12 Things Science Can't Explain

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I thought gravity was the distortion of time/space created by mass.

That's the side effect of gravity not what gravity actually is. Look up Gravitons for more information on the race to discover what gravity actually consist's of on the sub-atomic level.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I thought gravity was the distortion of time/space created by mass.

That's the side effect of gravity not what gravity actually is. Look up Gravitons for more information on the race to discover what gravity actually consist's of on the sub-atomic level.

(emphasis mine)Never heard it put that way before. I always saw it as a cause and effect type deal: Mass warps space/time(cause) therefore matter(objects with mass) will tend towards attraction, directly proportional to distance(effect). I've heard that gravity is (oddly) weak in relation to the other forces, is that what you're talking about? I also thought that gravity didn't work on the sub-atomic level...cause of a lack of mass. ok i've just gone cross-eyed

Originally posted by Rren
Never heard it put that way before. I always saw it as a cause and effect type deal: Mass warps space/time(cause) therefore matter(objects with mass) will tend towards attraction, directly proportional to distance(effect).

This is correct but how does mass warp spacetime? Is it exactly like droping bowling ball on a bed? Or does the mass somehow generate some type of exotic attractive particle called a Graviton that warps space as it passes through our brane into another brane.

I've heard that gravity is (oddly) weak in relation to the other forces, is that what you're talking about?

YES! Though when you think about it it's not that odd, gravity keeps you on the grownd but what keeps you from falling through the ground? I believe it's one of the Nuclear forces(or electromagnetic I forget)

I also thought that gravity didn't work on the sub-atomic level...cause of a lack of mass.

We cannot detect what gravity does on the subatomic level. That doesn't mean it doesn't have some infinitsemal effect on that level, and when we DO figure out how it all works "down there" it would be a breakthrough as significant as E=MC2. Maybe even moreso.

Also gravitational wave research is well on its way to ansering that question. Look for a semi-largish breakthough in a couple months and in one year as there are two experiments that are set to reach fruition very very soon. One ground based(I forget what it's called) and one Space Base(the Gravity Probes A and B)

I can already hear String Theorist licking their chops

Here is an interesting article

education.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 17-11-2005 by sardion2000]

Interesting...

If you take it from a basic and most simple level these are things science has yet to explain.

Does it make [science] it wrong? No.
Does it make faith right? No.

This to me is wha science is. Learning, evolving, changing. Theory after theory shifts as we learn new information and we should all be glad that it does. Stagnation is the death of us all and the death of our enlightenment.

Originally posted by Nygdan
How so?

Well here is what some not so average scientist, and other notable people, had to say...

As Max Planck so eloquently puts it:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

"It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics"
— H. Bauer

Bauer on ethics in Science

"Many medical practices are not soundly based. They are sustained, as is true of other human pursuits, by an inertia supported by fashion, custom, and the word of authority. The security provided by a long-held .belief system, even when poorly founded, is a strong impediment to progress. General acceptance of a practice becomes the proof of its validity, though it lacks all other merit."
— Dr. B. Lown, invented heart defibrillator.

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."
— John Locke

"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
— Julian Schwinger, physicist

Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.
— J.B.S. Haldane, 1963

"If I want to stop a research program I can always do it by getting a few experts to sit in on the subject, because they know right away that it was a fool thing to try in the first place."
— Charles Kettering, GM

"One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
— J. D. Watson "The Double Helix"

As a whole, parapsychologists are nice, honest people, while the critics are cynical, nasty people"
— Ray Hyman,

"Scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, openmindedness and humility that many of them might like others to believe."
— Marcello Truzzi, CSICOP

"The common idea that scientists reject a theory as soon as it leads to a contradiction is just not so. When they get something that works at all they plunge ahead with it and ignore its weak spots… scientists are just as bad as the rest of the public in following fads and being influenced by mass enthusiasm."
— Vannevar Bush

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are that good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
— Howard Aiken

A new idea is delicate. It can be killed by a sneer or a yawn; it can be stabbed to death by a joke, or worried to death by a frown on the right person's brow."
— Charles Brower

Stellar


[edit on 19-11-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Odium
If you take it from a basic and most simple level these are things science has yet to explain.
Does it make [science] it wrong? No.

Mabye not wrong, always, but certainly rather slow and ineffective!

Does it make faith right? No.

Certainly not but faith ( in a god and such ) is far far easier to explain that the science community retarding our understanding by so actively fighting change for as long as they can manage.

This to me is wha science is. Learning, evolving, changing. Theory after theory shifts as we learn new information and we should all be glad that it does. Stagnation is the death of us all and the death of our enlightenment.

Well that is what science should be if i was serving humanity as it proclaims but it's not what one observes if you investigate it's scientific history and current actions....

Change for the sake of change is even worse than stagnation, imo, as most people can not keep up with it and are thus ruled by it. That is not even including the fact that change frequently brings new challenges whenever the previous ones were dealth with or not!

Stellar

Odium uses the operative word but perhaps it needs more empahsis - yet, Yet, YET, YET!

Science is an ONGOING study - no scientist has ever claimed that every that can be explained or understood is now explained and understood. I am not a scientist but, in everything else that I endeavor to learn, I am certain that I have not yet learned all there is to know about it, YET! That doesn't mean that I will stop trying.

I think it's arrogance to believe that this generation is THE ONE to know everything. Science will continue to discover and explain new things long after our great-great-great-grandchildren are dead and gone.

Science has no "end point" - at least not yet.

www.scieng.flinders.edu.au...

PDF bestand.

Quote:
The new theory of gravity which has emerged from Process Physics is in agreement with all experiments and observations. This theory has two gravitational constants: G, the Newtonian gravitational constant, and a second dimensionless constant which experiment has revealed to be the fine structure constant. This theory explains the so-called `dark matter' effect in spiral galaxies, the bore hole gravitational anomalies, the masses of the observed black holes at the centres of globular clusters, and the anomalies in Cavendish laboratory measurements of G.

www.scieng.flinders.edu.au...

Quote:
The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005
Published: Infinite Energy, Volume 10, Issue 60, pp. 28-37(2005).
Abstract: That the speed of light is always c (approx 300,000 km/s) relative to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of EinsteinÌs key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905. However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result. This implies that the foundations of physics require significant revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory of gravity is shown to explain various so-called gravitational `anomaliesÌ, including the `dark matterÌ effect. So the centenary of EinsteinÌs Special Relativity turns out to be also its demise. Most importantly absolute motion is now understood to be the cause of the various relativistic effects, in complete contradiction with the Einstein viewpoint, but in accord with the earlier proposal by Lorentz.

Quote:
Scientists believe they are on the verge of measuring gravitational waves, one of the most elusive phenomena in the universe, for the first time.
Albert Einstein predicted the existence of these waves as part of his general theory of relativity. He argued that when a mass accelerates, it causes the fabric of spacetime around it to stretch and squeeze. The waves have remained elusive to scientists for a simple reason: gravity is such a weak force that it produces extremely tiny waves, and no instrument has usually been sensitive enough to detect them.

But that limitation may soon be over. Yesterday, scientists at Hanford in the US kicked off an experiment with a $350m (£200m) machine called Ligo which they are confident will bring the first evidence for the existence of Einstein's elusive waves. Next month, Ligo will be joined by the Geo 600 detector in Hanover, which cost €7m (£4.7m) and is being run by scientists from Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham and Hanover universities.


education.guardian.co.uk...

Gravity is so weak we can get several ton objects to fly on a daily basis. If gravity was strong we would have a hard time standing/walking.

Also, doesn't gravity only affect things with mass? Was listening to Stephen Hawking's Cambridge Lecture's and in one of them he goes on about how gravity affecting light is impossible but it happens and this is why the Law of Gravity is null and void. Something like that, hard to understand his electronic thing sometimes.

Originally posted by UfoofU
Also, doesn't gravity only affect things with mass? Was listening to Stephen Hawking's Cambridge Lecture's and in one of them he goes on about how gravity affecting light is impossible but it happens and this is why the Law of Gravity is null and void. Something like that, hard to understand his electronic thing sometimes.

I thought I heard somewhere that gravity can not be applied to sub atomic forces and the the properties of gravity only apply to larger things. I dunno I could be wrong and this is my first post in a while and its late here 1 am(ish) Interesting read at the least.

Originally posted by masterp
Look guys, there has never been and there will never be anything paranormal outside of human imagination. Why don't we all accept this little fact and get on with our lifes?

I'm not quite willing to go that far. Evolution is almost magical and at some point in time it may spawn something able to operate in realms that today would be considered paranormal.

Originally posted by The_Final

I thought I heard somewhere that gravity can not be applied to sub atomic forces and the the properties of gravity only apply to larger things. I dunno I could be wrong and this is my first post in a while and its late here 1 am(ish) Interesting read at the least.

I have no reason to have different opinion than you do.

But I disagree, and I don't care what Hawking says's.

Isn't it true that an atom @ C or even < is deformed?

Would that deformity be considered a sub atomic quality?

It isn't that gravity does not apply at the sub-atomic level, it's just that at that level the force of gravity is so incredibly small, relative to the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force that it might as well not be there.

Is Gravity that much weaker than other forces?

And what does that mean?

You can have the most powerful Magnet on Earth and if I'm not near it , it will not take my key's out of my pocket.

But the Moon has been captured by the Earth's Gravity.

You think that Gravity is weak , but wouldn't you need a Magnet bigger than the Earth to achieve the same?







[edit on 20-11-2005 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Modern Science does not understand Gravity or the true composition and mass of the Universe , thus the need to include large amounts of non-existent "Dark Matter" so that their model of the Universe doesn't fall apart.

[edit on 6-11-2005 by lost_shaman]

I actually believe the topic of gravity should be where all of us find our humility. Knowledge puffeth up, and gravity's the big pin that can pop us. Think about it - in all we think we know, we still can't figure out the what, how or why of a force that keeps us from being dust bunnies in the grand darkness.

Originally posted by StellarX

Well here is what some not so average scientist, and other notable people, had to say...

[SNIP]
...
[edit on 19-11-2005 by StellarX]

Well played. Many scientists keep just as repressive a regime as the Catholic Church on some subjects which are sacrosanct.

As example, Quantum Mechanics gives a goodly portion of the physics community the heebee jeebies. This is primarily because of the way it functions, which is almost mystical in a way.

It's disconcerting to some when human observation effects physical phenomena, and it makes them wonder how much influence human observation effects the universe. Well, some of them anyways.

As for NDE, someone was refuting NDE's? Okay, maybe the brain doesn't die and continues firing Synapse after synapse.... but riddle me this, batman; if the brain isn't dead, it certainly shouldn't be capable of perceiving physical things with 1) your eyes closed, 2) if you are clinically BLIND and have been from birth,3) If you aren't in a room with people whom you love...

Which brings us to today's word; Unscientific.

Science purports that Near Death Experiences don't happen, and are merely synapses firing or chemical cannabalism taking place in the grey matter [Juicy]. Because, after all, science knows there's no such thing as a soul [Except for the Blues].

The brain isn't capable of such things, according to science, when it is just a lump of meat in your skull while you walk around all day [Meathead], so WHY is it capable of such things when you've clinically died?

There is reproducibility for such things, as they occur at least on a monthly basis. More than likely weekly. [Death Happens]

If I had a near death experience, and you were sitting in the cafeteria, and I saw you eating a tuna sandwich and that you spilled milk in your lap, and then I was brought back to life and explained this to you... how the hell are you supposed to scientifically refute that? [Dogmatically?] Seems kind of Unscientific to me.

And that, my friends... is the Word.



[edit on 11/21/2005 by TheCrystalSword]

TheCrystalSword, where has science said there is no such thing as a soul?

Experiments have been done, but I have never seen them claim as a fact that there is no such thing as a soul just that there is little evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Modern Science does not understand Gravity or the true composition and mass of the Universe

That's right. Only Douglas Adams understood gravity and the true nature of the universe. He is also the authoritative source on the size of the universe:

"Space is big. Really big. If you think it's a long way to the corner store, that's peanuts compared to space..."

From the Guide.

Originally posted by Odium
TheCrystalSword, where has science said there is no such thing as a soul?

Experiments have been done, but I have never seen them claim as a fact that there is no such thing as a soul just that there is little evidence to back it up.

[Colbert Response]
It's been stated and restated by people claiming to be scientists since about as long as science has been around, as well as by people who have pieces of paper that claim they are scientists. Now, I'm not one to refute a piece of paper. And if that doesn't do it for you, seven tenth's of most college science majors also refute the existence of any spiritual self whatsoever.

I know, it seems contradictory, or possibly even hypocritical... but regardless of how reality works, this seems to be a facet of it; specious claims based not on evidence, but lack thereof. But perhaps I am wrong, and this is actually how science is to function? After all, I don't have a piece of papers saying anything about being authoritative on the subject of science review. It just seems to me like being impartial might mean some sort of level of... what's the word, ah yes, impartiality.

As such, there are a good many scientists (or people claiming to be, or people with pieces of paper which claim them to be) which ridicule and demean people who invest some level of emotion into such silly beliefs as a "GOD" and "SOUL". While there are no facts whatsoever to prove such a thing, there are some sinners and damned souls who do not even acknowledge the well documented and verified existence of Hell.

Being just a layman, it would seem to me that these Scientists like their facts too much, they need to do their homework.

Scientists? You're on Notice.
[End Colbert Response]

Gravity has a pull on the photon, which is subatomic. Gravity has its effect on both mass and radiant-energy.