Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

Buddha said:
Just like Jay, you do not have sense of humor. "I care about his feelings" is a sarcastic remark. I really do not care about his feelings, but the joke was lost on you.
Click to expand...

What part of "lies" (plural) didn't you understand?

And everybody noticed your failure at sarcasm, another "field" you won't perform well. So, yours was one too many explanation.
 
Buddha said:
Too much rhetoric, especially the part of "teaching" a superior opponent like me. Sometimes it takes so much effort to get through the muddy waters of your posts that I seek inspiration in the music. I listen to one of my favorite albums, The Dark Side of the Moon. I like this line:

"There is a lunatic in my head, but he's not me"
Pink Floyd
Click to expand...

Groundless boasting followed by an irrelevant story and a veiled insult. If you can't follow the discussion, just say so.
 
Buddha said:
Too much rhetoric, especially the part of "teaching" a superior opponent like me. Sometimes it takes so much effort to get through the muddy waters of your posts that I seek inspiration in the music.
Click to expand...

Fascinating.

When confronted with well-written and insightful commentary you call it "muddy" and resort to listening to music instead of learning anything.

Sad.

Low energy.

Disappointing but not surprising.
 
Buddha said:
"There is a lunatic in my head, but he's not me"
Pink Floyd
Click to expand...

You always misquoting everyone, from Popper to Pink Floyd. The verse is

"There's someone in my head but it's not me"

because who sings is the lunatic, so you're admitting being one. Well, at least your delusions of grandeur never went unnoticed here, chump.
 
JayUtah said:
Direct personal attack.
Click to expand...

Especially given the fact I don't smoke or eat pot and I haven't touched a Long Island Iced Tea since a particular party back in college. It's not just an insult, it's flat out wrong! Then again, Buddha being wrong is something we're all used to.
 
JayUtah said:
No, that wasn't the deal.

I didn't say "name" the variable. I'm going to describe how a random variable can be derived in the double-slit and similar experiments. In fact, I already have -- you just ignored that post like every other time I tried to educate you. Keep in mind that anyone who's been reading this thread carefully already knows the answer is out there, so there's no point in you continuing to bluff that it isn't. And keep in mind that anyone who knows anything about statistics can already tell you don't know what you're talking about when you tried to compare the two pictures. So you really have no face to save here. You can just be honest.

Just admit in public, for the record, that you are a beginner when it comes to statistics. Why is that so hard? The deal is that you don't get to wait for the answer and then try to claim you knew it all along. We're going to forestall that particular bad habit of yours. Are you willing to do that? Or are you just hoping to play the same games you always do?



You can call yourself whatever you want, but you can't force anyone to believe it no matter how hard you bluster and gaslight.
Click to expand...
You used the word "variable" and I asked you to name it, which means you should show the transformation that is used to change non-normal distribution that resulted from a double-slit experiment into a normal one. The name of the variable doesn't mean anything, but the transformation method does. Instead you chose to use verbal acrobatics to disguise your lack of understanding of mathematical statistics.

Being your superior opponent and a kind man, I will lend you a helping hand. In some cases it is possible to transform non-normal distribution to a normal one. For more information follow this link

https://machinelearningmastery.com/how-to-transform-data-to-fit-the-normal-distribution/

and read the section Power Transforms.

However, these transformations are of limited use, and I do not think that they apply to the double-slit interference pattern. In any case, Jeffers should have used a suitable transform and then proved that the resulting distribution is normal. However, he had not done either.

There is no other way of transforming non=normal distribution into a normal one, unless you do it in a Neverland.
 
JayUtah said:
It's just more gaslighting, obviously. We're a "science-oriented board." And from some orifice he's pulled a list of the professions typical of people he thinks frequent those boards. No data, provided, of course. Just a categorical list of kinds of people he thinks he's dealing with. Then, equally presumptively, he says those people don't receive training in "mathematical statistics." (I wasn't aware there was a non-mathematical kind.) Bottom line is the same thing he's been saying since he got here: nobody in this forum can possibly be smart enough to refute him, so any refutation must automatically be false because they don't understand what he's saying.

He knows full well he's making this argument. He's just gaslighting people in hopes that they won't recognize it for what it is. He's trying to soften it, disguise it, recast it in different forms. But it's still the same old naked claim to intellectual superiority he's been making in every thread. And how dare you be affronted for his having made it! You're so unfair to him.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the words "science-oriented" do not apply to you. I didn't try to soften my critique of your posts, so you should not complain about "softening" either. Yes, it is the same old naked claim about my intellectual superiority over you, but you are not the whole board, you are just a tiny part of it.
 
Buddha said:
You used the word "variable" and I asked you to name it, which means you should show the transformation that is used to change non-normal distribution that resulted from a double-slit experiment into a normal one. The name of the variable doesn't mean anything, but the transformation method does. Instead you chose to use verbal acrobatics to disguise your lack of understanding of mathematical statistics.

Being your superior opponent and a kind man, I will lend you a helping hand. In some cases it is possible to transform non-normal distribution to a normal one. For more information follow this link

https://machinelearningmastery.com/how-to-transform-data-to-fit-the-normal-distribution/

and read the section Power Transforms.

However, these transformations are of limited use, and I do not think that they apply to the double-slit interference pattern. In any case, Jeffers should have used a suitable transform and then proved that the resulting distribution is normal. However, he had not done either.

There is no other way of transforming non=normal distribution into a normal one, unless you do it in a Neverland.
Click to expand...


:dl:

What a delirious post! :D:D:D:D
 
JayUtah said:
Yes. He said straight up today that the goal he's pursuing is to be crowed the superior debater. He's trying to foist those same motives onto me.

My approach is, "Okay, you're criticizing this science supposedly on scientific and mathematical grounds. It doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about, so let's look at the foundation of your expectations to see what we might resolve."

His approach seems to be, "I'm going to show everyone that Jay isn't as smart as me, and then he'll lose all his die-hard followers." His latest self-important screed is practically drooling all over itself with its promises to take me down with his +7 Quotation of Smiting or some such thing.

We're not going to get anywhere until he stops personalizing the debate. Nobody here believes he's a statistical prodigy, so -- since he says such admissions are no big deal for him -- I'm waiting for the admission to issue forth in this case so we can look at what Jeffers and Jahn really did, with the goal of understanding the science, not coming off looking the smartest to laymen.
Click to expand...
The words "superior debater" are aimed at just a handful opponents, they are restricted to a science buff and lab technician, who tend to generalized even when it was stated clearly that that almost all other members are intelligent people. This knack for generalization shows lack of common sense and deeply wounded egos.
 
Buddha said:
You used the word "variable" and I asked you to name it...
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. You must first admit publicly and unequivocally that you do not have the skill to abstract it from the papers you've cited. I've given you the reasons why this is needed. Please either admit as directed, or show that the reasons are invalid.

Being your superior opponent and a kind man, I will lend you a helping hand.
Click to expand...

Your condescending attitude does not help your position. I do not require your help or your straw man. As a matter of fact, the irrelevant fact upon which you pontificate below has absolutely nothing to do with how Jeffers derived his dependent variables in either of his experiments, or how PEAR derived their dependent variables in their own experiments.

As I mentioned before, your frantic Googling for concepts you may think portray you as knowledgeable is not fooling anyone. Your fate on that point was sealed the moment you tried to directly compare a picture of an interference pattern to a picture of a normal distribution. You said you had no problem admitting your shortcomings and that you aren't emotionally bothered by criticism. Yet your behavior on this point is obviously entirely to the contrary.

There is no other way of transforming non=normal distribution into a normal one, unless you do it in a Neverland.
Click to expand...

No, you simply know of no other way. The exercise we're conducting now is to determine whether your categorical declarations such as this are properly informed, correct, and thus form a foundation from which you can accuse others of incompetence. You don't seem to be cooperating with that exercise, which gives us an indication for how you think it may turn out for you.
 
Buddha said:
...they are restricted to a science buff and lab technician, who tend to...
Click to expand...

No, it is indicative of a pattern of argumentation you've frequently employed, which is to categorize your opponents by what you think they do for a living and make narrowly sliced assertions on that basis regarding what they can or can't possibly know, and thereby whether they're worth your attention. You sidestep obvious demonstrations of expertise with hollow categorical assumptions, because -- obviously -- you cannot address the demonstrations themselves without bursting your bubble. Not only are your dismissals flagrantly uninformed and factually wrong, you don't even consistently apply them to yourself.

You categorize people as engineers or economists and say, on that basis, that they can't possibly have the required statistics education to keep up with you. But your star witness Jahn was an engineer, and you stand by his statistical expertise. You claim to be an engineer, and you stand by your own expertise. But Palmer is a "mere" experimental psychologist, so he can't possibly know any statistics. That would take a mathematician, you said. And then later you said you weren't a mathematician.

As much as you would like to believe your critics "must" be ill-informed amateurs, you still can't manage to contribute at their level of discourse. Or come up with a consistent set of criteria for who's allowed to be right.

...and deeply wounded egos.
Click to expand...

Heal thyself. I'm trying to explain how science works. You're the one who's stated goal is to be crowned the "superior debater." Which of those two motives is more likely to be motivated by ego?
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
The Sparrow said:
I'm thinking we have arrived at

[/thread]
Click to expand...

I agree. When was the last time any of the posts had anything to do with telekinesis? I think it's save to conclude that any discussion related to the thread title is dead.
Click to expand...

You're both wrong. He'd simply explain that this morning he had to prevent a comet from striking the Earth, but it took him long hours of googling to come up almost with anything, like this pathetic excuse of "power transform", to hide the fact that he still cannot identify the variables in any of the papers he has discussed. He's posting much later than usual and he's utterly frustrated so he's upping the bet: showing a extremely obviously fake state of "cool", trying to play the sarcastic and jocular -other areas in which he fails a lot- and overall behaving obstreperously.

In previous days he practically begged us to move onto Hasted and his figure-less and formula-less paraphernalia. Now he's behaving aggressively to achieve the same goal. He is here, and we must resist his attempts to move the discussion away from the "all things mathematics" world which is his kryptonite.
 
theprestige said:
Buddha, I just have one question for you: Is the telekinesis real?
Click to expand...

I'd say, based upon the evidence presented here, the answer is "no."

Footage of Buddha trying to ambush JayUtah:
CL0ZnOS.gif


Well, that's ANOTHER one of Buddha's arguments shattered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom