Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Sun, 6 May 2018 19:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

No, sir! There was NO evidence until it was actually detected. You
are making a really bad show here, old boy.

It appears there is no subject about which you actually know anything
at all. Typical science denier.

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

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 2:57:28 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:42:01 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

I see no reason to trust Duncan MacDougall's data.

I see no reason to trust your opinion :-)

I don't expect you to trust my opinion simply because it's my opinion.

Duncan MacDougall found the weight difference in only one of four subjects,

I'm afraid you have that wrong, John. Didn't you read my post? Out of
four successful tests, he measured sudden weight losses of 3/4, 1/2, 1/2
and 3/8 ounce. The common assertion is the "21 grams" nonsense. If you
do a statistical analysis on that data, you must conclude that the sudden
weight loss was greater than zero at the 0.999 confidence level.

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.

but his findings were sensationalized by the press.

And is still being bandied about as "21 grams" when the average is 0.53
ounce.

I find it bizarre that you would think that research of this nature is
worthy of anything but ridicule, though.

So you believe in ridiculing an honest and careful scientist?

To me, this indicates an extreme lack of judgement, and it definitely
explains how you can be "skeptical" about global warming.

You make unsubstantiated assumptions about me.

While you do not believe in a flat Earth, and it is unfair to imply
otherwise,

What the heck does THAT mean? You seem to be sailing off a tangent from
reality.

I came across this article about flat-Earthers that indicates some
commonalities in their thinking with yours:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...hat-i-learned/

When scientists say that the "argument from authority" is invalid, they're
talking about unearned authority, like that of the hierarchy of the Catholic
church. Not about *their* authority, which comes from their technological
track record and their competency.

Are you SURE that was what Sagan was talking about? I don't think so.

But you just don't get it, and manage to think that is somehow hypocritical
of them.

Again you make unfounded assumptions about me. It is a FACT that many
scientists use authority as an argument.

Particularly when his conclusion flies in the face of Christian
religious doctrine

What "doctrine" would that be? I know of nothing in the Bible that says
or even implies such a claim.

Well, perhaps some Christians have let their thinking get contaminated
with Greek philosophy or something, and feel that matter would be out of
place in Heaven.

Indeed. I don't accept such deviant thinking, no matter how authoritative
their argument :-)

as well as science.

Science has no conclusions about life after death, except possibly
the theory that information cannot be destroyed. However, if there IS
continuation of one's existence, that implies some kind of energy, and
we all know that m = E/c^2.

At E=mc^2, living creatures would have to contain a *lot* of energy for
that to equal 21.3 grams...

John Savard

Or even 0.53 ounces :-)

But think of how much information a human has stored throughout a lifetime.
How much mass is that equivalent to? Nobody knows. Anyway, one must
assume that a spirit has more than just information.

No, sir! There was NO evidence until it was actually detected. You
are making a really bad show here, old boy.

Depends what you include as "evidence for the Higgs boson".
There was plenty of evidence for the Standard Model.

John Savard

The Standard Model is not a complete theory even with the Higgs:

"Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent
and has demonstrated huge successes in providing experimental predictions,
it leaves some phenomena unexplained and falls short of being a complete
theory of fundamental interactions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

So there is still wiggle room if it had turned out there were no Higgs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altern...rd_Higgs_Model

Peterson is behaving like a very nasty person, and you are sounding more
and more like him. But at least you present arguments (albeit flawed)
whereas Peterson has presented nothing but abuse.

On Sun, 6 May 2018 21:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:


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

He was as bad a scientist as you. You're full over into Looney Toons
science here.

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:35:59 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 6 May 2018 21:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

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

He was as bad a scientist as you.

Which means he was a good scientist. You, OTOH, are not even a scientist.

You're full over into Looney Toons science here.

It's too bad you are so conflicted with your belief system to see the
possibilities of thinking outside the box. You would rather heap scorn
upon those who rock your boat than be open to new science.

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.

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

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Sun, 6 May 2018 21:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:


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

He was as bad a scientist as you. You're full over into Looney
Toons science here.

You insult the word science in that description. He's just stupid and
****ed up in the head.

Much like you are, only with the polarity reversed.

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

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. 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?

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.

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, to the point of being disconnected from reality as to
what science *is*. (I suspect you know even less about what
religion is, as well.)

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

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

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****.

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, if you look at the data he excluded because
it didn't fit his desired narrative. (and even if you don't - his
sample size for his conclusion was *one*). 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 inconsistent.

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.

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.

You're making *Peterson* look like the smart one, and he's dumber
(and crazier) than Quaddie by a significant margin.

--
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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assertion is not evidence, and you have none, only an ignorant opinion.

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. 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.

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?

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. Do you not understand the meaning of "support"?

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

Now you're lying again. It is acceptable, even necessary, to cull failed
runs. Either you have not read his paper or you cannot understand what
you read.

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

No, it wasn't. It was FOUR. This is what happens when you take the word
of those who have never read the paper either.

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

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 inconsistent.

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...