Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)

page: 16
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)

Now that may seem the most idiotic question to some.
But is it really, that idiotic?
We have a good description of the wind from science, but no forecast based in it, maybe a few days, so it is imperfect. It leaves open the possibility to explore ideas.
So, for the wind to be alive, what would it need?
A metabolic process.
1. Reproduction
It can be argueed that tornadoes and such are wind reproducing, we simply do not know enough.
2.  Excretion.
For sure. Have you looked after a tornado, tsunami?
There is excretion. Probably the wind excretion is there too or
RAIN.
Its wind excretion!
3. Growth
We dont know enough about wind, in this regard. But it is more likely constant, like bacteria life.
4. Nutrition
Yes, the wind "eats" air, and water. Clear proof of this!
5. Transport
The transport of the wind is yet unknown.
6. Synthesis.
The wind is a pefect example of synthesis.
From small gusts to tornadoes, it is extremley varied.

So there you go.
I would say, pretty convincing that wind may be alive, and should be studied further, from this vantage point.
After all you could measure and predict human behaviout to an extent (few days), doesnt make it a force of nature!
Btw, if you have an perspective, critical thinking skills, you would be able to tell, that this is how the greeks though, and why our thoughts create our reality.
For more on the future, check my einstein thread out, where most cannot even understand the OP.
Enjoy!


Hi,

Nice insightful post OP -- S&F !


IMHO - The Wind is - SPIRITUALLY - ALIVE - is "PLANET EARTH'S" ---> "BREATHING"!

IMHO - TORNADO'S, HURRICANES (VORTEX) ARE EARTH'S FILTERS THEY CLEAN UP THE POLLUTION IN THE AIR!

THE "WIND" IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFINE. SO IT'S DOWN TO EARTH'S HUMAN ARTISTS -- IN-TUNE WITH EARTH'S COSMIC CONCIOUSNESS -- TO PUT INTO SONG THE BEAUTY AND MAJESTICNESS OF PLANET EARTH'S "ELEMENTS"...

In tribute to the "WIND" is one of the most gorgeously written/sung songs on earth...

Yoko Ono - "Who has seen the wind"...
Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor i.
But when the trees bow down their heads
The wind is passing by.

Oh, wind, wind,
Wind, wind, wind.

Who has seen enough?
Only me and john.
But when a smile goes 'round the world
Our love is catching on.

Oh, smile, smile,
Smile, smile, smile.

Who has seen your dream?
Only you and him.
But when the world gets bright and clear
You know that we were there.

Oh, world, world,
World, world, world.

www.youtube.com...



In tribute to "SNOW" is one of the most gorgeously written/sung songs on earth...

Yoko Ono - Listen the snow is falling...
Listen, the snow is falling o'er town,

Listen the snow is falling ev'rywhere.

Between empire state building

And between trafalgar square.

Listen, the snow is falling o'er town.


Listen, the snow is falling o'er town,

Listen the snow is falling ev'rywhere.

Between your bed and mine,

Between your head and my mind.

Listen, the snow is falling o'er town.


Between tokyo and paris,

Between london and dallas,

Between your love and mine.

Listen, the snow is falling ev'rywhere.


Snowfling, snowfall, snowfall,

Listen, listen,

Listen, baby,

Listen.

www.youtube.com...







edit on 21-1-2012 by neotech1neothink because: jpgs




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Have the organs been identified and i wonder what they look like?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Thank you dear BB!

Time ago I was asking same question: What is air?
By now we are fine just asking!
Asking and asking....

Happy



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
So, the question was, is wind alive (is it an organism)? - Firstly, for me to answer your question, we would have to agree on the definitions of Alive and Organism. In my personal opinion, I would say that wind is a metabolic process of the earth. I think that the earth is a conscious, alive organism. I think that what wind is for the earth is much like what your (and my) mitochondria is for us. I think that wind is one of the energy regulators intrinsic to the earth-organism. In and of itself, I think that wind is a mindless bodily process of the earth. - That is not to say that the earth has no control over its winds, just a speculation that it is a mostly autonomous process which regulates energy somehow for the earth-organism.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I think some people are confusing metabolic change with consciousness. There is a quite a difference between the 2.

Is the wind alive? depends what your definition of alive is. Even a mass that contains smaller parts of organic material might be considered alive. Is the earth alive?? i would say yes it is. Is it conscious? thats a tougher question. I dont know maybe maybe not. If you believe metaphysics then you would say there is a collective contentiousness such as the earths energy grids. Who can tell, we are all but cells in an organism trying to find our place.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Wind alive, dynamic, blows, sucks, but not alive.

The air on the Moon alive, I think so I think I saw it out with the wind from Urans the other night.

What about the single Hydrogen Atom per sq. meter in Space alive and lonely, a Atom might be Energetic but not alive.

Hell half the people I know aren't alive and not all of them are dead.

Now a Sun Ray a photon that must be alive.

And God said let the Light be alive and the spirit of the lord move on the water and said let the land be alive also.

I bet you believe in Dark Energy too. It's alive no, it's Dark, no it's not even Dark.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 




But I dare anyone to disprove wind could also be a living organism, not yet understood.

Why is it that every time someone comes on with a ludicrous claim, they say "well you can't disprove it" as if that's some sort of valid argument?

a) When you challenge the status quo, the burden of proof is on you - it isn't up to everyone else to disprove it. I understand you say you want to open up a discussion, but you seem intent on forcing everyone to come to the conclusion that "wind is alive (but be careful though, air isn't)".

b) Current science certainly would reject that wind or air have any sort of consciousness that we are familiar with - by relating a study of wind (which is, FYI, composed of air) to current observable forms of life. I'm no scientist, but I know that much. I also know that air and wind are not composed of vastly different elements as such - which you seem to imply. "You keep mistaking air with wind" - no I don't think they are. You are mistaking uninformed guesses for science and philosophy.

The following OP quotes are really ridiculous:


1. Reproduction
It can be argueed that tornadoes and such are wind reproducing, we simply do not know enough.

If there is nothing, no evidence, no logic - nothing - to reinforce that claim, then that cannot be argued. Not at all.

2. Excretion.
For sure. Have you looked after a tornado, tsunami?
There is excretion. Probably the wind excretion is there too or
RAIN.
Its wind excretion!

Would you care to elaborate on that?

3. Growth
We dont know enough about wind, in this regard. But it is more likely constant, like bacteria life.

See point 1.

4. Nutrition
Yes, the wind "eats" air, and water. Clear proof of this!

Excuse me? I seem to have missed the self-inherant 'proof' in this statement.

5. Transport
The transport of the wind is yet unknown.

Maybe it takes the bus.

6. Synthesis.
The wind is a pefect example of synthesis.
From small gusts to tornadoes, it is extremley varied.

One could say the same thing of the most base of objects - faeces for example. Maybe faeces is a sentient, living organism too?

I am very, very tempted to use your list and apply it to faeces now - but I think that would be rather crude. Let's use a piece of toast.

1) Reproduction - it leaves crumbz in da toaster
2) Excretion - it leaves crumbz in da toaster
3) Growth - we dont know enough about this but maybe if you left it for 1000000 years it would grow
4) Nutrition - it probably eats bacteria but we dunno
5) Transport - we dunno

You see where I'm going with this..


I really don't see why you chose this topic - why not argue for the entire planet being alive? Why specifically wind? It is such a bizarre argument, when you don't seem to have done much research to validate creating a whole thread about it.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I put on my running shoes and stepped outside in the cool evening air here in Florida. I started jogging slowly down my dirt road, the wind gently caressing my face. My dog beside me, as wisps of tiny water droplets from every breath float away from him. I speed up, now running. My heart begins to race and I feel warmth coming to my skin where the cool wind takes it away. I breath in deep - it feels good to take in the wind deep into me. My lungs expand and the air seemlessly passes into my being, into the very cells of my body. The air now circulates throughout my body, mind and soul - joining with the other elements that are me - carbon, hydrogen, iron, calcium and potassium. I have given life to the very air that I breathe. Who gave life to me?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by arollingstone
reply to post by BBalazs
 




But I dare anyone to disprove wind could also be a living organism, not yet understood.

Why is it that every time someone comes on with a ludicrous claim, they say "well you can't disprove it" as if that's some sort of valid argument?

a) When you challenge the status quo, the burden of proof is on you - it isn't up to everyone else to disprove it. I understand you say you want to open up a discussion, but you seem intent on forcing everyone to come to the conclusion that "wind is alive (but be careful though, air isn't)".

b) Current science certainly would reject that wind or air have any sort of consciousness that we are familiar with - by relating a study of wind (which is, FYI, composed of air) to current observable forms of life. I'm no scientist, but I know that much. I also know that air and wind are not composed of vastly different elements as such - which you seem to imply. "You keep mistaking air with wind" - no I don't think they are. You are mistaking uninformed guesses for science and philosophy.

The following OP quotes are really ridiculous:


1. Reproduction
It can be argueed that tornadoes and such are wind reproducing, we simply do not know enough.

If there is nothing, no evidence, no logic - nothing - to reinforce that claim, then that cannot be argued. Not at all.

2. Excretion.
For sure. Have you looked after a tornado, tsunami?
There is excretion. Probably the wind excretion is there too or
RAIN.
Its wind excretion!

Would you care to elaborate on that?

3. Growth
We dont know enough about wind, in this regard. But it is more likely constant, like bacteria life.

See point 1.

4. Nutrition
Yes, the wind "eats" air, and water. Clear proof of this!

Excuse me? I seem to have missed the self-inherant 'proof' in this statement.

5. Transport
The transport of the wind is yet unknown.

Maybe it takes the bus.

6. Synthesis.
The wind is a pefect example of synthesis.
From small gusts to tornadoes, it is extremley varied.

One could say the same thing of the most base of objects - faeces for example. Maybe faeces is a sentient, living organism too?

I am very, very tempted to use your list and apply it to faeces now - but I think that would be rather crude. Let's use a piece of toast.

1) Reproduction - it leaves crumbz in da toaster
2) Excretion - it leaves crumbz in da toaster
3) Growth - we dont know enough about this but maybe if you left it for 1000000 years it would grow
4) Nutrition - it probably eats bacteria but we dunno
5) Transport - we dunno

You see where I'm going with this..


I really don't see why you chose this topic - why not argue for the entire planet being alive? Why specifically wind? It is such a bizarre argument, when you don't seem to have done much research to validate creating a whole thread about it.

What?
The wind is alive.
Its a speculative theory.
Thats why i opened this thread.
The point are just ideas.
Obviously you would have to prove metabolism where it alive. That aere you will start.
These are ideas, first thing in my head. They are not the gospel man! They are point of view, inference, origo for further thinking, something to prove
Then you go on a rant about science.
Get yourself together.
This is not an anti science thread.
We all love science here.
Seriously.
We like to speculate.
Thats all.
I am sick and tird of defending this thread.
Did you read this: speculative????
And i am going to say it, all you smartasses (no disrespectman) who come here to give a science lesson are mistaken, i happen to know more about science then you.
Spew your hate elsewhere.
So what would it mean to you if the wind was alive?
edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   


My theory is that air and wind are seprate.


Come on now... Apply some common sense and logic....
Breathe in a nice deep breath of air.... Wait for it.... Forcefully breathe it out!! Tadah!! wind=air moving

wind:
Noun: 1.The perceptible natural movement of the air, esp. in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction: "an easterly wind".



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillyTJames



My theory is that air and wind are seprate.


Come on now... Apply some common sense and logic....
Breathe in a nice deep breath of air.... Wait for it.... Forcefully breathe it out!! Tadah!! wind=air moving

wind:
Noun: 1.The perceptible natural movement of the air, esp. in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction: "an easterly wind".

No, spewing is not wind.
Even the definition sou quote agrees with what i have written!
It is a natural movement of air.
Question remains, why natural, in what way?
Animals move naturally too, doesnt mean they are not alive.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 

In that sense, I think more things can be seen as an alive subject like wind.
Nature is self-aware, so is the society--collective consciousness.
It remains me an old wonderful post,"Earth is a self-aware living creature"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just Imagine it, if all in the universe including itself have its own consciousness, just the difference of scales.
We human just like the cells of Our Earth. It's all Holographic of the World.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1ness
reply to post by BBalazs
 

In that sense, I think more things can be seen as an alive subject like wind.
Nature is self-aware, so is the society--collective consciousness.
It remains me an old wonderful post,"Earth is a self-aware living creature"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just Imagine it, if all in the universe including itself have its own consciousness, just the difference of scales.
We human just like the cells of Our Earth. It's all Holographic of the World.
Its actually more then a theory, its a hypothesis. See gaia hypothesis on wikipedia.
It makes perfectly accurate predictions.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
So is the wind one very large organism, covering the entire planet, or is every little gust an individual?

Please stop calling this a "theory." This is NOT a theory, and since it is not testable, I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis. This is metaphysical discussion, and while it is worth talking about to help think outside the box, it has no bearing on physical reality.

Deny arrogance.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by UltraDOSEcious
So is the wind one very large organism, covering the entire planet, or is every little gust an individual?

Please stop calling this a "theory." This is NOT a theory, and since it is not testable, I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis. This is metaphysical discussion, and while it is worth talking about to help think outside the box, it has no bearing on physical reality.

Deny arrogance.S

Really!?
You are know going to show your arrogance and misunderstanding of speculation?
Gaia theory, check it out.
Theory is speculation my half witted friend (since sou are unaware of what words mean).
Here is the definition, enjoy:
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.


Ps: dont tell menwhat i can or cannot do, or i will also start telling sou what sour family can and cannot do.
Okay?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by UltraDOSEcious
So is the wind one very large organism, covering the entire planet, or is every little gust an individual?

Please stop calling this a "theory." This is NOT a theory, and since it is not testable, I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis. This is metaphysical discussion, and while it is worth talking about to help think outside the box, it has no bearing on physical reality.

Deny arrogance.

Once again you ignoramus, i will de y your ignorance.
Here is what theory really is, not what you hallucinate it to be:
"The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself."
I dare you to say it is not a theory again!
I dare you!
I also dare you to a mensa test, but that has about as much bearing on this as you telling me what to do!
edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
This concept is pure bunkum.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by UltraDOSEcious
So is the wind one very large organism, covering the entire planet, or is every little gust an individual?

Please stop calling this a "theory." This is NOT a theory, and since it is not testable, I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis. This is metaphysical discussion, and while it is worth talking about to help think outside the box, it has no bearing on physical reality.

Deny arrogance.


I wonder, after you have demonstrated your clear ignorance, will you appeal to a higher authority?
Makes perfect sense.
Here is the definition of theory once again:
The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.


Deny ingorance!
Yes i will, including yours, you ignorami, now run along to higher authority.
Run now!



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
OP you are absolutely right... that really was an idiotic question.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 



>No. The stuff IN the water is alive...but water is not.



Really?

One of my favorite expressions is 'there is no substitute for paying attention...'

Are you sure you're tall enough to go on this ride?





top topics
 
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant