शोधकर्ताओं का मत है कि यदि 50 लोग 3 घंटे तक लगातार एक शब्द उच्चारित करते रहे, तो लगभग छह हज़ार खरब वॉट ऊर्जा उत्पादित होती हैं। याने कि जब हम कोई भी शब्द बोलते है
प्रश्न = कैसे सिद्ध होता है कि शब्द यात्रा करते हैं ?
बहुत ही रोचक प्रश्न किया है आपने। यहाँ पर हम शब्दों की यात्रा में निहित वैज्ञानिक व दार्शनिक पक्षों के विषय पर चर्चा करेंगे।
हमारे शब्द एक ऊर्जा का रूप ही होते है, जो एक बार शब्द उच्चारित हो गए,
शोधकर्ताओं का मत है कि यदि 50 लोग 3 घंटे तक लगातार एक शब्द उच्चारित करते रहे, तो लगभग छह हज़ार खरब वॉट ऊर्जा उत्पादित होती हैं। याने कि जब हम कोई भी शब्द बोलते है
जैसा कि न्यूटन की गति का तीसरा नियम- 'ऊर्जा का न तो सृजन और न ही विनाश सम्भव है।'
यदि इन तरंगों को कैद कर डिकोड कर लिया जाए, तो हम आज भी कृष्ण जी की प्रत्यक्ष वाणी का श्रवण कर सकते हैं!
आतः जिन शब्दों का एक बार हमारे मुख से प्रस्फुटन हो गया, उनकी ऊर्जा-तरंगें हमेशा के लिए वातावरण में विद्यमान हो जाती हैं।
More from पंडित विशाल श्रोत्रिय 🇮🇳
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
