subject:"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

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.

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:

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:

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]: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%

2014-06-09 Thread Jed Rothwell

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]: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]: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]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

2014-06-09 Thread Eric Walker

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%

2014-06-09 Thread Axil Axil

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%