You’ve killed Sam and Dave for me.As always, it's up to the person making the assertion to provide the evidence. I say souls are farts. Once you've completely depleted your reserve of soul, you die.
Vegetarian owl pellet?This is definitely one of those "do your own research" situations! I'll report back!
(I probably won't remember)
View attachment 101201
Ha! That reminds me of a conversation I was having last week.Vegetarian owl pellet?
Anything with mass causes light to change direction via gravity. Einstein's theory of general relativity was established when we were able to measure that the sun's gravity bent the path of light from distant stars that passed near the sun on the way to Earth. A black hole bends spacetime in on itself so the only path light (or anything else) can move on is directly towards the singularity at the center of the black hole once it has crossed the event horizon. That energy isn't lost. The black hole should eventually emit it back out as Hawking radiation.Isn't it peculiar that it is thought that time does not flow inside a blackhole and a blackhole is the only known entity that "eats" light? Everywhere else, light either continues on its trajectory forever or until it hits something, then light particles are scattered around but they don't stop. If they are absorbed by some material, their energy is transferred to the material's subatomic particles and that energy as far as I know, does not dissipate into nothingness. It keeps being transferred and flowing, just like time.
Yeah if you're looking at this from the outside of the train passing by you see clocks in the train ticking more slowly than the clock on your phone or the watch on your wrist. Seems like lunacy but Einstein's reasoning was if mechanical phenomena obey (Galileo's law of) relativity, eg moving at a constant velocity imparts no force on you so your mechanical laws of physics are the same, electromagnetism should too, and thus light being an electromagnetic wave must also. If light didn't behave this way you could use a light clock to discern whether the train you were inside of was stopped relative to the ground or moving at constant nonzero velocity.This is almost right, except it's not a tennis ball. It's a light clock.
Light always moves at the same speed for all observers. So if the clock itself is moving...
...time must slow down. 🤔
Hawking radiation is pretty weird. Not a physicist but I think it goes something like this: Think of the event horizon of a black hole - inside the event horizon spacetime is so heavily curved so that the only path anything can take is towards the singularity at the center of the black hole. Outside the event horizon the curvature is lowered enough that its still possible for something moving at or just a tiny bit below the speed of light to make it out. Now quantum field theory tells us we constantly have pair creation events where a pair of particles is created from nothing and very quickly annihilate each other so on average there is nothing there. When this pair creation happens right at the event horizon with one of the particles inside the border and the other outside it the one inside is forced to go towards the singularity while the other outside might escape. That particle outside the event horizon is Hawking radiation when it escapes the black hole and thus can't annihilate with its partner which is stuck moving towards the singularity at the center of the black hole. If I remember right it's supposed to take on the order of a trillion years for a stellar sized black hole, eg a black hole created by the collapse of a dead star, to dissipate its energy/matter from emission of Hawking radiation.Wut? Educate me on that last part. I’m not good at reading about that stuff but I am good at understanding explanations.
There's been several theories brought up over the years, but one developed in 2001 is that classical black holes are actually gravastars, otherwise to be considered 'dark matter' stars.Wut? Educate me on that last part. I’m not good at reading about that stuff but I am good at understanding explanations.
There was this: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-man-who-tried-to-weigh-the-soulTheres not a lot to research. Where do you start? Theres no physical presence at all and theres no physical process that needs a soul to explain it.
The light shines on the clock, which allows you to see the time. If it was not for light we wouldn't know what time it is.
Here's another "can of worms" thought experiment:
Microgravity causes the process of aging to accelerate. This means that the proper physiological functioning of living organisms depends on the strength of gravity.
Does gravity make you age more slowly?
If you're at sea level, or you age more slowly or faster than someone at the top of Mount Everest?www.livescience.com
If you go somewhere like near a black hole, then tidal forces start to become a concern even before spaghettification. (i.e Where the gravity on one end of your body/ship is different enough from the gravity on another that the difference can tear you apart.)What happens when the gravity is higher than that of Earth? What would happen to someone living near a blackhole?
Immortality or spaghetti? What happens if you park inside a black hole?
Black holes are awesome. They make great inspiration for 1990s grunge rock anthems, they're really good at having gravity, and they make spaghetti.thenextweb.com
So if we assume that gravity does increase lifespan, we can now tackle another matter: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20101201/Did-People-in-Bible-Times-Really-Live-So-Long/ <<< link just an example. I'm not of JW faith.
If we take that at face value, it would seem to suggest that Earth had more mass in earlier times due to which it had much stronger gravity and this gave rise to lifespans measured in hundreds of years. So how would a planet lose its mass over time? Could be hot gases escaping the gravity well of the planet. Can anyone think of any other process(es) that would reduce the mass of a planet?
...though the definition "proper" (i.e. unbiased) scientists use for science vs. pseudoscience is something along these lines:There was this: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-man-who-tried-to-weigh-the-soul
That's the problem with modern science. Certain stuff will be categorized under the term "pseudoscience" by extremely vocal opponents and immediately declared a waste of time to research it any further, even though no convincing evidence is provided to refute the proposed notion.
But that's entirely the wrong way round and totally "pseudoscience".There was this: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-man-who-tried-to-weigh-the-soul
That's the problem with modern science. Certain stuff will be categorized under the term "pseudoscience" by extremely vocal opponents and immediately declared a waste of time to research it any further, even though no convincing evidence is provided to refute the proposed notion.