h a l f b a k e r yInvented by someone French.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
Life is already perpetual, and we don't even live on planet Earth. |
|
| |
Better to find a workaround for gravitons,
which tend to adhere to us cumulatively as we
get older. |
|
| |
I've never thought about it like that. |
|
| |
Sunlight doesn't make stuff heavier. The plants take in
water and dirt and use the sunlight energy to rearrange the
stuff into more plant. The weight doesn't change. |
|
| |
Energy only turns into weight when there's a nuclear
reaction. Cells don't do that. |
|
| |
Like perpetual bonds, never redeemed? You could call them consouls, but that would be a pun. |
|
| |
Sunlight doesn't make things heavier. |
|
| |
Quite so, it's those pesky gravitons. |
|
| |
Sunlight doesn't make things heavier. |
|
| |
Quite so, it's those pesky gravitons. |
|
| |
Sunlight doesn't make things heavier. |
|
| |
Quite so, it's those pesky gravitons. |
|
| |
"I'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you pesky gravitons ! " |
|
| |
No ... doesn't work, somehow. Not sure why. |
|
| |
//The plants take in water and dirt and use the sunlight energy to rearrange the stuff into more plant.// |
|
| |
My understanding of the process is that sunlight powers photosynthesis which the plant uses to build itself out of thin air. It takes in water, and minerals from the soil, but the weight is mostly carbon. Is this understanding incorrect? |
|
| |
Its really just a funny kind of idea. It's easy to imagine the Earth accumulating energy from the Sun and I have trouble imagining the Earth not gaining anything from so much energy being captured by life. Obviously no new atoms are created but energy from the sun can be stored in molecules when they are formed, and I have trouble thinking that these molecules do not eventually increase the mass of the planet. They say there is an obesity epidemic in America, but I think that's people working towards perpetual souls. Call it a kind of naive optimism. |
|
| |
//Is this understanding incorrect?// yes |
|
| |
//and I have trouble thinking that these molecules
do not eventually increase the mass of the planet// |
|
| |
Agreed - you have trouble thinking. |
|
| |
Good, then democratically I'm on the winning team.So fossil fuels like petroleum form a more energetic molecule out of the atoms available on Earth. Will not that energy eventually condense for a net gain? |
|
| |
enthalpy ? not mass, per se. |
|
| |
// There are undiscovered and unknowable about particle waves called Falsitrons |
|
| |
Perhaps all philosophical concepts can be represented by a stream of particles. I think that this hypothesis warrants further exploration. And more funding. |
|
| |
I don't think the masses mean what the masses think they
mean. |
|
| |
//My understanding of the process is that sunlight powers photosynthesis which the plant uses to build itself out of thin air. It takes in water, and minerals from the soil, but the weight is mostly carbon. Is this understanding incorrect?// |
|
| |
I would say that's a pretty good understanding - but it's wrong on a minor detail - the DRY weight (i.e. everything but the water) is mostly carbon (by weight). Plants are typically 80-90% water (apparently - I just looked that up). |
|
| |
//Energy only turns into weight when there's a nuclear reaction.// |
|
| |
Not _strictly_ true. There's a tiny, tiny change in mass during chemical reactions. It's so very small as to be negligable for most purposes because a huge amount of energy equates to a tiny mass, but it nevertheless does occur. |
|
| |
So according to the idea, the Mormons were right in
that eventually we'll all rule our own universes as
supermassive black holes of moron particles?
Does this explain the appeal of Donald Trump to
religious conservatives? |
|
| |
The idea is just a naive way of thinking that to some may seem correct, but on further investigation will be revealed to be erroneous. Ok some people HATE naive, but that's the way people think even if they study the physics that proves this is incorrect. Even the most skeptical scientist will die with hope that it will not be his or her final end. Calling the idea perpetual souls sort of hints at the hopefulness inside of the reasoning. People arn't meant to be scientists, and even though science guarantees our landfills will be full of throw-away crap, the naive imagination will still be able turn that condition into an unjustifiable belief that we will not be eventually destroyed. |
|
| |
But now that I have been I'm more likely to occur than ever before. |
|
| |
Sunlight turns into gravitational potential energy because
an upright human body has more potential energy than
some soupy cells. Take the total mass of all life that's ever
existed on Earth and multiply by its average height times g. |
|
| |
That's possible too, however your communications might be understandable but not true or correct. They are understandable in the sense that they appeal to an attitude and sentiment of society towards the initiative of individuals and how they should see themselves in the society that understands what you said. But true would require a higher level of proof regarding the force of nature on creation compared to our own wills, and it's likely society understands the force of will better than a comfortable acceptance that the world exists, meaning I exist, without any effort at all. And correct wold be a similar process of first being able to prove what may or not be understandable as true and then having someone else agree. I think you're saying something understandable, but that the truth of nature is not necessary a practical doctrine for living in society, so in a certain type of communicative interaction will not seem sufficiently correct. Although if there was one to make an argument that existence a force beyond the power of our wills he would also not be in a motivational relation between himself and another person to be necessarily correct. |
|
| |
Anyway what does it matter, my next idea is rocking horse bum wiper. |
|
| |
May I be excused? I need to go change the mumbo-jumbo /
philosophy filter I recently installed; it's full again. |
|
| |
You should install a self-flushing one, it's so much more convenient. |
|
| |
Planets don’t gain mass from EM radiation from the Sun, because they emit about the same amount. Earth gains an estimated 1.75 kg of space dust per second, which will only increase its mass by a tiny fraction (about 0.000004%) in the next 4.5 billion years, which is when it's expected the Sun will become a red giant and destroy it. |
|
| |
It’s kinda interesting that it you assume something on Earth was absorbing all the sunlight that hit it (about 1.74e17 W) and converting it to mass, it would gaining about 1.9 kg/s – about what it gains from space dust. |
|
| |
I’m not gonna go anywhere near the stuff about insects, dinosaurs, massive roaming giants of souls, other than to say it’s of the stuff that makes the internet so weirdly wonderful. |
|
| |
/there is an obesity epidemic in America, but I think that's people working towards perpetual souls/ |
|
| |
Yes! Thank you! That is exactly what I am trying to do! And my likelihood of occurring is so freaking high. |
|
| |
Likelihood of occurring? How does that work? Why will your consciousness manifest in one of your successful sperm donations? Which offspring is your perpetual soul? I don't think that was necessarily implied by the paragraph posted. Perpetual didn't mean eternal soul, but perpetul in terms of a physics definition. So a kind of materialist idea some would say. In terms of likelyhood for reoccurance I would say even given many offspring, returning to perception after death would not necessarily require close relations given the population of the Earth has grown from a small number. To say that your consciousness relies on your sperm donations could be compared to a retroactive argument that your consciousness was created without any designs of your own. |
|
| |
[Loris] is correct, although it took me a long time to
understand this bit. By general relativity, all energy is
mass. If you throw a ball, it gets a little more massive
due to the kinetic energy. If
you heat up an chunk of metal, it gets a little more
massive from the thermal energy. The change is so small
that it's very difficult to
measure unless you start talking about something on the
scale of a nuclear or matter/antimatter reaction, but it's
there. |
|
| |
So yes, when a plant photosynthesizes, it does add mass.
But when it decays, it loses it again. Some carbon
compounds end up sequestered as peat, oil, coal, and the
like, and those do add a tiny fraction of mass to the
planet. Of course mining and burning all of the above
removes it again. |
|
| |
That being said, the total change due to plants is
infinitesimal (and negligible) compared to the infalling
mass from asteroids and such. (About 40k tonnes/year). |
|
| |
In fact, the greatest energy (and thus mass) addition due
to the sun is not from a biological phenomenon, it's from
the greenhouse effect (about 160 tonnes/year). |
|
| |
On the other hand, nuclear reactions in the core lose
about 16 tonnes/year, and about 96k tonnes of hydrogen
and 1.6k tonnes of helium escape off the top of the
atmosphere. |
|
| |
So overall, the earth is getting lighter, not heavier, and
the effects of life on that process are negligible. |
|
| |
To clarify the retroactive argument it should be noted that someone else's effort a parent etc. leads to an individual's creation. But in the sense that parents can't see through the eyes of their children nor grandparents or great grandparents, even if they temporarily die gives some indication that people do not live on through offspring. Afterall if your consciousness was to reappear it would be in closer generations not further. So the retroactive argument holds that each individual exerted no effort themselves to exist, even though a grat deal of effort may be required to survive and reproduce. But more importantly everyone that exists is a possibility of physics. So after death the possibility of existence still remains even if everyone is completely destroyed due to the fact that your existence has been proven to be possible. It even seems plausible that the retroactive argument is better if something happens that causes all time and energy to be recompressed perhaps into a black hole and when when it is all released again people are reborn to wage unrelenting wars against eachothers masses with our simple lever- pendulum bodies, and butt and mouth holes. |
|
| |
Why, if your thesis is metaphysical and has no basis in
observation of the natural world why try to use scienceish
words and concepts you do not grasp to support it? And
then rebuffed make the same attempt using philosophical
concepts that do not apply any better. Please stop now
before you abuse mathematics or some other loved human
pursuit. People spent lifetimes working these things out in
intellectual bondage that largely goes without recognition
or accolade. When you vomit out random science nonsense
you are disgracing yourself in the face of the efforts of
people living and dead who devoted themselves to a useful
understanding of the universe. |
|
| |
From the looks of things these ideas are going to be really influential on the things you say they are going to effect. Wow you really are a quaker flying into a moral panic. |
|
| |
It's a comfort to hear you do it for the lulz. What if my
secret thrill is leading you on? I'm an idiot if I care but you
are doubly so if I don't. |
|
| |