OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife! - Page 4

Fyron · #31 August 18th, 2003, 04:08 AM

Slick:
Umm...

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

I accounted for space and time...

Slick · #32 August 18th, 2003, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Your assumption: there is a soul.

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.

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.

Fyron · #33 August 18th, 2003, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tigbit:
It is the checks and ballances that I detailed in the post Fyron found pointless...

I did not find it pointless, I was just unsure of why you posted it...

Tigbit · #34 August 18th, 2003, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by Tigbit:
It is the checks and ballances that I detailed in the post Fyron found pointless...

I did not find it pointless, I was just unsure of why you posted it...

Okay. Now you know why. Whenever I get into a conversation involving science, metaphysics etc, I have to make the distinction I posted.

Slick · #35 August 18th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slick:
Umm...

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

I accounted for space and time...

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 ]

Tigbit · #36 August 18th, 2003, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slick:

By the way, photons have mass?

Ouch... that's gotta hurt.

Fyron · #37 August 18th, 2003, 04:31 AM

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 ]

Fyron · #38 August 18th, 2003, 04:39 AM

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):

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
do we actually have freedom of choice (will)?

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....

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 ]

Jack Simth · #39 August 18th, 2003, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slick:
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.

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.

Slick · #40 August 18th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

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 ]