papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #51 Share Posted November 16, 2023 11 minutes ago, eight bits said: Yes. Apparently they edited out the part where the investigator eliminated the porosity of the statue as a sufficient explanation. Do you happen to have that piece of video? Thanks in advance. I recall he said the phenomena was not known to occur with any of the other statues so constructed at the facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #52 Share Posted November 16, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: As for having an 'irrational resistance to claims outside of [reality], there is nothing irrational about that. Just how did you determine all boundaries in reality? Have they already been determined? As for the rest of your quote, I can only repeat things I said already as my responses. Edited November 16, 2023 by papageorge1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
openozy Posted November 16, 2023 #53 Share Posted November 16, 2023 3 hours ago, papageorge1 said: Did you see the weeping statue video I presented above. Many intelligent observers have claimed the capillary action explanation to be inadequate. Some reasons: It happened (and only on that day) with objects of all types of material and texture; ceramics, metals, medallions, marble, and what not. Does metal absorb milk through capillary action? The quantity disappearing is more than can be reasonably accounted for by capillary action. Devotees failed to get the phenomena to perform after this short miracle time period ended. Capillary action would always act the same. The quality, quantity and consistency of even western observants that such behavior was well beyond anything we would consider normal during this time-period. Quite a few Spoonfuls from one small marble statue: I see a little spillage when tipping spoon too far but too little appears lost to explain the event satisfactorily. I would expect a significant flooding. Don't they feed rats bowls of milk over there? I'm saying rat inside statue sucking milk through tusk, 🐀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted November 16, 2023 #54 Share Posted November 16, 2023 52 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Just how did you determine all boundaries in reality? Have they already been determined? I've made my point and will not repeat myself. Still waiting on the plethora of evidence you supposedly have that refutes the scientific findings behind the milk incident, as well as irrefutable proof that the statue tears incident (as posted by the OP) is indeed a religious miracle. You will of course, have to first prove that God (or whatever other being you think is behind it) exists. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #55 Share Posted November 16, 2023 26 minutes ago, openozy said: Don't they feed rats bowls of milk over there? I'm saying rat inside statue sucking milk through tusk, 🐀 I think you're joking. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #56 Share Posted November 16, 2023 7 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: I've made my point and will not repeat myself. Still waiting on the plethora of evidence you supposedly have that refutes the scientific findings behind the milk incident, as well as irrefutable proof that the statue tears incident (as posted by the OP) is indeed a religious miracle. You will of course, have to first prove that God (or whatever other being you think is behind it) exists. Ahh you are deflecting from the question I asked you: Just how did you determine all boundaries in reality? Have they already been determined? (probably a wise move to change the subject) Secondly, where do I ever claim irrefutable proof? All I recall saying is that all things considered a religious miracle is the most reasonable explanation for some of these statue events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted November 16, 2023 #57 Share Posted November 16, 2023 3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Ahh you are deflecting from the question I asked you: Just how did you determine all boundaries in reality? Have they already been determined? (probably a wise move to change the subject) Not deflecting. As mentioned I've made my point. You've clearly missed it. Not that it matters, let's move on. 5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Secondly, where do I ever claim irrefutable proof? All I recall saying is that all things considered a religious miracle is the most reasonable explanation for some of these statue events. You've claimed to have done your research, yet all you've presented is an opinion and a few unconvincing YouTube videos. You've also claimed there are knowledgeable people that refute the scientific findings behind the milk incident, yet have not provided any sources to support that. You also claim the tears incidents are a religious miracle, dismiss all possible explanations, yet have no explanation or proof to support your claim. So why not just say that you believe most such incidents to be religious miracles because that's what you want to believe, because that is, if I'm to be blunt, the truth. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted November 16, 2023 #58 Share Posted November 16, 2023 1 hour ago, papageorge1 said: I recall he said the phenomena was not known to occur with any of the other statues so constructed at the facility. That's a tad light of eliminating the porosity of the one statue as a sufficient explanation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #59 Share Posted November 16, 2023 3 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: Not deflecting. As mentioned I've made my point. You've clearly missed it. Not that it matters, let's move on. You've claimed to have done your research, yet all you've presented is an opinion and a few unconvincing YouTube videos. You've also claimed there are knowledgeable people that refute the scientific findings behind the milk incident, yet have not provided any sources to support that. You also claim the tears incidents are a religious miracle, dismiss all possible explanations, yet have no explanation or proof to support your claim. So why not just say that you believe most such incidents to be religious miracles because that's what you want to believe, because that is, if I'm to be blunt, the truth. When one studies something, he reads and considers much. He cannot have it all ready with an instant link unless he prepares for some time in advance, right? But I can provide my takeaway position and I will state that it is on thousands of pieces of evidence considered and not faith. And where do I dismiss any possible explanation? I will consider (not dismiss) the satisfactoriness of the explanation under the full circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #60 Share Posted November 16, 2023 5 minutes ago, eight bits said: That's a tad light of eliminating the porosity of the one statue as a sufficient explanation. Every point cannot be fully discussed in every detail in the video. That theory was certainly considered by the investigator was my point and that what was observed was not normal behavior. Perfect proof of everything might be impossible. 'Most reasonable conclusion' becomes the better term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted November 16, 2023 #61 Share Posted November 16, 2023 5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: When one studies something, he reads and considers much. He cannot have it all ready with an instant link unless he prepares for some time in advance, right? But I can provide my takeaway position and I will state that it is on thousands of pieces of evidence considered and not faith. It didn't take me long to find information on the subject, even less time to find evidence, so I'm not sure why it's a problem for you given that you supposedly have 'thousands of pieces of evidence' to choose from. As the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the onus is on you to provide that evidence. Yet here you are challenging and criticizing the views of others with no real evidence to support your own. 15 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: And where do I dismiss any possible explanation? I will consider (not dismiss) the satisfactoriness of the explanation under the full circumstances. You dismissed the scientific explanation for the milk incident suggesting it was not satisfactory enough. You did this without fully researching it, without fully understanding how capillary action works, and without any rational analysis. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted November 16, 2023 #62 Share Posted November 16, 2023 8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Every point cannot be fully discussed in every detail in the video. That theory was certainly considered by the investigator was my point and that what was observed was not normal behavior. Perfect proof of everything might be impossible. 'Most reasonable conclusion' becomes the better term. No, what you pointed to doesn't imply that the "theory" was "certainly condisered by the investigator." All it implies is that the investigator came up with yet another reason to claim that the one statue was "special." It's not normal behavior to feed a statue milk. Why should the statue soaking up the milk be "normal"? It's only normal on condition that a watery liquid is put in contact with the statue when it's dry. Then it is inevitable. Which is what the video illustrates. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #63 Share Posted November 16, 2023 1 minute ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: It didn't take me long to find information on the subject, even less time to find evidence, so I'm not sure why it's a problem for you given that you supposedly have 'thousands of pieces of evidence' to choose from. As the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the onus is on you to provide that evidence. Yet here you are challenging and criticizing the views of others with no real evidence to support your own. You dismissed the scientific explanation for the milk incident suggesting it was not satisfactory enough. You did this without fully researching it, without fully understanding how capillary action works, and without any rational analysis. Perhaps dig up an old thread with many pages of action and we can read that and continue. Starting at ground zero is tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosey.Matters Posted November 16, 2023 #64 Share Posted November 16, 2023 Subjective actually selective, yes selective observation, really reminds me of a great word, pseudo. . . . jimo . . .. --nosy 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted November 16, 2023 #65 Share Posted November 16, 2023 33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Perhaps dig up an old thread with many pages of action and we can read that and continue. Starting at ground zero is tiresome. The onus is on you to support your claims, not me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 16, 2023 #66 Share Posted November 16, 2023 10 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: The onus is on you to support your claims, not me. It becomes a fool's errand to think you can ever present enough evidence to a determined skeptic. Give some to the bystanders and move on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted November 17, 2023 #67 Share Posted November 17, 2023 10 hours ago, papageorge1 said: It becomes a fool's errand to think you can ever present enough evidence to a determined skeptic. Give some to the bystanders and move on. You're right, it would be a fool's errand. To support the veracity of your claims, you would have to present evidence that God (or some other deity or higher being) exists and is at play. As at this time there is no such evidence. All you have to present are your personal beliefs (and those of like-minded others), and such beliefs are nowhere near evidence of anything. I find it extremely ironic how believers attempt to explain the inexplicable with something that's even more inexplicable Any logical explanations that do not support their worldview are dismissed as unsatisfactory, whilst illogical and irrational thinking that aligns with their own, is perfectly acceptable. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csspwns Posted November 17, 2023 #68 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 19 hours ago, papageorge1 said: Well, I understand the capillary action concept and hold it to be inadequate to explain this Hindu Milk Miracle. Some reasons: It happened (and only on that day) with objects of all types of material and texture; ceramics, metals, medallions, marble, and what not. Does metal absorb milk through capillary action? The quantity disappearing is more than can be reasonably accounted for by capillary action. Devotees failed to get the phenomena to perform after this short miracle time period ended. Capillary action would always act the same. The quality, quantity and consistency of even western observants that such behavior was well beyond anything we would consider normal during this time-period. I would like to have your graduate students address these issues and others I am forgetting to include here before they have their laugh. Quite a few spoonful from a marble statue: I see a little spillage when tipping spoon too far but too little appears lost to explain the event satisfactorily. I would expect a significant flooding. What you see in this video is literally a perfect example of capillary action assisted by siphoning. Yes, if the statue were marble the porosity would be lower leading to less capillary action, however, a siphon is influenced more by physical dimensions and structure rather than the material. Notice at the beginning how the person had to adjust until they found the optimal orientation and contact angle of the spoon in order for the capillary action and siphon to start? Any microcracks in the tusk would have allowed for capillary action to move the milk up the narrow tusk and siphoning will take over after that. Jurin's Law shows the relationship for the height at which a liquid rises in a cylindrical channel. As you can see through the formula, the smaller the radius, the higher the rise in the liquid. From inspection, it's totally plausible for capillary action to move the milk up the relatively short height, then siphoning would allow for continuous flow until the milk was drained. The weight of the milk flowing downwards is essentially pulling more milk into the tusk, creating a suction effect. Gravity and the pressure difference pushes more milk into the siphon to replace the milk that is falling creating this abrupt and continuous suction effect as seen in 0:21 which is a telltale sign of siphoning effects. So yes, this is clearly in the realm of physics. What would have impressed me would be if the radius and height of the channel were large and the liquid was still being sucked up. Or if the milk was not in direct contact with the tusk but was somehow still being sucked up. Or if the 1st Law of Thermodynamics were violated and the milk was noticeably less at the exit point. Or if the continuous siphon effect stopped midway and rather than abrupt intake, it was a slower intake of milk into the tusk. Also, why do supposed miracles become less and less extravagant as time goes on and we gain better knowledge and quality documentation methods? Miracles went from talking snakes and the dead rising to weeping statues and elephant statues being fond of milk. 💀🤣 I'm sure the other things you said such as things only happening on that day, etc are BS but maybe someone else can take a dive into that to find out. And yes, I'll let my grad students know of this video without providing my solution and see what they come up with. Some of them seem destined to become renowned leaders, engineers, and scientists of the future so I doubt it'll take them long to arrive at a similar conclusion. Edited November 17, 2023 by csspwns 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 17, 2023 #69 Share Posted November 17, 2023 5 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: You're right, it would be a fool's errand. To support the veracity of your claims, you would have to present evidence that God (or some other deity or higher being) exists and is at play. As at this time there is no such evidence. All you have to present are your personal beliefs (and those of like-minded others), and such beliefs are nowhere near evidence of anything. I find it extremely ironic how believers attempt to explain the inexplicable with something that's even more inexplicable Any logical explanations that do not support their worldview are dismissed as unsatisfactory, whilst illogical and irrational thinking that aligns with their own, is perfectly acceptable. What Papa said: All things considered I think these religious miracles have no satisfactory known explanation. I would give 'unseen intelligences and forces' as my leading theory. What 'Kittens Are Jerks' moves the goal posts to: Papa is saying these religious miracles are the result of divine forces. Do you see the differnce in the two statements. The second one would carry the burden of proof. The first one is just a best assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 17, 2023 #70 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, csspwns said: What you see in this video is literally a perfect example of capillary action assisted by siphoning. Yes, if the statue were marble the porosity would be lower leading to less capillary action, however, a siphon is influenced more by physical dimensions and structure rather than the material. Notice at the beginning how the person had to adjust until they found the optimal orientation and contact angle of the spoon in order for the capillary action and siphon to start? Any microcracks in the tusk would have allowed for capillary action to move the milk up the narrow tusk and siphoning will take over after that. Jurin's Law shows the relationship for the height at which a liquid rises in a cylindrical channel. As you can see through the formula, the smaller the radius, the higher the rise in the liquid. From inspection, it's totally plausible for capillary action to move the milk up the relatively short height, then siphoning would allow for continuous flow until the milk was drained. The weight of the milk flowing downwards is essentially pulling more milk into the tusk, creating a suction effect. Gravity and the pressure difference pushes more milk into the siphon to replace the milk that is falling creating this abrupt and continuous suction effect as seen in 0:21 which is a telltale sign of siphoning effects. So yes, this is clearly in the realm of physics. What would have impressed me would be if the radius and height of the channel were large and the liquid was still being sucked up. Or if the milk was not in direct contact with the tusk but was somehow still being sucked up. Or if the 1st Law of Thermodynamics were violated and the milk was noticeably less at the exit point. Or if the continuous siphon effect stopped midway and rather than abrupt intake, it was a slower intake of milk into the tusk. Also, why do supposed miracles become less and less extravagant as time goes on and we gain better knowledge and quality documentation methods? Miracles went from talking snakes and the dead rising to weeping statues and elephant statues being fond of milk. 💀🤣 I'm sure the other things you said such as things only happening on that day, etc are BS but maybe someone else can take a dive into that to find out. And yes, I'll let my grad students know of this video without providing my solution and see what they come up with. Some of them seem destined to become renowned leaders, engineers, and scientists of the future so I doubt it'll take them long to arrive at a similar conclusion. Let's clarify that I am not questioning your physics. What I am claiming is that you cannot lose from view the quantity of milk shown in that video today with a similar statue. Others have tried and could not reproduce it outside of the claimed 'miracle timeframe'. Sounds like a nice experiment for your physics students. And that was just one video. Edited November 17, 2023 by papageorge1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted November 17, 2023 #71 Share Posted November 17, 2023 2 hours ago, papageorge1 said: What Papa said: All things considered I think these religious miracles have no satisfactory known explanation. I would give 'unseen intelligences and forces' as my leading theory. What 'Kittens Are Jerks' moves the goal posts to: Papa is saying these religious miracles are the result of divine forces. Do you see the differnce in the two statements. The second one would carry the burden of proof. The first one is just a best assessment. Not so fast mister lol. Nice try, but a game of semantics and cherry picking will not get you out of the jam you’re in. Your statement: “All things considered I think these religious miracles have no satisfactory known explanation. I would give 'unseen intelligences and forces' as my leading theory,” is not an assessment. It is a conclusion based on an assessment. Same thing goes for this other statement of yours: “My leading interpretation is that this is indeed the result of higher intelligences giving us a sign of their care/love and to say 'we are here/real'." As for what I wrote, I left it open for you to prove that God or whatever other deity or higher being you thought was behind the incidents. You’ve consistently referred to them as ‘religious miracles’. That alone indicates you’ve attributed their occurrence to a divine or higher power. Also referring to it as a ‘higher intelligence’ and ‘unseen intelligence and forces,’ doesn’t make that much of a difference. The burden of proof is still on you to prove the existence of whatever you think is behind these incidents. Finally, you also stated: “…I can provide my takeaway position and I will state that it is on thousands of pieces of evidence considered and not faith.” You clearly state that your position is based on evidence, not faith. Protest all you want, but you did indeed dig your own burden of proof grave. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 17, 2023 #72 Share Posted November 17, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said: Not so fast mister lol. Nice try, but a game of semantics and cherry picking will not get you out of the jam you’re in. Your statement: “All things considered I think these religious miracles have no satisfactory known explanation. I would give 'unseen intelligences and forces' as my leading theory,” is not an assessment. It is a conclusion based on an assessment. Same thing goes for this other statement of yours: “My leading interpretation is that this is indeed the result of higher intelligences giving us a sign of their care/love and to say 'we are here/real'." As for what I wrote, I left it open for you to prove that God or whatever other deity or higher being you thought was behind the incidents. You’ve consistently referred to them as ‘religious miracles’. That alone indicates you’ve attributed their occurrence to a divine or higher power. Also referring to it as a ‘higher intelligence’ and ‘unseen intelligence and forces,’ doesn’t make that much of a difference. The burden of proof is still on you to prove the existence of whatever you think is behind these incidents. Finally, you also stated: “…I can provide my takeaway position and I will state that it is on thousands of pieces of evidence considered and not faith.” You clearly state that your position is based on evidence, not faith. Protest all you want, but you did indeed dig your own burden of proof grave. Nice try yourself. Never did I claim more than my considered opinion. And I provide some of the reasons why I reached that position. Not claiming proof, I carry no burden of proof. All I need to do is provide a sample of my reasoning which I've done. What we should be discussing is whether a normal explanation is more or less likely than a paranormal explanation. On the video I supplied, the best I've heard from the 'normal' side is wax and olive oil applied to the eyes that were not visible to anyone including the very serious investigator that melted because of an ambient temperature change. And a chemical analysis that showed olive oil and no mention of olive oil and wax. Edited November 17, 2023 by papageorge1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittens Are Jerks Posted November 17, 2023 #73 Share Posted November 17, 2023 36 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Nice try yourself. Never did I claim more than my considered opinion. And I provide some of the reasons why I reached that position. Not claiming proof, I carry no burden of proof. All I need to do is provide a sample of my reasoning which I've done. What we should be discussing is whether a normal explanation is more or less likely than a paranormal explanation. On the video I supplied, the best I've heard from the 'normal' side is wax and olive oil applied to the eyes that were not visible to anyone including the very serious investigator that melted because of an ambient temperature change. And a chemical analysis that showed olive oil and no mention of olive oil and wax. Calling your claim an 'opinion' does not give you a get out of jail free card. You can't play burden tennis and place the burden in others' courts as you are in no position to do so. Other members who've made claims have already substantiated them with credible scientific evidence. You're the only one who hasn't. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 17, 2023 #74 Share Posted November 17, 2023 More testimonials on the Milk Miracle From Col. Bhardwaj (at left, with his wife, Hinduism Today correspondent Prabha) is a retired army officer with a degree in electrical and mechanical engineering as well as postgraduate diplomas in automotive engineering, armament and industrial management. I am an engineer of long standing. The theory that capillary action caused the suction of hundreds of pints of milk by Deities of stone and metal as small as twelve by six inches is not possible. Most of the Deities are carved out of solid stone or cast of metal. Lord Ganesha's trunk takes a bend and makes a twist at the tip. Its tip only has a small hole, the rest is solid mass. This tip is not capable of holding even one spoonful of milk. In some of the murtis, the trunk falls straight and the tip does not have a hole. It sucked hundred of pints of milk in a few hours. No milk was seen flowing out of the body, and no mist was formed around the murtis. What shall we call it, other than Godly miracle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 17, 2023 #75 Share Posted November 17, 2023 7 hours ago, csspwns said: What you see in this video is literally a perfect example of capillary action assisted by siphoning. Yes, if the statue were marble the porosity would be lower leading to less capillary action, however, a siphon is influenced more by physical dimensions and structure rather than the material. Notice at the beginning how the person had to adjust until they found the optimal orientation and contact angle of the spoon in order for the capillary action and siphon to start? Any microcracks in the tusk would have allowed for capillary action to move the milk up the narrow tusk and siphoning will take over after that. Jurin's Law shows the relationship for the height at which a liquid rises in a cylindrical channel. As you can see through the formula, the smaller the radius, the higher the rise in the liquid. From inspection, it's totally plausible for capillary action to move the milk up the relatively short height, then siphoning would allow for continuous flow until the milk was drained. The weight of the milk flowing downwards is essentially pulling more milk into the tusk, creating a suction effect. Gravity and the pressure difference pushes more milk into the siphon to replace the milk that is falling creating this abrupt and continuous suction effect as seen in 0:21 which is a telltale sign of siphoning effects. So yes, this is clearly in the realm of physics. What would have impressed me would be if the radius and height of the channel were large and the liquid was still being sucked up. Or if the milk was not in direct contact with the tusk but was somehow still being sucked up. Or if the 1st Law of Thermodynamics were violated and the milk was noticeably less at the exit point. Or if the continuous siphon effect stopped midway and rather than abrupt intake, it was a slower intake of milk into the tusk. Also, why do supposed miracles become less and less extravagant as time goes on and we gain better knowledge and quality documentation methods? Miracles went from talking snakes and the dead rising to weeping statues and elephant statues being fond of milk. 💀🤣 I'm sure the other things you said such as things only happening on that day, etc are BS but maybe someone else can take a dive into that to find out. And yes, I'll let my grad students know of this video without providing my solution and see what they come up with. Some of them seem destined to become renowned leaders, engineers, and scientists of the future so I doubt it'll take them long to arrive at a similar conclusion. Further reasons for my suspicion against your theory: From Col. Bhardwaj (at left, with his wife, Hinduism Today correspondent Prabha) is a retired army officer with a degree in electrical and mechanical engineering as well as postgraduate diplomas in automotive engineering, armament and industrial management. I am an engineer of long standing. The theory that capillary action caused the suction of hundreds of pints of milk by Deities of stone and metal as small as twelve by six inches is not possible. Most of the Deities are carved out of solid stone or cast of metal. Lord Ganesha's trunk takes a bend and makes a twist at the tip. Its tip only has a small hole, the rest is solid mass. This tip is not capable of holding even one spoonful of milk. In some of the murtis, the trunk falls straight and the tip does not have a hole. It sucked hundred of pints of milk in a few hours. No milk was seen flowing out of the body, and no mist was formed around the murtis. What shall we call it, other than Godly miracle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now