Stosh Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) All of them are energy exhibiting different states and properties? What are 'them' (they) if they neither solid nor have defined location? There's nothing 'indicate-able' to have 'properties' either! ... but on the scale of your home- and what we are familiar with -something constitutes your roof. An atom by any other name still smells as sweet. The problematic issue is not that there is nothing , its that expectations based on words for things as we already consider them , dont hold up on that scale. I can make up a word for the condition which atoms are Situ,(as in, Atoms are made of situ. )  but if no one adopts- accepts it .. theres just no word or comparison  -for it. Edited April 7, 2016 by Stosh 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted April 7, 2016 What are 'them' (they) if they neither solid nor have defined location? There's nothing 'indicate-able' to have 'properties' either! ... but on the scale of your home- and what we are familiar with -something constitutes your roof. An atom by any other name still smells as sweet. The problematic issue is not that there is nothing , its that expectations based on words for things as we already consider them , dont hold up on that scale. I can make up a word for the condition which atoms are Situ,(as in, Atoms are made of situ. )  but if no one adopts- accepts it .. theres just no word or comparison  -for it.  Yes, I often find it funny how certain people mix up the different levels and draw far reaching conclusions based on that. For instance, that matter on the subatomic level appears mostly void does not mean that our macroscopic world is mostly void! If you would attain a level on which you would experience it so, alright, that would be a different story, but otherwise it's just a concept, and a confused one at that.  As you said, it's just that we can't extrapolate our everyday experience to the subatomic levels (or to many cosmic phenomena, for that matter). 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) Yes, I often find it funny how certain people mix up the different levels and draw far reaching conclusions based on that. For instance, that matter on the subatomic level appears mostly void does not mean that our macroscopic world is mostly void! If you would attain a level on which you would experience it so, alright, that would be a different story, but otherwise it's just a concept, and a confused one at that. As you said, it's just that we can't extrapolate our everyday experience to the subatomic levels (or to many cosmic phenomena, for that matter). Exactly! On the grand scale , gravity rules the galaxy and atomic forces are almost inconsequential,but on the molecular scale ,gravity isn't really important,, because the relatively weak effects of gravity perpetuate across distance and functions collectively , which is not so for .. the 'strong force' holding quarks together . Its not that any of it is false or unreal, its just an effect of scale. The conceptual words we use , fit the scale at which we live. Edited April 7, 2016 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted April 7, 2016 I don't worry about my voidness too often but I never stare at it as it stares back and that freaks me out. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doc benway Posted April 7, 2016 I enjoy the parallels between the scientific world view and the Daoist and Bön/Buddhist world view. Our reality is that we feel hard surfaces, we see and taste solid objects, clearly we live and experience a tangible reality. And yet when you look deeper into yourself or into objects you can find nothing solid, the layers of the onion peel away until there is nothing there but space and awareness (and warmth). Nothing better than a good conundrum. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted April 7, 2016 Nothing better than a good conundrum. A good condom is important too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted April 7, 2016 Conundrum deep fried, battered with chips and mushy peas. Fresh out of the chip shop fryers sizzling void. Yum yum Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Junko Posted April 7, 2016 Yeah but perfect unity though.....! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted April 7, 2016 Hmmm, It may be that on the scale of universes dark energy is a thing of its own, and that life or sentience may only exist on our own scale. Â 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Junko Posted April 7, 2016 HUH ?   There is a proper use for an atomic bomb ? Proper use for atomic bombs is not to make them at all.It's just wasting of money.Or once it has been made already, we can put bombs in space and destroy it. Or put them into the sun and say goodbye. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted April 7, 2016 Proper use for atomic bombs is not to make them at all.It's just wasting of money.Or once it has been made already, we can put bombs in space and destroy it. Or put them into the sun and say goodbye. Â Absolutely. Â We could use them for driving a spaceship to a nearby star. Â https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 Â Or we could use them to stir up and rekindle our sun, when it will be getting weaker in the (admittedly far) future. (By stirring up its billions of tons of hydrogen that will supposedly never become part of the nuclear fusion process otherwise.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted April 7, 2016 Does this mean that particles consist of turtles? And those turtles consist of smaller turtles - all the way down?  Yes, until they get so small, we give up ... and admit its just the energy of the turtle ... without any material turtle being present . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted April 7, 2016 Proper use for atomic bombs is not to make them at all.It's just wasting of money.Or once it has been made already, we can put bombs in space and destroy it. Or put them into the sun and say goodbye.   Dont nuke the Sun  !   For goodness sakes !   1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted April 7, 2016 Absolutely. Â We could use them for driving a spaceship to a nearby star. Â https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 Â Or we could use them to stir up and rekindle our sun, when it will be getting weaker in the (admittedly far) future. (By stirring up its billions of tons of hydrogen that will supposedly never become part of the nuclear fusion process otherwise.) Â Â 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted April 7, 2016 Yes, until they get so small, we give up ... and admit its just the energy of the turtle ... without any material turtle being present . Yeah, but you have to watch out for those teenage mutant ninja turtles. One never knows what they might be up to next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted April 7, 2016 Yeah, but you have to watch out for those teenage mutant ninja turtles. One never knows what they might be up to next.  Right. Especially if they have studied the Art of War. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Junko Posted April 7, 2016 Dont nuke the Sun  !   For goodness sakes !   Do you know how big our sun is??? To the sun, human made bombs are just a tickle..... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted April 7, 2016 Right. Especially if they have studied the Art of War. That's a required reading for any type of ninja. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted April 7, 2016 Do you know how big our sun is??? To the sun, human made bombs are just a tickle..... Â Actually, I agree with Nungali that we should be careful about nuclear explosions in space. They can crack open the phantom zone and allow negative forces to enter our Universe... Â 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted April 7, 2016 I vote, that the Sun, ,, Not be nuked. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Junko Posted April 7, 2016 You are not Superman......how can you tell? I still believe our sun can take it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted April 8, 2016 JUnko ..... you forget what can happen on the way  ' up '   Do you really want this to happen in our atmosphere again while carrying a nuclear  payload.    Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) Yeah, but you have to watch out for those teenage mutant ninja turtles. One never knows what they might be up to next. and not just the mutants and the ninja's. gotta look out for all teenagers, turtles or otherwise.      Stosh- I vote, that the Sun, ,, Not be nuked.  I got sunburn last year. I vote nuke the Sun. how do you like them apples, you yellow belly star. Edited April 8, 2016 by thelerner 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Junko Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) JUnko ..... you forget what can happen on the way ' up ' Â Â Do you really want this to happen in our atmosphere again while carrying a nuclear payload. Â Â [/url] In 1986,I remember this incident very well because it was the year of the summer I went to the united states to study.I remember wondering why I am seeing this before I was going to go to this country where space shuttles are.Excuse me this incident has nothing to do with our sun.Please think about it carefully.This happened it's because of human's bad construction of space shuttle. Edited April 8, 2016 by Junko Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted April 8, 2016 We all are children of the sun. Leave it alone. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites