shorter distances, and over large spans of time, it can communicate with alien cultures more efficiently than radio message exchange might. The disadvantage to this approach is that such probes cannot communicate anything not in their data storage, nor can their contact criteria or policies for communication be quickly updated by their “base of operations”.

It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself

This is the argument that technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or space flight technology. Possible means of annihilation include nuclear war, biological warfare or accidental contamination, climate change, nanotechnological catastrophe, ill-advised physics experiments,[Note 4] a badly programmed super-intelligence, or a Malthusian catastrophe after the deterioration of a planet’s ecosphere. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in mainstream scientific theorizing.[49] Indeed, there are probabilistic arguments which suggest that human extinction may occur sooner rather than later. In 1966 Sagan and Shklovskii suggested that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales. Self-annihilation may also be viewed in terms of thermodynamics: insofar as life is an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, the “external transmission” or interstellar communicative phase may be the point at which the system becomes unstable and self-destructs

From a Darwinian perspective, self-destruction would be an ironic outcome of evolutionary success. The evolutionary psychology that developed during the competition for scarce resources over the course of human evolution has left the species subject to aggressive, instinctual drives. These compel humanity to consume resources, extend longevity, and to reproduce—in part, the very motives that led to the development of technological society. It seems likely that intelligent extraterrestrial life would evolve in a similar fashion and thus face the same possibility of self-destruction. And yet, to provide a good answer to Fermi’s Question, self-destruction by technological species would have to be a near universal occurrence.

This argument does not require the civilization to entirely self-destruct, only to become once again non-technological. In other ways it could persist and even thrive according to evolutionary standards, which postulate producing offspring as the sole goal of life—not “progress”, be it in terms of technology or even intelligence.

Iron law of wages

The Iron Law of Wages is a proposed law of economics that asserts that real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker. The theory was first named by Ferdinand Lassalle in the mid-nineteenth century.

The classical economic theory that wages will tend to be at or near subsistence level. Increases above subsistence will result in population growth that produces more workers and a resulting decline in wages. Also called subsistence theory of wages.

Malthusian catastrophe

A Malthusian catastrophe (also known as Malthusian check) was originally foreseen to be a forced return to subsistence-level conditions once population growth had outpaced agricultural production.

O catastrofă malthusiană(numită și coșmarul malthusian, criza malthusiană, dezastrul malthusian sau capcana malthusiană) a fost definită inițial ca fiind condițiile de revenire forțată la un nivel de subzistență ca urmare a creșterii populației în timp ce producția agricolă nu mai este suficientă. Definițiile mai iau în considerare limitele de creștere economică, precum epuizarea petrolului. Bazat pe lucrările de economie politică ale lui Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), teoriile catastrofei malthusiene sunt foarte similare cu legea de fier a salariului. Principala diferență este că teoriile malthusiene prezic ce se va întâmpla peste mai multe generații sau secole, în timp ce legea de fier a salariului prezice ce se va întâmpla peste câțiva ani sau decenii.