Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:29 PM, John Berry  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

[John Berry]

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  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>
>> 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 dou

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
> 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 point to
> something deeper about reality.  I guess my doubt primarily concerns
> whether what you have found fits in the same basket as frame dragging and
> quantum mechanics and ether in the context of physics -- it seems to be of
> a nature altogether different from these.
>

It is only different in so much that the degree where the aetheric dynamics
I am creating do not seem to reliably or obviously cross over to the
physical in any way readily observed.

In other words, all that is needed is to perfect the form (and likely make
these in electrical form) and the results will be physical anomalies.

>
> *So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether?
>> **None.*
>
>
> I think the main question at issue here is epistemological -- it's about
> what constitutes scientific knowledge.  I don't think you can establish the
> scientific basis for something by showing that no evidence has been found
> that it doesn't exist.  That does not detract from its possible
> significance in other areas of life, of course.
>

Yes, but if it was a concept in physics, and exists in many cultures and I
have evidence for it and there are many bits of evidence from hard physical
science for it in various ways, then evidence exists for it and 

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Joseph S. Barrera III]

On 4/19/2013 10:03 PM, John Berry wrote:

> So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether?
> None.

Hi. I'm new here. Hello! Howdy.

Today is the first day I've heard of "entrained aether". My naive 
questions are:


1. How much mass does it take to entrain aether?
2. Does the entrainment depend on the quantity of mass?
3. If no mass does no entrainment and an infinite mass is required for 
complete entrainment, will there be an incomplete entrainment given the 
finite mass of the earth? Is there a formula? What is the mass constant 
that falls out?
4. If no mass does entrain, then how does one calculate the vector of 
entrainment?


Thanks,

- Joe

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM, John Berry  wrote:

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.


> 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.


> 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 point to
something deeper about reality.  I guess my doubt primarily concerns
whether what you have found fits in the same basket as frame dragging and
quantum mechanics and ether in the context of physics -- it seems to be of
a nature altogether different from these.

*So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether?
> **None.*


I think the main question at issue here is epistemological -- it's about
what constitutes scientific knowledge.  I don't think you can establish the
scientific basis for something by showing that no evidence has been found
that it doesn't exist.  That does not detract from its possible
significance in other areas of life, of course.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

Please read this entire email, but if you don't, just read this:

*So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether?*
*None.*

You could argue that nothing really proves anything.
Even atoms are still just considered a theory, sure a popular one with tons
of evidence.

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.

So this is evidence for a substance to space, for an energy that does not
fit into the engineering and physics definition of energy.

Of course there is a lot of other evidence for that accepted by convention.

Now does one person feeling something prove it, well no.
But a significant percentage of people do feel this.
So taken over many people it proves there is something to this, probably
more than just a convincing presentation and any normal eye bending bending
images.

Something that can't be readily explained by anything other than either an
aether or possibly quantum physics, and in the latter why as this worked
based on a model for the former.

Feeling it in your hand as I do, as a strong physical sensation sure feels
like proof, but only proof for me, not very convincing for others.

But must it be proven to investigate it?

It is exotic but still quite plausible.
It doesn't disagree with any established physics.

And it does agree quite well with a lot of other evidence.

There are (IMO stupid) people that question the existence of reality, as
they consider reality could be a simulation on a computer.
So some would not consider reality proven.

And others consider the mind does not exist.

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.

It might be incomplete, but so far all evidence points to it being correct.
Is it an aether that is moving, or am I making waves in quantum probability
fields, and is there a difference?
Maybe I am moving packets of ZPE, or maybe the aether exists but I am only
moving various energy structures within in and not the substance?

With quantum waves (waves in what?) and waves in fields that exist in what?

Consider this, with all the evidence that space has a substance, frame
dragging, Casimir effect and the like maybe we shouldn't ask what evidence
there is for an aether, maybe we should ask what evidence exists that there
isn't an aether?

Seriously, Einstein believed in one, And Michelson and or Morley still
believed.
Their experiment only discounted that there in a lumiferious aether that
the earth moved through (i.e. didn't drag with it).

But that would be a most improbable model.

So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether?
None.

And there is evidence against SR that supports an earth entrained aether.

And while I am an unqualified scientific armature, Frank Wilczek is a
highly credentialed Nobel prize winning physicist and while I don't know if
he would give this stuff a seconds thought (indeed, maybe he shouldn't if
he wants to keep his credentials) he has a lot of evidence to support an
aether.
Indeed until I attended a lecture he gave I was not willing to conclude
matter was made of aether, but he had such incredible evidence that
subatomic particles and quarks are actually dynamics and movements and
vibrations and oscillations, or as he termed it music in the void.
Only one issue, a void can't move.  And in his later released book talks
semi openly about the aether, and aether condensates.

John

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Alexander Hollins <
> alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do feel a minor vibration in my right palm when holding both hands to
>> teh monitor. I KINDA feel what i could describe as a sucking feeling on my
>> left, it is  too minor to differentiate from placebo to me, but the
>> vibration was an effect of muscles i could see on the skin, so a positive
>> effect of some kind.
>>
>
> Yes.  But does this experience prove the existence of an ether?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Alexander Hollins <
alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do feel a minor vibration in my right palm when holding both hands to teh
> monitor. I KINDA feel what i could describe as a sucking feeling on my
> left, it is  too minor to differentiate from placebo to me, but the
> vibration was an effect of muscles i could see on the skin, so a positive
> effect of some kind.
>

Yes.  But does this experience prove the existence of an ether?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger

[Jed Rothwell]

I suppose an alternative hypothesis would be that these particular diseases
are psychosomatic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger

[John Berry]

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  wrote:

> 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]:OT: Boston satellite view

[Terry Blanton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orr_(Catch-22)

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> How long will it be before we can see the entire action live from a
>> satellite in real time?
>
> I am indeed a wacko like Orr, but you should fly with me:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78280.html

Re: [Vo]:OT: Boston satellite view

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> How long will it be before we can see the entire action live from a
> satellite in real time?

I am indeed a wacko like Orr, but you should fly with me:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78280.html

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger

[Jed Rothwell]

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]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder  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.

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.

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."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

Well placebo effect is one thing when we're talking about physical maladies
> and quite another when we're talking about subjective impressions, as was
> the topic.
>

True. That's why I started another thread. I meant placebo in the medical
sense. But in other studies you have to watch for similar false positives.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> The null hypothesis upon which to base the control experiment:  Even
>> though a placebo effect may be present and in fact much larger . . .
>>
>
> This is drifting off topic, so let me rename the header.
>
> I do not think the placebo effect exists. I read several papers years ago
> about this. I do not have time to go into the details but anyway, it was a
> mistake many decades old. Sloppy statistics and untested assumptions led
> people to think there is a placebo effect --
>
> 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.


> This was tested in recent decades by dividing patients into two groups.
> One group is given a placebo and treated with kindness. The other is
> dismissed and sent home with nothing. The two groups recover at the same
> rate, with the same percent reporting success. The placebo and the
> treatment have no effect on the outcome.
>
>
what was the malady?



> It is a fact that people often get better on their own. Nature cures many
> diseases. This fact clouded the issue and made doctors think that a placebo
> was curing people almost as well as some drugs. Or if not that well, it was
> curing them in significant numbers. They were comparing a drug that was
> supposedly effective against a control group of people who got a fake drug.
> What they should have done instead of this -- or in addition to this --
> would be to compare the drug against a control group of people who get
> nothing. No fake drug, no sympathy. They would see that many of them also
> get better.
>
>
>
>

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.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Can a Free Electron Absorb a Photon?

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:18:08 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>Does anyone know how a free electron in space can absorb a photon of moderate 
>energy?  I was thinking of the interaction between a light photon and a free 
>electron when it occurred to me that it might be impossible for the photon to 
>deliver all of its energy and momentum to a single particle.  I chose the 
>frame of reference as being where the electron is stationary for this thought 
>experiment although it might be better to choose a different one.
>
I agree, see my other post. However you have to go very far indeed to find a
"free" electron. That is to say, an electron not under the influence of magnetic
or electric fields. Any electron in such a field is not really free, and is
capable of absorbing/emitting photons. (Otherwise radio wouldn't work).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger

[John Berry]

Actually, it does say that: One estimated that the so-called effect size (a
measure of statistical significance) in placebo groups had nearly doubled
over that time.

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:18 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> I said that the placebo effect had about doubled in effectiveness over
> what it had been.
> Someone asked for the source.
>
> I am sure a better search of google will turn up more info on that, but
> here is an article about it getting more effective without (I think)
> mentioning a doubling:
>
> http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all
>
>
> John
>
>

[Vo]:Placebo effect getting stronger

[John Berry]

I said that the placebo effect had about doubled in effectiveness over what
it had been.
Someone asked for the source.

I am sure a better search of google will turn up more info on that, but
here is an article about it getting more effective without (I think)
mentioning a doubling:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all


John

Re: [Vo]:OT: Boston satellite view

[John Berry]

The CIA (or it's predecessor) had apparent genuine interest in the ideas
from Get Smart (as crazy as that sound).
I can't help but wonder if the TV Program Person of Interest is causing
similar but more secretive interest.

Of course the TV program could be a fictional disclosure of something real,
always a good idea to put in on TV and in the movies so that any leaks
sound like a fictional story.

No doubt those that have sighted UFO's and had closer encounters with
inhabitants of such have been effected by ridicule, little green men etc
that has largely been caused by fiction IMO..

Nothing like making something look silly to stop respectable people from
taking it seriously.  I am certain some 9/11 theories are designed to
discredit genuine anomalies.

John


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> https://maps.google.com/maps?q=67+franklin+st+watertown+mass&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hn
>
> ear=0x89e378195bfc6943:0x45ca5a08ed9dc5fe,67+Franklin+St,+Watertown,+MA+0247
> 2&gl=us&ei=8N1xUZjhLsmw2QXZw4A4&ved=0CDQQ8gEwAA
>
> Someone posted the google satellite view - of the address of where the
> suspect was hiding in a boat behind a house.
>
> The boat trailer is clearly visible, but the boat was not on it when this
> image was taken.
>
> How long will it be before we can see the entire action live from a
> satellite in real time?
>
> Sooner or later, we will not need an enacted crime drama to watch on TV -
> we
> can probably watch the actual crime take place in real time - based on
> computer profiles and computer prediction algorithms and massive
> surveillance infrastructure.
>
> Strange Days.
>

[Vo]:OT: Boston satellite view

[Jones Beene]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=67+franklin+st+watertown+mass&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hn
ear=0x89e378195bfc6943:0x45ca5a08ed9dc5fe,67+Franklin+St,+Watertown,+MA+0247
2&gl=us&ei=8N1xUZjhLsmw2QXZw4A4&ved=0CDQQ8gEwAA

Someone posted the google satellite view - of the address of where the
suspect was hiding in a boat behind a house.

The boat trailer is clearly visible, but the boat was not on it when this
image was taken.

How long will it be before we can see the entire action live from a
satellite in real time?

Sooner or later, we will not need an enacted crime drama to watch on TV - we
can probably watch the actual crime take place in real time - based on
computer profiles and computer prediction algorithms and massive
surveillance infrastructure.

Strange Days.
<>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[John Berry]

>
> Do you have any idea whether the inactive one would frequently be made
> active by variations in display setttings?


Not very likely.

There are various difficulties, not that it should stop you but you should
be aware of them.

Aetheric energy can couple over large distances, additionally it can remain
in an area or an object once disturbed.

Coupling over large distances can occur sometimes when there is resonance
between 2 similar things, much like radio's tuned to resonance, or
the aforementioned twin effect.
So even if one image is inactive, if it is too close it may 'couple' and
take energy from the active one.

Not that it can't be studied in such ways successfully, but ignoring the
way it functions serves the likes of Randi, but it does not serve genuine
interest in reclaiming extraordinary science from the fringe.

John


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:57 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>>
>>> So, let me ask you again for an acceptable control experiment but in
>>> different terms:
>>>
>>> What sort of picture does your theory predict will be very similar to
>>> the experimental treatment picture, but lack the essential aspects that
>>> produce the amplification of the placebo, or other hypothesized effect?
>>>
>>
>> Well I did already post an image that has 2 very similar 'devices', one
>> which works well and another that is almost lifeless, just split them up.
>>
>> http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png
>>
>>
> Thanks!
>
> That's a good start.
>
> Do you have any idea whether the inactive one would frequently be made
> active by variations in display setttings?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

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  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 wrote:
>
>> To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry 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]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[James Bowery]

Well placebo effect is one thing when we're talking about physical maladies
and quite another when we're talking about subjective impressions, as was
the topic.


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> The null hypothesis upon which to base the control experiment:  Even
>> though a placebo effect may be present and in fact much larger . . .
>>
>
> This is drifting off topic, so let me rename the header.
>
> I do not think the placebo effect exists. I read several papers years ago
> about this. I do not have time to go into the details but anyway, it was a
> mistake many decades old. Sloppy statistics and untested assumptions led
> people to think there is a placebo effect --
>
> 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.
>
> This was tested in recent decades by dividing patients into two groups.
> One group is given a placebo and treated with kindness. The other is
> dismissed and sent home with nothing. The two groups recover at the same
> rate, with the same percent reporting success. The placebo and the
> treatment have no effect on the outcome.
>
> It is a fact that people often get better on their own. Nature cures many
> diseases. This fact clouded the issue and made doctors think that a placebo
> was curing people almost as well as some drugs. Or if not that well, it was
> curing them in significant numbers. They were comparing a drug that was
> supposedly effective against a control group of people who got a fake drug.
> What they should have done instead of this -- or in addition to this --
> would be to compare the drug against a control group of people who get
> nothing. No fake drug, no sympathy. They would see that many of them also
> get better.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, John Berry  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:57 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> So, let me ask you again for an acceptable control experiment but in
>> different terms:
>>
>> What sort of picture does your theory predict will be very similar to the
>> experimental treatment picture, but lack the essential aspects that produce
>> the amplification of the placebo, or other hypothesized effect?
>>
>
> Well I did already post an image that has 2 very similar 'devices', one
> which works well and another that is almost lifeless, just split them up.
>
> http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png
>
>
Thanks!

That's a good start.

Do you have any idea whether the inactive one would frequently be made
active by variations in display setttings?

[Vo]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> The null hypothesis upon which to base the control experiment:  Even
> though a placebo effect may be present and in fact much larger . . .
>

This is drifting off topic, so let me rename the header.

I do not think the placebo effect exists. I read several papers years ago
about this. I do not have time to go into the details but anyway, it was a
mistake many decades old. Sloppy statistics and untested assumptions led
people to think there is a placebo effect --

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.

This was tested in recent decades by dividing patients into two groups. One
group is given a placebo and treated with kindness. The other is dismissed
and sent home with nothing. The two groups recover at the same rate, with
the same percent reporting success. The placebo and the treatment have no
effect on the outcome.

It is a fact that people often get better on their own. Nature cures many
diseases. This fact clouded the issue and made doctors think that a placebo
was curing people almost as well as some drugs. Or if not that well, it was
curing them in significant numbers. They were comparing a drug that was
supposedly effective against a control group of people who got a fake drug.
What they should have done instead of this -- or in addition to this --
would be to compare the drug against a control group of people who get
nothing. No fake drug, no sympathy. They would see that many of them also
get better.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is the Evidence for Psychokinesis really just a publication bias?

[James Bowery]

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  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: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[John Berry]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:57 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> So, let me ask you again for an acceptable control experiment but in
> different terms:
>
> What sort of picture does your theory predict will be very similar to the
> experimental treatment picture, but lack the essential aspects that produce
> the amplification of the placebo, or other hypothesized effect?
>

Well I did already post an image that has 2 very similar 'devices', one
which works well and another that is almost lifeless, just split them up.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png


The best way to make images that look identical but aren't is if I use
colour manipulation, these can be very hard to see differences.
But it requires that the right values get to the monitor, if the image is
changed by the videocard or the monitor due to colour settings, brightness,
gamma, vivid setting etc, or some white balance issue the effect will be
reduced or destroyed. (some colour effects have survived printing, but I
suspect many won't)

Meanwhile circuits can be made dramatically ineffective by making bad
connections, but this will be visible but maybe not obvious.

Another option is to not have any image presented to the person, while some
people feel the energy in their head/eyes/brain by looking at the images,
many can feel it in their palm or other body parts.
This can be done by putting (if images are to be used) a monitor in a
cardboard box.

Or by putting a light and a printed image in a box.  Or a sheet could hide
it.

However guidance as to precisely where to feel is critical for all but the
most sensitive, so if they can't see an image there should be some visual
cues and some direction.

Most people that have felt this 'energy' under my direction have not had
anything to took at, rather a small metal cylinder has contained various
unpowered coils.
Additionally a couple of people have actually felt it incidentally (no
introduction and in public), when walking by or sitting in a waiting room
with a device in a pocket that happened to 'hit' the person.

John









>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:07 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>> First off, thank you for at least considering this.
>>
>> Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these
>> images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect.
>>
>> There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must
>> be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests.
>>
>> You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel
>> balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of
>> the mind on the results.
>> You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic
>> particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind.
>>
>> There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical
>> energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called
>> energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released.
>>
>> Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and
>> her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts
>> being things.
>>
>> Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many
>> treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double!
>>
>> So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase
>> the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind).
>>
>> Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you
>> to feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can
>> experience but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional
>> detail, your beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a
>> degree.
>>
>> That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make
>> for a possibility of some confusing results.
>>
>> I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and
>> sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real.
>> But I know you can't take it on faith.
>>
>> You could just humor me.
>> Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of
>> it.
>>
>> Of course you could ignore it as being too far out.
>>
>> But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us
>> from  recognizing a part of reality.
>>
>> My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various
>> other distractions.
>> My interest does lie in creating physical effects.
>>
>> Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or
>> clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of
>> understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of
>> interest.
>>
>> I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be
>> effected by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would
>> have to be given.
>>
>>
>>  John

[Vo]:Is the Evidence for Psychokinesis really just a publication bias?

[Harry Veeder]

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]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

Yes, printed works.
Although differently in many ways, good lighting helps as does a decent
printer, additionally I am sure some images are all too subtle in their use
of colours for printing to work well.


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:29 AM, leaking pen  wrote:

> have you tried printing it out?
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>> All should work, but it does make a difference.
>> LED/LCD seems best, I have not yet tried it on a CRT.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM, John Berry 
>>> wrote:
>>> > To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>>>
>>> Does it matter if your monitor is a CRT, LED or LCD?
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

This has been disclosed in the thread: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether
theorists here?
Short version:  After 18-19 years of researching the aether (which is a
gas/fluidic substance that makes up everything) I have found that
Terrahertz EM fields (AKA visible light) can effect (structure) the aether
in which it propagates and exists, and by doing so an image can actually
generate a degree of disturbed aether.

Aether disturbances that do not from into the right dynamics to form matter
or EM create what has been termed Chi, Scalar, Orgone etc (very long list).
And while these energies can be detected by specialist instruments, they
can also be felt by some people, and if the energy is strong enough that
goes from being a minority of people to a majority, but not everyone.

Additionally how people detect the energy varies, some feel it in their
hand, but others feel it in their head, if the 'system so to speak.

I do appreciate that this sounds far out, but so would describing Chinese
people and their customs to Europeans before the exotic became the normal.

John


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Alexander Hollins <
alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> umm... what?  I'm missing something. A drawing is supposed to be
> generating an energy flow?
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:00 AM, John Berry 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

[leaking pen]

have you tried printing it out?


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> All should work, but it does make a difference.
> LED/LCD seems best, I have not yet tried it on a CRT.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM, John Berry 
>> wrote:
>> > To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>>
>> Does it matter if your monitor is a CRT, LED or LCD?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

All should work, but it does make a difference.
LED/LCD seems best, I have not yet tried it on a CRT.


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM, John Berry 
> wrote:
> > To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>
> Does it matter if your monitor is a CRT, LED or LCD?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

Thanks for giving it a try.
And thanks for reporting back.

I have had some people who have been unable to feel anything for an
extended number of tries, but still felt it eventually, or occasionally
(comes and goes).

I don't expect you to be so persistent as that.

John

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:21 AM, MJ  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 wrote:
>
>> To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry 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]:Rossi Patent updates

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "David Roberson" 
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:53:22 AM
 
> How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower temperature than
> the region that completely surrounds it? Heat would travel toward
> the cooler center until it was in equilibrium.
> 
> 
> Dave

In between the two there's a moving fluid (water,steam...) carrying heat away. 
You most likely end up with dynamic equilibrium, but the ni/h zone can be lower 
than the thermalization area.

Re: [Vo]:Some info from Steorn's research

[Analog Fan]

Steorn might have relevant in 2007 when that video was made. Since then they 
failed to deliver any working devices, disbanded their validation jury and fan 
club, and dumped the Orbo tech in order to pursue overunity water heaters. At 
this point only Sterling Allan takes them seriously.

Logic suggests the skeptics were right all along. The Steorn debacle was 
started by a delusional CEO, precipitated by the dot com meltdown, and 
perpetrated on unsophisticated Irish investors whose area of expertise was 
farming, not science.

The first independent report from July 2007 predicted the outcome exactly:

"My conclusion after going through all this is that Steorn is neither
hoax nor scam.  It is delusion.  The reason it seems surreal is
because it is surreal - we are the real part of someone elses
imagination."

(from http://www.eskimo.com/~eresrch/Steorn/final_report.text)

AF





 From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:20 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Some info from Steorn's research
 


 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD6gT3QIlpY
 
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf
 
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/Exploration_of_BH_Time_Effects_STRN-TR-APR-0001-0001.pdf
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/asymmetry-and-energy-in-magnetic-systems-rev-1.0.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Roarty, Francis X]

On Fri 4/19 Alex said [snip] I continue to have a difficult time accepting the 
concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference.[/snip].

Alex,
That is not what I am saying, in fact the velocities are so 
different below the Planck scale we have wormholes forming to relieve the 
differentials throughout the quantum foam..but by the time we reach the 
physical scale all this turbulence has averaged out to an isotropic value that 
can only vary slowly with gravitational changes. The point I was trying to make 
is that we are never aware of the variations because out time quantum is based 
on our local value..the twin Paradox being the extreme case but it indicates 2 
things, first-- that we are obviously unaware of  "our" local vector angle 
between time and space [always perceiving our selves at 0 degrees in the 
spatial plane], and second-- that this 4th dimension is still physical space 
regardless of dilation factor [matter doesn't suddenly come unglued]. It makes 
a case for catalytic action and gas loading based on accessing this additional 
volume of space and is what ZPE proponents are seeking to exploit. In the macro 
world it would equate to exploiting Lorentzian contraction which is difficult 
from practical considerations of both  velocity and only ONE  spatial 
direction/dimension being contracted..it is a spatial vector in a trig 
relationship with C where the ether is moving through our plane at the rate we 
always perceive of as "C". ["compressing" the raindrops against the windshield 
from the Haisch Rueda analogy]...BUT in "suppression" via geometry you don't 
need velocity and the effect suppresses the ether on all 3 spatial axis.. My 
posit is that virtual particles grow into and shrink out of existence via 
symmetrical Lorentzian- like contraction on all 3 axis. I say "Lorentzian Like" 
because there are 3 key differences, One-- the "velocity" is "equivalent" like 
an alternative Paradox where the Twin stands at the bottom of a deep gravity 
well instead of accelerating to near luminal velocities. Two-- The equivalent 
velocity is negative from our perspective because we are still experiencing the 
full average "rate" of ether passing through our plane [we experience the 
isotropic "average" at the macro scale] while inside the Casimir geometry the 
rate is suppressed ... so from the perspective inside the cavity we outside in 
the macro world are equivalent to that twin standing at the bottom of a gravity 
well and we slow down in time [age slowly] while from our perspective the 
observers in the cavity appear to accelerate [age rapidly]. Three-the occupants 
of the cavity appear to shrink in all 3 dimensions allowing us to load much 
more into them than would seem plausible for their available volume... they use 
pressure and temperature to try and explain gas loading but my posit remains 
that this is due to a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect and 
likewise the hydrino is actually relativistic hydrogen exactly as Jan Naudts 
wrote in 2005. There really is more room inside these cavities than we perceive 
from the outside and as more hydrogen poors into the cavities they see the 
walls shrink away as they migrate out onto the temporal axis.
Fran

From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexander 
Hollins
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:44 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

I apologize, I just started reading these posts.

That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting 
the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference.

Really? I'm going to have to delve into this, because my primary issue with 
relativity and physics in general as I've learned more and more about the 
relations between time, mass, and velocity is the statement that there is not. 
To my mind, I cannot conceive of a universe in which there is not a single 
center point, either "stationary" or moving, but by moving causing everything 
to move in relation to it, so appearing to be "stationary" that we can relate 
too. A specific velocity that matches that ground state that, once reached, 
mass should approach zero and the effects caused by increasing mass (time 
dilation) vanish.

Thank you for another interesting line of discussion VO!

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson 
mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:
John, Fran,

I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space around 
us.  That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time 
accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference. 
 Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else 
that is not directly, and physically attached to it.  It makes more sense to me 
to just accept the fact that there is no absolute reference frame about which 
everything develops.

On many occasions I find it qu

Re: [Vo]:ISCMNS article at Wikipedia up for deletion.

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Jed Rothwell" 
> Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:08:35 AM
 
> Someone informed me that the ISCMNS article at Wikipedia is up for
> deletion:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Society_for_Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science
> 
> I did not know there is an article on this. I consider this good
> news. Wikipedia is a travesty. The less there is about cold fusion
> in Wikipedia, the better.
> 
> I wish I could persuade them to delete the articles on Cold Fusion
> and Eugene Mallove.
> 
> - Jed

Result was delete.  3 voted for delete, 2 for merging three separate pages 
(ISCMNS,JSCMNS and a grant page), 1 comment
I bet they tackle JSCMNS next.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Harry Veeder]

I think you should also do a version where "passive" images are printed
paper and kept in sealed envelopes.
A video image is an "active" image in the sense that it requires an
electrical power source to be present. As a result a video image might
channel or focus EM fields and radiation in such a way that they may become
sensible by a hand.


Harry


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
> You do a double blind trial by automating the process and covering the
> screen.
>
> Program a computer to randomly display one of your images or a blank
> screen every minute of so. The computer will keep a record of what was
> displayed during each time interval.
> During the interval test subjects will report  if they sensed anything.
>
> You can then look for correlations in the data.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>> First off, thank you for at least considering this.
>>
>> Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these
>> images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect.
>>
>> There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must
>> be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests.
>>
>> You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel
>> balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of
>> the mind on the results.
>> You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic
>> particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind.
>>
>> There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical
>> energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called
>> energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released.
>>
>> Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and
>> her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts
>> being things.
>>
>> Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many
>> treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double!
>>
>> So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase
>> the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind).
>>
>> Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you
>> to feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can
>> experience but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional
>> detail, your beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a
>> degree.
>>
>> That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make
>> for a possibility of some confusing results.
>>
>> I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and
>> sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real.
>> But I know you can't take it on faith.
>>
>> You could just humor me.
>> Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of
>> it.
>>
>> Of course you could ignore it as being too far out.
>>
>> But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us
>> from  recognizing a part of reality.
>>
>> My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various
>> other distractions.
>> My interest does lie in creating physical effects.
>>
>> Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or
>> clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of
>> understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of
>> interest.
>>
>> I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be
>> effected by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would
>> have to be given.
>>
>>
>>  John
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact
>>> that I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own
>>> control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an
>>> acceptable control experiment.
>>>
>>> If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something
>>> like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they "felt
>>> anything".  I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying
>>> the egos of a bunch of "skeptics" that they had the strength of numbers on
>>> their side.
>>>
>>> So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what
>>> YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Harry Veeder]

You do a double blind trial by automating the process and covering the
screen.

Program a computer to randomly display one of your images or a blank
screen every minute of so. The computer will keep a record of what was
displayed during each time interval.
During the interval test subjects will report  if they sensed anything.

You can then look for correlations in the data.

Harry


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> First off, thank you for at least considering this.
>
> Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these
> images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect.
>
> There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must
> be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests.
>
> You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel
> balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of
> the mind on the results.
> You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic
> particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind.
>
> There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical
> energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called
> energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released.
>
> Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and
> her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts
> being things.
>
> Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many
> treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double!
>
> So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase
> the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind).
>
> Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you to
> feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can experience
> but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional detail, your
> beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a degree.
>
> That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make
> for a possibility of some confusing results.
>
> I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and
> sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real.
> But I know you can't take it on faith.
>
> You could just humor me.
> Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of
> it.
>
> Of course you could ignore it as being too far out.
>
> But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us
> from  recognizing a part of reality.
>
> My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various
> other distractions.
> My interest does lie in creating physical effects.
>
> Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or
> clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of
> understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of
> interest.
>
> I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be effected
> by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would have to be
> given.
>
>
>  John
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact that
>> I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own
>> control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an
>> acceptable control experiment.
>>
>> If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something
>> like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they "felt
>> anything".  I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying
>> the egos of a bunch of "skeptics" that they had the strength of numbers on
>> their side.
>>
>> So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what
>> YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Alexander Hollins]

I do feel a minor vibration in my right palm when holding both hands to teh
monitor. I KINDA feel what i could describe as a sucking feeling on my
left, it is  too minor to differentiate from placebo to me, but the
vibration was an effect of muscles i could see on the skin, so a positive
effect of some kind.

As someone who's worked with some esoteric "energy manipulation" theories,
the whole thing feels really out of balance to me.  maybe that's
intentional. I would be really interested to know what the various
structures are intended to do.


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:00 AM, John Berry  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: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Alexander Hollins]

I apologize, I just started reading these posts.

That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time
accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a
reference.

Really? I'm going to have to delve into this, because my primary issue with
relativity and physics in general as I've learned more and more about the
relations between time, mass, and velocity is the statement that there is
not. To my mind, I cannot conceive of a universe in which there is not a
single center point, either "stationary" or moving, but by moving causing
everything to move in relation to it, so appearing to be "stationary" that
we can relate too. A specific velocity that matches that ground state that,
once reached, mass should approach zero and the effects caused by
increasing mass (time dilation) vanish.

Thank you for another interesting line of discussion VO!


On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> John, Fran,
>
>  I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space
> around us.  That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult
> time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a
> reference.  Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to
> everything else that is not directly, and physically attached to it.  It
> makes more sense to me to just accept the fact that there is no absolute
> reference frame about which everything develops.
>
>  On many occasions I find it quite advantageous to visualize myself
> residing within a certain chosen frame to understand what is taking place
> during collisions, etc.  When chosen carefully, the observations that can
> be made reveal behavior that is hidden by the complexity normally
> encountered when a convenient one is randomly picked.  The same laws of
> physics must be followed for each observer so one that chooses wisely can
> obtain a great advantage.
>
>  When you speak of time variations that each observer encounters you are
> getting into a truly exciting subject that is endlessly interesting.  Of
> course, each observer detects nothing unusual about the way time unfolds in
> his constant velocity world.  It is only when he observes others living in
> other reference frames that are moving relative to him that he notices
> strange behavior.  I suspect that taking this aspect into consideration
> might unlock some of the mysteries that keep us asking questions about
> nature.  For instance, I have mentally adjusted my frame of reference on
> occasions to include moving at nearly the speed of light relative to some
> experimental setups to see if it can be used to explain what occurs.  So
> far I have hit difficult barriers but I hope to one day gain information
> that clarifies these events.
>
>  I suppose that our main task is to continue to ask questions and not
> accept the current descriptions of physics without adequate proof.  It is
> safe to assume that there is much left to be learned in the sciences and
> that new understanding begins with good questions.  We should encourage
> discussions about the behavior of time, ethers, and whatever else comes
> into focus even if they do not agree with our current understanding.
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roarty, Francis X 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 10:57 am
> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
>
>  John,
> I think Ed Storm coined the NAE as a Nuclear Active
> environment.. not really defining how the lattice geometry does what it
> does but rather just defining the area where it occurs.. these hot spots do
> sometimes produce trace amounts of nuclear ash but not enough to account
> for the anomalous energy claimed… I am a neo Lorentzian theorist, IMHO the
> ether is moving through our 3D plane at a rate that defines our basic unit
> of time and is why we will always experience C as 300 million m/s –if the
> ether were to vary we would be blissfully unaware of it as our “awareness”
> will always match the rate of the ether passing through our plane..in
> effect it is our time base and is why we have the odd time dilation effects
> where the paradox twins are unaware of each others differences in inertial
> frames until they get back together and realize they were living at
> different rates.
> Fran
>
>
>  *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:42 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
>
> NAE is not an acronym I am familiar with.
>  I see it can mean nuclear active environment.
>
>  Have you tried the image?
>
>  On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>  John, I never left the path..perhaps this makes me a nutty troll but
> didn’t Tesla already treat this like an electrical science, He proposed
> that super high voltages could stiffen or “solidif

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Gibson Elliot]

John

Ok, I didn't read the email discussing the approach to the test. Makes some 
sense. I was one of those waving my hand up and down 3 inches from the side of 
the monitor, LOL. I'll try a few things at home this weekend where my 
co-workers wont think I'm completely nuts! By the way, LENR, Vortex energy, and 
quite a few other fringe research fields have been looked at with much more 
skepticism, don't let that dissuade you. I have seen some amazing things in my 
time, guess that's why I keep an open mind. I think you should get a web site 
up and running, post your research, and open your own forum. After you have it 
up and something for people to look at, you might find yourself with some 
additional contributors.

By the way, I am interested in how you are devising these images. You sound 
like you have a lot more into this than appears on the surface. I'd like to 
understand your approach better.

Gibson



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image
 


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  wrote:

To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry  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

[Alexander Hollins]

umm... what?  I'm missing something. A drawing is supposed to be generating
an energy flow?


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:00 AM, John Berry  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

[Gibson Elliot]

John

Left side of the monitor for the energy flow, correct? That's where I got the 
sensation. Warm on the left, cool on the right. I agree that there is 
allegorical information to suggest that Aether does respond to the mind. Look 
at the Orgone research, and M-State materials. All fringe stuff, but from what 
I have read, there are similar issues. I found your comments regarding changes 
in placebo  (double blind) studies baselines changing by double intriguing.  
Care to elaborate?

Gibson



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:00 AM
Subject: [Vo]:New more powerful image
 


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]:Rossi Patent updates

[Jones Beene]

The previous post on copper-hydride lasing was unclear. 

The suggestion is that there is a remote possibility that  Rossi could be
achieving internal photon coherency from copper hydride vapor. He would want
the coherency and not the beam. The photon coherency inside the reactor
would then be related to triggering the energetic reaction of hydrogen and
nickel. 

Since Ni-62 is now claimed by Rossi in Claim One to be the active nickel
isotope, and Cu-63 is the copper isotope which lases, then it could that we
are seeing fractional hydrogen converting nickel based on quantum
entanglement from copper coherency. The way the patent is now worded, only
Ni-62 is active - so Rossi has essentially backed himself into a corner on
that detail. This could mean that he is very confident of the mechanism.

Obviously, he is not trying to create a laser that projects a beam of light
out of the reactor. The window would allow for an external beam to be
focused into the vapor to start, or to maintain, photon coherency. Such a
reactor could be started with a heat source plus the laser, and then the
heat is shut down but laser input maintains internal coherency. 

There is some indication that the heat source for the HotCat startup is
natural gas.

This all assumes that Rossi is for real. To be honest, based on his past
antics, I see the odds of that being well below 50/50.

_

Hmm... this may be the first time that the particular detail
about copper metal vapor has come up, but it raises the issue (if Rossi
could be believed) ... about copper vapor and an internal laser. 

It could be inadvertent lasing but providing a window in his
reactor could indicate that it is also being stimulated. Copper vapor lasers
are efficient, but require 1500 C - so halides are often used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_vapor_laser

... makes one wonder if copper hydride would work. This
paper turns up:

http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/939.pdf

... but we all tend to think of Rossi as not being that
sophisticated. It would be mind boggling if lasing were being employed.

Rothwell has been saying for some time that the underneath
the clown costume, Rossi is a brilliant inventor and that the is method in
his madness.

Is the Hot-Cat an indication of more intentional
misdirection, or is Rossi for real ?


From: Mark Snoswell 

LOL - Copper is incredibly mobile with a
vapour pressure several orders of magnitude higher then Nickel at the same
temperature. Even at 950C the copper vapour is spreading is spreading copper
everywhere... almost as annoying as all the inconsistencies in Rossi's
patent.

From: David Roberson 

How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at
a lower temperature than the region that completely surrounds it?  Heat
would travel toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium. 

Dave

<>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[James Bowery]

You've got a hypothesis:  A specific configuration, presented as treatment
of experimental subjects, produces an effect -- even if only an enhancement
of the placebo effect.

The null hypothesis upon which to base the control experiment:  Even though
a placebo effect may be present and in fact much larger than the
amplification of it by the hypothesized treatment, there should be a lower
level of the observed effect when the configuration presented is not the
one specified by the aetheric theory.

So, let me ask you again for an acceptable control experiment but in
different terms:

What sort of picture does your theory predict will be very similar to the
experimental treatment picture, but lack the essential aspects that produce
the amplification of the placebo, or other hypothesized effect?



On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:07 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> First off, thank you for at least considering this.
>
> Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these
> images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect.
>
> There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must
> be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests.
>
> You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel
> balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of
> the mind on the results.
> You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic
> particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind.
>
> There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical
> energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called
> energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released.
>
> Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and
> her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts
> being things.
>
> Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many
> treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double!
>
> So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase
> the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind).
>
> Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you to
> feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can experience
> but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional detail, your
> beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a degree.
>
> That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make
> for a possibility of some confusing results.
>
> I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and
> sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real.
> But I know you can't take it on faith.
>
> You could just humor me.
> Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of
> it.
>
> Of course you could ignore it as being too far out.
>
> But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us
> from  recognizing a part of reality.
>
> My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various
> other distractions.
> My interest does lie in creating physical effects.
>
> Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or
> clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of
> understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of
> interest.
>
> I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be effected
> by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would have to be
> given.
>
>
>  John
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact that
>> I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own
>> control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an
>> acceptable control experiment.
>>
>> If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something
>> like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they "felt
>> anything".  I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying
>> the egos of a bunch of "skeptics" that they had the strength of numbers on
>> their side.
>>
>> So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what
>> YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Running a control experiment is "debunking"?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>>
 It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the
 images.
 Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with
 positive results before I posted this to Vortex.

 So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault.
 How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you
 got from it?

 For me the i

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates

[Teslaalset]

Or is the copper vapour forming a catalytic layer on the Nickel to have
Hydrogen absorbed faster



On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Teslaalset wrote:

> So, this is why Rossi claimed to have nickel converted into copper and
> recently says this is not the case anymore. Je probably does not use copper
> tubes anymore for holding the nickel.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Hmm... this may be the first time that the particular detail about copper
>> metal vapor has come up, but it raises the issue (if Rossi could be
>> believed) ... about copper vapor and an internal laser.
>>
>> It could be inadvertent lasing but providing a window in his reactor could
>> indicate that it is also being stimulated. Copper vapor lasers are
>> efficient, but require 1500 C - so halides are often used.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_vapor_laser
>>
>> ... makes one wonder if copper hydride would work. This paper turns up:
>>
>> http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/939.pdf
>>
>> ... but we all tend to think of Rossi as not being that sophisticated. It
>> would be mind boggling if lasing were being employed.
>>
>> Rothwell has been saying for some time that the underneath the clown
>> costume, Rossi is a brilliant inventor and that the is method in his
>> madness.
>>
>> Is the Hot-Cat an indication of more intentional misdirection, or is Rossi
>> for real ?
>>
>>
>> From: Mark Snoswell
>>
>> LOL - Copper is incredibly mobile with a vapour pressure
>> several orders of magnitude higher then Nickel at the same temperature.
>> Even
>> at 950C the copper vapour is spreading is spreading copper everywhere...
>> almost as annoying as all the inconsistencies in Rossi's patent.
>>
>> From: David Roberson
>>
>> How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower
>> temperature than the region that completely surrounds it?  Heat would
>> travel
>> toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Daniel Rocha]

I had multiple orgasms that lasted 2 hours.


2013/4/19 Terry Blanton 

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM, John Berry 
> wrote:
> > To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>
> Does it matter if your monitor is a CRT, LED or LCD?
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates

[Teslaalset]

So, this is why Rossi claimed to have nickel converted into copper and
recently says this is not the case anymore. Je probably does not use copper
tubes anymore for holding the nickel.


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Hmm... this may be the first time that the particular detail about copper
> metal vapor has come up, but it raises the issue (if Rossi could be
> believed) ... about copper vapor and an internal laser.
>
> It could be inadvertent lasing but providing a window in his reactor could
> indicate that it is also being stimulated. Copper vapor lasers are
> efficient, but require 1500 C - so halides are often used.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_vapor_laser
>
> ... makes one wonder if copper hydride would work. This paper turns up:
>
> http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/939.pdf
>
> ... but we all tend to think of Rossi as not being that sophisticated. It
> would be mind boggling if lasing were being employed.
>
> Rothwell has been saying for some time that the underneath the clown
> costume, Rossi is a brilliant inventor and that the is method in his
> madness.
>
> Is the Hot-Cat an indication of more intentional misdirection, or is Rossi
> for real ?
>
>
> From: Mark Snoswell
>
> LOL - Copper is incredibly mobile with a vapour pressure
> several orders of magnitude higher then Nickel at the same temperature.
> Even
> at 950C the copper vapour is spreading is spreading copper everywhere...
> almost as annoying as all the inconsistencies in Rossi's patent.
>
> From: David Roberson
>
> How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower
> temperature than the region that completely surrounds it?  Heat would
> travel
> toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium.
>
> Dave
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Rothwell has been saying for some time that the underneath the clown
> costume, Rossi is a brilliant inventor and that the is method in his
> madness.
>

To clarify, that is what people who have worked with him tell me. He does
have a solid track record in catalysis-related work, with the biofuels
Diesel engines. Also some disasters, but that is inevitable. There is no
success without failure.

I do not know if there is method to his madness or whether he works on pure
intuition. Ed Storms has the impression that Rossi works intuitively and
cannot file a good patent because he does not know on a deep, generalized
level, how the reactors work. Mike Melich says Rossi "thinks" by working
with his hands, the way a gifted artist does. Artists do not express their
idea in words but in the objects they create.

There is nothing wrong or un-intellectual about this mode of expression,
unless you think Auguste Rodin was a simpleton.

On the subject of disastrous failure, Krivit reports that Russ George is in
deep trouble:

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/04/08/u-s-businessman-takes-first-nation-people-for-2-5-million/

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/04/10/canadian-environmental-authorities-seize-evidence-from-georges-offices/

I hope this is not true but it would not shock me if it is.

Krivit also reported on the publication of this paper, which he did not
name:

J. Appl. Phys. *112*, 083510 (2012);
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4759166
 (*6 pages*)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:05 AM, John Berry  wrote:
> To the RIGHT side of your monitor.

Does it matter if your monitor is a CRT, LED or LCD?

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates

[Jones Beene]

Hmm... this may be the first time that the particular detail about copper
metal vapor has come up, but it raises the issue (if Rossi could be
believed) ... about copper vapor and an internal laser. 

It could be inadvertent lasing but providing a window in his reactor could
indicate that it is also being stimulated. Copper vapor lasers are
efficient, but require 1500 C - so halides are often used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_vapor_laser

... makes one wonder if copper hydride would work. This paper turns up:

http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/939.pdf

... but we all tend to think of Rossi as not being that sophisticated. It
would be mind boggling if lasing were being employed.

Rothwell has been saying for some time that the underneath the clown
costume, Rossi is a brilliant inventor and that the is method in his
madness.

Is the Hot-Cat an indication of more intentional misdirection, or is Rossi
for real ?


From: Mark Snoswell 

LOL - Copper is incredibly mobile with a vapour pressure
several orders of magnitude higher then Nickel at the same temperature. Even
at 950C the copper vapour is spreading is spreading copper everywhere...
almost as annoying as all the inconsistencies in Rossi's patent.

From: David Roberson 

How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower
temperature than the region that completely surrounds it?  Heat would travel
toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium. 

Dave

<>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[MJ]

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 > wrote:


To the RIGHT side of your monitor.


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry
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

[John Berry]

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  wrote:

> To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry 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]:Rossi Patent updates

[Mark Snoswell]

LOL – Copper is incredibly mobile with a vapour pressure several orders of 
magnitude higher then Nickel at the same temperature. Even at 950C the copper 
vapour is spreading is spreading copper everywhere… almost as annoying as all 
the inconsistencies in Rossi’s patent.

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: 19 April 2013 00:23
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates

How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower temperature than the region 
that completely surrounds it?  Heat would travel toward the cooler center until 
it was in equilibrium.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Teslaalset 
mailto:robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:35 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates
Only one possibility then: neutron absorbtion by boron?
I noticed boron is prominently mentioned as well.


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Fletcher 
mailto:a...@well.com>> wrote:
At 01:23 AM 4/17/2013, Teslaalset wrote:
This is in contradiction with the performance of Rossi's 'hot cat' where he's 
getting >1000 degrees C.
Copper melts at 1083 degrees C.

The thermalization takes place elsewhere ... in particular, away from the 
nickel/hydrogen, where the patent says 500C.

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

To the RIGHT side of your monitor.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry  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
>
>

[Vo]:New more powerful image

[John Berry]

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