Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ellapenella

What Science Can't Prove

771 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Frank Merton

It's interesting -- if space is positively curved, then it closes in on itself but you don't notice -- space is in this case finite but unbounded and you never come to a place where you think you are at the edge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101

You don't get my point Humans did not KNOW that sound had a speed or that travelling faster than the speed of sound would generate certain effects. Many humans thought that travelling at a speed like 60 miles per hour would induce physical shock in the human body which would kill us We acted in ignorance

Some did, science saw no good reason to believe these wild claims.

Today we would call those alarmists "Fringe science" or "Fringe claims" Nonsense claims made up out of fear of something new that many do not understand and that which someone has poetically described as opposed to learning about.

Today it is the same for light We still think there is a limit to the speed of light but of course, as soon as we work out how to circumvent it, we will all say "How obvious"

Well there is a limit. It cannot exceed 186,000 mph. You are getting confused with concepts of bending space.

We have worked it out, it is an impossible build.

Today we think that transporting our bodies faster than light will or may kill us One day we will be zapping round the galaxy with no regard to light speed, as our technology circumvents the light barrier, just as our technology circumvented the sound barrier. (And yes it took not just science, but some very brave men to allow humans to achieve that.)

It will kill us without precaution, not because of what some fringe proponent babbles. Micrometers, space debilitation, age, these are very real concerns with regards to space flight. We know what dangers we face and we take measures to mitigate them, this is science, nothing like the fringe example noted above.

One day Huh? You really do not fathom the vastness of space at all do you? Time dilation makes such trips expansive, when you get home your children would be dead, Not to many people want to face things like that, or see the point in it. Forget conventional travel. With Voyager travelling at 17km's/sec it will take about 4 billion years for Voyager to reach the edge of the Galaxy. Not the Universe mind you, the Galaxy. It is not crossing an Ocean, this is space, a new thing altogether.

Ps if you emit light through water it slows down and certain charged particles then travel faster than the speed of light in water.

And produce Cherenkov radiation. That is not faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, that is the limit.

Humans can come up with a way around ANY natural barrier. At the present we are limited in our knowledge and technology but both those things constantly advance. My point was in our present state we cant see into a world where conditions have markedly advanced Who would have foreseen 100 years ago, thousand of replicating nano machines sitting on a pin head reproducing themselves. 200 years ago who could have predicted talking to people around the world with vision, in real time, on devices as small as a watch ; or google glasses or nano medical bots. Which cro magnon man might have predicted reading glasses or firearms?

Cro-Magnon did not have emerging technologies to base future developments upon. We do. We can see where tech is heading and what we want to achieve. After Steve Jobs passed on Apple stated that he left enough to keep them busy for the next ten years. Cro-Magnon did not have to worry much beyond escaping predators, and getting food and shelter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

It's interesting -- if space is positively curved, then it closes in on itself but you don't notice -- space is in this case finite but unbounded and you never come to a place where you think you are at the edge.

That is my understanding according to Brian Greene where he explains just that in The Fabric of the Cosmos.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

You avoided all the relevant points bought up and slipped back into telling stories about yourself ... again . ... you even go "As I said before" and then say it all again .... make continual long posts about your stories, but dont answer relevant points bought up in discussion and then you also claim to know what this site is for : " What i do on this forum is what members are supposed to do. Present accounts, stories, experiences etc from my own life, which relate to "unexplained mysteries", for others to read ."

Sez you !

Of course disregarding many posts and members who continually ask as I do ..... "Oh, do you have some evidence .? .. can you back that up ? .... do you have any training in the field you are mouthing off about ? ...... and so on ...

And you declare this is not what this site is about. Now that's an interesting default position :su

I still stand by my view that you are blinded by seeing in black and white .... lets forget the colors analogy, you missed the point by far, and that is probably my fault , giving you more creedance of depth and pun than you possess.

The issue is , you divide what is 'real' and what is 'not real' into black and white ... you wrote that (unless you are going to claim another typo )

" Well yes speaking of reality it either IS black or white/ existent or non existent "

See ... there it is !

Yet your posts and claims show no such division ! Whether you can comprehend the issues, or deliberately obfuscate has been a question many a poster has posed ... usually resulting in them throwing up their hands and walking off .

I suppose that is one way of getting rid of 'dissenters'

here is another classic twist : " You are wrong about UFOS. People have been describing them for centuries if not millennia. What changes is our perception of things .Modern humans think in terms of space craft and aliens Ancient and not so modern humans thought in terms of gods angels ghosts etc. "

I doubt you will get this, but I will try for the sake of any other readers that may have fallen down the Walker rabbit hole. ie

Why do you choose the current version of perception of UFOs ... and project them back to the past ? This is clearly a form that frames a psychological experience within a context of a technological society involved in space exploration ( the same way as we thought aliens came from Mars during the era of better telescopes and looking at Mars. The same as, in a societal paradigm of medieval religion, it was angels and demons that spirited things away, helped or persecuted us .

But you are saying those angels and demons were they way people back then saw UFOs ! Can you see your problem here ? I write about this a lot in many of the forums here. Harpur presented a case where he described the experience of a group of people

< typing wiedness happening ... going to new box >

it is you who is putting your own thoughts into my posts. For example I simply said that what peole see in reality is interpreted via cultural perception. So if a person from 2000 years ago saw a man manifest in front of him, how will he interpret this? NOT i can guarantee, in terms of matter transfer or holographic projection as i would do.

This is true for ALL perceptions. i was actually making the point you make People HAVE been describing ufos for centuries ie unidentified objects in the sky. However only in a modern technological age can these be perceived as flying machines. Until a few centuries back, anyone who was pursued by flying lights would have thought they were demons or something else from within their cultural understanding Today the most common description of this form of UFO is an alien or advanced human space vehicle

I don't see how you can argue with my point about the clear and compete division between what is real/physical (Has an independent physical existence) and what is not (has no independent physical existence) ANY entity is either one or the other. And yes i maintain that everything i claim to have independent physical existence DOES, because it meets the proofs evidences and parameters for ANY real and physical object.

There is NO confusion or dichotomy here, except in your inability to accept that certain things are real. If i say I have met a god like entity with god like powers, then that entity demonstrated EXACTLY the same proofs of its existence to me as my wife does, or my dog . You just DON'T WANT to accept this is possible, in our world, perhaps because it would make that world uncomfortable to contemplate. . So, like many, you loudly proclaim i am obviously deluded or lying or both.

Oh how I ache for the day when YOU encounter such irrefutable evidences and then have to adjust your whole mental construct to adapt to a new reality. it could happen because it happened to me when i was as " ignorant" as you are, and just as obstinate in my denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

it is you who is putting your own thoughts into my posts. For example I simply said that what peole see in reality is interpreted via cultural perception.

You did not !

Look ... its there in black and white , right on the page !

" You are wrong about UFOS. People have been describing them for centuries if not millennia."

They described what they thought they saw ; angels, demons, ancestors, Gods , ... not 'Unidentified flying objects ' !

then you said... right after that ; " but they saw the same things we do today "

NO they didnt ... that is the whole point ... they saw angels demons ancestors Gods

and you go on, right after that : " today there are far more flying vehicles in the skies to confuse observers plus many pranksters and fakers."

So how can they see these same things we see today, that we dont recognize and call 'Unidentified Flying Objects' ?

And it is me that is projecting into your statements is it. ? You are either confused, or bull****ting and having a hard time covering up the fact !

So if a person from 2000 years ago saw a man manifest in front of him, how will he interpret this? NOT i can guarantee, in terms of matter transfer or holographic projection as i would do.

Dont throw that in to try and cover up the fact about what you DID say . They certainly would not say it is a UFO !

This is true for ALL perceptions. i was actually making the point you make People HAVE been describing ufos for centuries ie unidentified objects in the sky. However only in a modern technological age can these be perceived as flying machines. Until a few centuries back, anyone who was pursued by flying lights would have thought they were demons or something else from within their cultural understanding Today the most common description of this form of UFO is an alien or advanced human space vehicle

I don't see how you can argue with my point about the clear and compete division between what is real/physical

I dont see why you cant just say ... I was wrong ... I meant to say ... or 'I should have said'.

Not Walker though ... he will go on an d on about what he really meant ... :-*

(Has an independent physical existence) and what is not (has no independent physical existence) ANY entity is either one or the other.

That is the exact black and white issue you have I was talking about ! here it is again.

And yes i maintain that everything i claim to have independent physical existence DOES, because it meets the proofs evidences and parameters for ANY real and physical object.

But only in your 'reality set' ,.... thats the whole point ... any division of real or not real, of 'independent physical existence' or not, is purely your own value judgement ... I know you have trouble seeing beyond those . But that does not eliminate them from a view of what constitutes the 'real' and how we classify it ... for people ( that is , over all time and locations) ... seriously dude, break out of your own ego a bit, study some cultural anthropology or something without trying to get it to fit into your personal 'reality set'.

There is NO confusion or dichotomy here, except in your inability to accept that certain things are real.

Rubbish, I accept many things as real, actually my definition of what constitutes real seems far more flexible than your black and white view !

If i say I have met a god like entity with god like powers, then that entity demonstrated EXACTLY the same proofs of its existence to me as my wife does, or my dog .

But that is only relevant to you . You are trapped in a circular argument.

You just DON'T WANT to accept this is possible, in our world, perhaps because it would make that world uncomfortable to contemplate.

Ha! You think I formed my views of multiple realities beyond the modern black and white of dualism so I would be comfortable in my surety of what is going on, what is real or not ? !

Maybe that is just what you are doing , trying to make it all black and white according to your own experience.

If I may pose a question ....

What about everyone else's experience ? ( or let's just leave the human race, over time and place throughout history and its diversity of viewpoints aside. Lets just push that to one side, as Walker knows best ) .

. So, like many, you loudly proclaim i am obviously deluded or lying or both.

It comes out in your internal inconsistencies, fudging and wiggling ... so ingrained, you may not even realise you doing it !

Oh how I ache for the day when YOU encounter such irrefutable evidences and then have to adjust your whole mental construct to adapt to a new reality.

And you go ... assuming that has never happened to me .

How many times Walker, have I said most cleraly to you, that is not the case. It is not the subject matter you speak of it is your internal inconsistencies, fudging and wiggling , your self assured righteousness and judgementalism , your proclivity to 'prove' with stories about your own experience ... all been explained many times .

But you go back to your default position in that I (and others who point this out ) cant believe in some amazing magical world ..... Dude, I have been a practicing ritual magician, and I am studying Shamanism from one of the oldest surviving cultures in the world ... I have told you this , more than once .

can you understand anything yet ?

it could happen because it happened to me when i was as " ignorant" as you are, and just as obstinate in my denial.

I have never been so obstinate as you ... that is probably why you got stuck where you are.

No doubt now, you will interpret all this as you have previously.

I take it back , the dog thing .... it is too late .

I should have believed the saying ....

just chew on this instead ...

old-dog-chewing-bone.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I bet you do not continue to try to use the same wiggling on psyche101 .

Astrophysics is a bit more of a hard science than cultural anthropology or ontology isnt it ?

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I bet you do not continue to try to use the same wiggling on psyche101 .

Astrophysics is a bit more of a hard science than cultural anthropology or ontology isnt it ?

The concept of a hard science is something invented by physicists to inflate their egos. In the end it is just as subjective and fuzzy as any other area of knowledge.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

The concept of a hard science is something invented by physicists to inflate their egos.

It appears to have been a philosopher, Auguste Comte.

In the end it is just as subjective and fuzzy as any other area of knowledge.

Really? What political science knowledge, on the axes of objectivity and clarity, do you believe compares to the numerous hard science findings that allow us to communicate right now?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

The concept of a hard science is something invented by physicists to inflate their egos. In the end it is just as subjective and fuzzy as any other area of knowledge.

?

Very surprised to hear you say this, Frank. What part of that computer you are typing on is fuzzy or subjective? How about all the Mars missions, or the car you drive or the bridges you drive over and trust not to fall down?

In some sciences like psychology, things can indeed get subjective and fuzzy, and of course at the edge of *any* science there is stuff we haven't yet got a good handle on - eg Quantum Physics where we know weird stuff happens and as yet have no firm theories.. But I think it's pretty safe to say that an awful lot of stuff (esp. in Physics) ain't fuzzy at all. While every scientific theory is up for replacement with something better, some stuff (look up axiom) is absolutely rock solid, eg basic arithmetic and logic. The vast majority of physics involves no subjectivity at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

The concept of a hard science is something invented by physicists to inflate their egos. In the end it is just as subjective and fuzzy as any other area of knowledge.

What ? Like maths ?

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The concept of a hard science is something invented by physicists to inflate their egos. In the end it is just as subjective and fuzzy as any other area of knowledge.

'

That defies the way science works, which is fluid. We do have something that we do understand and much we don't but even the basics are open to change, and do so happily. Science benefits greatly from these changes.

It is however far more secure than fringe will ever be, or religion for that matter.

Biology-to-a-Physicist.png

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

All a particle is is a concatenation of various fields, such as electromagnetic, Higgs, and so on, with something they call spin (which comes in various flavors).

Now that I guess is what they pass as hard science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ChrLzs

So, you pick a topic that is on the absolute edge of our understanding, and on most of which there are quite solid explanations and theories anyway, and ignore 99% of science?????

Talk about cherry picking. You know better than this. Anyway, what 'accepted' theory is it that you dispute? And have you any observations of your own to make to back up your dispute, or would you accept that this stuff is at or even beyond the limits of that which we can observe? Does everything have to be solved the instant it is discovered, for you to be happy that it is 'hard' science?

And further, where are you getting your definition and usage of 'hard science' from? As far as I am aware, science is either done well or badly, and the latter is gradually weeded out by repetition, checking, verification. That's what science does. Indeed, most usage of that term in fact refers to physics, biology, astronomy, etc as HARD sciences, rather than the soft sciences like ... psychology, sociology, psychiatry, anthropology...

I trust you do realise the difference? Hint - objectivity versus subjectivity comes into it...

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The only point I was making, perhaps tongue in cheek, was that physics has its own soft spots, and has no basis for claiming to be harder than other sciences. The basic "nature" of things is by its nature soft -- we can only know impressions, words for impressions, and so on.

All science is only approximation of reality, and all science relies on repetition, checking, verification -- and then the next generation does it all again -- and somebody somewhere finds something that doesn't fit and ends up on a flight to Stockholm (at least if they aren't in a "soft" science other than economics).

This is not a weakness of science to be denied, but a glory of science to be praised.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karina_28

There is evidence of creation, in turn evidence of God everywhere. some people go to space and can't ignore the existence of the creator, some prefer evolution to logically explain how the sun heats the earth etc.

Scientists are still trying to explain what heats the earths core.

Why people do things cannot be explained, why motives exist. Why conscience and feelings make us different from animals of similar brain capacity.

And why some people choose to believe in things and others don't.

bottom line is, what happens when previously un believed things are found to exist? Finding a unicorn in a remote forest may not be on most scientists to do list. I think it would be amazing if they were real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
Scientists are still trying to explain what heat's the earth's core.

Yea, sure. Does the Bible tell us?

In fact, the main source of heat is the radioactive decay of radioactive elements still present from the earth's formation, but even if scientists didn't understand that, your jumping onto God for it is really desperate and more than just ignorant, but seemingly aggressively ignorant.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Yea, sure. Does the Bible tell us?

In fact, the main source of heat is the radioactive decay of radioactive elements still present from the earth's formation, but even if scientists didn't understand that, your jumping onto God for it is really desperate and more than just ignorant, but seemingly aggressively ignorant.

Or just maybe (and i could be wrong) it is you jumping to conclusions and then being insulting. I read that comment (especially in the context of earlier posts) to mean that there are things science does not YET know and cannot YET explain. There are thus mysteries in the world/universe. I don't think she meant that god created the fiery centre of the earth just that until we know something we are free to believe as we chose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

There is evidence of creation, in turn evidence of God everywhere. some people go to space and can't ignore the existence of the creator, some prefer evolution to logically explain how the sun heats the earth etc.

of course there is evidence of 'creation' - all the things around us had to be created to exist, somehow. But your idea that it was created by some god is an assumption and you cannot prove that.

Its quiet self evident .

Scientists are still trying to explain what heats the earths core.

Why people do things cannot be explained, why motives exist. Why conscience and feelings make us different from animals of similar brain capacity.

And why some people choose to believe in things and others don't.

Scientists are still trying to explain everything, more fully. It was quite some time since a scientist declared "Now we know everything." But still, there are good explanations about what heats the earth's core, and we can explain why people do things ( not sure what you meant there ? ) , and why we are different from animals. There are many fields of science to explore, explain and seek further knowledge in, have you ever heard of anthropology ?

bottom line is, what happens when previously un believed things are found to exist?

If the evidence shows that, they are accepted and investigated. It happened and still happens all the time in science. I dont see what the issue is here ?

Finding a unicorn in a remote forest may not be on most scientists to do list. I think it would be amazing if they were real.

Why ? Because you have some 'romantic notion' or attraction to a whole concept around unicorns ? There are heaps of animals , specifically insects we know nothing of, some I have seen that are unknown (unclassified by science ) and turning up all the time , I think that is pretty amazing.

I had these tiny black scorpions here for a while, their bodies were constructed of spherical segments arranged together, even the claws. They looked like robot scorpions made to look like 'Robbie the Robot' * . I dont believe they have been fond or classified by any scientists here.

I live in near an area classified as part of 'Gondwanaland World Heritage Area.' Who knows what's out there ! ?

* Robby-the-Robot.jpg

..... the one on the right hopefully.

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

All a particle is is a concatenation of various fields, such as electromagnetic, Higgs, and so on, with something they call spin (which comes in various flavors).

Now that I guess is what they pass as hard science.

Mate all I can say to that is

'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics' - Richard Feynman

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

There is evidence of creation, in turn evidence of God everywhere. some people go to space and can't ignore the existence of the creator, some prefer evolution to logically explain how the sun heats the earth etc.

No, that is not evidence by any means, that is romanticism.

Scientists are still trying to explain what heats the earths core.

No they are not, what gave you that idea?

Why people do things cannot be explained, why motives exist. Why conscience and feelings make us different from animals of similar brain capacity.

Body pattern.

And why some people choose to believe in things and others don't.

Gullibility.

bottom line is, what happens when previously un believed things are found to exist? Finding a unicorn in a remote forest may not be on most scientists to do list. I think it would be amazing if they were real.

I think it is amazing that you want to take knowledge backwards, and seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

There is evidence of creation

Not in the biblical sense there isn't.

in turn evidence of God everywhere.

That's because you've already convinced yourself of a "divine creation", so anything can be evidence of god.

some people go to space and can't ignore the existence of the creator

So? Some people sit in padded cells convinced that they're Julius Caesar.

some prefer evolution to logically explain how the sun heats the earth etc.

Evolution has nothing to do with astrophysics.

Scientists are still trying to explain what heats the earths core.

Even if they were (which they're not), all you're doing is invoking a divine explanation for things not yet explained by science. Which is of absolutely no use to anyone.

Why people do things cannot be explained, why motives exist. Why conscience and feelings make us different from animals of similar brain capacity.

I think you'll find that animals have "conscience and feelings" too. And many "motives" can be traced back to evolutionary origins.

bottom line is, what happens when previously un believed things are found to exist? Finding a unicorn in a remote forest may not be on most scientists to do list. I think it would be amazing if they were real.

Pretty unfocused way of wrapping that post up. No idea what you're actually on about.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.