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

Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old May 8th 18, 12:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Gary Harnagel wrote in
:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:10:44 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote in
:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 8:51:15 AM UTC-6, Ninapenda Jibini
wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote in
:

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:59:20 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc
wrote:

and he himself said it was premature to draw definite
conclusions without more data;

Which proves that he was a careful experimenter and we
should trust his data.

If you trust his data *because* he says it's not
trusthworthy, you are mentally ill, son. And stupid.

Perhaps you're having trouble parsing what Mac said. He said
more data was needed.


If more data is needed, more data is needed. Trusting it
*because* it's incomplete (and that's literally what you said)
is as ****ing crazy and stupid as trusting it because you sae
it on the internet, or while tripping on LSD.


"If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face
it: You're not that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt


"If you obsess on changing the subject to avoid looking stupid, you
look stupid." -- me.

And you're still having problems understanding the written word.


You're having trouble accepting that you're a moron, and everyone
knows it.

He DIDN'T say his was untrustworthy. He certainly wouldn't
published it if he thought that, now wouldn't he!


You are now literally worshiping the scientific method as a
religion,


You are literally worshiping your own arrogance and bearing
false witness.


Not an answer.

"He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright


Random quotes with no context won't make you right. In fact,
they'll just make you look even stupider.

to the point of being disconnected from reality as to what
science *is*.


So let's see YOUR degree in science, yammerhead.


As my father like to - correctly - point out, a degree has more to
do with persistence than competence or intelligence. Sometimes, a
PhD just means you're a well educated idiot.

That's why we have the scientific method: So that well informed
people can judge a theory on its scientific merits, and ignore
idiots spouting nonsense. MacDougall's experiments have never been
duplicated.

(I suspect you know even less about what religion is, as well.)


It's obvious from your posts that you know little of either.


And yet, I know far more than you.

MacDougall's "experiment" was worthless trash, at best, and
really was religious propaganda.


Assertion is not evidence,


Indeed. MacDougall's assertion is worth excatly as much as anybody
else's - nothing - since he did not engage in science.

and you have none, only an ignorant
opinion.


I know you are, but what am I?

Have *you*, personally, reproduced MacDougall's "experiment," using
modern techniques? No? Then ignorant opinion is all you have, as
well.

Glad you agree you're full of ****.

And no one has ever been able to duplicate his results. Which,
according to science, means he was full of ****.


What a silly assertion and a clumsier lie.


Then by all means, feel free to point us to peer reviewed papers in
which his "experiment" has been duplicated, with the same results.

Or not. We both know you can't.

You're VERY good at
shading the truth. The experiment has NEVER been repeated, so
your nonsense about "never been able to duplicate" is complete
horse manure.


What is your evidence that it has never been attempted? Because
withotu evidence, all you're doing is spouting ignorant opinion.

Which, you have agreed, makes you looks stupid.

As for "wouldn't publish, now would he," I suggest you go read
about a guy named Alan Sokal. And how easily duped _Social
Text_ was by someone who *knew* he was submitting bull****.


What a deceptive piece of baloney. The fact that one person was
dishonest is not an argument for another person to be. Did you
flunk logic?


Sokal is hardly the only person to get complete nonsense published
in peer reviewed journals. In fact, a couple of people have written
automated scripts to generate complete, utter, nonsense papers -
and they get accepted.

Your faith in publishing as evidence of credibility is just that:
faith. And not science.

And you know it, or you wouldn't keep trying to change the subject.

It's quite an accomplishement to make Quaddie look both
smart and normal.

--
Terry Austin

I would like to see more data, too. You seem to be falling
into the same false notion as P and Q. I'm only saying that
Mac's data supports the theory that a spirit has mass.


No, it really doesn't,


Yes, it really does.


If that were the case, there would be nothing to debate today, over
a century later.

But far more people point and laugh at retards like you who buy
that nonsense than there are people like you who buy that nonsense.

Do you not understand the meaning of
"support"?


Do you not understand the meaning of "data?" It's not the plural of
"anecdote." MacDougall produced to "data," only a comfortable
story, after ignoring 5/6ths of what he *did* have - none of which
was, by any reasonable definition, "science."

Moron.

if you look at the data he excluded because it didn't fit his
desired narrative.


Now you're lying again.


I know you are, but what am I?

is acceptable, even necessary, to
cull failed runs.


Only if you're writing propaganda. Science doesn't work that way.

Either you have not read his paper or you
cannot understand what you read.


Either you are too stupid to understand what "science" actually is,
or you're too mentally ill to accept the world is not the fanstasy
inside your head, where people take you seriously and you get to
matter because you want to so badly.

Or both, I suppose.

(and even if you don't - his sample size for his conclusion was
*one*).


No, it wasn't.


Yes. It was.

It was FOUR.


Of which, according to all account not invented by idiots like you,
he ignored THREE. After eliminating two more, because he didn't
like the results.

This is what happens when you take
the word of those who have never read the paper either.


And four is still a meaninglessly small sample.

And the analysis of the four samples excludes zero with a
confidence level of 0.999.


Only in your diseased fantasy world. In the real world, it's too
small a sample to have _any_ meaning. Much like you. Meaningless.

A sample size of six is pointless, his methodology was biased
(and he excluded 5/6ths of what he did have), and his results
were at the edge of what his equipment could measure _by his
own account_, and inconsisten

t.

Your diatribe is dead wrong and fatally biased by your
prejudices.


I know you are, but what am I?

He was apparently unaware that gasses, including ordinary air,
have weight. Being a physician, and not trained in physics or
chemistry research, that's not surprising.


Obviously, you have never read the paper or you are a VERY poor
reader. Also, you didn't even bother to learn what a lungful of
air weighs before yammering your baloney.


Was the experiment done inside of a sealed chamber? No? Then he
didn't control for far too many things.

And four (after ignoring the two he didn't like) is a meaninglessly
small sample, and his results have never been dupcated after over a
century.

Some people are so afraid of any data that conflicts with
their
atheistic belief system that they will impugn Mac's character
and insult anyone who presents it. Are YOU in that same
tank?


And you are a retarded wingnut who will believe literally
*anything* that fits your insane fantasies of how you want the
world to work.


And you are a yammerhead that refuses to have an open mind,


Your mind is so open all the intelligence has leaked out. Or maybe
you wet your pants again.

if
you have a mind at all. And if you want to talk about
fantasies, why don't we look at YOURS? :-)


I'm living my fantasy. I'm making fun of retarded idiots like you
on the internet, and you *can't* stop yourself from replying.

You're making *Peterson* look like the smart one,


“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge.


Glad you agree you're full of ****. Because unless you, personally,
have duplicated the experience and gotten the same results - and
you haven't - all you have is your own ingorant opinion, based on a
century old claim that no real scientist takes seriously.

It
requires no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill
Bullard


So what's the accountability on MacDougall's claims? Who has
replicated his "experiment" and gotten the same results? What peer
reviewed journal were they published in, and when?

*You* have just aid MacDougall's "experiement" is worthless trash.

You behave like the quintessential internet troll.


I'm not quintessential at all. I'm the master troll-god of all
internet trolls.

And you're firmly on my hook, son. Utterly unable to wiggle free.

and he's dumber (and crazier) than Quaddie by a significant
margin.

--
Terry Austin


I wouldn't argue against THAT :-)


You *couldn't* argue against that, or anything else. You lack the
native with to actually argue. All you have is parroting the
religious propaganda that you desperately *want* to be true,
because you are unable to handle the real world.

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek


“There’s only one person you’re guaranteed to spend the
rest of your Life with … yourself. Don’t live the rest of
your life with an asshole.” – QuoteGate


More meaningless quotes without context. Thus admitting, once
again, you have no actual argument at all.

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.


But what if the sin was a crime? :-))


That bit snares more fish than any other bait I've ever used. No
surprise at all that you bit.

Moron.

The woman caught in the very act of adultery guilty was breaking
the law, therefore she was a criminal.

So much for your understanding of religion.

And you have not done a valid critique of MacDougall's paper.


Since it wasn't science, there's nothing *to* critique.

You have no offered *anything* - and you won't - to support it.
Because there *is* nothing.

Yammering bull plop is NOT critiquing.


Nor is it support, moron.

So much for your
understanding of science and the scientific method.

I don't need to know much about either to recognize a ****ing moron
when one is spewing nonsense all over the place. That's you: the
moron.

You will now reply. Because I'm not ready to let you stop yet.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #342  
Old May 8th 18, 12:26 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

palsing wrote in
:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:51:07 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I would like to see more data, too. You seem to be falling
into the same false notion as P and Q. I'm only saying that
Mac's data supports the theory that a spirit has mass...


What evidence can you offer to show that the loss of mass was
due to a spirit? Perhaps Mac's data show instead that the loss
of mass was due to the weight of the memories 'evaporating' as
they left the now-deceased body? It seems to me that claiming
that memories have mass is just as possible as someone claiming
that a spirit has mass...

By MacDougall's own account, the mass loss was just at the edge of
what his equipment could measure. In other words, there's no reason
to believe there *was* a loss of mass. (Aside from not controlling
for any of a thousand other things - he just had a guy on a table
with a fairly primitive scale.)

Any time you have an extraordiary claim, the measurements to support
which are at the edge of the precision of the measuring equipment,
what you have is junk science.

And retards who will lap it up because they want so badly for it to
be true.

I wonder if MacDougall was an ancestor of Pons or Fleishmann, or if
he was related to Prosper-Ren Blondlot.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #343  
Old May 8th 18, 12:32 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

"If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face it: You're
not that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt


The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a
lack of education or a lack of verbal interest is just a ****ing
lunatic. -- Stephen Fry

Says somebody who is much, much smarter and much, much more
interesting that Hyatt! (And studies show that the swearing is a sign
of intelligence and high literacy.)
  #344  
Old May 8th 18, 12:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
and his results have never been dupcated after over a
century.


Ah, but was that after a century _of trying_?

....to paraphrase a John W. Campbell essay on cigarette smoking.

So, while I agree it would be a stretch, a partisan of the MacDougall experiment
could point out that the atheistic scientism conspiracy has discouraged others
from attempting to repeat his experiment.

John Savard
  #345  
Old May 8th 18, 04:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Ninapenda Jibini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Quadibloc wrote in
:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:
and his results have never been dupcated after over a
century.


Ah, but was that after a century _of trying_?

...to paraphrase a John W. Campbell essay on cigarette smoking.

So, while I agree it would be a stretch, a partisan of the
MacDougall experiment could point out that the atheistic
scientism conspiracy has discouraged others from attempting to
repeat his experiment.

Which is on of many reasons why conspiracy theorists are good for
nothing more than pointing and laughing.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
  #346  
Old May 8th 18, 12:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:03:24 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:51:07 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I would like to see more data, too. You seem to be falling into the same
false notion as P and Q. I'm only saying that Mac's data supports the
theory that a spirit has mass...


What evidence can you offer to show that the loss of mass was due to a
spirit? Perhaps Mac's data show instead that the loss of mass was due to
the weight of the memories 'evaporating' as they left the now-deceased
body?
It seems to me that claiming that memories have mass is just as possible
as someone claiming that a spirit has mass...


It is a belief by many physicists that information is conserved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...mation_paradox

I'm not sure about that, but if it's so then memories can't just evaporate.
If you google "information paradox and life after death" you'll be led to
all kinds of stuff.

As far as we know, information must be stored in some physical form, but
how much mass is required for a given amount of data is a shrinking
quantity. It seems absurd that it can shrink to zero, yes?
  #347  
Old May 8th 18, 12:53 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 6:00:01 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:23:18 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

and his results have never been dupcated after over a
century.


Ah, but was that after a century _of trying_?

...to paraphrase a John W. Campbell essay on cigarette smoking.

So, while I agree it would be a stretch, a partisan of the MacDougall
experiment could point out that the atheistic scientism conspiracy has
discouraged others from attempting to repeat his experiment.

John Savard


The real reason was much simpler than that. MacDougall was disinvited
from the hospital where he was doing the experiments and he could find
no hospital that would allow him to continue. The same mindset is still
very much in play: it's ghoulish, it's irreverent, it's inhumane, etc.

Today, it is indeed inhumane because when many patients are near death
doctors perform intervention techniques which would interfere with a
balance.
  #348  
Old May 8th 18, 01:03 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:32:49 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

"If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face it:
You're not that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt


“The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a
lack of education or a lack of verbal interest is just a ****ing
lunatic.” -- Stephen Fry

Says somebody who is much, much smarter and much, much more
interesting that Hyatt! (And studies show that the swearing is a sign
of intelligence and high literacy.)


https://www.verywell.com/foul-langua...dementia-97610

So you and Fry are saying that people with dementia are more intelligent
and have high literacy? :-))
  #349  
Old May 8th 18, 02:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Tue, 8 May 2018 05:03:08 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:32:49 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

"If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face it:
You're not that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt


The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a
lack of education or a lack of verbal interest is just a ****ing
lunatic. -- Stephen Fry

Says somebody who is much, much smarter and much, much more
interesting that Hyatt! (And studies show that the swearing is a sign
of intelligence and high literacy.)


https://www.verywell.com/foul-langua...dementia-97610

So you and Fry are saying that people with dementia are more intelligent
and have high literacy? :-))


Not too bright, are you?
  #350  
Old May 8th 18, 03:28 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Ninapenda Jibini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Gary Harnagel wrote in
:
Dude, you really should take your meds.


On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:03:24 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:51:07 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I would like to see more data, too. You seem to be falling
into the same false notion as P and Q. I'm only saying that
Mac's data supports the theory that a spirit has mass...


What evidence can you offer to show that the loss of mass was
due to a spirit? Perhaps Mac's data show instead that the loss
of mass was due to the weight of the memories 'evaporating' as
they left the now-deceased body?
It seems to me that claiming that memories have mass is just as
possible as someone claiming that a spirit has mass...


It is a belief by many physicists that information is conserved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...mation_paradox

I'm not sure about that, but if it's so then memories can't just
evaporate. If you google "information paradox and life after
death" you'll be led to all kinds of stuff.

As far as we know, information must be stored in some physical
form, but how much mass is required for a given amount of data
is a shrinking quantity. It seems absurd that it can shrink to
zero, yes?




--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
 




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
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity or Just Dead Science? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 November 27th 17 12:41 PM
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 October 1st 17 06:05 PM
Clifford Truesdell: Thermodynamics Is a Dismal Swamp of Obscurity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 August 2nd 17 05:12 PM
REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER [email protected] Astronomy Misc 15 May 29th 07 05:25 AM
STERN REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER [email protected] Astronomy Misc 11 March 4th 07 01:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 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.