If you ever pondered what might have existed before the Big Bang, you are not alone. The typical line of thinking is there was a vacuum. Empty, right? Not quite according to Narinder. There are those quantum fluctuations that need to be considered. It's a pretty heavy theory, but not too difficult to understand how the universe evolved from nothing. Only a few simple math formulas are presented, so Icy beware.
https://narinderkw.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... m-nothing/
Something From Nothing
Re: Something From Nothing
Where did the PARTICLES they talk about come from? Oops!
Their theory starts with SOMETHING they call PARTICLES, which means they did not start from NOTHING.
Their theory starts with SOMETHING they call PARTICLES, which means they did not start from NOTHING.
Re: Something From Nothing
The explanation starts with quantum fluctuations which are not particles but something that will lead to the creation of particles.
Re: Something From Nothing
not a deep thinker, me...
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
Nor me. I can see how a particle might come together and fuse with others to make larger particles, but to create one from totally nothing seems impossible. Surely there'd have to be a gas, sugars, SOMEthing. I mean, even a photon's a wave AND a particle, so the particle bit baffles me as you imagine it to be part of a mass ....
Oh dear .....
Oh dear .....
Re: Something From Nothing
I'm no expert on quantum physics, but the article does a reasonable job of putting it in language that does not require a large forehead to comprehend. Basically a vacuum is not as empty as we thought. It doesn't contain mass or anything like that, but there are fluctuations in a quantum field present. These fluctuations will eventually produce (massless) photons which eventually can lead to the creation of a particle which evolves into an atom. After enough interaction like this, matter will be formed and the rest is history.
That's the idea presented in the article, but there are people with very large foreheads who make a distinction between a vacuum and a void. While I've read about the difference I have not found anyone who states which of the two existed prior to the Big Bang, but Narinder implies a vacuum. By definition quantum fields would not exist in a void. Then again, nobody can prove voids exist or ever have existed.
That's the idea presented in the article, but there are people with very large foreheads who make a distinction between a vacuum and a void. While I've read about the difference I have not found anyone who states which of the two existed prior to the Big Bang, but Narinder implies a vacuum. By definition quantum fields would not exist in a void. Then again, nobody can prove voids exist or ever have existed.
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
Well .... thank you for that. You put it in a better way, but it still makes me wonder. The fluctuations which can produce protons still seem to have the capability of being able to eventually form into atoms. The nucleus of an atom's made up of protons and neutrons, and atoms aren't the smallest particles of matter, they're made from smaller subatomic particles, but still classed as particles, never-the-less. Irrespective of whether the nucleus's made up of charged or uncharged matter, perhaps we haven't yet found a way of seeing things smaller still?
If the basic "nothingness" turned into everything that lives and breathes today, it must've taken much longer than we probabvly realise to reach the stage of evolution that it has now. The whole idea's too great for my feeble mind to envisage, but I find it fascinating all the same.
Reading this, particularly fascinates me. By the laws of physics, it could all make sense, but on the other hand, is it all just intelligent conjecture?
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ry ... tes44.html
Re: Something From Nothing
It would be far simpler for atoms to form and join through evolution to create a computer or a running car, than it would be for them to become a functioning eyeball.
Even if you consider how old the entire universe may be, not enough time has elapsed for evolutionary processes to create an eye. We don't see stones turning into buildings by themselves, or metal ore turning itself into useful items. And we do not see living species evolving into other species. What we do find are mutations and developments within a species.
We still have Apes of all kinds, and we have Man of all kinds. What we do not have is any of the so called species often touted as the link between ape and man. Why? Because there never were any!
Even if you consider how old the entire universe may be, not enough time has elapsed for evolutionary processes to create an eye. We don't see stones turning into buildings by themselves, or metal ore turning itself into useful items. And we do not see living species evolving into other species. What we do find are mutations and developments within a species.
We still have Apes of all kinds, and we have Man of all kinds. What we do not have is any of the so called species often touted as the link between ape and man. Why? Because there never were any!
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
I agree, although I don't rule out genetic mutations over a long period of time. Once a gene's been altered, the changed specimen'll then procreate and the offspring'll display similar genetic traits to the parent, thereby creating a possible different-looking species in the making. These traits might be minuscule, but again, over a long period of time, could lead to an animal - or person - being somewhat different from its original ancestor. You can see this with inherited deformities. The gene/s may skip a generation, but're liable to show up again some years ahead. Skeletal dysplasias (often called dwarfism) is one such case, and the genetic make-up's usually passed on to one or more children. Whether, over thousands of years, these mutations'd get worse and produce human beings which don't resemble what we have now, or whether they'd stay the same or naturally rectify, no one knows.
Re: Something From Nothing
True Icey
My point was there would be archaeological evidence of the progression from source to present.
This evidence is missing to show any changes from one species to another.
Everything evolves to some extent, most of which is simple natural progression, with some modifications as the gene pool disintegrates or mutates.
The ancestors of our present day birds could very well be what we call dinosaurs. But did they really change their species? Or did they just adapt and get smaller, and still carry the same genes and DNA?
We all know a Tadpole turns into a Frog. We also know this is not a Fish turning into a Mammal. Appearances and locations can be deceiving.
Hundreds of mistakes were found in the taxonomy tables. Same species given different names, because they were discovered at different periods in their growth cycle, and in different eras. This is true for both plants and animals.
The Fatshedera plant was consider a miracle cross between to different species, now debunked of course.
A Fatsia and Hedera Helix, although once assumed to be two different species, was later discovered to be the same species.
I probably have the spelling of both wrong.
My point is, the more we learn, and the deeper we can dig, the more we find the things we once believed were not factual.
Where once we could only study Genes, RNA, etc. We are now just beginning to dismantle the DNA strands, and don't even know very much about all the components of it yet. I'm often leery about what will take place once they do figure it out enough to begin strange experimentation's, hi hi...
My point was there would be archaeological evidence of the progression from source to present.
This evidence is missing to show any changes from one species to another.
Everything evolves to some extent, most of which is simple natural progression, with some modifications as the gene pool disintegrates or mutates.
The ancestors of our present day birds could very well be what we call dinosaurs. But did they really change their species? Or did they just adapt and get smaller, and still carry the same genes and DNA?
We all know a Tadpole turns into a Frog. We also know this is not a Fish turning into a Mammal. Appearances and locations can be deceiving.
Hundreds of mistakes were found in the taxonomy tables. Same species given different names, because they were discovered at different periods in their growth cycle, and in different eras. This is true for both plants and animals.
The Fatshedera plant was consider a miracle cross between to different species, now debunked of course.
A Fatsia and Hedera Helix, although once assumed to be two different species, was later discovered to be the same species.
I probably have the spelling of both wrong.
My point is, the more we learn, and the deeper we can dig, the more we find the things we once believed were not factual.
Where once we could only study Genes, RNA, etc. We are now just beginning to dismantle the DNA strands, and don't even know very much about all the components of it yet. I'm often leery about what will take place once they do figure it out enough to begin strange experimentation's, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
And they'll do it Gary, you can be sure. Who's to say that it's not happening now? The law prevents human cells from being experimented on after so much division, but behind closed doors, who's to say what might go on "in the interest of science"? With the advance of stem cell technology and the capability of removing genes which give rise to life-threatening illnesses, one could be right in thinking that this is a favourable step forward, but those capable scientists're also capable of doing much more than that, and the whole experiment could go horribly wrong.
I don't believe that we're meant to tamper with nature, however much it might make life easier for the child and its parents. Natural mutations and illnesses're part of our species and prevent a cloned gene pool. I know that parents of children who suffer from awful conditions'd give anything to have their child healthy, and I DO know, because I have a child myself who was born with a condition that can't be rectified, but it makes him the unique person he is, and in some ways, he's made remarkable advances which his his older brother'll never attain in comparison. I'd rather my lovely son be the person he is, than imagine if he'd been genetically "altered" and not know if this was going to have any hideous effect on him or any offspring in later life.
I also agree with you that there's not a shred of evidence to show that a particular species's turned into a different one - because even with natural mutation over many years, it's not going to happen. A creature may lose or gain limbs or other parts of its body as it adapts to a new environment, but that doesn't change it from - as an example - an amphibian into a bird. I don't believe that this's ever happened. Within its own boundaries, species can adapt because of climate changes or changes to its environment, but I don't believe that they can change into a totally different creature, and that's why I think that man's always been man, and he might share some genetic similarities with primates - but he isn't one, and nor has he ever been.
I think Yogi first mentioned genetic drift on another thread. It seems that the genetic make-up of Neanderthals and modern man is only 1% off being identical, and we share between 96 and 98.8% of our genes with a chimp - but we aren't chimps, and it doesn't necessarily mean that we come from Neanderthals either. Sub Saharan people share NO DNA with Neanderthals, which's taken to mean that those people didn't migrate from their areas and interbreed with these ancient people, but I just feel that scientists're finding new pieces of information and putting them into places where they might not really belong. Perhaps Neanderthals weren't human, but weren't primates either - rather a separate species, the same as many others.
I don't believe that we're meant to tamper with nature, however much it might make life easier for the child and its parents. Natural mutations and illnesses're part of our species and prevent a cloned gene pool. I know that parents of children who suffer from awful conditions'd give anything to have their child healthy, and I DO know, because I have a child myself who was born with a condition that can't be rectified, but it makes him the unique person he is, and in some ways, he's made remarkable advances which his his older brother'll never attain in comparison. I'd rather my lovely son be the person he is, than imagine if he'd been genetically "altered" and not know if this was going to have any hideous effect on him or any offspring in later life.
I also agree with you that there's not a shred of evidence to show that a particular species's turned into a different one - because even with natural mutation over many years, it's not going to happen. A creature may lose or gain limbs or other parts of its body as it adapts to a new environment, but that doesn't change it from - as an example - an amphibian into a bird. I don't believe that this's ever happened. Within its own boundaries, species can adapt because of climate changes or changes to its environment, but I don't believe that they can change into a totally different creature, and that's why I think that man's always been man, and he might share some genetic similarities with primates - but he isn't one, and nor has he ever been.
I think Yogi first mentioned genetic drift on another thread. It seems that the genetic make-up of Neanderthals and modern man is only 1% off being identical, and we share between 96 and 98.8% of our genes with a chimp - but we aren't chimps, and it doesn't necessarily mean that we come from Neanderthals either. Sub Saharan people share NO DNA with Neanderthals, which's taken to mean that those people didn't migrate from their areas and interbreed with these ancient people, but I just feel that scientists're finding new pieces of information and putting them into places where they might not really belong. Perhaps Neanderthals weren't human, but weren't primates either - rather a separate species, the same as many others.
Re: Something From Nothing
I'm no scientist, and didn't spend a lot of time in our horticulture labs, but I always listened to those who worked in there.
There is a big difference between messing with genes and using selective breeding to obtain a desired result.
One of the main reasons a hybrid plant, such as a tomato for example, does not produce it's own kind from seeds, is they revert back to close to their originals over time. Propagation can only be made by cuttings, and in some cases, even that will not work.
We raised and sold several such plants, which could not be duplicated from themselves, simply because they don't work that way.
Not to get too complex here, the simplest way to explain it is. All plant pairs are male and female respectively.
We take two plants A & B and keep them away from all other plants. We do the same thing with plants C & D. A, B, C, & D, are all unaltered pure strain plants.
By crossing A & B we get plants E & F. By crossing C & D we get plants G & H.
Then by crossing E with H, or F with G, we get a beautiful but sterile plant I, which cannot produce seed, but can be propagated by cuttings one time to produce a clone so to speak. If you try raising cuttings from a clone, you end up with something similar to G or H but highly degraded and sterile.
This is how mother nature preserves the plant species on plants not intended to be crossed by natural pollination.
Gene splicing may alter this natural protection system, so it is unknown what will happen when they begin to reproduce by self-pollination or cross-pollination. For this reason we never delved into these unnatural methods which removes mother nature from the equation.
When you step up from plant life to animal life, much of the natural protection system no longer exists. We can cross different breeds of dogs until we obtain the desired breeds, but when they reproduce on their own, and with other developed breeds, they may fall back somewhat, but they will never get back very close to their original state. Their DNA only gets more complex as each breed involved gets added to their DNA. Almost just the opposite of what happens with plants, who sorta reject foreign DNA to return back closer to how they originated.
FWIW: We did not yet know about DNA back when we were in horticulture so my final comment may not be accurate.
There is a big difference between messing with genes and using selective breeding to obtain a desired result.
One of the main reasons a hybrid plant, such as a tomato for example, does not produce it's own kind from seeds, is they revert back to close to their originals over time. Propagation can only be made by cuttings, and in some cases, even that will not work.
We raised and sold several such plants, which could not be duplicated from themselves, simply because they don't work that way.
Not to get too complex here, the simplest way to explain it is. All plant pairs are male and female respectively.
We take two plants A & B and keep them away from all other plants. We do the same thing with plants C & D. A, B, C, & D, are all unaltered pure strain plants.
By crossing A & B we get plants E & F. By crossing C & D we get plants G & H.
Then by crossing E with H, or F with G, we get a beautiful but sterile plant I, which cannot produce seed, but can be propagated by cuttings one time to produce a clone so to speak. If you try raising cuttings from a clone, you end up with something similar to G or H but highly degraded and sterile.
This is how mother nature preserves the plant species on plants not intended to be crossed by natural pollination.
Gene splicing may alter this natural protection system, so it is unknown what will happen when they begin to reproduce by self-pollination or cross-pollination. For this reason we never delved into these unnatural methods which removes mother nature from the equation.
When you step up from plant life to animal life, much of the natural protection system no longer exists. We can cross different breeds of dogs until we obtain the desired breeds, but when they reproduce on their own, and with other developed breeds, they may fall back somewhat, but they will never get back very close to their original state. Their DNA only gets more complex as each breed involved gets added to their DNA. Almost just the opposite of what happens with plants, who sorta reject foreign DNA to return back closer to how they originated.
FWIW: We did not yet know about DNA back when we were in horticulture so my final comment may not be accurate.
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
Well when plants're genetically modified - be it corn, soya bean crops or whatever, the mutation, as far as I understand, is that the plant can produce a bacteria which acts as an insecticide. That might sound good, but glyphosates such as in Roundup are absorbed into the plants and into crops, fruit and vegetables which we eat, and as we all know by now, the prime ingredient of that's Agent Orange, which was used in Vietnam to quickly kill off vegetation and expose their troops. The residue of this horrible poison's been found in most processed foods in the US. God knows what it's doing to human beings, but it's not good, so to try and alleviate fears, GM food products're being pushed as the saviour - to feed populous areas or to provide food to arid countries to help prevent starvation. On the face of it, that sounds like a good idea doesn't it, but the FDA doesn't make it mandatory to label all GM products, which I think it should do, so that people have a choice as to what they want in their food.
In the UK, we don't have that problem ... exactly .... but fish, poultry and other meats from animals fed on GM food don't have to be labelled, whereas the ingredients in frozen, canned or boxed food does, although in contrast to the US situation, the direct human food supply in the EU is still largely GMO- free. Some of this food's served in imported food used in takeaways. Customers're supposed to be warned about this, but I've never heard of anyone being told. : (
In the UK, we don't have that problem ... exactly .... but fish, poultry and other meats from animals fed on GM food don't have to be labelled, whereas the ingredients in frozen, canned or boxed food does, although in contrast to the US situation, the direct human food supply in the EU is still largely GMO- free. Some of this food's served in imported food used in takeaways. Customers're supposed to be warned about this, but I've never heard of anyone being told. : (
Re: Something From Nothing
If you think of a DNA strand as the most complex computer program ever written, and most of it not understood by those attempting to alter the program. Removing a section of the program they think is the offending section, could very well have serious complications in other parts of the program which relied on the data from the removed section.
DNA can be obtained from anywhere on a the subject body, and altering only one strand could upset the entire body, because the checksums no longer match.
I'm not against scientist trying to learn as much as they can, but I am against them making modifications and testing them on everyone in the world who has to eat something genetically modified.
We already know the governments do not care about undoing the messes they have caused.
For example: Like the toad mentioned earlier by someone, the government brought in Kudzu to quickly cover bare areas.
The KNEW how fast it grew before they brought it in, and how uncontrollable it was.
They did it anyhow.
Now half the southern states are covered in this stuff, killing off a lot of the natural vegetation and smothering trees.
They brought it in, so it should be up to them to eradicate it. But they just don't care about the damage they do, simple as that.
But let them find some wild Marijuana growing somewhere, and they will send out a whole team to eradicate it. WHY?
Especially when they don't do anything at all about other mild drugs, like coffee plants, which is far more addictive than marijuana.
If marijuana truly was a stepping stone that led to harder drug usage, then they really should look at coffee as the first stepping stone to drug addition. They make too much money in taxes to kill their golden geese! Or do a study to prove nearly 100% of drug addicts got their addiction start by drinking coffee! And a lot of drug addicts never used marijuana at all. After coffee, they jumped straight into hard drugs.
DNA can be obtained from anywhere on a the subject body, and altering only one strand could upset the entire body, because the checksums no longer match.
I'm not against scientist trying to learn as much as they can, but I am against them making modifications and testing them on everyone in the world who has to eat something genetically modified.
We already know the governments do not care about undoing the messes they have caused.
For example: Like the toad mentioned earlier by someone, the government brought in Kudzu to quickly cover bare areas.
The KNEW how fast it grew before they brought it in, and how uncontrollable it was.
They did it anyhow.
Now half the southern states are covered in this stuff, killing off a lot of the natural vegetation and smothering trees.
They brought it in, so it should be up to them to eradicate it. But they just don't care about the damage they do, simple as that.
But let them find some wild Marijuana growing somewhere, and they will send out a whole team to eradicate it. WHY?
Especially when they don't do anything at all about other mild drugs, like coffee plants, which is far more addictive than marijuana.
If marijuana truly was a stepping stone that led to harder drug usage, then they really should look at coffee as the first stepping stone to drug addition. They make too much money in taxes to kill their golden geese! Or do a study to prove nearly 100% of drug addicts got their addiction start by drinking coffee! And a lot of drug addicts never used marijuana at all. After coffee, they jumped straight into hard drugs.
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
I agree with everything you've said Gary, and although I hear you about coffee, it interests me to hear how "addictive" it seems to be over there, whether psychologically or physically, because we don't seem to hear that over here. Makes me wonder if it's because the coffee we drink might be weaker, or because in the majority of homes it's still in instant powder or granule form? I've certainly never heard of anyone climbing up the wall, to to speak, until they get their "fix", or being unable to function without a coffee inside them first.
I'm back on tea atm, but for several years, I drank no hot drink other than coffee, and several a day. It didn't prevent me from sleeping, and I never got the shakes or whatever if I didn't have a coffee first thing in the morning, so what's happening with yours? I have to say that most of our coffee's taken with milk or cream. Providing it's not too strong, I can drink black coffee though, and I never take sugar. Do you think that strong, black coffee, drunk it hefty amounts, is the reason why folk seem to get cravings for it?
I'm back on tea atm, but for several years, I drank no hot drink other than coffee, and several a day. It didn't prevent me from sleeping, and I never got the shakes or whatever if I didn't have a coffee first thing in the morning, so what's happening with yours? I have to say that most of our coffee's taken with milk or cream. Providing it's not too strong, I can drink black coffee though, and I never take sugar. Do you think that strong, black coffee, drunk it hefty amounts, is the reason why folk seem to get cravings for it?
Re: Something From Nothing
I was going to suggest that tea has more caffeine than coffee, but it depends on when you measure it. Raw tea leaves are higher in caffeine content than the equivalent coffee beans, but after brewing, tea loses quite a bit of it to make it less than brewed coffee. Read this article for more information: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandque ... 02,00.html
The argument of creation verses evolution is not what Narinder is talking about in his blog and/or theory. In fact I'd suggest his entire argument is suspect due to the fact that he relies on quantum physics and fluctuations (the uncertainty principle) in order for his universe to have evolved. That's technically not "nothing" but a topic for a different discussion. Evolution of the human life form is insignificant by comparison to the creation of matter. What we call life came into play only lately in cosmological time and I dare say our existence has absolutely no effect on how the universe is continuing it's evolutionary development. And, that can be said even if we blow up the entire planet in our pursuit of happiness. I can see how fundamentalist thinking would naturally reject evolution of any kind because it would undermine their preconceived ideas about how we got here. I can also say that we would never be in a position to fully understand the universe unless our cognitive processes were capable of taking it all in. We can't even understand what's happening on our own planet so that I hold little hope for understanding the entire universe. Narinder's theory should be taken at face value. It's one possible scenario. It makes for lively discussion. But, delving into how humans explain themselves is not what he is talking about.
The argument of creation verses evolution is not what Narinder is talking about in his blog and/or theory. In fact I'd suggest his entire argument is suspect due to the fact that he relies on quantum physics and fluctuations (the uncertainty principle) in order for his universe to have evolved. That's technically not "nothing" but a topic for a different discussion. Evolution of the human life form is insignificant by comparison to the creation of matter. What we call life came into play only lately in cosmological time and I dare say our existence has absolutely no effect on how the universe is continuing it's evolutionary development. And, that can be said even if we blow up the entire planet in our pursuit of happiness. I can see how fundamentalist thinking would naturally reject evolution of any kind because it would undermine their preconceived ideas about how we got here. I can also say that we would never be in a position to fully understand the universe unless our cognitive processes were capable of taking it all in. We can't even understand what's happening on our own planet so that I hold little hope for understanding the entire universe. Narinder's theory should be taken at face value. It's one possible scenario. It makes for lively discussion. But, delving into how humans explain themselves is not what he is talking about.
Re: Something From Nothing
I think the culprit in Tea is Tannin, more so than caffeine.
Although caffeine has the same chemical formula, there are many types and sources of caffeine, each with their own properties.
Caffeine is a psychoactive drug. One of the few stimulating substances which remain legal and unregulated in nearly all parts of the world.
The most prominent affect of the caffeine from coffee beans is that it blocks the action of adenosine on its receptor. Coffee also stimulates certain portions of the autonomic nervous system.
Pure powdered caffeine, which is available as a dietary supplement, and found in many energy drinks, can be lethal in tablespoon-sized amounts. Of the leading energy drinks, one bottle contains as much caffeine as twenty cups of coffee.
I guess because I'm a writer and visit several writers groups, about one out of every ten posts is about coffee and how much they need to consume before they can get to work.
I used to work in more than one office where almost nobody there could function until they had their morning coffee fix.
And a few even went bonkers if they couldn't get their coffee because the machine was broke. They elected one person to go down the street and bring back several cups for the rest of the addicts.
I know most folks won't admit to be addicted to coffee, and the addiction is considered normal since most are addicted to it.
I often wonder what would happen if all the same rules, regulations, bans, and exorbitant taxes were placed on coffee as it was on cigarettes. Cigarette smokers are much more docile than coffee addicts, and let the governments get by with persecuting smokers. I doubt you would find coffee drinkers to be as docile if their vice was attacked by the government!
Although caffeine has the same chemical formula, there are many types and sources of caffeine, each with their own properties.
Caffeine is a psychoactive drug. One of the few stimulating substances which remain legal and unregulated in nearly all parts of the world.
The most prominent affect of the caffeine from coffee beans is that it blocks the action of adenosine on its receptor. Coffee also stimulates certain portions of the autonomic nervous system.
Pure powdered caffeine, which is available as a dietary supplement, and found in many energy drinks, can be lethal in tablespoon-sized amounts. Of the leading energy drinks, one bottle contains as much caffeine as twenty cups of coffee.
I guess because I'm a writer and visit several writers groups, about one out of every ten posts is about coffee and how much they need to consume before they can get to work.
I used to work in more than one office where almost nobody there could function until they had their morning coffee fix.
And a few even went bonkers if they couldn't get their coffee because the machine was broke. They elected one person to go down the street and bring back several cups for the rest of the addicts.
I know most folks won't admit to be addicted to coffee, and the addiction is considered normal since most are addicted to it.
I often wonder what would happen if all the same rules, regulations, bans, and exorbitant taxes were placed on coffee as it was on cigarettes. Cigarette smokers are much more docile than coffee addicts, and let the governments get by with persecuting smokers. I doubt you would find coffee drinkers to be as docile if their vice was attacked by the government!
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
Thank you for the link Yogi. It seems that folk're divided on the subject of the effects of caffeine in both tea and coffee, and that the plants, along with the coca one, are related.
Gary, nicotine withdrawal can make some people VERY nasty, so I don't know about them being more docile than coffee addicts. I've known people to stop smoking and, according to their partners, they've been"hell to live with" for up to 6 months of abstinence, although the person withdrawing from the effects sometimes doesn't notice a change in themselves.
One lady who I worked with briefly, said she wished her husband'd go back to the habit, after his moodiness became unparalleled. He'd snap at her and get bad tempered over very small issues. When someone offered him a cigarette, which he took and smoked, his wife said that the change was immediate. He relaxed into the person that she'd always known, but after that, he made one more concentrated effort to pack in, and it seems that he managed it.
Gary, nicotine withdrawal can make some people VERY nasty, so I don't know about them being more docile than coffee addicts. I've known people to stop smoking and, according to their partners, they've been"hell to live with" for up to 6 months of abstinence, although the person withdrawing from the effects sometimes doesn't notice a change in themselves.
One lady who I worked with briefly, said she wished her husband'd go back to the habit, after his moodiness became unparalleled. He'd snap at her and get bad tempered over very small issues. When someone offered him a cigarette, which he took and smoked, his wife said that the change was immediate. He relaxed into the person that she'd always known, but after that, he made one more concentrated effort to pack in, and it seems that he managed it.
Re: Something From Nothing
I find all the reports of who is smoking and who is not to be almost like a comic page.
The main question is, did banning smoking in public buildings have an effect on smoking or not?
According to the Center for Disease Control, among teens and young adults, the number of smokers increased dramatically as a result of the bans. Teen and young adult smokers jumped from around 25% to 40% in retaliation of the government interference toward smokers.
As far as adult smokers go, the number of adults who smoke has declined steadily from 1965 to present. With a sudden rise when the smoking bans kicked in. Overall from 1965 to present, the decline in smokers has remained constant, so the bans have not contributed to the rate of decline in smoking in any significant way.
Only News Media and Government make the claim that smoking bans worked. When the truth clearly shows it had no affect, other than causing a sharp rise in smokers which slowly leveled back down to the normal rate of decline in smoking.
The number of smokers has declined from 45 million to 42 million, which it would have done naturally with or without the bans and exorbitant taxes added to cigarettes. The bans and added taxes did nothing more than EXTORT more money from the citizenry to the government coffers.
Once addicted to anything, it is very hard to be weened from the substance.
Once again, I would love to see what would happen if the government applied all the same laws to coffee drinkers as they have to smokers. Ban coffee from public buildings and add exorbitant taxes like they did to cigarettes.
This will prove WHO is docile and WHO is not so docile!
The main question is, did banning smoking in public buildings have an effect on smoking or not?
According to the Center for Disease Control, among teens and young adults, the number of smokers increased dramatically as a result of the bans. Teen and young adult smokers jumped from around 25% to 40% in retaliation of the government interference toward smokers.
As far as adult smokers go, the number of adults who smoke has declined steadily from 1965 to present. With a sudden rise when the smoking bans kicked in. Overall from 1965 to present, the decline in smokers has remained constant, so the bans have not contributed to the rate of decline in smoking in any significant way.
Only News Media and Government make the claim that smoking bans worked. When the truth clearly shows it had no affect, other than causing a sharp rise in smokers which slowly leveled back down to the normal rate of decline in smoking.
The number of smokers has declined from 45 million to 42 million, which it would have done naturally with or without the bans and exorbitant taxes added to cigarettes. The bans and added taxes did nothing more than EXTORT more money from the citizenry to the government coffers.
Once addicted to anything, it is very hard to be weened from the substance.
Once again, I would love to see what would happen if the government applied all the same laws to coffee drinkers as they have to smokers. Ban coffee from public buildings and add exorbitant taxes like they did to cigarettes.
This will prove WHO is docile and WHO is not so docile!