User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 16 of 16

  1. #11
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JustHer View Post
    I think the whole thing sounds pretty far fetched to me. And extremely elaborate too.
    A construct is a host of particles.

    The Greeks never said an atom is a particle.
    They said atom is an undivided construct.
    A unit does not divide.
    It is divided.
    Agent is not an object.

  2. #12
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    ^Thus, since atoms are not atoms, can they be said to exist?
    Perhaps Justher is onto something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #13
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JustHer View Post
    I think the whole thing sounds pretty far fetched to me. And extremely elaborate too.
    I used to tell my sister that the whole world consisted of small black ants. But they were extremely fast and extremely cunning and they used to make the whole world in our field of vision to fool us, but behind our backs they were just a teeming mass of cunning, black ants.

    So I used to turn around very quickly to see if I could catch them before they had a chance to make up the world. But in all this time I have never been able to catch them out.

    Of course today they tell me the world is made up of atoms that are too small to see. But one day I will turn around so quickly I will see all the atoms before they have a chance to reform the world.

    And when I do, you will be the first to know.

  4. #14
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    I used to tell my sister that the whole world consisted of small black ants. But they were extremely fast and extremely cunning and they used to make the whole world in our field of vision to fool us, but behind our backs they were just a teeming mass of cunning, black ants.

    So I used to turn around very quickly to see if I could catch them before they had a chance to make up the world. But in all this time I have never been able to catch them out.

    Of course today they tell me the world is made up of atoms that are too small to see. But one day I will turn around so quickly I will see all the atoms before they have a chance to reform the world.

    And when I do, you will be the first to know.
    Haha, you should have told her that a Queen ant invented the universe.

    I'm starting to think that atoms disenchant us from wondering about the universe, in a sense. They reduce it down to a numerical context, devoid of meaning or substance. So, in essence, the atoms combined to perform a function create meaning for us; so we find progression through utility - like the utility of an automobile assembly, educational curriculum, or even person.

    Ever since the progression of en masse manufacturing during the Industrial Revolution, we've lost individual meaning in our lives. :steam: Or perhaps it has liberated us?

    Maybe a further understanding of the atom creates meaning... Do chemists and physicists live the most meaningful lives? They usually seem pretty enthused about their work!

  5. #15
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    My biggest problem is that in school they still push the "little solar system with electrons orbiting around a nucleus" bs that isn't the case. Imagine my surprise when I found out that it hasn't been a correct model for atomic structure since 1930. I then wonder what else they told me that was wrong, merely to protect my apparently feeble mind from asploding the moment I considered abstract concepts.



  6. #16
    Writing... Tamske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JustHer View Post
    I think the whole thing sounds pretty far fetched to me. And extremely elaborate too.
    Sorry, but what's to believe about them? They are observed.
    You can as well discuss whether you believe your observation.
    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    My biggest problem is that in school they still push the "little solar system with electrons orbiting around a nucleus" bs that isn't the case. Imagine my surprise when I found out that it hasn't been a correct model for atomic structure since 1930. I then wonder what else they told me that was wrong, merely to protect my apparently feeble mind from asploding the moment I considered abstract concepts.
    Well, there is science and there is didactics.
    Most people really understand things better if you teach them in the steps they are found out. It's difficult to grasp the concept of a "smallest particle of matter", leave alone quantum mechanical electron clouds.
    I've been bored for the most part in physics lessons. I have asked the teacher repeatedly why he didn't tell us directly how it really was. And now, as a physics teacher, I experience I can't tell directly how it really is, because the students need to build up towards it. Some students build abstract knowledge much faster than others... but you can't teach only for the fast ones.
    I try to point them towards interesting books about science...
    Moreover, physics is always an approximation. Newton's laws are "wrong". You need special relativity to get the laws of force and motion correct. But... the difference is so small, that you can use Newton's laws (almost) correctly in most cases and they are much easier to understand and use. If you want to send a rocket to the moon, you'll need a bigger, heavier computer in it (so bigger rocket, more fuel, more money) if you want to use relativity. And what for? By the time you're at the moon, Newton is wrong with about one centimetre. This won't crash your rocket.
    At the other hand, the GPS satellites need to use relativity, otherwise they get your position wrong with a few kilometres. This will steer you astray. So the GPS uses relativity.
    That's physics. It is not always "exact" like mathematics is, but it is "right enough" to correspond with observation.

    The "little solar system" corresponds with most of the observations. You can use that model until it breaks down.
    Got questions? Ask an ENTP!
    I'm female. I just can't draw women

Similar Threads

  1. Do you believe in the Efficient Market Theory?
    By Gamine in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 04:28 PM
  2. Do you believe in hope without despair?
    By Zrenn in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 09:45 PM
  3. Do you believe in natural rights?
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
  4. Do you believe in a higher power?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 08:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO