nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What can science not explain?

kneemos

Dark matter.
Why nine out of ten people are right handed.
How the Suns corona is hotter than the surface.
Why we yawn.
Are some of the things beyond the wit of the learned lab coat wearing giant brains of our time.What other mysteries are we waiting patiently to have explained

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ScumLord

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.

That's true, but at the same time since it got a start life has managed to find a way to survive in all sorts of places where we didn't think it could survive. Including spending time in outer space or frozen in ice for 30 years, coming back to life and breeding again. There are creatures on this planet that could survive being blown out into space and if it ever found somewhere warm enough to defrost it could maybe come back to life and start breeding again.

Can't remember the details but everything from the cosmic level down to how the moon orbits the earth (IIRC) etc. Whatever about the details it's mind-boggling to think of the unlikeliness of life.

Eclipses would be one of those bizarre coincidences. The moon is just the right distance between the sun and earth to create perfect eclipses (on some parts of the earth). Although, it hasn't always like that, and won't always be like that as the moon is slowly moving away. But that makes it an even bigger coincidence, that it's happening at the time when there just so happens to be a sentient creature that can notice the difference and appreciate it. Our planets relationship with the moon could be a one in a billion thing that doesn't happen that often. Or it could be that the moon is a vital part of the equation that makes life possible and every planet with sentient life would have eclipses like ours.

demanufactured

Why Pikey's love the fightin.

nozzferrahhtoo

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.

There is a few errors in thinking inherent in that impression. But it is an impression most people share.

An example error in thinking there lies in the inherent assumption that life on earth is the exemplar of life. But we do not know this. It is the only example we know sure. But who knows what else there is in the set "life" and what conditions would be conducive to it.

Another error is that the conditions are not AS specific as you think. Look at the subset of Earth life called "Extremophiles". They are living and existing in environments much different to our own. This links back to the first error as we can see there are different forms of "life" that exist in different conditions. There is a range of conditions on this world, not a specific sets, and life arises in even the most extreme ones.

The comedy writer Douglas Adams made a good analogy here. Imagine a puddle in a hole somewhere that magically becomes conscious. The puddle would look at the hole it found itself in and think "Wow, it is amazing that this hole is the EXACT shape to fit my size shape and form!!!".

We humans think like that puddle.

But the real explanation is not that the hole was formed exactly to fit the puddle.... but the puddle arose and formed to fit the whole. The puddle, like most humans, has it exactly backwards. Life on earth rose into the conditions on earth. It is not that the earth is amazingly specific to house life as we know it, it is that life on earth was forged by that earth to fit it.

Finally the error in the impression is that it is earth-centric as a view. There is a whole continuum of conditions out there in the universe. All kinds of throws of the dice and worlds with varying attributes and conditions. So whatever the attributes are for the rise of life, there will be somewhere it could do so.

take everything wrote: »

It's one of those things (like the structure eye) that makes you think ”is there a designer".

And I can see why it would illicit that thought in people. But when one considers the evolutionary path-way of things like an eye, it is remarkably simple and elegant. There is just as much requirement for a designer as there is evidence that was one. None. And that is before you mention the design flaws in such systems that show just how bungling a designer it would have had to have been.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Imagine you were a two dimension being on the surface of a balloon. You could travel through the "space" you observe and never hit an edge. All that would happen is that if you pick and one direction and head off in that direction long enough, you would come back to where you started.

That is an analogy that has been used to try and explain the concept of "no edge" to our universe to people. It fairly melts my limited mental capacities to try and envision it though.

But there are still edges there in this example, only as a 2d being you cant observe them

endacl

riffmongous wrote: »

But there are still edges there in this example, only as a 2d being you cant observe them

Opportunity for 'quirky book recommendation of the day'...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/433567.Flatland

nozzferrahhtoo

riffmongous wrote: »

But there are still edges there in this example, only as a 2d being you cant observe them

The analogy is not perfect

Nor is it mine. But there is no perfect analogy for it that I have seen. But it helps. Where is Morbert when I need him? Does he not use boards.ie any more? He would be better at this bit than me.

Alf Stewart.

12Phase wrote: »

Why cats always land on their feet.

Seriously, scientists who have tried have been hissed at and very badly scratched...

And toast always lands butter side down.

I wonder if you sellotaped hot-buttered toast to a cats back and threw it out the window would the world combust?

TheLastMohican

Vinculus wrote: »

Was the big bang the first big bang or was there other big bangs before that big bang?

Let the Doctor explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYgOlqinH7A

ScumLord

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But the real explanation is not that the hole was formed exactly to fit the puddle.... but the puddle arose and formed to fit the whole. The puddle, like most humans, has it exactly backwards. Life on earth rose into the conditions on earth. It is not that the earth is amazingly specific to house life as we know it, it is that life on earth was forged by that earth to fit it.

Even so, it still makes sense for the likes of NASA to stick to the criteria of earth life. Because we know what it looks like and how to narrow down the search. When it comes to other kinds of possible life forms we may not even know how to recognise them, nevermind find them. There's probably a huge variation and by searching for the styles of life we know we may come across something we weren't expecting.

nozzferrahhtoo

ScumLord wrote: »

Even so, it still makes sense for the likes of NASA to stick to the criteria of earth life. Because we know what it looks like and how to narrow down the search.

Absolutely it makes sense in terms of deploying our very limited resources. And in terms of the fact we do not really know what to look for. But not in terms of the fact that we honestly do not know what other life is possible, which is the point I was making merely to address the claim of how fine tuned for life the earth appears. It only appears like that because we are assuming one kind of life... the one we know of. But is that a safe assumption to make?

We are coming up with creative ways of looking for life though. Not just limited to looking for earth like life. For example theories on how more advanced civilisation would service their power needs have us looking for certain kinds of super structures around stars. Something there was a big hoo-rah over recently when we thought we had actually found one.

And if any life tried to contact us then they would likely do so in a universal language such as mathematics. So we can look for that too. If we suddenly received radio waves coded into the first 25 prime numbers for example..... there would be little doubt it came from intelligent life regardless of whether it was like ours or not.

But as you say we might look directly at life some day and not even recognize it. It could be THAT different from us.

Into The Blue

riffmongous wrote: »

The infinity solution always strikes me as a copout, 'we cant say and we probably never will be able to.. lets say its infinite and then this problem goes away'. This crops up a lot in physics and astrophysics

The reality is that even our greatest minds my never have the capacity to understand.

kneemos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure why it is hard to dispute. If someone claims to be psychic one simply has to ask them to be clear on what it is they claim to be able to do, then set up a double blind test condition in which you evaluate whether they are in fact able to do it.

And if they fail to do it, which they consistently do it seems, then I would consider their claims pretty well disputed.

The fact remains that under genuine test conditions we have found no evidence of such abilities in existence. Nor is there any coherent proposed mechanism by which such an ability would function. Nor is it congruent with anything else we do know to be true, quite the opposite.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.espresearch.com/realityofesp/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj13ZWM38rLAhXEdg8KHZn4BMIQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYyEmau5NsuUv4j6jdR5lA7-hgOw

ScumLord

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely it makes sense in terms of deploying our very limited resources. And in terms of the fact we do not really know what to look for. But not in terms of the fact that we honestly do not know what other life is possible, which is the point I was making merely to address the claim of how fine tuned for life the earth appears. It only appears like that because we are assuming one kind of life... the one we know of. But is that a safe assumption to make?

The earth life was born out of was vastly different to our own. The planet as we know it now was basically created by life. We wouldn't have an oxygen rich atmosphere for a start, life created that (at the detriment of most living things at the time). So even within the confines of what we know about life on earth there's a huge variety of conditions suitable for life. As well as looking for the obvious earth as it is today we could also be looking for the earth as it was a 3 billion years ago.

Steve012

MoodeRator

Science cannot agree on an explanation for airplane flight!! Now think about that the nest time you are sitting on the runway

The secret to airplane flight? No one really knows

Cambridge scientist debunks flying myth

sleep well!

Chris_Bradley

Women that have a pain in their bo**ox???

ardinn

Is yawning not intended to try and keep us awake? We Yawn as a means of a very deep breath to take in a large gulp of oxygen to re-energize.

At least thats what I was told!!!!!

Into The Blue

Best reasoning I've heard on why our understanding in so lacking..

6.30 on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTZyVZBtP70

endacl

irishgrover wrote: »

God?

Explained

Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.espresearch.com/realityofesp/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj13ZWM38rLAhXEdg8KHZn4BMIQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYyEmau5NsuUv4j6jdR5lA7-hgOw

A blog piece? That is what you have? Hahah. I say "double blind study" and you respond with a blog piece advertising a book. Seriously. By all means purchase the book for me and I will review it for you. But until that time, if you have any links to an actual scientific peer reviewed study, not some book you are shilling, then let me know.

nozzferrahhtoo

ardinn wrote: »

Is yawning not intended to try and keep us awake? We Yawn as a means of a very deep breath to take in a large gulp of oxygen to re-energize.

A lot of people think that alright, but there seems to be no truth to it and it does not affect oxygen levels in the body much at all. In fact a single deep breath is unlikely to do that.

One of the main reasons we think we yawn now is actually to cool down your brain. It causes both an increase of blood to the brain AND a cooling of that blood. And in experiments where they got two groups of people and warmed up the heads of the people in one group.... those people yawned a LOT more than the control group.

And when they then COOLED the heads of a group, the hardly yawned at all.

The experiments were also repliated in mice where yawning came when their head temperatures increased, and after the yawning a drop in temperature was observed.

So yeah, it seems like a natural heat sinking method and nothing to do with oxygen at all.

kneemos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A blog piece? That is what you have? Hahah. I say "double blind study" and you respond with a blog piece advertising a book. Seriously. By all means purchase the book for me and I will review it for you. But until that time, if you have any links to an actual scientific peer reviewed study, not some book you are shilling, then let me know.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjE8bOhkMvLAhVEuw8KHRb1Cso4FBAWCBswAQ&usg=AFQjCNF132UHOfzchSDTMXLXD2GSwZDzLQ

Depp

endacl wrote: »

Explained

Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.

Didn't realize they'd scientifically disproven the existence of a higher power?Must've missed that now! nice try though

mark_jmc

Donald trump's hair

whatawaster81

Seriously how did fish turn into monkeys that turned into humans?

And I'm not a big fan of God created it all in 7 days either!

What's option C? Aside from Aliens? Damn you science, what's option C?

Steve012

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Seriously how did fish turn into monkeys that turned into humans?

And I'm not a big fan of God created it all in 7 days either!

What's option C? Aside from Aliens? Damn you science, what's option C?

Multiple life forms emerging from comets that crashed here or whatever. Not all from a cell then a fish, so multiple, basically like seeding.

Us on the other hand

Different story.

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjE8bOhkMvLAhVEuw8KHRb1Cso4FBAWCBswAQ&usg=AFQjCNF132UHOfzchSDTMXLXD2GSwZDzLQ

Can you be more specific? Did YOU even read anything in your link? I randomly opened seven documents in that link and:

1) Did not open, broken link.
2) Was not peer reviewed science but a blog piece about fraud in people faking research.
3) Also broken did not open.
4) One document that describes the content of NDE but finds no reason to think there is anything supernatural about it.
5) An appeal for more resarch but not actually research itself.
6) A paper that acknowledges "selective reporting" in research means we have no real idea how valid positive results actually are.
7) The famous studies of "intercessory prayer" which showed not only is there no effect of such prayer... but people who knew they were being prayed for actually had MORE post operation issues than any other group.

And so on and so forth. So perhaps you can be a little more specific what you think that link contains. Or did you just read the title, see a lot of links, and assume there must be something there?? Because the links I looked at either:

a) do not work
b) Show no significant results
c) actually show the opposite of what you appear to want to argue.

WoollyRedHat

The popularity of Mrs. Brown boys.

fleet_admiral

eeguy wrote: »

There are 11 dimensions.

We live in the 3rd dimension.

In the 4th dimension you can see your past and future self.

In the 5th dimension you can see your past and future self and every result of every decision you've ever made.

There are 6 more dimensions above this.

Mind bending stuff.

Will ye go and ask the back end of me bollix

kneemos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Can you be more specific? Did YOU even read anything in your link? I randomly opened seven documents in that link and:

1) Did not open, broken link.
2) Was not peer reviewed science but a blog piece about fraud in people faking research.
3) Also broken did not open.
4) One document that describes the content of NDE but finds no reason to think there is anything supernatural about it.
5) An appeal for more resarch but not actually research itself.
6) A paper that acknowledges "selective reporting" in research means we have no real idea how valid positive results actually are.
7) The famous studies of "intercessory prayer" which showed not only is there no effect of such prayer... but people who knew they were being prayed for actually had MORE post operation issues than any other group.

And so on and so forth. So perhaps you can be a little more specific what you think that link contains. Or did you just read the title, see a lot of links, and assume there must be something there?? Because the links I looked at either:

a) do not work
b) Show no significant results
c) actually show the opposite of what you appear to want to argue.

The few I read showed significant results for telephone telepathy,dog telepathy and telepathy between two people in a trance.
Don't know or care if any of it is true or not,but there it is.