IGary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:45:50 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Gary
I looked very carefully at the evidence you presented. It was an obvious
con trick.
"It"? I had three DIVERSE cases so it cannot be an "it."
Children can be made to believe anything by unscrupulous self
serving parents.
What children? What parents?
A child dreaming of a return from heaven followed by long discussions
which fixed the idea as truth in the child’s mind.
The parents had a hard time believing what the child was telling them.
There are also hundreds of cases of near-death experiences, some of
them compiled by Dr. R. A. Moody.
Then a money making and fame - generating confidence trick.
Making money is not a sin. What one believes is a choice. I made mine
and you made yours.
And the weight of a soul determined by weighing at death. With the results
published glossing over the cases where there was no change or a gain in
weight.
I am aware of the experiment being performed only six times. Here is a
reprint of the paper:
http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html
Patient #1: sudden loss of 3/4 oz.
Patient #2: sudden loss of 1/2 oz. (Additional weight loss later)
Patient #3: sudden loss of 1/2 oz. (Additional weight loss later)
Patient #4: not set up properly and interference from other people.
Patient #5: sudden loss of 3/8 oz.
Patient #6: died before scales could be set up.
So your claim of "no change or gain" is erroneous.
You obviously know about experimental error.
Yes, I do. Any honest investigator would throw out patients #4 and #6,
leaving only four valid measurements.
The average is 0.53 oz and the standard deviation is 0.157 oz.
The range for the true population size is 0.38 to 0.58 at 95% confidence.
The range for the true population size is 0.33 to 0.73 at 99% confidence.
The range for the true population size is 0.27 to 0.79 at 99.9% confidence.
You obviously know about reproducibility of experiments. Yet in a century
or so nobody has successfully repeated these experiments.
Nobody has performed ANY experiments since then, so your assertion leaves
out that important point. The reason WHY there have been no further work
is most likely because (1) it is considered "ghoulish", (2) medicine has
advanced considerably since those good ol' days and doctors work on the
dying and often resuscitate them, and (3) it is considered unseemly, even
offensive, to treat a human this way. MacDougall was prevented from
continuing his experiments in his day and things haven't changed much
since then.
From Snopes
“Fellow Massachusetts doctor Augustus P. Clarke took MacDougall to task for
having failed to take into account the sudden rise in body temperature at
death when the blood stops being air-cooled via its circulation through the
lungs. Clarke posited that the sweating and moisture evaporation caused by
this rise in body temperature would account both for the drop in the men’s
weight and the dogs’ failure to register one. (Dogs cool themselves by
panting, not sweating.) MacDougall rebutted that without circulation, no
blood can be brought to the surface of the skin and thus no surface cooling
occurs. The debate went on from the May issue all the way through December”
Perhaps we could do some new experiments with modern equipment and
many more subjects. Would you like to volunteer as a patient? :-)
That doesn't apply in the cases I presented.
There is no evidence for the existence of any god.
There is sufficient evidence for me. Obviously, you have different
criteria.
Even if there were who made that god - another higher god?
Yep.
Is it gods all the way up?
At some point, there must have been a first, but why would that matter
to us? We're Johnnie-come-lately to this universe. An equally-
irrelevant question is, how old is the universe? Are you sure?
Then where did the first come from. You’re just hanging a more or less
human face on what is as yet unknown.
Where did humans come from according to the standard model? How did
man become conscious of himself? Is it any different to claim that God
developed long ago in the same way? Why would you eschew the teachings
of a Being whose civilization is billions of years older than ours?
“There may be millions of inhabited worlds circling other suns, harboring
beings who to us would seem godlike, with civilizations and cultures
beyond our wildest dreams.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
It’s fairly clear from his writings that the only religion he had any time
for is a cleaned up Buddhism.
For his opinion on Christianity read The Star again. Or better still go to
the Old Time Radio SciFi Friday site and hear him reading it himself.
And they may be resurrected Beings.
If you take the Copenhagen interpretation or quantum mechanics you
don’t need a god at the beginning, just an observer to make the
universe exist by collapsing its wave functions. Schrodinger’s god.
The Copenhagen interpretation is DOA. Although ... have you heard of the
double-slit experimental results being affected by thought? Hmmmmm
A window into the multiverse?
Who knows?
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Phys...in%20final.pdf
I want to set this up sometime and try it, but I'm up to my eyeballs
in a research project that I've been working on for over five years.
Stephen Hawking’s last paper (not yet published) suggests a deep space
mission to investigate the multiverse.
Interesting. I wonder what he proposed. Maybe to find gravitation where
there is nothing? Would he use a Forward gravitational gradient detector?
http://www.space.com/40025-stephen-h...ultiverse.html