Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

I have some N. American 'medaeval' stuff here, and the talent was equal to anything today. Better. Even the kids could carve, because what else ya gonna do?? They had rock in hand more than people have cellphones today.
 
I think eventually science will enable us to explain everything.

I'm just not too sure that everyone will be on-board with that. We do love our mysteries and often the explanation sours the whole thing.

So I think that there will be things science won't explain [not that it can't(just won't)].

Re, I don't think science will go out of its way to explain why some clowns wear big red noses.
 
Last edited:
tinkerdan said:
Re, I don't think science will go out of its way to explain why some clowns wear big red noses.
Click to expand...

That one's easy. I read a fascinating paper by Prof. J. J. Bruckenbach, Antiquities Department of the University of Toronto, on the subject. In Antiquity drunkeness was equated with jocularity. Starting with Cicero: Inebriosus semper videtur ioculosus esse, he analysed the Greco-roman attitude towards inebriation, namely that a drunken man is momentarily free of the cares of the world and hence is happy.

This outlook was remarked on by the early Christians. Augustine: Quando inebriosus video homo iucundus video. "When I see a drunk man I see a happy man." The Church's prohibition against overindulgence of alcohol eventually erased this admiration for inebriation from the popular imagination, but the clown - a comic and well-loved character - preserved the old mentality in the form of his red nose.

and BTW I made all that up. :p
 
Last edited:
and BTW I made all that up. :p
[/QUOTE]


At some point Im going to have to do my Jakalope story.:D
 
Vertigo said:
The universe is all of space time so there is nothing for it to expand into. I refer you to @Stephen Palmer succinct explanation.


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!"
Click to expand...

My problem is that Mr. Palmer's explanation may be a little too succinct. Is there a book for the layman that deals with this subject, what Charles Lamb calls the "shadowland of pre-existence"?
 
It may be more accurate to say that space time is a property of the universe. But the post you're quoting is the best example. It is impossible for any of us to accurately visualise it and that's just something we have to accept.

If you were a 2d being on a sheet of paper and that paper was being folded in half you would't have any concept of what was happening as you survived only in 2 dimensions (well 3 if you include time which we never do for some strange reason, imagine a 3d tv that didn't exist in time. Maybe That's the ultimate con. I would have sold what I described, a tv that only exists in 3 dimensions. anyway i digress.)

There may be a book that gently introduces the concept but really once you get to the point where you know you'll never picture it correctly and you understand why you've got.
 
"The universe is all of space and time so there is nothing for it to expand into." Okay, we can give an example to help illustrate it, but how do we know it's true? Is this a scientific fact accepted by the majority of theoretical physicists? Not arguing, just curious. The idea is not only hard to visualize but mind numbing if lingered over for too long. If you can't get something out of nothing, where did the post big bang nugget of all matter come from if nothing was surrounding it? Heck, how long was there nothing before the big bang occurred?
 
dask said:
"The universe is all of space and time so there is nothing for it to expand into." Okay, we can give an example to help illustrate it, but how do we know it's true? Is this a scientific fact accepted by the majority of theoretical physicists? Not arguing, just curious. The idea is not only hard to visualize but mind numbing if lingered over for too long. If you can't get something out of nothing, where did the post big bang nugget of all matter come from if nothing was surrounding it? Heck, how long was there nothing before the big bang occurred?
Click to expand...

If I get some time later I will try to write up a more complete answer but for now it is probably easiesy to say it is the theory of best fit at the moment. A fair few observable facts fit into the theory Nicely. The red shift of distant galaxies for example. The issue comes as we know little of what happened prior to the universe being around the size of the planck length. In terms of somethig from nothing, the universe is most likely to have begun as an infinitesimally small singularity. By that really we mean that there was no size to it at all, size simply didn't exist as there was no x, y, or z axis to measure it upon. The sudden rate of expansion I'm sure you are aware was rqpid in the extreme.

In regards to the how long part. Well there was no time so that's another axis along which there would be no measurement.

A couple of things to think about.

All theoretical but based on good solid observations. The closest conditions to the beginning of the universe we believe to exist today are found at the centre of super massive black holes.

The transformation of energy into fundamental particles and quanta, the wave particles that effectivley make the Strong Weak and Electromagnetic forces
work is something we try to achieve with the LHC. Understanding these processes helps us understand a great deal more about the expansion of the early universe.

The Planck length is about about 1.6 *10^-35 m. Or a zero followed by a decimal point and another 34 zeros beforeyou get to the 16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T This NASA Tool Lets You Track Asteroids And Comets In Real Time Science & Nature 0
O Advanced Toilets SFF Lounge 20
S (Found) Condensation droplets change scientists' physical characteristics Book Search 6
Vertigo Slow Bullets by Alastair Reynolds Reviews & Interviews 0
CTRandall Green bullets Science & Nature 0

Similar threads


Back
Top