________________________________
Von: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <hoyt.stea...@gmail.com>
An: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Gesendet: 23:41 Donnerstag, 19.April 2012
Betreff: RE: [Vo]:Seasonal variation of halflife: tritium test
Hoyt,
You probably know John Walker, the founder of autodesk.
He seems to be an interesting person, capable of thinking outside the box.
On his website You can find eg his 'Introduction to Probability and
Statistics'.
See here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html
He is quite open to topics like reversal of time and psychokinesis.
Not that I would endorse that.
I just try to keep an open mind, and not refuse that by some definition, whose
foundations are equally dubious.
These topics have a lot of similarity to LENR wrt acceptance.
They do not fit into the dominant narrative.
The Princeton-group was eliminated, because the dominant narrative classified
them as quacks.
see: http://skepdic.com/pear.html
----
A couple of years ago I did a -just for fun- analysis of the outcomes of
lottery numbers in German lottery over some 30 years.
the numbers are 1..49,
Drawings: 1 per week, later 2.
So there were some 2000 drawings in total.
The numbers should smooth out.
Right?
Every
student of statistics, computing the result of 2000 drawings , should be quite
content with the significance.
Number of samples, gaussian distribution, ergodicity, etc.
The numbers do, in a sense, obey the 'laws', but what astonished me, was that
the number '13' was drawn
significantly LESS than the expected value.
As far as I can remember, it was about 1:1000 chance for any number to be drawn
with such a low probability.
'13' is not a 'lucky' number in the german context.
And if you have 49 numbers, the chance that one of them falls below 1:1000, is
not THAT impossible.
This is one of the reasons why I do not discard the 'Princeton' findings
altogether.
Re
intercultural comparability: This is difficult, because I have no idea what the
mental force is, to reject negative / enforce positive numbers.
Its significance
is quite different with cultures. those who are quite neutral re ‘13’, and
those who have other ‘negative’
There are no data to study this interculturally, eg the Mexican, the US, the
Spanish, who all seem to be crazy betters,
but onto different targets.
So we have NO good database here.
Such is the situation.
Germans are bean-counters in a sense, which seems -in this case- to have some
positive aspect. ;)
My conclusion at that time, when I investigated this, was:
that there is something worth investigating, but I
lacked the time and resources to really go to the bottom of the issue.
I have some hope, that the Net could make
a difference, to really find out what is going on here.
a) Akin
to the LENR-field, there are some other fields, which could profit from
good-mannered crowd- intelligence,
b) or as an opposite: dissident-
intelligence,
c) Which
are in a sort of a fight, where common belief and individual ingenuity battle
each other.
OK?
Just a bold theory.
(Just as a
sidenote: there is a similarly strange
effect, which is the 1/f noise. Mandelbrodt, among others, pondered that, but
with
no conclusion.1/f noise is somewhat similar to the idea of fractals, but is not
mathematical,
but physical in its own sense, in that there are mathematical equivalents to
that, like the distribution of prime numbers, BUT ‘nature ‘ produces different
sorts of 1/f noises, which cannot be
mapped onto mathematical equivalents.)
anyway,
best regards,
and sorry for the log post,
Guenter
----------------------------------------------------------
>I've
personally witnessed and done influencing dice throws in craps! The
dealers in Las Vegas are quite astounded at the results. Most of the bets
>are "hardways" with payouts of about 30:1 . Surprisingly the casinos
appear to like this as it brings quite large crowds around the
tables.
http://www.synccreation.com/vegas-adventure
-----Original Message-----
>From: Guenter Wildgruber [mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:52 PM
>
>
>
>... Radioactive decay is assumed to be pure random.
>So much that it even is used as THE source of pure randomness,
ie,THE ideal random-number generator.
>I always doubtet that.
>There are
some hints, that our conceptions of randomness, which in the mathematical
domain eg are gaussian distributions and ergodicity, do NOT apply to the REAL
world.
>Only to such artificial constructions as throwing dice.
>Which are, if You think about it, are mental constructions, and as such
>collapse to tautologies. ...
>
>
