On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 5:47:13 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:57:17 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/10/2018 09:57, Martin Brown wrote:
Approximately 1 mole of water vapour which is probably about the
amount that would be lost due to evaporative cooling of a still
warm corpse when the heart stops pumping blood around the body.
I had a suspicion that the charlatan quack that did this "experiment"
might be up to no good and now I have some more proof.
My, but you are quick to grasp at straws.
Dogs lack sweat glands except on the paws and predominantly adjust their
body temperature by panting (which obviously stops when they die).
http://www.pethealthnetwork.com/dog-.../do-dogs-sweat
So far from proving that dogs have no souls and humans do all he has
proved is that human sweat glands still work for while after death (as
do many of the other organs which is what makes transplants possible)
and that dogs don't have very many sweat glands at all.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
You have come to a false conclusion without doing a single calculation!
The first problem is the GUESS that about one mole (18 grams) of water
would be lost from "a still-warm corpse" with NO indication of the time
frame over which that would occur. The amount of water that a human body
loses is normally about 600 grams/day:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rmo/sweat.html
That's 24 grams/hour or about 0.5 grams/minute. The loss of 14 grams
(average) noted by MacDougall occurred in a few seconds. Even with an
elevated temperature of 5°C, the vapor pressure of water increases by
only 30%:
http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp...e/vpwater.html
Say, 0.7 grams/minute, or less than 0.1 gram in a few seconds.
Unsubstantiated opinions are worthless.
Gary
I’ve kept quiet in this thread because I’ve disputed this experiment with
you before. I have read the paper and it’s crap and wouldn’t have a chance
of publication in a modern journal.
In what way was it "crap""
Take it from me. A lot of crap papers get published in journals but none
of them are as crappy as this. I don’t think MacDougall was a fraud but
I do think his experimental techniques were bad.
There’s no proper description of his methods.
What would you consider "proper"?
There are too few subjects to draw any conclusions.
We all agree on this, but statistical analysis STILL gives a surprisingly
high confidence level.
To his credit he wrote that in the paper.
The insensible water loss of 600mL per day is taken as the standard but
in extreme circumstances sweat loss can be as much as ten litres per day.
10 kg seems extreme. Do you have any reference for that?
Nevertheless, let's go with that. 10000 gm/day is about 400 gm/hour, or
7 grams/minute. A minute is a LONG time. That's still less than 1 gram
in 10 seconds. That takes care of THAT objection.
When somebody is dying from an infectious disease their temperature is
usually raised which increases the sweat rate.
That was taken into account in the 10 liters/day assumption.
As somebody dies urine is released which will evaporate.
Evaporation doesn't happen instantaneously.
And at extreme sensitivity any weighing method is subject to errors.
MacDougall reported sensitivity as 1/16 to 1/8 ounce.
There’s no description of the beam balance and it’s entirely possible that
small movements of the subjects
MacDougall chose patients who were moribund, specifically, those with
terminal TB.
or of the medical and nursing staff treating them would affect the reading.
Somebody moving round the bed could have that effect.
Experiments where interference occurred were not included in the four cases
where results were included. You claim to have read his paper so I'm
surprised you are unaware of these things.
Your statistics are meaningless. There are too few data points.
This is dead wrong. Statistical analysis has set procedures and methods
for calculating confidence levels. I followed them. Your claim is what
is meaningless because YOU haven't done the analysis. Do that and SHOW
where I made a mistake.
Another consideration is selection. Unconscious selecting of results often
occurs. I was involved in study lasting years of a urine Down’s syndrome
marker which promised to give a single test with better predictions that
the triple or quadruple blood tests currently used. It was a multi centre
study and my own lab did the assay on thousands of samples. Eventually the
test was shown to be no better than any single one if the current tests.
The problem was that the world authority on Down’s screening who had
initiated the study had unconsciously selected atypical samples in his
initial work.
I think MacDougall did this.
Well, he DID choose moribund TB patients.
The work on dogs, as already mentioned in the thread would have been done
with a smaller beam balance and was also much more reproducible since he
presumably killed them and therefore knew the exact time of death.
You’re clutching at straws.
Pot, kettle, black :-)
Be honest. If you read a global warming paper as lacking in data as this
you’d not give it a second’s thought before dismissing it..
You're comparing apples to acorns. I use MacDougall's data to cast DOUBT
on the ASSERTION that humans don't have spirits.
You have to apply the same critical techniques to results you don’t want
as to results you do.
Casting doubt on a theory isn't the same thing as believing whole-heartedly
in one.
And, as I discussed with you before there a lots of fundamentalist doctors
who would love to repeat these experiments.
And ALL hospital administrators and nurses are dead set against it.
And I’m sure they have but since their results didn’t agree with MacDougall
they never published.
Assertion without evidence. And YOU should know that MacDougall's work
has NO chance of being repeated today because of moral objection as well
as the greater degree of medical intervention due to technology.
As for the AWARE study I knew about this before it started. It was going to
prove that out of body near death experiences existed. It failed. Not one
of the subjects identified the targets.
Look critically at the results. A big negative.
It wasn't set up properly. They realized that after they winnowed the
patients down to 1 after starting from over 2000.
And since alien abductions and implants were mentioned there is a real
explanation for these. It’s surprisingly common for people in operating
theatres under general anaesthesia wake up during the operation. Memories
of this are locked away, sometimes for years until something causes them to
surface. Hypnosis can do this. Since they were not fully conscious during
surgery the memories don’t have easy references. They describe distorted
faces with few features (surgical masks), strange looking hands (surgical
gloves) and smooth skin (surgical gowns).
The first man to describe alien abduction had surgery for appendicitis not
long before his hypnotic recall of the abduction.
Interesting :-)