13 Embarrassing things that prove modern science wrong

[code1211]

This doesn't disprove modern science, but rather gives it purpose.

If we understood everything, why would we need scientists?

Conversely why do we even need science to explain things to us and exactly what's the question. Is the role of science to merely understand or is it really to see if humans can control everything.

I like awe, myself.

I like shock and awe. That's why Mrs. Code and I wire our own electrical in the house.

("Okay, Honey. Now connect the white."

"What did you say? The right?"

"Yes, the white. Go ahead!")

 

[rdean]

LIght can be "bent" by gravity. How do we know how far away things are in a straight line since our observations are based on optical "line of sight" which may be curved.

We are no where near figuring out how the universe works.
Some of us just think we are, just as many in each generation does.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make in a very poor attempt. My quote:

Def of "singularity:

A point of infinite density and infinitesimal volume, at which space and time become infinitely distorted according to the theory of General Relativity. According to the big bang theory, a gravitational singularity existed at the beginning of the universe. Singularities are also believed to exist at the center of black holes.

The current rules and laws of this universe don't apply to a singularity. Time stands still for one. Who knows how these laws apply to the "Big Bang" and universal expansion?

We know the temperature was the same everywhere, but an explosion is always chaotic. Which means the temperature would vary. So obviously, the Big Bang wasn't a "typical" explosion.


Since we call black holes singularities and time stands still in the face of infinite gravity and gravity will bend light, as the photons are swallowed by the black hole, whose to say they don't actually increase in speed, after all, they are entering a place where universal laws don't apply.

If light changes speed we will have to change our basic understanding of the universe.

As gravity distorts time the speed of light, which depends on time, will remain constant throughout those distortions. If we could get ourselves outside of space-time and examine light independent of the constraints of space and time we might be able to detect changes in the rate of flow of light. (The language for what I am trying to say does not exist, so please bear with me.) That would not change its speed inside the continuum would still remain constant because it is a function of space-time, and not an independent event.

Isn't a "black hole" called a "singularity" because it's "outside" of our space and time? Only, "there it is", residing within our space and time, only, outside. At what point does matter or photons "transition"? And what do they "transition" to? What laws are being followed?

 

[uscitizen]

That was exactly the point I was trying to make in a very poor attempt. My quote:

Def of "singularity:

A point of infinite density and infinitesimal volume, at which space and time become infinitely distorted according to the theory of General Relativity. According to the big bang theory, a gravitational singularity existed at the beginning of the universe. Singularities are also believed to exist at the center of black holes.

The current rules and laws of this universe don't apply to a singularity. Time stands still for one. Who knows how these laws apply to the "Big Bang" and universal expansion?

We know the temperature was the same everywhere, but an explosion is always chaotic. Which means the temperature would vary. So obviously, the Big Bang wasn't a "typical" explosion.


Since we call black holes singularities and time stands still in the face of infinite gravity and gravity will bend light, as the photons are swallowed by the black hole, whose to say they don't actually increase in speed, after all, they are entering a place where universal laws don't apply.

If light changes speed we will have to change our basic understanding of the universe.

As gravity distorts time the speed of light, which depends on time, will remain constant throughout those distortions. If we could get ourselves outside of space-time and examine light independent of the constraints of space and time we might be able to detect changes in the rate of flow of light. (The language for what I am trying to say does not exist, so please bear with me.) That would not change its speed inside the continuum would still remain constant because it is a function of space-time, and not an independent event.

Isn't a "black hole" called a "singularity" because it's "outside" of our space and time? Only, "there it is", residing within our space and time, only, outside. At what point does matter or photons "transition"? And what do they "transition" to? What laws are being followed?

Laws that humans will most likely never understand.
Humans are just a blip in the cosmic scale of things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It all depends on the frame of reference

No it does not.

Changing your tune already?

If we could get ourselves outside of space-time and examine light independent of the constraints of space and time we might be able to detect changes in the rate of flow of light.

Getting outside one frame of reference into an other frame of reference has nothing to do with the frame of reference?

The universe is not a frame of reference. Even if we managed to get outside of it, everything inside of it would still be governed by the laws of the universe. That is why I clearly qualified my discussion by saying the language to describe what I was saying does not exist.

Regardless, I cannot explain what I am saying to someone who clearly does not understand basic physics. Have you learned the difference between velocity and speed yet? Can you explain why velocity can change while speed is unaffected?

I am not changing my tune, you just do not understand my position. Neither do I, to be honest, but at least I know I do not understand it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That was exactly the point I was trying to make in a very poor attempt. My quote:

Def of "singularity:

A point of infinite density and infinitesimal volume, at which space and time become infinitely distorted according to the theory of General Relativity. According to the big bang theory, a gravitational singularity existed at the beginning of the universe. Singularities are also believed to exist at the center of black holes.

The current rules and laws of this universe don't apply to a singularity. Time stands still for one. Who knows how these laws apply to the "Big Bang" and universal expansion?

We know the temperature was the same everywhere, but an explosion is always chaotic. Which means the temperature would vary. So obviously, the Big Bang wasn't a "typical" explosion.


Since we call black holes singularities and time stands still in the face of infinite gravity and gravity will bend light, as the photons are swallowed by the black hole, whose to say they don't actually increase in speed, after all, they are entering a place where universal laws don't apply.

If light changes speed we will have to change our basic understanding of the universe.

As gravity distorts time the speed of light, which depends on time, will remain constant throughout those distortions. If we could get ourselves outside of space-time and examine light independent of the constraints of space and time we might be able to detect changes in the rate of flow of light. (The language for what I am trying to say does not exist, so please bear with me.) That would not change its speed inside the continuum would still remain constant because it is a function of space-time, and not an independent event.

Isn't a "black hole" called a "singularity" because it's "outside" of our space and time? Only, "there it is", residing within our space and time, only, outside. At what point does matter or photons "transition"? And what do they "transition" to? What laws are being followed?

Those are the questions that make life interesting.

 

[JBeukema]

If we were outside the universe, we'd be bound by the laws of the universe?

Really? And which orifice did you pull that out of?

you just do not understand my position. Neither do I

So you finally admit you have no idea what you're talking about

Mark the time and date- prisonpig said something honest for once

 

[rdean]

I still don't understand why "seeking knowledge" is "embarrassing? I would think "not seeking knowledge" would be embarrassing.