.com.unity Forums - OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife! (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=10154)

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

Okay, you guys are arguing the same issue that physics students and professors are arguing today. The current consensus is that photons do not have mass. There is two sides to the energy mas equation, guys. Energy and Mass... the two are interchangeable but not the same thing. energy is not mass no matter how much you like saying it nor is the reverse true. You exchange one for the other. A photon in highschool physics appears to have mass, but the photon that is moving those little white and black plates is the photons energy being absorbed by the object it is impacting upon not because it has mass. BTW, they are still trying to measure whatever mass a photon has in an attempt to show the acuracy of the concept of a massless photon.

Basically my point here is, that the jury is still out on this one.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

(Warning. Old classic story)

The following is an actual question given on a university of Washington chemistry midterm exam:

"Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat), or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Support your answer with a proof."

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So, we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that, if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there are more than one of these religions and, since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls will go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

(1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

(2) Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Therese Banyan during my Freshman year, that...... "It will be a cold night in Hell before I sleep with you,"........ and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then (2) cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic.

(The student got the only A.)

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

Quote:

My appologies if you feel insulted, that was not my intention.

Apology accepted. Please refrain from statements akin to "you don't know jack" (no pun intended) in the future.

Quote:

First of all, I do acknowlege the fact that space and time are not physical (having mass) objects! You refuse to acknowledge that they exist without having mass or energy.

No, I don't refuse to acknowledge that. Reread my statement. It specifically says "...unless it is a dimensional concept (such as space and time)...". I do not know how much more specific I can get... And, I also said this:
"Since you refuse to acknowledge it... dimensions are not physical objects, and so do not have mass. Space and time are dimensions, not objects. I have amended my statements; there is nothing to reconcile."

Quote:

What is the exact value of the mass of a given photon?

The exact value is unknown. I can not give you an exact value.

Quote:

Are you saying that if humans can't observe something then it doesn't exist?

I thought I had already addressed that, but it must have been deleted from a draft. So... I am saying that if humans can not observe something (directly, indirectly, through mathematical models, etc., etc.) then it has no more value than mere fantasy until such a time as it can be observed in some form. Unsupported hypothesis are a dime a dozen, and can be safely ignored (except when testing to see if they are true or not, of course). I could easily claim that there are invisible (on all frequencies), undetectable, flying, pink elephants floating around. Such a hypothesis is just as valid as any other, until some form of work is done to try to disprove it or find some form of concrete evidence (see earlier post) is found that supports it (and there is not a better alternative hypothesis that more accurately reflects the data).

Quote:

Originally posted by Slick:
Yes, I have heard of a solar sail (did some R&D at TRW). Photons do indeed carry momentum to impart to a sail. They do not have mass. There is your mistake. For a photon, momentum is given by:

p = (Plank's Const.)/(Wavelength)

See? momentum with no mass. Any basic physics book has this in it.

Photoreceptive fans react to the change in momentum when a photon encounters the fan, not because the photon has mass.

"...everything that exists either has mass or has mass-like properties..." (abbreviated). Momentum is a "mass-like property" in that it transfers inertia like mass does. It falls under the rest of my statement. Even if a photon has no mass (which is open for debate in the wide world of physics), having momentum qualifies it just the same.

[ August 18, 2003, 06:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

Yo, Fyron!

There was an invisible, flying pink hippo named Daisy that used to hang out at the bar-b-ques that the old Moderators of the Calgary Theories echo had every week in summer. It was quite a few years ago but does that count? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Damn, there goes that theory http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif (almost http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Stupid hippos... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif j/k

C'mon I'm trying to support your Pink Elephant theory! Some thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What others? Please bring me some pictures from these other dimensions of yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There is no proof of the existence of other dimensions, only a plethora of hypothesis (no theories, as there is no proof or concrete evidence of them).

If there were a picture, what would it look like? How could you tell? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Seriously, there is of course no direct evidence for hyperdimensions. But the mathematics of cosmology and quantum physics certainly point in that direction. And as for the standard of "direct evidence" itself, we don't have "direct evidence" for a lot of things (sub-atomic particles, "dark matter", etc) that are generally accepted. Heck, what "direct evidence" do I have for you other than these Posts (which are nothing more than electrons in cyberspace and my monitor)? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>I think we all need to face the facts here... Fyron is really a rather sophisticated Eliza program that was unleashed on an unsuspecting internet. Which is why threads he gets involved in never end unless they are shut down or everyone else stops posting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

Quote:

Originally posted by Tigbit:
Unfortunately that's exactly the way history is. Even science is not totally immune to the deliberate inacuracies that plague historical study. People will only write what supports their view.

This doesn't explain why people change their minds... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 09:53: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

Quote:

Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your assumption: there is a soul. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Everything that exists is matter or energy (or something like anti-matter, which is equivalent for purposes of this post). But, matter is energy, and energy is matter. All waves of energy have particle-like properties, such as a mass equivalent property, though it is normally infintesimal. All particles of matter have wave-like properties, though those are normally infintesimal (except for very, very fast moving particles, such as electrons, which are particles, but act more like waves than particles). Thoughts are energy on a quantum level, which exist because of the properties of the neural cells in the brain (which are mass). So, if the soul exists, it is either energy or matter (or one of those other things (such as anti-matter), which are equivalent. Either way, it would have a mass. This is not saying that the post by Ed means anything, just saying that the theoretical soul has a mass value. Of course, proving that the soul actually exists is a much more complex issue. And keep in mind that any arguments akin to "the [holy scripture/person of choice] says we have a soul, so we have a soul" are laughable at best. Any reasoning being can do better than that, and all humans are reasoning beings.

There have been cases where humans were weighed as they died; it was found that weight was lost at the instant of death. Does this constitute proof that the soul exists? No - but it does qualify as supporting evidence. The existance of the soul is not an unreasonable assumption; it is impossible to disprove at the present time, and there is some supporting evidence for it.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I know of this study. It was eventually determined that the loss of weight (a very very small amount) was due to the the Last bit of air escaping from the lungs at death as the pressure equalizes with ambient. Interesting study, though.

Slick.<hr /></blockquote>It was a study performed in 1909 (IIRC??) and even the author stated that it was a questionable result.
The result varied, between 9-47 grams I belive and on some cases none, and in most cases they didn't measure at the instant of death, I think they managed that in 1 or 2 cases, otherwise it was pre- and post-death measurements.
It is commonly said that it was a loss of 21 grams (again I'm not quite certain) but that was only in one case.
No validating study has been performed.

Will look for the author/study later, this is written from long memory....