call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:49 pm

xouper wrote:You might enjoy this short story by Isaac Asimov (if you haven't already read it):

http://www.teoti.com/books-poetry/148751-not-final-a-short-story-by-isaac-asimov.html


Odd how Birnam momentarily turnz into a woman. Must be sumthing to do with oil.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:24 pm

Sagan was a great man. But not perfect. Linus Pauling was brilliant (only person to win a Nobel prize twice by himself) but still made a fool of himself by touting vitamin c as a cancer cure. Sagan had his weak points, and one was the Drake equation, which he thought meant at least a million intelligent civilisations in our galaxy. But with all that, he never believed that lights in the sky were alien space ships.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:38 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sagan had his weak points, and one was the Drake equation, which he thought meant at least a million intelligent civilisations in our galaxy.

And that was long before we discovered how many planets there are out there!

But with all that, he never believed that lights in the sky were alien space ships.

a disconnect that's hard to understand.

If you want to propose alien mother ships travelling slower than light, and taking centuries to get here, then it is a bit more credible. Still unlikely.

but how did you arrive at a probability of "unlikely"?

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby Monster » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:05 pm

TEnginist wrote:The mission of our new Truth Engine Institute is to promote reason. Our main work will be to create and maintain a living Encyclopedia of Controversy. We envision that this encyclopedia will eventually comprise a large number of books-of-best-arguments pro and con, each on a different topic. Each of these books (we call them “dialectical” books) will be living, because it will be used to guide a series of informal, moderated, online debates on the topic, and, at the same time, the debates will inspire frequent changes to the book—the book readers and the debate audience will participate in making these changes. This recursive procedure is designed to operate in a continual cycle of positive feedback which will sharpen the arguments over time, revealing what’s true more and more clearly. Our first topic will be the UFO controversy—the first dialectical book is The UFO Dialectic (published by Truth Engine Books). We have decided to produce our UFO debate shows on YouTube Live, and are now in the process of deciding which video conferencing platform to use.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I wish to say that I, myself, believe that some UFOs are manifestations of an otherworldly intelligence (I think that eyewitness testimony can sometimes be evidential), but I am committed to making sure that the arguments of both sides of the controversy are presented in the strongest form possible. The purpose of these debates will be to reveal truth, whatever it turns out to be—my interest is in establishing the process of recursive debate, not in winning the argument.

In order for this first project, this experiment in collective intelligence, to succeed, we need to find people who would enjoy debating the pros and cons of the question. We are looking for debaters on both sides of the issue. Several people have agreed to argue the pro position (which is: Some UFOs are manifestations of otherworldly intelligences), but no skeptics have yet indicated a willingness to represent the other point of view (which is: The pro position is not justified).

Might you be interested in participating in our debates? We will not be able to pay you, but we will make sure that you will have the opportunity to promote your website, book or activities.

Richard Crist, Ph.D. (my degree is in philosophy)

Did you find the debaters that you want? And is this thread going to be used as material for your living books?
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:15 pm

Its clear that the True SkepticsTM are united on the prinsipl that all UFO reports are not evidens uv alien vizitorz. Even tho they failed to produse a viable case agenst the Washington DC events, they are sticking to their opinion.

Aside from the Flatwoodz Monster diversion, we hav been churning over the basic prinsipl and the spesific case for 18 pajez alredy with no progress, so I think its time to move on to the next case.

Roswell haz been gnawed on sins the early dayz uv The Skeptic's Society Forum, so how about sumthing new?

TEnginist wrote:In the Portage County case, there's the testimony of: Portage County Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur; Spaur's mounted deputy Barny Neff; East Palestine, Ohio Patrolman H. Wayne Huston; Conway, Pennsylvania Patrolman Frank Panzanella.


I dont recall looking into this wun, TEng. Do you hav a good link for the story? (not a UFO fan site or bland Wiki paje)
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:59 pm

Monster wrote:Did you find the debaters that you want?

No one has volunteered. There are a few here, on both sides, that I think would do well in the debates.

And is this thread going to be used as material for your living books?

Great question. Yes, i think I may put some of the ideas that have developed here into the next edition of the book--I'll have to review the material. If I quote anyone, I'll cite them, with their permission.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:06 pm

JO 753 wrote:
TEnginist wrote:In the Portage County case, there's the testimony of: Portage County Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur; Spaur's mounted deputy Barny Neff; East Palestine, Ohio Patrolman H. Wayne Huston; Conway, Pennsylvania Patrolman Frank Panzanella.


I dont recall looking into this wun, TEng. Do you hav a good link for the story? (not a UFO fan site or bland Wiki paje)


I have a pretty good account of the Portage County case (and of Roswell) in my book, with citations to sources. Did you manage to get a free copy of it?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:18 pm

TEnginist wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Still unlikely.

but how did you arrive at a probability of "unlikely"?


Because of the same thing that keeps me skeptical of your arguments, and Jo's arguments. Lack of credible evidence.

Throughout human existence, people have been seeing strange things that do not exist, from demons and devils, to angels and monsters. Today, there are equal numbers of people seeing aliens. Their sightings are just as unbelievable as those who saw witches and hobgoblin. And probably came from the same mind set as the medieval monster sightings.

If you want rational people to take alien sightings seriously, you have to provide strong and credible evidence. Various fallible eye witnesses, and blurry photos and videos of lights in the sky will not do it.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:23 pm

xouper wrote: If you are claiming that there can be no such thing as "negative energy density", then I will ask, how do you know that?
That went way over your head didn't it? :lol: It is a mathematical concept like negative one in a formula. Show me a "negative one" and "a negative energy density" :lol:

You really are an idiot. You are now fully copying Gorgeous who also never provides evidence.

"Even though there is no evidence for God, how do you know there is no God?"

"Even though there is no evidence for Superman, how do you know there is no Superman"

"Even thought there is no evidence that Leprechaun were buzzing Washington DC, how do you know there were no Leprechauns buzzing Washington DC"

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:36 pm

JO 753 wrote:You are obviously ignoring the post that disproovz your pozition, Matt. How fast are you going?

No, Jo 753 You post didn't disprove my position. It proved you can't do basic mathematics. I'm am going in a circular direction and going through angular momentum changes.

Why do you keep running away when ever I ask you about angular momentum. Well that's because your fantasy mathematics about spaceships going in a straight line, at light speed, prohibits them from turning. I have pointed this out not now five times and you keep running away.
:lol:

JO 753 wrote: Nobody haz claimed the ships chanjed directionz instantly, let alone at lite speed.
Are you really that dumb? Are you now claiming "alien UFOs" could disappear and reappear from reality as well as travel at light speed? It is you two who claimed the "alien UFOs" also disappeared of the ground radar scope when the fighters approached.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:56 pm

More avoidans, more insults, more mistaken atribution. Even your fellow denyerz here must be getting tired uv it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:03 am

JO 753 wrote:Even tho they (The Skeptics) failed to produse a viable case agenst the Washington DC events, they are sticking to their opinion.


The Skeptic's hypothesis for Washington DC : Reflections in inversion layers
Our Evidence : Inversion layers increase in summer which matches the evidence concerning frequency. The false readings peak in July. It was confirmed inversion layers existed on every night a false reading was received. The ground radar technicians thought they were reflections from inversion layers on all nights other than the the two weekends. The ground radar technicians ignored other weak and unstable reading as inversion layer reflections on those two same weekends. When aircraft were sent to meet the false readings the reflections on the inversion layers rippled and the false reading became unstable. When the aircraft flew home the inversion layers reformed and the false images returned. The aircraft found that the false images were reflections of ground objects ( The steamboat). The false readings never returned after the ground radar equipment was upgraded.

The Woosters hypothesis for Washington DC : Alien Space ships
Their Evidence : A newspaper said they were alien UFOs for two weekends. Xouper says that although there is no evidence that anything like Leprechauns or fairies can go faster than light, how do we know the UFOs weren't fairies or Leprechauns or aliens? Jo 753 offered some incorrect mathematics about going faster than the speed of light in a straight line which has nothing to do with the turning images seen in Washington. Richard Crist say they may have been time travellers. Jo 753 then said it was a government cover up by the USAF having a press conference to show all the know facts.


Sooooo.......according to the Scientific Method, which hypothesis is more probable?

Even better...which hypothesis doesn't have to invent five new forms of magic to even become coherent?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: If you are claiming that there can be no such thing as "negative energy density", then I will ask, how do you know that?
. . . It is a mathematical concept like negative one in a formula. Show me a "negative one" and "a negative energy density" :lol:


Logic failure.

Asking me to show you a "negative one" is no different than asking you to show me a "one". They are both mental abstractions. Your complaint is rejected as invalid.

As for "negative energy density", please justify your claim that it is merely a "mental concept".

"Energy density" is a real thing, unlike the number one.

"Negative energy density" is at this point not been found, but that is not the same thing as saying it is impossible.

Further refutation of your argument: String theory is pure conjecture at this point, and is also merely a mental concept. No scientist can show you such a string, so by your own logic, string theory must be impossible and scientists are silly for pursuing it. Nice double standard you have there, Matthew.

Scientists are not afraid to consider and explore conjectures (until it can be it can be shown they are impossible), even if you personally think they are silly for pursuing mere mental concepts.


Matthew Ellard wrote:You really are an idiot.


That was uncalled for Matthew, is false, and is a clear violation of forum rules and guidelines.

And you know it. Please stop.


Matthew Ellard wrote:You are now fully copying Gorgeous who also never provides evidence.

"Even though there is no evidence for God, how do you know there is no God?"

"Even though there is no evidence for Superman, how do you know there is no Superman"

"Even thought there is no evidence that Leprechaun were buzzing Washington DC, how do you know there were no Leprechauns buzzing Washington DC"


It is legitimate on this forum that when you make a claim, others are entitled to ask you to support that claim with evidence.

You do it all the time to others, and now you complain when it is done to you.

That's a clear double standard, Matthew.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:17 am

Xouper

You know perfectly well that you cannot prove a negative.

I cannot prove there is no God. I cannot prove there is no negative energy density. I cannot prove there are no invisible pink unicorns following me about.

However, none of that amounts to belief. If there is no evidence for something weird, the rational fall back position is to say that it probably does not exist. When you ask someone to prove a negative, you are commuting a major logical fallacy.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby JO 753 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:40 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
The Skeptic's hypothesis for Washington DC : Reflections in inversion layers
Our Evidence :

Repeat blather about inversion layerz that haz been refuted and never explained the visual sitings confirming the radar anyway.

The Woosters hypothesis for Washington DC : Alien Space ships

Repeat blather sumarizing your straw men and failure to understand relativity.

Sooooo.......according to the Scientific Method, which hypothesis is more probable?


Alien vizitorz.

Move on.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:49 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I cannot prove there is no God. I cannot prove there is no negative energy density. I cannot prove there are no invisible pink unicorns following me about.


Then don't claim there is no God, etc. It's as simple as that.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:08 am

TEnginist wrote:I have a pretty good account of the Portage County case (and of Roswell) in my book, with citations to sources. Did you manage to get a free copy of it?


No. After the 4th or 5th click to install or sine up thing, I gave up. Not your fault, its mostly kuz my patience with internet & computer Hassle-O-Tron junk iz nearly non-existant after 20 yirz uv Windowz and most other software being utter krap. You can find an extensiv collection uv gripes by me about software in the Whats Grinding Your Gears Today thred and at least 1 more thred dedicated to software that I started.

Herez a link to the Portage County UFO Chase. If you agree that its a reliable sours for the info about the case we shoud all refer to it insted uv multipl soursez. That way we arent arguing on wut the facts are, just how to interpret them. Unless you hav a better link?

In my opinion, you shoud giv up on the book and make a website. Probably more likely to make money that way also.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:30 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I cannot prove there is no God. I cannot prove there is no negative energy density. I cannot prove there are no invisible pink unicorns following me about.


Then don't claim there is no God, etc. It's as simple as that.


My claim is that the probability of a god is very low. We cannot prove a negative, but the absence of evidence for the related positive is very strongly indicative.

This, of course, also applies to aliens visiting Earth. No one can PROVE it wrong. But the absence of any credible evidence is strongly indicative of the fact that aliens do NOT visit Earth.

As I keep telling you, Xouper, there is no PROOF in science, or in rational and critical thinking. That is why we must focus on credible evidence. That is why, when an extraordinary claim is made, like aliens visiting Earth, we must ask for very strong, if not extraordinary evidence. The absence of such evidence makes the claim very low in probability.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I cannot prove there is no God. I cannot prove there is no negative energy density. I cannot prove there are no invisible pink unicorns following me about.


Then don't claim there is no God, etc. It's as simple as that.


My claim is that the probability of a god is very low.


I accept that.

I have no problem with stating a claim that way. Please explain that to Matthew, since he does not seem to be getting that point.


Lance Kennedy wrote:This, of course, also applies to aliens visiting Earth. No one can PROVE it wrong. But the absence of any credible evidence is strongly indicative of the fact that aliens do NOT visit Earth.


I agree.

So stop trying to "prove" it wrong and stick to asking for evidence.


Lance Kennedy wrote:As I keep telling you, Xouper, there is no PROOF in science,


And as I keep telling you, I already know that.

We have had this conversation a bazillion times over the years, Lance, and I have always agreed with you that there is no "proof" in science. Why do you keep bringing this up, when you know I already agree with you?


Lance Kennedy wrote:That is why we must focus on credible evidence. That is why, when an extraordinary claim is made, like aliens visiting Earth, we must ask for very strong, if not extraordinary evidence. The absence of such evidence makes the claim very low in probability.


I agree.

It would seem you agree that focusing on asking for credible evidence is a better tactic than making counter-claims you admit you cannot support.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:59 am

There is a point, Xouper, where saying something is very low probability is close enough to the same as saying it is not true.

If someone makes a claim that I consider to be a million to one against, in what way am I so far off the rails if I simply say no ? Apart, that is, from being so precious about trivial details as to be a total pedant.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:26 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is a point, Xouper, where saying something is very low probability is close enough to the same as saying it is not true.


Depends on what you are trying to show.

If you are trying to convince your neighbor he will not win the PowerBall lottery, then you might have a good point. (292 million-to-one is quite a long shot gamble.)

However, if you are trying to show that no one will ever win the PowerBall lottery, then you don't have a good point.

In New Zealand, for example, it can be said that million-to-one odds happen more than four times a day, on average.

It all depends on the context.

If you are trying to refute a claim about alien craft, then it is not sufficient to show it is improbable.

However, an improbability can be used to raise the bar regarding what kind of evidence the claimant must show, but it does not refute the claim.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:36 am

JO 753 wrote:
TEnginist wrote:I have a pretty good account of the Portage County case (and of Roswell) in my book, with citations to sources. Did you manage to get a free copy of it?


No. After the 4th or 5th click to install or sine up thing, I gave up....
Herez a link to the Portage County UFO Chase. If you agree that its a reliable sours for the info about the case we shoud all refer to it insted uv multipl soursez. That way we arent arguing on wut the facts are, just how to interpret them. Unless you hav a better link?

It's reliable, and probably could be used as a single source if nothing better is available--but it's pretty sketchy. (The account in my book is much better.)

In my opinion, you shoud giv up on the book and make a website. Probably more likely to make money that way also.

The project started that way (and there's still an early version of the book at truthenginebook.com). I don't remember why I decided that the book was better, but it might be good to reconsider. Thanks for the suggestion.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:42 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: It is a mathematical concept like negative one in a formula. Show me a "negative one" and "a negative energy density" :lol:
xouper wrote: Logic failure.
No. You cannot have a negative quantity and separate it from an equation . More so for something that doesn't even exist. :lol:
xouper wrote:"Negative energy density" is at this point not been found,
That's right. Just like no one can find minus a dollar away from an equation. It doesn't exist. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:50 am

JO 753 wrote: Alien vizitorz. .
No Jo 753. You, Xouper and Richard Crist have had to invent new magic and pretend aliens invented technologies that there is no evidence for in the slightest.......and still can't set out a coherent hypothesis for "alien UFOs" in Washington DC.

The temperature inversion layer hypothesis matches all the evidence, with ease and is a common well known phenomena that has occurred elsewhere.

Bad Luck. Star Trek isn't a documentary.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:06 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:This, of course, also applies to aliens visiting Earth. No one can PROVE it wrong. But the absence of any credible evidence is strongly indicative of the fact that aliens do NOT visit Earth.


Hang on. :D
A hypothesis has to match all the facts. Jo 753 and Richard Crist have not actually set out their working hypothesis for the Washington DC events. I have been asking for this for almost two weeks.

They have thrown out a series of jumbled science fiction stories and TV tropes that don't match the facts. These include adding new layers of complexity for things that there is no evidence for, to get their aliens to fit, when simple reflections due to inversion layers already explains everything.

I have set out my working hypothesis. Until they set out their's, mine is the only hypothesis standing. That's how the scientific method works.
:D

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
JO 753 wrote: Alien vizitorz. .
No Jo 753. You, Xouper and Richard Crist have had to invent new magic and pretend aliens invented technologies that there is no evidence for in the slightest.......and still can't set out a coherent hypothesis for "alien UFOs" in Washington DC.


That is factually incorrect.

Your objections are becoming increasingly incoherent, Matthew.

1. I did not invent anything. I merely pointed out the flaw in your claim.

2. I did not pretend aliens invented any such technologies.

3. I am not required to set out any hypothesis whatsoever for what happened in Washington. I have not made any claims about what happened in this case.

4. It is dishonest of you to make these false insinuations about me. Please stop.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:19 am

xouper wrote: 1. I did not invent anything. I merely pointed out the flaw in your claim.
Nope. You are claiming magic Leprechauns invented by alien scientists, buzzing Washinton DC might be true because I can't prove a negative. That's all you ever had. More crap layers.

You certainly fooled Jo 753 and Richard Crist.

At no point while you were trolling this thread, did you ever notice that your hilarious logic didn't actually fit into any of the facts about the 1952 Washington DC false radar signals. That's alright. Jo 753 and Richard Christ also didn't notice.

You three should really get Gorgeous to check your work next time.
:lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:22 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:It is a mathematical concept like negative one in a formula. Show me a "negative one" and "a negative energy density" [/color] :lol:

Logic failure.

No. You cannot have a negative quantity and separate it from an equation .


That's not even a coherent assertion, Matthew. Try rephrasing it.

Example: An electron has a negative charge. So, yes there can be "negative quantities" separate from an equation.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:"Negative energy density" is at this point not been found,
That's right. . . . It doesn't exist. :lol:


Are you making the claim that "negative energy density" cannot ever exist?


Matthew Ellard wrote:Just like no one can find minus a dollar away from an equation. It doesn't exist. :lol:


Sorry, you know full well that minus dollars do indeed exist on financial statements.

If you run your checking account into the red, the bank will certainly agree that those "minus dollars" exist and that you better make good.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:30 am

xouper wrote: That's not even a coherent assertion, Matthew.
Nope it is clear and only you don't understand it.

xouper wrote:Example: An electron has a negative charge. So, yes there can be "negative quantities" separate from an equation.
You don't understand basic physics either. An electron's negative charge is an arbitrary name given to it's characteristic. It is not a numerical value. There is no such thing as negative energy. :lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: 1. I did not invent anything. I merely pointed out the flaw in your claim.
Nope. You are claiming magic Leprechauns invented by alien scientists, buzzing Washinton DC might be true because I can't prove a negative.


You just made a semantic error, Matthew.

"Invent" is the not the same as "claim".

My statement stands unrefuted that I did not invent any such technology.

In any case, I cited a peer reviewed journal paper from an actual scientist that suggested that such technology might be possible. Furthermore, there are actual scientists who have been working on that possibility.

So your objection is not just with me, it is with other scientists too.

You claimed that such technology cannot ever exist, but now you are admitting you cannot support your claim.

Well done, Matthew.

Can we move on now?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:41 am

xouper wrote: In any case, I cited a peer reviewed journal paper from an actual scientist that suggested that such technology might be possible.
No you didn't. All the articles said that the mathematical theory required non existing exotic energy.

It is the same as saying "Well if hypothetically, we had a spaceship travelling at light speed, then "X" is possible, when there is no way to to get the space ship to light speed in the first place. :lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:43 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: That's not even a coherent assertion, Matthew.
Nope it is clear and only you don't understand it.


:roll:


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:Example: An electron has a negative charge. So, yes there can be "negative quantities" separate from an equation.
You don't understand basic physics either. An electron's negative charge is an arbitrary name given to it's characteristic. It is not a numerical value.


That is factually incorrect.

Sorry, but voltage can be negative or positive. And yes voltage can also be assigned a numerical value.

What the hell do you think a voltmeter measures anyway?

You claimed: "You cannot have a negative quantity and separate it from an equation."

Electrical voltage is an example that disproves your claim.

Slam dunk. Game over.


Matthew Ellard wrote: There is no such thing as negative energy. :lol:


I never said there was.

What I said is that voltage can be negative. Not the same thing.

Why do you keep building these straw men, Matthew?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:44 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: In any case, I cited a peer reviewed journal paper from an actual scientist that suggested that such technology might be possible.

No you didn't.


Yes I did.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:52 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect wrote:The Casimir effect shows that quantum field theory allows the energy density in certain regions of space to be negative relative to the ordinary vacuum energy,

. . . and it has been shown theoretically that quantum field theory allows states where the energy can be arbitrarily negative at a given point,[46]

Many physicists such as Stephen Hawking,[47] Kip Thorne,[48] and others[49][50][51] therefore argue that such effects might make it possible to stabilize a traversable wormhole. Miguel Alcubierre has suggested[52] using the effect to obtain the negative energy density required for his Alcubierre Drive.


So, Matthew, do you still want to claim that "negative energy density" is not ever possible?

Do you seriously want to argue against Stephen Hawking?

But wait, there's more . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation wrote:An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy wrote:It is possible to arrange multiple beams of laser light such that destructive quantum interference suppresses the vacuum fluctuations. Such a squeezed vacuum state involves negative energy. The repetitive waveform of light leads to alternating regions of positive and negative energy.[4]

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:04 am

But wait there's more . . .

https://arxiv.org/html/gr-qc/9903068 wrote:Hyper-fast travel without negative energy
Eric Baird, 18 Mar 1999

. . . Since hyper-fast travel only requires that the speed of light-signals be enhanced in the actual direction of travel, we argue that the precondition of bidirectionality (inherited from special relativity, and the apparent source of the negative energy requirement), is unnecessary, and perhaps misleading.


For more journal papers on "negative energy density", see also:

https://www.google.com/search?q=negative+energy+density+site:arxiv.org

Do you need more, Matthew?

Do you still want to argue with all those scientists and tell them that "negative energy density" is impossible?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10690
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:19 am

Perhaps one of my previous posts is worth repeating:

xouper wrote:Matthew, there is a simple way to resolve this.

Simply acknowledge that it might be possible to find a way to bypass the speed of light as a limiting factor in space travel, even if the probability seems extremely remote at this time.

And then my objection goes away.

Lance has already done so and it has not harmed his general position here in any way.

Making such a concession is not an admission that alien spacecraft have been visiting Earth.


Your choice, Matthew.

You can choose to move on to more important issues (like "Where's the Beef?"), or you can keep getting pounded for insisting that FTL will never be possible.




_______________________________________
Footnote: Some people may remember the old Wendy's TV commercials.

Image

Here, I am using the word "beef" to mean "evidence of aliens".

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:09 pm

Theory: Matt iz a MIB.

Evidens: Wut looks like an obsession or desperate pride coud be explained equally well az a man just doing hiz job. Hiz performans here coud be a tekneek based on the 80/20 rule - 80% uv the readerz are paying only 20% attention, so will glans over 80% uv this thred and the stand-out blue proclimationz will be enuf for them to think they dont need to read the entire mess. He keeps the secret from spredding any further than a hand full uv isolated nobodyz and then paints them with the 'gullible idiot wakko' colorz. Job well dun, ajent M.

wadeuminit! let me redo that so peeps will be a little more likely to take notis:

Evidens: Wut looks like an obsession or desperate pride coud be explained equally well az a man just doing hiz job. :lol: Hiz performans here coud be a tekneek based on the 80/20 rule - 80% uv the readerz are paying only 20% attention, so will glans over 80% uv this thred and the stand-out blue proclimationz will be enuf for them to think they dont need to read the entire mess. :mrgreen: He keeps the secret from spredding any further than a hand full uv isolated nobodyz and then paints them with the 'gullible idiot wakko' colorz. Job well dun, ajent M. :wedgie:
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:16 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
TEnginist wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Still unlikely.

but how did you arrive at a probability of "unlikely"?


Because of the same thing that keeps me skeptical of your arguments, and Jo's arguments. Lack of credible evidence.

I thought that you were saying that it’s unlikely, in principle (that is, independently of the alleged evidence and arguments for the claims that it’s actually happened), that any alien mothership might have visited earth in recent times. Sagan seemed to think that it was not particularly unlikely (and that would make the proposition not “extraordinary” in the sense of “extremely improbable”), and I was wondering how you calculated the probability of it to be “unlikely” (to the extent of being “extraordinary”). Normally the probability of an event is the ratio of the number of outcomes favorable to the event to the total number of possible outcomes. How would you do such a calculation in this case? It seems to me that because what’s “out there” is so utterly unknown, there would be no way to do it with any confidence. I’m on Sagan’s side in this.

So, I believe that there are eyewitness reports that constitute strong evidence (because a number of witnesses were involved, because the witnesses are reliable individuals, and because the nature of what was reported does not seem to allow for the possibility that the witnesses have unconsciously filled details in). And, I believe that there’s nothing improbable, in principle, about the notion that an alien mothership might have visited earth in recent times. So considering the Sagan-like principle again:

The higher on the claim-extraordinariness (improbability-in-principle) scale a claim is, the higher the evidence for it has to be on the evidence-extraordinariness (strength) scale to be able to justify the claim,

If the notion of alien visitation is not, in principle, high on the claim-extraordinariness scale, then, even though eyewitness UFO testimony can be high on the evidence-extraordinariness scale in order to justify the claim, it need not be. I believe that the notion of alien visitation is not, in principle, high on the claim-extraordinariness scale. Therefore, even though eyewitness UFO testimony can be high on the evidence-extraordinariness scale in order to justify the claim, it need not be. There’s plenty of eyewitness testimony that’s strong enough to support the claim of alien visitation.

It may be that extraordinary (= improbable) claims require extraordinary (= unusually strong) evidence, but this doesn’t, in my view, apply in any significant way to the UFO question.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11023
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:21 pm

Jo: I enjoy your dive into the psychology of things. Matt definitely has a "persona" he maintains quite consistently. More Good than Bad in my sensibility.

eg........Matt: I disagree with Xouper about as much as anyone else does/can.......yet I agree with his current challenge to you. Silly not to agree with such a stupid premise. Its the irrelevant that X loves to trade in. Jo points out you do tend to skip arguments/facts you don't like....with all the attendant pros and cons to that.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12392
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:56 pm

I like Matt. And in spite uv the rulez, the insults dont bug me. The problem for me iz that he iz hurting hiz credibility so now I hav to consider the possibility that the holocost denier ijits mite hav sumthing!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests