Things that we «KNOW» exist that nobody has ever witnessed ?

Post Reply New Topic

~or at least very few people have ever seen or experienced within their whole entire lives ?

For example, Meteors & Meteorites (i.e.: The Rocks Falling From the Sky), few people if anyone that I know of has ever actually seen one falling & landing & making an impact upon the ground right before their very eyes, although I did see some video-footage of crazy things going on in Russia (but then again maybe those Meteors/Meteorites were CG'd ).

Exclude phenomenon like Poltergeist-Activity since such things are not accepted as even being possible within currently main-stream/conventional-paradigms.

Earth-Quakes are another one that I haven't experienced or witnessed before either (not personally), although I do know of some handful of people who say that they've been in Earth-Quakes before, then of course there are such Scientific-Instruments, like Seismographs, that record & provide information, but more on this kind of technological-equipment another day perhaps in another thread (because I would want to discuss things like those EGGs from the GCP).

I have never seen a wolverine (not even in a zoo), nor a live blue whale, nor have I shaken hands with any of the billion plus citizens of China, but I don't doubt that wolverines, blue whales, and the nation of China exist.

So basically things backed by empirical data vs. things that are not backed by empirical data? Singular molecular structures. I have not seen them first hand with my unaided eye.

We know dinosaurs existed but we have never seen a live one.

We don't know everything about the brain yet.

We have all been born but nobody remembers being born.

Like that?

I am not so certain about dinosaurs in particular, but as far as mammoth-sized creatures, yes, the Blue Whale or just whales in general, and it is estimated that 97% of Marine-Life still have not been discovered or identified yet.

Brains certainly exist but this thread isn't about whether we understand its existence.

People have witnessed the births of babies & have had pets that give birth to puppies or kittens.

Not quite like that, more for like, phenomenon in which very few people, that is if any people that you will ever meet in life, have ever had a chance to experience or witness such things (I, for one have witnessed & experienced what I can only call poltergeist-activity, but its frequency seems to be rare, like that of the sighting of certain comets or meteors or meteorites or asteroids hitting this planet, but poltergeist-phenomenon wouldn't qualify as known existence [and as there were other witnesses what I experienced also cannot be dismissed as mere hallucination either], although the existence of meteoroids & meteorites & meteors & asteroids would qualify as known existence).

Try to think of things in which the frequency of anybody ever having a chance to personally witness it is maybe like once in a life-time or perhaps even only once or twice every hundred years or two or few. Births of babies can be witnessed frequently, brains can be seen from the daily foods we eat if we just chopped open the heads of the chickens or which-ever came out of the meat-department, dinosaurs could potentially qualify, but controversies still surround the ideas of evolution (not to mention the fact that carbon-dating is actually not a reliable method for determining the age of rocks as carbon-dating is actually meant for more organic-materials like dating the age of wood or how long a sheet of paper or ink on said paper has been as an estimate).

I am assuming that the titular "we" is a collective "we", and not limited to any one individual. Therefor, I would have to limit my claim to the "Big Bang" - no one was around to observe and measure it, but all available evidence indicates that it happened.

Wave-particle duality. As far as we know, no-one ever *can* witness it.

Sounds like something someone would say about spirits and god.

Wave-Particle Duality is actually well-known though due to something called: The Double-Slit Experiment

Well, perhaps not necessarily well-known yet, unless you're a physicist who studies Quantum-Mechanics.

That, how-ever, does seem to be something that would qualify for this thread.

I think that we can know that the Double-Slit Experiment exists, even though I have not personally witnessed the experiment for myself, and I can probably safely say that nobody I know has ever done said experiment nor witnessed said experiment for themselves either. There-Fore: The Double-Slit Experiment Exists

This guy claims that said experiment can be done at home (from a quick You-Tube search).
Perhaps we can gather all of the « scientists » from these forums to test these claims for themselves ?

Damnit, time ran out & wouldn't let me edit, even before the 30-minute mark, but anyway, the main thing in question is how to get it so that the results show up as an interference-pattern (i.e.: waves) in one experiment whilst showing up as particles in another (for the latter they claim that the observation-device must be set at the point of where the light/laser is being generated). Basically, putting the camera to view where the light itself is originating should show a particle-pattern, and taking the camera away from the source-point of the light/laser & maybe just pointing it at the wall where the light/laser is being directed into is supposed to display a wave-pattern.

The Double-Slit Experiment is explained in more detail here (although Tom Campbell can get rather long-winded, like myself, and many of you will probably regard him as someone to be dismissed as a Purveyor of Woo, but that's not the point of getting into the details of being able to personally witness Wave/Particle-behaviours for ourselves). Due to my nature of being a « zetetic-skeptic » I need actually see this for myself if possible.

Does Light really behave differently just because there's an observation-device versus not one ?

What is the point of us sharing NON experiences the way you're asking?

What is this supposed to get at?

I have a thing where I absolutely have this need for personally field-testing claims for myself.

Some things that we claim that we absolutely « know » are things that basically MUST have a reason, such as experiments that have been done in order to come to said knowledge, even though over 99.9999997% of the whole entire world's population may have never actually personally seen nor done said experiment for themselves !

Examples:
How many people do you know who own Prisms and have personally tested The Doppler-Effect ?
How many people do you know who personally engage in testing & measuring via Carbon-Dating ?
How many people do you know who own microscopes & personally look at the vaccines/diseases/effects ?
See, the thing is here, yes, I do have a lot of what is called book-knowledge, and a lot of these books sound pretty damn good, but when you get into some of the more high-level scientific-concepts, such as that of Quarks & Neutrinos & Muons & other things that are « various parts & pieces of atoms & molecules », regardless of how many people just accept it as self-evident truth or fact, I STILL WANT TO SEE THE DAMN THING & PERSONALLY DO THE EXPERIMENTS FOR MYSELF SO THAT I CAN SAY THAT I KNOW IT IS FACTUAL/TRUTHFUL FROM PERSONALLY HAVING SEEN IT WITH MY OWN TWO DAMN EYES INSTEAD OF IT JUST BEING MERE BOOK-KNOWLEDGE ! =O

This goes for both the « scientific » and the « spiritual » claims. The « scientific » claims are simply easier to personally test & verify due to supposèd repeatability (except when they become ridiculously expensive & require specialised equipment that nobody or at least anybody that I know of has ever personally seen before such as the Hadron-Collidor).
The « spiritual » claims require para-psychology (i.e.: para-normal science), and are not so easy to test, nor to replicate, although Remote-Viewing seems to be something that has actual-protocols involved for which I intend to eventually get into the testing of it personally (mostly for purposes of testing as to whether or not I can find lost objects or see if I can use it to figure out which of these many keys that are scattered around here go to which locks or doors or if they even are for anything within this house or not).

In that case then that means that you want us each to recount 99.9999 percent of EVERYTHING we know because that's the amount of most folks knowledge that is indirect. You want us each to just recite the whole encyclopedia Britannica. What would be the point of that?

Wouldn't it make more sense to do the opposite. Have us state the few things we HAVE directly observed?

How did you come up with that 99.9999% number ? I just want things that are testable.
What would be the point of things that everybody has already had direct-observation ?

Things disease-causing viruses is certainly indirect for most people, but methods are available for us to be able to gain direct-knowledge ourselves, regarding such things, such as viewing samples in a microscope.

Some things are not as easily accessible to the general-public, such as personally visiting the moon for ourselves, but we still have telescopes (although the necessary models of telescopes for high-quality viewing of extreme distances would probably have too high of price-tags for the average person). One thing that puzzles me about the moon is why there are various dark-spots & light-spots (and sometimes it almost looked to me like a reflection of the earth-map itself).

Who said anything about what "everybody has direct observation of"?
I have observed osprey flying with fish in their talons. Most folks haven't put in the hours of hiking to see that, but I have. So that's a cool scientific thing I saw that not everyone saw. Saw a shooting star once. Not "everyone" has seen one.

But I haven't been on the Hubble, and even if I visited the Hadron collider at Cern I wouldn't know what the heck I would be looking at. I wouldn't know a Higgs Boson if it hit me in the face.

Look through an encyclopedia: most of the knowledge is stuff you know only second hand. If you took a count it would probably be 99 plus percent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Anyhow...

About the Moon: actually the ancients agreedwith you that the Moon looked like a life friendly place with alternating lands and seas that mirrored the earth
they named te dark areas "seas" because that's what the low lying flat dark areas looked like (like the "Sea of Tranquility", 'The Sea of Storms", etc).

The rugged light colored areas are the areas thrown up by impacts with asteroids billions of years ago. The Moon was covered with deep holes. But the holes "healed" when they filled with magma which turned into dark colored basaltic rock (like the dark basaltic lava in Hawaii).