PDA

View Full Version : Yo I have a question


AsifTheManRahman
May 12, 2004, 12:20 PM
Does water make up 75 or 80% of the earth?

Carte Blanche
May 12, 2004, 12:25 PM
I thought it's 70%.

Carte Blanche
May 12, 2004, 12:27 PM
Okay, checked it with a credible site.
----------------------------------------------


What percentage of the world's surface is water? What percentage of this water is salt water, fresh water and frozen water?

70% of the Earth's surface is water. Of this 70%, 98% is salt water, leaving 2% as fresh water. Of the 2% that is fresh, about 90% is frozen. This frozen water is locked up in the Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers on the Alps, etc.

SOURCE (http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/earth/geography/g00057d.html)

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Carte Blanche : source]

Navarene
May 12, 2004, 12:27 PM
Prithibir teen bhag jol ar ek bhag mati, now compute the stat;)

reverse_swing
May 12, 2004, 12:29 PM
well said Navarene Bhai:lol:

Zunaid
May 12, 2004, 12:32 PM
neither :)

If you meant "What percentage of the world's surface is water?" then the answer can be found here (http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/earth/geography/g00057d.html)

On the other hand, if you wanted to find out what percentage of total mass of the earth is H20, the answer is more difficult to get. We can only infer. For example the inner and outer core which contributes a significant part of the earth's mass is iron-nickel and iron(?) respectively.

The four layers of the earth as defined by geologists are:

1. Crust
2. Mantle: Contributes 70% of earths mass
3. Outer core
4. Inner core

Single biggest composition is probably iron: 35%. Others Oxygen (30%), Silicon(15%) etc.

Carte Blanche
May 12, 2004, 12:39 PM
The 2nd part of your post was very interesting Dr Z. I think only mba can answer that.:cool:

Navarene
May 12, 2004, 12:49 PM
awww Carte, you still been missing mba?? okie better u2u suds, since she/he was advocating for him(a friendly banter):)

Carte Blanche
May 12, 2004, 12:53 PM
Of course I do. I'm sure everyone misses him ;) Who is suds? Mba's alter-ego?

AsifTheManRahman
May 12, 2004, 01:08 PM
Wow...I never expected so many replies. Thanks people. I just needed it to know because I was writing an essay for my bro (who goes to grade 7). I just sent it to him, and came to see that my not so significant post had earned 8 replies already...:lol:

Anyways, I put "more than three quarters" on that essay; the exact figures were not very important i guess. It was a water pollution essay where i just wanted to put this stat in. :)

Zunaid
May 12, 2004, 01:25 PM
why write his essay for him? let him sink or swim, pun intended. only way for him to learn. :)

Carte Blanche
May 12, 2004, 01:30 PM
Sink or drown?

rafiq
May 12, 2004, 05:31 PM
man don't write your bro's essay for him - he's in 7th grade, tell him to get a life and write his own essay! :)

suds
May 13, 2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Carte Blanche
Of course I do. I'm sure everyone misses him ;) Who is suds? Mba's alter-ego?

tongue in chick? :-/

abhs
May 13, 2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Navarene
Prithibir teen bhag jol ar ek bhag mati, now compute the stat;)
Remided me the verses of the poem-

Tin vag graisase, ek vag baki
sura nei patro hate kapitese saki

Arnab
May 13, 2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by suds

tongue in chick? :-/

Blasphemy! Ban him! Where are the feminists? :)

suds
May 13, 2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
Originally posted by suds

tongue in chick? :-/

Blasphemy! Ban him! Where are the feminists? :)

oops: mba-syndrome (or freud?) prevails

Arnab
May 13, 2004, 10:49 AM
I would go with the freudian slip.

suds
May 13, 2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
I would go with the freudian slip.

But, should that ward the fems off?

Arnab
May 13, 2004, 11:02 AM
I don't think there is any feminist here, other than myself.

suds
May 13, 2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
I don't think there is any feminist here, other than myself.

'-ist's are believers, is that always true?

Arnab
May 13, 2004, 11:13 AM
Yeah, for example, scient-ists.

Gramatically,

"-ist" is a Noun-forming suffix, meaning "a person who".

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Arnab]

suds
May 13, 2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
Yeah, for example, scient-ists.

I was actually referring to all the 'ist's originating from some 'ism'

Arnab
May 13, 2004, 11:20 AM
Ok, how about nihilists? Do nihilists believe in nihilism? :)

suds
May 13, 2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
Yeah, for example, scient-ists.

Gramatically,

"-ist" is a Noun-forming suffix, meaning "a person who".

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Arnab]

I guess that is being too rudimentary. Chronology of word usage may endorse semantic versatility in breaking down

suds
May 13, 2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
Ok, how about nihilists? Do nihilists believe in nihilism? :)

(if we are allowed to 'discourse-i-cally' blurr the boundary of 'belief' and not mind to assimilate with 'holding' ) according to one definition of nihilism: "A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated"

Quoting another: "The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement"

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by suds]

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by suds]

Arnab
May 13, 2004, 11:39 AM
if we are allowed to 'discourse-i-cally' blurr the boundary of 'belief' and not mind to assimilate with 'holding'

'holding' what? a 'belief'?

Is nihilism a value itself, something that is communicable or knowable?

suds
May 13, 2004, 11:59 AM
'Communicability' or 'knowability' are not the pre-requisites for any belief (or a value, for that matter) to start with, even though they may have pseudo-similar physiognomies.

People proclaim themselves as muslims, hindus, christians.... But probably that is the only commonest thing among them (knowing themselves as 'muslim', hindu', christian ...). care to traverse the route of their believes, one is ought to be amazed to see the extent of their discrepancy, which implies nothing other than the 'un-communicability' or 'un-knowability' of a belief (and even more a of a value). Not being communicable or knowable doesn't discount something from being a belief.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by suds]

AsifTheManRahman
May 13, 2004, 12:02 PM
wow...

khali ekta water question e jigaisilam...:lol:

suds
May 13, 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
wow...

khali ekta water question e jigaisilam...:lol:

This thread filched the fluidity from 'water' ;)

Arnab
May 13, 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by suds
'Communicability' or 'knowability' are not the pre-requisites for any belief (or a value, for that matter) to start with, even though they may have pseudo-similar physiognomies.

I disagree on the "knowability" part. To believe something, anything, whatever it is, and whatever appropriate/inappropriate linguistic label you give to it, you have to know what you believe in before you begin to believe it.

For example, you first know that pure milk is white in color. Then you believe that statement, having not known any other example contradicting your knowledge otherwise at any point in your life.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Arnab]

suds
May 14, 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Arnab

I disagree on the "knowability" part. To believe something, anything, whatever it is, and whatever appropriate/inappropriate linguistic label you give to it, you have to know what you believe in before you begin to believe it.

For example, you first know that pure milk is white in color. Then you believe that statement, having not known any other example contradicting your knowledge otherwise at any point in your life.

[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Arnab]

You got me there! This is what happens when you switch between your work and your talk in that frequency. Yes, I meant to say that just about the 'communicability' part and as a time-saving-quality-ruining process I copied and pasted both of them by accident. I noticed that shortly after I posted and then a sudden surge of work deluged myself, hence this hiatus.

Anyway, I agree with your "...you have to know what you believe in before you begin to believe it". By that, I assume, you mean that you know what you yourself believe in (or going to believe in), which is not tantamount to "knowing what others believe (or what beliefs are there in the air) in order to ingrain that belief in yourself". But here we have been talking about the knowledge of some belief, where the knowledge itself has nothing to do with the belief. But in your example of milk, you have shown how knowledge morphs into belief, considering knowledge and belief to be two states of a same phenomenon. For that matter, I guess the example didn't go much with your statement.

As for your example, I guess it's a bit risky to assimilate knowledge and belief. When you know something for a fact then there is no question of believing, you simply know (I am aware about projected knowledge, saying later about that). To believe in something, there needs to be some need of information/knowledge, which you compensate with your imagination. Once we add imagination (most often with impulse) to the knowledge, we call the whole thing as 'belief'. There would be no problem with that, if we could acknowledge that, belief is neither just knowledge nor just imagination. But too often we fail to do that.

As for projected knowledge, all that we know is 'projected'. And for that matter all factual knowledge are subject to change. But that need not refrain us from having 'knowledge' about something. By knowledge we mean to derive to a decision about something, which is backed by facts (which are knowledge by themselves, and subject to this definition) and maintains a logical congruity with whatever facts we have with us. Given the fact that, the 'backing-up-facts' may change, so may our 'knowledge'. So not even projected knowledge should be mixed up with belief!

I guess I should ask for aia (apology in advance) for taking so much freedom of space. Hopefully I am not committing a crime (to mods' pov), this not being the 'Bangladesh cricket' forum. Talking about mods, I was quite shocked to see Chinaman's resig. letter.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by suds]

Arnab
May 14, 2004, 02:11 PM
OK, now I sense we're veering off from whatever topic we started with (did we have anything specific in mind?). But to give you an idea of my idea of belief and knowledge and all that:

We gather information through our senses.

We store some of this information in our brain, and this storage is our knowledge.

We process our knowledge via neural circuitry and reach conclusions from it. These conclusions are our beliefs. We also store our beliefs somewhere in our brain, as part of the big knowledge storage.

I am not sure whether you want me to relate that to feminism or whatever we have been talking about so far.

suds
May 14, 2004, 02:31 PM
Nope, I myself didn't actually have anything in mind. I was just trying to have a stroll. In my short stay here I think I saw you somewhere talking about atheism, which is why I just wanted to badger you on the 'ism' thing (nothing to do with 'feminism' ). As for the term 'belief' we have some differences in how we define it. So any attempt to continue this will be somewhat 'terminological' for now. Anyway, its a fun place to visit, with all the nice people here. Cheers!

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by suds]

Arnab
May 14, 2004, 02:39 PM
I personally think all these "-ism"s are just convenient labeling.

Atheism is interesting. Atheists claim to not even know what it means by the idea "God", therefore they can't believe in it.

It's like asking: Do you believe in the existence of a white Ugnadan kid with three eyes and four legs born to two bkack Ugandan parents?

Well, I am not even sure if that is even possible, how can I believe or disbelieve in the existence of such a creature?

suds
May 14, 2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
I personally think all these "-ism"s are just convenient labeling.

Atheism is interesting. Atheists claim to not even know what it means by the idea "God", therefore they can't believe in it.

It's like asking: Do you believe in the existence of a white Ugnadan kid with three eyes and four legs born to two bkack Ugandan parents?

Well, I am not even sure if that is even possible, how can I believe or disbelieve in the existence of such a creature?

Doesn't that sound kinda agnostic rather?

Arnab
May 14, 2004, 02:54 PM
Yes, it does.

In fact, if you think about it, "agnosticism" has no bearing on beief/disbelief in God or supernatural.

An agnostic is a person who claims I don't know for sure. Well, by definition, every human being is an agnostic. Because, nobody can be 100% sure about everything.

An atheist, who is also an agnostic, finds the probabilty of the existence of something supernatural so low (much like the Ugandan white kid) that he finds it rational enough to claim to have no belief in anything supernatural.

So in the atheist's mind: Yeah, there COULD exist an Ugandan freakshow like that, Carmen Electra could be my f#$%-buddy, etc. , but I choose not to halluciante like that. :)

suds
May 14, 2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
Yes, it does.

In fact, if you think about it, "agnosticism" has no bearing on beief/disbelief in God or supernatural.

An agnostic is a person who claims I don't know for sure. Well, by definition, every human being is an agnostic. Because, nobody can be 100% sure about everything.

An atheist, who is also an agnostic, finds the probabilty of the existence of something supernatural so low (much like the Ugandan white kid) that he finds it rational enough to claim to have no belief in anything supernatural.

So in the atheist's mind: Yeah, there COULD exist an Ugandan freakshow like that, Carmen Electra could be my f#$%-buddy, etc. , but I choose not to halluciante like that. :)

Hey, missing Carmen Electra as '....'-buddy for being an atheist is not a good idea, u should quit. ;)

On a serious note, u urself have kinda stated what I had in my mind when I started the 'ism' stuff. It is this 'filling-up-the-blank' of-a-kind '...rational enough..." idea that makes an atheist necessarily a believer (in my definition of course), and not an agnostic. Disbelieving something is tantamount believing the opposite.

Arnab
May 14, 2004, 03:09 PM
Yeah, and atheist is a believer. He is a believer in the sense "I don't believe there are multiple suns in our solar system."

suds
May 14, 2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
Yeah, and atheist is a believer. He is a believer in the sense "I don't believe there are multiple suns in our solar system."

In absolute sense.

There is no escape.

Arnab
May 14, 2004, 03:14 PM
Yeah. I don't think "escape" was part of the atheist plan anyway. This is the only way we humans think.

suds
May 14, 2004, 03:18 PM
Which is why some considers agnosticism to be the safest policy to hold on: quite 'escapistic'!

Arnab
May 14, 2004, 03:24 PM
Well, as I said, agnosticism is not really a valid policy regarding "belief". Everyone is agnostic in a sense.

If you want to be really accurate, you can say that regarding belief in the supernatural, some people practice "I-delieberately-suspend-my-judgment-on-whether-I-believe-in-the-supernatural-or-not-and-choose-to-sit-on-the-fence"-ism.

They wrongfully call it "agnosticism". But I don't care much about labels anyway.

Zunaid
May 14, 2004, 03:25 PM
belief-disbelief

All belief systems essentially start off with one ormore essentially unproven axioms.

There is a God
There is no god

The scond axiom is just the negation of the first axiom.

Consider a proof system: You start off with a set of axioms and the rules of deduction. Our beliefs (disbeliefs) are then consistent within the framework of our internal proof systems.

While the truth of an axiom may not be provable, the rules of deductions should at least be provable. So two intelligent logical person with their own weltanschauun (pov, call what you will) can agree to disagree - they see the logical deductions that led to the fleshing out of the other's belief system even if they may disagree on the basic axioms:

there is a GOD
there is no god

What makes it difficult is when the rules of deduction themselves are falllacious. That's when intelligent discourse becomes impossible.

An example is the "affirming the conseuqent" fallacy.

If x, then y.
y.
therefore: x.

Another one that is often used during discussions like these are the "Appeal To Ignorance"

There is no (or insufficient) evidence establishing that x is false.
Therefore: x is true. (See Bush and WMD)

I know I am digressing a bit from the discussion, but it got me thinking about belief systems and the rest.

suds
May 14, 2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Arnab

They wrongfully call it "agnosticism". But I don't care much about labels anyway.

Talking about labels, they also say, an agnostic is one who believes that there is no way to know whether there is a god or not. So that makes an agnostic a true believer too. I agree with you about labels.

billah
May 14, 2004, 05:36 PM
Topic degeneration alert!

AsifTheManRahman
May 14, 2004, 07:08 PM
:)

Rubu
May 14, 2004, 11:14 PM
i had no idea that this scientific "kach-ka-cha-ni" will go this far. c'mon guys, i'm already tired of scinece classes. regardless of the branches of the thread.

Zunaid
May 15, 2004, 12:30 AM
Who said atlami is science?

Zephaniah
May 15, 2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Zunaid
Who said atlami is science?

They say it's Atlami-science.

Hasib
May 15, 2004, 06:41 PM
Arnab.. u hav a habit of goin' off topic...

abhs
June 22, 2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by AsifTheManRahman
Does water make up 75 or 80% of the earth?

Etogulo uttor! Kintu........Prithibite asole koto vag pani, ekhono sothik uttor jana holo na!

Kunta sothik?

AsifTheManRahman, did you get your answer?

FaltuRidwanBhai
June 22, 2004, 09:23 PM
beparta ashole hoise ki bonnar shomoy amago jomuna podda ar meghnar pani jokhon bare tokhon prithibir 80% pani thake. abar khorar shomoy jokhon india shob pani bondho koira dai tokhon hoi 75%. amar hypothesis hoise giya aida. toi amar mone hoi ami 95% thik. bhul hoiteo pare. tobe manush matroi bhool. dannabad.

reinausagi
June 23, 2004, 12:35 AM
Arnab wrote:

I don't think there is any feminist here, other than myself.


:lol: N.O.W. and Steinem can can finally get a full nights sleep, secure in the knowledge that Arnab is looking after the feminist agenda...:lol:

Navarene
June 23, 2004, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by reinausagi
Arnab wrote:

I don't think there is any feminist here, other than myself.


:lol: N.O.W. and Steinem can can finally get a full nights sleep, secure in the knowledge that Arnab is looking after the feminist agenda...:lol:
And don't forget to add Kate Millet with this Gloria list;)