Einstein's Telescope | Out There | The New York Times

What happens when two beams coming from opposing directions hit?

Do stars absorb and reflect lights from other stars the way earth, moon and other objects do?

Sometimes we can see sunset twice. Aurora is beautiful. Do stars have auroras too?

What happens to the light that passing by a star - it's not heading toward a star but only passing by. Is this light pulled toward the star and thus its direction changed? Then light from the same star passing by another star can change many different directions and loses some of its contents?

Does gravity act light water that makes a stick put into it appears bend. Does gravity bend light as Einstein said?

Gender in Buddhism

Buddhist view is -

When a person dies, he/she can become someone else with opposite sex. A male can become female, and a female can become a male. Although one is a male now, one could be a female in past life; the same to a male - he could be a female in the past life.

A woman may wish to become a man for whatever reason. For example, some women dislike the burdens of womanhood and want to become male. If they have appropriate deeds for support, they can become male afterlife. Men too can want to become women next life with appropriate support of kamma.

Some women became men but they still have the tendency to feel like women. Some men became women and they feel so uncomfortable about their womanhood. They feel misfit. Here a male who was a woman (several past lives) could act like a woman. For the same reason, a woman would act like a man. These people could be stuck in their old mindset.

Some women might have been women in many past lives, so might many men. In general, some women never became men in the past infinity of existence. Womanhood is not necessarily easier than manhood but for a man, womanhood is humiliating.  Men can become women due to their sexual misconducts.

Sexual misconducts are generally adultery, sexual relationship with a minor (a kid age under 10), sexual relationship with a young person without the permission of his/her guardians (such as parents, grandparents, uncle, aunt, sister, brother, teacher, etc.).

Sexual misconduct (Kamesu micchacara) can cause a man (or woman) to be born in boiling copper molten hell, after that to be born as hermaphrodite, to be born as male but castrated, to be born as a woman who doesn't want to be woman, etc. This person can also be born in several different life forms either as god, human or different animals but with above physical and mental defects. 

Only the bodhisattas (who are to become Buddhas or Paccekabuddhas) cannot be born female. Once they a man is recognized as a bodhisatta by a Buddha, his gender is determined that he will not want or do anything to become a woman. This is the kamma vipaka of bodhisattas.

It's all about kamma vipaka (cause and effect or causality).

Gender is not a problem in Buddhism. A being may wish to be either male or female anytime he she can change the mind. Some people are either or neither. Some people seem just confused that they can’t decide to be male or female. Culture is a very big impact to cause confusion. Ideally, we should be straight – in spite of confusion and indecision. We don’t have the right to say who should be what. People may want whatever they want.

Gays, lesbians, transsexual and true hermaphrodites are free in their own rights. But I cannot say anything about the cultures in Buddhist countries. Culture is just the agreements of the people which have existed all along for generations – that means it’s hard to change in a short time.

The best is not to criticize others. We Buddhists are to mind our own business (mindful of passing phenomena – insight meditation) to free ourselves from the recurring life i.e. sufferings. Freedom (nibbana) is the best bliss. Buddhists who practice Dhamma toward freedom shouldn’t see gender, shouldn’t see species, and shouldn’t hold any concepts of any kind so that they will only see the reality the Dhamma.

More on Paccekabuddha: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.116.piya.html

Hermaphrodite: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/jamieleecurtis/a/jamieleecurtis.htm  

The Essence Of Reality

What is reality?

If mathematicians can describe everything in mathematical equations, they should try on reality. If everything is just physical, reality should be too.

But is it? How is it? What substances are made to perform as reality through out universe uniformly? Can this kind of physically constructed reality exist – in you, in me, in education, in science, in delusion…? Can reality be the same to all of these things both life and non-life?

If something cannot be defined or described in mathematics, or in physical structure, doesn’t it exist in reality as reality? Can’t it exist? Why can’t it exist?

Does reality exist? Why real and why not? Define that “reality” in scientific terms and phenomena, please!

Is the universe solely physical? Yes or no?

Doesn’t abstractness exist? Is abstractness also physical, as physical as atoms and elements, the colours of stars, the colours of the world, the colours of life and in physical world?

[Love is made of chemicals they say! But they never put these chemicals into a glass and said this is love!!! Why didn’t they ever do it? Because it will sound very silly and unscientific! But they keep saying love is chemicals!!! Then if two people don’t fall in love, shouldn’t they take such chemicals in a tablet form? If love is just chemicals, all problems of love affairs should have been solved long ago!!! Why don’t they do it? That will make big bucks, if love is really chemicals! They say so what they don’t believe and bother to prove.]

Must reality be physical to be in existence?

If reality needs to exist, does it need becoming physical matter? Do some matters compose reality? As matters vary, do different compositions of different matters make different realities? Hence my reality is different from others’ realities, including the universal reality?

So is it reality to you this (or that) way – only physical?

Reality is abstract. Thus, existence and life are abstract. Physical world is also abstract. And humanity is abstract in all available definitions. Why? The reason is everything seems to be abstract that even physical matters only exist with abstract as their essence. That’s the essence of reality in my view.

The reality is nobody seemed to have known the reason of an apple falling. Whence the theory is everything has not existed, it’s not fair to seek mathematical explanation or description of reality. Reality is right in front of everyone. It’s both inside and outside mind. It’s inside matters and outside matters. Reality is everything. Reality is abstract because it’s everything.

The theory of everything is reality. It cannot be described in words or images or in mathematical equations. No artists will be able to create reality. No chemists will find a way to put the chemicals to create reality. No photographers will be able to take a picture of reality. Reality is just to be known as it is. It’s the universe, the unity, the void and the infinity. It’s everything observable. Reality is everything that exists.

So somehow the existence of abstractness is not abstract at all but substantially realistic. Reality is thus abstract and can be explained in its abstractness only. As being abstract, reality is not composed and thus, is not limited to the idea of amount. Reality is unity and singularity without limit. That is infinity. Reality and infinity are one and the same. That’s how reality can exist everywhere at the same time and is not affected by local observance. Does this contradict Quantum Mechanics? I think not. I guess QM have found out how larger objects are also abstract – the projection of mind and how matters are just abstractness as their reality. Heat, cold, stiffness, softness, stickiness, binding forces, … and gravity are just abstract and as simple as just that.

It’s delusion whenever reality is not understood.

The reality of delusion is it veils the view, blindfolds the eyes, misinform the thought and veers away from reality.

Therefore, delusion is as powerful as reality to humans and other living organisms. For that good reason, once reality is found, and delusion is abandoned behind, whoever found it can become on top of the existence. And for the same reason, once reality is abandoned, and delusion is crowned, whoever lost the sense of reality can find themselves at the bottom of existence.

It’s important for us to know the reality of delusion. Education must be educating everyone about the reality of delusion. The purpose of education should be to educate about delusion and how to handle it. Let everyone become a critical thinker. The difference between human and other species is human can understand the reality of delusion.

As being invisible, colourless, shapeless, formless, scentless and tasteless, reality can be understood only by the mind. Only an abstract can understands abstractness. That’s how mind can know education. That’s how education is important to emphasize on abstractness of reality and reality of reality. That’s the reality we shouldn’t overlook.

[Reality is abstract. Abstractness is a reality. A reality is mind. Mind affects matters to behave such a way. Quantum Mechanics will be very interesting. Very interesting will be how the world be changed with new ideology in science. Science will be abstract again as it has been all along. Science of abstractness will lead the world to a better future. Better future will be with moral and the abstract side of cause and effect.]

What’s real?

The existence of abstractness is reality. The existence of physicality is abstract. Physicality is reality in its own terms and in its own right. Both abstractness and physicality are reality. The essences of them are reality but abstract. Strictly abstract!

And what’s not real? Guess!!!

Ideas! Ideas are not real. They can never become real. Concepts are not real and will never become reality. Dreams are not real. They cannot be turned into reality. Arguments are never real because of ideas, concept and argument itself. These are just ideological projections but unreal. They don’t exist outside ideological universe.

Is our universe real? Is it the existence outside the ideological universe? QM will let us know. Actually “You and I do not exist” physically because the smallest particles are formed by ideological projection. What we can feel as physicality with five senses is conditioned by our mind which is abstract. You’re your projection and your Schrödinger's cat; and I’m the projection of mine my Schrödinger's cat. We communicate with five senses plus thought formed in mind. We can communicate with one another physically because physicality is the means to communicate. Physicality is the connection used for mind to mind communication. Physicality is infrastructure set up by the mind, senses are the information travelling along the infrastructure and you and me (we are) just our minds – strictly mental only. The body is simply the infrastructure. But consciousness itself is not constant – sometimes it exists and sometimes it doesn’t. Where from it comes and how does it reappear? This is how it is hard to understand and all are seen as physical – whence physicality is conditioned by consciousness whenever it is present.

Mind is consciousness and everything mind is just feeling. When there is feeling, there is consciousness and vice versa. The reality is abstract – strictly abstract, and simply mental only. Reality doesn’t exist in physical form but in abstract form of physicality in terms of feeling when sensed by consciousness: softness, hardness, solidness, cold, heat, stickiness, wetness, dryness, etc.  (A video about consciousness)

A thing that doesn’t exist in reality has its truth as unreality – but it exists as projection of mind and is built with idea and concept as imagination. The reality that is made and formed is conditioned reality but it’s not reality that is real; it’s only the reality of conditioned reality. Reality and the conditioned reality are not the same. Conditioned reality is any or all of idea, concept, thought, dream as projection of the mind. Conditioned reality is the projected existence whence reality is the core – like the light to fire. The reality of projected reality is the light of the fire as fire exists on the fuel. Reality is the core that cannot be broken down any further. Conditioned reality is merely perception that is the projection constructed with idea, concept, thought and memorized information.

The truth or a truth of a thing is its reality or its essence. The truth of abstractness is it’s abstract and non-physical. The truth of reality is reality itself. Reality cannot be created, nor destroyed. Reality is just reality, not made and not formed.

Ego: what is ego?

Pain: what is pain?

In physical world, what is ego and pain as the reality of existence?

Ego is consciousness, feeling and sensation. An unconscious mind doesn’t show the sign of ego. Numbness doesn’t show the sign of sensation and consciousness. If the whole body is numb from injury or drug effect, even if the brain is functioning, there cannot be any sign of consciousness – in my opinion – thus, the brain might looks completely dead even if the person/animal is still alive somehow; however, internal vital organs should still be working though. When near waking up moment, sometimes some people felt they couldn’t move their limbs or other body parts– as though they were aware of their environment in half dreamy state. I wonder how the brain might look like during a moment like this. It might be active but the parts which control sensation and physical activity other than the heart and other vital organs might be inactive to cause such inability for movement.

Pain needs ego, consciousness and sensation to become into existence. A dead body doesn’t feel pain as it has no consciousness for sensation and ego. Ego is the ground for pain to sprout and grow on. Pain is sensation. In Buddhist ideology, egoless person doesn’t mentally suffer although physical pain level is unbearable to ordinary people with egos.

How should I explain evolution in terms of reality?

I have a question.

Why hasn’t how non-life matters becoming life matters been proven?

1. Scientists know how early stage of a planet might look like. The possibility appearance of early stage earth has been theorized.
2. How life might appear from non-life materials has been theorized. But no laboratory tests ever resulted in proving this theory of evolution.
3. If the way scientists think how the early stage of earth looked like, they should recreate it in laboratory. After that, they should demonstrate how life emerged from non-life materials.
4. We should want proof. As long as how life began is not solved, macroevolution has not become a reality but only a myth, merely a theory. Then it’s not right to claim evolution is the only truth whence its truth, its essence, is not yet found.
5. Agree with observable changes occur all the time as microevolution in which a species changes form, shape, size, colour, lifestyle, habitat and lifespan.
6. Yet macroevolution cannot be found in microevolution because that species doesn’t become a different species – i.e. moneys become only different monkeys, apes only become different type of apes, etc and as a conclusion, humans only become humans in different ethnicity or race.
7. Most importantly, a good stage by stage explanation is needed on how the earliest life form emerged from non-life form even if this scenario is not possible to be repeated in the laboratory. But why is it impossible? Because life didn’t come from non-life. If it did, it’s against the law of QM - imho. 

The Meaning of Disappearing Electrons

Now we know energy is no permanent. It can disappear from existence into nothing. It can be renewed perhaps and once it's born, it ages and dies later - in a friction of a second. That's the reason why electrons are disappearing just like us. As we're made from disappearing particles, the reason of death is within our body.



This video explains the electron are disappearing as a reason for parallel universe. But I don't want to go that path. Instead I want things simpler based on observable fact - changing world. I like to see changing as the factor of disappearing electrons and they have everything to do with the natural course of aging and death.

Then is the assumption "energy cannot be created or destroyed" wrong? I don't know. But the fact is electrons are disappearing. If that fact must lead to creating another theory, the theory of parallel universe, I guess there would never become the end of creating new theories for the universe.

In my view, infinity doesn't have to have more complex structures than what we have known so far. Galaxies: they must be just everywhere spreading in the infinite universe. Certainly the disappearing of electrons does raise a question about the big bang theory - at least. The big crunch is also questionable because of this fact - disappearing electrons.

Disappearing electrons suggest, new electrons are coming out of nothing or something yet to be known. At least that something must be replacing the electrons (or renewing them). Otherwise, someone will have to calculate the rate of electron disappearance out of existing universe.

The disappearing electrons also reminds me about "leaky universe" in which energy is leaking and consumed by the process of running this vast universe constantly.

Here Quantum Mechanics come in - in which how mind or consciousness is the factor that determines or changes the world at least at quantum level. Holographic World view might be a fact; yet to run it, needs energy produced by consciousness.

Fire in Space

"Thus far, the most surprising thing we've observed is continued apparent burning of heptane droplets after flame extinction under certain conditions," Williams said. "Currently, this is entirely unexplained."
http://www.livescience.com/17236-international-space-station-flex-fire-research.html

As we're certain that space is not empty, there could be fire sources in it other than dark matters. We know there are different types of dusts in space - one of them can be anything as fire particles. 


If the inside of the International Space Station is clean and no such penetration of such dusts could happen, or at least they must not exist that much inside the space station to burn that way, then there must be very small particles that can penetrate steels and feed the flame. 


I think it's as simple as that - the flame was kept by some type of fire source. By seeing the flame, we must be convinced that there is fire - in space waiting for fuel. But it seems the particles are so weak to start a fire of their own - but it must be because ethanol and heptane are not found in space naturally.  


Then what about other types of fuel which are not oil or gas but carbon - e.g. charcoal? 


Are these unknown particles (sort of a type of) dark matters? Another 21st century question!


Stars could be fed with these unknown  particles. Once I read the core of comet was heated and some chemical reactions where happening. Are these particles responsible for that heat in that comet? And newly hatched stars too? Yeah! Must be!!!! 


The quote above mentions - 'even after the flame was extinguished the fuel kept burning' - does it mean fire somehow can penetrate the steel cover that was supposed to stop the flame? 


Space flames can also burn at a lower temperature and with less oxygen than fires on Earth. 
What if the fuel burns without oxygen at all? Maybe not! So the law of fire is not changed - fire needs oxygen to burn. 


But I wonder what if the fire gets some kind of gases that react as extinguisher? If fire in space can be extinguished with nitrogen or whatever, we could assume a reason why the earth is not too hot and supporting life.  

HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS FORMED AND OPERATES

I got five key words from what I watch on TV (SBS2) last night:

1.      Big Bang

2.      Inflation

3.      Dark matter

4.      Dark energy

5.      Dark flow

BB is a theory at defensive post. There the uniformity of energy distribution is explained with theory of inflation. Yet the problem is the physicists had to add dark matters in order to make sense of 75% of universe. There they got dark energy due to the behaviour of black holes at the centres of the galaxies and later someone found out dark flow a hint for multiverse.

That is from ‘IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW WRONG?’

Multiverse!!!

Yes, I like that sure!!! I simply do not believe BB is reality – I know it didn’t happen. The reason is the formation of universe doesn’t have to go through the BB and inflation. But the universe can form just the way galaxies form. This is on the same side of ‘multiverse’.

What I believe is –

There was galactic clouds everywhere that never crunched into singularity. Say they were the Universal Couds (UCs). They come from renewed energy*. They condensed into a giant body of cloud that started forming celestial bodies. These massive condensations of cloud were local but were falling into the centre of the universe**. Local Condensations (LCs) might explain the creation of early smaller galaxies which had no stars but only the formation of giant bodies of clouds.

Also these LCs at smaller local area might be forming early solar systems and planets because the celestial bodies must start from smaller objects toward larger objects; however, they must be in different sizes at the same time depends on available clouds. Herein they gradually formed into Universal Condensation and eventually the universe was born. Hence, smaller objects came first locally and started forming ever larger objects and celestial systems and eventually an entire universe.  

Smaller objects formed a system with larger objects. So the universe then was completely different from what we see now.

In this case, the whole universe is a Giant Galaxy (GG) of galaxies*** Gradually the condensation started spinning to make its clouds to condense more and more, faster and faster. During that time, there was no light but the movements of Universal Clouds only and only completely dark.

Here comes the second phase of a universe. The more the universe condensed the more it became with gaps – now gaps are everywhere between every celestial objects where once filled with clouds.

In this case, dark particles could be the decay or remain of energy. The universe might be emitting them out of its system whilst gaining more incoming recharged particles from outside. In this case, one way out for dark matters and one way in for renewed/recharged particles. Hence the universe can sustain itself beyond predictable lifespan. Also the growth of universe could be possible all along as expansion.

At the third phase, the universe must be destroyed by either overheating or running out of energy or a condition of imbalance in different forces.  

*   Not dead energy but renewed and recharged and afresh to restart a new universe in a vacuum of space – but probably were not coming from other nearby universes. These clouds can be very fine particles to be forming into very fine objects like molecules etc. The clouds could be born out of darkness from pure energies which could be of different types. Energy could come as different kinds each having different property that others do not. It could form forces from such differences.

Thus, I like the assumption of multiverse. Infinity is beautiful – rather so beautiful that the amount of energy is infinite and the universes can always borrow energy from elsewhere once they have consumed their own. Hence, a new universe can be reborn when the old one is destroyed when its energy runs out and bursts like a supernova but in universal scale. And space is a condition that has to be infinite.

** This needs a finding of the centre of universe.  

*** call it a Great God of gods – but not about religions.

Note: In Buddhism, space is not empty. Space is filled with dark particles or fire elements which are visible as shadow and shade.