Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Howdy Ed, This thread is becoming most interesting because it deals with a voyage toward a science of ideas where, once embarked upon that sea, there can be no return. Our decision then becomes that of selecting the posture one takes in the boat, As the human species of flesh on an earth, populated by animals, we alone, do not practice survival of the fittest. Jones touched on this subject some time back with his comment on maji. On occasion, in history, a single brilliant mind may rise every couple hundred years. One of my grandchildren is in private school for gifted children. These children have every resource available for their education and they demonstrate certain intellectual heights that cannot be otherwise explained except to describe them as gifted. The school has yet to reveal a maji after 60 years and some 100 grads per year. The school has children from across the earth. There are perhaps a half dozen schools like this in the USA. The represent a form of intellectual survival of the fittest. There are examples of this practice in history.. Alexandria, Byzantine, Seville, Florence, etc. There are also schools on earth for the black arts. The US government is now budgeting a fortune toward these black arts schools. Richard Ed Storms wrote, Of course, these ideas are not accepted because the process is not very reproducible and has no theory to explain it. (Does this sound familiar?) In addition, as Steven pointed out, a person with this ability might want to hid this fact.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Edmund Storms wrote: To get back to science, a lot of scientific study has been done to reveal the existence of this ability. The results of this work, at least to me, show that thought transfer is real. But like all such claims, this belief is rejected by conventional science. My question is, what would it take to change this attitude? Or is this possibility too scary for it to be accepted regardless of the evidence or logic? What it would take, for me at least, is an experiment which can't be shown to be flawed, and which can be reproduced by other labs. I'm not aware of such. Are you aware of such, and can you provide a reference? I was very interested in this at one point, but as I seem to recall Rhine's research, which was the big one for a long time, came to a dead end and was dropped. My general impression is that his earlier results, which looked great, were flawed, possibly by data selection (dropping the bad runs out of the dataset) but it's been a long time and I'm hazy on the details now; his later results, which were not apparently flawed, saw the results recede to about the level of chance. I recall some results showing either precognition or telekinesis using a quantum random number generator, not at Rhine's lab, which looked very promising but again I recall it came to naught and I'm no longer sure why; that, too, was a long time ago. There have been others, of course, many others, but I'm not aware that anyone managed to produce solid results which were above reproach and which could be reproduced. Reproducibility has plagued the field, that's for sure, as have charlatans, who make this area into a mine field. Geller is the most obvious example, but as far as I know all the individuals who've turned up showing exceptional ESP talent can be shown with reasonable confidence to be fakes. This is not to say the researchers at ESP labs are intentionally faking anything -- but unlike the field of LENR, where the beaker of electrolyte just sits there innocently, the subjects they're studying don't just sit there and a lot of them aren't innocent. Makes it tough to sort the wheat from the chaff. Randi has had a field day debunking stuff in this area, and unlike his efforts at debunking hard science experiments where he flounders around like a pig on roller skates and relies heavily on proof by assertion, this sort of thing actually *does* lie within his area of expertise. Mentalist acts are stock and trade of magic shows and the techniques used by magicians can be used to very good effect to produce apparently positive results in ESP experiments.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Edmund Storms wrote: Interesting logic, Stephen. Let's explore another possibility. Suppose thought transfer is common in animals that do not have a complex language. One might use schooling fish as an example or perhaps a flock of birds. While other explanations can be suggested for the observed behavior, thought transfer provides a very consistent explanation. In addition, this ability would have great survival value. It's also interesting to note that this avoids the problems I pointed out with involuntary mind reading. Thought transference of this sort would presumably require the cooperation of the *sender*, and hence would not automatically lead to an arms race, or to the evolution of brainwave jamming. I find the arguments I put forth reasonably convincing as regards pull transfers, and the possibility that you'll someday meet someone who can read your mind and tell what you've got in your hand during a poker game. But those arguments don't bear at all on sender-initiated push transfers.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Ed, This thread is becoming most interesting because it deals with a voyage toward a science of ideas where, once embarked upon that sea, there can be no return. Our decision then becomes that of selecting the posture one takes in the boat, I agree partially Richard, this is one of our decisions that needs to be made. We also need to decide where the boat is heading and what we do when we get there. As the human species of flesh on an earth, populated by animals, we alone, do not practice survival of the fittest. Since when? No species PRACTICES survival of the fittest. Instead this is imposed on them. We are now being selected based on a different criteria than was imposed in the past. Of course, the criteria depends on which country and where in that country a person happens to live. Jones touched on this subject some time back with his comment on maji. On occasion, in history, a single brilliant mind may rise every couple hundred years. I suggest part of this brilliance is the ability to learn from thought transfer. One of my grandchildren is in private school for gifted children. These children have every resource available for their education and they demonstrate certain intellectual heights that cannot be otherwise explained except to describe them as gifted. The school has yet to reveal a maji after 60 years and some 100 grads per year. The school has children from across the earth. While these gifted kids are being taught conventional knowledge, they have to learn the skill of mind reading on their own, which is not easy and is usually discouraged. I suggest that without this skill, a person will only be gifted and never a maji. I suggest you study the life and teachings of Sai Baba (check Amazon.com) to see this process in operation. There are perhaps a half dozen schools like this in the USA. The represent a form of intellectual survival of the fittest. There are examples of this practice in history.. Alexandria, Byzantine, Seville, Florence, etc. There are also schools on earth for the black arts. The US government is now budgeting a fortune toward these black arts schools. What skills do the black arts schools teach? I presume we are not talking about Harry Potter. Regards, Ed Richard Ed Storms wrote, Of course, these ideas are not accepted because the process is not very reproducible and has no theory to explain it. (Does this sound familiar?) In addition, as Steven pointed out, a person with this ability might want to hid this fact.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Wow! There's been a LOT said on this subject. Jones! What a Chicken Heart monster you unleashed on New York City! ;-) Let me add yet a few more pennies to the on-going fertile discussion of alleged mind-transference - is it real or is it Memorex. First, two personal experiences: (Experience ONE) Back in the early 90s I was driving down University Avenue in Madison one day after work when suddenly I had strong sudden impulsive urge to veer to the right and head over to my parent's house. (They conveniently lived within a mile of my own home.) I really had to struggle with this sudden impulse because I was sure I had other things I rather be doing right at that moment and I wondered if I was simply wasting my time with an unplanned visit right before dinner time. But veer right I did. When I entered the front door I discovered that my mother had just fallen down the basement stairs and had broken her right tibia. She was delirious. She had probably suffered a concussion as well. (Experience TWO) back in the 80s I was (once again) driving in my car thinking of nothing in particular when I suddenly began envisioning hot gaseous clouds of deadly radiation. I saw images of bright white steamy clouds of hot radioactive steam and/or smoke - and death. I hated those visions. I wondered why my imagination had suddenly become so morbidly transfixed on a horrible scenario that spelled death. Making things worse for me the imagery felt so personal. Why the hell would I want to personally imagine such destruction. I also wondered if I personally was going to experience some kind of a nuclear attack, probably from the Russians. (They were still a secretive country - USSR, under Gorbachev's rule.) After several visions I finally said enough! of this morbidity made an effort to purge them out of my mind. As far as I was concerned they were useless morbid imaginations. Nothing good would come from them. And I also didn't want to believe in the possibility that I was about to be nuked. Best to remain blissfully ignorant! Several days later the world learned about Chernobyl disaster. Both of my personal experiences are obviously anecdotal in nature. But just try convincing me that both were nothing more than personal random experiences that just happened to coincide with external incidents. * * * * * Ok, and now, to put myself on the line so-to-speak, I shall relay one more final personal experience from approximately three to six months ago. Actually, this experience has yet to be played out, IMO. The experience was actually quite simple in nature. Nothing really all that profound, mind you, but at least it was more pleasantly experienced. It was a sudden and unexpected felt conviction - an emotionally felt state-of-mind that suddenly and inexplicitly swept over me. It was a sudden conviction that a new promising alternative energy invention and/or technology would soon make its debut. (Of course, soon is a relative term as we vorts have learned the hard way!) Having had these kinds of mundane-like convictions in the past I've learned to interpret them as random hits. (I certainly wouldn't bet on them!) I ended up interpreting the experience as follows: I think it's possible my sensory feelers might have picked up on some individual's emotionally felt conviction, some individual and/or group that has been working within a controversial branch of the AE field for quite some time. I also got the impression that it came from an individual few of us Vorts have actually heard of, but I could be wrong. Perhaps I had randomly picked up on the emotions coming from an enthusiastic engineer who had just completed a successful hydrino generating test from the BLP's labs. Who knows!!! I speculate that what I picked up on was a random hit of the individual's emotionally felt conviction that he/she had had completed a special test, a test that had at least convinced themselves UTTERLY at that moment in time that they were on the right path, that they believed beyond a shadow of doubt that they had discovered a way (a path way) of generating a clean and abundant source of energy. But then, perhaps what they experienced was just that: An enthusiastic belief that they were on the right path. Perhaps after they stop celebrating their success and they take a closer look at the data, they may eventually discover that the findings may not be as impressive as originally perceived. Or perhaps the actual engineering involved that would allow their dream to manifest is not so forgiving. I just don't know. FWIW: I actually briefly talked about this personal impression within Vortex several months ago, so those who are curious you can probably find my ramblings in the archives. I believe Terry Blanton contributed a brief reply. As for me I'm just not motivated enough to dig through the archives to find out what it was that I actually said. Just lazy, I guess. Will it come to pass. Beats me. To be honest a skeptic would say my
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Thanks -- that's a very nifty pair of anecdotes. As one of our favorite demons once said, The plural of anecdote is data (from the collected aphorisms of Bob Park). They have a big advantage over the theophanies which are commonly experienced (and which are one of the primary engines which keep religious belief going from one generation to the next, IMHO): They both had direct connections to external events, which makes them more than just symptoms of a purely internal funky state of mind. As to the third one -- well, as you said, we'll just have to wait and see. OrionWorks wrote: Wow! There's been a LOT said on this subject. Jones! What a Chicken Heart monster you unleashed on New York City! ;-) Let me add yet a few more pennies to the on-going fertile discussion of alleged mind-transference - is it real or is it Memorex. First, two personal experiences: (Experience ONE) Back in the early 90s I was driving down University Avenue in Madison one day after work when suddenly I had strong sudden impulsive urge to veer to the right and head over to my parent's house. (They conveniently lived within a mile of my own home.) I really had to struggle with this sudden impulse because I was sure I had other things I rather be doing right at that moment and I wondered if I was simply wasting my time with an unplanned visit right before dinner time. But veer right I did. When I entered the front door I discovered that my mother had just fallen down the basement stairs and had broken her right tibia. She was delirious. She had probably suffered a concussion as well. (Experience TWO) back in the 80s I was (once again) driving in my car thinking of nothing in particular when I suddenly began envisioning hot gaseous clouds of deadly radiation. I saw images of bright white steamy clouds of hot radioactive steam and/or smoke - and death. I hated those visions. I wondered why my imagination had suddenly become so morbidly transfixed on a horrible scenario that spelled death. Making things worse for me the imagery felt so personal. Why the hell would I want to personally imagine such destruction. I also wondered if I personally was going to experience some kind of a nuclear attack, probably from the Russians. (They were still a secretive country - USSR, under Gorbachev's rule.) After several visions I finally said enough! of this morbidity made an effort to purge them out of my mind. As far as I was concerned they were useless morbid imaginations. Nothing good would come from them. And I also didn't want to believe in the possibility that I was about to be nuked. Best to remain blissfully ignorant! Several days later the world learned about Chernobyl disaster. Both of my personal experiences are obviously anecdotal in nature. But just try convincing me that both were nothing more than personal random experiences that just happened to coincide with external incidents. * * * * * Ok, and now, to put myself on the line so-to-speak, I shall relay one more final personal experience from approximately three to six months ago. Actually, this experience has yet to be played out, IMO. The experience was actually quite simple in nature. Nothing really all that profound, mind you, but at least it was more pleasantly experienced. It was a sudden and unexpected felt conviction - an emotionally felt state-of-mind that suddenly and inexplicitly swept over me. It was a sudden conviction that a new promising alternative energy invention and/or technology would soon make its debut. (Of course, soon is a relative term as we vorts have learned the hard way!) Having had these kinds of mundane-like convictions in the past I've learned to interpret them as random hits. (I certainly wouldn't bet on them!) I ended up interpreting the experience as follows: I think it's possible my sensory feelers might have picked up on some individual's emotionally felt conviction, some individual and/or group that has been working within a controversial branch of the AE field for quite some time. I also got the impression that it came from an individual few of us Vorts have actually heard of, but I could be wrong. Perhaps I had randomly picked up on the emotions coming from an enthusiastic engineer who had just completed a successful hydrino generating test from the BLP's labs. Who knows!!! I speculate that what I picked up on was a random hit of the individual's emotionally felt conviction that he/she had had completed a special test, a test that had at least convinced themselves UTTERLY at that moment in time that they were on the right path, that they believed beyond a shadow of doubt that they had discovered a way (a path way) of generating a clean and abundant source of energy. But then, perhaps what they experienced was just that: An enthusiastic belief that they were on the right path. Perhaps after they stop celebrating their success and they take a closer look at the data, they may eventually discover that the findings may not
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
--- Edmund Storms wrote: study the life and teachings of Sai Baba These details do not do justice to the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirdi_Sai_Baba_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirdi_Sai_Baba A lazy-boy-lab experiment for the spiritually inclined, or even the spiritually declined, might be of interest ... ...direct from the Church of the Presumptuous Assumption. ... that is, if you should want to take a flyer on push/pull meme transference at the most visceral level, darshan, then this particular meme is fairly well-developed and active - without priestly or guru assistance ... and being more geographically and culturally removed, may be more surprising... Procedure- you must sit still for twenty minutes without nodding off and in a quiet focused meditation. You do not need to know anything about the subject or teacher - just begin the experience with a mantra like sai-baba, and concentrate on deep breathing. Precautionary warning to xenophobes: A single meditation experience, informal and unstructured, but focused on such memes can result in unintended guru-less shaktipat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktipat Sai baba shared Martin Luthur's 'priesthood of believers' ideal in a different cultural context (which ironically is most often completely ignored by modern Baptists - who typically adore and cling to their Pastors). Anecdotally, the phenomenon seems to occur in a few per hundred individuals, almost at random... so scientifically - it could be called insignificant. The advantage of cross-cultural meditation is that in many cases you may try to consciously avoid a positive reaction, out of fear, but cannot ... worth noting: if you consider yourself to be born again you probably already understand what shaktipat is about, under a different guise. ... a rose by any other name... Signed, Pastor Rod Flash Church of the Presumptuous Assumption.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:46 AM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW: I actually briefly talked about this personal impression within Vortex several months ago, so those who are curious you can probably find my ramblings in the archives. I believe Terry Blanton contributed a brief reply. As for me I'm just not motivated enough to dig through the archives to find out what it was that I actually said. Just lazy, I guess. As I have been evoked: I first realized I could experience the emotion of others while experimenting with a combination of organic mescaline and Canadian codeine. Interesting combination, that. I think that the reptilian brain is better at ESP than the higher levels. And like Penrose, et al, I do not believe this is an electromagnetic effect. It is, IMO, qubit related -- a quantum effect. One must be careful to recognize an induced emotion from an internal one. It's not always easy. We are all capable of this transcendental empathy. Terry
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
This reminds me of Cleve Baxter his polygraph machine that he wired up to plants, cell cultures etc. found remote reactions to human thoughts deeds. In one experiment he would grow a culture form an person and have that person go miles away poke himself with a pin he would get a reaction on the polygraph wired to the cell culture. Really bizarre. It has been a long time since his work was described in The Secret Life of Plants I don't know if his ideas of a primary perception were ever researched further. I found his results intriguing but never followed up on it. Ron --On Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:12 AM -0400 Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: To get back to science, a lot of scientific study has been done to reveal the existence of this ability. The results of this work, at least to me, show that thought transfer is real. But like all such claims, this belief is rejected by conventional science. My question is, what would it take to change this attitude? Or is this possibility too scary for it to be accepted regardless of the evidence or logic? What it would take, for me at least, is an experiment which can't be shown to be flawed, and which can be reproduced by other labs. I'm not aware of such. Are you aware of such, and can you provide a reference? I was very interested in this at one point, but as I seem to recall Rhine's research, which was the big one for a long time, came to a dead end and was dropped. My general impression is that his earlier results, which looked great, were flawed, possibly by data selection (dropping the bad runs out of the dataset) but it's been a long time and I'm hazy on the details now; his later results, which were not apparently flawed, saw the results recede to about the level of chance. I recall some results showing either precognition or telekinesis using a quantum random number generator, not at Rhine's lab, which looked very promising but again I recall it came to naught and I'm no longer sure why; that, too, was a long time ago. There have been others, of course, many others, but I'm not aware that anyone managed to produce solid results which were above reproach and which could be reproduced. Reproducibility has plagued the field, that's for sure, as have charlatans, who make this area into a mine field. Geller is the most obvious example, but as far as I know all the individuals who've turned up showing exceptional ESP talent can be shown with reasonable confidence to be fakes. This is not to say the researchers at ESP labs are intentionally faking anything -- but unlike the field of LENR, where the beaker of electrolyte just sits there innocently, the subjects they're studying don't just sit there and a lot of them aren't innocent. Makes it tough to sort the wheat from the chaff. Randi has had a field day debunking stuff in this area, and unlike his efforts at debunking hard science experiments where he flounders around like a pig on roller skates and relies heavily on proof by assertion, this sort of thing actually *does* lie within his area of expertise. Mentalist acts are stock and trade of magic shows and the techniques used by magicians can be used to very good effect to produce apparently positive results in ESP experiments.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Terry sez (most eloquently): FWIW: I actually briefly talked about this personal impression within Vortex several months ago, so those who are curious you can probably find my ramblings in the archives. I believe Terry Blanton contributed a brief reply. As for me I'm just not motivated enough to dig through the archives to find out what it was that I actually said. Just lazy, I guess. As I have been evoked: I first realized I could experience the emotion of others while experimenting with a combination of organic mescaline and Canadian codeine. Interesting combination, that. I think that the reptilian brain is better at ESP than the higher levels. Heh! I hadn't thought of the reptilian connection! Makes sense to me! Probably explains all those UFOs we have been seeing as well. Where do they come from? I bet they come from a line of pre-historic intelligent dinosaurs that became sufficiently advanced technologically that they left our planet hundreds of millions of years ago, before the great comet struck. Oh, shoot! Star Trek, Voyager already thought up that premise. It was a good story. What I like about that episode what how more advanced technologically speaking the reptilian ships were from ours. The dinos were insulted to think that we humans were possibly their descendants. It was so insulting they told Janeway and her scale-less simian crew to please leave now and don't come back! And like Penrose, et al, I do not believe this is an electromagnetic effect. It is, IMO, qubit related -- a quantum effect. One must be careful to recognize an induced emotion from an internal one. It's not always easy. We are all capable of this transcendental empathy. Terry Let me add yet another wrinkle: Because most of us rational scientist-types are trained to think in objective technical cause-and-effect terms we often try to model the ESP effect using externalized models. We conceive of a physical transfer mechanism (EM or whatever) of thought energy as being transmitted from one being to another. IMO, this may be an erroneous perception possibly based on the illusion that we tend to believe that we are separate self-conscious individual creatures. Based my own rather mundane meditations combined with readings from various learned scholars I must confess that I've come to appreciate more and more the notion that the I of me really doesn't exist, and never did. CONSCIOUSNESS or AWARENESS exists and always has. It's the only thing that is real as far as I can tell. However, most of us tend to overlook our awareness of AWARENESS (sorry for the redundancy) and instead identify with the external I that AWARENESS perceives, what we call by various names. However, the I of me, which in my case is known as Steven Vincent Johnson with all of it's excessive baggage of thoughts, memories, and emotions, are but a convenient growing collection, a dynamic package that AWARENESS has chosen to fiddle with for AWARENESS'S enjoyment, just to see what will happen next. The key point being: We are all AWARENESS. If one is willing to entertain the notion that who WE really are is really nothing more than AWARENESS, then one begins to comprehend the possibility that there really are no boundaries and/or implied distances between various externally perceived identities - other than the constructs the various externally perceived identities have erected in order to continue to experience the intensity of believing we are separate individual creatures that have been randomly cast out into a scary universe to fend for ourselves. Separateness, Aloneness, such perceptions are experienced intensely! Once AWARENESS acquires the skill of manifesting the illusion of separateness, AWARENESS is in no hurry to tear down the boundaries. But of course, those boundaries occasionally fray a tad at the seams. This occasionally results in a few items slopping over into other portions of AWARENESS's other dynamic packages. But, ahem! Just ignore them if you please, and step back into the illusion. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics
What is Magnetism http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics Terry
Re: [Vo]:Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics
Terry Blanton wrote: What is Magnetism http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could-overthrow-physics The author of the piece wants something that will explain why magnets do what they do. Physics doesn't explain. It models. There's a huge difference. The model of reality which is modern physics includes magnetism and the magnetism in the model behaves pretty much like the magnets we see in the real world. The model has proven to have valuable predictive power, which is why it's currently in use and considered more or less correct. But the fact that the model seems to behave like the real thing doesn't in any way explain why the real thing behaves the way it does. No physical theory ever will. If the author ever gets to converse with God perhaps God will explain /why/ things are the way they are, but until then, all we've got are models, and the best that can be said about any model is that it acts like the real world within its domain of applicability. Consider this: Nearly all of reality goes unobserved. Of the parts which are observed, nearly everything which is observed is unmeasured. Our judgment as to the accuracy of physical theories is based on the tiny fraction of observed events for which someone takes some measurements. Those few measurements, which represent a tiny fraction of the observed events, which in turn represent a vanishingly small fraction of all that takes place in the Universe, are the only points of contact between reality and theory. If a mathematical model agrees reasonably well with that relative handful of measurements, we accept it as apparently correct... Terry
[Vo]:Brief report on Arata, with better copies of graphs
I revised the News section to include the graphs I have sent here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics
I am calling your bluff. ;-) What is the difference between an explanation and a model? You have said something substantive about models, but nothing substantive about explanations, except to say that explanation is not a model. Or is it just an issue of semantics? harry - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics Terry Blanton wrote: What is Magnetism http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-three-words-that-could- overthrow-physics The author of the piece wants something that will explain why magnets do what they do. Physics doesn't explain. It models. There's a huge difference. The model of reality which is modern physics includes magnetism and the magnetism in the model behaves pretty much like the magnets we see in the real world. The model has proven to have valuable predictive power, which is why it's currently in use and considered more or less correct. But the fact that the model seems to behave like the real thing doesn't in any way explain why the real thing behaves the way it does. No physical theory ever will. If the author ever gets to converse with God perhaps God will explain /why/ things are the way they are, but until then, all we've got are models, and the best that can be said about any model is that it acts like the real world within its domain of applicability. Consider this: Nearly all of reality goes unobserved. Of the parts which are observed, nearly everything which is observed is unmeasured. Our judgment as to the accuracy of physical theories is based on the tiny fraction of observed events for which someone takes some measurements. Those few measurements, which represent a tiny fraction of the observed events, which in turn represent a vanishingly small fraction of all that takes place in the Universe, are the only points of contact between reality and theory. If a mathematical model agrees reasonably well with that relative handful of measurements, we accept it as apparently correct...
[Vo]:Self Runner
Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? Terry
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Terry Blanton wrote: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? I would prepare a detailed report describing the thing with as much concrete information as possible, and I would upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I would also upload a companion video to YouTube. The video should demonstrate as clearly as possible that there are no wires or strings attached. Of course one cannot convince a skeptic of that fact, but it should make a strong case to an open minded person. I would not spend any time trying to convince people that it is real -- especially not skeptics. Target people such as the readers here, who are knowledgeable and sympathetic to such claims, although not pushovers (we hope). In the next phase, I would invite friendly people in to observe the gadget. Not too many people at one time. The Arata demonstration was marred by the fact that the room was crowded, time was limited, so along with most observers, I could not get a decent look at it. (Plus, I did not stick around because I suffer from mild claustrophobia. Noisy, crowded, warm rooms give me the creeps, especially dark ones. You couldn't pay me to go into a bar or disco!) I would make copies of the gadget for some of the friendly observers, charging them whatever it costs plus a modest profit. They should be willing to pay. If they aren't, they are the wrong people. The important thing is to keep it low key, low profile, and matter-of-fact. If you have a gadget like this, or like Arata's cell, people who are sincerely interested will come to you. You don't need to go to them. The Internet has changed the way a gadget of this nature should be handled. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Terry sez: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? Terry Invest in niobium mining. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Thanks, Jed. I'm not sure LENR would be an appropriate venue for a mechanical device. And for youtube, check out the OCMPMM by Alsetalokin and the threads here . . . still in controversy. As far as models go, a bit pricey to hand out. Anyone else? Terry On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? I would prepare a detailed report describing the thing with as much concrete information as possible, and I would upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I would also upload a companion video to YouTube. The video should demonstrate as clearly as possible that there are no wires or strings attached. Of course one cannot convince a skeptic of that fact, but it should make a strong case to an open minded person. I would not spend any time trying to convince people that it is real -- especially not skeptics. Target people such as the readers here, who are knowledgeable and sympathetic to such claims, although not pushovers (we hope). In the next phase, I would invite friendly people in to observe the gadget. Not too many people at one time. The Arata demonstration was marred by the fact that the room was crowded, time was limited, so along with most observers, I could not get a decent look at it. (Plus, I did not stick around because I suffer from mild claustrophobia. Noisy, crowded, warm rooms give me the creeps, especially dark ones. You couldn't pay me to go into a bar or disco!) I would make copies of the gadget for some of the friendly observers, charging them whatever it costs plus a modest profit. They should be willing to pay. If they aren't, they are the wrong people. The important thing is to keep it low key, low profile, and matter-of-fact. If you have a gadget like this, or like Arata's cell, people who are sincerely interested will come to you. You don't need to go to them. The Internet has changed the way a gadget of this nature should be handled. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Wrong element. Neodymium. :-) Oh, and don't forget palladium for Arata's sake! Terry On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:29 PM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry sez: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? Terry Invest in niobium mining. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? I would prepare a detailed report describing the thing with as much concrete information as possible, and I would upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I would also upload a companion video to YouTube. ... 1. The report should contain complete instructions for building and operating the device -- all the information you have -- parts, assembly, everything. Don't hold anything back, and state very clearly that you're not holding anything back. Put all the info into a convenient zipfile. 2. Send the file to at least several hundred people, and ask them all to immediately put the info up on their personal website, or to get a friend of theirs with a personal website to put it up. It needs to be on hundreds of personal websites, not just LENR-CANR and youtube. You can put it out on Yahoo and Google mailing lists, but you can't trust them to keep it on their websites. In this way you will live to see the morning.
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Thanks for your comments, Mark. Suppose the patent for the device already disclosed adequate information for replication. With a couple of grand and some time, you could easily make one. Of course, you would need faith. ;-) Terry On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? I would prepare a detailed report describing the thing with as much concrete information as possible, and I would upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I would also upload a companion video to YouTube. ... 1. The report should contain complete instructions for building and operating the device -- all the information you have -- parts, assembly, everything. Don't hold anything back, and state very clearly that you're not holding anything back. Put all the info into a convenient zipfile. 2. Send the file to at least several hundred people, and ask them all to immediately put the info up on their personal website, or to get a friend of theirs with a personal website to put it up. It needs to be on hundreds of personal websites, not just LENR-CANR and youtube. You can put it out on Yahoo and Google mailing lists, but you can't trust them to keep it on their websites. In this way you will live to see the morning.
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Terry Blanton wrote: Thanks, Jed. I'm not sure LENR would be an appropriate venue for a mechanical device. I meant that what would I, Jed, would do. Since I can upload stuff to LENR-CANR, that's where I would put it. But any web site will do. Thanks to Google, the web is nearly universally transparent. Any site that attracts even modest traffic is scanned by Google's bots. (You can check a web site easily; just Google it with some unique search terms.) As far as models go, a bit pricey to hand out. I wouldn't hand them out for free! Big mistake. People who accept things for free put them on the shelf and do not bother to investigate them. Charge money, and make a profit as I said. Sell them or rent them. If it takes you a long time and a lot of work to fabricate one, then I think renting them out for limited time is a good option. A week, or a month at a time, for a hefty sum. That would spur the person who rents it to get with the job of verification. Here is what you DO NOT want to do: a big, dramatic, pre-announced public demonstration, like that strange company in Ireland did last year. That's a big mistake for several reasons, mainly: 1. The innate perversity of inanimate objects ensures that when the critical moment comes, the curtains open, the limelight and attention of the world is directed at your machine, it will not work. Anyone who attended a trade show knows this. 2. What's the point? Why bother? Why do you want to convince large numbers of people at the same moment? It is much better for any practical purpose to convince modest numbers of people over a few weeks or months. You don't need an audience of 10,000 people instantly convinced (and you won't get that no matter what you do). What you want is a few hundred smart people in a few weeks. Curtains, drumrolls and dramatic product announcements made sense in the 1950s, when media exposure was expensive and controlled by a small number of television stations and newspapers. Such techniques make no sense today, and serve no purpose. I felt that way during Microsoft's grand roll-out of Windows 98 -- I think it was. Why not just put the technical specs on the web? Within a few days you'll get millions of actual, paying customers reading what they need to know, at practically no cost to Microsoft. Why spend money to send out a message when everyone who wants to read that message will get it at a nominal cost to you anyway, and will ignore the PR Blitz. People often take actions that are obsolete and no longer serve the purpose. They are more inclined to do this than they are to use some obsolete machine. In other words, Microsoft or the Clinton campaign will take actions or implement policies that were well suited for the Ozzie and Harriet black and white television era without realizing they are behind the times, whereas those same people would never an actual black and white TV. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Okay, so, say you have a machine which puts out 500 Watts with 50 Watts input and the model cost $5,000. Would anyone buy one? Terry Disclaimer: this is purely a hypothetical situation and any resemblance to real people or machines is merely coincidental. On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Thanks, Jed. I'm not sure LENR would be an appropriate venue for a mechanical device. I meant that what would I, Jed, would do. Since I can upload stuff to LENR-CANR, that's where I would put it. But any web site will do. Thanks to Google, the web is nearly universally transparent. Any site that attracts even modest traffic is scanned by Google's bots. (You can check a web site easily; just Google it with some unique search terms.) As far as models go, a bit pricey to hand out. I wouldn't hand them out for free! Big mistake. People who accept things for free put them on the shelf and do not bother to investigate them. Charge money, and make a profit as I said. Sell them or rent them. If it takes you a long time and a lot of work to fabricate one, then I think renting them out for limited time is a good option. A week, or a month at a time, for a hefty sum. That would spur the person who rents it to get with the job of verification. Here is what you DO NOT want to do: a big, dramatic, pre-announced public demonstration, like that strange company in Ireland did last year. That's a big mistake for several reasons, mainly: 1. The innate perversity of inanimate objects ensures that when the critical moment comes, the curtains open, the limelight and attention of the world is directed at your machine, it will not work. Anyone who attended a trade show knows this. 2. What's the point? Why bother? Why do you want to convince large numbers of people at the same moment? It is much better for any practical purpose to convince modest numbers of people over a few weeks or months. You don't need an audience of 10,000 people instantly convinced (and you won't get that no matter what you do). What you want is a few hundred smart people in a few weeks. Curtains, drumrolls and dramatic product announcements made sense in the 1950s, when media exposure was expensive and controlled by a small number of television stations and newspapers. Such techniques make no sense today, and serve no purpose. I felt that way during Microsoft's grand roll-out of Windows 98 -- I think it was. Why not just put the technical specs on the web? Within a few days you'll get millions of actual, paying customers reading what they need to know, at practically no cost to Microsoft. Why spend money to send out a message when everyone who wants to read that message will get it at a nominal cost to you anyway, and will ignore the PR Blitz. People often take actions that are obsolete and no longer serve the purpose. They are more inclined to do this than they are to use some obsolete machine. In other words, Microsoft or the Clinton campaign will take actions or implement policies that were well suited for the Ozzie and Harriet black and white television era without realizing they are behind the times, whereas those same people would never an actual black and white TV. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Terry Blanton wrote: Okay, so, say you have a machine which puts out 500 Watts with 50 Watts input and the model cost $5,000. Would anyone buy one? I would, in a heartbeat. Especially if you can arrange to eliminate the 50 W input after she revs up, and self-sustain. I am not sure exactly what I would do with it, but heck, I bought a TRS-80 computer and a bunch of other useless but interesting machines back in the day, and I have never regretted it. It was money well spent. Actually, seriously, I know exactly what I would do with it. I would show it to people, to convince them that the technology is real. I have some credibility with people who have money. Enough credibility to get them to look at a machine and take me seriously for the few hours it takes to demonstrate the gadget. Most people who invent such machines could not get their attention for even two minutes, because they lack all credibility. It would be helpful if the gadget was reasonably portable, not too fragile, and could be set up by an amateur (me) in a few hours at most. You can't bring such things on airplanes any more but I trust it fits in the back of a Prius. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Think big ! - as in: how much is salvaging the US economy worth? One strategy worth mentioning is based on the fact that this is an election year, and oil may be $200 barrel by then BUT with this kind of earth-shaking transformative technology, whether it comes from Sprain, BLP, MPI, Arata or brand-X (X = whomever can prove it first) -- hey, that puts anyone with the goods in a fabulous bargaining position to exert massive political leverage never before seen in the American economy. This quasi-Federalization of the developmental effort might be highly preferable to a slower free-enterprise Google-type of IPO -- especially, if the inventor values reputation (new messiah?) - as well as financial reward. What kind of political leverage is possible? Dunno, but it is worth considering all the options in light of what it might take to literally *save* the US economy - and if getting a product to market a few years earlier than free-enterprise system permits is possible, then value of those two years alone is worth (my guesstimate at the end) If Warren Buffet is right (and his credentials and track record are better than anyone in Government, including Ben Bernanke - and on a par with Greenspan) we are headed towards deep recession and possibly another great depression, due to the trillions of dollars we are exporting to OPEC. I agree with that logic (even the great depression part of it) -- do you? Lets say under normal circumstances, it would require 100,000 man hours of engineering time to get a satisfactory prototype for home power and another 250,000 man hours to build the factories, and develop the mines, etc which are necessary. With an IPO that raised say $10 billion (which alone would drag things out an additional 6 months) you could count on the first product capable of powering a home coming to market in 4 years- at the very least. If that can be cut down to 2 years, with a massive project (even if half the man-hours are wasted in red-tape) then the value to the US economy of that time gained -- and the psychological effect on forcing a big drop in the price of oil, and far earlier is probably half a trillion to one trillion to the overall economy. I suspect that this alone - if enough economists agreed with it- would be worth loan guarantees of easily $100 billion, or ten times more than an IPO could possibly bring in - in order to put into motion a 24/7 effort to chop-off those two years. Think big. Damn the torpedoes- full speed ahead! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Terry Blanton wrote: demonstrate the gadget. Most people who invent such machines could not get their attention for even two minutes, because they lack all credibility. Show it in a particular venue? Suppose money people have seen it; but, it's not a commercial product. You don't want to dilute the stock of the company on a known product. I do not understand what this means. The stock of what company? The company that made the gadget? Frankly, I wouldn't concern myself with their stock values. Would you alert the media? (Movie Author spoken by his butler when Arthur announced he was taking a bath.) I love that movie! I would alert everyone. I keep no secrets. But I would not alert in an alerting fashion, with flashing alert lights, or a drumroll curtain extravaganza. I would just tell everyone I know that I have this gadget, and exhaustive details and video are available at thus and such a website, and if you want to see the gadget or you have any questions call me anytime. Keep it low key. Keep it matter-of-fact, and factual. Load 'em down with every fact and figure you can get your hands on. As Mark Bilk said: The report should contain complete instructions for building and operating the device -- all the information you have -- parts, assembly, everything. Don't hold anything back, and state very clearly that you're not holding anything back. Put all the info into a convenient zipfile. That's excellent advice, except I do not think you need a zipfile these days. Bandwidth is not a problem any more. Bilk is afraid someone might harm you, but I wouldn't worry about that. I would do this in order to alleviate doubts and defray questions. A large-scale FAQ. Credibility can be enhanced to some extent just by making information readily available. That's one of the lessons that LENR-CANR.org taught. In the past, people said: if all this stuff has been published, where is it? Is it being kept secret? You don't hear that as much these day partly thanks to LENR-CANR.org. Tell them: it's here -- read all you like. That often shuts them up. That is why the skeptics at Wikipedia insisted that no mention of LENR-CANR.org be allowed there. They want Wikipedia readers to think that no papers have been published. That is also why there is no bibliography or any mention of published papers in the books by Taubes, Huizenga and Hoffman. For them to admit that papers have been published harms their case, so they practice the Big Lie, deny everything technique. Don't give an inch and don't admit ANYTHING. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:09:30PM -0500, Terry Blanton wrote: Thanks for your comments, Mark. You're welcome! Rest in peace Stanley Meyer. Suppose the patent for the device already disclosed adequate information for replication. That would be an unusual patent. With a couple of grand and some time, you could easily make one. Of course, you would need faith. ;-) You've named an approximate cost for the device. Do you actually have a particular one in mind, that you've seen work and have examined closely? If so, please tell us. Tell everybody! By eliminating the need to burn oil it might stop the upcoming NeoCon/Israeli attack on Iran, which otherwise could lead to a nuclear war.
Re: [Vo]:Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics
Harry Veeder wrote: I am calling your bluff. ;-) Not a bluff, though it involves some fuzzy reasoning. The difference between a proof and an explanation has bugged me since junior high, when I found out that most mathematical facts are proven without ever being explained. As I said before, a model may predict what's going to happen but will never tell you why. Using a model is a tacit admission that we don't know what the reasons behind things are, or even if there are any such reasons. What is the difference between an explanation and a model? You have said something substantive about models, but nothing substantive about explanations, except to say that explanation is not a model. Or is it just an issue of semantics? Maybe it's just semantics, but I actually think it's more a matter of gut feel, and satisfaction level. If you look at the link Terry gave, the author's objection is that physics doesn't say why magnets attract. Well, what would it mean to say why they attract? This is the heart of the issue -- just exactly what is an explanation? In physics it's hard to say, for me, at least, because I don't know of any explanations. As far as I know modern physics has none. In math it's easier to see the difference. For example, we can find pi by integrating the arctan function, or by integrating sqrt(1-x^2), both of which are stunningly opaque approaches. We can prove that the area of a circle is pi*r^2 using calculus, which is, again, an amazingly opaque approach. Alternatively, we can find the circumference and area of a circle using Pythagoras's theorem and some simple drawings, and we can extract a value for pi that way. I would call the latter approach an explanation, because, to me, it explains why the circumference and area of the circle are what they are. But something this is pointing up is that the word explanation is rather slippery. I could struggle with it a bit more, and perhaps say that an explanation works from simple things which we know to be true to show that other more complex things follow inevitably from those simple things -- but the phrase know to be true is already flirting with vagueness. So I'll just let it go at saying that an explanation leaves one feeling satisfied; a model may not... By the way, the derivation of pi from Pythagoras's theorem to which I referred, and the derivation of the area of a circle and volume of a sphere using geometric arguments, are here: http://physicsinsights.org/pi_from_pythagoras-1.html http://physicsinsights.org/sphere-volume-1.html You may not feel these pages actually explain anything, of course! :-) That was, however, part of the reason for putting them together, and perhaps these pages will give you an idea of what I think an explanation is. Or maybe not...
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
Patent schmatent. Creative commons license. On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your comments, Mark. Suppose the patent for the device already disclosed adequate information for replication. With a couple of grand and some time, you could easily make one. Of course, you would need faith. ;-) Terry On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? I would prepare a detailed report describing the thing with as much concrete information as possible, and I would upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I would also upload a companion video to YouTube. ... 1. The report should contain complete instructions for building and operating the device -- all the information you have -- parts, assembly, everything. Don't hold anything back, and state very clearly that you're not holding anything back. Put all the info into a convenient zipfile. 2. Send the file to at least several hundred people, and ask them all to immediately put the info up on their personal website, or to get a friend of theirs with a personal website to put it up. It needs to be on hundreds of personal websites, not just LENR-CANR and youtube. You can put it out on Yahoo and Google mailing lists, but you can't trust them to keep it on their websites. In this way you will live to see the morning. -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]:Self Runner
should be disclosed on at least keelynet,rexresearch,peswiki,overunity,merlib - and do a step-by-step video. oh, and get in touch with panacea-bocaf in order to get it replicated too. the key is in the replications. get 10 people from around the world who all replicate it themselves and do step-by-step videos and post about it, and you've got an instructional knowledgebase. otherwise it'll degenerate to one dude posting a couple of posts and then noone builds ever, cos everyone's too busy bickering about whether it does this or that, whether it resembles this or that device, etc. nothing ever happens after that one guy who invents it, gets 30 pages of responses on a thread from doubtful divisive people who couldnt hold a screwdriver in their hand to save their lives. 2008/6/5 leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Patent schmatent. Creative commons license. On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your comments, Mark. Suppose the patent for the device already disclosed adequate information for replication. With a couple of grand and some time, you could easily make one. Of course, you would need faith. ;-) Terry On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Suppose, just suppose that you had a generator that self powered and lit a couple of 200 W light bulbs at the same time. What would you do tomorrow? I would prepare a detailed report describing the thing with as much concrete information as possible, and I would upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I would also upload a companion video to YouTube. ... 1. The report should contain complete instructions for building and operating the device -- all the information you have -- parts, assembly, everything. Don't hold anything back, and state very clearly that you're not holding anything back. Put all the info into a convenient zipfile. 2. Send the file to at least several hundred people, and ask them all to immediately put the info up on their personal website, or to get a friend of theirs with a personal website to put it up. It needs to be on hundreds of personal websites, not just LENR-CANR and youtube. You can put it out on Yahoo and Google mailing lists, but you can't trust them to keep it on their websites. In this way you will live to see the morning. -- That which yields isn't always weak. -- :)
Re: [Vo]:Three Words That Could Overthrow Physics
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:53:35 -0400: Hi, [snip] This is the heart of the issue -- just exactly what is an explanation? In physics it's hard to say, for me, at least, because I don't know of any explanations. As far as I know modern physics has none. [snip] I think the bottom line is that there is no such thing as certainty. By definition, an explanation is something that someone has provided, i.e. it comprises a transfer of assumed knowledge. However since there is no such thing as certainty, there is therefore also no such thing as knowledge, and all explanations should be taken with a grain of salt, including this one. ;) BTW proofs are logical derivations based upon assumption, and as such are just as uncertain as explanations. I.e. if the assumptions are wrong or incomplete then so is the proof. BTW none of this means that they are useless, it just means that we really do base our entire existence on faith, even though we are frequently unaware of doing so. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
