/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9695692
Ok. But how does it pull? What is the mechanism of the pulling? I don't see anything touching, which is normally how something pulls on something else.

PS:
You're wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwChk4S99i4

>>9689508
"joule second" is not "joule / second".

>>9690088
We cannot answer "how do magnets work?" e.g. "why does the magnetic field and the electric field interact in the way that they do?". Similarly, we cannot answer "how does the brain cause consciousness?". It's the same sort of question. When you look at it closely, it's just as mysterious why the electron field should cause changes to the EM Field, and vice versa.

>As others have tried to point out to you already, you're not updated with the actual literature on the topic. That's OK, but don't expect to be taken seriously until you are.

As I've been asking for the entire thread, citations to these articles please. You haven't given me shit yet. Give me a citation to someone who is writing out the math for soul physics, and how the soul field couples with the electron field, etc.

>>9685734
I did some more reading, mostly skimming. In short, the author of your paper fails to recognize just how vast the evidence is for materialism, and that's why just a one-off example, no matter how compelling, would not be enough to overturn materialism.

For example, when the orbits of the outer planets were found to be inconsistent with Newton's gravity, did they immediately throw out Newton's gravity? No. Instead they did some math and predicted the location of Neptune, and they found it. Falsification is more complicated than just finding a one-off counter example.

Furthermore, the author of your paper seemingly doesn't have one single bit of hard evidence. Instead, just things that could /easily/ be faked, like psychic trances and typical near death experiences.

Lots of operating rooms now keep a digital display near the roof of the operating room, out of sight of the doctors and the patient, just to test NDEs. So far, not a single patient has reported it correctly. And even if one did report it correctly, we still have to take into account the possibility of outright forgery in the report. Maybe the doctors colluded with the patient. Because there's so many people, rare things happen all the time. That's why good science is based on verifiable, repeatable experiments and observations, and not on first person testimony, which is the shittiest kind of evidence that exists.

>>9685734
>>9686854
Actually, continuing reading because curious, but I really should have stopped right there.

Now they mention a fortune teller psychic, and the author is upset that some scientists refused to have their time wasted by coming out? Oh come on. If any psychic was legit, they would have won James Randi's million dollars. That no one has is actually among the best evidence that all psychics and mediums are frauds.

>>9685734
Near death studies? Is that really the best you got? "I feel as though I'm not just a material body" and "One time, this one guy I never met, in a way that could easily be faked, claimed to have seen or heard something while unconsciousness".

Also:
>It is not my purpose here, except for a few examples below, to review the wealth of data that falsifies materialism.

Stopped reading.

I asked you for the evidence that convinced you, not some tirade that I'm not being open-minded enough or some shit.

>>9685685
Also, in countries with reasonable regulations and that use good nuclear designs, i.e. South Korea, nuclear capital costs have been steadily decreasing over the last 3 decades. Nuclear is so expensive in the west because needless government policies and bad business decisions make it expensive. Actually, we could make nuclear electricity right now that is cost competitive with coal, and we should be doing so.

>>9685685
Stop listening to Green Peace et al on this topic. They're liars. All of those sources only focus on particularly rich concentrations. However, if you drop the concentration level by a little, you get a lot more ore. The cost of raw uranium is only a very small part of the total cost, and therefore you can increase the cost of uranium by like 100x without noticably affecting the cost of nuclear electricity.

Also:
http://energyfromthorium.com/cubic-meter/
Uranium and thorium are an inexhaustible resource with breeder reactors.

And as the ThorCon guys say. So what if it only lasts 20 years. That's 20 years of no CO2 emissions, and 20 years more to figure out some other approach. Better than what we're doing now.

>>9685662
Again, I suggest the PBS Space Time youtube channel. They have a video on this too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJY3y5_k0do

>>9683095
Overconsumption is mostly a green myth. The fix for the environment is to get human population under control, and the way to do that is to raise the rest of the world out of poverty through industrialization. Of course, this all requires lots of economic and clean energy, but thankfully we have nuclear.

>>9685515
>>9685542
>>9685544
No, really, I would like for you to explain why you think that the behavior of the claustrum "makes no sense in a fully material model". Are you going to cite particular evidence which shows that the behavior of it violates the standard model? Or are you going to go full creationist and make the argument that it could not have evolved?

>>9685636
Any fusion of heavier elements is negligable. It's not hot enough yet for the heavier elements to fuse. When it goes red giant, then it'll start fusing heavier elements in noteworthy quantities.

>>9685623
Not sure if you're the same one arguing with me.

The mass of a system of a nuclear explosion that includes the released radiation, pressure wave, etc., remains constant over the explosion.

However, the matter of the system undergoes serious changes, and there is less matter at the end (less in terms of total energy content, e.g. total mass).

>>9685618
What is said, exactly? Are you confusing mass with matter? Those are different things, son.

And why do you keep calling it a cartoon? You do realize that you're on 4chan, weeb central, right?

>>9685605
The PBS Space Time video covers this.

If you turn on a flashlight, the flashlight immediately starts to lose mass. The electrochemical potential energy of the battery is converted into light energy, which means that the flashlight total energy is decreasing, which means that the flashlight total mass is decreasing.

However, if you take the flashlight, and stick it in a box, and put it on a hypothetical infinitely accurate and precise scale, and turn on the flashlight, the scale will not read a change in mass.

The photon has no rest mass, but if you stick photons in a box, the energy of the photon will appear as mass.

Light has energy, and a region of space with light in it has mass from that energy. It means that it exerts a gravitational "force" (aka bends spacetime), and it also means that the box with light in it is harder to accelerate aka has more inertia.

Again, watch the video, it explains all of this quite clearly.

>>9685586
>>9685593
Your table doesn't even claim what you say it claims. It just talks about the kinds of energy liberated in a nuclear explosion. It doesn't say that mass was converted into energy.

>>9685586
>>9685589
In other words, mass is a property of energy. The formula "E=mc^2" should really be written "m=E/c^2", to help newbies like you. Mass is a property that all energy has. A nuclear explosion is not magic. It doesn't create energy out of nothing, and neither does it create nor destroy mass either.

>>9685586
I don't need to look at your paper to know that it's wrong. Again, please go read a proper intro to physics book, or watch the PBS Space Time video, or read wikipedia, or something.

Mass is conserved over a nuclear explosion. The potential energy in the nucleus of the atom was transformed into other kinds of energy, kinetic energy, various radiation and particles, etc. However, the total energy of the system does not change, and therefore the total mass of the system is conserved and does not change.

>>9685570
And remedial physics would like a word with you. I suggest starting with the excellent video that I already linked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0

>>9685542
How did you come to the conclusion that you did? Why should I believe you?

>>9684605
Because it's very important semantics. Mass is never created nor destroyed. Energy is never created nor destroyed. (Except in a dynamic spacetime under GR, but let's ignore that for now.)

Nuclear reactions do not convert mass into energy. Mass remains constant over the entire nuclear reaction. The mass of a closed system does not change.

>>9683863
>You forgot to mention that there are several classical models which explain it just as well with far less assumptions.
Also, what are those? Do they also explain the other phenomena that I've mentioned?

What about the rotation profiles of matter in galaxies?

>>9683863
>>inb4; GPS
>No.
Why?

And what about Sagitarius A*?

And the Bullet Cluster? And other cases of gravitational lensing?

What about the observed change in the orbital periods of neutron star pairs due to energy release from gravitational radiation?

What about the observed gravity waves at LIGO and the IIRC Italian place?

What about the increasing rate of expansion of the universe?

>>9683197
Dan Dennett is doing quite good work on actually studying consciousness.

How can you be so thick?

If materialism is true, then materialistic physics is sufficient to explain the observable behavior of the human body.

If materialism is false, then materialistic physics is not sufficient to explain the observable behavior of the human body, and we need some sort of additional non-materialistic physics, e.g. some "soul physics".

In other words, the transmission hypothesis entails some causative effect, some difference from the materialistic status quo. The transmission hypothesis entails that there is a soul which does something substantive regarding the observable behavior of the human body, and that is, by definition, something which is observably different from mundane materialistic physics.