Studying media globalization in Australia brought me the history of various musics, which many of them originated from Africa. Just now I read a piece of news provided by Reuters titled "Skulls confirm we're all out of Africa". In the article, "an analysis of thousands of skulls shows modern humans originated from a single point in Africa and finally lays to rest the idea of multiple origins." How interesting human destiny is. Origins of many different things, including popular culture and even our existence, though not very sure, direct to the most impoverished continent. The most advanced and developed countries are usually located at the areas developed much later. Before reading this news, I was already thinking about this destined thing.
Cite India and China as examples, their history can refer all the way back to thousand years ago. The two massive countries once occupied a glamorous part of ancient history. Despite the once advanced, rich and glorious culture, the two presently represent the less developed countries, or the third world. The countries are now notorious for dirtiness, poverty, corruption and many other bad reputations, even though they also enjoy a leap forward. The reason for such a big contrast between the past and present is ambiguous; and Africa apparently shares similar phenonmeon.
This reminds me once again of the business cycle I learnt from economic class during secondary education. Seemingly the higher level one has reached, the lower level it is pulled down. At this point I consider many economic theories are fasinating and very philosophical, although I do not know the accounts for these theories. There are endless explanations for things in the world, and so I do not believe mankind will break through to the end before the end of the human destiny. What lies on here is just an interest I want to share. I wish this could entertain you.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
News sharing
Originally I put this somewhere else, but I think it should be placed here. "This week I marked down three pieces of interesting news, which I wish to share them here."
1. Before Big Bang: Light Shed on "Previous Universe"
The National Geographic reported that a new theory of the universe. After reading this I wish I were an excellent scientist to understand everything behind as I find it extremely interesting. The new theory differs from string theory which is said to be more compliated - I share the same feeling when I go through the briefs of the both. The new theory, or I should say Big Bounce, refers to the expansion of the universe and the contraction of the previous universe. In between the theory suggests it is the big bang. Differed from the current universe which is expanding in an increasing speed, the previous universe was contracting to the smallest point before the big bang happened. When it got to the smallest point, the energy came out from bounce and led to the big bang. A new universe, which is where we are in, started to exist and the previous one vanished. In this theory, based on my understanding, there should be many universes across the time as the bounce should happen every time when a cycle of contraction or expansion is completed. However I still have many questions in my mind.
Based on what I can understand in this article about the theory, the previous universe should be contracting like a balloon to a certain point, which was very small but existent. I suppose it should be like a balloon that it is still existent when all the air comes out. If it is existent, I think there will be a boundary, or say an end of the universe that it should be touchable. I assume that the small is an infinite term, so even the theory suggests the "the universe could never shrink down beyond a certain size", the universe still contained a certain space, which I believe something would exist in that space. Therefore I wonder what would be left in the most tiny space.
Another question that instantly jumps in my mind is that to what extent the universe will expand. It is said that the present universe is expanding and thereupon I start to think to where the universe is expanding. Recalling the illustration of balloon, there must be a space for the ballon to blow up. I wonder whether in the end of the expansion, the expected explosion of the universe is due to the used up energy like a dwarf star, or like a balloon which can no longer afford any expansion, or because the space for expansion is filled up completely.
The article compared this big bounce to the string theory, but after reading the brief of the string theory I do not understand in what ways they are comparable. The string theory seems to me that it explains how things work within the universe - in 11 dimensions strings vibrate in a jerky way. It does not tell, according to what the scientist explained in the interview with the National Geographic, how the string theory is related to the life of the universe but the operation in the universe. However as another scientist compared them and said the big bounce is "much cleaner than in string-theory-inspired models", I better conclude myself that I am not knowledgeable at all to say whether they are comparable.
My brain is now full of ideas and questions about this topic, but I am not even a beginner to consider deeply about all of these things. Apparently my parents have not given me a scientific brain to do physics, mathematics and related subjects.
2. Ancient Humans in Asia Survived Super-eruption, Find Suggests
It is hard to switch my mind to a different topic abruptly, although I have gone through the article a while ago. The super-eruption happened in 74,000 years ago, when none of the well-known civilisations had developed. The anthopologists said the human at that time managed to survive, despite a very hard time. To me it was incredible as I cannot imagine how hard it had to be and how they made it. I cannot even think about the consequences if a similar eruption happened today. The eruption was so massive that the find showered all of India with nearly 6 inches (15 centimeters) of volcanic ash, which acts as a marker of age in Earth's strata today. It seems that such a massive volcanic eruption happens only once for hundreds of thousand years, and it did not happen much in human history. After the disaster (I guess it should be more than "disaster" to describe), "ice cores reveal that the world was cooler by 5.4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 5 degrees Celsius) for several centuries following the event." Natural disaster is just so charming and attractive to me, in spite of its mass destructive power. I do not think it is the nature's fury to bring the disaster to earth, but I rather consider it as a rule or a cycle to have this kind of things happened. Not even the cosmo that we do not understand, we have yet to find out the real basic factor for the natural disasters as well. Here I do not mean the explanation of volcanic eruption is just about the platonic movement and magma flow in the lithosphere of the Earth, but the core reason of these movements and flows. The two pieces of news unveils the limitation of mankind power, but I reckon this limitation produces the magic we feel towards the nature and the universe. It would have become very dull if we understood absolutely everything. I don't think we would do before we go extinct.
In the article, it also mentioned about a question whether the survivals were modern humans or the Neanderthals. Limited to what I was taught at school, this is the first time I have ever heard of this extinct species, so I went to the Wikipedia to have a little study about this. What I find interesting is that they are very similar to modern humans in terms of various ways. For instance, it is said that the neanderthals share 95-99% of identical genes with modern humans, but there's little evidence to prove they had any interbreeding. Some people imitated the possible outfit of the neanderthals, and I find it extremely similar to humans. When I was going through the article of National Geographic, it also said that it is very difficult to distinguish humans from neanderthals. Then I want to know many things about this species. I think I did not know there'll be many human-like species but independent from humans. In this case, I, having no anthoprological knowledge, can never have any clue to tell the differences or the distinctive traits of the neanderthals, even after I went through some information of them. I don't know how modern humans have managed to survive under the jungle law; in fact when I read the other page on Wikipedia about the genus Homo, "all species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct." There are enormous mysteries underlying here to explain the process of evolution. I wonder why there is only one species of homo left nowadays, but I doubt who can tell the certain answer.
3. Which is the chatty sex? Turns out both are
The Reuters' news (it is covered by the Discovery as well) reported that a study finds both sex can be chatty, which differentiate from the tradition view that men talk less than women. To me the news is more to leisure and entertaining purpose to my knowledge. It said that character of one person determines whether s/he is chatter, rather than the gender. It is interesting to see this big difference between the most and the least talkative: "Just to illustrate the magnitude of difference, among the three most talkative males in the study, one used 47,000 words. The least talkative male spoke just a little more than 500," the expert said. On average, both sex use about 16,000 words per day accordingly, so I am thinking if I can use 16,000 words a day. I thought I was quite talkative, but 16,000 sound too many to me. The researchers put a recorder to the people being tested and counted how many words they talked. It must be very tedious to count every single word they said, and must be so funny to listen to some of the conversation the people had.
One more news after those three were shared -
You can forget the unhappy past: study
The Reuters' news report suggested the possibility of putting out traumatic memory. I instantly recall my favourite film "Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind". I don't think I'd like to forget anything, regardless of the emotions brought by the memories. Whether it was sad or happy, it is still part of me which determines my character in some certain degree. I do not want to lose any. Nonetheless I think a number of people will be interested in this idea and probably want to try this in order to forget some tragedies in mind. I'd be sad for them.
1. Before Big Bang: Light Shed on "Previous Universe"
The National Geographic reported that a new theory of the universe. After reading this I wish I were an excellent scientist to understand everything behind as I find it extremely interesting. The new theory differs from string theory which is said to be more compliated - I share the same feeling when I go through the briefs of the both. The new theory, or I should say Big Bounce, refers to the expansion of the universe and the contraction of the previous universe. In between the theory suggests it is the big bang. Differed from the current universe which is expanding in an increasing speed, the previous universe was contracting to the smallest point before the big bang happened. When it got to the smallest point, the energy came out from bounce and led to the big bang. A new universe, which is where we are in, started to exist and the previous one vanished. In this theory, based on my understanding, there should be many universes across the time as the bounce should happen every time when a cycle of contraction or expansion is completed. However I still have many questions in my mind.
Based on what I can understand in this article about the theory, the previous universe should be contracting like a balloon to a certain point, which was very small but existent. I suppose it should be like a balloon that it is still existent when all the air comes out. If it is existent, I think there will be a boundary, or say an end of the universe that it should be touchable. I assume that the small is an infinite term, so even the theory suggests the "the universe could never shrink down beyond a certain size", the universe still contained a certain space, which I believe something would exist in that space. Therefore I wonder what would be left in the most tiny space.
Another question that instantly jumps in my mind is that to what extent the universe will expand. It is said that the present universe is expanding and thereupon I start to think to where the universe is expanding. Recalling the illustration of balloon, there must be a space for the ballon to blow up. I wonder whether in the end of the expansion, the expected explosion of the universe is due to the used up energy like a dwarf star, or like a balloon which can no longer afford any expansion, or because the space for expansion is filled up completely.
The article compared this big bounce to the string theory, but after reading the brief of the string theory I do not understand in what ways they are comparable. The string theory seems to me that it explains how things work within the universe - in 11 dimensions strings vibrate in a jerky way. It does not tell, according to what the scientist explained in the interview with the National Geographic, how the string theory is related to the life of the universe but the operation in the universe. However as another scientist compared them and said the big bounce is "much cleaner than in string-theory-inspired models", I better conclude myself that I am not knowledgeable at all to say whether they are comparable.
My brain is now full of ideas and questions about this topic, but I am not even a beginner to consider deeply about all of these things. Apparently my parents have not given me a scientific brain to do physics, mathematics and related subjects.
2. Ancient Humans in Asia Survived Super-eruption, Find Suggests
It is hard to switch my mind to a different topic abruptly, although I have gone through the article a while ago. The super-eruption happened in 74,000 years ago, when none of the well-known civilisations had developed. The anthopologists said the human at that time managed to survive, despite a very hard time. To me it was incredible as I cannot imagine how hard it had to be and how they made it. I cannot even think about the consequences if a similar eruption happened today. The eruption was so massive that the find showered all of India with nearly 6 inches (15 centimeters) of volcanic ash, which acts as a marker of age in Earth's strata today. It seems that such a massive volcanic eruption happens only once for hundreds of thousand years, and it did not happen much in human history. After the disaster (I guess it should be more than "disaster" to describe), "ice cores reveal that the world was cooler by 5.4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 5 degrees Celsius) for several centuries following the event." Natural disaster is just so charming and attractive to me, in spite of its mass destructive power. I do not think it is the nature's fury to bring the disaster to earth, but I rather consider it as a rule or a cycle to have this kind of things happened. Not even the cosmo that we do not understand, we have yet to find out the real basic factor for the natural disasters as well. Here I do not mean the explanation of volcanic eruption is just about the platonic movement and magma flow in the lithosphere of the Earth, but the core reason of these movements and flows. The two pieces of news unveils the limitation of mankind power, but I reckon this limitation produces the magic we feel towards the nature and the universe. It would have become very dull if we understood absolutely everything. I don't think we would do before we go extinct.
In the article, it also mentioned about a question whether the survivals were modern humans or the Neanderthals. Limited to what I was taught at school, this is the first time I have ever heard of this extinct species, so I went to the Wikipedia to have a little study about this. What I find interesting is that they are very similar to modern humans in terms of various ways. For instance, it is said that the neanderthals share 95-99% of identical genes with modern humans, but there's little evidence to prove they had any interbreeding. Some people imitated the possible outfit of the neanderthals, and I find it extremely similar to humans. When I was going through the article of National Geographic, it also said that it is very difficult to distinguish humans from neanderthals. Then I want to know many things about this species. I think I did not know there'll be many human-like species but independent from humans. In this case, I, having no anthoprological knowledge, can never have any clue to tell the differences or the distinctive traits of the neanderthals, even after I went through some information of them. I don't know how modern humans have managed to survive under the jungle law; in fact when I read the other page on Wikipedia about the genus Homo, "all species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct." There are enormous mysteries underlying here to explain the process of evolution. I wonder why there is only one species of homo left nowadays, but I doubt who can tell the certain answer.
3. Which is the chatty sex? Turns out both are
The Reuters' news (it is covered by the Discovery as well) reported that a study finds both sex can be chatty, which differentiate from the tradition view that men talk less than women. To me the news is more to leisure and entertaining purpose to my knowledge. It said that character of one person determines whether s/he is chatter, rather than the gender. It is interesting to see this big difference between the most and the least talkative: "Just to illustrate the magnitude of difference, among the three most talkative males in the study, one used 47,000 words. The least talkative male spoke just a little more than 500," the expert said. On average, both sex use about 16,000 words per day accordingly, so I am thinking if I can use 16,000 words a day. I thought I was quite talkative, but 16,000 sound too many to me. The researchers put a recorder to the people being tested and counted how many words they talked. It must be very tedious to count every single word they said, and must be so funny to listen to some of the conversation the people had.
One more news after those three were shared -
You can forget the unhappy past: study
The Reuters' news report suggested the possibility of putting out traumatic memory. I instantly recall my favourite film "Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind". I don't think I'd like to forget anything, regardless of the emotions brought by the memories. Whether it was sad or happy, it is still part of me which determines my character in some certain degree. I do not want to lose any. Nonetheless I think a number of people will be interested in this idea and probably want to try this in order to forget some tragedies in mind. I'd be sad for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)