Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

[Vertigo]

As far as I'm aware on the Shroud of Turin for every 'expert' that says it is unexplained another ten 'experts' say it is. There's so much noise surrounding that particular piece of cloth I don't think anyone can really say either way. And probably never will; the Church is extremely careful about who they allow to look at in any detail. And remember there is no record of it - none - before about 1350. A period when the production of false relics was probably one of the biggest money making industries in Europe.

Also remember that just because we can't replicate it now doesn't mean it couldn't be done back then. Just because we can't fit huge blocks of stone together as well as the Incas did doesn't mean it was done for them by aliens. We just don't know what techniques they used any longer.

 

[dask]

What's outside the universe?

Sounds like a fair question. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

 

[Vertigo]

Sounds like a fair question. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

The universe is all of space time so there is nothing for it to expand into. I refer you to @Stephen Palmer succinct explanation.

Imagine a 2-D world in a sheet of paper. Finite, and has an edge.

Now imagine that world curved around the surface of a football...

The problem with it is that to understand the two dimensional model you must look at it in 3 dimensions so to understand the 3 dimensional equivalent you have to think of it in 4 dimensions which is something that we are not very good at. Or certainly I'm not. But what it means is space eventually comes back on itself; there is no edge. Another way to think of it is that it is not the edges of space that are expanding into something but space time itself that is expanding.

It's one of those horrible things a bit like Quantum Theory where they tend to say: "if you think you understand it then you don't!"

 

[Phyrebrat]

Science can't explain made up sh*t. It's like asking "can science explain Narnia?", or "can science explain Hobbits?".

Okay, so how can science disprove it?

pH

 

[Vertigo]

Unfortunately that one takes you back to the fact that you can't prove a negative. So for example it is conceivable that evidence might be found that proves Bigfoot exists but it is physically impossible to prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

 

[Phyrebrat]

That's my point ... Skeptical POV always takes the moral high ground without realising its thesis is just as onerous as those trying to prove something on faith alone.

pH

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

Unfortunately that one takes you back to the fact that you can't prove a negative. So for example it is conceivable that evidence might be found that proves Bigfoot exists but it is physically impossible to prove that Bigfoot does not exist.

Plus there's "burden of proof." The argument "You can't explain it away, so you have to believe" doesn't hold water. If you want me to believe in X, then you must provide proof of X. I have no obligation to do diddly.

 

[Vertigo]

Exactly if any of those things do exist then they should be provable and so far no one has managed to claim James Randi's one million dollar challenge (now terminated after 50 years) and plenty have tried.

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

That's my point ... Skeptical POV always takes the moral high ground without realising its thesis is just as onerous as those trying to prove something on faith alone.

pH

Nope. Skeptical POV has a series of clearly explained, obvious, logical rules. "Proof by faith" and other such tactics try to dodge the rules, then complain when skeptical POV declines to accept it. There's no morality involved.

 

[Vertigo]

We've actually had a very good example of this earlier in the thread. It has been proven that dark matter exists; we have observed it's effects. It is now up to science to explain what it is. So far we have failed at that. It is something science cannot explain. But you cannot ask science to explain something that has not been proven to exist. Once clairvoyance has been proven to exist it will then, and only then, be up to science to explain what it is and how it works.

It is also one of the problems I have with SETI; it is trying to prove the existence of something for which we have absolutely no evidence of its existence. Although to be fair what they are really trying to do is find that evidence. However I suspect that it is probably the most expensive example of scientific research into something that is not backed by any theory or observable evidence. Just some rather wobbly probability ideas and a lot of faith.

 

[Justin Swanton]

As far as I'm aware on the Shroud of Turin for every 'expert' that says it is unexplained another ten 'experts' say it is.

There's a big difference between experts quoting their peers who affirm it is explained, and experts who actually prove how it could have been made. Taking into account everything currently known about the shroud from several scientific disciplines, there is no known natural or human explanation for the image.

There's so much noise surrounding that particular piece of cloth I don't think anyone can really say either way. And probably never will;

Sure, there is a lot of opposition to the idea that the shroud might be genuine - there are ramifications from that idea - so one is obliged not to listen to this or that prestigious authority but to examine the evidence itself, and the evidence tells a very interesting story.

the Church is extremely careful about who they allow to look at in any detail.

No. The Church is just concerned about it being examined by competent experts and properly handled during the examination. The STuRP team were not devout and loyal Catholics, just qualified scientists.

And remember there is no record of it - none - before about 1350. A period when the production of false relics was probably one of the biggest money making industries in Europe.

Besides the mentions in the historical record of Christ's burial cloth in Edessa, Constantinople, Athens and France, there is this: the Hungarian Pray manuscript from 1192 that has a picture of the shroud with details that would be inexplicable unless the artist had seen the shroud itself.

Also remember that just because we can't replicate it now doesn't mean it couldn't be done back then. Just because we can't fit huge blocks of stone together as well as the Incas did doesn't mean it was done for them by aliens. We just don't know what techniques they used any longer.

Charring a linen cloth using a 5 gigawatt laser that fires for a billionth of a second - in the Middle Ages? Personally I have a problem with that.

 

[Vertigo]

There's a big difference between experts quoting their peers who affirm it is explained, and experts who actually prove how it could have been made. Taking into account everything currently known about the shroud from several scientific disciplines, there is no known natural or human explanation for the image..

Currently is the key word there.

Besides the mentions in the historical record of Christ's burial cloth in Edessa, Constantinople, Athens and France, there is this: the Hungarian Pray manuscript from 1192 that has a picture of the shroud with details that would be inexplicable unless the artist had seen the shroud itself..

Of course there are mentions of a shroud. It was the normal practice. But it seems strange that the shroud we have today only put an appearance in (to use your possible date) a thousand years later.

Charring a linen cloth using a 5 gigawatt laser that fires for a billionth of a second - in the Middle Ages? Personally I have a problem with that.

I never said that what I said is that we don't know how it was done. Which doesn't mean I'm saying it was done by lasers in the middle ages.

However I'm not a scientist I can only go on the data I find on our favourite internet and I find nothing conclusive there. And so I'm not really keen on a battle of links. I'd just say that, just like some of the other stuff, it hasn't yet been proven to be a two thousand years old relic that requires scientific explanation.

However I will concede that at the moment science has failed to explain the shroud.

 

[Cathbad]

I'd just say that, just like some of the other stuff, it hasn't yet been proven to be a two thousand years old relic that requires scientific explanation.

Didn't I read that the 1978 team determined the shroud to date from the 12th or 13th century?

 

[BAYLOR]

Imagine a 2-D world in a sheet of paper. Finite, and has an edge.

Now imagine that world curved around the surface of a football...

Sounds a bit like Abbot's book Flatland.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Didn't I read that the 1978 team determined the shroud to date from the 12th or 13th century?

three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of AD 1260–1390, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s

Which makes it 13th /14th century. Wikipedia also points out that the first time it appeared in the records (in 1390) it was denounced by the local bishop as a forgery with the forger having confessed to making it.

the Hungarian Pray manuscript from 1192 that has a picture of the shroud with details that would be inexplicable unless the artist had seen the shroud itself.

Hogwash! How many thousands of times has that scene been represented in art over the centuries and there is only ONE picture that looks a bit like a much later picture? Monkeys. Typewriters. Cherry picked evidence.

Even more inexplicable is that the 'Hungarian Pray Manuscript' shows Jesus didn't have any thumbs, only fingers. Everyone else in the picture has four fingers and a thumb, even the angel, but not poor old Jesus.

 

[Cathbad]

How many thousands of times has that scene been represented in art over the centuries and there is only ONE picture that looks a bit like a much later picture?

The shroud, though certainly not Jesus' image, is still an extremely interesting piece of work! I'd love to know how it was made!

 

[BAYLOR]

The shroud, though certainly not Jesus' image, is still an extremely interesting piece of work! I'd love to know how it was made!

It looks almost three dimensional.

 

[Cathbad]

It looks almost three dimensional.

Where did we lose all these secrets? The shroud... the pyramids... dang it if we haven't lost a lot of knowledge!

 

[BAYLOR]

Where did we lose all these secrets? The shroud... the pyramids... dang it if we haven't lost a lot of knowledge!

We try to understand the universe and yet there is alot about the world around us that we still don't know.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Didn't I read that the 1978 team determined the shroud to date from the 12th or 13th century?

They examined the shroud and ruled any kind of pigment as the cause of the image. Their purpose was to determine how the shroud had been made. In the end they could not.

Re the C14 test done later in 1988 it has now been established - I mean, proponents and opponents of the shroud concede the fact - that the sample for the testing was taken from a corner of the cloth that had been repaired using cotton threads dyed to match the aged linen. This, by all scientific standards, disqualifies the tests. See here.