List of problems that we have not yet solved in physics
-
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
-
It's good to identify things that we don't know, and then work on them.
The worst thing is when we don't understand, and refuse to admit, that we don't know, like fools who are so sure that they know exactly how things are. Not admitting ignorance or possible misconception is very dangerous. Such intellectual arrogance is really dangerous ignorance. This is of course all too common in religion, but not only there. This stubborn ignorance reaches into every field touched by the human mind. Mankind is continuously occupied in a vain game of guessing. Few are those who really ponder and gain some understanding. Many are those who know it all, and are ready to judge you as apostate, blasphemer, heretic, idiot or what not. People are many times worse than animals.
Admitting ignorance is healthy, and is a required step for moving ahead towards further knowledge and understanding.
-
Peace
quite,
several times Scientists devise models to map the world, then when these are established, it becomes a dogma, and they confuse the world with their models, and stay stuck in them in a box...
hence the beloved expression of successful entrepreneurs think outside of the box...
when breakthroughs happen after much fighting and wrangling, new models emerge, they call this a paradigm shift, and the cycle resumes again... usually paradigm shifts come in times of crisis when new ideas are needed to tackle new threats, such as a pandemic, or scarcity of resources...
maybe when oil runs out, they will start using Tesla's inventions to derive energy? ;D
-
It's also irritating to see how scientists categorically (if I may generalize) dismiss "alternative" medicine as bogus. And they cleverly do it be saying that "there is no scientific evidence for xyz".
In my opinion, there are two modes of the mind and one's attitude. One is shut down, and one is progressive. Either you're out to confirm (even unconsciously) what you already believe, or your out to explore and discover without rigid expectations. In order for us to be able to avoid the shut down, defensive mode, we must know how we work and why and how the defensive mode is in place. Ignorance about the mechanics of one self inadvertently lead to ignorance about the surrounding.
I like paradigm shifts.
-
Agreed. Science will answer these problems in the future though. The problem is we aren't that advanced yet. In about a hundred years or so we will get answers to many of these problems.
The worst thing is when we also understand we still deny these things out of ignorance. It's really embarassing how with all the technology and modern education we have that some people still deny things only because out of ignorance. There are even those religious who reject medicine and consider it a bad thing because it goes against their traditional beliefs. Like Jesus.. Those people are the reason to why several diseases are spreading in Saudi-Arabia today.
It's also irritating to see how scientists categorically (if I may generalize) dismiss "alternative" medicine as bogus. And they cleverly do it be saying that "there is no scientific evidence for xyz".
It is what they do with the existance of a God/Allah. They can't draw the conclusion that a God exists or not based on religion and history. Religion has indeed screwed up several times but that does not disprove letalone prove the existance of a God or an intelligent creator. Heck what we call God might not be a God in reality but a highly advanced civilization or he might not exist. Take these possibilities into consideration. At the same time does who argue how God came into existance can argue the same for the Universe. So Atheists could be right too. Still science will never be able to prove letalone disprove the existance of a God as God is not bound to the laws of physics. Science can only prove things that are bound to the laws of physics. Most scientists will often avoid attacking the existance of a God as there is always a possibility of his existance and he surely did not create any of the religions that exist on planet Earth. God is not primitive. Einstein believed that the Universe was a God, basically he had pantheistic beliefs and Carl Sagan held similar beliefs. Here is what Carl Sagan said about God
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity"
The String theory could give us an id?a on where the Big Bang came from. It is the theory which says that everything in the universe is made up of very tiny vibrating strings. Sadly many dislike this theory because it claims parallel universes and that is one thing we haven't been able to prove.
A Biocentric universe is another example of what we dismiss due to the lack of evidence. The good part is? We bring up all these logical possibilities. Even if we do not find any scientific evidence we should still give them credit for giving us new possibilities to think about. These theories are good because they open our mind and allows us to think outside the box.
-
Two things I'd like to share;
- a poem -
This mystery will not end
This search for truth is fraught with error
This precious walk between death and life
Is filled with both awe and terrorOne blind corner
Leads to two blind alleys
By now you?d expect the grand finaleYet here I am
Still awake
Conscious of every breath I takeYou say that God does not exist
Yet I sincerely ask - then why do we?A random blur
A spontaneous out growth
A grandiose cruel cosmic joke
A fiction penned by some unknown author?The universe? - is all you offer
And so I give you the benefit of the doubt
And labor away in calculation
Fields, strings, groups, codes, spheres, loops, and all other contortions?The universe? - is all you say
Then carry on your merry way
And I envy you in your self satisfaction
As I ponder this ?principle of least action?And all my friends have grown and cried
Yet here I remain - with this resounding ?why??Why me or you?
Or the universe?
I demand an answer in a single verse!? His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ?Be,? and it is.?
two - a little metaphor of science
http//avaguenotion.tumblr.com/post/122981347034/the-white-dolphin-theory -
Can you post your poems here please
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607529.0
-
Hello,
Science uses empiricism and can prove things that are concrete and observable and possible to experience, but it has hurdles when it comes to faith. Even psychology has had problems being defined as a science because the topic is so abstract and difficult to prove.
However science can be used to confirm statements such as that the universe as we know it is made of heat or energy which is told by Quran. Just break an atom and tremendous amounts of energy is radiated as both light and heat.
Extreme heat causes an object to disintegrate when it reaches its threshold of resistance, but it usually starts to become weaker quite early.
Extreme cold causes the object to become fragile and shatters easily and if it was a gas it usually become solid after a certain degree.
The usually only way to keep an item safe is by keeping it in a balanced environment.
But we must say that without heat we cannot survive and not even material will be of any use because it loses its functionality whereas if too hot it begins melting and the phenomenon fire occurs.
In this is a parable to reflect upon
It is notable that the Arabic word usually used to say fire means light or heat literally, or energy combined (root Nun-Waw-Ra). Fire is not an element so it means the word cannot mean fire because something cannot be made of fire. Fire is a visible chemical reaction that occurs with its flame being released heat and particles and the color of the flame is different depending on temperature. It is triggered by heat and can be induced through friction.
So if one says something is made of fire in Arabic it must be a misconception and must refer to energy or heat because light is a visual result of the chemical reaction.
This is an example on how science can help to bring explanation on religious faith and stop the dumbening effect it has on people. It is very empirical what I have written and can be verified through through a reproduction of the experience as is a prerequisite to be called science in the first place.
Be well
-
Agreed. Science will answer these problems in the future though. The problem is we aren't that advanced yet. In about a hundred years or so we will get answers to many of these problems.
Science is a methodology, not a 'party', individual or group, thus it cannot answer anything.
Scientific method is a great tool to prove or disprove a certain hypothesis / assumption / FAITH.
The 'issue' of the so-called Science vs Faith came up due to the childish attitude from those who cannot prove his/her hypothesis,assumption or faith. Or those who just cannot accept the fact that his / her hypothesis / assumption / faith has been proven to be wrong.
Einstein believed that the Universe was a God, basically he had pantheistic beliefs and Carl Sagan held similar beliefs.
Incorrect.. it should be PANENTHEISM and not PANTHEISM.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanentheismEinstein is a Jew, and that's how most Jews sees YHVH. (Here, there, everywhere at all times and beyond)
And that is why they came up with a conclusion that there is only one YHVH.
In similar manner as the Hindus sees "Brahman" and the chinese sees "Tao"..A stark contrast compared to their cousins (Christians or Muslim).
Most of them insist that there's only one God without understanding why it is only one.. rotflBack to the main topic..
I wish somebody came up with simpler and low cost mean to store big amount of electrical energy.
It will come very soon however..And it will start a new age, beyond the current 'fossil fuel age'.. perhaps dubbed 'electrical age'...
Electric car will be common and low cost, electric plane and a smart phone or laptop that can last one month without any recharge. -
Science is a methodology, not a 'party', individual or group, thus it cannot answer anything.
Scientific method is a great tool to prove or disprove a certain hypothesis / assumption / FAITH.
The 'issue' of the so-called Science vs Faith came up due to the childish attitude from those who cannot prove his/her hypothesis,assumption or faith. Or those who just cannot accept the fact that his / her hypothesis / assumption / faith has been proven to be wrong.
I was refering to things that are bound to the laws of physics. Science can't prove or disprove God for example letalone anything spiritual of course not.
Incorrect.. it should be PANENTHEISM and not PANTHEISM.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanentheismEinstein is a Jew, and that's how most Jews sees YHVH. (Here, there, everywhere at all times and beyond)
And that is why they came up with a conclusion that there is only one YHVH.
In similar manner as the Hindus sees "Brahman" and the chinese sees "Tao"..A stark contrast compared to their cousins (Christians or Muslim).
Most of them insist that there's only one God without understanding why it is only one.. rotflBack to the main topic..
I wish somebody came up with simpler and low cost mean to store big amount of electrical energy.
It will come very soon however..And it will start a new age, beyond the current 'fossil fuel age'.. perhaps dubbed 'electrical age'...
Electric car will be common and low cost, electric plane and a smart phone or laptop that can last one month without any recharge.Thanks for the clarification.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"."
-
I was refering to things that are bound to the laws of physics. Science can't prove or disprove God for example letalone anything spiritual of course not.
Thanks for the clarification.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"."
Science can "prove" God! It just depends on what you call God!
"Science" is another name of my God.
science (n.) Look up science at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, to split" (cognates Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)).