OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Over time, people die and enter Heaven, but no one comes back from Heaven, so the number of souls in Heaven is constantly increasing. Of course, these souls have to be coming from somewhere, otherwise the law of conservation of mass is being violated. Where the souls are coming from is of course Earth. Now the Bible says that the righteous go on to live in the kingdom of God for eternity. Thus, Heaven has an infinite duration. But the Earth has a finite mass and if souls are leaving it at some rate then eventually its mass will be depleted below zero, which is impossible - nothing can have negative mass. Therefore Heaven cannot exist. A similar argument applies to Hell, Gehennom, Elysium, Hades, and any other form of afterlife. (The special case of reincarnation is somewhat more difficult and will not be presented here.)

Note: The preceding paragraph is a work of satire. It contains numerous scientific and mathematical errors. Please do not bother contacting me if you only want to point out these errors. Otherwise, write away!

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

We are doomed! Oh... wait... there is no hell either... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

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

There's no problem with the heaven/hell model as long as Armaggeddon comes before all the mass runs out.

If you divide the mass of the universe by the mass of a soul, then figure out how fast souls are leaving the universe, you will get an estimate on the latest armaggeddon can be.

That leaves three questions:
1) What is the mass of a soul?
2) What is the mass of the universe?
3) What is the rate of soul loss to both heaven and hell (the death rate of souled beings)?

[ August 17, 2003, 22:47: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

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

ed. wait 100 years science changes.

always does

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

Your assumption: a soul has mass.

Dubious at best, and no evidence to support it. Of course, that is fine for satire.

Slick.

[ August 17, 2003, 23:06: Message edited by: Slick ]

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

Another false assumption - that extradimensional realities (heaven, hell) have the exact same "natural laws" that 4-dimensional space does. If the physical universe was created by God, it would seem logical that He existed prior to it and is transcendent above it - therefore He is not bound by its laws.

EDIT - Ed's spoof reminds me of the "proof" of God's non-existence in the Hitchhiker's series.

[ August 17, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this dimension. What about others?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, based on an unfounded extrapolation of physical reality onto non/extraphysical dimensions.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All humans are reasoning? Would that that were true... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Seriously, the arguments for supernatural reality are much better than that - they just haven't been articulated well for the Last 200 years or so. Don't tell me that Dawkins is a greater mind than Augustine or Pascal, Fyron... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, and the arguments against are just as well articulated. Good articulation does not make an argument correct, just well articulated. Reality just happens to support the arguments against supernatural reality a bit better, as there is no concrete evidence of these supernatural realities. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All humans are reasoning beings, meaning they have the capability to utilize rational thought, reason, logic, etc. I never said all humans exercise these abilities, just that they have them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ August 17, 2003, 23:51: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The following exists and have neither mass nor energy:

time
space

These are real. Your assumption that if a soul exists, it must be made of mass or energy simply is not provable and thus unfounded. If something existed and was not made of mass or energy, it would be very hard or impossible to observe to humans. That does not make it unreal. It is very arrogant to assume that if a human being cannot observe something (i.e. made of mass or energy) it does not exist.

A thousand years ago, radio waves existed, but they were unobservable and there would have been no way to prove they existed without developing the current technologies. The same is true of many things. Are you saying that we know all there is to know? Are you saying that if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

I would like to see you prove that everything that exists is made up of matter or energy.

And, I never assumed there was a soul. Please re-read my post.

edit: There are no "quantum level" effects in the brain. Do you even know what that means? Thoughts and ideas are electro-chemical in nature.

Slick.

[ August 18, 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Slick ]

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

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

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).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Keeping in mind that you did not want theory:

Never heard of the Kaluza-Klein theory or n-dimentional space? Well, very briefly - mathematically n-dimentional space is not only possible but required to make the physical, mathematical constructs science has developed to describe our universe work with every other mathematical construct science has created to help describe our universe. The big bang itself makes complete sense mathematically when using n-dimensional space mathematics. It seems to be the glue that binds it all together.

So there IS some support. It is just unfortunate that the actual "picture" your looking for would require the energies of the entire universe to take. Well, mathematics can pretty much say what you want it to say if you mess with it enough.

So it is still anyone's guess whether there is higher dimensions other than the 3 spacial and 1 temporal that we are used to. While we keep this in mind we still cannot avoid the simple fact that in the grand scope of the universe we don't know a whole lot of anything as it is and anything we know can still be overthrown by a single discovery.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ August 18, 2003, 01:15: Message edited by: Tigbit ]

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

Slick:
Unless it is a dimensional concept (such as space and time), everything that exists either has mass or has mass-like properties. Even energy essentially has mass. Photons have mass, EM radiation has mass-like properties, etc. Please tell me of a non-dimensional concept that exists and has nothing to do with mass.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, there are. I forget what the name of the study was, but it has been found that there are changes in quantum energy states when thoughts occur. Just what these changes do is unknown, but they are there.

Tigbit:
Yes, I have heard of n-dimensional space. But, is that not just an extension of the 3 spatial dimensions we know and love, and has nothing to do with other planes of existence?

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

Hey, Fyron! Are you saying my particles are all wavy? Hmm. That would explain the permanent kink in my neck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

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

Yes they can be an extension of the familiar 4 dimensions. But the concept of higher planes of existence in metaphysics can simply be higher dimensions. The two concepts can be interchangeable for all intents and purposes. The commonly refered to deity called God could reside in the higher dimensions as well as the lower... just as we reside in the 2nd and 3rd spacial dimensions at the same time as the first. Just as all three spacials are a part of our experience of the universe, our three and the higher dimensions are a part of the deity construct of myth.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is theoretically possible to change the frequency of the partical-waves so that two objects can occupy the same space at the same time.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But articulation betrays some intellectual acumen, does it not? I never accuse Nietzsche of being a dummy - nor Russell or other atheists. So the mere acceptance of theistic beliefs is no indication of stupidity either.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, "concrete evidence". What qualifies as "concrete evidence"? What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My point exactly.

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

Just a few words on "proof".

There is a common misconception about science and it's purpose. Science is viewed as a small group of elite setting out to prove one idea or another. This is incorrect.

The purpose of science is to "explain" phenomenon, to describe how it works or to simply provide useful predictions that may one day better the human condition and/or understanding of our universe.

A hypothesis is a guess, a theory is and explanation and a law is a theory that has withstood the test of time.

Science starts with a question. "Why does this do that?" It then forms a hypothesis (a guess). Then it tests this guess and either the guess is correct, in which case they move on to the next step, or they formulate a new hypothesis based on their findings. After a seemingly correct guess then they form a theory based on the data collected. This theory is tested and tested over and over again in an attempt to "disprove" it. Science never trys to "prove", for to do that is to ignore evidence contrary to the theory. The only way to form an "acurate" (not correct) theory is to try to disprove it and to encourage others to disprove it. Only by doing this can science be confident that they are successfully predicting outcomes or explaining prosesses.

[ August 18, 2003, 02:48: Message edited by: Tigbit ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Never said I could tell. Ah, sarcasm. Gotta love it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please note that I NEVER used the term "direct evidence". It means something entirely different than "concrete evidence." There are plenty of examples of "concrete evidence" that rely on "indirect evidence," such as the evidence for nearly everything you mentioned. We have tons of indirect evidence of things like electrons, but no direct evidence.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Einstein argued against the wave-like nature of particles of matter, insisting that only energy waves had particle-like properties. He was a smart guy, right? Well... being smart most assuredly does not automatically make you right (or even give you any more "rightness" than not being smart).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good thing I never implied such a thing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It varies depending on what is being discussed. Also, see above.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is none.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I seem to have missed the point of making this post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

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

concrete evidence is evidence that can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not concrete. Thus mathematical evidence is concrete evidence because it can be tested.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most people who support science look for "proof". But there is no such thing in science. No other point was intended, nor was the intent to imply that someone here thinks this way.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is none.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, that kinda ends the discussion right there, doesn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What he said.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is none.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, that kinda ends the discussion right there, doesn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Assuming that is accurate (which it probably isn't), that is more wishful thinking than actual evidence of a soul. There are many possible explanations for it.

[ August 18, 2003, 03:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

[quote]Originally posted by Tigbit:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by General Woundwort:

Quote:

Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Such a standard is pretty much a death knell to history as a serious field of study. The standards of scientific experimentation are fine in their intended place (study of physical/energy processes), but when applied to the rest of life (which is *not* a "controlled environment") you end up with very little. That's why positivism died out as a viable philosophy.

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

Umm... you asked if historical evidence or eyewitness testimony were valid scientific evidence. They are not. They might (depending on the evidence itself) be valid for historical purposes, but not for scientific ones.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, there are. I forget what the name of the study was, but it has been found that there are changes in quantum energy states when thoughts occur. Just what these changes do is unknown, but they are there.

Tigbit:
Yes, I have heard of n-dimensional space. But, is that not just an extension of the 3 spatial dimensions we know and love, and has nothing to do with other planes of existence?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are avoiding the issue. I pointed out that space and time have no mass or energy but they exist and you conveinently ignored that. Or are you saying that they don't exist? Or are you saying that they are made up of matter or energy? Come now, you brought this up.

Also, referring to your "quantum" gibberish. Please don't refer to a study that you can't remember. This is a precise discussion. Let us all know what this study is or who did it or post a link so all can see it or don't mention it at all. Please be precice in exactly what you mean by "Thoughts are energy on a quantum level" since you avoided answering that one too.

Do tell, I so love to hear what the experts have to say.

Slick.

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

[quote]Originally posted by General Woundwort:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Tigbit:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by General Woundwort:

Quote:

Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if it can be tested under controled conditions. Testimony cannot be tested.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Such a standard is pretty much a death knell to history as a serious field of study. The standards of scientific experimentation are fine in their intended place (study of physical/energy processes), but when applied to the rest of life (which is *not* a "controlled environment") you end up with very little. That's why positivism died out as a viable philosophy.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. It is the checks and ballances that I detailed in the post Fyron found pointless that rescues science from the damnation of nearly every other dicipline.

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

Slick:
Umm...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I accounted for space and time...

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not find it pointless, I was just unsure of why you posted it...

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not find it pointless, I was just unsure of why you posted it...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay. Now you know why. Whenever I get into a conversation involving science, metaphysics etc, I have to make the distinction I posted.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I accounted for space and time...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No you didn't. You are only asking for a "non-dimensional" concept because you can't reconcile your statement with facts so are trying to exclude them from the discussion. Space and time DO exist and they don't have mass or energy. I would like to hear what you think they are. Are they made up of mass or energy, or do they not exist, or what??? Please answer the question and be precice.

By the way, photons have mass? I haven't even begun to tear apart your lack of knowledge of physics. If they have mass, how do they travel at the speed of light? The relativistic mass is given by the formula:

m = m0 / [(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)]

As v approaches c, m goes to infinity. It is impossible for an infinitely massive object to move at all much less at the speed of light. So what is the exact value of the mass of a photon (pick any wavelength you want)??? Again, please be precice.

Slick.

[ August 18, 2003, 03:25: Message edited by: Slick ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ouch... that's gotta hurt.

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

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.

And yes, photons do indeed have mass. They have both particle and wave properties. Ever heard of a solar sail? They work because photons have some mass (although it is extremeley small), and so they can push it along when they bump into the sail. This works with photo-receptive fans and such too. All energy has particle-like properties. All matter has wave-like properties. This is basic quantum physics.

And please stop insulting me Slick. That is quite counter productive. Please remain civil.

[ August 18, 2003, 03:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

Trying to find a good site on quantum thought theory that is not steeped in spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo... current search string

Damned UBB...

This looks promising, though it is long...
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/nanopoul.pdf

Ooh.. and an old post by Jack Simth that has to do with this (remotely):
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why sure we do - even if you postulate that everything there is to a person is based solely on the various chemical and physical properties of that person's constituent elements, there is still the problem of Quantum Mechanics. The exact processes of the brain are poorly understood, but it is known that many of the processes run on an infintesimal scale, at which point the local randomness of QM becomes significant, which eliminates determinism as viable, leaving free will as a tenable approach.

Besides, I have to remind myself to eat. I can very easily get caught up in something and forget....

Edit: I kan't spell....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Note: this is not to start up an old debate, merely to point out that I am not the only person with an idea about quantum mechinacs and the brain...

[ August 18, 2003, 03:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First off, m0 is the rest mass; photons have 0 rest mass (they don't exist at rest). The equation then becomes. However, energy has mass, and photons have energy. If you do he energy mass conVersion, the result is a constant * the frequency of the photon. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like m = y * h/(2*pi) where m is the mass, y is the frequency and h is plank's constant. I could have the formula off a bit, but that's what is in my memory from my Last physics class.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My appologies if you feel insulted, that was not my intention.

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.

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.

To the viewers out there, this is an example of "junk science". That is, it sounds good, but totally baseless in fact.

So, let's see... Questions Fyron refuses to answer:

Reconcile the fact that space and time exist but are not made up of energy or matter.

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

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

(Sorry, but there are so many I don't want to have to keep looking back a few pages to keep track.) Please wrap up this discussion and answer these questions. Please be precise. Remember, you brought it up...

edit: will read the link.

Slick.

[ August 18, 2003, 04:09: Message edited by: Slick ]

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!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Apology accepted. Please refrain from statements akin to "you don't know jack" (no pun intended) in the future.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The exact value is unknown. I can not give you an exact value.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"...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!
 

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

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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!
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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....