OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Slick]

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 ]

[Tigbit]

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.

[BadAxe]

(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.)

[Fyron]

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.

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."

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.

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).

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 ]

[Tigbit]

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?

[Fyron]

Damn, there goes that theory (almost ). Stupid hippos... j/k

[Tigbit]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Damn, there goes that theory (almost ). Stupid hippos... j/k

C'mon I'm trying to support your Pink Elephant theory! Some thanks.