Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[aleCcowaN]

Unfortunately, these are the only articles about metal bending that I could find. I rather discuss new ones, but I cannot find them. Would you kindly find them for me? I will be more than happy to discuss them.

I think you know very well what was Jay really talking about

On the other hand, we should not be discussing quantum mechanics either because it was originated in 1920s

Next time try to make some sense.

 

[Buddha]

It's pretty amusing how you can't seem to make an argument for psychokinesis that doesn't involve constantly tearing personally into people.



That's because you don't know statistics.



Or you could just address the answer I already gave to that point.



To be more accurate, I refused to allow you to script my side of the debate or foist your straw man. Since you didn't pay attention to any of the times I pointed out that your own sources contradicted you, and you ignore external citations provided by others, I conclude that you don't read either my posts or your any cited sources and that therefore your request that I argue that way is not sincere.

As I said, I can demonstrate understanding. You cannot.



The audience has already spoken. No, you do not have a vast army of lurkers supporting you, so it's time for you to quit trying to poison the well.

Your assertion that I contradict myself is incorrect because you haven't provided any proof of that, this is just wishful thinking on your part. I understand your frustration because this time you met a superior opponent.

 

[aleCcowaN]

But you could not resist the temptation when you promoted yourself from lab instructor to associate professor. Now yu claim that you hold monopoly on linear programming.

Is that some spiteful resentment what I perceive?

 

[aleCcowaN]

... this is just wishful thinking on your part...

And that is because you say so

 

[Buddha]

And that was where you first decided to go, claiming up front that you were competent to evaluate the statistical analysis and that all PEAR's critics were incompetent. You've spent several pages trying to pretend you are an expert in statistics, and failing quite noticeably to do so. Now you're trying various tactics to backpedal out of that portion of the debate without losing face. Sorry, but you don't get to spend page after page calling everyone else stupid and then try to change the subject without facing the music.

That Hasted drew conclusions without employing statistics does not mean that statistics were irrelevant to his study. But I'm not ready to move on to Hasted just yet. We need to reach some closure on Jeffers, Jahn, and your fundamental misunderstanding of what they did in their studies.



No. No one is claiming that. You're the one who doesn't understand that the raw output of the machine is not the dependent variable in these experiments. Yes, there was a normally-distributed dependent variable in the Jeffers study. No, it was not the interference pattern produced by the double-slit apparatus.



You seem obsessed with questions of reputation. I thought this thread was about psychokinesis.



No, correctness is not determined by audience appeal. Correctness is determined by a logically sound interpretation of observations. This is ostensibly a thread about science and the methods we use to conduct scientific inquiry. You're quite obviously thinking of it as a popularity contest that you think you're winning.

I asked you this question before, and now I ask it again -- what is the variable in Jeffers' experiment that is normally distributed? No wonder why you cannot provide a clear answer -- there is none. This shows that all your claims of knowing statistics are false. You might say that I do not understand your posts, but your avoidance of the correct answer proves otherwise. Once again, I give you opportunity to prove me wrong. Would you take advantage of it?

 

[Buddha]

And that was where you first decided to go, claiming up front that you were competent to evaluate the statistical analysis and that all PEAR's critics were incompetent. You've spent several pages trying to pretend you are an expert in statistics, and failing quite noticeably to do so. Now you're trying various tactics to backpedal out of that portion of the debate without losing face. Sorry, but you don't get to spend page after page calling everyone else stupid and then try to change the subject without facing the music.

That Hasted drew conclusions without employing statistics does not mean that statistics were irrelevant to his study. But I'm not ready to move on to Hasted just yet. We need to reach some closure on Jeffers, Jahn, and your fundamental misunderstanding of what they did in their studies.



No. No one is claiming that. You're the one who doesn't understand that the raw output of the machine is not the dependent variable in these experiments. Yes, there was a normally-distributed dependent variable in the Jeffers study. No, it was not the interference pattern produced by the double-slit apparatus.



You seem obsessed with questions of reputation. I thought this thread was about psychokinesis.



No, correctness is not determined by audience appeal. Correctness is determined by a logically sound interpretation of observations. This is ostensibly a thread about science and the methods we use to conduct scientific inquiry. You're quite obviously thinking of it as a popularity contest that you think you're winning.

I didn't call everyone "stupid", actually, I wrote that the audience is smart, and I commended several individuals for being intelligent opponents. I also called you Pied Piper for not being one of them. But I never used the word "stupid" despite my temptation to do so because it would be a violation of the board policy, as I found out some time ago.

Now about you feeble excuse of not discussing statistics in relation to the Hasted experiments -- I am waiting impatiently when you turn attention to them. As for me, I think I am done with the failed Jeffers experiment unless you show how he converted a distribution that is not normal (the outcome of a double-slit interference) to a mysterious random variable with normal distribution that could be found in Disney World only. Even if you're a Pied Piper, I might follow you to the Disney land just for having fun of seeing you fighting the mathematical dragons and windmills.

 

[Buddha]

And it has been repeatedly demonstrated that you lack the understanding of statistics to make that statement with any authority.



Pointing out you have no clue what you are talking about is not an insult. It is a statement of fact. There is no shame in lacking a working knowledge of statistics. Your shame is in lying and pretending you know more than you do.

Nobody cares that your feelings are hurt by JayUtah and others repeatedly proving you to be a liar and a fraud. If you want empathy for your hurt feelz, stop lying.

I will be brief -- you and I do not decide what is an insult and what is not, the mods do. Calling me a "Liar and a fraud" is not an insult, of course, because it doesn't hurt me, as I said before. But these words might hurt Jay, so I use much milder expressions such as "Pied Piper" "dragons and wizards", etc. You see, I care about his feelings.

 

[Pixel42]

Unfortunately, these are the only articles about metal bending that I could find. I rather discuss new ones, but I cannot find them.

As a general rule, once enough studies have been done to conclusively rule something out, there are few competent scientists willing to waste their valuable time doing more.

 

[JayUtah]

Your assertion that I contradict myself is incorrect because you haven't provided any proof of that, this is just wishful thinking on your part. I understand your frustration because this time you met a superior opponent.

It appears I'm right. You can't make an argument that doesn't involve tearing into other people.

 

[JayUtah]

I will be brief -- you and I do not decide what is an insult and what is not, the mods do. Calling me a "Liar and a fraud" is not an insult, of course, because it doesn't hurt me, as I said before. But these words might hurt Jay, so I use much milder expressions such as "Pied Piper" "dragons and wizards", etc. You see, I care about his feelings.

Bwahaha! You respect my feelings by calling me only mild names instead of truly hurtful ones. Can you come up with an argument that doesn't involve name-calling at all? I bet you can't.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I asked you this question before, and now I ask it again -- what is the variable in Jeffers' experiment that is normally distributed? No wonder why you cannot provide a clear answer -- there is none.

As you finally have left hard record of your lack of competence in these matters, it's my pleasure, chum, to offer you these two options for you to pick one:

a) the pixel position of the mean of all intensities measured by the sensor array (provided at least 30 photons go through the slits -make it 50 if you wish to play the role of rigorous- in a single run)
b) the contrast of the interference pattern when you compare the intensity at the central antinode with the average intensity of both nodes next to the first.

One is easier to measure than the other.

 

[Buddha]

OK then. Let's dismantle this ball of crap.

Wrong. Jay has not insulted you at all. Jay has demonstrated the paucity of your argument, such as it is.
Nope. Without doubt, you started it the moment your crank argument was remotely criticised on it's merits. And you did not restrict yourself to Jay. You lashed out at EVERYONE.

Nope. Jay focuses on the arguments at hand. You focus on some persecution complex all your own. You toss out any semblance of rational argument in favour of some imagined persecution.

Do you need a second guess? Frankly, you do not lodge a formal complaint because you know full well that any such complaint would be without merit.

Read all of them. They did not improve with time.

False. I stated that Jay was known to me from various venues including this one. The suggestion of some level of celebrity was entirely a figment of your imagination.

And you have none. And you are not going to get any with these absurd accusations.

I think you will find that you made that exact accusation.

Really? We all are familiar with your strange Popper obsession. And Jay is most certainly credentialed. This is all just you attempting (and failing) to poison the well.
Common sense usually isn't. And I posted on this very site my credentials and the means to verify them.

Sure, I have an alphabet soup of letters after my name. It is because of those that I know for a fact that Jay is correct and you are not.

Sure, because you have not the foggiest clue about any of it. This is obvious to all the other participants in the thread bar YOU. Why?

You are wrong. Of course I disagree with you.

Nobody in this thread requires external citations. Most here are sufficiently educated so that we need no external reference to identify that your idea is flat out wrong.

To give an analogy, you are claiming that 2 + 2 = a sausage.

What citations do you need to toss such a claim in the garbage?
As demonstrated by the poll thread, you are wrong about that too. Colour me surprised.

I was not talking about Jay when I mentioned Popper; it was someone else whose posts I find intelligent and interesting, although I do not always agree with him. Jay doesn't get any respect from me. Besides, the person whom I mentioned is an engineer, not a science buff like Jay.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Now about you feeble excuse of not discussing statistics in relation to the Hasted experiments

There's no "statistics" to discuss regarding Hasted because the experiments where a failure in design. You're just asking everybody else to bring you up to speed with this old subject, already discussed here and there until exhaustion.

Where do you get that your own ignorance gives you rights to discuss what was already discussed?

 

[Buddha]

Buddha, just an observation from the peanut gallery.

Yes, JayUtah is a prominent poster on this forum, but this is important: he has earned it. He takes time in fleshing out his comments, keeping them at a level where someone unfamiliar with the material can follow the argument, even though readers like myself have to do a little research to keep up.

JayUtah does not bluff. Claims and argumentative techniques are dissected and analyzed, eloquently so. The veracity of his posts are subject to any poster who fact checks them, and around these here parts, claims get checked.

Please drop the Pied Piper silliness, and address the arguments squarely. Debate and discussion are welcome. Bluffing is subject to ridicule.

I wouldn't use the word "bluff" to describe Jay's posts, I rather use "mathematical illiteracy" instead. Apparently, you cannot follow my argument, so I provided plenty of printed material to make it easier for you and other jay supporters. If you wish, I could drop "Pied Piper" and use "Peter Pan" instead.

 

[JayUtah]

But I never used the word "stupid"...

No, you just refer repeatedly to the concept. Your argument is based on repeated assurances of your own intellectual superiority, which you cannot demonstrate.

Now about you feeble excuse of not discussing statistics in relation to the Hasted experiments -- I am waiting impatiently when you turn attention to them.

Asked and answered. When you have addressed the list of open questions I gave you yesterday, we will move on. Not until then.

As for me, I think I am done with the failed Jeffers experiment...

You are not. I gave you a list of open questions yesterday. Answer them or admit explicitly that you cannot or will not.

...unless you show how he converted a distribution that is not normal (the outcome of a double-slit interference) to a mysterious random variable with normal distribution that could be found in Disney World only. Even if you're a Pied Piper, I might follow you to the Disney land just for having fun of seeing you fighting the mathematical dragons and windmills.

See, you can't ask a simple question without name-calling and insults. Okay, since you're stumped then all you have to do is admit what we all can see -- that you're not competent to form a statistical model. Once you've done that, I will teach you. Or, you could just go find the post where I already explained it.

What's not going to happen, however, is that I let you off the hook to continue to pretend that you've met and overcome the critics that address statistical modeling and protocol design.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I will be brief -- you and I do not decide what is an insult and what is not, the mods do. Calling me a "Liar and a fraud" is not an insult, of course, because it doesn't hurt me, as I said before. But these words might hurt Jay, so I use much milder expressions such as "Pied Piper" "dragons and wizards", etc. You see, I care about his feelings.

Those who are not that and those who lack the ability to understand they indeed are that are not hurt. Neither you or Jay are hurt for those words, but everybody but you knows which categories you and Jay really belong.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay doesn't get any respect from me.

How will I ever live with myself now knowing this.

Besides, the person whom I mentioned is an engineer, not a science buff like Jay.

I've given you absolutely no indication about my training and profession, and I don't intend to. Instead I prefer to watch you continue to make wrong assumptions because of what you think you can guess about what expertise your critics "must" have, and therefore uninformed guesses about whether they're competent to engage you.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I was not talking about Jay when I mentioned Popper; it was someone else whose posts I find intelligent and interesting, although I do not always agree with him. Jay doesn't get any respect from me. Besides, the person whom I mentioned is an engineer, not a science buff like Jay.

The wolf meets the shepherd and, sobbing, says this: "those evil sheep want to harm me! Bwaaahhhh!!!!"

 

[Buddha]

I have to leave now. But before I do, I ask Jay again to show me, his supporters and the rest of the audience the variable with NORMAL distribution that Jeffers used in his experiment. Jay wants to talk more about this experiment, so I expect the answer from him. This time he doesn't have to provide any reference to printed material, his own words would suffice.

 

[aleCcowaN]

""""Buddha"""", are you leaving now for good? All the zero-content, low level drivel you posted today says you indeed are:

Unfortunately, these are the only articles about metal bending that I could find. I rather discuss new ones, but I cannot find them. Would you kindly find them for me? I will be more than happy to discuss them. On the other hand, we should not be discussing quantum mechanics either because it was originated in 1920s

But you could not resist the temptation when you promoted yourself from lab instructor to associate professor. Now yu claim that you hold monopoly on linear programming.

Your assertion that I contradict myself is incorrect because you haven't provided any proof of that, this is just wishful thinking on your part. I understand your frustration because this time you met a superior opponent.

I asked you this question before, and now I ask it again -- what is the variable in Jeffers' experiment that is normally distributed? No wonder why you cannot provide a clear answer -- there is none. This shows that all your claims of knowing statistics are false. You might say that I do not understand your posts, but your avoidance of the correct answer proves otherwise. Once again, I give you opportunity to prove me wrong. Would you take advantage of it?

I didn't call everyone "stupid", actually, I wrote that the audience is smart, and I commended several individuals for being intelligent opponents. I also called you Pied Piper for not being one of them. But I never used the word "stupid" despite my temptation to do so because it would be a violation of the board policy, as I found out some time ago.

Now about you feeble excuse of not discussing statistics in relation to the Hasted experiments -- I am waiting impatiently when you turn attention to them. As for me, I think I am done with the failed Jeffers experiment unless you show how he converted a distribution that is not normal (the outcome of a double-slit interference) to a mysterious random variable with normal distribution that could be found in Disney World only. Even if you're a Pied Piper, I might follow you to the Disney land just for having fun of seeing you fighting the mathematical dragons and windmills.

I will be brief -- you and I do not decide what is an insult and what is not, the mods do. Calling me a "Liar and a fraud" is not an insult, of course, because it doesn't hurt me, as I said before. But these words might hurt Jay, so I use much milder expressions such as "Pied Piper" "dragons and wizards", etc. You see, I care about his feelings.

I was not talking about Jay when I mentioned Popper; it was someone else whose posts I find intelligent and interesting, although I do not always agree with him. Jay doesn't get any respect from me. Besides, the person whom I mentioned is an engineer, not a science buff like Jay.

I wouldn't use the word "bluff" to describe Jay's posts, I rather use "mathematical illiteracy" instead. Apparently, you cannot follow my argument, so I provided plenty of printed material to make it easier for you and other jay supporters. If you wish, I could drop "Pied Piper" and use "Peter Pan" instead.