13 REAL Questions...any answers here?

aw com'on. things science can answer are the realm of science, things science can't answer are the realm of spirit... quite simple.

#13 for example, evidently scientists don't understand the power of the spoken word.
 
Lol, science can't answer a lot of things. I love how they are like, "Our theories say this has to exist, so it must." Never, "Our theories may not be entirely correct, lol." Silly scientists. Don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful what they are doing, they're just funny little critters, lol.

And if there is a placebo effect, how are they stumped that the reverse is true. Obviously suggestion or thought can affect people physically, so what's the big monkey wrench gumming up the works with "nocebo?" They don't seem to have the same hard time with placebo, or at least it doesn't seem that way. Morgellons is the same.

A woman that believes she is pregnant will begin to lactate, and read positive on a pregnancy test. Mind over matter, yano? What's so stumpiffying about that?

That underwater sounds thing was crazy! Bloop!

Lol that first one was crazy funny cuz I was just watching an episode of Naked Science (far less dirty than it sounds I assure you, lol) on the big bang, and they showed that photo of the radiation and called it the universe's baby picture, lol, and then this has the same picture with the label axis of evil. The infant universe was the Antichrist! Maybe our universe is the evil twin to some goody two shoes universe! LOL.
 
wil said:
aw com'on. things science can answer are the realm of science, things science can't answer are the realm of spirit... quite simple.

#13 for example, evidently scientists don't understand the power of the spoken word.
Click to expand...

Science can be applied to any question, it is a method not an edifice.

Perhaps clinicians have never thought to look at the power of the spoken word through the formal gaze of the scientific testing that marks something as science but I think many healers of all schools are aware, at least on an unconscious level, of the importance of talking up the patient, and do so. It is recognised informally as "bedside manner" and anyone in the healing arts that does not develop this is seldom liked or listened to.
 
immortalitylost said:
Lol, science can't answer a lot of things. I love how they are like, "Our theories say this has to exist, so it must." Never, "Our theories may not be entirely correct, ....
Click to expand...

Actually if you listen carefully you get virtually no scientist claiming truth when you ask them candidly to nail their colours to the post. You have to remember that scientists are usually pretty passionate in their areas of expertise and have to talk up their work to maintain research funding, and making a living. Mostly when they, or the scientific press, are talking they bounce their hypothesis off of a rival theorist/researcher, which you can see in every piece published in that link. They do not start every paper or article with, "hey I'm just stabbing in the dark here but....." Among anybody who reads a lot of science this is a given.
 
Tao_Equus said:
"hey I'm just stabbing in the dark here but....."
Click to expand...

Lolz, I know, hence the theoretical in theoretical physics. I just found the phrasing funny.:D

"Our theory suggests that for our theory to be accurate particle X needs to exist. Our theory is totally accurate about everything else so particle X must exist. We haven't seen it yet... but we're pretty sure our theory is right... so our equipment must just not be sensitive enough. Our theory has to be right. Basic science here people, come on! Get on board!" :p:D

And they always give the unknown little monkey wrenches such funny names. I mean come on, in all seriousness, if "religious scientists" had a theory, and the one thing that bunked their whole theory if it didn't exist was "the God particle", and they were trying their damnedest to find im, claiming their instruments just weren't sensitive enough, you'd be laughing your arse off, lol. I'm not trying to say they're wrong. Just exercising my sense of humor is all. ;)
 
Interesting list.
We only get answers when we pose questions and that is what science is all about.
A problem occurs when scientists apply their perceptual filters to the data.
Some have learned to keep an open mind, but others are just seeking to further their ideas and pet speculations for a variety of reasons.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Here is a link to 13 assorted mysteries and spanners in the works of our best models. See what you think...
13 more things that don't make sense - New Scientist
Click to expand...

It's always refreshing to see mysteries explored in science. :)

Too often in the popular press and schools they make science seem rigid and cold. I had the same science/physics teacher from age 10 to 18, and he was great - always encouraging awkward questions. Or, to put another way, I always asked awkward questions, and rather than tell me to shut up or ignore it, as other teachers would, he would answer "I don't know". Imagine that - a science teacher, heck, even science, had no answer for a question a teenage boy could raise. That made science seem exciting - there were still frontiers to travel. :)

How can you inspire children to use science if they feel there are no mysteries to explore it with? :)
 
I think these scientists needs to change their models then!

Reading these, the commonest thing I see is a breath-taking arrogance.

Space probes using Earth's gravity to get a slingshot speed boost are moving faster than they should. Really? Do you mean we should phone god up and say could you get these space probes to slow down cos frankly, they’re messing up one of our best models.

The fusion of two distinct evolutionary lines is not supposed to work. Really? Had we better get it stopped then?

Then you've got a disease that's not supposed to exist. Really? Well in that case, I'd better stop being ill then.

The big bang should have created matter and antimatter in equal amounts. Really? If it didn’t, guess what, you’ve got it wrong.

The universe only contains a third as much lithium as it's supposed to. Really? The universe contains exactly as much lithium as it’s supposed to, not a gram more, not a gram less.

That's not how Einstein said it would be. Really? In that case, he was wrong then.

s.
 
The most interesting ones to me were: the gamma ray burst with low and high energy traveling different speeds through vacuum, the space probes moving faster than was calculated.

These are particularly exciting, because faster than light travel is theoretically impossible. Everybody is hoping that we are wrong, and that perhaps it will be found possible. After all, breaking the speed of sound was theoretically impossible; and before that traveling a mere 45mph was thought to be impossible. Currently the reason we think that faster than light speed travel is impossible, is that our math model (our formulas) say that it would require infinite energy to go that fast. Well, these observations of gamma rays and space probes indicate that we have made a miscalculation in something related to velocity and light. Both velocity and light are part of our light-speed limitation computations. Cool.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Even metaphysical questions?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes.

The quest for "truth" that drives the scientist can be used to seek metaphysical truth. I've heard Buddhism described as a very "scientific" religion. Perhaps that it why it appealed to me.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Even metaphysical questions?
Click to expand...

One branch of Aristotle's metaphysics is universal science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_science
Universal sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_science The study of first principles, which Aristotle believed to be the foundation of all other inquiries. An example of such a principle is the law of noncontradiction and the status it holds in non-paraconsistent logics. Universal science or first philosophy treats of "being qua being"—that is, what is basic to all science before one adds the particular details of any one science. Essentially "being quahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_science being" may be translated as "being insofar as being goes" or as "being in terms of being". This includes topics such as causality, substance, species and elements, as well as the notions of relation, interaction, and finitude.

Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_science
 
Dream said:
The most interesting ones to me were: the gamma ray burst with low and high energy traveling different speeds through vacuum, the space probes moving faster than was calculated.

These are particularly exciting, because faster than light travel is theoretically impossible. Everybody is hoping that we are wrong, and that perhaps it will be found possible. After all, breaking the speed of sound was theoretically impossible; and before that traveling a mere 45mph was thought to be impossible. Currently the reason we think that faster than light speed travel is impossible, is that our math model (our formulas) say that it would require infinite energy to go that fast. Well, these observations of gamma rays and space probes indicate that we have made a miscalculation in something related to velocity and light. Both velocity and light are part of our light-speed limitation computations. Cool.
Click to expand...

In that vein.... how long would it take you to get the 13 billion light years to the edge of the visible universe? 13 billion years at light speed? Apparently not... perhaps only 30 years!
How far could you travel in a spaceship? - space - 23 September 2009 - New Scientist

The return trip may take longer however...
 
Tao_Equus said:
In that vein.... how long would it take you to get the 13 billion light years to the edge of the visible universe? 13 billion years at light speed? Apparently not... perhaps only 30 years!
How far could you travel in a spaceship? - space - 23 September 2009 - New Scientist

The return trip may take longer however...
Click to expand...

It might, however I'd say that intuitively its one situation where reverse time-travel makes sense. After all, traveling back towards earth does not really affect the astronaut's prehistory at all -- I mean you wouldn't be changing your own origin. So if the return trip takes 70 billion years but you are traveling backward in time, I don't see any logical reason why you couldn't arrive only 100 years after you left. It wouldn't be true time-travel in the sense that its portrayed in films -- much more practical. Maybe the someday the mathematical model will be tweaked to reflect this. It really makes intuitively no sense for 70billion years to pass just because you've reversed direction, unless of course the 'Horizon' expanded by 35billion light years before you got there. If not then by extension the age of the universe could be a mere appearance, because relative to the horizon our galaxy might be moving slowing backward and therefore distorting our view of time. That is, if the acceleration of the horizon away from center is itself accelerating, then our own galaxy is comparatively moving backwards towards center, and thus the galaxy may appear X-billion years old while for us its actually just a few million. Time distortion sucks. Just my mumbo-jumbo on it. What's your mumbo-jumbo on it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top