We All Are Idiots!

(1) “We think AU Mic b formed far from the star and migrated inward to its current orbit, something that can happen as planets interact gravitationally with a gas disk or with other planets,”

(2) “By contrast, Beta Pictoris b’s orbit doesn’t appear to have migrated much at all. The differences between these similarly aged systems can tell us a lot about how planets form and migrate.”

We may have a thought/problem as a star in our mind along with some ambiguous answers orbit around that thought/problem. But we often may not see progress in approaching those ambiguous answers to the core problem like Beta Pictoris system (2).

We may start thinking that the problem is at the core of our primitive thought/problem, and maybe that core is not very powerful. But I think the problem is the fear of creating chaos in our minds as AU Mic system (1) do. It is the planets and gas disk that bring AU Mic b closer to the star.

Maybe we better to act like AU Mic system when we think. We should not afraid of chaos around our primitive answers in order to tug them they come closer to the star!

Don't afraid of chaos and miss.

Image Source: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov

Admire yourself!

“The Crab Nebula sonification”

How do you admire yourself? How do you admire others?

Has there ever been a time when there was no noise in encouraging others? There is always a certain noise in admiration: even in the admiration we give ourselves. Do you ever remember when there was no sound and noise when you did a wonderful job admiring it?!

Now, if sound is an integral part of admiration and praise in us humans, it is less unlikely that you not look crazy to others when you are used to praising yourself or your abilities. All us may have heard this popular quotation: “They who dance are thought mad by those who hear not the music.”

Now, imagine such crazy people who want to relate the universe to themselves by saying that we are the universe and the universe is us. They will try to relate the universe to themselves, of which sound and noise will be an integral part. Perhaps the best part, because they are always admiring their abilities and work. To them, sound and noise will be an integral part of things that want to glorify their beauty, and mysteries, even if they do not have the right environment to convey it.

For some people, these sounds are merely for the emotional display of the glory and beauty of these phenomena, and for others, nothing glorious can be devoid of a certain noise if they are to be related with us and admire themselves like us. Views are always different!

How can something be related to us and not use some kind of noise to praise itself?!

Have you ever tried to admire yourself without any noise?! The thought of such an endeavor may lead you to not seem insane to others which is insane in itself!

Even when I want to act logically, the noise of music affects my thoughts. Because it is less likely that the mind can praise itself without a certain noise. Listening to music reminds us of those sounds that our mind uses for its own praise, and it has always been impossible for me to ignore them.

Can you imagine a God who has no voice? Such a noiseless God never praise himself; what a helpless and weak God who has nothing in itself to admire!

When was the last time you heared or used a certain noise like crazy people?!

Video source:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/explore-from-space-to-sound

Perseverance has collected its first scientifically-selected sample.

----------------------------------------

A mother calls her child that she recently gives birth to as her "first" child because she hopes for two things;

The first latent hope is that she can give birth to another one, the second is that the child can also be a creator like the mother in the future.

Without such hopes, the child will be the last child of the mother, or better to say that her "first" and "last" child at the same time. Without such hopes, she can "certainly" not call the child her "first" child.

Hope is the latent reason for certainty, ordering, indexing, and knowledge of states. It allows us to have some inferences and interpretations about our observations such that those inferences play as imaginary observations.

When we claim to have collected the "first" sample from the Mars, there are probably two hopes behind this claim;

First, we hope that the "second" sample will be collected in the future, or we hope that this is the only existing sample that will return to Earth and after comparing to our previous knowledge an ordinal number like "first" can be applied to it.

We humans had difficult times to survive, and, consequently, hope was necessary to human beings to overcome such difficulties over time. It has become an integral part of our temperament and identity, and has increased our desire for certainty than uncertainty.

Hope is the reason that we humans mostly tend to certainty than duality and uncertainty.  It leads to "certainty", so sometimes it can be the most deceptive thing in the world, specially for single and first observations and collections.

Although human beings strive to replace sustainability in technology with hope, this does not affect the generality of our discussion. Sustainability in technology only guarantees certainty of an event in the future while we discuss the moment that sample collected. It is obvious that everything is certain in the future!

Overall, we may not be allowed to call it first or even zeroth sample yet.

Sometime we may send a hopeless but happy mother to Mars.

"One is always wrong, but with two truth begins. One cannot prove the case, but two is irrefutable." _ Friedrich Nietzsche

Image source: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasas-perseverance-rover-successfully-cores-its-first-rock

Strawberry Moon 🍓or🌕 https://www.instagram.com/p/CQjiP5VrM3H/?utm_medium=tumblr

If one asks about the characteristics of the observer of these images in order to be able to compare them with the images that can be taken with the same observers and arrive at a unique interpretation of the components of these images, he is an scientist/expert.

If someone, by looking at these pictures, provides answers or views that make me start thinking and asking questions about those answers and views, he is a philosopher.

If anyone both asks questions about the characteristics of the observer and offers answers and views that I am just beginning to think about and ask questions about, she is Newton or Einstein.

If anyone is insists on seeking the creator of those stuff inside the pictures, he is a religious person.

Meanwhile, If I take a stand against the questions are asked or the answers are given, I am a fanatic.

Nevertheless, I did not take this photos, it was taken by those who were next to me. I was fascinated by watching this scene and that moment is called life.

✨Life is more beautiful than all those discussed above.✨

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope will be launched this September.

—————————————

“This painting painting was painted within a limited period of time before light and atmospheric conditions change.”

Would you like your car to have a powerful mirror such that shows you the origin from which you moved?

Our answer to this question is most likely negative.

There is no point for most of us in such mirrors. What do you think makes a person so interested in such a powerful mirror in his car that he would like to see even the origin in it?

Such a person either possibly has Alzheimer's, or he does not have the clock or specific signs to accurately determine time, and can only determine time by where he is/was. In other words, our imaginary person needs a momentary awareness of his place in order to be able to discern the transition of time during his journey. One of the easiest solutions for him would be to divide the path into smaller and more visible pieces so that the end of each piece is both a new destination and a new origin or the beginning of the next piece. Each piece cannot exceed the maximum length of his car—the only available measurement available to him.

The question is whether our imaginary person merely makes such a segmentation of the path to determine time because his presence in space and time forces him to make such a segmentation of his path, or whether his latent habit of segmenting the path forces him to create imaginary concepts such as space and time for him.

It most likely depends on the type of development and growth of his intelligence. If you are a creature whose mind is suddenly formed and does not undergo any change over time, then such an idea and segmentation will only be made by your mind, which will subsequently create concepts such as space and time and movement in it, which may It really does not exist.

But if your mind has evolved over time, and, more importantly, you are a creature that sees your mother at birth blurry as a single body and details are added to your mother after growth, such as having five fingers with different sizes, in this case, in this case, segmenting the continuous components and differentiating between the parts and the whole of a set will be necessary for your understanding of the environment surrounding you. In fact, you will need such segmentation and differentiating to understand the space and time you are really in. Because you discern your body as a whole such that it is bigger than your little finger as a part. In the absence of such an evolution, it was unlikely that you would perceive space, time, and the environment around you in this way. Evolution, therefore, has left us with no choice but to segment our environment into different parts in order to understand it along with its space and time.

For example, if we evolved in such a way that we grow from old age to childhood, we would certainly have a different perception, so that continuity, instead of segmentation, would be an integral part of our perception. We even could not discern that our body was bigger than our little fingers. Because our brains were supposed to evolve in such a way that our perception goes from the disintegration of our mother's fingers in our old age to their continuity with our blur vision in childhood. It is difficult for us to understand this because we stay in these stages for a short time and spend most of our lives with little change.

Thus, the true and of course complex idea for our imaginary person would be the idea that he segments his path and turn it into an infinite origin and destination so that he can gain an understanding of the path and the space and time in which he is. To this end, he would definitely need a powerful mirror in which he could see all the previous origins and destinations to determine his place, time, and movement during his journey. Because he needs to compare the origin and the destinations ahead with his previous ones in order to recognize that he is moving.

Otherwise, he would have no understanding of his movement, speed, place and time as an evolved being that lived from childhood to Youth.

Creatures looking for powerful mirrors certainly have their brains evolved over time, from weaker vision to stronger vision. strong and weak here do not mean the power of vision or field of vision, but rather the degree of understanding of details of generalities during their evolution. Creatures who make powerful mirrors have certainly lived from childhood to old age. They have definitely gone from a blurry vision in childhood to a clearer vision in youth. They have gone from more vague memories to more stable memories. creatures who have reached to childhood from old age cannot show such a passion for larger and more powerful mirrors, and even such creatures cannot have the characteristic of curiosity.

You may not be very interested in powerful mirrors in your car right now, but you will definitely need them in the future when traveling at very high speeds. Then it will no longer be a question of being interested or excited about them, but then you will need them.

Apart from that, imagine humans evolving from old age to childhood. As we have discussed, such beings could only have an imaginary understanding of space and time, and space and time were made by their minds, even if space and time existed independently in their world. How were they going to deal with these two issues, or did they even realize that there were two different issues? I do not think they were curious enough to seek the answer to such a question, but if we and they could live together, we would definitely become more intelligent beings.

Image source: https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/jwstArt/index.html

Energy is going to be scaled!

By this move, the cat wants to teach us to consider energy consumption as both relative and scaled. 😁🤫😴

TOURNAMENT EARTH 2021

Vote at https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/tournament-earth

Let's guess which images others are going to take to the final stage.

Although there are definitely many parameters, such games have always been enjoyable for me. So let's have a try.

In the image below, those images that are connected in a straight line are my choices for the final stage.

However, people are not going to have them as their choice.

I have considered some imaginary behavioral filters and are going to anticipate that whcih images will be chosen based on those filters.

F1: Entertainment filter. For example, The image of a racetrack from astronauts' perspective is likely to be more appealing to people.

F2: Chaos and excitement filter. One of the strangest traits of most people is that they escape chaos in their lives but enjoy seeing a chaotic phenomenon when they and their fellows are in a comfort zone!

F3: Tendency to artificiality. People like artificial things more than facts.

F4: Tendency to colorful life without engaging to details.

F5: Hope for strange events.

F6: Passion for power even it was destructive!

F7: Eagerness for bold things.

F8: They believe that life is more beautiful than what they encountered in their daily life!

F9: Quality filter. It depends on the screen they vote on. If we considered most of them will vote on Mobile screen then they may act like what I chosed above.

F10: Passion for mysterious and unkown things because they think that some unkowns have not yet revealed in them.

Knows relatively everything, but absolutely nothing!

Finding the laws and wonders of nature and the universe has not been and is not interesting for most of the people. Regulating the issues that we face in daily life has not been surprising, too. On the other hand, the irregularity of those issues is not interesting either!

So what surprises us?

People are often surprised by nonsense issues (nonsense in my view) and encourage them instead of being surprised by scientific facts. Surprisingly, these people have understood the facts better than scientists and scholars!

They have understood that our nature as human beings has always tended to be surprised; therefore, any law, whether scientific, experimental or intuitive, that doesn't cause surprise might be doubted, because it may not in analogous with our nature. Humanity eager to be surprised. I do not know if this trait is good or bad, but I know it is a fact for a realist. Although we prefer that everything be predictable, there is no doubt that unforeseen events have surprised us the most and challenged our knowledge and experience to the extent that the advancement of science owes to them today. Hence, it seems that scientists prefer to be surprised rather than taking refuge to predictable issues.

The problem is that we always pay attention to the cause for surprise rather than the surprise itself. This illusions arise from this fact that any group is eager to surprise people by its own favorite topic. In fact, what is surprising is the surprise itself not the cause of surprise. The surprise itself is a mere concept.

A less related example may increase the transparency of my discussion! We are all familiar with something called the "aha moment". The moment you reach the solution, the answer, or the desired results. Most of us think that that moment is amazing because we came up with a unique solution, answer, or result that can be expressed as a rule. However, it is amazing because the solution or result was beyond the researcher's previous imagination/thoughts, and not because the researcher discovered a hidden law. If the researcher knows what he is looking for and only more accuracy than previous efforts will lead him to the desired solutions or results, then what curiosity means at all! In this case, he would rather be a science businessman or science entertainer than a scientist. Only that accuracy and perfection will be more significant if it leads to a surprise.

If someone told you "I/we know that...", do not believe it, even if what he/she said was the result of a lifetime experience. If everything is supposed to be certain from someone’s point of view, we humans would have realized the mechanism of the universe a long time ago, but we couldn't! Then it seems that we face with twofold problem; no one knows, or everyone knows.

If someone says "I know this ...", then everyone knows it. But if even one person did not accept it, then the first speaker did not know, too. When we are trying to express our ideas it is safe to emphasize that we claim knowing something based our personal experience at a particular period of time. But we always generalize our spatial and temporal experiences due to our language limitations, and this will definitely be fun for future intelligent generations.

Nevertheless, the only principle that can be relied upon is that whoever told "I/we know this ...", "I/we believe in ...", etc., should not be expected to surprise us and consequently have a profound effect on our life.

I always like to be surprised, whether by a single person or a creative group, such that my whole life and experiences be questioned. That allows me to rethought and reinvent.

I never like to be a scientist, not an intellectual, not a science businessman, not a science entertainer. I always want to be surprised such that all or part of my experience and knowledge be completely challenged.

Anyway, the moon was moving before the stars appeared!

I have never been able to come up with a precise and unique definition of the word “ideal”, like ideal conditions. For example, what conditions might be ideal for a full moon day? A clear sky and living in a small and remote town with less light noise might be considered as an ideal condition for observing a big and bright full moon. However, it has always been a question for me whether the facts we want to observe defines the ideal condition or the ideal conditions determine the facts. I never found an answer to this dilemma, but I made a solution to solve such dilemma for myself. Most of the time I realized that before answering a question, the definition of all phrases inside the question had to be defined precisely from the questioner’s point of view. The problem is that I always had trouble defining the facts and phrases.

The problem in my mind arise from this question that what if the truth is not unique? In this case, the definition of ideal condition should not be unique. So if the ideal situation is not unique, it means that the facts is not unique and a different fact can be achieved in different ideal conditions for an identical event. For example, if the observing of a big and bright moon on a full moon night is an ideal condition, so forecasting a cloudy night can ruin your whole day. That day should be regretted for losing a unique fact due to the lack of unique ideal condition.

I had already learned to regret and be depressed in those days until I tried to change the meaning of the facts for myself and define it from scratch for myself. Practicing this strategy helped me realize over time that the facts are never the same and unique to a subject. And this might be what causes to have diversity in human species and their thoughts about different events, which makes the earth a very beautiful place, but makes life complex and sometimes difficult. Maybe it is better learn to find more beauty in the complexities to enjoy life!

I remember the day I saw for the first time in my life that the moon was moving by the clouds for a few seconds, but in order not to look stupid I had to convince myself that those few seconds were nothing more than imaginary and that it was the clouds were moving. But the moon was moving! It was as if there were ideal conditions that allowed the moon to move in my view for just a few seconds.

Stubbornness to look stupid allowed me to ask: does the movement of other objects determine where I am, or does my position determine the type and direction of movement of other objects? Anyway, I always had a full moon without a pre-determined schedule, and if I was lucky and the weather was cloudy and there was good light noise, I would see at first glance that the moon was moving behind the cloud. But it did not take long for my eyes to get used to the darkness of the night and pinpoint the faint stars and realize that I was on Earth and it was the clouds passing in front of the moon.

I later found out that light noise is not a bad thing either. Light noise helped me not be able to pinpoint faint stars next to the full moon, which in turn helped me not to limit the observable space of the moon to a certain boundary. From then on, I realized that any condition can be ideal for a different fact if I do not consider it to be a mere and unique fact. This kind of thinking made me realize that any situation can be ideal for understanding different aspects of a fact, even if that condition is not an ideal condition for others as they already intended to understand the same fact in a different ideal condition. This makes us more open-minded in accepting the realities of life than in resisting.

The problem is that the facts from different perspectives are not in line with society's beliefs, can lead to isolation, but instead you learn that every problem has a solution, although different, difficult, not conventional, and, consequently, time consuming.

It is yet a big question for me whether the facts we want to observe defines the ideal conditions or the ideal conditions determine the facts. Maybe one day I will come to the conclusion that both were an identical question; or maybe I didn’t ask the right question.

Anyway, the moon was moving before the stars appeared!