• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Somethign that cannot be explained with science

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Science is a method by which that which is observed can be attempted to be explained by means of testing and experimentation (the "scientific method"). If something cannot be observed (i.e. "God"), then it can't be explained by science. I would say that if "God" had a measurable impact on the environment, then "God" can then be observed, "God's" effects on that environment can be tested via the scientific method, and therefore conclusions can be arrived at and explained by science.

This is different from talking about the social effects of mass belief in "God", which are observable.
 
Here's one... if we assume there is a certain soul being inhabiting our bodies... explain in what part it is contained... or perhaps where in the body this soul interacts with one's material self.
 
Originally posted by: Mingon
Would a piece of paper fall or float 😀 and when it landed it would still make a noise



Sure it is! It's just falling from a great height. After all, Skylab fell back to Earth, didn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really, it was caught up in the earths atmosphere then fell. The act of it falling only happened inside the atmosphere, outside it was in space and hence it was in orbit albeit a decaying one, so to technically fall it needs to be in an atmsophere being affescted by gravity 😛
Click to expand...

Actually, it was falling all the time.... an orbit is a freefall. The weightlessness that astronauts feel while orbiting the earth isn't because there isn't gravity... (I'm pretty sure it's over 8 m/s/s, just a little less than the 9.8 m/s/s on the surface of the earth) The astronauts are actually experiencing free-fall.
 
Originally posted by: Mingon
the moon does have an atmosphere actually 😛 hence it requires an escape velocity
Click to expand...

edit: it's getting argued to death... but, think of it this way.... we have 2 oceans, one is water, the other is tapioca pudding... if a fish wants to jump 10 feet out of the ocean, the thickness of the ocean has *nothing* to do with how fast it needs to go..... However, it'll take a lot more effort for it to achieve that velocity in the thicker ocean.

If you're trying to escape the moon's gravity, the velocity has *NOTHING* to do with the moon's atmosphere. However, since there is drag from the moon's atmosphere (which is absolutely insignificant), the rocket technically will need to burn more fuel to reach that velocity. However, the atmosphere of the moon is soooo thin, the difference in the amount of fuel needed is probably close to or beyond the limits of our precision to put fuel into the rocket..
 
Originally posted by: littlebitstrouds
Here's one... if we assume there is a certain soul being inhabiting our bodies... explain in what part it is contained... or perhaps where in the body this soul interacts with one's material self.
Click to expand...

The problem there is that you're assuming the soul exists; you can't prove it. "It exists because I know it exists" or "it exists because my religion tells me it exists" are not valid proofs. I can assume all kinds of imaginary things that can't be explained by science, because they don't exist. The soul is an abstract concept, not (as far as we've been able to observe) a form of energy that affects the environment in any way.

Now, if we're able at some point to observe an energy reaction that we can attribute to the soul, then it becomes measurable in some fashion, and then science can start explaining it.

Try again! 😀
 
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Well, I guess it comes down to what your teacher means by "explained". I think you might argue that science does a very good job of describing the way most things seem to work, and allows us to tailor our actions to achieve results we are aiming for. I'm not sure that it really "explains" anything, in the sense that it does not offer any answers as to why things work the way they do. That's why we have religions! Religions promise us answers to the questions that our study of the physical world can't answer. If you think that religion (and your "god" idea) are potentially too controversail, then perhaps the "meaning of life" might work for you.
Click to expand...

There you go......Can Science explain the reason why we are here. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: DrPizza

If you're trying to escape the moon's gravity, the velocity has *NOTHING* to do with the moon's atmosphere. However, since there is drag from the moon's atmosphere (which is absolutely insignificant), the rocket technically will need to burn more fuel to reach that velocity. However, the atmosphere of the moon is soooo thin, the difference in the amount of fuel needed is probably close to or beyond the limits of our precision to put fuel into the rocket..
Click to expand...

Or our desire to cut it so close. 😉
 
Experiments shows that light behaves both like a wave and a beam of particles, which is it? it cannot be both. We simply cannot explain that, we do not have a model that fits the way light behaves.

 
That is an old question and now we know that light is NOT a particle and NOT a wave, it is both or neither depending on how you look at it. From a mathematical point of view that is not a problem.
There are a lot of things that we can not "understand" because our brains where not designed to deal with things like this , but as long as we have mathematical models that work we can DESCRIBE the phenomena and that is as far as we ever can reach, and if you work with this stuff every day you can even get some "feeling" for how it works.
So saying that "It cannot be both" you are missing the point, you are trying to understand light based on your experience and knowledge of the macroscopic world but that is simply not possible, not for you and not for anyone else.
 
Originally posted by: f95toli
That is an old question and now we know that light is NOT a particle and NOT a wave, it is both or neither depending on how you look at it. From a mathematical point of view that is not a problem.
There are a lot of things that we can not "understand" because our brains where not designed to deal with things like this , but as long as we have mathematical models that work we can DESCRIBE the phenomena and that is as far as we ever can reach, and if you work with this stuff every day you can even get some "feeling" for how it works.
So saying that "It cannot be both" you are missing the point, you are trying to understand light based on your experience and knowledge of the macroscopic world but that is simply not possible, not for you and not for anyone else.
Click to expand...

Whats more, it seems as though there is no such thing as a particle in the classical sense. Even you flying through the air have a real wavelength, albeit insanely small (many orders of magnitude smaller than an atomic nucleus.
 
Originally posted by: kaizersose
the method in which we can create cold fusion.

note i said method, not conditions
Click to expand...

I like this one, really fits the bill.

Also and I may be repeating, what about creation, I know about the big bang and stuff, but how did the energy arise to cause it in the first place, and how did the matter get there as well?

These are things that science really can't explain yet, and in my view are unlikely to explain in our lifetimes.

 
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

There you have it - science can not prove that something does not exist. But we can just be pretty darn sure that it doesn't. Since we have little evidence of your pet unicorn 😛 we can safely assume it does not exist. Science can prove though that you might not be entirely sane.😀
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

There you have it - science can not prove that something does not exist. But we can just be pretty darn sure that it doesn't. Since we have little evidence of your pet unicorn 😛 we can safely assume it does not exist. Science can prove though that you might not be entirely sane.😀
Click to expand...

Um, not really... Scientists can come up with the method to prove something doesn't exist... Look everywhere.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

There you have it - science can not prove that something does not exist. But we can just be pretty darn sure that it doesn't. Since we have little evidence of your pet unicorn 😛 we can safely assume it does not exist. Science can prove though that you might not be entirely sane.😀
Click to expand...



hehe... but the truth is science cannot prove anyhing. Nothing can be proven, except that you exist.. its as simple as that !
 
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

Sure it can, if it were pink, then by definition it wouldn't be invisible.
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

There you have it - science can not prove that something does not exist. But we can just be pretty darn sure that it doesn't. Since we have little evidence of your pet unicorn 😛 we can safely assume it does not exist. Science can prove though that you might not be entirely sane.😀
Click to expand...

Um, not really... Scientists can come up with the method to prove something doesn't exist... Look everywhere.
Click to expand...

Doing so would likely require infinite energy to travel to an infinite number of locations. That might not be possible.



Originally posted by: JeremiahTheGreat
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

There you have it - science can not prove that something does not exist. But we can just be pretty darn sure that it doesn't. Since we have little evidence of your pet unicorn 😛 we can safely assume it does not exist. Science can prove though that you might not be entirely sane.😀
Click to expand...

hehe... but the truth is science cannot prove anyhing. Nothing can be proven, except that you exist.. its as simple as that !
Click to expand...

Maybe our existence is just an illusion too - an intelligent computer simulation experiment. And even if that's not the case, I could only prove my existence to myself. As far as anyone else is concerned, I'm just made up of reflected light hitting their retinas. If I walk into someone, that might not be me - it could just be some atomic force exerting resistance on their atoms.



Originally posted by: Torghn
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

Sure it can, if it were pink, then by definition it wouldn't be invisible.
Click to expand...

Good catch.🙂
 
Originally posted by: Torghn
Originally posted by: Shalmanese
Science cannot prove the non-existance of an invisible, pink unicorn.
Click to expand...

Sure it can, if it were pink, then by definition it wouldn't be invisible.
Click to expand...

Course it can be pink and invisible. Thats part of the ineffiable unicorness of it.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Maybe our existence is just an illusion too - an intelligent computer simulation experiment. And even if that's not the case, I could only prove my existence to myself. As far as anyone else is concerned, I'm just made up of reflected light hitting their retinas. If I walk into someone, that might not be me - it could just be some atomic force exerting resistance on their atoms.
Click to expand...

Science fiction author Jack L. Chalker's "The Wonderland Gambit" series is an excellent examination of just such a possibility. Interesting read.
 
Has science told us if there is an end to the universe?

If not can science explain how and why there isnt one?

Can anything explain space, where it ends, if it ends???

One thing I will always be interested in finding out is the end of space.

Is it possible that space might just stop dead? A black wall?

If so whats beyond that? What is the end of space?

For all we know we could be in someone elses world?! - The matrix one is a good one, also so is the part in Men In Black with the galaxy thing being in some aliens little marble.

Can science tell us for 100% sure that this isnt the case? For all we know we could very well be in some little aliens marble...
I mean after all science is based on evidence & sceptical evidence right? I dont see anything....

Sounds weird, just making a point tho...
 
Science is a process for coming up with predictive models of how the universe behaves. It can't tell you anything absolutely, the models are what tell what is "true" or "false", but since they are predictive, if their preditions fail, we know that the model needs revising or need to be thrown out in favor of a different one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top