What are the questions science cannot answer?

Light's source point had to be part of the components of the universe, making the stat is was separated wholly scientific with no alternatives. But at one time there were no neighbours, allowing for only an external, pre-universe impacter. Creationism does not negate science - it affirms and vindicates it. Its like a car making manual [science] does not negate the car maker - the reverse aplies. ToE is shouting Eureka! No car maker! - because it saw a car manual. The latter is an unsustainable and unscientific premise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Joe

I do not know if you appreciate this point, but you are a person who is working with a conclusion that you regard as inviolate. What this means is that when the facts show your conclusion to be erroneous, you simply re-interpret what you have to once more make the sacred conclusion correct.

This is quite the reverse of science. Good science follows the data. If new data makes a conclusion false, then a new hypothesis must be derived, and tested.

In your case, when new data shows the conclusion to be false, you manipulate the data and logic to try and make it correct again. Quite the opposite of science.

I have shown clearly, with my Cobalt 60 example, that actions can occur with just ONE item. The decay of a radioactive atom is spontaneous, and does not require any outside cause. In fact, it is due to quantum uncertainty. You cannot accept this and try to suggest something outside the atom is the cause. Sorry, it is not so.

In the same way, Genesis is not a good scientific description of the origins of the universe, the Earth, and life. To make it so requires some fairly convoluted reinterpretations, which you have been engaging in. Again, that is not science. Science does not require such manipulations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh yeah???

"An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
— Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, Introduction. 1814"(wiki-Theory of Everything)

Then what do you call him?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Non-existant.

 

Yes. Mind boggling to think that some people believe it.

 

I'm not trying to do what you say. All that is happening is the main premise of no ONE is being rejected by on-going examples. Understand that if a ONE could make an action, it will negate all science, which depends on interaction. I responded that you have included fractions of internal components, such as decay - which only results from atmospheric impacts; the uncertainty principle is not based on a singular ONE - it requires a subject and other spaces [locations] to be in at the same time, namely it says that time and space are mutually exclusive - a most obvious statement because once we move we obviously cannot also be in the same spot simultainiously. This is all that is occuring at the deepest sub-atomic levels.

C60 is a synthetic isotop made in a lab using different components. Its pre-state has a nucleus and electrons same as other molecules:

Science is just one of the faculties relating to the universe. Other humanistic faculties, of equal importance and impact, include History, Geography, medicine, literature, judiciary laws, etc. The interpretations I used are based on logic, and are credible because they align with other faculties and are manifest - you have not shown an alternative reading of the text.

I clearly gave you a correct response to your claim the text says light predated the universe, as opposed light being a primodial product and listed as the first action. The opening verse is a preamble, like a heading, displaying the subject matter; its follow-up are step by step actions. The subject matter is not light but the universe. If you are going to discuss the making of a car - that would be the opening preamble - then you go to the car wheels and steering. Grammar is a more vital faculty than science.

 

Joe

Science is not about interaction. It is about finding how the universe works. When that knowledge shows a spontaneous action, then that is part of our knowledge of how the universe works, even without interaction. The goal of science is knowledge, whatever that knowledge might be.

For example : quantum physics was a great shock to the scientists of the early 20th Century. It went against all 'common sense'. Even today, it is tough to get your mind around it. In the same way, Einstein's work on relativity revealed truths that are very difficult to follow. However, a scientist must accept the truths that proper scientific research reveal, no matter how many personal prejudices those truths upset.

In religion, it is different. Religions begin with the conclusion and then try to find factual material to support the conclusion. When the facts contradict that conclusion, religious people try to discredit those facts, or find new facts that are more convenient to their pre-judgement.

You are one of those religious people, and you had decided, well before this debate began, that the Genesis account of creation was good science. Many people in this debate have pointed out, using factual material, that this view is incorrect. Yet you fail to accept their arguments. This is very much the typical religious approach, and diametrically opposite to the proper scientific approach.

 

Agreed. None of my posts contradict this. However I do see science as only applicable in an interaction: nothing can exist outside this factor. Science explains observed, repeatable, dependable patterns in interactions which we call equations.

Your knowledge of Genesis is the issue - consider where and how you even learnt of this - second hand, never observed, walt disney versions of it. While Christianity is the great educator of the world, which is not argued, there is also the undeniable issue there is no arms length separations here when it comes to Genesis and the Gospels: it espouses only that which aligns with its own beliefs, and ignores all else. Isaiah becomes cherished because someone says [eronously] that it aligns with the Gospels - otherwise this has no merit whatsoever.

This situation impacts more than 3/4's of humanity, including atheists and scientists, and when these have problems in accepting what has become widespread - they simply lump whatever comes under the terms religions and bibles in one green bag: Christianity voluntarilly calls the bible as the Gospels plus Genesis as its second hand, subserviant, transcended, derogatory term of old testament: but have you seen an iota of science in the Gospels - or anything which even remotely connects with historical or geographical facts, or anything in the Gospels which can legitimately supercede anything in the Hebrew bible? So what does old mean here - 3,500 is old and 2000 is new? If not, than why do you refer to Genesis as another religion, when you are not debating religions but a unique document with no parallel elsewhere? I mean, we are not discussing religious or revered figures here, nor any FX miracles, but clear premises of science?

What does these issues have to do with religions per se:

The universe is finite; formless was turned to form; everything originated in a duality; pre-life actions predated life; life form groupings; speech is 5770 years old; life emerged as complete constructs before they became living beings; a record of the oldest NAMES humanity possesses; introducing the DAY & WEEK; etc? I men, these may be disputaed and rejected - but they are still scientific premises, not religion, and must be countered with better scientfic premesis. All my debatings are subsequent to a scientific examination of Genesis. I ain't religious!

 

Joe

I have to disagree with you on interactions. Science is about more than that. Science covers non interacting phenomena also.

Imagine you have a lump of granite, which contains a trillion atoms of Uranium 238. Half life 4.5 billion years. That granite will be slightly radioactive, because each Uranium 238 atom that degrades will emit an alpha particle. Over the next 4.5 billion years, half of those trillion atoms will degrade. However, each atom is uninfluenced by anything but quantum randomness in determining when it degrades. There is no interaction. But it is still science. And the overall outcome can be predicted using statistics.

On my knowledge of Genesis. That comes from the most direct source. Reading it. I probably have the same incomplete knowledge you do about the peoples who originated the genesis story.

You seem to consider some parts of the bible (especially Genesis) as valid, while other parts are invalid. Fine with me. I regard them all essentially invalid, but we can agree to disagree on that.

Your comments about the universe being finite do not bother me. I pointed out in an earlier post that the distinction between finite and infinite for the universe is largely a matter of viewpoint. Looked at one way, it is finite. Another, it is infinite. One of the puzzles of science that reflects human mental limitations.

However, it is still true that the Genesis description of origins is still dissimilar to that we have uncovered with good science. You get around the differences by re-interpreting Genesis. That does not change the reality, though.

 

Weren't you warned already about making this claim?

 

now i know i am not a scientist..but i do have a basic understanding of science..

i did watch a show on decomposition of a body (true not particles) and it did say decomposition would not exist if it were not for the microbes, and various other processes..

now to get on with my point..

the radioactive decay, although nothing has been discovered (that i know of) that there is any outside influence on the process of degradation..that does not exclude any that has not been discovered yet..
for all we know..there might be a process of particles knocking radioactive particles out of the mix (i know..that statement is pry scientifically inacurate, but you get my point..i hope)

 

True the particle moves therefore something moves it. If it looses energy then it looses mass by definition of energy. Although the lost energy/mass can be thought of as insignificant.

 

Moose

You need a little more understanding of the topic. I suggest you read up on quantum physics. Quantum tunnelling is a process that 'moves' subatomic particles with no outside influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

In effect, a particle which is normally in one place, say the nucleus of an atom, also has a non zero probability of being in another place. If this happens, and that particle is suddenly no longer in the nucleus, the atom becomes unstable and falls apart - nuclear fission.

For some atoms, like Uranium 238, the probability involved is very, very low. Which means that, on average, it takes 4.5 billion years before it happens. That is just an average, of course, and many U238 atoms decay in this way much earlier. For many radioactive isotopes, the probabilities are much higher, and the atoms decay much quicker - sometimes in a tiny fraction of a second.

The point is that the 'cause' of the decay is quantum randomness, and there is no outside cause. It is not cause and effect, unless you treat the randomness of quantum physics as a cause. This process denies the principle of ONE that Joe harps on about.

 

Fission occurs because the nucleous is, thermodynamically, unstable or meta stable. A little nudge is required. But where does that nudge come from? Tunneling is a construct, not a demonstrated fact so far. Nudge comes exactly like a water molecule is pushed up and evaporates. Its friends impart that little nudge.

A single atom, though unstable is likely to get nudge from its friendly neighbour atom. Something goes on within that nucleous, which we do not know about. You can say that two nuclie do not touch each other, so no nudging. But remember, in such an atom even the configuration of the electron shell HAS to be unstable too, which ordinarily is stable.

Fissionable atoms already have too much energy than is good for them.

 

um..not quite what i read..it talks about how a particle can pass through a solid barrier..and it does reference decay of a particle as a result of tunneling...so i can see how what you said could apply..

..but also it does mention particle-wave duality..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so how does entanglement fit into this?

to me this indicates a degeneration of some field (strong/weak?)
in which case there is a duality here..the field and the thing it holds together..

i am still not an expert..but then again..a skeptic doesn't have to be..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How many dimensions do you see?

the reason it splits is because it hit something of equal mass and volume at too high of a velocity, then zips to the most stable ends. Take Plutonium, Uranium, and Hydrogen for example. They push on objects of lesser mass and equal relative volume. Notice that Kr and Ba are of approximately equal volume themselves yet over twice the initial volume of Uranium. That is why space expands initially as a result this reaction as it is not going to shrink from 12.5 cm into 8 cubic cm becoming four objects with less volume. The two initial atoms become four and release three beta particles which inevitably push forth the gamma rays in the process. and thank you R^2 laws for allowing this reaction to stop at some point.

We just need a little more "control" when we start mixing them. There is no better of a control than in a vaccume. But the goal isn't to split anything it is to have it all come together.

 

To rc

Sorry, but you are wrong. This is quite understandable. No-one fully understands quantum physics, and that certainly includes me. But your failure to understand is greater than mine.

No. There is no nudge in causing the spontaneous decay of a radioactive atom. That is simply a figment of your lack of understanding.

To NMS

Quantum tunnelling is a difficult concept. It is one I struggle with also. Yes, it can work across an energy barrier, but it is not limited to that. Nuclear decay is also an effect of quantum tunnelling.

The effect is due to quantum uncertainty. At the quantum level, there is uncertainty of position. If you read the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" you will have read of a humorous but vastly improbable version of this, when drunken physicists using an 'infinite improbability generator' cause all the molecules in the party hostesses panties to move one metre to the right. This is, of course, not possible, since quantum uncertainty does not operate in the macroscopic world. However, at the level of nuclear particles, it most definitely does operate, and a particle can, with varying degrees of probability, be in many different possible locations.

There is no field decay in the business of radioactive elements decaying. This is spontaneous. Inevitable, though it may take a long time for some elements.

To Moose

I do not even know what you are trying to say. Please repeat in clearer language.

 

did you not click on the volume button?

uranium splits into Kr and Ba. The overall mass stays the same but the volume greatly increases. and it finds the least solid exit when most try to find the most solid door. Walking directly into them and hitting their head on the doorknob.

 

I'm sure seeing this title, and seeing 24 pages of replies that this topic has gone off into the "God" topic. Well I want to state a series of questions based off of one single rational quest science has yet to answer.

Are we alone in this universe?

Most scientists look at the size of the universe in all its mind boggling grandness and say surely we can't be alone, even if there is just .00000001% chance of another earth with other intelligent people on it then surely the universe must be FULL of intelligent life.

And even though we don't know for sure and can't for awhile I'd say that is a logical conclusion.. wouldn't you? I think everyone can pretty much agree there is a chance there is other life out there, and if there is other life then why not intelligent.. it happened here at least once that we know of.

Now if we are not alone what could these other lifeforms be like? Would they be carbon based? Would they be much older than us? Are we among the first intelligent lifeforms to evolve?

Its even logical to assume that intelligent life comes in all kinds of different forms. Especially if life has been around since the first heavy elements showed up and is ancient.

Would you think its possible we may one day in the distant future discover intelligent life far older than we are? If you said yes, and I think most people would say yes... do you think an intelligent race of beings that would possibly be millions or billions of years more advanced than us would be mortal beings?

I seriously doubt any lifeforms that advanced would be bothered with worn out biology, after all what are we but for our memories and ability to ask these very questions? I think flesh and bone is just merely the vehicle we are stuck in by chance of evolution, I think we can evolve into something different eventually. And who knows maybe somebody else already has!

Now let me ask you this..

If we can accept a civilization may exist that is that much more advanced than us, then in effect we are accepting there may be such a conscious intellect out there, there may in fact be some billion year old scientist that has this universe completely figured out.

If fact what if our universe is in fact not as old as some of these civilizations? What if such a civilization set our universe off from another dimension?

The point of these questions is to prove that once you take any question seriously that you cannot answer you can literally sit there and justify the unjustifiable. The fact that science leaves any stone unturned naturally leads to a God solution, that maybe somewhere out there something exists that does understand all that we do not.

I think its comforting to think that way, after all if there is somebody out there that has it all figured out then in effect we can figure it all out as well. If there isn't then my Golly who knows, maybe there simply is no consistent science to explain all we see, maybe even the laws of nature are random and inconsistent without cause or reason!

I prefer to think the universe has some structure, some law that one day we can write down as a mathmatical equation. Thinking that way tends to favor either a faith in the cosmos itself, or the conscious lifeforms tied to it. In effect a faith in God is faith in us, people chose God and heaven so one day they will be with this all knowing all powerful God and then maybe he'll make us all knowing and all powerful too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I believe that the same quest for knowledge motivates both science and faith. And I think the simple chain of questions above shows us that one need not be incompatible with the other. People are too tied up in the details of either their faith in God or their faith in Science and don't step back and wonder why they chase either one!

It may be easy to call some religious people idiots, but hey not everyone can study physics. Somebody has to grow our food and build or toys, some people don't understand math and science enough to have any faith in it at all so they find supernatural solutions. Whereas a scientist could sit down and dedicate his time to explaining away supernatural superstitions with science, the simple guy doesn't have time to even comprehend what hes being told he has to go to work! So its an endless circle jerk really and they keep on hammering each other without end.

One day though we will outgrow all these ancient religions and various lines of thought and habit that hold us back. I don't doubt that some form of religion will always continue on, that is until we do reach a level of knowing everything, but the biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and all other non-tolerant forms of religion I think will eventually die out completely and be replaced with some form of a personal faith. However society must be educated and exposed to other cultures in a productive way for this to happen.. this is happening now but its at a snails pace for all the information access we have.

But back to the original question... if you want to get completely serious about what science can and can't answer. I would argue until science can answer everything we can't really be sure of anything! But I do think the science is already there in front of us, we just don't understand it yet. One day we will figure it out.. shame we wasn't born in that era eh? lol

 

Why must we debate every little minutae thing - surely there are some pages we all can rest on! I see the granite interacting with its atoms. More interesting here is the omega, not the alpha, particles: these seem to come from nowhere and go nowhere again, considered as ghosts. I wonder what they interact with. Is there another dimension out there, like a sort of basement warehouse which controls all partciles, programs them with specific attributes to interact with other particles? Otherwise how does H know how to interact with O and produce water - but not so with any other particles? A 64 trillion light years question!

I don't think science has any notion of origins whatsoever, nor does anyone else: this is barred, not resultant from our mental incapcity. The closest dexcriptions of origins come from Genesis, namely that the uni is finite; that everything was unformed then form occured; and that the origins of everything began in dualities. I know of no scientific premises which delve into these areas. I discount the deflective infinite universe from this issue as a non-answer.