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 >>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
