Bigz's Fruitarian/Workout Progress Pics/update

[offense74]

Given the law conservation of energy.. It can neither be created, not destroyed. It only converts from one form to another. i.e. All Mass & Energy are inter convertible. All forms of mass are "potentially" energy.

It IS energy.

Our Human bodies THRIVE on the "SIGNIFICANCE" of a "CERTAIN FORM" of ENERGY. That form of energy is derived from "LIFE GIVING" or "LIVING" or "FORMERLY LIVING" substances. Why?

This is a contradiction to the first quote. You say in the first quote that energy is energy nomatter in what form it comes and then in the second quote somehow redefine it so that the energy becomes "different" depending on its form.

Energy is energy is energy. It doesn't matter if it's potential, static, nuclear, etc. It's energy.

 

The sun converts matter in the form of "leftover" neutrons (from fusion of H + H to He) to heat and light (energy). Plants convert this sunlight (energy) and CO2 to carbohydrates (energy) and O2. We eat the plants and we convert the carbohydrates together with O2 to muscle power, brain power, heat, what have you and CO2. Same ole' energy that came from the leftover neutron. So far Newton is right. Disproving him might be out of scope for this board.

[dropSoul]

He he.. dropSoul Love what you've written. But, I think talking about the Yogis, Maya, Advaita will make our readers drift further away. Very few people even begin to ponder and understand the borderline between spirituality and science.

 

Which is why EINSTEIN reached where he did where most people did not. Most people never understood the levels at which he was operating but take his greatness based on the fame that is present in popular media. Everyone thinks he was great because it was the popular thing to do.

 

When he talked about the breaking of the Time-Space Continuum... Most people had no idea he had read the Vedas & the Bhagvad Gita.

 

The Matrix is Everywhere

 

Thanks! Yeah, had to rant on my favorite subject: mysticism. The matrix is everywhere. Yes, the greatness of a person is usually measured by superficial gauges, too bad. So much science has proven that there is indeed something which is No thing or nothing vibrating at different frequencies. It's really fascinating, captain.

[crashnburn]

Given the law conservation of energy.. It can neither be created, not destroyed. It only converts from one form to another. i.e. All Mass & Energy are inter convertible. All forms of mass are "potentially" energy.

It IS energy.

Our Human bodies THRIVE on the "SIGNIFICANCE" of a "CERTAIN FORM" of ENERGY. That form of energy is derived from "LIFE GIVING" or "LIVING" or "FORMERLY LIVING" substances. Why?

This is a contradiction to the first quote. You say in the first quote that energy is energy nomatter in what form it comes and then in the second quote somehow redefine it so that the energy becomes "different" depending on its form.

Energy is energy is energy. It doesn't matter if it's potential, static, nuclear, etc. It's energy.

 

The sun converts matter in the form of "leftover" neutrons (from fusion of H + H to He) to heat and light (energy). Plants convert this sunlight (energy) and CO2 to carbohydrates (energy) and O2. We eat the plants and we convert the carbohydrates together with O2 to muscle power, brain power, heat, what have you and CO2. Same ole' energy that came from the leftover neutron. So far Newton is right. Disproving him might be out of scope for this board.

 

Its not a contradiction.

 

ENERGY is ENERGY. Applicability or Usability of energy varies. And my dear friend this comes from an Engineering Background.

 

The keyword in any Engineering is "Application".

 

Plants use the ENERGY they want, the way they want from the elements (Earth, Water, Wind, Light (Fire)) and so on.. eaten by Humans.

ENERGY moves forward.. but it CHANGES FORM (Law of Conservation) and that CHANGE is brought about by DIFFERENT "PROCESSES & PROCESSORS" along the way.

 

In fact, if anything.. your example (Sun:FUSION, Plants:PHOTOSYNTHESIS, Humans:DIGESTION) strengthens the point I was trying to make. ENERGY changes form, the Processors: PROCESSES pairs change.

 

Can you MEASURE the amount of ENERGY obtained by a PLANT from EARTH & WATER by BURNING THE PLANT?

Jetfuel will kill you and Fruits will spoil a JetEngine.

 

All I wanted to emphasize was we cannot equate BURNING FOOD to DIGESTING FOOD. Maybe you are too attached to the "Burning based Calorie" measurement of food.

 

I think we've been through this before. Here. We need to reevaluate the scientific definition since it is too hard and no fun at all.

 

Exactly the reasoning every meat eater, polluter, politician and corrupt person gives out there.. Why bother cause its too hard.

 

In fact, most likely the "Burning" Calorie as an energy measure was devised by people who were testing different kinds of "FUEL" for locomotives / automobiles etc. And then they carried on using it for Bio-Applicable-Energy. JetFuel means NOTHING to my STOMACH.

 

What if I told you this little Calorie discussion could break the fundamentals of Nutrition and be one of the basis for further reasoning & future proof to make more people LEAVE MEAT & Go Veg?

 

PS: With all due respect, was there a point you are trying to make with the "contradiction" twist up there?

 

PS: I loved the ladies question. What are we to use and how are we to measure? Honestly, I dont know the answer. But, every answer begins when we QUESTION the fundamentals of something. (or you take CRAPPY facts for granted e.g. Earth is Flat)

 

QUESTION, EVERYTHING - EINSTEIN.

[xjohanx]

I have to say that I find crashnburns inputs rather intresting to read. A discussion on the subject is def worth having but come on, "does calories mean anything"? It is widely proven that the more energy we eat and the less energy we use the more we store. Just because calories doesn't mean as much as many might think doesn't mean it's totally useless.

[crashnburn]

I have to say that I find crashnburns inputs rather intresting to read. A discussion on the subject is def worth having but come on, "does calories mean anything"? It is widely proven that the more energy we eat and the less energy we use the more we store. Just because calories doesn't mean as much as many might think doesn't mean it's totally useless.

 

Because energy is defined via work, the SI unit for energy is the same as the unit of work – the joule (J), named in honour of James Prescott Joule and his experiments on the mechanical equivalent of heat.

 

[Mechanical equivalent of HEAT energy] - Our bodies are not HEAT / COMBUSTION chambers, neither are FOODS necessarily HEAT AGENTS.

 

The whole concept of WORK, ENERGY in Physics is based on Thermodynamics of the Locomotive Era. Read again..

 

"Mechnical equivalent of Heat Energy".

 

Physical Energy is based in Joules - This is the base of WORK (Physics 101).

Electrical Energy is Measured in Watts

Thermodynamic Energy is measured in Calories (Note: Thermo-Dynamic.. i.e. HEAT > MECHANICAL / PHYSICAL)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Units_of_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Energy/UnitsofEnergy.html

 

Some Important Units of Energy

 

MECHANICAL ENERGY:

 

Metric Units:

SI: Joule (J)

1 J = 1 N-m

English Units: foot-pound (ft-lbs) 1 ft-lbs = 1.356 J

HEAT ENERGY:

 

Calorie (Cal) 1 Cal = 4.186 J

British Thermal Unit (BTU) 1 BTU = 1,055 J

ELECTRICAL & ATOMIC ENERGY:

 

Electron Volt (eV) 1 eV = 1.6x10-19 J

Kilowatt-hour (kWh) 1 kWh = 3.6x10+6 J

 

Once again, note that everything boils down to MECHNICAL EQUIVALENT since its the most ELEMENTARY and BASAL "Context" of WORK that we know of. The word "work" starts with PHYSICAL movement of things. i.e. DISPLACEMENT (d).

 

When it comes to FOOD & DIGESTION, I think "Calorie" is totally useless. We are so used to it that we see that as the ONLY MEASURE of last resort & HABIT.

 

What we need is "Biological Equivalent of Edible Food Energy" and / or "Mechanical Equivalent of Bio-Food & Digestion based Energy"

 

The MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT of FOOD ENERGY (e.g. Water, Watermelon) for a HUMAN BEING (DIGESTION DEVICE) is in line with the PHYSICAL WORK & DISPLACEMENT output like

MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT of FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY (e.g. Gasoline, Charcoal) for a COMBUSTION DEVICE.

 

In fact, I'd like to see someone figure out the "MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT of HEAT ENERGY" (Joules) for WATER. How many degrees can WATER raise WATER temperature on burning. Does not compute right?

 

The same WATER that has no SIGNIFICANCE in HEAT Conversion > MECHNICAL has TREMENDOUS SIGNIFICANCE in the HUMAN BIO-CHEMISTRY SYSTEM. Do you see the Paradox?

 

Now, if you wanted to measure Joule (WORK) based ENERGY for FOOD, I'd like to see 10,000 test subjects of varying fitness levels fed SAME FOOD & tested for ENERGY OUTPUT on a specific "PHYSICS LIKE ACTIVITY".

 

Thermodynamics (HEAT to MECHANICAL) have no RELEVANCE to Human Bio-Chemical Energies (BIO STRUCTURE A > BIO STRUCTURE B).

 

In fact, I am glad you came up with arguments, the more I researched the more I realize that the "MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT of HEAT ENERGY" has no meaning when it comes to HUMANS & FOOD BIO-ENERGY.

Edited February 19, 2009 by crashnburn

[offense74]

Yes. Thank you.

[DaN]

I dont think anyone here really argues with the fact that burning food is not going to be an accurate way of telling us how our body deals with it, given that we dont have a fire chamber in our stomachs.

 

My understanding is this:

 

In a lab, they burn a food like a cucumber, & get low calorie reading.

We eat a cucumber, & by observation we see it provides little energy.

 

At the other end of the scale,

 

They burn wheat, & get a high calorie rating.

We eat the wheat & by observation we see it provides alot of energy.

 

I think the readings that come from calorie measuring roughly equate to the observable amount of energy we physically get from eating the food in question.

 

 

Of course, a food that measures 60 calories, like a pear or apple, may infact provide alot more energy than a chunk of chicken that they tell us is 60 calories, becasue our body simply uses the pear/apple in a more efficient way than we would the chicken.It could be the case that calorie measuring is very misleading & does not take into account factors which have a big effect on the final output of energy.

 

I really dont know, but thats my thoughts.

 

[DV]

How energetic we feel after eating is often related to blood glucose/insulin levels. We can measure the calories, glycemic index, glycemic load, digestible fiber, etc., etc. of different foods and they are all viable units of measure. The problem with trying to compare foods according to ONE unit of measure is that all the variables combined are more important than any one unit. In my opinion.

[DaN]

^ +1

[RobertSupreme]

This thread makes me laugh, seriously.

 

All science, all facts, all universal truths at the end of the day are hypothetical. They are theories. Everything we know is theoretical. True science accounts for this and compensates for the possibilty that at any moment any previous theory, fact or knowledge may be contended/challenged/completely thrown out by new research.

 

Anything other than this is Dogma. Self - authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. At the end of the day none of us really know anything for certain. We just believe we do.

 

It is only natural for people to believe that they do and consequentially take on concepts and knowledge as if it is the complete and utter truth and always will be. When we do this our beliefs about things become a part of us as is evident by what happens once our beliefs are challenged by someone else. When this happens we take great offence because it is like a personal insult, an attack on who we are almost, because our beliefs are a large part of what makes us unique. It's a reminder that we don't really know anything and it unsettles us.

 

Face up to this and live with it otherwise you will always experience some form of conflict within you. The part of you that thinks you are 'right' and 'know' and the part that thinks you are 'wrong' and 'don't know'

 

So please people don't take things too seriously because at the end of the day everything is just theory, even what is widely regarded as 'fact'

 

I see all these posts of people writing scientific terms to validate their own beliefs and it cracks me up. I used to do this (no doubt I sometimes still do) and I know that it feels terrible! As I wrote, it was as if by writing I was reassuring myself that I 'know' and that everything will be ok. And then when the other person disagrees you get conflict going on inside you and it stays on your brain. You just haveto think of a way to prove yourself and enlighten the other ('wrong') person.

 

Only Bigz himself can know whether or not he has maintained that physique on the diet he says and if he has been honest. If he has not been honest then it is not even our concern and it should not bother us! If he has been truthful and it works for him then Great! We should be happy and encouraging whether or not we personally think he may be being dishonest!

 

There is no 'one size' fits all programme, what works for one person may not work for another. Everything is theoretical. The only way we could know for sure that Arsenic for example, is poisonous (When we say 'Arsenic is poisonous' we always assume it means for everyone) is to test it out on every single human that ever lived. For all we know there might be a gene that means some people benefit from consuming arsenic! Even if this wasn't to be the case the conclusion that 'Arsenic is poisonous' would still be theoretical and subject to change (i.e. no way of knowing future humans will benefit/be unaffected).

 

I hope this made some sense to at least one person.

Edited January 9, 2009 by RobertSupreme

[RobertSupreme]

I'm not saying so called knowledge doesn't have it's uses obviously. I'm just saying it has its limits.

 

But when it gets to this point or to the point it got to earlier in this thread where people are fighting and stressing themselves out trying to prove they are right it's gone a bit too far in my opinion.

 

We can dispute all day about what we 'know' but at the end of it all we're all equally clueless. Bear this in mind when discussing whatever and it will feel as if a massive load has been taken off your back...you no longer have to prove yourself.

[DaN]

I kind of agree Robert.

 

Our perception & understanding of our reality is extremely limited & naiive.People clinging to science are barely more credible than those clinging to religion in my opinion, because as you say everything is extremely subjective & mainly theoretical.

 

However, there is a belief that some things are true across the board.

 

Its called universal truth.Some seek it through religion, others through science.But we all cling dearly to our perception of what is truth becasue without it there is just chaos.And no-one wants to live like that.

 

I do agree with your sentiment on the whole, we should accept that in the end, we really do know very little that we can be confident is completely true, and becasue of that we should never be too serious about our views, ourselves or others.

[dropSoul]

I do believe that everything is theoretical until experienced. That is to say, what is a theory to you, may be a fact for me. I have seen unexplained paranormal stuff. So it's a theory until you see it, experience it for yourself. What is one person's theory, is another person's fact.

 

God, OverSoul, Ancient One, Universal Truth is also a theory until experienced.

 

However, that being said, I do not think that "do your best to live your life according to how you are guided inwardly", in your heart/mind, is a theory.

 

We don't see things how they are, we see things how we are. (some quote I saw at one point).

[Im Your Man]

I do believe that everything is theoretical until experienced. That is to say, what is a theory to you, may be a fact for me. I have seen unexplained paranormal stuff. So it's a theory until you see it, experience it for yourself. What is one person's theory, is another person's fact.

 

God, OverSoul, Ancient One, Universal Truth is also a theory until experienced.

 

However, that being said, I do not think that "do your best to live your life according to how you are guided inwardly", in your heart/mind, is a theory.

 

We don't see things how they are, we see things how we are. (some quote I saw at one point).

 

 

[RobertSupreme]

I do believe that everything is theoretical until experienced. That is to say, what is a theory to you, may be a fact for me. I have seen unexplained paranormal stuff. So it's a theory until you see it, experience it for yourself. What is one person's theory, is another person's fact.

Ah but how do you know your occular recepticles and other tools of perception weren't malfunctioning? But this is being nitpicky, I totally see your point and believe it.

 

What is one person's theory, is another person's fact.

The only thing seperating the two is belief.

 

However, that being said, I do not think that "do your best to live your life according to how you are guided inwardly", in your heart/mind, is a theory.

I agree

 

We don't see things how they are, we see things how we are. (some quote I saw at one point).

Excellent also.

 

"Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right" ftw

 

This reminds me of Micheal Jordan being too short when he was a teenager and he hung by his arms from monkey bars for hours on end believing it would make him taller.

[dropSoul]

 

 

 

That ROCKS!

 

It brings home one of my favorite all time quotes, which I posted earlier:

 

Though the eye is small, the soul which sees through it is greater and vaster

than all the things which it perceives. In fact, it is so great that it includes all

objects, however large or numerous, within itself. For it is not so much that

you are within the cosmos as that the cosmos is within you.

— Meher Baba

 

 

And here's few other faves:

He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings...

– Buddha

 

The little space within the heart is as great as the vast universe.

The heavens and the earth are there, and the sun and the moon and the stars.

Fire and lightening and winds are there, and all that now is and all that is not.

— The Upanishads. (BTW: the heart is also the mind)

 

 

And, re: I'm Your Man's signature:

 

When the highest type of people hear Tao (Truth), they diligently

practice it. When the average type of people hear Tao, they half

believe in it. When the lowest type of people hear Tao,

they laugh at it. If they did not laugh, it would not be Tao.

— Lao-Tzu

[RobertSupreme]

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ....but is always subject to change

[dropSoul]

I do believe that everything is theoretical until experienced. That is to say, what is a theory to you, may be a fact for me. I have seen unexplained paranormal stuff. So it's a theory until you see it, experience it for yourself. What is one person's theory, is another person's fact.

Ah but how do you know your occular recepticles and other tools of perception weren't malfunctioning? But this is being nitpicky, I totally see your point and believe it.

 

 

That is a fact, how do I know? When I was in my 20s I had it "all figured out". In my 30s, I was slowly realizing I don't know jack squat, and now in my 40s: zilch, nada. I only think I know, and that's a profound tweak.

 

I was sound asleep in India in 1997, sleep being the ultimate "minding your own business" activity, and found myself being squished by a ghost and I could see her/his face and all. And other so-called activity in my life. So in the video, if a person has other senses, then those are also in the space in the brain. Just postulating here but very occasionally my "sight" sees other things that are not normal. Usually useless information, the mundane. I also pick up thoughts of others and future events, but no "big deals". However, in 1976 or 1977 (not going to look it up now), the day before David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) was caught, I was in NY -- I was 10 or 11 at that time -- I said with certainty, "they'll catch him tomorrow."

 

So far, the lotto eludes me

[offense74]

Science is no longer telling us what we want to hear. I think this is the main issue. Instead we turn to dragon hunters, Gods, economists, or what have you.

 

It's dangerous because stupid, groundless theories have killed more people than I care to count. We have sacrificed our fellow human beings to Gods and dogmas, tortured them in the process.

 

If we lived rationally in a way that science have described to be natural for us to relate to ourselves, our fellow Homo Sapiens and the rest of the world, most problems we face today wouldn't be there. I would love for this to happen but I see it fading away with every new irrational idea that people come up with. Science is losing ground fast and it scares me but as it keeps sending us results that we don't like I only see this scenario worsening.

[RobertSupreme]

I used to worry a lot about that but I think worrying is a pretty pointless exercise really!

 

I don't think there is a problem and that what happens happens for the best imho.

 

Scientificly accepted 'truths' are just as theoretical and as subject to change as widely-held beliefs held by the majority and those without phds in physics or chemistry. Or the pseudo science beliefs/gullibles/whatever.

 

Do you know a lot of 'science' is based on Dogma Offense? Look up Bruce Lipton, he explains how Darwin theory is based on Dogma and how today mention anything that suggests something contrare to Darwin's theory and you get laughed at by the scientific community in a dogmatic fashion.

Edited January 9, 2009 by RobertSupreme

[RobertSupreme]

Sure Religious Dogma has 'caused' many wars and deaths but religion also has saved lots of people! If it helps them live their lives in peace and they become kind to their fellow man as a result of following religiong then is it that bad? I do not think things are as black and white.

 

Death is not the bad thing everyone makes it out to be either imo. Bearing this in mind, there really isn't a problem anyway.

[dropSoul]

Good and Bad exist because of the other. The secret is to reach beyond good and bad, beyond is within the heart, and use the "See yourself in others" gauge. That is love, love is beyond good and bad.

 

If I were to operate on you to remove a bullet, outwardly cutting with a knife looks "violent" but really the act is based on concern and helping. So that is where "intent" comes in.

 

Intent makes all the difference. What appears to be the same action, such as taking out the garbage for example, can have many different intentions behind it. If I did it to make myself look good and important and to have my ego be stroked, or did it to be helpful, not caring what people thought, or did it to get my wife off my back, etc., it's much different.

 

So black and white doesn't exist because intent is there and that makes the difference.

 

And, like I said to my man last night, I love his opinions but I like mine better! So, without saying, all this stuff I'm ruminating about while I wait to hear back on a proof, is just as important as counting the hairs on my head, but it's far more interesting.

[RobertSupreme]

Dropsoul I resonate with many of things I have read from your posts, I agree with what you speak of intent and it being in between something being black and white. Someone fighting in a war may believe that they are doing the right thing and so to some extent they must be doing the right thing. Who is anyone to ask of someone anything else other than to do what they believe is right at the time? Interesting.

[dropSoul]

Dropsoul I resonate with many of things I have read from your posts, I agree with what you speak of intent and it being in between something being black and white. Someone fighting in a war may believe that they are doing the right thing and so to some extent they must be doing the right thing. Who is anyone to ask of someone anything else other than to do what they believe is right at the time? Interesting.

 

 

Yes. Let's say that false guru 1 believes, because of mental illness, that he is Self Realized and he gathers followers, etc., and let's say that false guru 2 knows that he is not realized, but passes himself off as realizing the Self. The karma is vastly different. In my faith, that being a follower of Meher Baba, he said that the only thing that God does not forgive is hypocrisy. Well, since nothing actually exists, that too is a thing to parse at a later time, but I believe that what Meher Baba was emphasizing, as this is stated all through his writings, is utter honesty with yourself and others.

[RobertSupreme]

but I believe that what Meher Baba was emphasizing, as this is stated all through his writings, is utter honesty with yourself and others.

 

I don't know Meher Baba...but I love it