reor Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Scientific, logical or practical use of supernatural matters Stuff like "soul" or "praying" may not sound very scientific, but it may bear potential value. Praying is commonly understood as worshipping a superior being, but it also is a form of meditation which can help you relax and focus your mind to achieve better physical performance. The body is said to lose about 21 grams immediately after decease. The soul may be something intangible and unknown, yet contain explanations for various phenomena in the universe. What (theoretical) types of matter are there? I'm looking for a term that describes a theoretical unknown matter, something like "x-matter". Is pseudo- or quasi-matter what i'm looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think today's physics go towards the more spiritual issues (if you've seen "What the BLEEP do we know" you'll see that many scientists combine the two today) and start getting into the more spiritual/soulful subjects. And there is a purpose of the seperation of words PRAYER and MEDITATION. They may seem similar, but not quite. Meditation is a physical state. I actually use Guided-Meditation (Seld Hypnosis) to get rid of pains, find out what's bothering me, and relax. It's a known method that is entirely physical and psychological. The body is said to lose about 21 grams immediately after decease. The soul may be something intangible and unknown, yet contain explanations for various phenomena in the universe. by the way: was this proven? I heard about it, and never got confirmation.. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reor Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 I meant prayers in the sense of positive thinking. What i want to tangent here is the effect of thoughts on the outside world. The brain may influence [acr=A fictional matter i just made up]"reor[/acr]-matter" in a way that events in the environment are affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Watch "What the @#%@##! do we know", you'll like it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ http://www.whatthebleep.com/ It speaks and explains exactly what you're talking about. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 The body is said to lose about 21 grams immediately after decease. The soul may be something intangible and unknown' date=' yet contain explanations for various phenomena in the universe. [/quote'] 21 grams? Said by whom? Do you honestly think you can claim that without backing it up? Citation, please. Preferably one whose scientific merit hasn't been thoroughly debunked, like the measurements of Duncan MacDougall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reor Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 Well, i agree. I should have said "i've heard that" or "read it somewhere", but that's beside the point. Or did you mean you have evidence against it? I hoped for one of you guys to "answer" that. Keep 'em coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I guess it's pretty easy to check.. weigh a dying person 'before and after'..? hard to believe this hasn't already been done.. should either be proof for or against it somewhere.. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 The body is said to lose about 21 grams immediately after decease. There have been various attempts at this experiment (usually by having a dieing person lieing on some form of scales). The experiemnts I have heard about gave these results due to either fruad or more commonly bad experiemtnal design and error. When these experiments are repeated the results can not be reproduced. Thi8s is an important part of good experimental results, they must be reproduceable and none of these experiments has been able to do this (it's a bit like the "Cold Fusion" experiemnts that were done). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reor Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 Yea, i guess it's easy to prove, but i do neither have the resources nor the courage to check that myself (if you know what i mean). I just want to make sure there's evidence, so we can continue and investigate further things. Moo, i got "What The Bleep Do We Know" and "Unlocking The Mystery Of Life". Didn't watch 'em, yet, but will. Thanks for the refference. And could somebody please comment on that thread: reor-matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebiu Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 It would be impossible to conduct this with scientific rigor because using a whole new person every time adds and impossible number of variable. Until you find someone who can die twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebiu Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp I assume you got the 21 grams figure from the movie, don't believe everything you see especially in a drama film. and there are numerous studies done on prayer and its effects on the human body, they have found that prayer is a highly effective means of stress relief however relaxing over a cup of tee would do the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 relaxing over a cup of tee would do the same thing. i don't see how tees could be relaxing. especially if they are in a cup. tea on the other hand, is quite relaxing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 The body is said to lose about 21 grams immediately after decease. "is said" isn't exactly a reliable source now, is it? It is said that dragons once inhabited several parts of the world. It is said that leprechauns occupy parts of Ireland. It is said that long ago unicorns dwelled in the forests of England. Do you believe everything that... "is said"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 "What the bleep do we know" is nothing but misleading interpretations of already-outdated science. And the "21 grams" thing is an urban legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Well' date=' i agree. I should have said "i've heard that" or "read it somewhere", but that's beside the point. Or did you mean you have evidence against it? I hoped for one of you guys to "answer" that. Keep 'em coming! [/quote'] If you want any creditability you have to back up your assertations with some reasoning, logic or evidence. Simply asking if there is any evidence against something doesn't hack it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reor Posted September 3, 2006 Author Share Posted September 3, 2006 Why do you think i chose such a vague formulation? I want You to do the "hard work". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rising moon Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 does soul have weigh 21 grams??mayve 21 grams is temporary breath in body before die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndi Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 That would require some 17 liters of air, with active lung capacity of roughly 4.8 liters. Assuming it worked that way in the first place. Ignoring compression, a filled balloon weighs the same as an empty balloon, because the air was there anyway, it's just "inside" now. (scratches head) Either way, air is too thin to account for 21 grams. Even body being cooled thus shrinking and displacing less air would still be too little air - even if that actually would make it heavier. So would slowing air convection around the body. Something heavier must leave the body and the scale to make it tilt. On the other hand, something weighing 21 grams being suddenly released is bound to leave an empty place, displace air, thus rendering it visible and audible. Unless you assume that something can actually weigh (be affected by gravity) and still be completely undetectable. Perhaps the scale was affected by other things, like respiration and heartbeat, other movement that kept it balanced to a point. Once the movement stopped, the balance was broken. Not exactly sure WHAT would keep a scale tilted. Or maybe it's all simpler: he added the weights, then the human. Friction in the scale kept it from tilting, to a point where "balance" was obtained. And since there must have been SOME movement (these were sick people, but not full paralysis patients), the movement dislodged the scale. Then the equilibrium could not be obtained because the human WAS lighter. In any case, given the weight the scale must support and the year of the experiment my best guess is that scale was way too imprecise to make the said measurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesuBungle Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 I think it's electrons jumping to a parallel universe, but I'm a burned out Buddhist wannabe:embarass: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 That would require some 17 liters of air, with active lung capacity of roughly 4.8 liters. Assuming it worked that way in the first place. Ignoring compression, a filled balloon weighs the same as an empty balloon, because the air was there anyway, it's just "inside" now. Only true if the air wasn't under pressure. Anyway, it's been observed that the measurements were very crude. 21 grams is waaaay inside the error bars of the scales that were used. IOW, the answer is indistinguishable from zero, and it's scientifically irresponsible to advocate a nonzero number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now