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

wurzlitzer

brevity wrote: »

What happens to the other sock.

Have you not seen monsters inc?

deecom

Why can the pubs not open on Good Friday...

whatawaster81

Steve012 wrote: »

With no offence intended , Dane's, Norwegians, North German's, eh..
I think they harnessed fire alright.

As I am neither Dane, Norwegian nor North German no offence was taken.

Steve012

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Oh I've no doubt we interbred as up to 2% of our DNA is Neantherdal DNA.
It's funny how we thrived and they vanished. I've seen multiple theories from us wiping them out to the fact they could not harness fire so couldn't get the calories from food or avoid disease.

It's just scientists can't agree what exactly happened.

With no offence intended , Dane's, Norwegians, North German's, eh..
I think they harnessed fire alright.

whatawaster81

Steve012 wrote: »

Maybe we did, and they probably breed with modern day humans.

Oh I've no doubt we interbred as up to 2% of our DNA is Neantherdal DNA.
It's funny how we thrived and they vanished. I've seen multiple theories from us wiping them out to the fact they could not harness fire so couldn't get the calories from food or avoid disease.

It's just scientists can't agree what exactly happened.

Steve012

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Who or what killed of the Neantherdals.

Maybe we did, and they probably breed with modern day humans.

Alcoheda

12Phase wrote: »

Why cats always land on their feet.

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

There has been some tentative yet serious research into this very important field.

Here are the facts as we know them so far.

lol, look at the dude's face

whatawaster81

Who or what killed of the Neantherdals.

Samaris

I considered several of the so-called mysteries from the first few pages, most of which I had some general idea of the science behind, and mostly wondered if science could ever explain why kneemos' threads.

I'll admit I didn't think too much on it when it got into black holes and string theory, not least since I had the sneaking suspicion that the people talking about them didn't understand them that much more than I do (i.e. I've heard of them and have probably read enough first paragraphs of magazine articles to be able to bull**** a one-sentence explanation of them

)

Edit: Rereading Roy Palmer's post there, yeah, you've got a solid point there, although there's an element of people misusing of the word "science". What does one MEAN (yes, I know I used it myself up there, but I was being sardonic) by "science explains". Science is ...information and theories gathered from a set of standardised, observable, repeatable methods - i.e. the scientific method. In general, "science" is used on definable things and processes, as you say. Intangible "things"; emotions, how and why people think, that sort of thing is much harder to quantify. Certain elements of the scientific method can be used to theorise about them, and gain support from what can be "measured" - brain processes for instance, observable evidence of evolutionarily helpful modes, but there's a reason they're called the "soft sciences". They're a bit more blurry.

Ray Palmer

After reading the first 4 pages it made me worry about how many people don't understand what has been explained and that people don't understand how we have words that aren't tangible things that can be measured. This does not mean there is no scientific explanation it means you aren't talking about a defined thing.

Science can't explain love.

Actually it can explain the physical reactions along with come up with an explanation to the evolution advantage of it. It is an explanation that many people won't accept.

kneemos

Laois_Man wrote: »

I remain unsatisfied :P

https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/why-hot-water-freezes-faster-than-cold-physicists-solve-the-mpemba-effect-d8a2f611e853%23.icv7eusp2&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjY0_6PwdLLAhVIpw4KHbp9CWgQFggkMAI&usg=AFQjCNEfKIhP36E9tr-t_78uUTss9DFYqg

Laois_Man

kneemos wrote: »

Hot water loses heat faster than cold water I think.

I remain unsatisfied :P

kneemos

Laois_Man wrote: »

It's funny....When I spotted this thread a few days ago, the first thought that occurred to me was, something that's always been a head scratcher.....What's the purpose of stripes on zebras.

Then today, completely by accident, I came across this where the mystery has arguably just been solved

http://www.vocativ.com/news/275163/zebra-stripes/?utm_campaign=CKMobile&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=outbrain

I still have a head scratcher left tho. Why does boiling water freeze faster than room temperature water!

Hot water loses heat faster than cold water I think.

Laois_Man

It's funny....When I spotted this thread a few days ago, the first thought that occurred to me was, something that's always been a head scratcher.....What's the purpose of stripes on zebras.

Then today, completely by accident, I came across this where the mystery has arguably just been solved

http://www.vocativ.com/news/275163/zebra-stripes/?utm_campaign=CKMobile&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=outbrain

I still have a head scratcher left tho. Why does boiling water freeze faster than room temperature water!

Oranage2

How Adam Sandler is still making movies!

ToddyDoody

Pkiernan wrote: »

How gyppos in a Hiace can smell copper water tanks on a skip 10 miles away just seconds after it has been dumped. ...

banned

Survival of the fittest, explained by Darwin.

Skylinehead

endacl wrote: »

What's an intensive porpoise?!?

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvfafaxqNh1qcofn4o1_500.png

Eugene Norman

Steve012 wrote: »

How did I know you'd say that
Check out the books then, string theory, m theory, theory of everything.

Links. I read all these books. None of them talk about design.

Capt'n Midnight

Dughorm wrote: »

So has CERN branched out beyond the material world? News to me

Technically speaking the material world is really just the world of visible matter.

There's a lot more dark matter. And there's even more dark energy.

And yes CERN is big into stuff that isn't your normal proton-electron-neutron matter.

Steve012

Dughorm wrote: »

Sure maybe Columbus only missed God by a hair's breadth when he ventured into the "unknown" as well?

Where did I mention God man?
me out for pintzies..

Night

Dughorm

Steve012 wrote: »

No, but they admitted they weren't sure what they'd find. Thus the unknown.
Ain't it?

Sure maybe Columbus only missed God by a hair's breadth when he ventured into the "unknown" as well?

Steve012

Dughorm wrote: »

Are you taking the "god particle" in a literal sense?

No, but they admitted they weren't sure what they'd find. Thus the unknown.
Ain't it?

Dughorm

Steve012 wrote: »

That's news to you then

Are you taking the "god particle" in a literal sense?

Steve012

Dughorm wrote: »

So has CERN branched out beyond the material world? News to me

That's news to you then

Dughorm

Steve012 wrote: »

Not necessarily, Physics branches out into the unknown all the time. Take CERN for an example.

So has CERN branched out beyond the material world? News to me

Steve012

Look at a massive spiral coming out of a black hole they saw recently. They can't explain that, because of course of the nature of black holes.

That's main stream science.

Steve012

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why should we google it. You say it so link it.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proofs. And I bet that any link you provide, if any, won't be mainstream physics.

How did I know you'd say that

Check out the books then, string theory, m theory, theory of everything.

Eugene Norman

Steve012 wrote: »

Tis all there to be googled, plenty of info on those theories out there.

Why should we google it. You say it so link it.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proofs. And I bet that any link you provide, if any, won't be mainstream physics.

Steve012

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You've been reading different science books to me for sure.

Tis all there to be googled, plenty of info on those theories out there.

Eugene Norman

Steve012 wrote: »

I wouldn't say irrelevant, since 15 years ago science was all about M theory as an theoretical explanation, then moving too design and designer, it takes the "random" out of their equation. I think that's a big leap tbh.

You've been reading different science books to me for sure.