/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2018913

Show me the paper

Throw a Dan Brown book at their head. That's where they got this false idea.

The result of said experiment was actually null, i.e there was no weight change.

It was also scientifically proved that there is no soul. and also. these ones werent totally lying

>>2018938
that works quite well but the referene to a system of published papers is probably a little over their head

I don't understand how there are people that are that stupid. Surely they should have been eliminated from the gene pool because they were unable to feed themselves or something.

>>2018938
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20281719/21-Grams-Hypothesis-Concerning-Soul-Substance-Together-with-Exper
imental-Evidence-of-The-Existence-of-Such-Substance

Do you now accept that it is science?
It might be wrong, even wrongheaded - but it's still science.

http://www.themindofgod.net/soul_mass.htm was where I got that link from, since the pdf seems to be broken.

Also, general response: can we repeat the experiment? was there even an experiment? Turns out this one has been repeated a number of times, and found nothing.

>>2018989

>pdf
>on scribd
>american journal for psychical review
>psychical
>claims its equivalent to a peer reviews paper in a legitmate journal

You best be trolling, I mean, psychical review? really?

>>2018997
Trolling?
Less than you think.

Remember that this is a hundred years ago. Ideas of what was and wasn't physically possible were different in the past. Newton searched for the Philosopher's Stone [1]. People thought radioactivity promoted good health until the mid-1930s [2].

Sure, this was at the fringes of science at the time anyway: but that does not mean that experiments to attempt to measure these things are valueless. Some of the most important science is attempting to measure things that we believe don't exist - like modern Michelson Morley experiements.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/alch-newman.html
[2] http://www.fogonazos.es/2008/06/radio-activity-makes-you-feel-so.html
Yes, links grabbed from the 'net from random, but this is to illustrate a wider point.

>>2018989

Took two minutes to find their fatal flaw

> The bowels did not move , if they ha moved the weight
would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending of course , upon the fluidity of the faeces.

They make the assumption that the industrial balance they use to measure the man is insensitive to the weight distribution. Which is certainly not the case, had the man pissed or shat himself it would have been enough to move the scale, not withstanding the shift of weight caused by the lack of tension in the muscles.

Articles != truth, they just mean that there is a published documented example of what you are claiming, hence we can focus our discussion on the article and not on speculation over who said or saw what.

"Excuse me, I have a science to continue."

I think we're getting away from the point here guise. It's not that the actual concept is invalid as science, its that this person thinks that weight loss after death = soul loss. It's the old shark repellant argument.

>soul is your life energy
>when people die, they lose mass
>energy has mass

>mfw

The only proof there is an afterlife is NDEs, experiences beyond brain death but even that can be assumed to be the condition of human death.

>>2018989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_(doctor)

He published, but results could not be replicated. Hence he was laughed out of the scientifc community, and his work was taken as bullshit.

Also his orginal sample size was only 6 people, and he also concluded dogs have no soul. He concluded sheep gain soul on death.
LMAO

>How does /sci/ respond when people "Scientifically Prove" something fucking retarded?

I correct them

>>2019190

>The determination of the soul weighing 21 grams was based on the average loss of mass in the six patients within minutes or hours after death.

>average loss of mass

>souls can be analyzed with parametric statistics

If true, then what the fuck makes you think it's a soul? It could be an alien spirit or whatever those Scientologists believe.

>>2019190

also, implying souls aren't all equal

>>2019148
>It's not that the actual concept is invalid as science

But it actually is invalid as science. His claims cannot be replicated. Hence, he either made up bullshit on purpose, or his methods were bullshit.

>>2019185
What about Antonia Simone

>>2019148
A truly anomalous weight loss (i.e. actually happens, not just lost to the air, etc) would be a scientifically shocking thing: conservation of mass-energy would have to be breaking down*. At that point, the soul leaving the universe would appear to be the most credible hypothesis - unless you can think of others where the mass is *actually* gone?

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp is worth reading on the topic.

* Well, it could get converted to energy, but people don't generally explode like nukes when they die.

>>2019234
>Human nukes
A challenger apears

>>2019173
Holy fuck, do you really think energy doesn't have mass?

>>2019221
>His claims cannot be replicated.
Do you have proof of that?

It's still a valid point; even amongst his small sample he got wildly differing results.

>weight of soul

(soul=physical) != soul

>>2019265

<span class="math"> E= MC^2[/spoiler]

>>2018913
actually if there were any change of weight, it would be cause the body is not having the air exchange wich may affect ones body weight