tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (01/07/84)
#N:uiucuxc:19400006:000:557
uiucuxc!tynor Jan 6 12:06:00 1984
I know this sounds silly, but a friend insists that she read "somewhere"
that "reliable" experiments have been done to show that the body unaccountably
loses weight when it dies. She seemed to think that this might be
evidence for the existance of the 'soul'.
Has anyone ever heard anything about this.
Is it possible that she got this anywhere but from the National
Enquirer? She claims that it was Science, or Nature, or some such journal!
Where is she reading this hogwash?
It's hard to be objective sometimes,
Steverao@utcsstat.UUCP (Eli Posner) (01/09/84)
I always thought a dead corpse weighs MORE .
palmer@uw-june (David Palmer) (01/09/84)
<>
[From Steve Tynor]
I know this sounds silly, but a friend insists that she read "somewhere"
that "reliable" experiments have been done to show that the body unaccountably
loses weight when it dies. She seemed to think that this might be
evidence for the existance of the 'soul'.
In the back of each issue of the journal NewScientist (a well respected
weekly science news magazine) there is a column called "Ariadne", a
humorous column written by someone named David Jones. Usually, it has
a description of a new invention designed by his mythical friend
"Daedalus". These inventions (none of which are meant seriously) start
from established scientific principles, and become bizarre.
One of these inventions centered on the problems of detecting the soul,
on entry or egress from the body. Daedalus did calculations which show
that in order to encode a unique identity, you need a particle in with
a mass-energy in the UV range. He suggested that photodetectors be
placed in bordellos and terminal wards of hospitals to detect the
emission and absorption of such particles.
He also mentions a third-hand anecdotal report of a weight loss, (I
think it was aproximately 3 grams) of a dying person.
I do not know when this column ran, but it is included in the highly
recommended book "The Inventions Of Daedalus, a compendium of plausible
schemes". I don't know the publisher (I do not have my copy with me),
but it is well worth the ~$10 price.
David Palmerfish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (01/10/84)
Oh. Now that poses an interesting question: does a dead corpse weigh more than a live one????
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/10/84)
I always thought a dead corpse weighs MORE .
===========
Than a live one?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtJGA%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/12/84)
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA @ MIT-MC>
Oh. Now that poses an interesting question: does a dead corpse weigh
more than a live one????
I never met a live corpse.debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (01/12/84)
uiucuxc!tynor: > I know this sounds silly, but a friend insists that she read > "somewhere" that "reliable" experiments have been done to show > that the body unaccountably loses weight when it dies. She > seemed to think that this might be evidence for the existance > of the 'soul'. *IF* there is indeed a loss in weight after death, it'd more likely be due to a loss of body moisture than because of any "soul". -- Saumya Debray Dept. of Computer Science SUNY at Stony Brook {floyd, bunker, cbosgd, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs! \ Usenet: sbcs!debray / {allegra, teklabs, hp-pcd, metheus}!ogcvax! CSNet: debray@suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relay
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (01/13/84)
Owing to the number of messages I've received on my ealrlier quip: > Oh. Now that poses and interesting question: does a dead corpse weigh > more than a live one??? I must once again (sigh) explain myself. The article was in reply to Eli Posner's > I always thought a dead corpse weighs MORE Some of you apparently failed to see the humor in my followup. However, for those of you who've never seen a live corpse, I know several lecturers who would qualify for the title. Bob Fishell
leei@princeton.UUCP (The Eternal Flame (Lee Iverson)) (01/13/84)
> Does a dead corpse weigh more than a live one?
A simple proof:
No corpse is a live corpse!
A dead corpse weighs more than no corpse.
=> A dead corpse weighs more than a live corpse. :-)
--
"... wiiiiiith a Herring!"
Lee Iverson
Princeton University
{allegra|ulysses}!princeton!leei2212zap@mhuxm.UUCP (putnins) (01/13/84)
I have also heard of this sudden weight loss upon death. One possible explanation is the collapse of the lungs upon death, and the associated loss of air. This loss of air could be measurble.
HIsrael.DODCSC%MIT-MULTICS@sri-unix.UUCP (01/13/84)
I had heard sometime in the past (probably from "Real (Stupid) People" or "That's Incredible(-ly Dumb)" or maybe even "In Search of...") that after people die (assuming you define death as the non-occurence of a heart beat) they *lose* weight. I recall it was some fraction of an ounce. The narrater suggested that the loss of weight be attributed to the soul leaving the body. One possible explanation might be that since the heart stopped beating all of the muscles relax thereby allowing air to leave the lungs. Assuming the way they found out that people lose weight when they die was by putting the near dead body on a gurney-scale (assuming one of these things exist) any other muscle relaxation (i.e., solid or liquid) would not affect the scale. Any other thoughts/ideas? ---Howie
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (01/14/84)
2212zap@mhuxm.UUCP (putnins): > I have also heard of this sudden weight loss upon death. > One possible explanation is the collapse of the lungs upon > death, and the associated loss of air. This loss of air > could be measurble. Not really. Think of the body as immersed in a fluid (air, in this case). The weight gained in inhaling a volume V of air would be exactly equal to the weight loss due to the extra buoyancy because the chest has inflated in the process of inhalation. (I know that's an oversimplification, but I doubt this topic needs anything more scholarly!) Conversely, the weight of the air lost when the lungs collapsed would be compensated for by a loss in buoyancy, so the resultant weight shouldn't change. Actually, when I first thought about it I considered the body as a topological surface: then, the air "inside" the lungs isn't really inside from a topological point of view. Which brings me to a more interesting aside: the human body with the alimentary canal (again, massive physiological simplifications, but you get the idea!) can be considered topologically equivalent to a toroid, which suggests that last night's dinner isn't really "inside" us! -- Saumya Debray Dept. of Computer Science SUNY at Stony Brook {floyd, bunker, cbosgd, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs! \ Usenet: sbcs!debray / {allegra, teklabs, hp-pcd, metheus}!ogcvax! CSNet: debray@suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relay
gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP (01/16/84)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@brl-vld> So how do you explain the fact that a toy balloon weighs more when inflated than when deflated?
Alpern.Ibm-Sj%Rand-Relay@sri-unix.UUCP (01/16/84)
From: David Alpern <Alpern.Ibm-Sj@Rand-Relay>
So how do you explain the fact that a toy balloon weighs more when
inflated than when deflated?
The moisture in the breath used to inflate the balloon is usually much
greater than the relative humidity in the surrounding air. And since
water is heavier than air...
MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (01/17/84)
Craig is correct: the balloon is heavier because the air inside is under pressure. Doug is wrong: moist air is LESS dense than dry air. Ask any pilot about "density altitude" and how it is affected by humidity. Mark
gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP (01/17/84)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@brl-vld> Wrong, try inflating the balloon with dry air. It is still heavier when inflated.
gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP (01/17/84)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@brl-vld> How could I have been wrong about the relative densities of moist and dry air when I never mentioned that? And yes, the correct answer has to do with the air in the balloon being under pressure.
MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (01/17/84)
OOPS! I misread the message header in my haste; the moisture -> density
argument was made by David Alpern in a message TO you.
Very sorry.
Mark
-------------------
Received: from SRI-UNIX.ARPA by PARC-MAXC.ARPA; 17 JAN 84 00:48:35 PST
Redistributed: XeroxPhysics^.pa
Received: from Rand-Relay.arpa by sri-unix.arpa with TCP; 16 Jan 84
18:42-PST
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 84 12:34:25 PST
From: David Alpern <Alpern.Ibm-Sj@Rand-Relay.ARPA>
Return-Path: <ALPERN.SJRLVM4.IBM-SJ@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: Evidence for the soul?!? - (nf)
To: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA>
Cc: physics@Sri-Unix.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your Message of Mon, 16 Jan 84 4:35:36 EST
Via: IBM-SJ; 16 Jan 84 15:44-PST
So how do you explain the fact that a toy balloon weighs more when
inflated than when deflated?
The moisture in the breath used to inflate the balloon is usually much
greater than the relative humidity in the surrounding air. And since
water is heavier than air...
-------------------BILLW%SRI-KL@sri-unix.UUCP (01/17/84)
Its time for me to put my foot in my mouth again. I believe you will find that humid air actually ways less that dry air. This can be seen by corrolating barometric pressure with reletive humidity (8th grade earth sciences class), or by comparing the mass of a water molecule with the mass of an oxygen or nitrogen molecule. Of course, human breath probably also contains water particles, and probably exhibits some condensation as it cools down to room temperature also... BillW
jgpo@iwu1c.UUCP (John, KA9MNK) (01/18/84)
==========================================================================
So how do you explain the fact that a toy balloon weighs more when
inflated than when deflated?
The moisture in the breath used to inflate the balloon is usually much
greater than the relative humidity in the surrounding air. And since
water is heavier than air...
==========================================================================
Actually, water vapor is *lighter* than air. Air is mostly nitrogen and
oxygen, and H2O has a lower molecular weight than either N2 or O2.
The next time you find yourself in the same room with a flight instructor,
ask him/her about "density altitude." You'll find that the factors which
influence density altitude are atmospheric pressure (natch), temperature
(obviously the BIGGIE), and (surprise!) humidity. The more humid, the
less dense the air.
In all probability, loss of air from the lungs accounts for the weight loss
after death. (The air making up the tidal volume obviously escapes; does
anybody know if any part of the residual volume escapes with the loss of
muscle tone?)
Moisture, as one person suggested, undoubtedly escapes and makes the body
lighter, but this would be a gradual loss. The weight loss we are trying
to explain is supposedly a *sudden* one.
I'm sure there's nothing metaphysical about it, at all.
From the filthy, no-good, unAmerican, atheistic keyboard of
John Opalko
AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
{whatever}!ihnp4!iwu1c!jgpo
PS:
The reason an inflated balloon weighs more than a flat one is the air
inside a balloon is *under pressure.* It contains more molecules per
unit volume than the atmosphere surrounding the balloon. Thus, it weighs
more than the volume of the air it displaces. (Granted, that buoyancy
makes that balloon weigh less in a room full of air than it would weigh
in a vacuum.)bennety@tektronix.UUCP (Bennet Yee) (02/02/84)
Orig. Q: Why inflated balloon is heavier than deflated one Someone's A: Humidity of breath.... To nitpick: gas within a balloon is under pressure. Ergo denser. Don't know about relative density of air & water vapor.... -bsy ...tektronix!bennety