posted November 17, 2007 06:19 AM         

Was looking at the face of a beautiful girl - a friend of mine and I wondered on this. In India, women put on 'bindi' which is a small dot in the middle of the two eyes - right in the centre of their forehead. My thoughts began from there. The attributes of the bindi are:

Small
Circular - perfectly
Beautiful
Simple

Now, consider the face of the woman. (In the pic: Indian actress Madhuri Dixit)

It has almost similar attributes. Just that it will be somewhat more complex instead of simple. Also, it won't be circular. Anyway, the attribute of circularity, symmetry, is still preserved in the face. Now, focus attention on the whole body and you find similar attributes!

Symmetry
Beauty (in place of circularity)
Simple (Now, this is a relative term. A circle might be simple to us, so a human-body-shape might be simple to some other master being (GOD?!?!))

posted November 17, 2007 10:34 AM         

I guess our body is symettrical because we need a left hand and a right hand.

Dot on forehead of a woman energises the agnya chakra. The source of all things is a woman according to some hindus hence that dot is very powerful symbol. In a patriachy society as in America they will mock you for sporting such a dot. Hmmm, synchornicity or what I just posted a srichakra on a thread here. That will give you an idea on the concept of dot. The shakti/parashakti concept.

posted November 17, 2007 03:39 PM         

Although plants aren't exactly symmetrical and they seem to do all right. I'm sure the average weight of their branches across different sides are about the same, or they'd probably topple over. I've seen some trees that grow a huge branch on one side then bend way over.

posted November 18, 2007 05:14 AM         

Actually, as soon as the thought came to my mind, I googled it and at another forum found a young guy proposing a uniquely interesting theory. It sure is interesting! He says:

Let's look at something that is very common in our life. Let's fill a hollow glass ball with peanuts, soybeans and corns kernels, then tap it on a flat surface and move it forward, as if it is a living being in motion.

After a while, we will find that all the contents of the glass ball combine evenly. Now, if we count the peanuts, soybeans and corn kernels on the right part and the ones on the left part, we will find that the numbers are nearly the same.

It is common knowledge that whatever substances there are in human bodies, all these are derived from what exists in nature. Molecules as substances in our bodies are no exception and have, therefore, to abide by all the laws (customs) in effect in nature. Is it possible for things such as exemplified above to occur in human bodies? Although in this example we moved the hollow glass quickly, and in short jumps (so as to speed up the process of what is supposed to be the process of evolution), this movement is, however, not so different from that of a living being. The body matters might indeed shift just a few Angstroms every time the body moves, and this new position (status) is bequeathed to the offspring, which will then shift a few Angstroms further, etc. etc. After billions of years the body might be able to transform itself into a symmetrical living being as it is now.

(Source: http://forums.hypography.com/biology/108-why-do-we-have-symmetrical-body.html)

He means that if that glass ball is moved forward infinite number of times, then eventually, the contents in the box will have linear symmetry (about the line coinciding with the line of motion of the glass ball).

That will be because each time when the glass ball is moved forward, the contents will reorganize just a wee bit to get into a position of stable equilibrium -- which will be achieved if the contents have linear symmetry about the line of prorogation of motion, like humans have.

Consider this image that I just drew roughly:

For a 3D body, we will analogously have symmetry about the plane of propagation of motion. The rectangle is for reference and is the plane in which the motion occurs. The body has symmetry about it as you can see.

So if this human being has existed since millions of years, and continues to walk, then -- since human body contains only natural material -- the 'contents' within shall overtime reorganize themselves symmetrically. In one generation, a slight shift will occur towards the ideal shape, but after several generations, the ideal symmetrical shape shall be achieved.

posted November 18, 2007 05:19 AM         

quote:

---

So the more beautiful the closest to a God like creature?

---

posted November 19, 2007 12:23 AM         

I found this interesting so I googled some info on it. I am no expert in these matters at all. Just curious about the subject. Are all things in nature really symmetrical? Or do they just appear that way in some cases?

I don't know about more beautiful being considered more God like but human beings do see beauty in symmetrical faces and are attracted to the symmetry in facial features. The more symmetric a male or female face is the more attractive they are to the opposite sex.

Studies have shown that babies as young as 2 months of age will look longer at a person with symmetrical features, or what is considered pretty people than they do people who do not have symmetrical faces. Human beings are attracted to symmetry.

Not all human bodies or faces are symmetrical at all though. It is just that the ones that are symmetrical are judged more attactive and appealing.

So NAM does have a point regarding what is considered beauty. Which is why plastic surgeons make so much money. I am not saying this is right. It is just what studies have shown. From what I have read it has been the case from cavemen to now.

Not don't all humans have a symmetrical face, we humans don't all have a symmetrical body. Some people have proportionally larger heads on small frames, longer arms, torsos that are shorter or longer, noses larger than other facial features, short chins, large ears, some people's eyes are wider apart from the bridge of the nose, etc.

Other things are not symmetrical although they may appear to be are galaxies and the earth itself.

Galaxies are not symmetrical. Anything that can happen, does happen. "As bodies orbit each other at or around the galactic center, either one or both will have outer bodies affecting it: Every time either one, or both center orbiting stars orbits nearer to an outer neighboring body, the orbiting bodies in both systems will be pulled a slight distance apart, and this is not like stretching a spring: They will not spring back. All neighbors around the center systems will be doing the same. Their forward velocity will not change, but their orbit will now be larger, and the pulling effect they have on each other has lessened slightly. This will grow and grow and the more it grows the more the central part of the galaxy will open up. Eventually the entire central part of the galaxy would become hollow and this would resemble a hollow ball. This would be the domed area of a galaxy."

"Earth composed of a rigid mantle and a liquid core with A B (A and B principal moments of inertia) is developed and integrated, obtaining the complete analytical solution which includes the free frequencies, Chandler Wobble and Fluid Core Nutation, corresponding to the non-symmetrical Earth."

"All magnetic objects produce invisible lines of force that extend between the poles of the object. An easy way to visualize this is to spread iron filings on a sheet of paper and place a bar magnet under the paper. The iron filings will arrange themselves around the magnet and along the magnetic field lines."

"In the simplest terms, Earth can be thought of as a dipole (2-pole) magnet. Magnetic field lines radiate between Earth's north and south magnetic poles just as they do between the poles of a bar magnet. Charged particles become trapped on these field lines (just as the iron filings are trapped), forming the magnetosphere.

Earth's magnetic field lines are not as symmetrical as those of the bar magnet. The impact of the solar wind causes the lines facing sunward to compress, while the field lines facing away from the Sun stream back to form Earth's magnetotail. The magnetosphere extends into the vacuum of space from approximately 80 to 60,000 kilometers (50 to 37,280 miles) on the side toward the Sun, and trails out more than 300,000 kilometers (186,500 miles) away from the Sun."

Another thing that comes to my mind that is not symmetrical in nature are sunflowers. The flower is larger and heavier than the stem. As the flower opens and grows it soon falls over from the weight of the flower because the stem cannot support it.

If you take just the flower alone, the flower is symmetrical. But if you take the flower along with the stem and leaves of the stem, it is not symmetrical as a whole.

posted November 19, 2007 02:52 AM         

It was this symmetry that made Einstien undettered in his efforts "to understand the mind of God".

He wanted to find a master equation that described everything.

Anyway, it is very clear that symmetry is the law of nature. The proof might not be conclusive but when nature whispers in your ears a million times the same thing again and again then how would anyone not agree?

posted November 19, 2007 10:52 AM         

A perfect circle also does not exist :
What is circumference of a circle?
2 pi R.
And pi all of us are thought to be approximations 3.14

In reality the after decimals , just goes on forever. Atleast the best human computer was not able to find the limits yet to my knowledge

To have a master equation describing the whole universe will mean that the mathematics describing it will not be simple. That is what Godel's theorem is about. We have to borrow more axioms and axioms aren't proved they are blindly accepted even by mathematicians

* A patriot is a terrorist for another country

* Devotion is taken as weakness by others

You must understand all duality of nature and just accept them and go beyond them ultimately. Einstein never accepted that light particles could behave as waves. Ironically he got a noble prize for a work that he wasn't so thrilled about. But his works established the foundations of quantum mechanics.

posted November 19, 2007 01:02 PM         

I fully agree with both you and Einstein on this, guy_me.

There is a perfect plan in an imperfect universe and world. There is also a perfect plan in the journies of imperfect people.

posted November 19, 2007 01:42 PM         

I am getting error on that link.

I kindda get what you are trying to say.
But would like to understand it better. Any subject must be studied well before commenting is my belief always.

posted November 20, 2007 02:29 AM         

RE: Well God cannot be contained in a box.

What do you mean? God is in the smallest and in the biggest. He is bigger than the biggest and smaller than the smallest. That is what the Vedas say.

RE: A perfect circle also does not exist :
What is circumference of a circle?
2 pi R.
And pi all of us are thought to be approximations 3.14

If you take a compass and draw a circle, it will be a perfect circle my friend, sans all imperfections.

If you measure the ratio, it will be 22/7. That 22/7 is not a rational number and thus can't be expressed in limited number of decimal places has NOTHING TO DO with circle being perfect or imperfect. What is 22/7 but a mathematical representation of a ratio existing in all circles. The ratio between the perimeter and diameter. That, my friend, can also be called as the definition of the number not the other way round like you have proposed/thought.

RE: To have a master equation describing the whole universe will mean that the mathematics describing it will not be simple. That is what Godel's theorem is about. We have to borrow more axioms and axioms aren't proved they are blindly accepted even by mathematicians

* A patriot is a terrorist for another country

*Devotion is taken as weakness by others

Pray what is the context here?

RE: You must understand all duality of nature and just accept them and go beyond them ultimately. Einstein never accepted that light particles could behave as waves. Ironically he got a noble prize for a work that he wasn't so thrilled about. But his works established the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Ironically or not, he got the noble prize. In fact, he should have got the Nobel for the theory of relativity when it was proposed. The theory was not understood by others properly or he would have got it. He ultimately got it for photoelectric effect. He should have got two and the former for what he loved. Now, my friend, is the picture of irony complete.

Yes, Einstein believed little and completely ignored the developments going on at the atomic and sub-atomic level. Light particles behaving as waves is another fine example of th symmetry of nature. In fact, that light has both particle and wave nature led De Broglie to suggest that matter must - analogously - also have wave nature besides having particle nature.

Einstein did not want to acknowledge or know about the developments going on at the atomic and sub-atomic level. He ignored them. He chose to ignore them and chose to simply plod on in trying to unify the different forces of nature viz. electromagnetic, gravitational. He didn't want to hear about the nuclear forces at the sub-atomic realm. One will never know but can only speculate why Einstein did that. I have my own sympathies with the man and if you would have been in his shoes my friend, you would probably have done the same.

It is this way and I believe this is what Einstein reasoned to himself: The grand plan never changes. The mathematics is never falsified, it never betrays. At the very apparent level, this can be easily seen and studied. But at the lower levels, which are very much unexplored and under study, the mathematics should still hold. The grand idea must not be betrayed. It simply can't be.

[On a slight tangent: Aristotle said way back in 5th century BC that we all are composed of tiny units which are repeated. Eventually we know that we are made of cells and all cells no matter to what organism they belong have striking similarity to them. (Virus is an exception -- but the virus is a complex organism -- said to be both living and non-living! -- and further studies in it might help human being understand and transcend the bridge between the living and the non-living.)]

This is conviction and faith, but it is not blind, it is backed by powerful reason and unearthy understanding. Now, given the fact that studies at the atomic and sub atomic level were at their infancy stage, Einstein may have thought that when the COMPLETE PICTURE even at the sub-atomic level is understood by man, the grand idea will still hold good, because mathematics cannot go wrong. Newton's law can't go wrong - Nweton's law is nothing but simply a corollary of mathematics - it is simple and simply IS like all mathematics. He thus didn't want to venture in the unchartered territory and let the boys do the clerk work, while he knew he what he was after -- the grand plan -- as much followed at the sub-atomic level as in the heavens!

God CAN be contained in a box. God is everywhere. Is bigger than the biggest and smaller than the smallest. Is in everything - livin and non-living. In the light of these statements of the vedas, consider what Einstein believed and wanted to prove. He wanted to understand THE MIND OF GOD. He thought that His mind was applied to everything. That there is A SINGLE GRAND IDEA, a SIMPLE PLAN describable by A SIMPLE (set of) EQUATION(s) that would describe everything - would exist beautifully and naturally in everything. Do you not see a striking similarity between these two?!?! Vedas say God exists everywhere while Einstein believed that the mind of God was applied everywhere, and there was a single idea - God itself? - of everything.

May be the wise men who wrote the Vedas had known what Einstein wanted to know. May be they could as well have said: 'There is a central plan to everything and God's mind and idea is applied everywhere.' But instead, they simply and poetically stated: GOD IS EVERYWHERE. Period.

posted November 20, 2007 11:21 AM         

There is complexity in the simplest of things my friend. Is what I was saying.
If you think you have understood something, you have not really understood.
It is easy to say that God can be proved by equations. But no Equations are one aspect of God.
The part cannot understand the whole. The logic/reasoning cannot understand God.

>>If you take a compass and draw a circle, it will be a perfect circle my friend, sans all imperfections.

From a 3d world when you project on the 2d world, it may seem to solve the problem.

How about if you were to calculate the area of the circle in 2d world,
it will be pi * r sqared.

If I tell you Pi is irrational number and you will never find repeating patters of numbers after the decimal. Perhaps you can prove that.

If you were a creature in the 2d world you will never be able to find the complete area. There is always something missing.

A mathematician will never accept approxs, a mechanical engineer will perhaps be content with practical applications.
Appears you are more of a engineer than mathematician. So you are missing my point.

>>>>Pray what is the context here?

posted November 20, 2007 11:22 AM         

I enjoy conversing with you, I am reliving my school experience

>>>>He ultimately got it for photoelectric effect. He should have got two and the former for
what he loved. Now, my friend, is the picture of irony complete.

Hehe... you missed. Photoelectric effect proves the behavior of light as wave not particle. It put water on Einsteins dreams.
Have you ever derived e= mc2. Perhaps you will understand the mindset of Einstein.

Also It was Maxwells experiment that deduced speed of c is constant. That led Einstein to wonder.
History has shown that people pick up from where others left off. Be it in the world of sciece or spiritual science. Thats besides the point as we are talking science here now.

Any theory must be proved by experimental evidence. Many experiments were carried off
much later after TOR was proposed and so far none of the observations have violated the theory. A theory is good as long as it explains all past theories and predicts future observations. Relativity is good in the macroscopic world. People still use Newton's laws as its very practical on earth. Time is same for all earthlings isn't it?
Whenever a new theory is added it must explain past theories as well as predict new theories. That is why TOE is a "pie in the sky".

posted November 20, 2007 11:22 AM         

Yes my friend, this is what I was trying to say. But what appears isn't. Appears you are more practical than theorist or philosophical. So you took the "God cannot be put in a box" literally.

>>>> But instead, they simply and poetically stated: GOD IS EVERYWHERE. Period.

What is realized is God what is unrealized is God too.
God is and isn't - From Upanishad.

But appears you are saying there is a law that governs the unrealized too.
And I am not saying I totally disagree with you. There are many who will believe in that.

These unrealized laws, can words or equation describe it? Nada. If you say yes you still missed the whole point.
Everytime you think you know a truth, some other truth/mystery of God is revealed.
I am kind of short of time. Perhaps if time allows I can go in to depth and dwelve on the only Absolute truth or lack of it.
Your reasoning is good. Keep your journey with whatever you think is God on as I do too

When we compare theres a conflict. Hope you understand that I am not arguing for sake of arguing. I enjoyed talking physics with a chum

posted November 20, 2007 12:11 PM         

Enjoy your journey guy_me and as long as it makes you happy and helps you grow to become a more spiritual and a better person each day I wish you much happiness on your own personal spiritual journey.

Whatever feels right for you is right for you.

posted November 20, 2007 12:20 PM         

Keep your journey, don't get hardened by categories, as some of the preachers here does

Most preachers u meet from west were pharisees/priests in past lives. Old habits die hard.

Guy19 - dont believe any one including me. God always travel with you.

For HSC:

I was thinking of the circumferenec of the circle 2 pi r. On a 2d plane. If you and your brother went on different directions, you will never meet each other.consider the oroborus now, the head of the serpent will never meet its tail.

quote:

---

Its incorrectly said "the proof is in the pudding". the right version is ______(go figure)

---