Electronic Apocalypse

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_basraNod1Ms/TFg2mhiIekI/AAAAAAA
ABmA/V6_w9R6mz18/s1600/Solar+Flare+Storm+August+3+2010

On September 1, 1859, the amateur astronomer Richard Carrington looked through the telescope in his private observatory and witnessed blotches of immensely bright white light erupting from the surface of the sun. Though they quickly vanished from view, these eruptions in space would soon prove more dangerous than could be foreseen.

That night, the sky burned with light enough to trick both animal and man into believing the sun had begun to rise. What many assumed to be the end of the world was actually the result of a massive solar flare with the energy of ten billion atomic bombs.

This flare caused the largest disturbance in Earth’s magnetic field in recorded history. This solar storm was later named the “Carrington Event.”

Telegraphs were a critical means of transmitting information in that particular fragment of time. Because of those solar flares, telegraph operations were completely halted world-wide. The energy expended into Earth’s atmosphere was so great that the equipment’s circuits were in danger of melting and would often pour out torrents of fire.

The transmissions of the surviving telegraphs were unable to be sent or received until after the magnetic effects of the second solar flare began to lessen.

Electronics then were few and far between; today, there are satellites, power grids, GPS, and much, much more. With each passing year, humanity becomes more dependent on magnetically vulnerable technology.

Take a moment to envision an incident similar to the Carrington Event in modern times.

Sewage systems would cease to work, as would heating and air conditioning, gas pumps, lights, the Internet, ATMs, and devices that rely on wall outlets. Perishable food and medication would decay. These would not be temporary damages; repairs would be underway for years to come.

This is not a fantastical “what if” scenario. In 2012, a solar storm directly comparable to the Carrington Event was narrowly avoided by our planet.

Though NASA has warning systems in place, satellites specifically designed to measure the strength and distance of solar storms, they will only afford humanity an hour warning at most to get comfortable with the idea that their world may cease to exist as they know it.

There is no defense.

The understanding that most of our infrastructure and technology could be rendered useless with so little notice is a humbling thought, is it not? That thought is made worse by the realization that many people would have little to no idea how to survive without them, and that governments worldwide would be unable to function on the scale necessary to look after the entirety of their nation’s population.

Mass theft and death would only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

This is your warning. What will you do with it?

Senses

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5
1/2c/e1/512ce1ea499ce25ce61a54d479ef95fe

Taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing; these are the five senses that allow a human body to interact with the world. While the loss of any one sense would serve as a hindrance to an individual’s everyday life in one way or another, our lives are arguably already hindered by the senses we have never had.

It is no secret that canines and felines have a superior sense of hearing than humans. Sound is simply vibrations in the air; the number of vibrations per second is measured in Hertz. While humans can only hear sounds at a maximum of 20,000 Hertz, canines can hear up to 35,000 or even 40,000 Hertz while felines can perceive up to 100,000 Hertz. Humans are obviously inferior in this respect.

African elephants have the strongest sense of smell in the animal kingdom. Chameleons have superior eyesight to most other animals. With their whiskers, cats and dogs both can feel something as minute as a change in air pressure (while humans cannot).

Though humanity has the upper hand on many other animals in regards to our sense of taste, Mother Nature created the catfish. Catfish have taste buds all over their body and can have as many as 75,000 more than the average human (with only about 100,000).

The point is this: the scale of the five senses held by humankind are dwarfed in one way or another by certain animals. We are unable to even comprehend what they can distinguish with their bodies, unable to fully comprehend just how much we are lacking compared to them.

And then, there are the senses we must completely live without.

Sharks have the ability to detect the electric fields generated by other organisms. In some sharks, this ability is so refined that they can find fish hiding under sand by the weak electric signals given off by the twitching of their muscles.

Imagine a constant buzzing in your mind as you walked a crowded hallway, growing stronger and softer in different sections of your head as certain people got closer and farther away. Even if you were completely blind, you would know – without a doubt – where each and every person was.

Many birds can detect Earth’s magnetic field, and it is hypothesized that they might be able to “see” this field as patterns of color and light overlaid on their visual surroundings. They primarily use this to stay on track during the migratory season.

Imagine a sort of compass implanted into your head. No matter where you were, you would always know which way was north.

Some insects, birds, mammals, and fish can see beyond the human color spectrum and into ultraviolet light. Humans can only see a limited band of UV light as a shades of whitish blue or purple.

Imagine colors beyond what you know becoming a part of your life. That pencil you thought was red is now a brilliant shade of something similar to green. The walls of your room aren’t white anymore, but a dull, soft orange-ish hue. You would never have seen either hue before.

Just because we are unable experience what other creatures can does not mean we cannot learn to appreciate just how different the world is for each and every organism. To look at something and recognize that there is more to it than what we perceive is awe-inspiring.

A child born blind cannot comprehend color. A species born “blind” to a sense are just as lost. But that should not stop either from desiring to know, to learn, more.

The Problem with Modern Art

http://www.peterpaulrubens.net/images/gallery/the-massacre-of-innocents.jpg

Picasso, Van Gogh, de Vinci, and Michelangelo: the respect and awe inspired by the artwork these artists created has allowed their names to stand the test of time. Whispers of their accomplishments still permeate society, and children at very young ages learn to recognize and cherish their appellations.

           These individuals (and many others I have abstained from listing) held their work to the highest standard, demanded of themselves only the best quality attainable, and utilized their own artistic style to improve upon the artistic endeavors of previous masters.

           What happened to utterly alter the foundations of society’s appreciation of art? The aesthetically pleasing qualities and attention to detail shown in the artwork of Rubens and Monet have largely given way to the offensive, the pointless, and the infantile. This is not a matter of pride; artists today often hold their work in the highest esteem.

           What, then, could it be?

Impressionism was a 19^th-century art movement whose initiators were artists who rejected government-sanctioned expositions and were consequently spurned by influential academic art institutions. It was a style of art that sought to capture the sensory effect of a moment in time, one that did not rely on realistic depictions, and whose followers sought to avoid clear form and utilize intense colors to excite the senses.

           The impressionists held the philosophic idea of aesthetic relativism, in which the judgement of beauty is relative to time, to individuals, and to culture. In an artistic sense, it is a denial of all standards that had previously governed ‘acceptable art.’

           Monet himself was an impressionist. His and his contemporaries’ works still preserved the discipline and execution of talented and dedicated artists, but with each new generation the quality of artwork and the self-imposed standers of creation declined until there were none at all. These standards were instead replaced by personal expression and abstraction.

http://files.brightside.me/files/news/part_2/24305/191755-R3L8T8D-1000-5_1.jpg

   

       Without standards, how does one determine what is superior or inferior? The answer: they cannot.

        All that remains is an undefined perception of a hypothesized meaning that can neither be suitably rejected nor praised. Before, art was a means to create scenes of mythology, or religion, of literature, of substance to make a statement in an appealing way. Today, artists have been known to use shock value to accomplish the same thing.

        Not only is this acceptance of the (often) mediocre the fault of the artists themselves, it is the fault of the artistic community. We as a people have accepted this art; we have allowed blank canvases to sell for millions of dollars, for the randomness of splattered paint to be worth more than most people see in a lifetime.

        Because we have allowed this new ‘art’ to get out of hand, we must also be the ones to put it back in its place. By recognizing that something new and different is not always good, that notable names do not always create notable products, we may yet discourage and subsequently fix what has tainted society’s perception of 'good' art.

        And, maybe then, new names will begin to take their place among legends.

The Multiverse Theory

http://tinyurl.com/znxu8ew

    

       There has never once been a human being that looked back at their past and found only a one-way path. Everyone has, at one time or another, imagined what would have happened if they had done something better, something different, or even turned that something into nothing in a crucial moment of their history. Images of present grandeur or ruin may flood their mind, or even subtle differences that would vastly impact their future, behaviors, beliefs, and memories – for better and for worse.

        However, not everyone may suppose that all of those separate decisions, real or imagined, were and still are being chosen and observed. And by another ‘them,’ no less.

        The Multiverse theory states that the entirety of matter, energy, space, and time is comprised of finite and infinite potential universes, including that which we inhabit. Every decision, no matter how small, made by any and every creature gives birth to a slew of different timelines dependent on that one decision. It is a continuous process that results in the birth of an exponentially growing number of alternate dimensions - each only slightly different from the last.

        Though this supposition is unable to be directly proven, it has long been considered a scientific possibility; the Multiverse theory stems from scientists’ current understanding of quantum mechanics and string theory.

        Take Schrӧdinger’s cat, for example, an animal placed in a closed box. Opening the box allows one possible history to make itself known: one where it is alive; one where it is dead; and, according to the huge scope of possibilities allowed by quantum mechanics, one where it is both dead and alive. 

       One may accept that these prospects are simply a place to store information until the ‘true’ ending is realized with the opening of the box, but one may also accept that each likelihood is true in of itself, just existing in an alternative universe.

       Gravitational force is near impossible to describe on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles (as even the act of observing such particles changes the way they react). String theory, however, states that all fundamental particles are comprised of one-dimensional strings and can describe all forces of nature at once. For this theory to mathematically function, though, it requires at least ten physical dimensions. The four we know of are height, width, depth, and time; the others are hidden from our view.

        There are a number of possibilities to describe how these extra dimensions interact (a very large number, mind you), and each theorized interaction ends with the creation of a universe with different physical laws than our own. This methodology, however, has not been completely accepted, and the matter is a point of contention for many scientists.

        String theory predicts that all alternate universes exist on the same physical plane. Proving the Multiverse theory may depend on the discovery of signs of collision and overlapping parts of the alternate universes. These signs will be, theoretically, unlike the consistency of our universe, such as cold spots and hot spots.

        

       

        Scientists are actively searching for all possible evidence to support a Multiverse reality.

        Should this concept of actuality be revealed as truth, science will never be the same. Should this concept of actuality be revealed as truth, how we as individuals view the actions we take will forever carry a greater weight.

       ‘I may not have been successful, but somewhere out there I am.’

       ‘I may have made a life for myself here, but somewhere out there my life was ruined.’

       The knowledge that one both suffers and prospers all at once is a double-edged blade. What misery have we managed to avoid by a hair’s breadth? What have we denied ourselves that has impacted our future for the worst? Someone out there knows.

       And that someone is another ‘us.’

How the Universe is Like a Cell

Universe

http://i.bullfax.com/imgs/fd89087cbf3f22aa477017

7b7d9d2cf239361a63

Brain Cell

https://images.sciencedaily.com/2015/

10/151008131213_1_900x600

         In 2014, scientists were able to take equations and theories from centuries of astronomical observations to create a three-dimensional, computerized model of the universe. This simulation is able to go forward and backward through time, hypothesizing the past and future layout of the cosmos – of the matter and dark matter it houses.

        Unfortunately, the replica is far from perfect; there exist anomalies that are not supported by current observations. However, its creation will assist in furthering the understanding mankind has of the universe as a whole.

        What makes this simulation far more interesting, however, is that its growth directly resembles that of a brain cell; the shapes of expanding galaxies echo electrical connections between brain cells, as well as the similarities between the connections (some nodules branching out into many links and others into few).

         It is common knowledge that there are certain mathematical functions that govern the natural world (such as the Fibonacci sequence, which has been shown to match the layout of the seeds in a sunflower, the shapes of certain seashells, the outward appearance of pine cones, the spiral of a galaxy, and much more). Could the development of a neural network and the network of space be governed by a similar natural law?

                Scientists have begun to hypothesize that the way that systems evolve in many various networks, ranging from the universe to the internet to the most minuscule of brain cells, is the same regardless of their different appearances. What this means is that the parallels between the small and the not-so-small are greater than can be evaluated at first glance.

Humanity has a limited view of the universe, literally and figuratively. Our eyes may be able to see objects lightyears away from Earth as we glance up at the night sky, but they cannot see the edges of the expanding space we and countless astral bodies claim as our own; and, not every mystery discovered has been found to have a definite answer.

What if the universe isn’t simply like a brain cell, but is a brain cell. Do we exist inside of a separate intelligence? Are we one of many? This would make us, our solar system included, far less than atomic particles.

And if our universe is a brain cell, then what, pray tell, exists within us all?

The Trouble with Memory

http://brainpages.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/memory-loss-600

                If you stick your hand in a burning flame, the pain will warn your body of impending danger. Usually, one unfortunate burn is enough to discourage someone from attempting such folly again; they recollect the pain, the situation attributed to it, and seek to avoid any similar events.

                You have learned to trust the people closest to you – family, friends, and coworkers. You are comfortable with your surroundings. You know what to do in an emergency, how to keep yourself healthy, and when and where you have to be each day only because you have the ability to remember.

                Memories are the foundation of everyday life, of living in general.

                That does not mean that they are true.

                Most everyone goes about their days accepting that much of what they see, feel, hear, smell, and taste at that moment will fade away until it is eventually forgotten. However, everyone has had an instance where they and another person recall a shared experience in a different way. In one account the sun was shining; in the other, it was cloudy and dark. In one account, they ate something sweet together; in the other, they enjoyed something spicy.

                Memories, to make my point clear, are continuously altering themselves. To quote Doctor Donna Bridge, a Ph.D. recipient in the field of neuroscience and former assistant director of the Laboratory for Human Neuroscience at Northwestern University, “If you remember something in the context of a new environment and time, or if you are even in a different mood, your memories might integrate the new information.” This means that each recollection of an event paints the experience differently based on the situation revolving around the recollection.

The mind alters the memory of an event to fit one’s current condition, their mindset. A memory of a time where everyone seemed happy can begin to develop a darker atmosphere when remembered by someone who is discontented. Remembering a certain scene from the past while eating a particular meal can tie the two together (i.e. we must have been eating this when we last spoke). Depending on the place and time that an event is remembered, anything in that memory can change: scenery, background noise, participants, and more.

There are some exceptions (such as eidetic, or photographic, memory), but even those classified as such cannot be said to be completely perfect, either. Though often more reliable, bias has still been shown to affect the integrity of their memories; current emotions color their recollections in a different light than when they were actually experienced.

If memories make us who we are, what does it mean when they become false? Grudges are created in minuscule ways, friendships are formed in small moments, and important events inspire regular contemplation. Each time these memories are called to the front of the mind, another piece is twisted and changed, made duller or more extravagant. What can we truly be said to know when our very own mental archives are endlessly rewriting themselves?

And how sad that the more we remember, the more we seem to forget.

Colors

                                                             http://i.ytimg.com/vi/evQsOFQju08/0

From the time we take our first gasps of air, opening our bleary eyes to the foreign world, we are met with color. Light shines off of minuscule particles that reflect the pigments they cannot absorb; we, because of the construction of our eyes, can perceive these rejected hues – love them and hate them as we so choose.

 Few of us really stop to ponder these preferences further than face value, but, when contemplating this partiality, greater questions have a habit of revealing themselves. For example: are all colors universal to all people?

Colorblindness is the decreased ability, or complete inability, to perceive color or to distinguish between variances in color. Reds can appear green; blues can appear red; everything can become another shade of grey, black, or white. There have even been reports that ‘colorblind’ individuals can differentiate pigments those with ‘normal’ color vision cannot.

In short, the sheer variety of ways it is known that color can be perceived, in other humans and in animals (cats are believed to see in blues and greys and fish can see in ultraviolet), means that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way of seeing the world.

And even if two beings can gesture to the same color and call it the same thing, it may truly not appear the same to the both of them.

                That apple is red. A banana is yellow. Your dog is brown. Though most humans have the power to perceive color, it is impossible to explain colors to one who has never seen them; all children learned color through first-hand experience and guidance. Who’s to say that each and every perception of color is the same? Is his brown her orange? Is her green his purple?

People may very well have similar ranges of color perception (regarding the number of colors they can see and the severity of their dissimilarities) but may observe different colors in general. Regardless, they would all call their colors the same thing: his purple and her green could very well end up with the title of ‘red.’ This ‘red,’ no matter how it was seen by the individual, would have the exact same psychological influence on everyone; the wavelength attained by the cones in our eyes would determine the effect on the brain.

                Color is not the only thing that incites similar contemplation. Taste, touch, sound, and smell: these capabilities could very well be just as unique. They are sensations that the mind translates from the physical world for the individual experience. In this way, we are very much alone in our own heads. We should realize that not everything should be taken for granted.

Even topics that are seemingly fundamental have layers upon layers of mystery surrounding them. The trick is to dig deep enough to discover them. The goal is to make them a mystery no longer. The key is to realize how much we really do not know.

                 

Mind Tricks

                                    http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Eye-Benders-Shutterstock1

             The human brain is a strange and wonderful thing. It manages our instincts, behaviors coded into our bodies from the time where death was always around the corner. It contains our perceptions, ways one’s experiences have colored the world around them for the best and the worst. Sensations and stimulants control the way we exist. Sight, sound, touch, taste, smell; our world is defined by our senses.

   So… what happens when they lie to us?

                Everything that the brain does is done for the efficiency and/or the safety of its body. Because of this, it can be inferred that the changes in awareness and sensation caused by one’s senses are intended to use past experiences to predict the outcomes of future actions. The body subconsciously analyzes these expectations and reacts accordingly.

The way food looks has been shown to effect its flavor. For example, sweeter flavors have been reported in deserts served on white plates over black plates. 

In a widely replicated experiment, researchers put red dye into white wine. Wine enthusiasts have often spoken about how different the flavors of red and white wine are, but with the simple inclusion of the dye (which has no effect on flavor), even those dedicated to the study of different wines began using descriptions common to red wine for the red-dyed white wine.

The mind plays tricks on everyone every day. Shadows can give false impressions of color; phantom pains, or even sympathy pains, can plague others; and even the sizes and coloring of plates can deceive someone into eating less, eating healthier, and feeling full faster.

 By concentrating on one specific portion of an area, we can become blind to that which occurs around us. 

Whether seeking out similar phenomenon or simply trying to become more informed, it should be noted that something as seemingly innocent as a lapse in the logic in one’s physical senses can have devastating effects.

Imagine a man driving home from work. He pulls up to a stop sign in a relatively deserted part of town. Every time he has ever driven up to that spot, no cars have been moving in either direction. Habitually, he stops, looks both ways, sees nothing, and then pulls into the street. In the next second, he and another car collide. How is this possible? Complacency is the answer.

Because the man had been to that same stop so frequently and never saw any other cars, his eyes supplanted the image of an empty road into his head and prompted him to continue with his drive. We must be careful that we do not lose our cautiousness during potentially unsafe activities.

If appearances can warp our perceptions and comfort can block out the approach of looming threats, what else are our brains hiding from us?

Let this be a warning to think about what you see, feel, taste, hear, smell, and why. Not everything that our brains interpret (or do not) is beneficial to us in this world of technological wonders.

              "Instinct" is not enough anymore. 

Replication Technology

               In the Star Trek universe, there exists a category of machines dedicated to the duplication of known objects from programmable memory. With no more effort than is needed to speak, one can have almost anything they desire. This replicator, as it was so called within multiple series of the show, was supposedly able to dematerialize matter and then build it up into something new. Medicine, food, industrial parts, and even more were customized and created in almost no time at all.


               The closest operational thing to replication technology in modern society is the 3-D printer, and the comparison is a stretch at best.

                It has been hypothesized that, in the expanse of space, there are particles that exist for only a fraction of a fraction of a second before reverting to a state of energy (traversing Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence formula, or energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). In that small portion of time, energy turns into matter – subatomic particles that may or may not follow the basic laws of physics, but matter still.


              Basic science explains that all physical objects are created from molecules, molecules from atoms, and atoms from subatomic particles. Humanity has already found a way to manipulate the way subatomic particles in atoms chain together, giving them the opportunity to influence the creation of molecules and, therefore, what those molecules can create.


             Theoretically, with enough energy, the creation of a replicator is already possible. More than possible, in fact. There is simply no way to do it efficiently.

                In the Star Trek series, antimatter/matter reactors are commonly used for at least part of the starships’ fuel systems (this is a simplified description of the complex workings of the ships’ power sources, but it will serve its purpose). When matter and antimatter collide, the product of their masses is converted into energy, following the mass-energy equivalence formula.

               Considering that the speed of light is approximately 3.0 x 10⁸ m/s, the energy released by even a “relatively small” amount of antimatter and matter colliding would be large enough to fix the problem of too little energy. However, production is incredibly expensive (an estimated sixty-two trillion dollars for one gram of antihydrogen, according to NASA), incredibly inefficient (current technology could only create about ten nanograms of antimatter per year), and therefore extremely time-consuming.

                Now, imagine a world where the replicator is not only created in bulk, but presented to the public for their own personal use. With the ability to create food, medicine, shelter, and anything else their minds can dream of, what would be the use of currency? What would be the point of mass conflict? In the Star Trek universe, neither of these exist on Earth anymore. Disease has all but been eradicated and world hunger is a thing of the distant past. People are free to do as they wish, when they wish, and most of them spend their extra time improving themselves and their communities. In a world where everyone has everything, what better way is there to spend eternity?

           
              The resources and equipment necessary to produce a replicator may not yet exist, but would the effort invested into creating and acquiring the necessary parts not be worth the reward? By meeting the needs and wants of the entire planet, humanity could once again experience a renaissance of thought, innovation, and creativity expression.


             And when home is a place so familiar, the need to explore what lies beyond has nothing to do but grow.