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

On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 8:41:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

You posted material on the direct/retrogrades of Venus from video commentaries that were hopelessly wayward...

I rest my case, Gerald. You didn't understand *anything* about that video, which clearly showed that the inferior planets have loops and squiggles just like the superior planets.

I'll say it again, your knowledge of astronomy is non-existent.

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 5:25:51 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 8:41:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

You posted material on the direct/retrogrades of Venus from video commentaries that were hopelessly wayward...

I rest my case, Gerald. You didn't understand *anything* about that video, which clearly showed that the inferior planets have loops and squiggles just like the superior planets.

I'll say it again, your knowledge of astronomy is non-existent.

Well, "loops and squiggles" indeed !. You provided material that nobody else would even though it was the best available so no wonder you were told to keep your mouth shut and steer clear. There is a kind of crude innocence about this as the silly attempt of ostracism doesn't work with astronomical compositions no more than it does with music composition as the results are either enjoyable or they are not.

All you have done is shown how dull celestial sphere enthusiasts can be as the object of their exercise is to draw attention to themselves and their equipment while throwing platitudes at the celestial arena.

In any case, the ship has sailed as you had to explain yourself for responding to my posts to someone else and that is less than being a confident individual or an adult.

On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 9:15:31 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

snip crap

Explain this...

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/mercu...b-may-2012.png

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:11:59 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:01:35 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 06:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
If so, you have it completely wrong. There were FOUR cases, not
one,
where patients at a hospital died and lost sudden weight upon
death.

If you erase all applications and all other software from your
computer, how much weight would it lose?

If the human soul has weight, computer software must have weight
too.
We all know computer software exists, but how much does it weigh?

It is certain beyond reasonable doubt that the weight of a human
body
does not change after death.

The human body definitely loses weight after death as the body rots
away. But that happens gradually, it doesn't suddenly lose some
weight right at the moment of death as some religious people want to
claim.

Not even worth discussing. You run into
somebody making that claim, you're either talking to somebody who is
ignorant, or to a pseudoscientist. No different from somebody who
believes humans aren't warming the Earth, or thinks that the Earth
is
flat, or who thinks the Universe is 6000 years old.

True. And as we've noted, Oriel, Harnagel and other such people
thrive here because others talk to them. Some see it as a pedagogical
challenge to try to explain the it mistakes to them.

Anyway, if the soul has weight, the computer software as well as
great stories should have weight too. Someone claimed the soul weighs
21 grams. But if so, the soul should, when leaving the body, fall
down to Earth rather than rise to heaven. Unless the density of the
soul was lower than the density of the air, then it would float up
some kilometers until the two densities matched - but that would
require the soul to have a substantial volume of some 15 liters
(about 4 gallons) or more. Quite naturally, such a large object could
hardly leave the human body without being noticed.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:25:48 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 8:41:16 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher
wrote:

You posted material on the direct/retrogrades of Venus from video
commentaries that were hopelessly wayward...

I rest my case, Gerald. You didn't understand *anything* about that
video, which clearly showed that the inferior planets have loops and
squiggles just like the superior planets.

I'll say it again, your knowledge of astronomy is non-existent.

Not quite. He does seem to know that there is a planer we call Venus.
That's something he seems to know. So far he didn't dispute the very
existence of Venus, did he?

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:55:58 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter

Yourselves and Harnagel are different sides of the same empirical coin - most academic riff-raff spinning their wheels with a few best-boys-in-the-class acting as cannon fodder for what is essentially bad politics.

Astronomical composition is like music composition and so are the results hence that subculture you surrounds yourselves with has no impact on me. I have seen a faster uptake on insights expressed as video commentaries and that is encouraging despite many coming up short.

We pass through life immersed in the soul of creation and pick up the wonders in our journey through life. Stupid people discussing weighing a physical soul as pseudo-intellectuals unlike the old Egyptians who understood that a light heart is what awaits those who have lived their lives with kindness and vibrancy.

https://quatr.us/egypt/weighing-souls-ancient-egypt.htm

We borrow that inspiration in creation as we pass through life and return to it when physical existence is over. The productive,creative and kind people always share in all that is great in creation and do not suffer the dour who only draw attention to themselves and the stuff in their heads including the pseudo-Christians.

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 8:01:47 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter

Yourselves and Harnagel are different sides of the same empirical coin - just more academic riff-raff spinning their wheels with a few best-boys-in-the-class acting as cannon fodder for what is essentially bad academic politics.

We pass through life immersed in the soul of creation and pick up the wonders in our journey through life. Stupid people discussing weighing a physical soul are pseudo-intellectuals unlike the old Egyptians who understood that a light heart is what awaits those who have lived their lives with kindness and vibrancy as a means of spiritual expression.

https://quatr.us/egypt/weighing-souls-ancient-egypt.htm

We borrow that inspiration in creation as we pass through life and return to it when physical existence is over. The productive,creative and kind people always share in all that is great in creation and do not suffer the dour who only draw attention to themselves and the stuff in their heads including the pseudo-Christians.

What marks you and the others out is slightly different than a flat-Earth notion but rather the inability to express the rotation rate of the Earth ( 15 degrees per hour) and the speed of the surface at the Equator - 1037.5 miles per hour. You feel neither joy nor dismay on this account and that is a physical punishment in this life so I would spare others the same fate as you and your fellows.

On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 11:02:13 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 06:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If so, you have it completely wrong. There were FOUR cases, not one,
where patients at a hospital died and lost sudden weight upon death.

If you erase all applications and all other software from your
computer, how much weight would it lose?

If the human soul has weight, computer software must have weight too.
We all know computer software exists, but how much does it weigh?

Straw-man irrelevancy.

And it's the same with books. Take a book which contains a great
novel, a true masterpiece. Compare it to another book which just
contains random gibberish. Both books have the same binding, the same
paper quality, the same number of pages, the same amount of ink of
the same kind. They are identical in all respect except the vontents:
a masterpiece novel VS random gibberish. Do they have the same
weight? Doesn't that masterpiece novel by itself weigh anything at
all?

To summarize: does organization have any weight, or is it weightless?

That's an interesting question but isn't applicable to the discussion of
whether or not a spirit has physical mass. Your unsupported assumption
that it doesn't has no supporting evidence whatever. OTOH, MacDougall's
experimental evidence supports the contrary.

Chris Peterson wrote:

True. And as we've noted, Oriel, Harnagel and other such people
thrive here because others talk to them. Some see it as a pedagogical
challenge to try to explain the it mistakes to them.

Anyway, if the soul has weight, the computer software as well as great
stories should have weight too.

Repeating irrelevant assumptions does not change their falsity.

Someone claimed the soul weighs 21 grams. But if so, the soul should,
when leaving the body, fall down to Earth rather than rise to heaven.

The "21 grams" argument is fallacious, as anyone who actually LOOKED at
and ANALYZED MacDougall's evidence would know. MacDougall reported FOUR
measurements of 3/4, 1/2, 1/2 and 3/8 ounce. The sensitivity of his
equipment was 1/16 to 1/8 ounce, which refutes the fallacious assertion
that it wasn't good enough.

Unless the density of the soul was lower than the density of the air,
then it would float up some kilometers until the two densities matched
- but that would require the soul to have a substantial volume of some
15 liters (about 4 gallons) or more. Quite naturally, such a large object
could hardly leave the human body without being noticed.

Reports of observation of spirits claim them to have the size and shape of
a human body, so that says they won't fall to the ground. As to being
noticed, do YOU notice a volume of air? But this is interesting: suppose
that a spirit has an index of refraction slightly different from air. If
so, then it may be detectable by Schlieren photography:

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

The REALLY interesting thing here is that people like Peterson authoritatively
assert that, "It is certain beyond reasonable doubt that the weight of a
human body does not change after death."

What evidence does he have for this? NONE at all, of course. Such bull
plop comes from his prejudice and bias.

"3.Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities� have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...it-carl-sagan/

Peterson then said, "Not even worth discussing."

REALLY? An unsupported assertion trumps actual experimental evidence?
What kind of "scientist" would say something so ridiculous?

And then he tops it off with an ad hominem to "support" his monumental
dishonesty.

It is not possible to contemplate the sheer waste of time over the centuries represented by the pseudo-science of astrophysics,after all, a concept built on the inability to express the rotation rate of the Earth or the surface rotation at the Equator as 1037.5 miles per hour is beyond contempt.

I have seen things change slowly and for the better, even in the past week watching people try to explain the apparent annual motion of the stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth and the direct/retrogrades of Mercury in a more reasonable but incomplete way is encouraging.

Beyond all the mindless insults and conceptual drivel, advances will be made as astronomy starts to recover for the theoretical crap that has obscured it for centuries. That and that alone is a great reward leaving the dull minds here to discuss nothing.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:16:04 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 11:02:13 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 06:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If so, you have it completely wrong. There were FOUR cases,
not one,
where patients at a hospital died and lost sudden weight upon
death.

If you erase all applications and all other software from your
computer, how much weight would it lose?

If the human soul has weight, computer software must have weight
too.
We all know computer software exists, but how much does it weigh?

Straw-man irrelevancy.

Why? If a soul has mass, why not computer software?

Did you ever read Tracy Kidder's classic book "The soul of a new
machine"?

And it's the same with books. Take a book which contains a great
novel, a true masterpiece. Compare it to another book which just
contains random gibberish. Both books have the same binding, the
same
paper quality, the same number of pages, the same amount of ink
of
the same kind. They are identical in all respect except the
vontents:
a masterpiece novel VS random gibberish. Do they have the same
weight? Doesn't that masterpiece novel by itself weigh anything
at
all?

To summarize: does organization have any weight, or is it
weightless?

That's an interesting question but isn't applicable to the
discussion of
whether or not a spirit has physical mass. Your unsupported
assumption
that it doesn't has no supporting evidence whatever. OTOH,
MacDougall's
experimental evidence supports the contrary.

Were they reliably replicated several times by others?


Chris Peterson wrote:

True. And as we've noted, Oriel, Harnagel and other such people
thrive here because others talk to them. Some see it as a
pedagogical
challenge to try to explain the it mistakes to them.

Anyway, if the soul has weight, the computer software as well as
great
stories should have weight too.
Repeating irrelevant assumptions does not change their falsity.
Someone claimed the soul weighs 21 grams. But if so, the soul
should,
when leaving the body, fall down to Earth rather than rise to
heaven.

The "21 grams" argument is fallacious, as anyone who actually
LOOKED at
and ANALYZED MacDougall's evidence would know. MacDougall reported
FOUR
measurements of 3/4, 1/2, 1/2 and 3/8 ounce. The sensitivity of his
equipment was 1/16 to 1/8 ounce, which refutes the fallacious
assertion
that it wasn't good enough.

FYI: 3/4 of an ounce is quite close to 21 grams. So why is 21 grams
fallacious but 3/4 of an ounce ok?

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

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, didn:t you know
that?

Unless the density of the soul was lower than the density of the
air,
then it would float up some kilometers until the two densities
matched
- but that would require the soul to have a substantial volume of
some
15 liters (about 4 gallons) or more. Quite naturally, such a
large object
could hardly leave the human body without being noticed.

Reports of observation of spirits claim them to have the size and
shape of
a human body, so that says they won't fall to the ground. As to
being
noticed, do YOU notice a volume of air?

Moving volumes of air are easily noticed. Have you ever heard about a
phenomenon called wind? Even weak gusts of wind are noticeable. And a
volume of a human body suddenly appearing over a body, pushing air
away, ought to be easily noticed by people nearby.

But this is interesting: suppose
that a spirit has an index of refraction slightly different from
air. If
so, then it may be detectable by Schlieren photography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography
The REALLY interesting thing here is that people like Peterson
authoritativ=
ely
assert that, "It is certain beyond reasonable doubt that the weight
of a
human body does not change after death."
What evidence does he have for this? NONE at all, of course. Such
bull
plop comes from his prejudice and bias.
"3.Arguments from authority carry little weight  authorit=
ies have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...n-kit-carl-sag
an/
Peterson then said, "Not even worth discussing."
REALLY? An unsupported assertion trumps actual experimental
evidence?
What kind of "scientist" would say something so ridiculous
And then he tops it off with an ad hominem to "support" his
monumental
dishonesty.