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

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:22:39 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 1:34:21 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

They were not "sudden" since these weight changes were were measured
MINUTES after death, not seconds.

Yes, but I didn't recall you saying that the weight change, when it
occurred, took longer to happen. Something that happens hours after
someone dies can still happen in only a few seconds.

John Savard

Read MacDougall's paper. It seems quite clear to me.

Patient #1: "At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and
suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped"

Patient #2: "The last fifteen minutes he had ceased to breathe but his
facial muscles still moved convulsively, and then, coinciding with the
last movement of the facial muscles, the beam dropped."

Patient #3: " a man dying of tuberculosis, showed a weight of half and
ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce
a few minutes later."

Patient #4: " a woman dying of diabetic coma, unfortunately our scales
were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by
people opposed to our work" (3/8 to 1/2 ounce recorded but not included
in my analysis)

Patient #5: " a man dying of tuberculosis, showed a distinct drop in the
beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted
for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death"

MacDougall also reported an anomaly occurring a few minutes later. This
data was included in my analysis, nevertheless.

Patient #6: "The patient died almost within five minutes after being
placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam."

Thus four samples were included in my analysis (#1, #2, #3 and #5),
3/4, 1/2. 1/2 and 3/8 ounce.

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 04:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There are thousands of incorrect statements and I'm not the internet
police

Nobody has asked that of you. But you could be a contributor to
Wikipedia, if you want to. But instead you prefer to whine...

I've never done it and don't propose starting. I have enough on my plate
trying to get a Raspberry Pi to read USB arduino data, building a counter
using a 74LV8154 on an Arduino shield, making Arrow of Light plaques for my
Webelos boys, and answering interminable puerile objections on this board.

You could stop posting on Usenet for awhile, that would give you time for
Wikipedia. So if you think you don't have time for Wikipedia, why do you
have time to hang around here?

Why don't YOU clean up your own false claims:

I'd be happy to, but only if they really are false, not just because
you dislike what I say.

I dislike dishonesty.

So you lie by quoting the wrong quotation. The lie is THIS:

"The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due to the
small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact only one f the
six subjects met the hypothesis."

There were FOUR, not one:

Three of those four had additional weight changes, not explainable by
a soul having weight leaving the body at death. If those additional
weight changes could occur without souls involved, why not those
weight changes at the moment of death?

Sudden vs. longer term, forgetful one.

The paper doesn't say the weight losses later weren't sudden. Perhaps the
author doesn't know because he didn't monitor the balance continuously
those several minutes.

Patient #3 lost 1/2 oz at the moment of death but a few minutes later
he lost even more, one full oz. How could that be?

It's called "evaporation." YOU were one of those babbling about that,
remember?

And you dismissed that explanation.

No, I didn't. I dismissed it for a SUDDEN change, puerile one.

How do you know the other weight changes weren't sudden too? The paper
doesn't say, so you just don't know, you merely assume...

Are you claiming that evaporation somehow ceases at the moment of death,
to be resumed shortly afterwards?

Why can't you understand that your objections are really foolish?

But why do you exclude the weight losses of an additional ONE FULL
OUNCE in two of the cases? And the weight gain a few minutes after
death in one of the cases...

More disingenuous babbling baloney.

But you have, implicitly, given a partial answer anyway. Your
method is called Cherry Picking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Completely dishonest babbling baloney.

Nice try, but those cheap con artist tricks cannot hide the obvious
fact that you are cherry picking...

Your so-called "cherry picking" is separating sudden versus longer term
changes. That is dishonest of you.

So there you are - even the author himself says we cannot draw any
reliable conclusions from his measurements alone. And the original
paper says so.

And I admitted that right off the bat.

So why did you even bring it up if you knew from the start that this
study was unreliable?

Not "unreliable" dishonest one. You really do like to jump to straw man
baloney, don't you.

If it wasn't unreliable, why did even the author himself think the
experiment needed to be repeated? Not just once, but many times...

The problem is that you demand absolute scientific proof to five nines
confidence. Sorry, old bean, can only give you three nines.

FYI: "absolute scientific proof" does not exist.

FYI: More straw man baloney from you. NOTICE I followed that by five nines
confidence. You are getting really, really picky about irrelevant stuff.

Any scientific conclusion is open for modification, if and when reliable
evidence for that appears.

But the new evidence must have greater confidence than the old.

That's not a requirement, it's enough that the new experiments have at
least the same confidence as the old. Most likely, the new experiments
will measure a domain which wasn't measured in the old experiments, e.g.
because the older technology was unable to do such measurements. The
canonical example is Newtonian mechanics vs the theory of relativity. And
the new theory should explain not just the results from the new
experiments, but from the old experiments as well. THe theory of
relativity didn't show that Newtonian mechanics was completely invalid,
but merely that it wasn't applicable at speeds approaching the speed of
light.

Your monumental skepticism leads you to the point of dishonesty,
particularly when you ignore sudden versus longer term changes.
Why don't you apply this skepticism to AGW? :-))

Back in the days of Svante Arrhenius, who in the 1800's was the first
person to point out the future risk of AGW, being skeptical about AGW
would have been a reasonable point of view. Today the situation is
very different. Being skeptical of AGW today is much like being
skeptical about the Earth being round and not flat.

Aren't you one who has played with the modstar program that shows that
doubling the CO2 level has a minor greenhouse effect? Have you tried
doubling the water vapor level and observe what happens with that?

I didn't do that, someone else did. Since you enjoy the Usenet so much,
you can spend some time to find the post by the one who did this. Unless
you start to devote some of your time to Wikipedia, then you are excused
from not doing so.

It's obvious that your beliefs are NOT based on the evidence.

It is obvious that you confuse me with someone else. Perhaps you should
start taking notes? Your memory isn't flawless...

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:15:07 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:59:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:


A genuine revelation would also convince skeptics and non-believers.

Highly doubtful.

Would an all-powerful God be unable to reveal himself in such a way
that also skeptics became convinced?

He COULD, but why would you think that is His goal?

OK, let's suppose this is not his goal. But then, why would God first
obscure his existence in order to make a number of people not believe in
him, and then, later, throw the non-believers in hell, to suffer and
scream and anguish, for ever and ever until the end of time?

An all-powerful God could of course do such a thing, but not a God which
is both all-powerful and all-benign...

Are you claiming that God is evil?

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 7:04:44 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Aren't you one who has played with the modstar program that shows that
doubling the CO2 level has a minor greenhouse effect? Have you tried
doubling the water vapor level and observe what happens with that?

It's obvious that your beliefs are NOT based on the evidence.

We can increase the carbon dioxide level by burning fossil fuels.

Nothing we do *directly* raises or lowers the water vapor level. But guess
what *does* raise the water vapor level - *rising temperatures*.

Which modtran shows isn't caused by CO2 greenhouse effect.

FYI: modtran isn't reality itself. It can have errors, or limitations. It
can also have ignorant users who are using it in the wrong way, and/or
interpreting the results in a wrong way.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 9:56:11 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:


That's not a requirement, it's enough that the new experiments have at
least the same confidence as the old. Most likely, the new experiments
will measure a domain which wasn't measured in the old experiments, e.g.
because the older technology was unable to do such measurements. The
canonical example is Newtonian mechanics vs the theory of relativity. And
the new theory should explain not just the results from the new
experiments, but from the old experiments as well. THe theory of
relativity didn't show that Newtonian mechanics was completely invalid,
but merely that it wasn't applicable at speeds approaching the speed of
light.


The guys one hundred years ago had a ball with Sir Isaac and his absolute/relative time,space and motion without actually understanding what he was try to do with his 'scientific method' agenda.

It certainly hinges on Huygen's expression of a geocentric/heliocentric equivalency via the Equation of Time so it must take quite a blinkered conviction to ignore it -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

The botched attempt to bypass the noon anchor for rotation and the averaging process leading to accurate clocks and the 24 hour system only highlights how lost Newton's followers were and are. They have opted for RA/Dec for a geocentric/heliocentric equivalency hence the awful mouthful known as 'the inverse square law' or the central pillar of empiricism where it was meant to intersect with astronomy -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

Relativity is a bull in a china shop but then again so is Isaac's meaningless attempt to fit astronomy in experimental sciences.Whatever story you tell yourselves to make yourselves feel better, it is more productive to actually know what happened and when.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:56:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 04:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There are thousands of incorrect statements and I'm not the internet
police

Nobody has asked that of you. But you could be a contributor to
Wikipedia, if you want to. But instead you prefer to whine...

I've never done it and don't propose starting. I have enough on my plate
trying to get a Raspberry Pi to read USB arduino data, building a counter
using a 74LV8154 on an Arduino shield, making Arrow of Light plaques for
my Webelos boys, and answering interminable puerile objections on this
board.

You could stop posting on Usenet for awhile, that would give you time for
Wikipedia. So if you think you don't have time for Wikipedia, why do you
have time to hang around here?

It's entertainment. Besides, I learn some new things here. I wouldn't
learn anything by what you suggest.

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.� – Dalai Lama

Why don't YOU clean up your own false claims:

I'd be happy to, but only if they really are false, not just because
you dislike what I say.

I dislike dishonesty.

So you lie by quoting the wrong quotation. The lie is THIS:

"The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due
to the small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact
only one f the six subjects met the hypothesis."

There were FOUR, not one:

Three of those four had additional weight changes, not explainable by
a soul having weight leaving the body at death. If those additional
weight changes could occur without souls involved, why not those
weight changes at the moment of death?

Sudden vs. longer term, forgetful one.

The paper doesn't say the weight losses later weren't sudden.

It doesn't say they were either.

Perhaps the author doesn't know because he didn't monitor the balance
continuously those several minutes.

True, however, the sudden drop at the point of death is the important
factor. Lots of slower weight changes happened several minutes after
death, so it's logical to assume the anomalies were in that category.

Patient #3 lost 1/2 oz at the moment of death but a few minutes
later he lost even more, one full oz. How could that be?

It's called "evaporation." YOU were one of those babbling about that,
remember?

And you dismissed that explanation.

No, I didn't. I dismissed it for a SUDDEN change, puerile one.

How do you know the other weight changes weren't sudden too? The paper
doesn't say, so you just don't know, you merely assume...

And you are trying to ASSume the contrary.

But you have, implicitly, given a partial answer anyway. Your
method is called Cherry Picking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Completely dishonest babbling baloney.

Nice try, but those cheap con artist tricks cannot hide the obvious
fact that you are cherry picking...

Your so-called "cherry picking" is separating sudden versus longer term
changes. That is dishonest of you.

So there you are - even the author himself says we cannot draw any
reliable conclusions from his measurements alone. And the original
paper says so.

And I admitted that right off the bat.

So why did you even bring it up if you knew from the start that this
study was unreliable?

Not "unreliable" dishonest one. You really do like to jump to straw man
baloney, don't you.

If it wasn't unreliable, why did even the author himself think the
experiment needed to be repeated? Not just once, but many times...

For scientific acceptability, of course. The point is that it hasn't been
repeated and, therefore, hasn't been refuted.

The problem is that you demand absolute scientific proof to five nines
confidence. Sorry, old bean, can only give you three nines.

FYI: "absolute scientific proof" does not exist.

FYI: More straw man baloney from you. NOTICE I followed that by five
nines confidence. You are getting really, really picky about irrelevant
stuff.

And you still are.

Any scientific conclusion is open for modification, if and when reliable
evidence for that appears.

But the new evidence must have greater confidence than the old.

That's not a requirement, it's enough that the new experiments have at
least the same confidence as the old. Most likely, the new experiments
will measure a domain which wasn't measured in the old experiments, e.g.
because the older technology was unable to do such measurements. The
canonical example is Newtonian mechanics vs the theory of relativity. And
the new theory should explain not just the results from the new
experiments, but from the old experiments as well. THe theory of
relativity didn't show that Newtonian mechanics was completely invalid,
but merely that it wasn't applicable at speeds approaching the speed of
light.

Which means that relativity had higher confidence than Newtonian mechanics.

Your monumental skepticism leads you to the point of dishonesty,
particularly when you ignore sudden versus longer term changes.
Why don't you apply this skepticism to AGW? :-))

Back in the days of Svante Arrhenius, who in the 1800's was the first
person to point out the future risk of AGW, being skeptical about AGW
would have been a reasonable point of view. Today the situation is
very different. Being skeptical of AGW today is much like being
skeptical about the Earth being round and not flat.

Aren't you one who has played with the modstar program that shows that
doubling the CO2 level has a minor greenhouse effect? Have you tried
doubling the water vapor level and observe what happens with that?

I didn't do that, someone else did. Since you enjoy the Usenet so much,
you can spend some time to find the post by the one who did this. Unless
you start to devote some of your time to Wikipedia, then you are excused
from not doing so.

It's obvious that your beliefs are NOT based on the evidence.

It is obvious that you confuse me with someone else. Perhaps you should
start taking notes? Your memory isn't flawless...

THAT'S for sure :-)

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:01:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:15:07 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Would an all-powerful God be unable to reveal himself in such a way
that also skeptics became convinced?

He COULD, but why would you think that is His goal?

OK, let's suppose this is not his goal. But then, why would God first
obscure his existence in order to make a number of people not believe in
him,

To develop faith, of course.

"But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh
to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him." -- Hebrews 11:6

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." -- Matthew 21:22

and then, later, throw the non-believers in hell, to suffer and
scream and anguish, for ever and ever until the end of time?

I don't believe that.

An all-powerful God could of course do such a thing, but not a God which
is both all-powerful and all-benign...

Are you claiming that God is evil?

YOU are the one who is claiming that.

FYI: modtran isn't reality itself.

Neither are the IPCC climate models.

It can have errors, or limitations.

So can the IPCC models.

It can also have ignorant users who are using it in the wrong way,
and/or interpreting the results in a wrong way.

which the climate scientists have also done. They DO correct their models
from time to time but not after producing hockey sticks and strident alarms.
And they still haven't included the effects of sun spots and solar winds
on cosmic rays which cause nucleation of clouds. This was probably a factor
in the Little Ice Age (the other one being volcanic activity).

It's interesting that sunspot activity has been decreasing for the last
several cycles ...

You should be more skeptical of the models because they aren't reality.

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:12:41 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
He pointed out that the experiment you're citing showed weight
loss
in some, but not all cases, at the moment of death,

All four cases showed sudden weight loss at or near the time of
death.

and it also showed similar sudden losses of weight at other times
after
death in some cases.

They were not "sudden" since these weight changes were were measured
MINUTES after death, not seconds.

It is not impossible for sudden changes to happen minutes after
death...

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:25:37 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:22:39 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 1:34:21 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel
wrote:

They were not "sudden" since these weight changes were were
measured
MINUTES after death, not seconds.

Yes, but I didn't recall you saying that the weight change, when
it
occurred, took longer to happen. Something that happens hours
after
someone dies can still happen in only a few seconds.

Read MacDougall's paper.

That paper does not say if the later weight changes were sudden or
gradual. And if you read the balance a few minutes later you just
don't know. Probably he was so focused on the moment of death that he
paid too little attention to post mortem changes, and that is one of
the reasons for the too low quality of that study.

It seems quite clear to me.

Of course it does, but that's not worth much. Anything which confirms
your bias "seems clear" to you...

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:12:41 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
He pointed out that the experiment you're citing showed weight loss
in some, but not all cases, at the moment of death,

All four cases showed sudden weight loss at or near the time of death.

and it also showed similar sudden losses of weight at other times
after death in some cases.

They were not "sudden" since these weight changes were were measured
MINUTES after death, not seconds.

It is not impossible for sudden changes to happen minutes after
death...

But something very unusual happened at the time of death in all four cases.
Two of the four had NO anomalous weight change which happened after that.
The anomalous weight changes of the other two afterwards must be due to
some other phenomenon than the change that occurred simultaneously with
death.