Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yahya A.Sharif on 29/11/2020 19:20:45
-
So , science is real we see phenomena and explain them well.
Magic is real , we see unbelievable actions done by magicians.
Magic is real , but it contradicts science.
I see those people who fly , gathering many people from inside a small box, etc
Magic is not only about some magical performances that we don't know how they works , but also magical actions that contracts science .An example of silence contradiction : How a volume of 10 men with specific density be placed inside a small box .Or how these men disappear if mass can't be destroyed.
It is not one thing we are waiting for some scientist to explain , it is a huge reality that contracts science.
We can not ignore scientists who accept religion and have arguments whose they believe are logical and we can not ignore those scientists who reject religion and question its validity . If so why not for religion , God created the universe in 6 days and the world came from a big bang.
An equivalent :
A) A magician created a person from inside a box " religion " and
B) The person already exists " science".
If silence rejects A then it is against reality , if religion rejects B then it is a against the reality of the universe.
-
Do you understand that "magic" is not real?
-
The "magic" done by stage magicians are illusions. Tricks. They are not real.
-
The "magic" done by stage magicians are illusions. Tricks. They are not real.
This how to be describing some phenomena that do not go with science.If we see something " illusions" that it really has been done by "tricks" and when touching a box and touching the 10 men"not real ", so What it left to judge it true?
If you say the above you will also have a scientific problem by the need to define that illusion how it exists ? how this is out of our scientific observation tool ?
-
All the "magic" tricks rely on not letting people see what is really happening.
But science is about making observations.
-
Some easy ones are tricks some are not ,here are several explained magics
https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/10-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-magic-tricks-revealed-364360/
But I do not have any source in which the magician himself tell its reason .
The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time. The floating man is simply uses the stick for balance.
The important question is how scientifically this floating person raise himself , keep his body shape and stand still for a long period ? I did not find any explanation in the web than the above .And above all there is not an official scientific source that talk about it.
-
If you say the above you will also have a scientific problem by the need to define that illusion how it exists ?
"If I can't explain how it was done then it must be magic" is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. So please avoid doing that again. It's flawed reasoning.
Some easy ones are tricks some are not
Please show us some examples of magic acts that are not tricks. Make sure to provide plenty of strong evidence to back up your assertions.
-
The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time.
Here is a man doing essentially the same thing.
He explains how the "trick" is done,.
It is an illusion.
https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20170630-silver-man-secret/
-
Science does a mathematical magic trick, similar to levitation, called relative reference. The trick is based using energy signals and only the eyes to define motion between references. The trick works by leaving something important out of the field of view. This sets of hidden wires is called conservation of energy, through inertia and momentum.
For example, say we have a car and train in relative motion. Both run very quiet and smooth so it is hard to tell motion, based on any sense of feeling; inertia. We have only the eyes and can measure a relative velocity V from either reference, but we cannot tell who is moving with our eyes alone.
The trick has to do with energy conservation. If the train is moving, based on the accurate tracking of the fuel used to set up the entire experiment, the amount of energy as kinetic energy for the train moving will be much higher, than it would be for the car. We see relative motion but energy conservation sets a priority that is not relative. The fuel total tells us the exact velocity of the train and car since the total energy has to add up.
If these hidden wires are known in advance, the trick does not work. Unfortunately, as we look out into the universe, we have no clue of energy balances. The hidden wires are out of view and the universe can appear to have no center of gravity, even if implied by energy conservation. This trick fools most of science until they ponder that energy conservation are the hidden wires.
-
Science does a mathematical magic trick, similar to levitation, called relative reference. The trick is based using energy signals and only the eyes to define motion between references. The trick works by leaving something important out of the field of view. This sets of hidden wires is called conservation of energy, through inertia and momentum.
For example, say we have a car and train in relative motion. Both run very quiet and smooth so it is hard to tell motion, based on any sense of feeling; inertia. We have only the eyes and can measure a relative velocity V from either reference, but we cannot tell who is moving with our eyes alone.
The trick has to do with energy conservation. If the train is moving, based on the accurate tracking of the fuel used to set up the entire experiment, the amount of energy as kinetic energy for the train moving will be much higher, than it would be for the car. We see relative motion but energy conservation sets a priority that is not relative.
If these hidden wires are known in advance, the trick does not work. If we look out into the universe, we have no clue of energy balances, since the hidden wires are out of view and the universe can appear to have no center of gravity, that is implied by energy conservation. This trick fools most of science until they consider energy conservation.
Please don't derail this into a discussion about relativity. There is no magic in it.
-
Science does a mathematical magic trick, similar to levitation, called relative reference. The trick is based using energy signals and only the eyes to define motion between references. The trick works by leaving something important out of the field of view. This sets of hidden wires is called conservation of energy, through inertia and momentum.
For example, say we have a car and train in relative motion. Both run very quiet and smooth so it is hard to tell motion, based on any sense of feeling; inertia. We have only the eyes and can measure a relative velocity V from either reference, but we cannot tell who is moving with our eyes alone.
The trick has to do with energy conservation. If the train is moving, based on the accurate tracking of the fuel used to set up the entire experiment, the amount of energy as kinetic energy for the train moving will be much higher, than it would be for the car. We see relative motion but energy conservation sets a priority that is not relative.
If these hidden wires are known in advance, the trick does not work. If we look out into the universe, we have no clue of energy balances, since the hidden wires are out of view and the universe can appear to have no center of gravity, that is implied by energy conservation. This trick fools most of science until they consider energy conservation.
Please don't derail this into a discussion about relativity. There is no magic in it.
In the case of levitation, the hidden wires are exerting the extra force needed to balance out gravity, so the assistant appears to defy gravity. The hidden wires are part of an energy balance that cannot be seen by the audience. They calculate the energy differently in their head, and then they are coaxed to add an anti-gravity addendum; levitation. Relative reference does the same thing, but in a different way. The eyes cannot see the momentum that satisfies an unknown energy balance. It takes science skills to do magic, and science skills to figure out how it works.
-
Isn't our modern"Science" the practical accomplishment of all the ancient dreams of "Magic".
-
Isn't our modern"Science" the practical accomplishment of all the ancient dreams of "Magic".
I suppose one might interpret it that way, but the OP seems to be talking about magic in the literal sense.
-
This short video explains a lot about what magic is.
So for those who don't accept magic, the title could be changed to
Not accepting magic? Why religion?
-
This short video explains a lot about what magic is.
So for those who don't accept magic, the title could be changed to
Not accepting magic? Why religion?
Magic makes use of the sense of sight. Sight is critical to the magic of levitation or card tricks. Since we cannot see God, sight is not as important to religion as science or magic.
In the Wizard of Oz, the wizard used a visual display to create the magic illusion of an all powerful wizard. Religion does not depend on sight the same way, but rather works using an inner vision and intuition; faith. These are different senses, more in line with feelings and hunches. Although religion will often use static statues; subjective power of art, to bridge the sense of sight.
Frontier Science often uses the same approach as religion. For example, nobody has proven that dark energy or dark matter exists. These cannot satisfy the eyes or the visual senses since we cannot see them, even with the best tools. However, this theory appears to satisfy an inner feeling and intuition, that we need something to close the energy balance. Like in religion, these feelings make things appear to add up. Darwinism uses the same approach, since it cannot be used to make accurate predictions, like most rational relationships.
If you consider applied science, such as engineering, one often has to create or innovate things that are not yet in existence. One cannot use sight, since it does not yet exist. Instead, you take the religious approach of hunches and intuitions blended with experience. Like a little god, you try to go beyond nature to something never seen in nature. After it works, and others can see it, then they jump on the band wagon and call the final product science. But we only got there; eureka, based on hunches and intuitions of what may be, but which originally cannot be seen to prove it can exist.
The main difference is sight is more connected the ego and the conscious mind, while the inner vision and intuition is the gateway to the inner self and the unconscious mind. Religion teaches one to tap into this higher human potential, that is beyond what can be easily seen by all. Religion also allows a way, that is resource light, so all can develop their full potential.
-
Magic makes use of the sense of sight.
Not necessarily. I've learned a close range magic which relies on touch. But it only works for a small number of audiences.
Visual demonstration of magic has advantage of ability to serve a lot of audiences at once.
-
If you consider applied science, such as engineering, one often has to create or innovate things that are not yet in existence. One cannot use sight, since it does not yet exist. Instead, you take the religious approach of hunches and intuitions blended with experience. Like a little god, you try to go beyond nature to something never seen in nature. After it works, and others can see it, then they jump on the band wagon and call the final product science. But we only got there; eureka, based on hunches and intuitions of what may be, but which originally cannot be seen to prove it can exist.
Alternatively, we can use some trial and error to gather more data, and then recognize the patterns that show up to develop a representative model of the system we are trying to build or understand.
-
For example, nobody has proven that dark energy or dark matter exists.
Yes they have.
Darwinism uses the same approach, since it cannot be used to make accurate predictions,
Yes it can.
Why do you keep posting your wrong opinions as if they are facts?
-
The main difference is sight is more connected the ego and the conscious mind, while the inner vision and intuition is the gateway to the inner self and the unconscious mind.
That's getting quite close to insulting all teh blind people in the world.
-
I do not have any source in which the magician himself tell its reason .
Professional conjurers (I despise the term magician) have a worldwide trade-union-cum-learned-society, The Magic Circle. Members are sworn to secrecy. This can make life difficult: I was invited to invest in developing an excellent new illusion but refused because the inventor wouldn't disclose the mechanism even to his business associates.
Fifty years on, I'm still baffled by a trick Robert Harbin performed at a student gig. He said he had memorised every word in a novel. He passed the book around the audience, turned his back, and said "stop", then asked for a volunteer to come on the stage, where she was blindfolded. Next, he asked members of the audience to call out three numbers, say A, B. C. He told the woman holding the book to turn to page A line B word C, then asked the blindfolded volunteer "what is that word?" She answered correctly. I spoke to both women afterwards. Both freshers who hadn't met, had never seen Harbin before, and were clearly disturbed by the trick. The blindfolded "volunteer" (she had been sitting next to me and I persuaded her to do it) said "The word just came into my head and I couldn't think of anything else".
There are a few TV films of Harbin at work with mechanical illusions and sleight of hand, but I've never seen anything to compare with that live performance.
-
The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time.
Here is a man doing essentially the same thing.
He explains how the "trick" is done,.
It is an illusion.
https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20170630-silver-man-secret/
This is the video of the man in your link and he does it. he simply uses support for his body which is logical.The man in my link can not put any hidden support .
This exact one is a trick version for the real magic man https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/10-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-magic-tricks-revealed-364360/
-
.The man in my link can not put any hidden support .
Yes he does.
We know this because magic is not real.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ] If he is using magic, what is the little carpet for?
-
carpet.jpg (97.13 kB . 666x280 - viewed 4474 times)If he is using magic, what is the little carpet for?
He uses his stick for balance, and as you imply he uses the disk for balance as well .Anyway still it is not logical to keep his shape for a long time.
-
Anyway still it is not logical to keep his shape for a long time.
Why not?
He's sat on a frame.
-
Anyway still it is not logical to keep his shape for a long time.
It sounds like you are still going with the argument from ignorance. You are basically saying, "If I can't figure out how he did it logically through non-magical means, then he must have used magic to do it".
-
It sounds like you are still going with the argument from ignorance. You are basically saying, "If I can't figure out how he did it logically through non-magical means, then he must have used magic to do it".
It is not supposed to be "non-magical" means it is supposed to be unknown means.
If I can not know how he did it through any means then he uses what I can call it magic.
-
If I can not know how he did it through any means then he uses what I can call it magic.
That approach does not make sense.
So, you think your computer works by magic?
Or are you able to say exactly how all the components in it work?
Until someone taught you to read and write, reading and writing were magic, but now that you know how they are done they are not magic anymore.
If I know how to build a laser and you don't; is it magic or not?
If you got there early in the morning and saw the Silver Man setting up, you would know how it works so it would not be magic.
But if you got there later it would be magic because you would not know how it was done.
But then you saw that youtube video, and now it isn't magic any more.
Your use of the word magic seems rather arbitrary.
-
If I can not know how he did it through any means then he uses what I can call it magic.
That approach does not make sense.
So, you think your computer works by magic?
I formulate the sentence wrong Kryptid says before I discovered it I already take it as non-magical but what I was trying to say is, before I discovered it , it is unknown , after Discovered it I can describe it as magic.
-
after Discovered it I can describe it as magic.
After you discover that he is sitting on a metal seat, you can call it magic.
That makes even less sense.
Why do you not think that the man in the video you posted is not sitting on a metal frame?
Metal frames (and people pretending to float in the air) are common.
Magic is so rare that we have no evidence that it exists.
Why do you choose the impossibly rare event, rather than the common one?
-
"Magic" - encompasses all the possible operations of the Universe.
"Science" - restricts itself to operations that we can, with our present knowledge, rationalise.
-
"Magic" - encompasses all the possible operations of the Universe.
I think it encomapasses the impossible ones; that's the point.
You can't turn a pumpkin into a carriage.
-
"Magic" - encompasses all the possible operations of the Universe.
I think it encomapasses the impossible ones; that's the point.
You can't turn a pumpkin into a carriage.
Pumpkins and carriages are both composed of atoms. If we gain enough control of these atoms, through Science, there seems no theoretical reason for a pumpkin/carriage transformation to be impossible, don't you think?
-
, through Science, there seems no theoretical reason for a pumpkin/carriage transformation to be impossible, don't you think?
There's a really obvious one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
That's the point.
Magic lets you ignore reality, and that's what the OP is doing when he says the man couldn't be sitting on a frame.
Also if
"Magic" - encompasses all the possible operations of the Universe.
then the operation of making bread into toast is magic.
That doesn't seem right tome.
-
The universe is built by an intelligent creator.The creation is well designed. This is what religious scientists claim.No person observed the big bang ,it didn't happen , but the BBT is how physics works.God built the universe , even though according to science the universe comes from a big bang but God " magician " did it in 6 days.
The floating man needs force against gravity " physics behind universe creation " he floats without force " Without big bang " he did it " universe creation " He is the person who did it " God"
-
, through Science, there seems no theoretical reason for a pumpkin/carriage transformation to be impossible, don't you think?
There's a really obvious one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
That's the point.
Magic lets you ignore reality, and that's what the OP is doing when he says the man couldn't be sitting on a frame.
Also if
"Magic" - encompasses all the possible operations of the Universe.
then the operation of making bread into toast is magic.
That doesn't seem right tome.
Boredchemist,
Thanks for your post. On the subject of the pumpkin/carriage transformation, several interesting questions could be raised, including the relative sizes of pumpkins and carriages in a Lilliputian world; also why you assume that "Conservation of Energy" is an inviolable law. But leave that for another time!
As regards the transformation of bread into toast, it would indeed seem a Magical process to both of us, if we were Pliocene anthropoids with nascent understanding, but no usage of fire.
Which of course, we're not. I think.
-
also why you assume that "Conservation of Energy" is an inviolable law. But leave that for another time!
Why leave it?
The answer is quick enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
it would indeed seem a Magical process
The important word there is "seem".
-
There are a lot to learn from this video about James Randi which is closely related to this topic.
-
In my opinion, I believe that "magic" and "tricks" are not "magic"/supernatural (if you get what I mean). There is nothing special about these things. It is all science and lots of maths. For example, if you are doing one of the "I know your card but I wasn't looking" tricks, you will need to use lots of maths (I think) to pick the right card. The only interesting thing about magic is that it is science that "tricks" people (or should I say science that tricks other peoples' conciseness/mind). Tell me if I am wrong.
Also,
The main difference is sight is more connected the ego and the conscious mind, while the inner vision and intuition is the gateway to the inner self and the unconscious mind.
Sounds like a rude version of Professor Trelawny from Harry Potter...
-
There are a lot to learn from this video about James Randi which is closely related to this topic.
My point in bringing this video was, if there were any legit supernatural power posessed by anyone, they could have won the million dollar challenge offered by James Randi. The fact that there were no winner tells us to confidently reject supernatural claims, especially when they are performed to collect money or other financial gains.
I enjoy watching magic tricks for fun, and learned some of them. It reminds us that we are vulnerable to deceptions whether intentional or not, and having critical thinking is necessary to protect us from them.
-
Yes, they are all deceptions...
-
“One man’s magic is another man’s engineering” — Robert A. Heinlein
-
“One man’s magic is another man’s engineering” — Robert A. Heinlein
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke
-
It's been a while since the OP posted anything.
I'm guessing he realises that most of don't accept magic- because it isn't real.
-
It's been a while since the OP posted anything.
I'm guessing he realises that most of don't accept magic- because it isn't real.
Isn't "Magic" just Science that we haven't yet developed? Don't you think that eventually everything that Magic envisaged will come true through Science. You can see it happening whenever you use your modern 21st century smartphone.
In the 17th century, wouldn't that everyday piece of gadgetry been considered the product of witchcraft - even to Isaac Newton?
-
Isn't "Magic" just Science that we haven't yet developed?
No.
-
Isn't "Magic" just Science that we haven't yet developed?
No.
Well, you say that as a chemist. But can't physicists and engineers invent more things than chemists can?
-
Isn't "Magic" just Science that we haven't yet developed?
No.
Well, you say that as a chemist. But can't physicists and engineers invent more things than chemists can?
Are you actually dumb enough to think that matters?
Given time, I could explain my smart phone to Newton, just like I can explain it to a kid.
This "science is the same as magic" idea should be put to bed once and for all.
The difference is that we know how science works.
More importantly, we know that magic does not work. It doesn't matter if you say Abracadabra or wave a silver wand. It doesn't work.
That's the distinction.
-
Looking in magic as undiscovered science is a waste of time magic is not just a unique phenomenon that we are going to discover to be added to mainstream physics but is a whole of violations.It is like we are going to figure out the non-science or magic will that be useful ? every kid knows what is non-science , what is the not of water is liquid.
Simply magic can be defined as the non-science with no rules.
-
Isn't "Magic" just Science that we haven't yet developed?
No.
Well, you say that as a chemist. But can't physicists and engineers invent more things than chemists can?
Are you actually dumb enough to think that matters?
Given time, I could explain my smart phone to Newton, just like I can explain it to a kid.
This "science is the same as magic" idea should be put to bed once and for all.
The difference is that we know how science works.
More importantly, we know that magic does not work. It doesn't matter if you say Abracadabra or wave a silver wand. It doesn't work.
That's the distinction.
But, it does work if you wave a hand-set thingy at a Play-Station. Or say to your smartphone: "Hi Sirri- what 's the weather going to be to-day?"
You reckon Isaac Newton would've understood what you were doing? Or backed away. muttering: "Witchcraft!"
-
You reckon Isaac Newton would've understood what you were doing?
Are you deliberately missing the point?
-
Looking in magic as undiscovered science is a waste of time magic is not just a unique phenomenon that we are going to discover to be added to mainstream physics but is a whole of violations.It is like we are going to figure out the non-science or magic will that be useful ? every kid knows what is non-science , what is the not of water is liquid.
Simply magic can be defined as the non-science with no rules.
No.
Magic is not real.
-
Looking in magic as undiscovered science is a waste of time magic is not just a unique phenomenon that we are going to discover to be added to mainstream physics but is a whole of violations.It is like we are going to figure out the non-science or magic will that be useful ? every kid knows what is non-science , what is the not of water is liquid.
Simply magic can be defined as the non-science with no rules.
No.
Magic is not real.
If science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.
-
If science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.
So then what was the point of this thread?
-
Magic is deliberately engineered to mislead its audiences. Its performer tries to convince people how a process happens in a different way than what actually happens by exploiting weaknesses in people's common methods to interpret their senses.
-
(https://i1.wp.com/wasmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/05/honest-man-mistake.jpg?w=695&ssl=1)
(https://i2.wp.com/wasmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/05/mark-twain-easier-to-fool.jpg?w=555&ssl=1)
-
If science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.
OK, Unicorns are not real and so they are magical creatures.
But only children accept that they are real. Children do not know enough to tell what is real and what isn't.
The interesting question is why does anyone accept religion?
-
If science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.
OK, Unicorns are not real and so they are magical creatures.
This can be categorized as imagination
-
The interesting question is why does anyone accept religion?
Religion is not science it is what is equivalence to science.It doesn't explore the universe with minds.It explores the universe with feelings. You feel whether you go to after life or not and you feel whether this universe built by a creator or not .Science knows the creation, feelings know the creator Ancient people are not ignorant they just felt it and made imaginations for that.Today's people feel the existence of God and know the truth which is delivered by prophets.
Human is not just body that will rot , it is also life.What distinguish a dead body and living body ? both have the same matter and cells but the living body has life .The body thinks it will die and rot and spirit feels it will have eternal life. if we stop the body thoughts " death is nothingness " then we will feel the spirit feelings which is religion .This what scientists do today they have the body thoughts " death is nothingness "and then they will not make a place for the living human spirit feelings
The body naturally knows harm in not good for the body, harm will cease the body then a body feels pain to alter the human.The spirit knows immorality is harmful and pain of regret alters the human to behave well " for his eternal life "
These feelings and the spirit are in the chest:
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"
Genesis 2:7
-
I claim I can make an object disappear from one location and appear in another.
I pick up my water bottle from one place on the table and move it to another. Mission accomplished.
So is motion magic? Is it religion?
Nope. Just science. As is all "magic".
-
Religion is not science it is what is equivalence to science.It doesn't explore the universe with minds.It explores the universe with feelings. You feel whether you go to after life or not and you feel whether this universe built by a creator or not .Science knows the creation, feelings know the creator Ancient people are not ignorant they just felt it and made imaginations for that.Today's people feel the existence of God and know the truth which is delivered by prophets.
Modern science is advanced enough to describe what are feeling and mind. They can be simulated and manipulated through brainwaves and electrochemical signals.
How do religions feel observable universe? Do they make accurate predictions?
What is the oldest religion? Does it still survive now?
How many versions of truth are there? Why different religions make different claims?
-
Talking about levitation, I think this video shows a more interesting case.
-
Talking about levitation, I think this video shows a more interesting case.
I didn't know about this. Very nice.