Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image
Eric, you bring up an interesting point. What is science anyway? I guess it could mean different things to different people. For some it might be about certain rules, the status quo, a belief system, a hierarchy, certain methods and prejudices, and dogma not unlike a religion. Not something that has truth and logic as it's guideposts. You suggest that people feeling a sensation can't be scientifically considered proof. But logically it is evidence and it would eventually be enough to be counted as proof could it not, at least if truth and logic are your guideposts. Proof of what could be debated of course. Yes the circumstances must be considered, if I were a stage hypnotist or a magican and they felt these things in person with me, then you could have an alternative explanation. Sticking doggedly to certain rules of what is and is not enough evidence to be considered proof (or, even evidence as evidence) is not logically defensible if the weight of evidence is enough in volume and absent of any other possible explanation. But it might be scientific, if scientific does not mean logical and truthful. But when I say scientific, I mean logical and truthful. John On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: You could argue that nothing really proves anything. Even atoms are still just considered a theory, sure a popular one with tons of evidence. Yes, good point. When it comes down to it, nobody has seen an atom. It's all inference. Atoms are of course redefines, quantum physics changed understanding of the atom, was the previous model incorrect? That is a very hard thing to answer, it certainly wasn't complete. I do not believe previous models are incorrect, generally speaking -- previous models are often correct within the scope of their applicability. In astronomy, the Copernican system does the trick for figuring out where most of the heavenly bodies are going to be if you're willing to do all of the math. We just have happened upon a model we like better for doing the things we want to do these days (i.e., a heliocentric model of the solar system). We find it more conceptually elegant and useful. So this is evidence for a substance to space, for an energy that does not fit into the engineering and physics definition of energy. I am very open to the existence of an energy that does not fit within the engineering and physics definition of energy. I guess my view is simply that when we step outside of engineering and physics, we've stepped outside of science and are now contemplating questions of a different nature; e.g., ones that you can't prove in the context of science. I disagree that it is outside of science. However it is an area of science that the rules of scientific evidence and the instruments we have cut us off from working in this area almost entirely. But it is real and detectable (with difficulty), it is logical and can be engineered. But at the same time it does connect to consciousness, and do various other things that make it a bit spooky. Not to mention, I know a lot about it, but I can't give you any equations for it, but that may be my own mathematical shortcomings. Now does one person feeling something prove it, well no. But a significant percentage of people do feel this. I do not believe intersubjective agreement on the existence of a phenomenological experience is sufficient to prove a scientific conjecture. Really it suggests that the experience is widely shared. But it could be the widely shared experience of neurons randomly firing off. Something more is needed to prove something, at least, scientifically speaking. Well if this were promoted by the leader of a religion, then the weight of evidence of those within that belief system agreeing would be of no value. However if *everyone* no matter what their belief system is feels something strongly (in a low pressure environment, such as an email), then that is in fact very strong evidence. No matter what the customs of scientific evidence say about it, if it disagrees then it is merely rigged.. Now this is not the former and is closer to the later, except only some people feel it strongly and some people don't at all. And many others feel something but it is at a level they can't immediately gain confidence in. So is it proof, maybe not. Is it evidence, yes. Let's say this, there is based on the evidence I have been able to gather definitively something that is not normally understood (and there is already some degree of evidence on list) and it follows the rules that I have found by modeling it on an aether. I should clarify that I do not doubt that you have come across evidence of something unusual in your investigations and that it could
Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:29 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: But it might be scientific, if scientific does not mean logical and truthful. But when I say scientific, I mean logical and truthful. What science is is something that smart people have spent their entire careers trying to characterize. They all disagree with one another and with practicing scientists. But if I had to take a stab at it, I'd guess that science is a system we've come up with to systematize certain types of knowledge about the world. It assumes an objective reality. And it only deals with those things that can be empirically established, or that can be systematically elaborated from an empirical basis. Phenomena that go beyond these two things may be proper subjects of knowledge, but not scientific knowledge -- they belong to the realms of art or religion, for example. You raise an interesting philosophical question -- why would an experience that is widely shared not provide scientific evidence for either? If you can establish that the experience is widely shared, then think we can say that it provides evidence for something. Then question, then, is whether that something is properly scientific. I think it's in this particular detail that all the difficulties lie. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image
That image should work at any zoom level? I'm using a 24 inches LCD monitor. Mark Jordan On 19-Apr-13 21:35, John Berry wrote: Mark, I have made a new one especially for you. Now this image deals heavily with colour so it may not work if your monitor or videocard is at fault. Feel about 1.5 to 2 feet away from the image, this will make it easier to tell the sensation apart from the monitor and will give the image more space to 'structure'. I have no idea if you will be able to feel it, but is is tuned to replicate an angle I found I was automatically putting my fingers at which increased the sensation in my hand. http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8522/25degreeanglebest.png John On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:21 AM, MJ feli...@gmail.com mailto:feli...@gmail.com wrote: Have tried every image you posted and feel nothing besides the heat from the monitor's backlight. In hope, Mark Jordan On 19/4/2013 09:51, John Berry wrote: BTW an added interesting detail. I am finding that my hand can deflect the energy making there little to feel. So to feel it, one should have your hand a few feet away from the screen inline with the assumed output and bring it in closer. Just waving it up and down close to the right side of the screen might just result in the energy being bent by your hand. Please keep an open mind, I have sent images to many people and had very few negative reports indeed, and generally from people who felt later or previous images successfully. Even if we assume those who ignored me outright actually tried and didn't feel anything (which I very much doubt) then there are still far more who have felt than not. Unless you count everyone of Vortex who is ignoring me of course :) Another note about feeling energy from images, if you put your hand closer than 3 inches to the screen most will stop working as the light does not convey far enough. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:05 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: To the RIGHT side of your monitor. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4113/shooterv6.png Place your palm to the side of your monitor with palm facing edge of the monitor. Another person from the list has emailed me privately to say they felt something very subtle in their hand inline with the horizontal line running through an earlier version of the image. John
Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image
That image should work at any zoom level? I'm using a 24 inches LCD monitor. It should (provided it is scaled in a straightforward pixelized manner), but if you can try it on a different monitor, Jones reported that one gave stronger apparent results than another, it may be due to a vivid setting or possibly the order of the colours in the screen matrix. My mother is one of the hardest people to get to feel this, sometimes she has felt it very clearly, but most time she feels nothing she can identify (maybe feeling it clearly 1 out of every 50 times). Some people are not very sensitive to the energy in any straight forward way. Some people feel it in some places on their body and not others, one man finds he can feel it in his feet (possibly effected by his diabetes). A woman I tried it on once could not feel it all until she felt it on her knee caps. Additionally there are other tests, but I have not tried them recently. Wire wound ones were very effective at dramatically dulling the bitter taste of lemon, a comparison is startling, but I am not sure if this is effective with the images. If you are persistent enough, and it seem you may be I can send you audio files that create an energy, if these are more easily felt however is debatable, they are strong but less clear demarcation as you might imagine, but might be worth a try. I will send them to you tomorrow. John On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:13 AM, MJ feli...@gmail.com wrote: That image should work at any zoom level? I'm using a 24 inches LCD monitor. Mark Jordan On 19-Apr-13 21:35, John Berry wrote: Mark, I have made a new one especially for you. Now this image deals heavily with colour so it may not work if your monitor or videocard is at fault. Feel about 1.5 to 2 feet away from the image, this will make it easier to tell the sensation apart from the monitor and will give the image more space to 'structure'. I have no idea if you will be able to feel it, but is is tuned to replicate an angle I found I was automatically putting my fingers at which increased the sensation in my hand. http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8522/25degreeanglebest.png John On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:21 AM, MJ feli...@gmail.com wrote: Have tried every image you posted and feel nothing besides the heat from the monitor's backlight. In hope, Mark Jordan On 19/4/2013 09:51, John Berry wrote: BTW an added interesting detail. I am finding that my hand can deflect the energy making there little to feel. So to feel it, one should have your hand a few feet away from the screen inline with the assumed output and bring it in closer. Just waving it up and down close to the right side of the screen might just result in the energy being bent by your hand. Please keep an open mind, I have sent images to many people and had very few negative reports indeed, and generally from people who felt later or previous images successfully. Even if we assume those who ignored me outright actually tried and didn't feel anything (which I very much doubt) then there are still far more who have felt than not. Unless you count everyone of Vortex who is ignoring me of course :) Another note about feeling energy from images, if you put your hand closer than 3 inches to the screen most will stop working as the light does not convey far enough. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:05 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: To the RIGHT side of your monitor. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4113/shooterv6.png Place your palm to the side of your monitor with palm facing edge of the monitor. Another person from the list has emailed me privately to say they felt something very subtle in their hand inline with the horizontal line running through an earlier version of the image. John
[Vo]:NASA's cold fusion folly
Here is a typical attack on cold fusion. This is not newsworthy. I just wanted to point out that things like this are still widely published. As usual, the author has not done his homework. http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=238052780327676025 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA's cold fusion folly
Oullette joined in the attack: https://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/KdbdV5yAmRT - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Appeal to the Professors
My guess is that these professors do not exist. I find it hard to believe they have cut off all contact with Rossi, or he has cut off contact with them. As I said, he tends to micromanage things. Perhaps he made this up, or it is a garbled version of reality. Perhaps 11 professors expressed interest in testing a device, and there was some back and forth, and they got some kind of machine from him, or some advice. Or they said they would do something but they never got around to it. Who knows? I can never make sense of Rossi's business plans. He claimed he had a major corporation lined up. It turned out to be Ampenergo (sp?) which was a few smart people without much money as far as I can tell. He claimed he had a research contract with a university but it was never signed or never executed, or he was supposed to come up with money and he never did. His claims about his business are contradictory and enveloped in a smoke screen. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Appeal to the Professors
From: Jed Rothwell My guess is that these professors do not exist. I find it hard to believe they have cut off all contact with Rossi, or he has cut off contact with them. As I said, he tends to micromanage thingsPerhaps he made this up, or it is a garbled version of reality. An article on the Swedish blog site Osunt is reported on E-Cat World about the rumor that there has actually been new testing going on at the Svedberg Laboratory at Uppsala University in Sweden... Svedberg Laboratory is one of few independent institutions to have had access to an e-cat in the past and it is rumored to have tested it long-term (100 hours) and preliminarily said that surprisingly, there was an energy surplus... Svedberg Laboratory houses researcher Hidetsugu Ikegami, Sven Kullander and Roland Pettersson. The surprising part is because a Swedish investment group backed out last year, due to failed testing which could have been at the same lab (not certain). Rossi did mention that he had an independent 120 hour test performed recently... but it is doubtful that he two reports are connected, since if the Svedberg test was really a 100 hours, Rossi would have claimed 200 - not 120 :-) . attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Appeal to the Professors
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: An article on the Swedish blog site Osunt is reported on E-Cat World about the rumor that there has actually been new testing going on at the Svedberg Laboratory at Uppsala University in Sweden... Interesting. Do you think it is true? I am not dismissing the possibility that Rossi is telling the truth about these 11 professors. I have sometimes concluded he must be imagining things only to find out his claims are true. On the other hand, I know that a few of his claims have been completely wrong because they are about *me*, and I know the facts about myself! I feel a bit like Adm. Nagumo in the middle of the Battle of Midway. He was deluged with intelligence sightings of the U.S. fleet and aircraft. Some of these reports were correct, and some were wild exaggerations. Some were completely false. As G. Prange wrote, if Nagumo had been given a magic touchstone he might have known what was true and what wasn't, but without that you could not expect him to know. Russ George also has a bad habit of embellishing to truth to such an extent it becomes unrecognizable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Appeal to the Professors
I think the more suitable analogy is to Heart of Darkness. We are Marlow, and Rossi is Kurtz. Eric On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I feel a bit like Adm. Nagumo in the middle of the Battle of Midway. He was deluged with intelligence sightings of the U.S. fleet and aircraft.
Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger
Its not that complicated. Jed suggested the appropriate control for placebo: No treatment at all. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: This is obviously a complex issue. But I think that strong belief as with hypnosis and other suggestions can't be discounted (faith healers). There are people who have apparently died from being made to think they they were having blood drain from their bodies. And if someone goes into surgery with a death wish of a negative expectation the Nocebo effect is apparently very dangerous. At the extreme ends of mind body relationship, there are people that insist that those with multiple personality disorder/disassociative personality disorder can gain and lose medical conditions such as diabetes and eye colour can change between the personalities. Blisters have apparently been raised by pencils that hypnotized subjects have been told is hot. So let's say that the mind body connection is complex, but that a sugar pill will not always deliver a powerful mind body effect, which is not to say it can't if there is not enough belief. I also recall an experiment very poorly recounted: rats being effected by a 'ritual' where if a chemical was omitted the expected results still occurred. I don't recall the details but essentially this was somewhere between a placebo effect on a mouse/rat a Pavlovian response. John On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: If the studies I read are correct, this indicates the disease they are trying to cure with this particular drug usually goes away on its own. The placebo effect is not getting stronger. They happen to be treating a disease in a group of people where nature usually does a better job than medical science does. There are several diseases and syndromes that used to be treated aggressively but nowadays are often left alone because they usually go away after a while, or they cause no serious harm. Then there are diseases where some doctors recommend treatment and others do not, such as childhood hemangioma. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Appeal to the Professors
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I think the more suitable analogy is to Heart of Darkness. We are Marlow, and Rossi is Kurtz. That works too. What I find mystifying about Rossi and Russ George alike is that they do not need to exaggerate. They have both made important contributions. Okay, I cannot be certain about Rossi, but George has. He has plenty to be proud of, but he mars his own reputation by taking credit for other people's work and by exaggerating his own contribution. Take Rossi and Ampenergo. He announced that a major corporation was investing in his work. He kept the name secret for a while, and then revealed it with high drama. It turned out to be Ampenergo, which is not a major corporation. It is a start-up. So Rossi made himself look like a liar and a fool claiming it was big company. The thing is, his actions made no sense. There was no benefit to saying it was big corporation. Everyone discovered the truth about them as soon as he revealed their identity. More to the point, Ampenergo is an impressive start-up. It has good people, with loads of credibility and experience. Any researcher would be pleased to be associated with them. So why did he make false claims about them?!? Imagine a British scientist becomes an FRS and then lies about it, claiming he has a Nobel Prize instead. Anyone can look up Nobel laureates and see he isn't on the list. He is not fooling anyone. He makes a legitimate accomplishment look doubtful. There is no advantage whatever. This is odd behavior. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA's cold fusion folly
The scrambled She has posted on http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2013/04/20/physics-week-in-review-april-20-2013/ On 4/20/13 6:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Oullette joined in the attack: https://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/KdbdV5yAmRT - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:A Wash Cloth in Space
http://boingboing.net/2013/04/18/what-happens-when-you-wring-ou.html For hand towels, astronauts get those little vacuum-packed pucks that you kind of have to unravel into a towel. But what happens when you actually put the towels to use? Two Nova Scotia high school students, Kendra Lemke and Meredith Faulkner, submitted this experiment to Canadian Space Agency and got to see astronaut Chris Hadfield actually test it out on the ISS. The results are seriously extraordinary and you need to see them.
Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger
James brings up important points with respect to hypnosis and the mind/body relationship. No treatment controls have been performed in many studies--most often through the use of wait list controls. In other words, one group is on a waiting list to begin the treatment, and this is compared to the putative active treatment and placebo groups. There can be little doubt in the reality of the placebo effect to bring real physiological changes. What is debatable is the extent of these changes, and the conditions that can be affected. Warts--caused by the HPV virus have long been successfully treated utilizing hypnosis. Hypnosis has also shown benefit to other conditions such as migraine headaches, psoriasis, and intestinal conditions. The placebo effect is not magic, but works by physiological mechanisms. It is of particular importance in studying medication for psychological disorders as one's expectancies can have a profound impact on one's recovery. Proper control conditions for examining the placebo effect are slightly more complicated than using a no-treatment control. One actually needs a placebo medication that may produce some noticeable side effects because of the research showing that patients are often able to identify if they are in the placebo or active medication groups based on the presence of absence of side effects. This degree of control is rarely performed in studies, but wait-list controls are not infrequent in psychopharmacology. Most medical conditions have a psychological aspect to them -- if nothing else in a person's perception of their condition. If you are studying a pain medication, it is important to have a properly designed placebo control condition as pain perception occurs in the mind and is affected by many psychological factors. To get more of a grasp on this area, it's useful to study psychoneuroimmunology, which is a complex and fascinating field looking at the interaction psychology, hormone systems, and the immune system. There is a substantial amount of research linking chronic stress to the development of many physical conditions. And James is also correct with the nocebo affect being attributed to phenomena known as voodoo death. On a less dramatic issue is that negative expectancies can lead to lack of benefit in a number of treatments--particularly in psychopharmacology. Best regards, Jack On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Its not that complicated. Jed suggested the appropriate control for placebo: No treatment at all. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:20 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: This is obviously a complex issue. But I think that strong belief as with hypnosis and other suggestions can't be discounted (faith healers). There are people who have apparently died from being made to think they they were having blood drain from their bodies. And if someone goes into surgery with a death wish of a negative expectation the Nocebo effect is apparently very dangerous. At the extreme ends of mind body relationship, there are people that insist that those with multiple personality disorder/disassociative personality disorder can gain and lose medical conditions such as diabetes and eye colour can change between the personalities. Blisters have apparently been raised by pencils that hypnotized subjects have been told is hot. So let's say that the mind body connection is complex, but that a sugar pill will not always deliver a powerful mind body effect, which is not to say it can't if there is not enough belief. I also recall an experiment very poorly recounted: rats being effected by a 'ritual' where if a chemical was omitted the expected results still occurred. I don't recall the details but essentially this was somewhere between a placebo effect on a mouse/rat a Pavlovian response. John On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: If the studies I read are correct, this indicates the disease they are trying to cure with this particular drug usually goes away on its own. The placebo effect is not getting stronger. They happen to be treating a disease in a group of people where nature usually does a better job than medical science does. There are several diseases and syndromes that used to be treated aggressively but nowadays are often left alone because they usually go away after a while, or they cause no serious harm. Then there are diseases where some doctors recommend treatment and others do not, such as childhood hemangioma. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA's cold fusion folly
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a typical attack on cold fusion. This is not newsworthy. I just wanted to point out that things like this are still widely published. As usual, the author has not done his homework. http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=238052780327676025 Last paragraph: According to an article in Chemical and Engineering Newshttp://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/02/Mercury-Fluorescent-Bulbs-Unique-Isotope.html, the scientists who performed the study of gas in fluorescent bulbs were motivated by the knowledge that some mercury isotopes are absorbed in the glass of the bulbs more readily than others. The isotope ratio inside isn't changing because of nuclear reactions, but instead by soaking into the glass at different rates. He has that wrong. They were not motivated by the knowledge that They were motivated by the hypothesis that ... What they found is consistent with their hypothesis, but it is also consistent with LENR. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect probably does not exist
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: That is, an effect in which a prognosis improves because the patients think they are being treated when they are actually taking by fake medicine (something with no efficacy). One hypothesis is that people respond well because they think the doctor cares for them or is concerned about their well-being. Another theory is that if the patient believes the pill is effective, it will be effective. That is what I meant. That's the same thing. The tests where they give the patient nothing prove that is not the case. success. The placebo and the treatment have no effect on the outcome. what was the malady? I do not recall. I think there have been several studies. Ethically, I think they are limited to non-threatening diseases that have no effective treatment. I guess that would be things like back pain. Maybe this disproves the theory that belief in a pill can be effective, but there are all sorts of mind states that do contribute to well being. I doubt that. If voluntary, controllable mind states could contribute to well being, I think that would be readily apparent, and we would all use mind states to ameliorate disease. I have read other studies that show that the patient's attitude and degree of optimism or pessimism has no impact on outcome of serious diseases such as cancer. I agree that power of positive thinking is over rated, but there is plenty of evidence that chronic stress, fear and anxiety affect peoples well being. e.g. stress interferes with the immune response. It is widely believed that the patient should fight cancer, or that a brave or positive attitude will increase the likelihood of survival. The studies I saw tested this hypothesis. The researchers assumed the prognosis would be improved with a positive outlook but they found no evidence for that. The results were a surprise and a disappointment to the researchers, which makes me think the results were real. It increases credibility. The is not the result of wishful thinking. Maybe so, but there is more to cognition than the insipid concept of positive thinking. The placebo studies involved a pill, but also a kind word from a doctor or nurse. The hypothesis was it was the latter which had the effect. The control was no pill and a simple statement from the doctor along the lines of: Go home and call us if doesn't go away in a week. I suppose even that would be reassuring. I would think, it can't be serious if they are sending me home empty-handed. How culture influences aging. Neuuropsychologist Mario Martinez looks at the influence cultural contexts have on health, illness and aging. http://ww3.tvo.org/video/188928/mario-martinez-how-culture-influences-aging Harry
RE: [Vo]:NASA's cold fusion folly
LOL From: Ruby The scrambled She
[Vo]:NASA screws up bad.
NASA has screwed up bad. They have embraced both the Widom-Larsen (W-L) theory and polaritons in the same framework. They are incompatible. In the NASA LENR patent as follows: “A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure” The devil is in the details. The mass of the surface plasmon polaritons is in the milliwatt range. Heavy electrons cannot be produced from the population of surface plasmon polaritons because of the mass/energy deficit. This screw up should invalidate the NASA patent. Cheers:Axil
Re: [Vo]:Is the Evidence for Psychokinesis really just a publication bias?
Here is his follow up paper in response to comments on his first paper. In the eye of the beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin, Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006) http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1ved=0CDAQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.132.3260%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdfei=4A5zUZziBYSHrAG2yYDQAQusg=AFQjCNHVr_Ut_wtQ-bM1l0iHK41RiFx7Vwsig2=ktIphdn09PUmhbVyrJ6-1A Abstract Our meta-analysis, which demonstrated (i) a small, but highly significant overall effect, (ii) a small study effect, and (iii) extreme heterogeneity, has provoked widely differing responses. After considering our respondents’ concerns about the possible effects of psychological moderator variables, the potential for missing data, and the difficulties inherent in any metaanalytic data, we reaffirm our view that publication bias is the most parsimonious model to account for all three findings. However, until compulsory registration of trials occurs, it cannot be proven that the effect is in fact attributable to publication bias and it remains up to the individual reader to decide how our results are best and most parsimoniously interpreted. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:02 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I find it intriguing that they didn't cite Radin's paper: http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/rngma.pdf that explicitly addresses publication bias aka the file drawer problem in meta analysis -- and that was despite referencing several of Radin's other papers both before and after. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: This paper uses a meta analysis of all the evidence and concludes that any evidence for psychokinesis can be explained as publication bias. Should the conclusion be taken seriously? Similar arguments have been used to prove that PF effect is not real, i.e include all the failed attempts to reproduce the PF effect and on balance the PF effect vanishes! Harry Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis Se´ance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias. http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaPK06.pdf
Re: [Vo]:NASA screws up bad.
http://crystalchannelers.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/new-science-the-widom-larsen-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-lenr-theory/ WL has gone with Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) electrons. This is a mistake,they cannot do this because of the lack of energy density in the SPP, IMHO. The WL theory must be totally revamped is they want to use SPPs as they should. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: NASA has screwed up bad. They have embraced both the Widom-Larsen (W-L) theory and polaritons in the same framework. They are incompatible. In the NASA LENR patent as follows: “A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure” The devil is in the details. The mass of the surface plasmon polaritons is in the milliwatt range. Heavy electrons cannot be produced from the population of surface plasmon polaritons because of the mass/energy deficit. This screw up should invalidate the NASA patent. Cheers:Axil
