# Is There Anything Known To Be Real That Science Cannot Explain...At All? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 30, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315 "2012-03-30T20:14:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/81 "2012-04-01T06:59:17Z")
> [@benbo1](#): > > well, if there are any thoughtful, non-personal-attack type of answers to the original 10 mysteries, I for one would love to see em. So far, organized science hasn’t provided answers, but if someone has access to non-mainstream journals or recent events, it’d be great. How about you start with supplying a better cite for the existence of these 10 mysteries than a book of lists? If you’re going to post obvious errors like “3. Why we have gallbladders. It’s sole function in life, to secrete bile, is handled just fine by the liver alone” and not accept simple evidence that you’re wrong, there’s really little incentive to interact with you. The gallbladder does not secrete bile, it stores it. It’s sole function in life is to concentrate bile and release it when needed. ---
**Author:** ![benbo1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@benbo1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/benbo1)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/82 "2012-04-01T07:05:51Z")
…and that’s \*really \*that different? The point was the same - we don’t need gallbladders, so why do we have em? Storing vs. secreting - so for something that picayune, that’s an invite to nitpick, bitch, & in general be an asshole? Ok, I guess this particular thread is the wrong place for intelligent discussion, with a few exceptions. Congratulations on a job well done. U got to be snarky, and irritate some1 off the thread. Way to go. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/83 "2012-04-01T10:46:42Z")
> [@benbo1](#): > > …and that’s \*really \*that different? The point was the same - we don’t need gallbladders, so why do we have em? Storing vs. secreting - so for something that picayune, that’s an invite to nitpick, bitch, & in general be an asshole? > Ok, I guess this particular thread is the wrong place for intelligent discussion, with a few exceptions. Congratulations on a job well done. U got to be snarky, and irritate some1 off the thread. Way to go. We can survive without our gallbladders, true. We can also survive without our arms and legs, but I wouldn’t say they have no purpose. We have gallbladders because, for normal digestion, we sometimes need more bile than the liver can produce on demand. A person can live without a gallbladder, true. But that person cannot eat a “normal” unrestricted diet most of the time. They can eat as many vegetables and grains and protein as they like, but if they eat a large amount of fat at one time, they’re going to get a bad bellyache. They’re probably going to get diarrhea, as the fat will stay in too large globules because there’s not enough bile released by the liver to break all the fat down. They’re going to lose fat soluble vitamins in their poop along with that fat, and if it happens often enough, can become deficient in those vitamins over time. There are a few very lucky people who have livers which are overachievers in the bile producing department, and they report no need to change their diet after gall bladder removal. There are other people who have a low fat diet before losing their gall bladder, and so don’t need to change their diet. But the \*vast \*majority of post-gall bladder removal patients need to be very careful about how much fat they ingest at one time, and cannot eat as they did before the surgery. WhyNot, RN (Registered Nurse, for those on the other side of the pond.) ---
**Author:** ![AaronX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7bcc69/32.png) [@AaronX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AaronX)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/84 "2012-04-01T12:01:39Z")
The book, “13 Things That Don’t Make Sense”, by Michael Brooks, might be just what you’re looking for. It’s an interesting read. [13 Things That Don't Make Sense - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Things_That_Don%27t_Make_Sense) ---
**Author:** ![AaronX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7bcc69/32.png) [@AaronX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AaronX)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/85 "2012-04-01T12:22:58Z")
> [@benbo1](#): > > …and that’s \*really \*that different? The point was the same - we don’t need gallbladders, so why do we have em? Storing vs. secreting - so for something that picayune, that’s an invite to nitpick, bitch, & in general be an asshole? By the same logic, we don’t need urinary bladders either. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/86 "2012-04-01T12:31:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The bicycle and bumblebee are both examples of where someone thought they had an explanation, but that explanation was wrong, and the true explanation has since been discovered (or possibly, was known even before the false one was). An airplane with the measurements of a bumblebee wouldn’t be able to fly, but all that means is that bumblebees don’t fly in the same way that airplanes do (and why would we expect that they would?). Likewise, the gyroscopic forces in the wheels of a bicycle aren’t enough to keep it upright, but that just means that there’s another effect doing so instead. In both cases, the real explanations _are_ known, and they work just fine. > > Someone asked on the previous page what dark energy is. To the best of our knowledge, it’s a fluid with negative pressure of the same magnitude as its energy density, which is uniformly distributed through the Universe, and which makes up about 70% of the total energy density of the Universe. And that’s _all_ we know. A fluid…with _negative_ pressure? Interesting. I’m assuming that dark energy isn’t directly observable and that we have theorized its existence based on observations of something else that’s affected by it. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/87 "2012-04-01T12:40:12Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > A fluid…with _negative_ pressure? Interesting. I’m assuming that dark energy isn’t directly observable and that we have theorized its existence based on observations of something else that’s affected by it. Right. If it were something we could produce in a lab, we’d know more; [NASA’s explanation has more diagrams but no more data.](http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/) ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/88 "2012-04-01T12:44:59Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Being. Nothingness. Also, foaming hand soap. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/89 "2012-04-01T12:52:46Z")
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/90 "2012-04-01T12:55:20Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? Chewbacca was into midget porn? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/91 "2012-04-01T12:57:37Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? Why does the Porridge Bird lay his egg in the air? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/92 "2012-04-01T15:29:34Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > A fluid…with _negative_ pressure? Interesting. I’m assuming that dark energy isn’t directly observable and that we have theorized its existence based on observations of something else that’s affected by it. “Dark energy” is basically just another name for “cosmological constant” (to the experts: yes, I know there are less popular dark energy candidates such as quintessence). The cosmological constant is a term appearing naturally in Einstein’s field equations (ie General Relativity), which causes space itself to exponentially expand or contract. Astronomical observations affirm that such a constant exists and is positive (the expansion of the universe is accelerating). The “problem” of “dark energy” is just explaining why the cosmological constant has the value it does. In a sense, this is no more a problem than many others in physics: explaining the arbitrary parameters in the Standard Model, for example. The real difficulties begin when we try to explain dark energy by calculating the vacuum energy (which is equivalent to the cosmological constant) using quantum field theory. We get the wrong answer. But this is not at all surprising, because we know that the Standard Model is only a low energy effective theory, and we do not have a theory of quantum gravity. Anyways, my point is that “dark energy” doesn’t deserve to be categorized as a special problem in physics. It’s ultimate origin is not understood, but then again, neither is the mass of the electron or muon, for example. There are many similar examples of number in physics whose ultimate origin is a total mystery. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/93 "2012-04-01T15:58:33Z")
> [@benbo1](#): > > Actually no, nothing has been explained. But it’s ok, research is hard. :dubious: An extensive collection of back issues of _The Fortean Times_ doesn’t count as research. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/94 "2012-04-01T20:39:56Z")
> [@](#): > > The real difficulties begin when we try to explain dark energy by calculating the vacuum energy (which is equivalent to the cosmological constant) using quantum field theory. We get the wrong answer. To say “we get the wrong answer” is quite possibly the biggest understatement in history. It’s not only wrong, it’s wrong by about 120 orders of magnitude. Note: Not a factor of 120, a factor of 10^120. When you get an answer _that_ far wrong, you feel like you actually understand the problem _less_ than if you had no clue at all. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/95 "2012-04-01T22:56:48Z")
> [@benbo1](#): > > where to begin? I’m sure you’ll find somewhere. Oh, look, you did: > [@](#): > > Re: Marianas Trench - the Puerto Rico trench, which may or may not be considered as ‘officially’ part of the Bermuda Triangle, is opposite the Marianas. A rare cite: [http://www.vindaugagallery.com/archives/391](http://www.vindaugagallery.com/archives/391) > another: [Japan's Dragon's Triangle](http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Places-of-Mystery-and-Power/Japan-s-Dragon-s-Triangle.html) > Of course, whiny nit-pickers love to say ‘you said ‘exactly’’. It’s not ‘exactly’ opposite’. These are the same kind of people who criticize NASA for saying an asteroid will make a near-miss of Earth, when it passes a few thousand miles away. Pay them no mind. Or, if you wanna get on board with them, ignore the fact that in space terms, a few thousand miles is a near miss. These people love to nitpick on details, and refuse to see a big picture. So down to a few feet, I concede the ‘antipodal’ measurement is not down to the foot. It’s a few miles off - and so what? ‘Ah’, but the nitpickers say, ‘these websites you cite from are not accepted general mass-media sources - therefore, the authors just made the whole thing up’. > Ok, also here: [Bermuda Triangle | HISTORY](http://www.history.com/shows/mysteryquest/videos/bermuda-triangle#bermuda-triangle) > Also convenient to overlook is that Earth is not a perfect sphere. On a globe, if you follow along on the equator, dig straight thru, and expect to come out exactly opposite where you plotted, you won’t because of the properties of not being exactly spherical. It must be a huge disappointment & hard to compute for some people that most things in nature are not perfect. But, I suppose it’s easier and more fun to pick apart something that someone else posts, rather than to come up with something on their own. I didn’t say “exactly”, I said “nowhere near”. Your cites are a bunch of fruitcakes not even worth reading if they consider \>3000 miles “a few miles”. I’ve never seen a nit 1/8th the circumference of the planet, let alone picked it. Also, if your idea of a slight departure from perfection and that’s good enough can encompass an error of 1/8th of the whole, then I guess you can justify practically anything as ‘close enough’. Have fun with that. > [@](#): > > Re: gall bladder - commenting that it produces bile… I didn’t say that. I said it _stores_ bile that the liver produces. Can you even read for comprehension, or did you not even _read_ my post, let alone the Wikipedia article that proved you wrong? > [@](#): > > … in no way negates what I said - the liver also produces bile. As is well known in the medical community, the gall bladder is not needed for normal life, nor even normal digestion. But, since there’ll be the inevitable cry of the Nitpicker, ‘Cite’: Your claim that I responded to was that science didn’t know what a gallbladder _did_, not the mere fact that you can live without one. Consequently, since your cites do not support your original claim, but merely where you moved the goalpost in your response to me, we can ignore them. > [@](#): > > It takes an incredibly lazy personality to bitch about someone’s claims, without 1st doing research to back it up. Oh yeah, WebMd and Mayo Clinic: they sound very shifty & questionable, how do we know we can trust them? [/sarcasm] I did ‘research’, before I bitched about your claims, not that I needed to, but merely to find cites that proved the obvious falsity of them. I Googled and gave pretty much the first thing that came up. That’s how ludicrous those two claims were. I’ll leave the rest of your post to be disposed of by the people who already disputed it. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/96 "2012-04-01T23:42:07Z")
Well, nearby to where I live is a place called Kettle Point, Ontario. The ‘kettles’ are actually, very round hard rocks. They show no signs of tooling, are found in the water (surrounded by square edged, flat sided, easily explained rocks) and buried in the ground. You can see them, in situ, half in, half out of the ground. They no longer let people take them. And so far, no explanations as to how they came to be there, or how they were formed. I know you think it cannot be so, but it is. I told me niece this story when she was here getting a masters degree at the uni. Of course she had to see for herself. So off we went for the day. She too was amazed, and could not find any explanation for their appearance or location. I believe a similar thing has been found in Australia, but again, no real explanation offered. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/97 "2012-04-02T00:06:16Z")
> [@benbo1](#): > > b) why the dust next to the rock samples brought back for carbon dating is younger than the rocks. Logic would dictate the dust would be the remains of older rocks that had since crumbled. Dating the rocks and dust showed the dust to be younger. If so, did it come from other younger rocks, but then how’d they get there put next to the older rocks? Something carry them? And how’d they get pulverized? If not an external force, why would the younger rocks crumble and the older ones you’d expect to be more brittle didn’t? > c) glassy surface - according to the astronauts that were there, a lot of the surface is very smooth & reflective, as if it’d been scorched. From what? You’re kidding right? Meteor impacts that have been taking place over eons create intense heat forming glass beads and other forms of glass from various minerals and elements in the regolith. It’ll also spew and disperse younger and/or older lunar material for hundreds of miles. Not to mention early volcanic activity when the moon was young or even the heat from solar radiation. We’ve known this for many decades. ---
**Author:** ![benbo1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@benbo1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/benbo1)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/98 "2012-04-02T00:12:42Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > We can survive without our gallbladders, true. We can also survive without our arms and legs, but I wouldn’t say they have no purpose. > > We have gallbladders because, for normal digestion, we sometimes need more bile than the liver can produce on demand. > > A person can live without a gallbladder, true. But that person cannot eat a “normal” unrestricted diet most of the time. They can eat as many vegetables and grains and protein as they like, but if they eat a large amount of fat at one time, they’re going to get a bad bellyache. They’re probably going to get diarrhea, as the fat will stay in too large globules because there’s not enough bile released by the liver to break all the fat down. They’re going to lose fat soluble vitamins in their poop along with that fat, and if it happens often enough, can become deficient in those vitamins over time. > > There are a few very lucky people who have livers which are overachievers in the bile producing department, and they report no need to change their diet after gall bladder removal. There are other people who have a low fat diet before losing their gall bladder, and so don’t need to change their diet. But the \*vast \*majority of post-gall bladder removal patients need to be very careful about how much fat they ingest at one time, and cannot eat as they did before the surgery. > > WhyNot, RN (Registered Nurse, for those on the other side of the pond.) Thank you, Nurse. This is a very thorough and educative answer - for one, I didn’t know about the fat-digestion thing, and it’s not findable via googling if you don’t know to look for it. Every site I checked on gallbladder removal said that the patient can return to a perfectly normal life and eat as before. I had been consulting with some dox about some unresolved issue, and 1 of the possibilities was gallbladder. In the course of testing, it was discovered mine was fine, but it naturally made me curious and I started researching. I’m sure it won’t be a surprise that not once in the process did anyone (doc, his nurse, the study tech) mention anything about this difference when eating a hi-fat meal. So in the end, we don’t necessarily need one, but a purpose has been explained, and I appreciate your contribution. Would that other repliers on this thread have your common sense and non-abrasive approach. Probably not enough fiber in their diets, and they’re bitchy by not making enough of a shit in the morning - it’s backing up and coming out their fingers when they type (I’m talking to U, Cheshire Human, Jayjay, and Naita). Get out of your mothers’ basements, put down the ‘World of Warcraft’, and read a book on ‘how to interact nicely with people you don’t even know’ (available on Amazon). With your personalities (or lack thereof) as toxic as they are online, I’d be thrilled never to meet in person to see the people behind the legend. Mediocre flaming skills tho. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![benbo1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@benbo1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/benbo1)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/99 "2012-04-02T00:20:34Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > You’re kidding right? > > Meteor impacts that have been taking place over eons create intense heat forming glass beads and other forms of glass from various minerals and elements in the regolith. It’ll also spew and disperse younger and/or older lunar material for hundreds of miles. > > Not to mention early volcanic activity when the moon was young or even the heat from solar radiation. > > We’ve known this for many decades. All that is and was known when the astronauts and NASA brought up these questions. It also wouldn’t explain why the younger rox crumbled before the older, nor why the astronauts saw WHOLE ACRES of glassy surface - by your logic, glassy beads would also be thrown all over, instead of the ‘scorched field’ look the astronauts described. It’s hard, but try googling ‘astronauts glassy surface moon’. Care to address the pinging [again witnessed by the astronauts and NASA] or is that too much research? Probly just easier to ask if I’m just kidding, huh? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315/100 "2012-04-02T00:32:37Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Well, nearby to where I live is a place called Kettle Point, Ontario. > > The ‘kettles’ are actually, very round hard rocks. They show no signs of tooling, are found in the water (surrounded by square edged, flat sided, easily explained rocks) and buried in the ground. You can see them, in situ, half in, half out of the ground. > > They no longer let people take them. And so far, no explanations as to how they came to be there, or how they were formed. [The Origin Of The “Kettles” At Kettle Point, Lake Huron](http://www.whaton.uwaterloo.ca/waton/f901.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-known-to-be-real-that-science-cannot-explain-at-all/617315.md?page=6)