A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #391  
Old October 26th 18, 04:56 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:59:13 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Since information is a non-material property we can feel confident
that information is massless. Consider an unordered heap of small
balls. Now rearrange them in some ordered way so that they e.g. form
some letters with a message you wish to display. Would that change
the total mass of these small balls?


And let's ask this question again: would erasing all software on a
computer change the mass of the computer?


Since energy has mass, and the entropy of a system is connected to how much
energy it has, and entropy is connected to information, it might be argued that
information in some sense does have a tiny amount of mass.

However, it would be so tiny as to be impossible to measure.

Plus, of course, "information" is sometimes hard to define. A hard disk that can
store N bits of information always *has* N bits of information on it, no matter
what state those bits are in. Maybe if all the bits are zero, that information
is less interesting, but whether that is "less information" would depend on
history...

if all the bits are zero because the disk was erased, then in one sense, it has
no information;

if all the bits were zero because they contained the answers to N independent
yes or no questions, the answers to all of which just happened to be no, then it
would have N bits of information.

John Savard
  #392  
Old October 26th 18, 05:53 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Bill[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:


Exactly. Noting that mass was lost at time of death is interesting, but
simply not good enough for me to assert it was a "soul" that departed
the body.


SOMETHING left. "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth"

If the experiment could have been performed in a closed system (MacDougall
didn't have the means)


Really? How do you know this? His system was closed except for air. Do
you understand WHY that's not important?

then I could know if the lost mass was something known/identifiable matter
- or if the lost actually represented some sort of new enigma.


Methinks you are speculating in a vacuum.


Well,a vacuum? Damn Gary... All those years in school, board exams,
licensing, and all that effort and expense... Sigh...

As for techonolgy that could be employed to further establish the nature
of MacDougall's missing mass - let's just hit the ones I think are
obvious: mass spectromety, chromatography, flir.

--
Email address is a Spam trap.
  #393  
Old October 26th 18, 07:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:59:13 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:55:33 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

Do you? You seem to confuse it with spirit...


Many people confuse it with spirit, so do dictionaries.


And you are one of them?


I don't confuse them, but other people do. Sometimes I conflate them in
order to be understood by those who DO confuse them.

That "only problem" is then a quite serious problem..


Not as serious as you would pretend to make it.


Do you think Einstein's theory of relativity would have such a high
reputation if nobody had succeeded in verifying it experimentally?


No, but that's not the point here. All I'm saying is that here is something
interesting and should give one pause about vociferous denial of things
spiritual. I say the same about billion-year-old civilizations that may
well exist and be god-like, or even God.

So there are excellent reasons to not trust that data...


Disingenuous and dishonest assertion.


Why do you think it is "dishonest" to correctly point out that nobody
else has verified these measurements?


Just because it has not been repeated because of changing attitudes is NOT
an "excellent reason to distrust the data." THAT'S what's dishonest.

Would honest people have obtained a different value?


READ THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH, disingenuous disparager

to make it look more scientific (two significant figures instead
of one) and (2) they picked the biggest value from the set instead
of the average value. Don't tell me that you couldn't figure that
out for yourself.

So you'd prefer a value of 10 to 15 grams instead? Not a big deal,
the error bars ought to be quite large anyway... let's say 10-20
grams instead, ok?


The average value of the four measurements is 0.53 ounce. I prefer
accuracy to guesses.


You are nit picking.


Nope. Just trying to defend against your sophistry.

The major question here is not whether it is 0.53 or 0.52 ounces, but
whether it is zero or larger than zero.


True. That's what the statistical analysis is all about.

That's what needs verification. By other independent measurements.


It needs that for scientific verification but not for the purpose I stated above. The Higg's boson confirmation required five nines confirmation
whereas MacDougall's data only confirms mass loss greater than zero to
three nines. Frankly, I was surprised that it was THAT high.

And how do you exclude the possibility of systematic errors
in the measurements?

Such possibilities have been discussed in the literature.

And the conclusion was?


All objections refuted.


Just like that? No further details?

In particular, how was the absence of other independent and
confirming measurements refuted?


If you're REALLY interested you can read the paper, the rebuttals and the
rebuttals to the rebuttals.

Why not also use it when discussing the mass of the soul?


I present the data as a brake on assertions that a spirit has no mass.
There is absolutely NO evidence that it has ne mass but there IS
experimental evidence that it does. Do you believe that NO evidence
trumps SOME evidence?


How do you know that spirits even exist?


"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children
of God" -- Romans 8:16

There are many passages in the Bible that refer to spirits but, of course,
you don't believe the Bible, being an atheist. So maybe you believe in
these spirits:

https://vinepair.com/spirits-101/what-are-spirits/

It's pointless to argue about whether a non-existing entity has mass or
not.


You have it backwards: If something leaves the body upon death and cannot
be identified, we might as well call that a spirit.

And if spirits exist, weighs 0.53 ounces and has the same volume as its
host body, why do spirits go to heaven instead of falling to Earth?


Why are you repeating bull plop that has already been explained?

Or stay afloat some tens of miles up in the atmosphere where the density
of the spirit equals the density of the surrounding air...


If spirits exist, they also have motive power, so this is just malarkey.

You know, mass is a physical property. Only matter has mass.


So we believe. Something causes galaxies to rotate faster than their
observed mass indicates. We have no idea what it is even after decades
of searching for it. We call it "dark matter" to give it a comforting
name, but is it? Maybe some of it is spirit matter :-)

So when you claim that a spirit has mass, then you also claim that
spirits are made of matter. Don't you realize that?


Why would you think I don't know that? Are you trying to be a sophist?

I would ask you: why you believe it is okay to reject experimental
data that has a 99.9% confidence level? If you REALLY want to
refute MacDougall's results then YOU do your own analysis of his
data.

You shouldn't blindly trust an exaggerated confidence level.


I did the analysis myself.


Then your mind is flawed, since you believe unconfirmed measurements
can have such a high confidence level. Do you believe you are infallible?


SO you assert without even looking at the evidence or doing any analysis
of it whatever that my mind is flawed? No, I don't believe I'm infallible.
I asked YOU to do your own analysis and you just sit there and argue out
of ignorance.

First, it has probably been boosted by wishful thinking by these
experimenters.


"Experimenters"? There was only MacDougall's name on the paper he wrote.
"Probably" wishful thinking? Do you have experimental data to support
that assertion? Nope, you don't. YOU are the one engaging in wishful
thinking.


If there is only one single experimenter the risk of systematic
errors increase dramatically. Why did he fail to form a team for this
experiment? Was he some anti-social eccentric? And who funded the
experiment?


Go find out for yourself instead of sitting there demanding that you be
spoon fed?

And, second, the confidence level only says something about random
errors and nothing about systematic errors. The systematic errors
can only be found by several other independent measurements by others,


That is pure baloney. Experimenters investigate possible systematic
errors in their own equipment all the time.


Experimenter-S do that, yes. But in this case there were no
experimenters, only one single experimenter. You pointed that out
yourself. To claim that one single experimenter in his solitude
flawlessly spots and removes all systematic errors, that is naive
indeed.

Unless, of course, the sole experimenter was the Pope, whom we know
is infallible... evil grin


:-)

and as you earlier reluctantly admitted this has not been done.


The "reluctance" is in your brain, not mine.


You are right actually. I am reluctant to accept the results from
unconfirmed experiments.


Oh, you are MUCH more than reluctant. You won't even say, "Well, maybe."

[Babbling nonsense deleted]


What the HECK are you babbling about? Bodies LOSE mass upon death
according to MacDougall's work, not gain it.


Are you saying that a soul in a live human body is weightless but
suddenly gains some weight at the moment of death?


Do you have ANY idea how stupid that assertion is?

Surely all this sounds absurd, but it is just consequences of your
claims... you definitely have to think them over...


No, it is pure baloney perpetrated by a dishonest or confused atheist.
The absurdity is YOUR invention.


True, but I just formed the conclusions of your own claims:

Soul = body + spirit
The soul weighs some 3/8 ounces


No, baloney-breath. SOUL is the spirit and body combined. That's what you
weigh on a scales. Let's say 180 pounds. The body alone weighs 179 pounds,
15 5/8 ounces.

Combine this with the fact that an adult human body weighs some 70-80
kg and the necessary conclusion is that the spirit has negative mass.


Did you flunk math?
  #394  
Old October 26th 18, 07:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 10:53:10 AM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:


then I could know if the lost mass was something known/identifiable
matter - or if the lost actually represented some sort of new enigma.


Methinks you are speculating in a vacuum.


Well,a vacuum? Damn Gary... All those years in school, board exams,
licensing, and all that effort and expense... Sigh...

As for techonolgy that could be employed to further establish the nature
of MacDougall's missing mass - let's just hit the ones I think are
obvious: mass spectromety, chromatography, flir.


For the first two, you'd need a piece of the unidentified stuff, but we
don't. FLIR?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ewYs_4cho

It was claimed that a cold spot moved across the view, but I didn't see it.
Oh, well :-(

There's a group called AWARE that's performing experiments on people who
have near-death experiences.

https://www.iands.org/news/news/fron...published.html
  #395  
Old October 26th 18, 10:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Bill[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 10:53:10 AM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:


then I could know if the lost mass was something known/identifiable
matter - or if the lost actually represented some sort of new enigma.

Methinks you are speculating in a vacuum.


Well,a vacuum? Damn Gary... All those years in school, board exams,
licensing, and all that effort and expense... Sigh...

As for techonolgy that could be employed to further establish the nature
of MacDougall's missing mass - let's just hit the ones I think are
obvious: mass spectromety, chromatography, flir.


For the first two, you'd need a piece of the unidentified stuff, but we
don't. FLIR?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ewYs_4cho

It was claimed that a cold spot moved across the view, but I didn't see it.
Oh, well :-(

There's a group called AWARE that's performing experiments on people who
have near-death experiences.

https://www.iands.org/news/news/fron...published.html


We're not communicating.

I've taking NO position, or side, concerning the debate here about the
existence of a human soul; and I refuse to be drawn into that
discussion.

--
Email address is a Spam trap.
  #396  
Old October 26th 18, 11:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:10:49 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 10:53:10 AM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:


then I could know if the lost mass was something known/identifiable
matter - or if the lost actually represented some sort of new
enigma.

Methinks you are speculating in a vacuum.

Well,a vacuum? Damn Gary... All those years in school, board exams,
licensing, and all that effort and expense... Sigh...

As for techonolgy that could be employed to further establish the nature
of MacDougall's missing mass - let's just hit the ones I think are
obvious: mass spectromety, chromatography, flir.


For the first two, you'd need a piece of the unidentified stuff, but we
don't. FLIR?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ewYs_4cho

It was claimed that a cold spot moved across the view, but I didn't see
it. Oh, well :-(

There's a group called AWARE that's performing experiments on people who
have near-death experiences.

https://www.iands.org/news/news/fron...published.html


We're not communicating.


Sure we are. You sent me a message, I sent you a message, you sent one back,
I'm sending one back :-)

I've taking NO position, or side, concerning the debate here about the
existence of a human soul; and I refuse to be drawn into that
discussion.


You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only thing that
counts is experimental data, and the only experimental data in existence
is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that when thin data exists, there
are many who will prefer to beat the drum for an opposing position which has
NO data.
  #397  
Old October 27th 18, 07:56 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only

thing that
counts is experimental data, and the only experimental data in

existence
is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that when thin data

exists, there
are many who will prefer to beat the drum for an opposing position

which has
NO data.


That is quite natural when people like you are over exploiting this
thin set of experimental data, claiming e.g. "this is PROOOOF that a
human soul exists" when it's not that at all. Even if that body did
lose 3/8 of an ounce as the moment of death, how do you know that
this weight loss is due to a soul leaving the body? Perhaps that
dying person just happened to fart at the moment of death and the
sole other person present was too embarrassed to mention this? Since
no other person was present, there is no way to check this.

So instead of complaining over this, why aren't you instead working
for having this measurement thoroughly? Of course this carries the
risk (from your viewpoint) that this measurement is refuted rather
than confirmed - is that what you are afraid of?
  #398  
Old October 27th 18, 05:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 12:56:35 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

That is quite natural when people like you are over exploiting this
thin set of experimental data, claiming e.g. "this is PROOOOF that a
human soul exists" when it's not that at all.


He will quite rightly reply that he never claimed it was *proof*.

What he is claiming, though, is this:

that since it's the only experimental data we have, even *though* it's thin,
until such time as further experiments along this line are done to get better
data, we should be basing our thinking on what data there is, not our personal
prejudices.

So the _default_ assumption, until more evidence comes along, should be that
there is a human soul, and it has mass.

That instead people are just rejecting the experimental data as bad or unworthy
of consideration shows that they're biased.

This is, of course, wrong, but I have found it difficult to explain exactly
_why_ it is wrong. Basically, for science to function, it needs to take a fair
amount of evidence to move what it works on.

Plus, most religions don't claim the soul should have mass, so there is no
pressure to be more fair to this idea, or the trouble of repeating the
experiment might have been taken.

John Savard
  #399  
Old October 27th 18, 06:25 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Bill[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:10:49 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 10:53:10 AM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote:


then I could know if the lost mass was something known/identifiable
matter - or if the lost actually represented some sort of new
enigma.

Methinks you are speculating in a vacuum.

Well,a vacuum? Damn Gary... All those years in school, board exams,
licensing, and all that effort and expense... Sigh...

As for techonolgy that could be employed to further establish the nature
of MacDougall's missing mass - let's just hit the ones I think are
obvious: mass spectromety, chromatography, flir.

For the first two, you'd need a piece of the unidentified stuff, but we
don't. FLIR?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ewYs_4cho

It was claimed that a cold spot moved across the view, but I didn't see
it. Oh, well :-(

There's a group called AWARE that's performing experiments on people who
have near-death experiences.

https://www.iands.org/news/news/fron...published.html


We're not communicating.


Sure we are. You sent me a message, I sent you a message, you sent one back,
I'm sending one back :-)

I've taking NO position, or side, concerning the debate here about the
existence of a human soul; and I refuse to be drawn into that
discussion.


You are a very wise person since debate is worthless. The only thing that
counts is experimental data, and the only experimental data in existence
is a bit thin. I find it very interesting that when thin data exists, there
are many who will prefer to beat the drum for an opposing position which has
NO data.


Ok, now I follow. Thanks. (Yeh, not FLIR, but FTIR
spectrometer/analyser. Sorry)
--
Email address is a Spam trap.
  #400  
Old October 27th 18, 06:43 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Bill[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 08:56:33 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

So instead of complaining over this, why aren't you instead working
for having this measurement thoroughly? Of course this carries the
risk (from your viewpoint) that this measurement is refuted rather
than confirmed - is that what you are afraid of?



Just how's anyone going to accomplish that, since society will not
sanction this sort of experimentation - much less fund it.


--
Email address is a Spam trap.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.