Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

""""Buddha"""" said:
"You don't have the slightest idea about the physics behind the equipment either. You're basically suggesting the need of dealing with a Poisson distribution to examine the problem of the total number of clients served by all tellers in all branches in all banks in all countries during the whole century."


Saying that I suggested something is a bold statement
Click to expand...

I thought you were more intelligent and fell into the trap in that statement. That you'd estimate the number of photons in the active period in Jeffers' experiment.

Maybe you did and realized the moco your produced (you're an "expert" Spanish speaker, you said). Now you're just gaslighting your way into making everybody believe that you suggested the dependent variable -which you haven't even identified yet- followed a normal distribution.

I'm starting to like your posts again, as sure you are horrendously bad regarding all the topics you post here about, but you are a first class manipulator and all your deceitful ways are a matter of interest in this forum so people like you is always welcome.
 
aleCcowaN said:
No, you didn't! :D
Click to expand...

Indeed. "All I did was..." is almost always a hair-split in any argument. The only reason such a comparison would matter is if someone else were trying to claim that one of those things were congruent to the other such that they could be interchanged, and Buddha were providing evidence that they aren't and can't. Buddha thinks that's what Jeffers was claiming, and that he's caught Jeffers red-handed. But he's really only illustrated that he doesn't understand even the most basic things about how to model a problem statistically for empirical testing and doesn't understand how Jeffers' experiment works. Or Jahn's, for that matter.

So no, it's not merely an "All I did was...," as if it were some benign or irrelevant note. It reveals the underlying presumptions that Buddha has gotten so very, very wrong. It reveals that what Buddha thinks is the dependent variable in these experiments isn't even close.
 
Buddha said:
It was not a command but a request. You do not have to fulfill it. But failure to respond reflects negatively on your reputation, few board members will see you as a smart debater. On the other hand, you could ask me about any of past projects, and I will describe them. The audience will see a clear difference between our levels of professionalism.
Click to expand...

By saying this you won't erase what I said earlier "I replied to your request (in the italicized words) and you didn't notice".

The question is simple, and as you insist in making a fool of yourself for the umpteenth time, I'll oblige. There were no other variables than, first, those I named, second, the one attached to the value of the "función objetivo" that you mentioned. But you had to ask about "the other variables in the problem" when, in the fog of your mind, you might have meant the restrictions of the problem.

It used to be a problem with just two variables -so we can deal with a graphic solution and make clear how the simplex method improves the initial solution and reaches the optimum-, three restrictions and una función objectivo, all four using the same two variables of course: X1 and X2 besides the optimal value of Z to be gotten.

But you were that clumsy, something that the "the audience" (is this a talk show or a concert?) will certainly attribute to the "difference between our levels of professionalism".

You know what the say: el pez por la boca muere.
 
Buddha said:
Being openly on your side negatively reflects on their standing at this board.
Click to expand...

BBTZ48A.png


You appear to have posted that comment to the wrong board. You're replying to a well respected member of the board with a long history of patiently, and thoroughly, eviscerating woo-woo arguments. To make matters worse, you are failing to mount any kind of a viable defense to his disassembly of your scattershot buzzword ejaculation.

You are Bambi trash talking Godzilla, and we all know how that battle turned out.

 
JayUtah said:
Buddha said:
Apparently, you cannot understand the material that I quoted, it says nothing about hyperbolic distribution.
Click to expand...

That's because the few sources you hastily consulted don't discuss the mathematical basis of the t-distribution. That doesn't mean it's not general knowledge among statisticians that the t-distribution is a hyperbolic distribution. I explained why it's that way several posts ago, in one of the lengthy posts you dismissed as "irrelevant." Do you think it's really wise to pretend things don't exist just because your impromptu attempt at learning them didn't turn it up?
Click to expand...

""""Buddha"""", your ignorance on basic Statistics is quite appalling. You don't even follow and read the very links you use when you feign you're "educating" others, being so obvious you're needed to do so:

27y1mom.png
 
theprestige said:
Bambi was cute.
Click to expand...

So are Buddha's lackluster efforts at insults and gaslighting. It's downright ADORABLE how he seems to think his obvious lies and comical ignorance will somehow win someone over if he just keeps repeating it. I want to each out, pinch his cheeks and offer him a lollipop.

Well, not a lollipop. That may be too much of a choking hazard for him.
 
halleyscomet said:
I suspect it works well for him in meat space.
Click to expand...

And that would be troubling if true, but for reasons that aren't relevant under the MA.

Today he's clearly trying to find a way to backpedal out of the discussion of statistics without having to admit any error. He's tried his typical browbeating, bluffing, and gaslighting -- my explanations of statistics are "fantasy mathematics," or I somehow must not understand the argument he's trying to make. The latter seems to come up a lot. But it's all his standard gambit.

There's a new one today that's worth mentioning again, even though I've already responded to it. Now it looks like he's trying to say Jeffers' alleged statistical sins are just a legitimate difference of opinion and can we just drop it and move on. I'll paraphrase what I think Buddha's line of reasoning might be today, at the risk of its being a straw man.

  • "You name scientists who agree with Jeffers et al." No I don't, and my argument has rarely rested on a premise of consensus or cabal. Whether Jahn, Schmidt, Jeffers, Alcock, Palmer, or anyone else is right or wrong depends entirely on the merits of each author's arguments, and that's how I've addressed them. The only exception I've allowed is where I noted that Palmer obtained the approval of his method from Alcock (and possibly Dobyns) individually before he started his experiments. That's a preclusion of ex post facto criticism, not an attempt to argue that there's correctness in numbers.
  • "In like manner, I can name scientists who agree with me." No, Buddha can name other people who reached similar conclusions, but for vastly different reasons. In this case the reasons matter because they speak to the foundation of the next argument. Buddha is asking us to convert the conditional and agree that if the conclusion is true, then the specific premise he says leads to it must also be true and he can use that "proven" premise elsewhere. "The peopled who criticized Jeffers are competent. I also criticized Jeffers, therefore I am also competent." Nope.
  • "Disagreements among scientists are a natural part of scientific inquiry." Only if there are legitimate reasons for the disagreement. Cosmology entertains disagreement because the data are scant and support many hypotheses and interpretations equally. The same can be more or less true in many other scientific disciplines. But it's not true of disagreements born of selective acceptance of data, or of sloppy method, or of ignorance or denial of the basic fundamentals in some field.
  • "Our disagreement at this forum could be considered similarly inconsequential or unresolvable." Emphatically no. Buddha is simply ignorant of how experiments work, and that -- not some noble, scientific difference of opinion -- is the basis of his objection. There is no evidentiary impasse or inevitable ambiguity here. Buddha blatantly got it wrong when talking about Jeffers' dependent variables, and is struggling to find some way to appease his opponents into letting him off the hook.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but my policy is certainly not going to be to agree-to-disagree so that we can move on. Moving on is not the goal. Getting it right is the goal, and that's not served by glossing over significant errors just so they can be repeated ad nauseam down the road. His demonstrated inability to abstract the experiment design and statistical model from the research reports is not something that's going to be inconsequential to any future discussion. It's not resolved by his request to be met halfway.
 
""""Buddha"""" said:
Saying that I suggested something is a bold statement for a humble lab instructor because I didn’t supply enough material to imply anything. I just showed the audience two pictures: one of a normal distribution and the other one of a double-slit experiment, and asked the audience to compare them.
Click to expand...

There's still standing my proposal in post #560. You haven't accepted it neither commented about it. It seems pretty obvious, as your "humble lab instructor" bit will be shown to be false and just the result of your resentment after failing once and again to lay out an analysis that isn't inherently wrong because of your lack of education in the specifics.

Be decent and don't forget to give an answer about that, so we can start the procedures. I'm also upping the bet and I'm offering to add to that facsimiles of both the syllabus and my grade (10, the highest one) in my fifth semester of Physics (501? 301-302? I don't know the custom in the States) which is in most quantum mechanics, obviously in exchange of you providing identical proofs of qualifications.

Don't forget to give an answer to this too.

Don't do like when you said that you had participated in other forums where you experienced elevated debates and then failed to provide any link proving that to be real and not just another instance of your compensation.


""""Buddha"""" said:
You and Jeffers think that the double-slit picture is the example of a bell-shaped distribution, I do not think so, and no one else does. As they say, picture is worth a thousand words.
Click to expand...


Prove that absurdity to be true by quoting the post in this thread where I say that. You can't? Obviously, as you are deliberately lying about it.


"""""Buddha""""", are you doing now anything here but ranting and throwing dust in the eyes of who you like to call "my opponents"? Don't take it so hard. It was obvious what you started was bound to fail. You can't just grab the guitar and start playing what you don't know.
 
""""Buddha"""" is in grandiose-declaration mode:


""""Buddha"""" said:
One of your supporters wrote that I use the cut and paste too much. Well, you made me do it. I haven’t used this tactics before because my previous opponents were cautious enough not to say something so outlandish that even a fifth grader would laugh at.
Click to expand...


Care to provide a link to one of those discussions? You can't? They aren't real but something you just made up for the sake of self-aggrandizing?


It's so simple: one link.
 
JayUtah said:
There's a new one today that's worth mentioning again, even though I've already responded to it. Now it looks like he's trying to say Jeffers' alleged statistical sins are just a legitimate difference of opinion and can we just drop it and move on.
Click to expand...

He's desperate to do that. With this he doesn't even try to declare victory or his "goals achieved" as he did in other threads he abandoned. He's looking for a truce so he can tackle the thingy (was it about bending or similar BS?) he was starting to drop here in his characteristic copypasta with "director's" comments.

No that he went forward a tenth of an inch in this whole "Is the telekinesis real?" subject.
 
Buddha said:
In this case I let the audience judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Your failings of understanding are obvious to everyone here. Even those of us with only a college course or two in statistics and physics.
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
But I am the least of your problems. As it always goes, there are three groups of board members: one is your adoring fans, the other one is your adversaries, and the third one is the independents. My tactic alienates you from the independents because they see you as someone who lives in a fantasy world. This means that your reputation is steadily going down. You saw this process of alienation before, you are not its first victim.
Click to expand...

Any of these "independents" care to step forward? I have stayed out of this discussion because statistics is not my field. However, I can see quite clearly who knows what they're talking about, and who doesn't.
Jay Utah's reputation? Holding steady, or even rising, given the extraordinary patience he is displaying as well as his obvious expertise.
Buddha's reputation? The Hindenberg is the image that springs to mind.

Buddha said:
In this case I let the audience judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong.
Click to expand...

This may not work out the way you want it to. :D

If you're that confident, why not start a poll?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Any of these "independents" care to step forward? I have stayed out of this discussion because statistics is not my field. However, I can see quite clearly who knows what they're talking about, and who doesn't.
Jay Utah's reputation? Holding steady, or even rising, given the extraordinary patience he is displaying as well as his obvious expertise.
Buddha's reputation? The Hindenberg is the image that springs to mind.
Click to expand...


https://youtu.be/CgWHbpMVQ1U?t=147


Cosmic Yak said:
This may not work out the way you want it to. :D

If you're that confident, why not start a poll?
Click to expand...


Let's do it. I'm sure Guy Incognito, post count = 1, will vote for """"Buddha""""
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Any of these "independents" care to step forward?
Click to expand...


As one of the Peanut Gallery to all of Buddha's threads, and being invited to comment here, I find that Buddha's somewhat pathetic name calling and refusal to respond other than answering well put arguments and facts with attempts to divert the topic elsewhere indicates that he knows he cannot refute what his two major debaters on this forum are saying.


I watched him run away from his two other threads. I am still waiting for last Thursday to come so that his two mathematicians whom he suggested might be coming here to support him, ride in on their white stallions to save the day.


Norm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom