Gedanken zur Debatte über den Dinokiller

Nachdem ich den Artikel Saurier-Streit: Showdown um den Dinokiller im Spiegelonline
gelesen habe, kamen mir ein paar Gedanken zu diesem doch komplexen Thema. Es fällt auf, dass es so komplex ist, als das eine grobschlächtige Theorie es aufeinmal bezwingen könnte. In der Wissenschaft hatten einfache Theorien bei Schlüssel Thema nur eine kurze Überlebensdauer und stellen nur Bindemodelle dar - hier zum Beispiel das Rutherfordmodell.

Somit ist es eher wahrscheinlich, dass beide Parteien unrecht haben, aber trotzdem der Wahrheit nahe kommen. Der Streit über den Dinokiller teilt sich in zwei Parteien, den welche eine Meterioiteneinschlag oder welche die eine Kette von Supervulkanausbrüchen für das Massensterben verantwortlich machen. Das schöne an den Modellen ist, es sind schlagwortartige Modelle, die plakativ sind, ohne wirklich tiefere Fragen zu klären:

1. Warum sollte der Einschlag keine längerfristigen Folgen haben,
er kommt einem Beben von Stärke 10< gleich, und kann somit nicht mehr
von der Erdkruste absorbiert werden, die Kruste kann nur selber Beben
bis zur 9,7 aufbauen, also wohin wandert die übertragene Energie?
Durch Analyse alter Tsunami konnte eine Bebensstärke von 20 festgestellt
werden, also 10 Milliarden mal stärker als jedes von der Erde selbst
möglich ausgelöste Beben. Was für ein Beben würde ein Einstürzender
Supervulkan nach einem Ausbruch verursachen, besonders wenn über ihn
eine große Wassersäule befindet?
Wenn schon Beben dieser Größenordnung auftreten, kann nicht von einem
elastischen Stoß ausgegangen werden, in wie weit werden die
Konvektionsströme innerhalb des flüssigen Kernes beeinflusst, was
passiert dort? In den letzten Zehnjahren gab es weitreichende
Grundsatzexperimente und -simulationen zum Verständnis der
Erdmagnetfeldes, aber Aussagen über diesen Spezialbereich wurden noch
nicht publiziert.

2. Was löst Supervulkane aus, woher stammt ihr Potential und warum
trat eine Häufung direkt nach großen Meteoriteneinschlägen auf. Gibt es
eine Erklärung für ihren Mechanismus und inwieweit stehen sie in
Verbindung zu Hotspots. Wichtigere Frage, gibt es einen Zusammenhang zum
Erdmagnetfeld und somit Dynamo des flüssigen Kerns. Soweit ist nur
geklärt, das kein Material aus dem flüssigen Kern zu Hotspots oder
Supervulkanen transportiert werden, aber dies heißt nicht, dass nicht
durch Konvektionsstromketten sie die Energie für Supervulkane liefern
könne. Nach Überschlagen der Konvektionsgeschwindigkeit, kam ich etwa
auf 0,3 Ma die eine Störung des Erdmagnetfeldes benötigte, um eine
Wirkung auf der Oberfläche zu erzielen.

Da diese Fragen bis jetzt noch beantwortet werden konnten, lassen sie auch folgende Interpretationsmöglichkeit der Ereignisse vor 65 Ma zu, wobei beide Theorie dafür benutzt wurden, um die oben gesteckten Randbedingungen zu erfüllen, also die Fragen zu umgehen.

1. Ein Meterioit mit einem Durchmesser von über 10 Kilometer schlug
auf die Erde ein

2. Sein Impact vernichtet direkte Umgebung und sein Tsunami besorgt
die etwas weiter entfernte Umgebung den Rest.

3. Der Impactwinter führt zu einer weiteren Schwächung der
Megafauna auf der Erde.

4. Nach 300ka trifft die volle Wucht der Supervulkane, die durch
eine Störung des Erdmagnetfeldes ausgelöst werden, auf die Überlebende
und gibt der Megafauna je nach Ausbruchs Ort den Rest, halt auf dem Land
oder im Meer.

The Concept of Good and Evil

This is an ongoing blog about the concept of good and evil, or why it is useful and not practicable at the same time.

In this blog I wanted to write, over what good and bad. The central question is, is there exist a universal good and bad, or is this the greatest bullshit on earth.

Yes, I think there exist no universal good and bad, because they are only a relative view of a model of the short glimpse of the reality and its prediction of the near future. In most way, it is meant in the way, of a special benefit of a situation for a person. In that part the centre of the model is the person itself, and so all the view of the world. The elementary question here is, how good a person could abstract the question. In the normal way of living in this world, the model is so adopted by a living person, that it can't be question, because on the other side, it will be completely without a coordination base. To avoid this a person is normally cantered on itself.

The difficult of time is, the near past of the last 10.000 years, which humanity is living in an integrated society. This make it difficult, so that with every step forward in the society of humankind, it's single parts have to abstract more, because, the surrounding is creped up. You couldn't see the whole thing up at once. But the system how a human make a decision is the same as it was by our ancestors, how was running through the forest.

What did I mean with the abstraction of the normal system. With the spread of the civilation you couldn't oversee anymore directly all the things, which are made for your living. You must oversee more than your direct live, because your live is dominated indirect processes, which make your live easy. When you want to make your live a little more easy than it is, than you have take control of one of the indirect process, f.e.: to give a donation for that a law is changed for your own benefits.

To make here at this point a drastic answer of this model, a society with in a high culture has more people how can think really abstract, where on the other side in a not stonage society the thinking must could be simple. But to make it complicate, when you could make easy an abstraction, you have the chance to make an decision in a short time beyond the animal instinct, see higher animals, where only the fittest survived. In this sentence it would be so most adapted to the situation, with an ever changing surrounding, it means the best one that could change it behaviour to live, when the system is stable, a physical adaptation to situation is a normal behaviour transformation will win in a battle of survival. You could see that on islands, where you have more specialist animals. So a society on an island without much contact to other island will fell behind, or will go a way to its bitter end.

So when you live in a heavily regulated system, a change of the system will be like a shock. In an ever-changing system like the modern societies, the change is no shock; it is only an adaptation to the time. Its the smooth way of live, evolutes not created. The problem by over stable system is that every change in the system is a revolution, so the activation energy for a normal change is to high, it will stand as long in that situation as not the inner pressure is not high enough. So fixed systems like pseudo religions are like overheated fluids, which doesn't go into the gas phase.

So you could see religion as the simplest model available to build a logic construction to go through the world, it has integrated the basic-philosophic question, how I am, why could I be and what things make me to be and what are the axioms of a normal society. When you subtract the philosophic part, you will see in which direction a society will drift trough the centuries. An interesting point on this is that, pseudo religion the we, the society is placed on the same level as basic-logic postulates, where in a religion the postulations of the three great question are clear placed before them and it is made clear that you could only accept the answer as a whole but not understand, they are not questionable axioms. In a sect the leader is normal placed into the axioms with all its doing, this is the normal way to handle a critical situation of a group, which is standing near for it whip out. In sects you see a highly priority to fertilize and strict unquestionable command. in a religion you have this only for the philosphophic and social axiom for living peacefully together. When you see normal humans under extrem pressure of a war or a danger situation you could see, how quick the normal axioms of the society is modelled to a better accepting of the situation. With that, resources are handled more drastically and the whole what is good and not good is clearer. You see by all sects like scientology, Islam etc. that you speak they have overtime a clear view for your future, they know what is right for you in every situation. But that do we know, in stone age societies where all things are unquestioned, because they came from the gods and when you question them, all the near tribes could be wiped out, but I thing the drastically acceptations of this is, that they hadn't any other chance for this because, when they handle the situation the tribe will be wiped out, the nature didn't tolerate any kind of not with her.

An aspect of the tribally tradition is that the law and the unwritten constitution of the tribe was only told to the next generation not fixed for forever. Because of the dangerous life take it tribute from the society, the whole knowledge of the society couldnt given over to the next generation at a whole, a tribe has normally not more than 300 persons. So that when a person die, it has a special knowledge will be lost for the tribe too. Because of this small breaks in the telling of the old ones, the tribe regenerate and adapts better to a knew time with every new generation, because the person which took over the places of which where gone, have to fill hole in the knowledge. So it came to the paradox situation, that in a tribally society, the whole tribe could believe I an coherent view of its past but to be totally changed after four to five generations. It is too normal in those societies to tell the stories of former great persons in own time, it ridiglious that there were 500 years between them. One problem of the Islam is that Allah has the normal feature of a tribally religions, he is not god, he on of the greater gods which where honoured by the Mecca tribes at that time, see mooncalender in the Islam. At the time of Mohammed there was no reason for fixing his speeches, because it was normal for the society, prophets came and go, before him. After his death Ali the third Uthman ibn Affan ordered to write down all which Mohammed had said, because of the to greed losses of who have heard of Mohammed and memorized its hearing, so the Koran could not be complete, because the loss of knowledge was the reason for its down writing. The social axioms in the Islam are more like the Hitlers fascisms than in other scripting, you could see that Hitler too is very popularity of Hitler in the near east and they to favour the same way to overtake a society. The Islam had the opportunity to be religion, but there they shouldnt have written down the thinking of Mohammed, they should have lived peacefully with the erosions of their cult. In short words the Islam has the same setting like small tribe, which is pressed to near in existing. Only, after the tribe in a normal sourrounding, the thinking of the tribe will be normalicied in two or three generations.

With the beginning strength of the higher societies and the development of writing, it was necessary to evolutes the thinking of the society, because the knowledge of the time was written down and more people lived, so that the knowledge could be given to the next generation more correctly. This made for those who could read obviously that not all settings of the generation before where adequate to new time. So the coherents of the society was destroyed by its further development and the most important thing, its ability to adept to a new surrounding.

So I have yet no time to complete the whole sentence,
it will be a bite longer

What is Religion?

Ridicules thought over religion. I make this short, through for you more complicated. If you believe in god or not, it does not matter, because you need to define yourself you come not without out. Or better, he is an paradox transformation, so that you don't have to proof yourself anymore – this practical very important. The human can't view himself without other, because he view all relative to his surroundings, we have not found any real absolute constants in nature beside the number 1. The second improvement is that, a two particle problem is solve able, so you are through the existents of god set. You get problem by systems with more than two, they can't be solved exactly any more, besides special cases. So social interaction, is an approximation or an weightings of different interests without knowing which part is right. So live in society is vague or if you want, you could be lonely in the exact way of the word. When you go into nature and are alone, you are not lonely anymore. That is the reason, why the suicide rates of intuits in the wilderness is lower than when they live in society. We call this loneliness depression.

Yes their exist other reason too, but I don't to write book yet.

Back to the point, when you accept you loneliness, or your paradox of your live, or better your existents, you could better react to your social fears and so act against the group and make your way. But has this to do with religion:

1. We belief all in the same god, he is an axion for us.
2. Godexperiences are only singular and have are no other than selfexperiences
3. You could define religion!
1. Religion is in the first way culture.
2. Through experience of god no earthly law could be deduced, this mean all how want to install the part of heaven or hell on earth have earthly interests for it.
3. Religions is the art to find oneself.
   here psychology helps to today!
4. Through the search personally your personally, the our society set.
   so how control guides of the search one could control society and our culture.
4. So the society today the modern society is one way more religious than the fundamentalists of our old age.
5. Freedom mean, help be the self search to self help.

Hmm, I am to sleeping to bring this yet to complete this yet, so will write another blog about this theme.

Hello, there I am

Ariuvist, how was it?