Thread 16717618

what are some phenomenons or things that science still can't explain/ remain mysterious?0

>>16717618 (OP)
UAPs

subjective experience

Flowering Cosmos
Stellaris 10+
New Advanced A.G.I. High Concept Fiction
Which Can Be Understood

>>16717618 (OP)
How NASA lost the technology to get us to the moon

>>16717636
DEI

>>16717618 (OP)
>what is dark matter composed of?
>what does a black hole singularity look like? What properties does it have?
>what does the inside of a black hole look like?
>why is the universe expanding?
To name a few

>>16717618 (OP)
How life came to exist, where the universe came from, are we alone, how old the universe is, what consciousness is, et.

Basically all of the big questions. Science is mostly about practical utility, getting planes to fly, lighting homes, allowing you to shit post, extending life. Some day we will have answers to the other stuff but right now it's a lot of placeholder meme theories which get overturned completely ever 30yrs like in psychology or anthropology (meme fields).

EMF

>>16717618 (OP)
phenomena

>>16717636
That one's easy

They strapped three insane guys on top of the dumbest most powerful rocket you could imagine, designed in such a way that it just barely stayed within safety margins while in operation, and built with parts that were entirely formed by hand

The mission itself was planned and operated entirely from the ground with only the most critical local calculations and measurements done on the spacecraft, which was driven entirely by a timetable accurate down to fractions of a second.

If you approached modern NASA with a proposal with those kinds of risks, they'd rightly turn you down and the astronauts themselves would refuse to fly. So Artemis is what NASA would design Apollo like today with a budget only a small fraction of what it was back then

>>16717632
What's there to explain? Different inputs affect different people differently because of their internal paremeters.

>>16717618 (OP)
>science still can't explain
Science never has and never will explain anything.
The scientific method is a methodology used to identify and model reproducible patterns in the current observable reality. All "explainations" are man-made myths pasted onto said models. The explaination "apple falls to the ground due to gravity" and "apple falls to the ground due to spirit/aliens/God" is fundamentally the same (and ultimately meaningless) so long as the predictive model behind any "explaination" adequately captures the correlation between all the measurable varibles of the fall.

>>16718282
whats this? please

>>16717618 (OP)
Ball lightning

>>16718467
>Just because your model is useful enough to make the difference between the stone age and the digital age doesn't mean its the ultimate truth about how reality functions.
If God did it then that doesn't explain anything about how God does it.

>>16717618 (OP)
It's faster to freeze hot water than cold water.

>>16718644
>my monkey brain managed to model through trial and error to predict current trends I therefore magically understands the ultimate truth about the universe.
As impressive as it is to us at the present, is the leap from stone to digital age the grand pinnacle of achivement in all of creation?
As for God - If, hypothetically, an ultimate being did create this place, then it would be the fundmental source of everything. "How" only applies when there is something more fundamental, which then the less fundamental would need to explain how it utilized said source.
When talking about a hypothetical ultimate Source itself, there is no "how", it just does what it does.

How can OP still and continue to be a fucking faggot?
The world will never know.

>>16718665
>I just do what I do, move my hand or something.
>Scientists need 1.112 pages Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology to "explain" how.
>Therefore I'm God to scientists.
God is so retarded she doesn't know herself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry

glhf

>>16718847
thanks

>>16718376
>filtered this hard
explain how physical processes give rise to phenomenal experience, i'm waiting

Check out "Strange Phenomena" by William R. Corliss. At least two+ volumes.

there's a bunch of examples such as: abiogenesis, why we dream, plate tectonics' trigger, ball lighting, magnetoception in animals, placebo effect's power

>>16719461
>plate tectonics' trigger
we still don't know this one?

>>16717618 (OP)
>what are some phenomenons or things that science still can't explain/ remain mysterious?0
two of them:
1) why can't retards remember that the plural of 'phenomenon' is 'phenomena'?
2) what is the bayesian probability that OP is a bot if the prior is 0.5, considering there's a stray '0' at the end of the question?

>>16717618 (OP)
Why I have no gf

>>16721505
I suggest we focus on easier problems first, like cold fusion, FTL travel and artificial inertia.

>>16718467
tsmt

>>16718644
If gravity did it, that doesn't explain how gravity does it either.

>>16722814
Bingo

The remaining 5% in any given subject.
You dig the causality rabbithole deep enough, eventually you will face the halting problem and stop understanding things way before you make it to the bottom.

>>16718467
This

>>16718951
Not him but the problem with the hard problem is that it takes one unexplained phenomenon and is usually followed by an attempt to mystify it. No one talks about the hard problem of aspirin even though we don't know the physical processes that make it work.

>>16717618 (OP)
Why is there anything?

>>16718616
EMF (Electromotive Force) for plebs, that's E or V (Voltage)

>>16723394
thanks

>>16717618 (OP)
>what are some phenomenons or things that science still can't explain/ remain mysterious?0
Wooden doors.

>>16718847
Rip the last few hours of my day

>>16718951
there is no hard problem, that's a brainlet concept

>>16723310
because it clearly can be. simple as

>>16718365
NASA vs NASCAR

>>16718636
>Ball lightning
There's actually a thread for this.
Actually, there's about 5,643 threads about this:
>>>/x/40706429

>>16718646
>It's faster to freeze hot water than cold water.
Thank you for brining this up!
The other day, this happened to run through my mind, and it brought some mental visions depicting a physical model as the product of these 'abstract'(comprehensibly-reprsentable&reproducible 'kinds of feel') computationally/testable ways to verify/adjust for precision which might possibly further extend relevance to some other stuff.

I know that doesn't make sense, but I promise, the actual thought behind the salad is indescribably more reasonably cogent, so much so that I'd almost be surprised if there isn't already accepted literature describing the thing I'm thinking of.

>>16718174
The very existence of all of those is purely theoretical. There is still a chance that the math behind all of them is wrong.

>>16724350
Singularities are a math artifact, dark energy and dark matter are pretty valid though unconfirmed theories, but black holes are already confirmed and are just there, being smug as they anally rape our mathematical models.

nasa sold their soul to get to the moon theyd have to do it again physics isnt all that good you know lmao