Tagged: physics Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • hardie karges 5:16 pm on December 3, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , physics   

    Philosophy and Physics: Conundrums and Continuums… 

    img_1034The conundrum of existence is that consciousness inhabits flesh, some how some way, or that flesh possesses consciousness, if viewed from the opposite perspective, inside out upside down, impossible to say which came first, or whether they came simultaneously like all the best sex, though the material paradigm always takes precedence in the material world…

    If I told you that the obvious answer to the conundrum of existence is to blow your brains out—immediately—then you’d naturally assume I’m suicidal or worse, manic depressive or maniac oppressive, some schizo or combo, all of the above, and I’d say I’m the same as you, just not your installment plan, one drink one smoke at the time, until death do us part… (More …)

     
  • hardie karges 8:47 am on May 15, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , physics,   

    Religion 202, Physics 101: Spirituality and Light… 

    IMG_1184

    Buddhist shrine in Sri Lanka

    Many religions, especially the New Age-y kind, use light as a prime metaphor, imagining this light and imagining that light as it assumes shape and form in your mind’s eye.  My ‘white light of spirit’ is not imaginary, though, even if still a bit metaphorical. That light for me is exactly the same light that any good physicist refers to, the equivalent of electricity and magnetism and one of physics’ four prime forces, together with gravity, the strong (nuclear) force and the weak (interactive) force.

    For the uninitiated, that weak force is: the fundamental force that acts between leptons and is involved in the decay of hadrons. The weak nuclear force is responsible for nuclear beta decay (by changing the flavor of quarks) and for neutrino absorption and emission…

    Got it?  And the strong force is: the force that holds particles together in the atomic nucleus and the force that holds quarks together in elementary particles.

    Simple, right?  These last and latest forces derive from quantum mechanics, and the study of smaller-than-microscopic realities that are probably best described as mathematical, i.e. the theory works, even if it doesn’t make (common) sense.  But then, neither do gravity and electromagnetism (light).  We’re just more accustomed to them, and they are available to us on a macroscopic level.  (More …)

     
    • peaceof8 10:15 am on May 15, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      That was very thought provoking. I will for sure be noodling around in my mind DNA vs souls/ancestors/inner child. It makes me want to give reincarnation a second look, based on science and maybe a little whoop-t-do in the family tree. Interesting! I like your pragmatic approach to spirituality.

  • hardie karges 8:49 am on February 12, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Albert Einstein, gravitational waves, James Joyce, physics, quantum mechanics, quarks   

    A Quark for Muster Mark with a Side Order of Wavy Gravy… 

    Scientists have come up with a new name for the recently discovered gravitational waves that Einstein theorized more than a hundred years ago: Wavy Gravy. So far there has been no word from Hugh Romney on the subject…

     
  • hardie karges 10:40 am on January 31, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: dance, physics, , sound   

    Living in the Material World, a Dimension of Suffering—and Dance… 

    IMG_0379So if my analogies and metaphors prove timely and sufficient, and there really is a higher dimension of light (electromagnetism) analogous to heaven, definable and measurable, and there really is a lower dimension of gravity analogous to hell, definable and measurable, then what does this dimension, this dimension here—our human dimension—consist of, and how is it measured?

    Continuing with our analogies and metaphors, and lacking the possibility for any exact truth, I’m guessing it’s a lot like sound, measurable as the speed of the sound wave, and easily definable as an accessible physical constant in our world, if not technically a ‘force’ (if we can understand it, then I don’t think it qualifies as a ‘force’):

    In physicssound is a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressureand displacement, through a medium such as air or water—Wikipedia.

    IMG_0387‘Mechanical’ is the important word for our purposes, for what is our world if not a world of mechanics? ‘Pressure’ and ‘displacement’ also define our circumstances and illustrate the previous physicist’s conundrum of ether, the idea that something must be there, everywhere, that vacuum as a normal state is simply not possible. This was also the problem of rocket science, that propulsion must push ‘against’ something, even if that ‘something’ is only air.

    That’ll do, hence propellers flapping their little wings like birds in migration while heavenly bodies just look on smiling silently. And that’s as far as Newton got—physical forces with equal but opposite reactions. It took Einstein and others to break the consciousness barrier that would allow Brownian motion, photons as particles of light, curved space and ultimately: quantum mechanics, which makes no sense, but which has been proven over and over.

    IMG_1588It makes no sense because it’s really describing a dimension—or two—beyond our common sense one of sound and percussion, probably even beyond the next higher dimension of light (electromagnetism), which we can intuit, and posit as a force, and on into something entirely different. ‘Percussion’: yeah, there’s that, too, the fun part of our dimension.

    Ever seen a small child swinging hips and boogeying like there is no tomorrow? Yeah, they get it young, don’t they, the essential physical and mechanical nature of our existence, the eternal external dance that we call ‘life’? From there it’s all downhill, of course, as the innocence of dance becomes the cynicism of sex, and the bellies turn tricks to stay full (just joking)…

    And with percussion comes repercussions, of course, Newton’s equal but opposite reactions, and their ramifications in the psychological world of human existence, tempting fate and cursing God, or cursing fate and tempting God. But here we are: low-flying angels or high-flying animals, ready to rock out as only we humans can, mechanical particle/waves propagating in a physical medium, not rare, a dimension of suffering, but also of dance—sounds good to me…

     
    • davekingsbury 12:00 pm on February 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      (sings) … I got rhythm … I got music … I got my girl … who could ask for anything more? Our evolved instincts may be most visible in dance, natural to kids as you say … grace is dance, now all we need to do is dance our way through thought which your elegant yet natural style does. Thanks.

  • hardie karges 9:04 am on January 17, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: heaven, hell, physics,   

    Body Meets Soul; Science Meets Religion; (with a quark or two for the road, ol’ buddy)… 

    IMG_1660

    Buddhist Temple in Laos

    Reconciling religions shouldn’t be too hard, really, theoretically at least, except (especially?) for the monotheistic mother religions that all diverged from a common Abrahamic/Ibrahimic source, only to themselves go forth and divide according to the fashions of the day and the ideas at play. But essentially they’re all very similar, except perhaps for a few small innovations that each made to what came before: they emphasis on love and forgiveness for the Christians as opposed to Jews, the emphasis on equality and a faceless deity for the Muslims as opposed to Jews…

    Eastern religions had a similar evolution, multi-deistic Hinduism spinning off into Jainism and going more monotheistic with Buddhism, later to mix with Taoism, especially, in China, and other sects and philosophies according to local tastes and proclivities. The Zoroastrians had (and have) their own rites and rights, but likely influenced the eastern sub-continental face of Islam.

    Reconciling Science with Religion is a bit trickier. The problem is not with the religionists. The problem is with the atheists, who want to claim science as their own, not willing to allow metaphors and analogies to stand as symbols of reality, instead preferring to ‘believe’ in Science in a way that no ‘real’ scientist ever would, carrying the materialistic model of the Universe to absurd extremes in an attempt to celebrate their own superiority, deny their lingering suspicions of spirituality, or—whatever… (More …)

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel