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

It is amazing to see people lie with sincerity , not just the people who conjured up relativity and their followers today but Newton himself who organised astronomical and timekeeping components (which do not naturally sit together) towards his experimental agenda.

The direct/retrograde motions of the planets require two different resolutions seen from a moving Earth with relative speeds and orbital circumferences requiring different perspectives. Sir Isaac created a contrived notion that is external to any astronomical precept although it certainly explains what he was trying to do with modelling a system using RA/Dec -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton


Unlike the slower moving planets where a Sun centered system is indirectly inferred by a faster moving Earth overtaking slower moving planets causing them to temporarily fall behind in view (direct/retrograde motion), we see the back and forth motions of Venus and Mercury as they run faster in their smaller circuit around a stationary and central Sun.

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 04:38:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:01:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
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.

Why is uncritical faith so desirable? To a dictator who wants to
enslave his supporters it is, of course. Is God a dictator?



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.

The Bible says so. Don't you believe in the Bible? That would make
you an arrogant apostate who deserves hell...

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: something which does not exist cannot be evil. But those who
made up this "God story" certainly weren't all-benign...

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

Actual measurements are of course preferable. So what does the
measurements say? Do we have a global warming or not? What's your
opinion?

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 04:20:24 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:56:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
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.

Wrong! You'll learn more than you realize by actually looking upp
support for your claims. Who knows, you might even find good reasons
for changing your mind. Only someone who believes himself to be
infallible would argue like 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.

Likewise, you won't find studies trying to find out if the Earth is
flat or not. Should we therefore conclude that the claim "the Earth
is not flat" is unproved?

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 14:29:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
The final numbers are 300.81 K and water vapor scale of 1.07. So
we have
a temperature rise of 1.11 K for a doubling of CO2 levels.

From empirical data we've had a temperature rise of close to one
degree compared to preindustrisl levels, despite that we haven't yet
had any doubling of CO2 levels but merely an increase of less than
50%. Therefore modtran must be underestimating the global warming.

Once again, don't trust a model blindly.

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 06:18:43 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:39:22 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
Why not instead stop celebrating these apostatic holidays? Do you
need
help in doing so? Join the Jehova[h[s Witnesses... grin

I believe many conventional churches are much closer to the
first-century
church than Jehovah's Witnesses are.

I don't think there are many non-Nicaean churches left. Virtually all
conventional churches are Nicaean, I.e. they follow dictates by
people you consider to have been apostates.

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:57:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
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.

Maybe the weight changes at death also was due to "some other
phenomenon"? Including quirky behavior of the balances... It is hard
to rule out that possibility without repetitions of the experiment,
preferably using other kinds of balances.

Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 04:38:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

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

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.

Why is uncritical faith so desirable? To a dictator who wants to
enslave his supporters it is, of course. Is God a dictator?

"verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed,
ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it
shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." -- Matt. 17:20

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.

The Bible says so. Don't you believe in the Bible? That would make
you an arrogant apostate who deserves hell...

Nope. That would make me a skeptic that the Bible survived two millenia
without without being changed by uninspired people.

"in every instance in near death experiences of an encounter with the “being of light� in all of the above studies patients reported the experience to be one of intense love."

https://www.magiscenter.com/love-and...h-experiences/

"In 69% of the cases, people who experienced Near Death (NDE) felt that
they were in the presence of an overwhelming love in the company of
family and friends or other mystical bodies."

http://godloveletters.com/near-death-experiences/

Hmmm, I wonder what the other 31% felt. But don't worry Paul, since:

"Interestingly, 75% of people who consider themselves atheists reported
these divine figures."

If you want to read about what it's really like:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.29793228ba55

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: something which does not exist cannot be evil. But those who
made up this "God story" certainly weren't all-benign...

You're conflating those who wrote the Bible with those who copied and translated it.

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

Actual measurements are of course preferable. So what does the
measurements say? Do we have a global warming or not? What's your
opinion?

I believe that the earth is getting warmer overall, but it doesn't seem
to be mainly because of CO2 increase. And I worry that we may NEED some
extra CO2 if we head into another Little Ice Age.

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.

Wrong! You'll learn more than you realize by actually looking upp
support for your claims.

Wrong! I DO look up support and I receive criticism from you and others.

Who knows, you might even find good reasons for changing your mind.

And I have because of John Savard's point about temperature increase due
to CO2 feedback through water vapor. I had to figure out how to apply
that to modtran.

Only someone who believes himself to be infallible would argue like you.

I never claimed to be infallible. This is just your fantasy.

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.

Likewise, you won't find studies trying to find out if the Earth is flat
or not. Should we therefore conclude that the claim "the Earth is not
flat" is unproved?

This is sophistry, Paul. There ARE such studies every time a satellite
or astronaut takes a photo of the earth from space. This clearly refutes
flat-earth assertion. OTOH, there are no studies that refute MacDougall's
work.

The final numbers are 300.81 K and water vapor scale of 1.07. So
we have a temperature rise of 1.11 K for a doubling of CO2 levels.

From empirical data we've had a temperature rise of close to one degree
compared to preindustrisl levels,

Actually, reliable data from 1882 to 2015 shows temperature rise was -0.41
in 1882 to +0.98 K in 2015 (with 0 being the reference around 1950 to 1970,
or thereabouts). I don't know what you want to call "preindustrial" but
it looks more like 1.4 K to me.

despite that we haven't yet had any doubling of CO2 levels but merely an
increase of less than 50%.

The CO2 level in 1959 was 316 ppm and was 401 in 2015, an increase of 31%
in POST-industrial. Furthermore, it looks like there was cherry-picking
to come up with that 50% number: there were measurements as high as the
1959 number in the 1880's.

Therefore modtran must be underestimating the global warming.

Modtran was developed by the U. S. Air Force and has been used by them
and climatologists and tested for decades, so that is unlikely. You are
assuming that a certain increase ratio at lower CO2 levels is equivalent
to the same ratio at higher CO2 levels. It's not. You COULD calculate
it using modtran rather than making vacuous assertions, and you might
learn something :-)

I don't think there are many non-Nicaean churches left. Virtually all
conventional churches are Nicaean, I.e. they follow dictates by people
you consider to have been apostates.

Some protestants accept it after redefining the word "Catholic." Others
don't use it because it's the "work of man" and lacks inspiration from
God. And others accept it after defining for themselves what "one
substance" means. Most people simply don't understand it and don't worry
about it. Which just supports my point that most churches are wrong.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:47:41 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:57:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

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

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.

Maybe the weight changes at death also was due to "some other
phenomenon"? Including quirky behavior of the balances... It is hard
to rule out that possibility without repetitions of the experiment,
preferably using other kinds of balances.

"May be" "Could be" "might be" "quirky balances" "hard to rule out"

These are all excuses, not refutations.

Again, extraordinary claims

But considering all the NDE evidence that supports existence after death,
they aren't that "extraordinary."

require extraordinary evidence.

That depends on how you define "extraordinary." I find LOTS of supporting
evidence, most of it anecdotal, but one would have to be a very suspicious,
distrusting soul to write off millions of people who report such experiences
yet have NO evidence to the contrary, IMHO.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:35:22 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

That depends on how you define "extraordinary." I find LOTS of supporting
evidence, most of it anecdotal, but one would have to be a very suspicious,
distrusting soul to write off millions of people who report such experiences
yet have NO evidence to the contrary, IMHO.

One of the unstated assumptions that leads people to say that you're the one who
is being scientific is that scientists should be more skeptical of findings that
would tend to fall in with their wisful thinking.

The assumption is that everyone's wishful thinking is that a God would exist, so
we wouldn't perish when we die, and so we don't have to consider the opposite:
that it might be wishful thinking to believe we don't have to worry about a God
watching over us.

So you have the convention backwards.

In any event, while I find MacDougall's experiments unconvincing, to say the
least, I don't need them to be convinced of the existence of the human spirit.

As I understand these terms, the "soul" is, in the Bible, supposed to be a vital
spark which allows both humans and animals to be alive, whereas the "spirit" is
the immaterial component of the human mind.

In that sense, while I don't believe in the "soul" I certainly do believe in the
"spirit". From direct observation. I see what I see, I hear what I hear, I
think, therefore I exist.

Human consciousness is something science has not even _begun_ to get to grips
with explaining. It does not have the tools to even approach the job.

So, from this, I conclude other people have feelings, how we treat them matters,
because like me, they experience life, sensations don't just rattle around in
silent dead brains the way information rattles around inside a computer or time
rattles around inside a cuckoo clock.

I don't *need* an experiment like MacDougall's to convince me of this - which is
a good thing, as his experiment isn't much help. But that there is more to
reality than mechanistic matter and energy - that is something I thought we all
knew.

John Savard

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:54:06 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:35:22 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

That depends on how you define "extraordinary." I find LOTS of supporting
evidence, most of it anecdotal, but one would have to be a very suspicious,
distrusting soul to write off millions of people who report such experiences
yet have NO evidence to the contrary, IMHO.

One of the unstated assumptions that leads people to say that you're the one who
is being scientific is that scientists should be more skeptical of findings that
would tend to fall in with their wisful thinking.

The assumption is that everyone's wishful thinking is that a God would exist, so
we wouldn't perish when we die, and so we don't have to consider the opposite:
that it might be wishful thinking to believe we don't have to worry about a God
watching over us.

So you have the convention backwards.

In any event, while I find MacDougall's experiments unconvincing, to say the
least, I don't need them to be convinced of the existence of the human spirit.

As I understand these terms, the "soul" is, in the Bible, supposed to be a vital
spark which allows both humans and animals to be alive, whereas the "spirit" is
the immaterial component of the human mind.

In that sense, while I don't believe in the "soul" I certainly do believe in the
"spirit". From direct observation. I see what I see, I hear what I hear, I
think, therefore I exist.

Human consciousness is something science has not even _begun_ to get to grips
with explaining. It does not have the tools to even approach the job.

So, from this, I conclude other people have feelings, how we treat them matters,
because like me, they experience life, sensations don't just rattle around in
silent dead brains the way information rattles around inside a computer or time
rattles around inside a cuckoo clock.

I don't *need* an experiment like MacDougall's to convince me of this - which is
a good thing, as his experiment isn't much help. But that there is more to
reality than mechanistic matter and energy - that is something I thought we all
knew.

John Savard

I just read this editorial in Astronomy magazine and I think it would be a good thing for everyone to read, to remind each other about just how science actually works... and reminding us that opinions or beliefs have no place in science... a small fact that often gets overlooked all too often...

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/je...making-sausage

Enjoy.

\Paul A