Pseudoscience

[Evilshy 5,090]

I think Sagan's issue with Velikovsky was less "it's weird so it must be false" and more "it requires physics to work in a totally different way so it must be false".

 

Also, there's a reason predictive power isn't enough. I could adequately explain our world under the assumption that the earth is hollow and the core is home to an ancient tribe of magical dragons. Bonus points because it explains recurring dragon mythology, which the current model does not do. Checkmate, geologists

 

(That was a joke, by the way).

[cuteycindyhoney 13,316]

  On 2014-04-13 at 2:52 AM, NomDeSpite said:

The same thing applies to anthropogenic global warming. They just toss out "scientific consensus" and act as if this Appeal To Popularity is enough to clinch victory.

I have had some serious (in real life) arguments about this. People in the anthropogenic global warming camp get so angry when I mention that our star, Sol, is mildly variable, and that's the main reason why climate is always changing and never static.

 

[Arctic Night 884]

  On 2014-04-13 at 3:21 PM, cuteycindyhoney said:

 

I have had some serious (in real life) arguments about this. People in the anthropogenic global warming camp get so angry when I mention that our star, Sol, is mildly variable, and that's the main reason why climate is always changing and never static.

 

 

Probably because the isotopic signatures of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the same as those burnt for fuel. 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-13 at 2:40 AM, NomDeSpite said:

1. they assume that philosophical naturalistic-materialism is true, hence any ideas that fall outside of this philosophical paradigm are automatically wrong. So telepathy can "never happen", nor can anyone ever have their illnesses healed by prayers to God. And so on and so forth. These people never explain why naturalistic-materialism is true. They just assume it.

 

 

2. they have unwarranted and irrational trust in "the established powers", i.e. the dominant opinions in the sciences, in philosophy, in mainstream institutions like governments and colleges, etc., even when these institutions have been proven not to work. It's basically an Appeal To Authority fallacy taken to an extreme degree.

 

1. Afaic, science is more or less about "anything is possible, unless it isn't". This bromidic statement is the foundation of the scientific method. If you can produce any genuine consequential evidence of telepathy, go for it. Read my mind. Science will be forced to re-evaluate itself. The assumption that only a lunatic would make such a claim does not bowdlerize consequential evidence.

 

2. The last time I've heard this complaint is when somebody tried to make the case that precognition is possible, and that mind comes before matter, metaphysically speaking. Generally, this complaint happens when somebody isn't being listened to. It's just how it is.

 

Bottom line, everything starts out as pseudo-science. Just as anything starts out as alternative medicine.

Now, what is the pseudo-science and alternative medicine called which braved the rigid tests of science and time and is proven to work?

 

Surely, it is science. and medicine..

 

And about the precognition/psi stuff:

[NomDeSpite 452]

 

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 8:53 PM, Milky Jade said:

science is more or less about "anything is possible, unless it isn't". This bromidic statement is the foundation of the scientific method.

Funny, I thought the scientific method was about "observe, ask question, form hypothesis, perform experiment to test hypothesis, examine results, repeat." And yet, I've been wrong the whole time according to you.

 

 

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 6:04 AM, King Ghidora said:

I should have known better as soon as you called James Randi a loser...

And I should have known better as soon as you gave an opinion on an 18 minute speech after only having listened to 37 seconds of it.

 

James Randi is a loser. It's extremely easy to find examples of Randi behaving like a charlatan. Sheldrake has had his own confrontations with Randi and back in 1999, a man from Germany named Rico Kolodzey asked to take Randi's challenge and Randi threw up an Argument From Incredulity and dismissed him in the most closedminded manner possible.

 

Considering the way Randi treats people, I'd say "loser" isn't strong enough.

 

Regarding that huge wall of text you produced, it confirms that you don't know the first damn thing about Rupert Sheldrake. He has performed thousands of experiments on telepathy and has written about his evidence in books like "A New Science Of Life" and "The Sense Of Being Stared At". The fact that you couldn't even get these obvious facts right confirms you don't know what you're talking about.

 

I've seen that video of Sagan talking about Velikovsky before. He is a hypocrite of the first rank. "The worst thing about the Velikovsky Affair was that people tried to suppress his work." Yeah and you were part of that Mr. Sagan, when you got James McCanney kicked out of the Cornell University physics and mathematics departments for doing his own experiments based on Velikovsky's theories. I love how you don't even try to address Sagan's behavior in your response.

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:01 PM, NomDeSpite said:

Funny, I thought the scientific method was about "observe, ask question, form hypothesis, perform experiment to test hypothesis, examine results, repeat." And yet, I've been wrong the whole time according to you.

 

The scientific method doesn't work without first assuming that you can it apply it to everything in order to test everything.

"Mr. Kolodzey:

 

(This is a hard-copy of the e-mail response sent to you today.)

 

Please don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

 

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

 

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

 

Signed,

 

(Signed, 'James Randi')

 

James Randi

PRESIDENT"

 

And there we have it, ladies and gentlecolts. James Randi is a loser.

I mean, after letting in so many dowsers and other mystics, why wouldn't he give this one a chance?

Did he have a bad feeling about him? Like.. Randi knew that he was going to lose One Million Dollars if he gave him that chance?

....

Seriously though

Who wants to spend 3 weeks surveilling a person in solitary confinement in order to ascertain the verity of his claim?

Edited April 13, 2014 by Milky Jade

[NomDeSpite 452]

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:34 PM, Milky Jade said:

The scientific method doesn't work without first assuming that you can apply it to everything in order to test everything.

"Everything"? This quote sounds like something aalewis would say.

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:34 PM, Milky Jade said:

And there we have it, ladies and gentlecolts. James Randi is a loser. I mean, after letting in so many dowsers and other mystics, why wouldn't he give this one a chance?

Basic human courtesy? Desire to advance knowledge? Minor things, of course.

Randi says "if this is your claim, you are a fraud", point blank, without any evidence. Nothing could be more closedminded.

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:34 PM, Milky Jade said:

Who wants to spend 3 weeks surveilling a person in solitary confinement in order to ascertain the verity of his claim?

"It's too tedious" is a lame excuse. You could do a three-week surveillance very easily; just have some people watch Mr. Kolodzey while others sleep, then repeat.

Edited April 13, 2014 by NomDeSpite

[RNgineer 161]

I think 5,000 years from now all our scientific observations will be forgotten and given way to something completely new and different,  I wouldnt say scientists are psuedo, but my only criticism is that its only been very recent in these last 40 years scientists have cleaned up their act.  Before then scientists were mostly and very unethical in their research as history has shown us.  Other than that I wish people would stop making science a dogma

Edited April 13, 2014 by RNgineer

[Arctic Night 884]

Good Celestia, if that's evidence of a "loser," I don't want to live on this planet anymore. And Carl Sagan has made plenty of errors. He admits to them, apologizes for them, and corrects them in his book. A "close-minded" individual would not have done such.

 

@NomDeSpite You have not given a shred of credible, substantiated evidence for Sheldrake's claims. Your attacks on my character and cheesy smiley face are a clear indication that for whatever reason, you have gotten emotional on the topic. For these reasons, I must drop out of the discussion. If doing so provides you with some satisfaction of being "right" as you clearly desire, so be it. If you walk away from this chuckling about how much of a bigoted idiot I am, so be it. You have proven your abilities to argue, but not to debate. You have proven your abilities to talk, but not to reason. If I can not reason with you, the discussion has lost its productive value.

 

The last time I so much as questioned your opinion, you got into a 42 post "debate" with some guy and clogged my notifications box with your garbage. I will not accept for this to happen again. Prove telekinesis or morphic resonance, and maybe I'll... do whatever the hell it is that you expect me to do.

 

No, I didn't know anything beforehand about Mr. Sheldrake. That is why I did credible research. No, I didn't know what I was talking about, so I found facts to learn more. Unlike you, I was open-minded. I read up on Sheldrake's "research" and "morphic resonance." And nothing. 

 

Sincerely, Really hoping you're a troll, Ghidorah.

 

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” 
― Carl Sagan

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/evidence

Edited April 13, 2014 by King Ghidora

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:56 PM, NomDeSpite said:

"Everything"? This quote sounds like something aalewis would say.

The scientific method does not discriminate. Everything which can be observed, can be tested by it. Do you disagree?

 

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:56 PM, NomDeSpite said:

Randi says "if this is your claim, you are a fraud", point blank, without any evidence. Nothing could be more closedminded.

Actually, I agree. You won't see me agreeing very often, on a side note.

In a show about wasting your time with the champions of fraudulence, the vanguard of the lot should be an honour guest.

 

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:56 PM, NomDeSpite said:

"It's too tedious" is a lame excuse. You could do a three-week surveillance very easily; just have some people watch Mr. Kolodzey while others sleep, then repeat.

And here's the catch: 3 weeks of effort and the result is a dead smart-arse. Do you know what that does to showbusiness?

In regard to what I said one quote above - there's a profound difference in wasting an evening and wasting 3 whole weeks.

 

How Mr. Kolodzey didn't see this coming is beyond me. His claim is not un-falsifiable. You can let people starve for the fun of it.

Just don't tell me the burden of proving that the peril of starvation does in fact no apply to him is upon Randi. And don't tell me that he should be called upon to defenestrate money in the babyish conduct of letting someone starve on camera.

[NomDeSpite 452]

Since King Ghidora has left this thread, it seems pointless to respond to anything he has written any longer.

 

 

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 11:17 PM, Milky Jade said:

Everything which can be observed, can be tested by it. Do you disagree?

Yes, because the scientific method requires repeated testing of an observed thing. Some things only happen once. Historical events can be observed but not scientifically tested. You can't use science to prove that Theodore Roosevelt succeeded William McKinley as president of the United States, for example.

 

 

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 11:17 PM, Milky Jade said:

3 weeks of effort and the result is a dead smart-arse.

You are assuming, without evidence, that Mr. Kolodzey is lying about his claim that, at the time he contacted Randi, he hadn't eaten any food since the end of 1998.

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-13 at 11:37 PM, NomDeSpite said:

Yes, because the scientific method requires repeated testing of an observed thing. Some things only happen once. Historical events can be observed but not scientifically tested. You can't use science to prove that Theodore Roosevelt succeeded William McKinley as president of the United States, for example.

Actually, you can. It's called "forensic science". But it's not important to my case.

The main use of the scientific method is to attest the predictive capabilities of any set of assumptions.

We don't have to leave the province of assumptions so long as they show predictive capabilities.

As far as I'm aware, science does not much care to prove the historicity of events within retelling capacity. Even though it is surely possible to verify that Teddy existed, to find his signature on the germane papers, his photograph and so on, and prove his inauguration with the methods of forensic science, if you will - most sciences are not concerned with historicity, because their aim is to be useful in the present.

 

I can not in fact prove that Aristotle existed: there is always the counter-assumption that he is a fabrication of the tellers and/or writers of history. But the fact whether or not he existed is completely useless to me. His thoughts and ideas, fabricated or not, are.

 

 

  On 2014-04-13 at 11:37 PM, NomDeSpite said:

You are assuming, without evidence, that Mr. Kolodzey is lying about his claim that, at the time he contacted Randi, he hadn't eaten any food since the end of 1998.

An assumption does not require evidence. It's not a factual claim.

His claim is non-falsifiable. Randi is using scientific methods within his ability to prove the verity of a claim.

If a claim cannot be falsified, then it cannot be proven. The proof of the pudding is in the testability. His claim has no business in Randi's show, which is all about proving or disproving claims.

 

Now: If he were to claim that he is able to survive for another three weeks, then that can be tested. That's a claim not many, but still a much larger audience would be willing to pay attention to.

 

I personally would not, to be honest. Unless you have a reliable live stream, or the ability to participate, -and- the patience to go with, you will most likely not believe the evidence (even if it is genuine) anyway, because it would be far too easy to rationalize it as manipulation, the media whoring with whatever they can come up with, et c. . I'd even be willing to assume that he swallowed slowly dissolving vitamin capsules beforehand, or taped them to the roof of his mouth, or has a drip hidden in the leg of his chair, or something absurd along those lines.

 

Do you see the complication yet? You are in fact about to prove that bodies can function without sufficient energy intake, perhaps by pulling it out of nowhere or utilizing the sunrays or whatever - but nobody is going to believe you anyway.

 

It's a sad, sad day for Mr. Kolodzey.

[cuteycindyhoney 13,316]

  On 2014-04-13 at 3:41 PM, King Ghidora said:

Probably because the isotopic signatures of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the same as those burnt for fuel. 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

The Earth has gone through hot periods, and ice ages, long before man ever started mucking about with the environment. I am not saying pollution shouldn't be stopped. I'm saying that it's the sun that causes most of the changes in our climate.

[Sigma 768]

  On 2014-04-13 at 10:01 PM, NomDeSpite said:

Funny, I thought the scientific method was about "observe, ask question, form hypothesis, perform experiment to test hypothesis, examine results, repeat." And yet, I've been wrong the whole time according to you.

 

 

 

And I should have known better as soon as you gave an opinion on an 18 minute speech after only having listened to 37 seconds of it.

 

James Randi is a loser. It's extremely easy to find examples of Randi behaving like a charlatan. Sheldrake has had his own confrontations with Randi and back in 1999, a man from Germany named Rico Kolodzey asked to take Randi's challenge and Randi threw up an Argument From Incredulity and dismissed him in the most closedminded manner possible.

 

Considering the way Randi treats people, I'd say "loser" isn't strong enough.

 

Regarding that huge wall of text you produced, it confirms that you don't know the first damn thing about Rupert Sheldrake. He has performed thousands of experiments on telepathy and has written about his evidence in books like "A New Science Of Life" and "The Sense Of Being Stared At". The fact that you couldn't even get these obvious facts right confirms you don't know what you're talking about.

 

I've seen that video of Sagan talking about Velikovsky before. He is a hypocrite of the first rank. "The worst thing about the Velikovsky Affair was that people tried to suppress his work." Yeah and you were part of that Mr. Sagan, when you got James McCanney kicked out of the Cornell University physics and mathematics departments for doing his own experiments based on Velikovsky's theories. I love how you don't even try to address Sagan's behavior in your response.

 

I'll admit that I know nothing about Rupert Sheldrake. However, I don't have to know anything about him in order to know that it's wrong of you to call him a loser.

 

In science, logical criticism is something that should be (and usually is) openly accepted; but just because you're allowed to freely attack someone's work doesn't mean you're allowed to attack someone personally. Calling Rupert Sheldrake a 'loser' was uncalled for.

  On 2014-04-13 at 11:17 PM, Milky Jade said:

The scientific method does not discriminate. Everything which can be observed, can be tested by it. Do you disagree?

 

 

Actually, I agree. You won't see me agreeing very often, on a side note.

In a show about wasting your time with the champions of fraudulence, the vanguard of the lot should be an honour guest.

 

 

And here's the catch: 3 weeks of effort and the result is a dead smart-arse. Do you know what that does to showbusiness?

In regard to what I said one quote above - there's a profound difference in wasting an evening and wasting 3 whole weeks.

 

How Mr. Kolodzey didn't see this coming is beyond me. His claim is not un-falsifiable. You can let people starve for the fun of it.

Just don't tell me the burden of proving that the peril of starvation does in fact no apply to him is upon Randi. And don't tell me that he should be called upon to defenestrate money in the babyish conduct of letting someone starve on camera.

 

The scientists could easily stop the experiment before it gets out of hand and still reach accurate conclusions. I'm sure there are some medical tests that they can periodically run to see if the man's starving or not.

[CT-1138 3,183]

This is the TRUE scientific method I learned from doctored and accredited scientists. Why the linear version is still taught in public school is beyond me. Public school science is SO watered down.

 

Observing an issue leads to questioning. Reasoning is used to include every viable/testable hypothesis and preliminary research is made to weed out the ones already tested and disproven. From there, your new hypothesis are taken and experimented with. If they pass they are added to the established or are established as theory. If they fail, they are either rejected completely or are modified for further experimentation.

 

I also found a good short article regarding the difference between science and pseudoscience: http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/honors/pseudoscience.htm

Edited April 14, 2014 by Dinos4Ever

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-14 at 1:52 AM, Asterisk Propernoun said:

The scientists could easily stop the experiment before it gets out of hand and still reach accurate conclusions. I'm sure there are some medical tests that they can periodically run to see if the man's starving or not.

 

Which are based on the assumption that he will die if not supplied by the proper amount of nutrients: which is exactly what the man is trying to show he is able to survive. so yeah.. it's the only way, which works in accorance with his claim.

 

At some point it must be understood as obvious that I'm not seriously considering any of it to happen. He will starve, end of story. You'd be spitting in the face of science by wasting three weeks on intuitively wasteful experiments that could've seen better use elsewhere.

[Sigma 768]

  On 2014-04-14 at 6:30 PM, Milky Jade said:

Which are based on the assumption that he will die if not supplied by the proper amount of nutrients: which is exactly what the man is trying to show he is able to survive. so yeah.. it's the only way, which works in accorance with his claim.

 

At some point it must be understood as obvious that I'm not seriously considering any of it to happen. He will starve, end of story. You'd be spitting in the face of science by wasting three weeks on intuitively wasteful experiments that could've seen better use elsewhere.

 

I'd say that making assumptions as to how the experiment would go would be worse than getting out of your way to test the man. After learning that the math problem 1+2+3+4+... tending towards infinity is equal to -1/12, I also learned that you shouldn't be overly reliant on your intuition, because the answer can very easily be counter-intuitive.

 

However, you've made a good point in saying that testing the man would take up resources that could've been used for other purposes. Perhaps it would've been best to do some poking around before offering to test the man. Ask his friends if he's ever eaten anything, meet him at his house and see if he has food in his cabinets, etc.

 

It's likely that the man was a liar who would've ended up dead if he tried to do what he said he's been doing, but it's always good to check just to be on the safe side.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Asterisk Propernoun

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-14 at 10:48 PM, Asterisk Propernoun said:

I'd say that making assumptions as to how the experiment would go would be worse than getting out of your way to test the man. After learning that the math problem 1+2+3+4+... tending towards infinity is equal to -1/12, I also learned that you shouldn't be overly reliant on your intuition, because the answer can very easily be counter-intuitive.

 

However, you've made a good point in saying that testing the man would take up resources that could've been used for other purposes. Perhaps it would've been best to do some poking around before offering to test the man. Ask his friends if he's ever eaten anything, meet him at his house and see if he has food in his cabinets, etc.

 

It's likely that the man was a liar who would've ended up dead if he tried to do what he said he's been doing, but it's always good to check just to be on the safe side.

 

The reason for me saying this is because he's in effect dragging along hundreds of claims which are implicit in his statement. He is neglecting energy, a basic property in this universe. Nobody is interested in whether or not he can pull it off. We are interested in why it should be possible, and as it goes unanswered, it would be 'intuitive' to write him off.

 

Mathematical series being beyond your common membrane isn't unheard of, but I don't know why it is relevant. The matter of whether or not someone will die if exposed to malnutrition is not in the province of intuition. You're challenging physics. Not intuitive physics, but very important axiomatic statements (of a certain Isaac).

 

If you want to make the case that I have to be accomodating of any chance lunatic because high school math is only half-true and intricacies of science tend to blow my mind, well, then I apologize because I'm not going to buy that pencil.

 

 

  On 2014-04-14 at 10:48 PM, Asterisk Propernoun said:

I'd say that making assumptions as to how the experiment would go would be worse than getting out of your way to test the man.

 

Let me examine this statement again.

In order to make a choice, you have to make the assumption that one is preferable over the other.

The next question is: Do I want to suspend my trust in everything which I know about physics in order to give this man the benefit of the doubt and test his extraordinary claim?

 

If the answer is yes: Why can't the evidence responsible for the forthcoming destruction of our scientific basis be produced by any other means than starving oneself?

 

If the answer is no: Can you live with yourself not knowing for a fact whether or not he was telling the truth?

 

And the next questions are: What makes him different from other people that made extraordinary claims? Do we have to test every single claimant so as to sort out the liars? Does every astrologist need to be tested too, because it is strictly worse to assume (read: predict) that they'll fail the test? Is it -not- in fact unscientific to ignore the perfectly nonambiguous results produced by these tests?

 

When will pseudo-sciences ever produce something of genuine consequence? Is it false to claim that after a history of failure, one should not be called upon to give them infinitely many free retry-vouchers?

[Sigma 768]

  On 2014-04-15 at 12:13 AM, Milky Jade said:

The reason for me saying this is because he's in effect dragging along hundreds of claims which are implicit in his statement. He is neglecting energy, a basic property in this universe. Nobody is interested in whether or not he can pull it off. We are interested in why it should be possible, and as it goes unanswered, it would be 'intuitive' to write him off.

 

Mathematical series being beyond your common membrane isn't unheard of, but I don't know why it is relevant. The matter of whether or not someone will die if exposed to malnutrition is not in the province of intuition. You're challenging physics. Not intuitive physics, but very important axiomatic statements (of a certain Isaac).

 

If you want to make the case that I have to be accomodating of any chance lunatic because high school math is only half-true and intricacies of science tend to blow my mind, well, then I apologize because I'm not going to buy that pencil.

 

 

 

Let me examine this statement again.

In order to make a choice, you have to make the assumption that one is preferable over the other.

The next question is: Do I want to suspend my trust in everything which I know about physics in order to give this man the benefit of the doubt and test his extraordinary claim?

 

If the answer is yes: Why can't the evidence responsible for the forthcoming destruction of our scientific basis be produced by any other means than starving oneself?

 

If the answer is no: Can you live with yourself not knowing for a fact whether or not he was telling the truth?

 

And the next questions are: What makes him different from other people that made extraordinary claims? Do we have to test every single claimant so as to sort out the liars? Does every astrologist need to be tested too, because it is strictly worse to assume (read: predict) that they'll fail the test? Is it -not- in fact unscientific to ignore the perfectly nonambiguous results produced by these tests?

 

When will pseudo-sciences ever produce something of genuine consequence? Is it false to claim that after a history of failure, one should not be called upon to give them infinitely many free retry-vouchers?

 

Your claims are based off of the assumption that him living without food means him living without energy. Haven't you considered the possibility that he's still getting energy, just not from food? He claimed that he still drank water, maybe he's somehow gets energy from that with some bodily function that nobody else has. Or maybe he's a 'breathetarian' that some people also claim that they are.

 

I'll admit that my argument is starting to sound ridiculous, but it just wouldn't feel right to write this man off as a liar without evidence.

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-15 at 12:29 AM, Asterisk Propernoun said:

Your claims are based off of the assumption that him living without food means him living without energy. Haven't you considered the possibility that he's still getting energy, just not from food? He claimed that he still drank water, maybe he's somehow gets energy from that with some bodily function that nobody else has. Or maybe he's a 'breathetarian' that some people also claim that they are.

 

I'll admit that my argument is starting to sound ridiculous, but it just wouldn't feel right to write this man off as a liar without evidence.

I did, in fact, refer to the possibility a few posts above, if you would care to read your way up.

 

Let's try to quantify it for the absurdity of it:

 

J/m² (langley) is impractical, but Watts/m² is what we need (Joules per second in a defined square area), so I'll just take the solar constant, which is at its highest 1.362 kW/m², or 1362 W/m².

 

For the sake of argument, I'll let the average human skin area be 2 square meters. Ideally, all of it would be exposed to light, so you just have to imagine on your part how that might go. I'm taking 1 square meter and hope he is exposing only the right areas every day.

 

Let the average human Calorie consumption be 2000 kcal/Cal (8 368 000 Joules). Assuming he does nothing all day but sunbathe, anyway.

 

He lives in germany. The annual sunshine amounts to 1500 hours per year, averaging at only about 4.5 hours a day.

http://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/germany/

Which is 16200 seconds.

 

Now we simply insert. The solar constant for one square meter gives us 1362 Watts, which is 1362 Joules per second.

Mr. Whatshisface is exposed to sunlight for 16200 seconds a day, at maximum, which amounts to 22 064 400 Joules within 4 hours.

 

I calculated around 68M Joules for Yuma, which appears to be the sunniest place on earth, with an average of 11 hours per day.

 

The sunlight is surely enough, if you can convert it at will to a medium your body can work with.

(he would still perish because lolvitamins)

 

In 2006, however, the attempt was made to stipulate acceptable terms for scientific testing and Rico Kolodzy declined, evidently not ready to submit himself to a scientific environment in order to prove the verity of his claim. Randi put him off for exactly the reasons I stated. It would be completely unrewarding to louse up the operation and 3 weeks for juvenile claims and receive the subsequent ridicule of pretty much everybody.

 

_________________________

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmuheen

 

In 1998, she appeared in her first film, a six-part direct to video documentary called The Legend of Atlantis: Return of the Lightmasters. The Australian television programme 60 Minutes challenged Jasmuheen to demonstrate how she could live without food and water. The supervising medical professional Dr Beres Wenck found that, after 48 hours, Jasmuheen displayed symptoms of acute dehydration, stress, and high blood pressure.^[2] Jasmuheen claimed that this was a result of "polluted air".

On the third day, she was moved to a mountainside retreat about 15 miles from the city, where she was filmed enjoying the fresh air, claiming she could now successfully practice Inedia.

But as filming progressed, Jasmuheen's speech slowed, her pupils dilated, and she lost over a stone (6 kg or 14 lb) in weight. After four days, she acknowledged that she had lost weight, but stated that she felt fine.

Dr. Wenck stated: "You are now quite dehydrated, probably over 10%, getting up to 11%." The doctor continued: "Her pulse is about double what it was when she started. The risk if she goes any further is kidney failure."^[2]

Jasmuheen's condition continued to deteriorate rapidly due to acute dehydration, despite her contrary insistence. Dr Wenck concluded that continuing the experiment would ultimately prove fatal. The film crew agreed with this assessment and stopped filming.

____________________

What you can expect to happen if your ethereal relationship with heaven sucks. It's a sad day for Jasmuheen, too. Happy days and sunshine ahead?

[Sigma 768]

  On 2014-04-15 at 1:45 AM, Milky Jade said:

I did, in fact, refer to the possibility a few posts above, if you would care to read your way up.

 

Let's try to quantify it for the absurdity of it:

 

J/m² (langley) is impractical, but Watts/m² is what we need (Joules per second in a defined square area), so I'll just take the solar constant, which is at its highest 1.362 kW/m², or 1362 W/m².

 

For the sake of argument, I'll let the average human skin area be 2 square meters. Ideally, all of it would be exposed to light, so you just have to imagine on your part how that might go. I'm taking 1 square meter and hope he is exposing only the right areas every day.

 

Let the average human Calorie consumption be 2000 kcal/Cal (8 368 000 Joules). Assuming he does nothing all day but sunbathe, anyway.

 

He lives in germany. The annual sunshine amounts to 1500 hours per year, averaging at only about 4.5 hours a day.

http://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/germany/

Which is 16200 seconds.

 

Now we simply insert. The solar constant for one square meter gives us 1362 Watts, which is 1362 Joules per second.

Mr. Whatshisface is exposed to sunlight for 16200 seconds a day, at maximum, which amounts to 22 064 400 Joules within 4 hours.

 

I calculated around 68M Joules for Yuma, which appears to be the sunniest place on earth, with an average of 11 hours per day.

 

The sunlight is surely enough, if you can convert it at will to a medium your body can work with.

(he would still perish because lolvitamins)

 

In 2006, however, the attempt was made to stipulate acceptable terms for scientific testing and Rico Kolodzy declined, evidently not ready to submit himself to a scientific environment in order to prove the verity of his claim. Randi put him off for exactly the reasons I stated. It would be completely unrewarding to louse up the operation and 3 weeks for juvenile claims and receive the subsequent ridicule of pretty much everybody.

 

_________________________

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmuheen

 

In 1998, she appeared in her first film, a six-part direct to video documentary called The Legend of Atlantis: Return of the Lightmasters. The Australian television programme 60 Minutes challenged Jasmuheen to demonstrate how she could live without food and water. The supervising medical professional Dr Beres Wenck found that, after 48 hours, Jasmuheen displayed symptoms of acute dehydration, stress, and high blood pressure.^[2] Jasmuheen claimed that this was a result of "polluted air".

On the third day, she was moved to a mountainside retreat about 15 miles from the city, where she was filmed enjoying the fresh air, claiming she could now successfully practice Inedia.

But as filming progressed, Jasmuheen's speech slowed, her pupils dilated, and she lost over a stone (6 kg or 14 lb) in weight. After four days, she acknowledged that she had lost weight, but stated that she felt fine.

Dr. Wenck stated: "You are now quite dehydrated, probably over 10%, getting up to 11%." The doctor continued: "Her pulse is about double what it was when she started. The risk if she goes any further is kidney failure."^[2]

Jasmuheen's condition continued to deteriorate rapidly due to acute dehydration, despite her contrary insistence. Dr Wenck concluded that continuing the experiment would ultimately prove fatal. The film crew agreed with this assessment and stopped filming.

____________________

What you can expect to happen if your ethereal relationship with heaven sucks. It's a sad day for Jasmuheen, too. Happy days and sunshine ahead?

 

Very well, I see your point.

[Milky Jade 138]

  On 2014-04-15 at 12:36 PM, Asterisk Propernoun said:

Very well, I see your point.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YCN-a0NsNk

 

My whole point from the beginning should have been clear to anybody ♥

It's still all up there should one want to challenge parts or the entire thing

[Sigma 768]

  On 2014-04-15 at 12:47 PM, Milky Jade said:

 

My whole point from the beginning should have been clear to anybody ♥

It's still all up there should one want to challenge parts or the entire thing

 

Okay, I have to give you a brohoof for that video.