RE: [Vo]:Rossi will become a destroyer of nations.
Axil, Stay on point. Who would be held responsible for bringing Russia down? Whose fault is it? Putin or Rossi? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. I see.. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts remain that make it worthless. 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance? Answer 1: 40% Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real possibility of it going either way. If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real risk that you must take seriously. If you are on the side of good, you know that there is an extraordinary possibility that might be worthy of attention, but might not pan out. But the difference between 0.1% chance and a 0.001% chance is huge! With the 0.1% there is a long shot, but one that could still very well pan out. Just 1 in 1,000 is not too distant odds to let one ignore something potentially significant good or bad. But 0.001 is 1 in ten million, an almost impossible long shot worthy of no attention/investment unless there are enough of these low level 'promises/threats' to bring it up to a level of relevance. John On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.51%, taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price for CYPW Cyclone Power. At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. So, he thinks the In Mercato Veritas is a sign of unrealness rather than the OBVIOUS thing it is: an old fashioned Rossism expression of confidence. This was exactly the way Rossi used to post before his friend Focardi got cancer. When Blaze talks about the lack of news leaks, he doesn't seem to realize he's engaging in a classic fallacy of arguing from silence. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Going to start publishing updates on this blog http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/ rather than this mailing list. Rossi is now at 30% On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's interesting enough to generate a patent then it is worthwhile. The world would sit up and take notice simply because Rossi ain't a fraud, as the common notion suggests. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Another possibility is IH may have decided they don't want the world competing with them, so they gave the researchers an eCat which is just enough interesting to generate a patent but not so interesting it causes the world to sit up and take notice. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: More and more I'm beginning to wonder if we're going to get a TIP report that shows something interesting, but nowhere guaranteeing the power densities shown in the first report. While I believe that Rossi believes he has something and that IH believes they have something and that there is no fraudulent behavior going on here, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. And the middle is, yes energy, just not very exciting energy. And possibly, after some analysis, it could be just an impressive new source of chemical energy that's competitive perhaps with Rocket Fuel in the best case scenario, but in reality it's just competitive with optimal Geothermal. In this scenario, I consider the eCat not to have lived up to its promises which is why my estimate is around 35%. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Decreasing the probability to 31% based on smelly stock offering. http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-hydro-fusion-cashing-in-before-the-collapse/ HydroFusion is ran by Dr. Magnus Holm. Seems credible - but why didn't he wait until after the report to ask for more money? Why is Rossi doing shout outs about Dr Holm? Andrea Rossi May 18th, 2014 at 11:20 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=1#comment-957368 Orsobubu: Thank you for your comment, that indroduces us to the paper published today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics: GEOMETRY OF STRING THEORY SOLITONS by Dr Magnus Holm . It is an important work of this scientist made in 1999, but I find his work dense of important information. It is not an easy reading, the work is rigorous, but
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I guess what your'e really saying is that God Does Not Play Dice. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. I see.. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts remain that make it worthless. 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance? Answer 1: 40% Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real possibility of it going either way. If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real risk that you must take seriously. If you are on the side of good, you know that there is an extraordinary possibility that might be worthy of attention, but might not pan out. But the difference between 0.1% chance and a 0.001% chance is huge! With the 0.1% there is a long shot, but one that could still very well pan out. Just 1 in 1,000 is not too distant odds to let one ignore something potentially significant good or bad. But 0.001 is 1 in ten million, an almost impossible long shot worthy of no attention/investment unless there are enough of these low level 'promises/threats' to bring it up to a level of relevance. John On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.51%, taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price for CYPW Cyclone Power. At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. So, he thinks the In Mercato Veritas is a sign of unrealness rather than the OBVIOUS thing it is: an old fashioned Rossism expression of confidence. This was exactly the way Rossi used to post before his friend Focardi got cancer. When Blaze talks about the lack of news leaks, he doesn't seem to realize he's engaging in a classic fallacy of arguing from silence. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Going to start publishing updates on this blog http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/ rather than this mailing list. Rossi is now at 30% On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's interesting enough to generate a patent then it is worthwhile. The world would sit up and take notice simply because Rossi ain't a fraud, as the common notion suggests. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Another possibility is IH may have decided they don't want the world competing with them, so they gave the researchers an eCat which is just enough interesting to generate a patent but not so interesting it causes the world to sit up and take notice. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: More and more I'm beginning to wonder if we're going to get a TIP report that shows something interesting, but nowhere guaranteeing the power densities shown in the first report. While I believe that Rossi believes he has something and that IH believes they have something and that there is no fraudulent behavior going on here, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. And the middle is, yes energy, just not very exciting energy. And possibly, after some analysis, it could be just an impressive new source of chemical energy that's competitive perhaps with Rocket Fuel in the best case scenario, but in reality it's just competitive with optimal Geothermal. In this scenario, I consider the eCat not to have lived up to its promises which is why my estimate is around 35%. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Decreasing the probability to 31% based on smelly stock offering. http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-hydro-fusion-cashing-in-before-the-collapse/ HydroFusion is ran by Dr. Magnus Holm. Seems credible - but why didn't he wait until after the report to ask for more money? Why is Rossi doing shout outs about Dr Holm? Andrea Rossi May 18th, 2014 at 11:20 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=1#comment-957368 Orsobubu: Thank you for your comment, that indroduces us to the paper published today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics: GEOMETRY OF STRING THEORY SOLITONS by Dr Magnus Holm . It is an
RE: [Vo]:Rossi will become a destroyer of nations.
The game changer is not Rossi but Black Light Power’s SunCell technology which is now taking shape. Readers of Vo have been put off by seemingly wild exaggerations in BLP’s press release and a studied reluctance to understand BLP because the technology is so different from ’cold fusion’ or CMNS. The key reaction is inherently explosive in nature, with water as the ultimate consumable. The device under development creates brilliant light with a sun-like spectrum and an intensity far greater that the sun as seen at earth’s surface. This light is to be captured by high efficiency PV [solar cells]. The steps in this chain, using conventional solar cells to drive an LED array, is viewable in video clips n the website and on YouTube. Intensive work is underway to design a utility-scale power module whose configuration can be seen on the BLP website. Technical papers describing the chemistry, and reports by competent validators are also on the website. Putin’s effort to dominate Europe and China by the energy resources of Russia will be nullified by the BLP SunCell technology which will undermine political and economic institutions based on the control of energy. SunCell is basically cheap, and water is everywhere. Nations and Humanity will flourish. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:46 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi will become a destroyer of nations. http://news.yahoo.com/indians-riot-heat-wave-prompts-power-cuts-064032820.html Indians riot as heat wave prompts power cuts Energy is more important than food in a warming world. The man who provides power, provides water, and food, and comfort from the heat and cold. The man who provides power, enables life. Putin wants to be that man. Putin wants to control this energy weapon. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From: Axil Axil ... There is a fair chance that Russia will become a failed state ... Maybe... maybe not. Paraphrasing an old saying: It's not wise to divide a Russian bare before it has been killed. ...and its all Rossi's fault. Rossi will become a destroyer of nations. IMHO It would not be anymore Rossi's fault - not anymore than if he was in the business of manufacturing assault rifles and bullets, and some deranged lunatic decided to express his feelings by culling a populated shopping mall of half its paying customers with the gun and bullets Rossi is hypothetically responsible for having manufactured. After all the hand-wringing and recriminations have been delivered, after the last WHY DID THIS HAPPEN...AGAIN!!! is delivered by enraged and bereaved relatives, after perhaps some time later when a tiny iota of legislative sanity is finally restored within the United States and decent gun control laws are passed, in the end it will still remain, it will always remain the fault of the individual responsible for shooting the weapon, not the manufacturer of the weapon used or the bullets used. Likewise, if Putin gets his way and invests the bulk of his country's pension fund in Gazprom, and should Rossi's eCats (or some illegitimate progeny, like BLP) come to fruition, the blame will go squarely on the shoulders of Putin, not Rossi. If another revolution roils Russia back into the 17th century, the likes of which haven't been experienced since Dr. Zhivago; as disenfranchised peasants drag Putin out into the people's public square some fine below zero February winter day for an appointed meeting with a firing squad consisting of volunteers formally employed by KGB, the last words Putin is likely to hear are, You little дерьмо,why didn't you invest in eCAT? Axil, perhaps I have misunderstood the initial intent of your speculation. Perhaps you were just trying to be glib or sarcastic. (Sarcasm - I can understand and appreciate.) The point is I don't know if you really DO believe and stand by what you have stated here. With nothing to go on, all I can say is that such speculation astonishes me to no end. It strikes me as misplaced logic on a grand scale. Expressed conclusions such as these wouldn't bother me so much - except for the fact that I have found myself wondering if it is the norm rather than an aberration, particularly within my country, the United States. (Please understand, I realize you are not a United States citizen, or please correct me if I am mistaken on that matter.) What concerns me is that if such misplaced logic is more the norm, perhaps it might help explain why better gun control in the United States never seems to get passed. The fickle finger of blame never stops wagging. The finger never get pinned down. I hope you will set me straight and inform me of the fact that I had simply not perceived the sarcasm in your statement. /IMHO Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson
Re: [Vo]:Rossi will become a destroyer of nations.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: The game changer is not Rossi but Black Light Power’s SunCell technology which is now taking shape. Readers of Vo have been put off by seemingly wild exaggerations in BLP’s press release I wasn't put off by wild exaggerations. I was put off by the in ability to understand somethings so basic as physical dimensionality and the difference between input and output.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi will become a destroyer of nations.
Well, the great about BLP is that they make Rossi look credible. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: The game changer is not Rossi but Black Light Power’s SunCell technology which is now taking shape. Readers of Vo have been put off by seemingly wild exaggerations in BLP’s press release and a studied reluctance to understand BLP because the technology is so different from ’cold fusion’ or CMNS. The key reaction is inherently explosive in nature, with water as the ultimate consumable. The device under development creates brilliant light with a sun-like spectrum and an intensity far greater that the sun as seen at earth’s surface. This light is to be captured by high efficiency PV [solar cells]. The steps in this chain, using conventional solar cells to drive an LED array, is viewable in video clips n the website and on YouTube. Intensive work is underway to design a utility-scale power module whose configuration can be seen on the BLP website. Technical papers describing the chemistry, and reports by competent validators are also on the website. Putin’s effort to dominate Europe and China by the energy resources of Russia will be nullified by the BLP SunCell technology which will undermine political and economic institutions based on the control of energy. SunCell is basically cheap, and water is everywhere. Nations and Humanity will flourish. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:46 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi will become a destroyer of nations. http://news.yahoo.com/indians-riot-heat-wave-prompts-power-cuts-064032820.html Indians riot as heat wave prompts power cuts Energy is more important than food in a warming world. The man who provides power, provides water, and food, and comfort from the heat and cold. The man who provides power, enables life. Putin wants to be that man. Putin wants to control this energy weapon. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From: Axil Axil ... There is a fair chance that Russia will become a failed state ... Maybe... maybe not. Paraphrasing an old saying: It's not wise to divide a Russian bare before it has been killed. ...and its all Rossi's fault. Rossi will become a destroyer of nations. IMHO It would not be anymore Rossi's fault - not anymore than if he was in the business of manufacturing assault rifles and bullets, and some deranged lunatic decided to express his feelings by culling a populated shopping mall of half its paying customers with the gun and bullets Rossi is hypothetically responsible for having manufactured. After all the hand-wringing and recriminations have been delivered, after the last WHY DID THIS HAPPEN...AGAIN!!! is delivered by enraged and bereaved relatives, after perhaps some time later when a tiny iota of legislative sanity is finally restored within the United States and decent gun control laws are passed, in the end it will still remain, it will always remain the fault of the individual responsible for shooting the weapon, not the manufacturer of the weapon used or the bullets used. Likewise, if Putin gets his way and invests the bulk of his country's pension fund in Gazprom, and should Rossi's eCats (or some illegitimate progeny, like BLP) come to fruition, the blame will go squarely on the shoulders of Putin, not Rossi. If another revolution roils Russia back into the 17th century, the likes of which haven't been experienced since Dr. Zhivago; as disenfranchised peasants drag Putin out into the people's public square some fine below zero February winter day for an appointed meeting with a firing squad consisting of volunteers formally employed by KGB, the last words Putin is likely to hear are, You little дерьмо,why didn't you invest in eCAT? Axil, perhaps I have misunderstood the initial intent of your speculation. Perhaps you were just trying to be glib or sarcastic. (Sarcasm - I can understand and appreciate.) The point is I don't know if you really DO believe and stand by what you have stated here. With nothing to go on, all I can say is that such speculation astonishes me to no end. It strikes me as misplaced logic on a grand scale. Expressed conclusions such as these wouldn't bother me so much - except for the fact that I have found myself wondering if it is the norm rather than an aberration, particularly within my country, the United States. (Please understand, I realize you are not a United States citizen, or please correct me if I am mistaken on that matter.) What concerns me is that if such misplaced logic is more the norm, perhaps it might help explain why better gun control in the United States never seems to get passed. The fickle finger of blame never stops wagging. The finger never get pinned down. I hope you will set me
[Vo]:The speed of technological change
How fast could cold fusion progress? I took a graphic picture of technological change now in progress. What was once of great value, like a projection TV, is now just junk. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/TechnologyChange.jpg enjoy Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our ignorance in the talk of probability. There are 4 domains in which we apply probability. 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of chance exist, such as with Rossi. 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning of a wheel of wheel of fortune 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level small physical changes can reduce the randomness. 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice. But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such interactions. It could be that these things are not random at all. But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not apply to Rossi. And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability despite the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were at 1% confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to 100%. Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine. Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men, but there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% or damn near 0%. Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake a test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is harder/impossible to prove a negative. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. I see.. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts remain that make it worthless. 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance? Answer 1: 40% Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real possibility of it going either way. If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real risk that you must take seriously. If you are on the side of good, you know that there is an extraordinary possibility that might be worthy of attention, but might not pan out. But the difference between 0.1% chance and a 0.001% chance is huge! With the 0.1% there is a long shot, but one that could still very well pan out. Just 1 in 1,000 is not too distant odds to let one ignore something potentially significant good or bad. But 0.001 is 1 in ten million, an almost impossible long shot worthy of no attention/investment unless there are enough of these low level 'promises/threats' to bring it up to a level of relevance. John On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.51%, taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price for CYPW Cyclone Power. At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. So, he thinks the In Mercato Veritas is a sign of unrealness rather than the OBVIOUS thing it is: an old fashioned Rossism expression of confidence. This was exactly the way Rossi used to post before his friend Focardi got cancer. When Blaze talks about the lack of news leaks, he doesn't seem to realize he's engaging in a classic fallacy of arguing from silence. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Going to start publishing updates on this blog http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/ rather than this mailing list. Rossi is now at 30% On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's interesting enough to generate a patent then it is worthwhile. The world would sit up and take notice simply because Rossi ain't a fraud, as the common notion suggests. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Another possibility
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. Probability in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study increased the probability that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the probability will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and observes what's inside, it can go either way. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. Probability in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study increased the probability that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the probability will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Blaze, a fine verbal joust. But you must admit it is not even close to reality. Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not wave functions yet to be collapsed. Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take you away. ha ha. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and observes what's inside, it can go either way. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. Probability in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study increased the probability that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the probability will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Ni-C material identified with potential for LENR
I just saw the following discussion on Rossi’ blog: Joseph Fine June 8th, 2014 at 8:41 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, Below is a link to an article from eurekalert on the synthesis of Nickel Carbon Fullerenes. The lead author (‘Andrey Popov’) is not sure of the practical applications of this new structure. Maybe you will find a new use for this in your work. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/miop-mon060614.php Nickel-Fullerene regards, Method of nickel-carbon heterofullerenes synthesis presented Russian, British and Spanish scientists presented a new method of nickel-carbon heterofullerenes synthesis Scientists from several British, Spanish and Russian research centers (MIPT, Institute for Spectroscopy RAS, Kurchatov Institute and Kintech Lab Ltd) have come up with a method of synthesizing a new type of nickel-carbon compound. The article titled Formation of nickel-carbon heterofullerenes under electron irradiation has been published by Dalton Transactions and is available as a pre-print at arxiv.org. The first author of the article is Alexander Sinitsa, an MIPT student, and the leading author is Andrey Popov (Institute for Spectroscopy RAS, 1989 MIPT graduate). Heterofullerenes are hollow molecules with a nearly-spherical shape, which, unlike the typical fullerenes, contain atoms of elements other than carbon. Such compounds were synthesized quite a while ago, in 1991, but till now no heterofullerenes containing nickel, or any other transition metal, have been obtained. Yet, as the authors point out in their article, transition metals are now being studied as catalysts in the synthesis of carbon nanotubes and graphene. “I’d like to emphasize that the majority of calculations have been performed by a student. Hopefully, students regularly visit the MIPT site and get inspired by their colleagues’ successes. If you are especially interested in the role of MIPT graduates in research, then I can tell you that Irina Lebedeva graduated from the Institute in 2008, and Andrey Knizhnik, perhaps in 1999, but I’m not exactly sure about the year. I’d also like to point out that Elena Bichoutskaia (a Saint Petersburg State University Faculty of Physics graduate) is a member of the Russian diaspora abroad, which is typical of international cooperation of Russian scientists,” Andrey Popov told the MIPT Press Service. The synthesis of nickel heterofullerenes is supposed to be carried out under electron irradiation, which is used in high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) in order to obtain detailed snapshots showing, if needed, separate atoms. A number of previous experiments conducted by various research groups demonstrated that electronic irradiation can also be applied to synthesize a variety of nanostructures, e.g., one-layer carbon fullerene-filled nanotubes were transformed into two-layer ones. Using the latest data obtained from the HRTEM images and the results of computer modelling by methods of molecular dynamics, the scientists have shown the potential possibility to transform graphene flakes with nickel cluster into nickel-carbon heterofullerene. The scientists, though, are not sure about the practical application of such heterofullerenes. According to Andrey Popov, “these new-type molecules can reveal some interesting electronic, magnetic, and optic features, or it may be possible to combine them with some organic functional complexes of interest to biologists and physicians. They can also be used to create 3D organic-metallic structures to store hydrogen”. In their work, the researchers developed and applied an authentic algorithm for modelling electron-nanostructure interactions. This allows taking into account both fast (just tens of picoseconds) and slow (lasting for full seconds) processes. The fast processes are associated with electron collisions, and the slow ones relate to molecular relaxation. It would be interesting to load a little up with H and apply a magnetic field and look for heat. Bob
RE: [Vo]:New Ni-C material identified with potential for LENR
From: Bob Cook I just saw the following discussion on Rossi’ blog: [snip] a link to an article from eurekalert on the synthesis of Nickel Carbon Fullerenes. Hi Bob, What would be the theory of why this is preferable for LENR to a simple mix of nickel nanopowder and either CNT or fullerenes ? You would probably lose the ferromagnetism of Ni with a molecular synthesis, whereas a mix would retain it.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Everything in the universe is a wave function waiting to be collapsed. This is how the universal simulator avoids pointless CPU processing. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze, a fine verbal joust. But you must admit it is not even close to reality. Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not wave functions yet to be collapsed. Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take you away. ha ha. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and observes what's inside, it can go either way. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. Probability in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study increased the probability that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the probability will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Ni-C material identified with potential for LENR
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook I just saw the following discussion on Rossi’ blog: [snip] a link to an article from eurekalert on the synthesis of Nickel Carbon Fullerenes. Hi Bob, What would be the theory of why this is preferable for LENR to a simple mix of nickel nanopowder and either CNT or fullerenes ? You would probably lose the ferromagnetism of Ni with a molecular synthesis, whereas a mix would retain it. I wonder if Andrey is related to our friend Anatoli?
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Wrong. Rossi has either found a real effect, or he hasn't. If he hasn't, then we can assume that there is no way to get results just like he claimed in the fashion he claimed. It would be odd to say the least to propose that he is faking something that could be made to work with a tiny tweak. The cat in the box which could be alive or dead is fine, since both states are possible and non-extraordinary states for a cat. If the eCat outputs energy in a genuine manner, then it does so in compliance with the way the universe and reality works, even if it works by changing the normal rules of matter and energy as we know it, it is actually agreeing with the universe. By your argument that both states are possible, then even if he is faking, we should investigate anyway because there is a real probability of making the effect work for real, just throw enough brains, effort and money at the problem enough times and the dice will show the right number eventually with replicators getting lucky. By the same token, I could make a video that shows something extraordinary, because you are unable to tell if my video shows something real or a trick, you have a real chance of making it work even in I know I faked it! Imagine my confusion when you show me you can do it to in person, and I know I used a trick and this shouldn't be possible. Perhaps I am taking you too seriously. Perhaps you were in jest about an eCat wave function waiting to be collapsed. I sure hope so. John On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Everything in the universe is a wave function waiting to be collapsed. This is how the universal simulator avoids pointless CPU processing. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze, a fine verbal joust. But you must admit it is not even close to reality. Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not wave functions yet to be collapsed. Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take you away. ha ha. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and observes what's inside, it can go either way. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. Probability in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study increased the probability that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the probability will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Rossi has either found a real effect, or he hasn't. ***Nope. Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. What Rossi found was a way to get more consistent replications by separating out H2 gas into monoatomic hydrogen gas before it gets loaded into a nickel chamber. Prior to Rossi, the vast majority of LENR experiments were in PdD because those were the ones that replicated more often. After Rossi, the vast majority of experiments seem to be in NiH. And he's on the precipice of generating LENR as an industrial reality. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Rossi has either found a real effect, or he hasn't. If he hasn't, then we can assume that there is no way to get results just like he claimed in the fashion he claimed. It would be odd to say the least to propose that he is faking something that could be made to work with a tiny tweak. The cat in the box which could be alive or dead is fine, since both states are possible and non-extraordinary states for a cat. If the eCat outputs energy in a genuine manner, then it does so in compliance with the way the universe and reality works, even if it works by changing the normal rules of matter and energy as we know it, it is actually agreeing with the universe. By your argument that both states are possible, then even if he is faking, we should investigate anyway because there is a real probability of making the effect work for real, just throw enough brains, effort and money at the problem enough times and the dice will show the right number eventually with replicators getting lucky. By the same token, I could make a video that shows something extraordinary, because you are unable to tell if my video shows something real or a trick, you have a real chance of making it work even in I know I faked it! Imagine my confusion when you show me you can do it to in person, and I know I used a trick and this shouldn't be possible. Perhaps I am taking you too seriously. Perhaps you were in jest about an eCat wave function waiting to be collapsed. I sure hope so. John On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Everything in the universe is a wave function waiting to be collapsed. This is how the universal simulator avoids pointless CPU processing. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze, a fine verbal joust. But you must admit it is not even close to reality. Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not wave functions yet to be collapsed. Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take you away. ha ha. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and observes what's inside, it can go either way. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. Probability in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study increased the probability that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the probability will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people will be permanently
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
You are back at he level of human ignorance though. Sure, maybe Rossi doesn't know for sure his effect is really overunity. Maybe he doesn't know it is extraordinary. Or just some false positive. BUT the effect is either real, or not real. It doesn't have a chance one way or the other then to be cemented as reality for the universe, or at least earth. It already either IS, or IS NOT regardless of what people think, or what odds it would be running at with a bookie. John On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has either found a real effect, or he hasn't. ***Nope. Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. What Rossi found was a way to get more consistent replications by separating out H2 gas into monoatomic hydrogen gas before it gets loaded into a nickel chamber. Prior to Rossi, the vast majority of LENR experiments were in PdD because those were the ones that replicated more often. After Rossi, the vast majority of experiments seem to be in NiH. And he's on the precipice of generating LENR as an industrial reality. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Rossi has either found a real effect, or he hasn't. If he hasn't, then we can assume that there is no way to get results just like he claimed in the fashion he claimed. It would be odd to say the least to propose that he is faking something that could be made to work with a tiny tweak. The cat in the box which could be alive or dead is fine, since both states are possible and non-extraordinary states for a cat. If the eCat outputs energy in a genuine manner, then it does so in compliance with the way the universe and reality works, even if it works by changing the normal rules of matter and energy as we know it, it is actually agreeing with the universe. By your argument that both states are possible, then even if he is faking, we should investigate anyway because there is a real probability of making the effect work for real, just throw enough brains, effort and money at the problem enough times and the dice will show the right number eventually with replicators getting lucky. By the same token, I could make a video that shows something extraordinary, because you are unable to tell if my video shows something real or a trick, you have a real chance of making it work even in I know I faked it! Imagine my confusion when you show me you can do it to in person, and I know I used a trick and this shouldn't be possible. Perhaps I am taking you too seriously. Perhaps you were in jest about an eCat wave function waiting to be collapsed. I sure hope so. John On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Everything in the universe is a wave function waiting to be collapsed. This is how the universal simulator avoids pointless CPU processing. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze, a fine verbal joust. But you must admit it is not even close to reality. Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not wave functions yet to be collapsed. Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take you away. ha ha. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and observes what's inside, it can go either way. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. Probability in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof
RE: [Vo]:New Ni-C material identified with potential for LENR
The discussion indicated that the new substance had unusual magnetic properties and could potentially harbor lots of H (or D.) If the magnetic field was sufficient to allow the formation of Cooper pairs of H ions, the formation of D and hence He may be possible with the distribution of excess mass energy to the large QM system provided by the fullerene structure. Bob
Re: [Vo]:New Ni-C material identified with potential for LENR
I neglected to add my favored coupling mechanism of spin being the method of fractionation of the energy to the fullerene matrix. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 3:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Cook I just saw the following discussion on Rossi’ blog:[snip] a link to an article from eurekalert on the synthesis of Nickel Carbon Fullerenes. Hi Bob, What would be the theory of why this is preferable for LENR to a simple mix of nickel nanopowder and either CNT or fullerenes ? You would probably lose the ferromagnetism of Ni with a molecular synthesis, whereas a mix would retain it.
Re: [Vo]:New Ni-C material identified with potential for LENR
Terry--I wondered the same thing. I assumed they were related and the a good potential use was in the gravity shielding arena. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Terry Blanton Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 4:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook I just saw the following discussion on Rossi’ blog: [snip] a link to an article from eurekalert on the synthesis of Nickel Carbon Fullerenes. Hi Bob, What would be the theory of why this is preferable for LENR to a simple mix of nickel nanopowder and either CNT or fullerenes ? You would probably lose the ferromagnetism of Ni with a molecular synthesis, whereas a mix would retain it. I wonder if Andrey is related to our friend Anatoli?
Re: [Vo]:New Ni-C material identified with potential for LENR
Jones- Another item relative to the theory would be that the larger structure of the Fullerene relative the carbon tube would be a larger population of H within the structure and a greater probability of interaction. The largeness of the QM system may make fractionation more probable also. The magnetic field may allow the spheres to align so as to increase the B field within any sphere. What the nature of the Ni in the C matrix and its magnetic properties is anybody's guess. Keep in mind that the alloys of Ni sometimes have very large magnetic susceptibility. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 3:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Cook I just saw the following discussion on Rossi’ blog:[snip] a link to an article from eurekalert on the synthesis of Nickel Carbon Fullerenes. Hi Bob, What would be the theory of why this is preferable for LENR to a simple mix of nickel nanopowder and either CNT or fullerenes ? You would probably lose the ferromagnetism of Ni with a molecular synthesis, whereas a mix would retain it.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). This is the predominant interpretation of quantum mechanics, but one that is not universally accepted, even by mainstream physicists today [1]. Einstein had issues with it, and David Bohm offered up an alternative interpretation. Physicists *love* to get people to assent to the existence of overwhelming support for a pet idea (e.g., the Copenhagen interpretation). I'm guessing it makes their job of pushing a specific agenda easier. In reality, the evidentiary record is often inconclusive and does not fully constrain the different possibilities. The tactic at that point is to subtly or overtly discredit the people with the now-heterodox ideas, in this case Einstein and Bohm and others. Later in life both were thanked by the establishment for their contributions and then snickered at. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
The de Broglie-Bohm theory is now considered by some to be a valid challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy of the Copenhagen Interpretation, but it remains controversial. It is both realistic and deterministic and has nothing to do with probability. It has no implications for multiple universes and is nonlocal meaning that the properties of subatomic particles can be broken apart and separated at a distance from each other. Yves Couder and co-workers recently discovered a macroscopic pilot wave system in the form of *walking droplets*. This system exhibits behaviour of a pilot wave, heretofore considered to be reserved to microscopic phenomena. The quantum randomness seen at the subatomic level is derived from the variable rates that virtual particles are self produced in the vacuum. The spins of these particles are constantly adjusting to each other as particles come in an out of existence, This spin liquid (called so because of the randomness of the constant virtual particle spin adjustments in the vacuum) carries EMF fields. The interaction of the spin liquid of the vacuum and real particles produce the pilot wave on which the real particle rides. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). This is the predominant interpretation of quantum mechanics, but one that is not universally accepted, even by mainstream physicists today [1]. Einstein had issues with it, and David Bohm offered up an alternative interpretation. Physicists *love* to get people to assent to the existence of overwhelming support for a pet idea (e.g., the Copenhagen interpretation). I'm guessing it makes their job of pushing a specific agenda easier. In reality, the evidentiary record is often inconclusive and does not fully constrain the different possibilities. The tactic at that point is to subtly or overtly discredit the people with the now-heterodox ideas, in this case Einstein and Bohm and others. Later in life both were thanked by the establishment for their contributions and then snickered at. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:14 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: You are back at he level of human ignorance though. ***What does such an expression even mean? You could easily claim it means so many different things. In context, it appears that you think I'm saying Rossi is ignorant, but you could easily backtrack from such a thing. It is a bit of a weasel expression. Sure, maybe Rossi doesn't know for sure his effect is really overunity. ***If he knows devices are not operating at overunity then he's a fraud. Simple as that. And if he doesn't know, it is a ridiculous statement because he'd have been found out years ago by Focardi or Levi or a dozen others. Maybe he doesn't know it is extraordinary. ***Of COURSE he knows it is extraordinary. He's been saying it for 4 years. Or just some false positive. ***So... you're saying it's some false positive and he doesn't know it? Such an effect which presents itself as 50,000X the energy density of gasoline to an INDEPENDENT panel would be the most amazing false positive in history, surely worth looking into. BUT the effect is either real, or not real. ***The effect is real even by your definition of false positive. It doesn't have a chance one way or the other then to be cemented as reality for the universe, or at least earth. ***Again, there you go with the obfuscation. Perhaps I could understand you better if you just come with ONE example in history where an effect at this level of magnitude didn't get cemented as reality for the universe? The closest I come up with is the Wright brothers between 1903 and 1908, but eventually the reality got cemented out and there was a huge patent war due to a bunch of shysters stealing their patent. Rossi can look forward to exactly the same thing. It already either IS, or IS NOT regardless of what people think, or what odds it would be running at with a bookie. ***You don't make much sense, and neither does Blaze when he talks about this topic because he backtracks from what he says so often. Here's how I like to look at it. Let's say you were one of the half dozen humans on the planet who witnessed the Wright brothers' flight in 1903 and KNEW they had unlocked the secrets of flight. What would you give as the probabilities of the Wright brothers being right? And what could you do to invest in corresponding technologies at the time that would take off due to this insider knowledge being true? There were no airlines to invest in, no airplane manufacturers, the Wrights wouldn't have accepted $100 investments, there's no stock to buy in airplane motor companies. The best I can come up with is to buy cheap land that airlines are gonna want outside of town, but even that is a dicey proposition from 1903 to 1908. When you talk about odds of Rossi being real, the rubber meets the road at where to invest, such as in a poker game where the hand odds are 25% and the pot odds are $1000:1 (such as CYPW, stock symble for Cyclone Power). But Blaze has shied away from his own odds implications right on this very thread. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg93566.html John On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has either found a real effect, or he hasn't. ***Nope. Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. What Rossi found was a way to get more consistent replications by separating out H2 gas into monoatomic hydrogen gas before it gets loaded into a nickel chamber. Prior to Rossi, the vast majority of LENR experiments were in PdD because those were the ones that replicated more often. After Rossi, the vast majority of experiments seem to be in NiH. And he's on the precipice of generating LENR as an industrial reality. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Rossi has either found a real effect, or he hasn't. If he hasn't, then we can assume that there is no way to get results just like he claimed in the fashion he claimed. It would be odd to say the least to propose that he is faking something that could be made to work with a tiny tweak. The cat in the box which could be alive or dead is fine, since both states are possible and non-extraordinary states for a cat. If the eCat outputs energy in a genuine manner, then it does so in compliance with the way the universe and reality works, even if it works by changing the normal rules of matter and energy as we know it, it is actually agreeing with the universe. By your argument that both states are possible, then even if he is faking, we should investigate anyway because there is a real probability of making the effect work for real, just throw enough brains, effort and money at the problem enough times and the dice will show the right number eventually with replicators getting lucky. By the same token, I could make a video that shows something
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant of if his effect was real or not. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has the associated difficulties. I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust aetheric effect to me. But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is at odds with a con man. But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. John
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the effect. Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian... ***It means that Pons Fleischmann had their predecessors, folks who were seeing anomalous heat effects in deuterated Palladium as far back as the 1920's.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. ***It would appear that you misunderstood what I was saying.
