'Bias' in the laws of physics? Are these laws always & everywhere identical?

[Nerzh Dishual]

Hello Free NRG Guys!

What about this post?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?nam ... e&sid=1145

This message was posted on the hydrino yahoo list (Subject: Re: Evidence versus Static):

Dear Luther,

A terribly important article on 'confirmation bias' and its pertinence to the whole HSG business is by Prof. William Tiller in Vol. 10, issue 58 of "Infinite Energy" mag. He is a scientist of impeccable credentials, a Professor Emeritus of Stanford, author of over 250 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals, and several books.

Tiller shows that the experimenter's intention and belief can 'condition' a site so that the actual 'laws of physics' change in that site. (Since the IE article is not yet available on the web, I will quote two paragraphs from the 'Author Addendum'.)

"Let us suppose that some inventor has worked for years in his garage to construct and perfect a subtle energy conversion device of extremely high effeciency and eventually, to his satisfaction, he is successful in achieving his goal. He then calls his close friends in and demonstrates his achievement to them. They see the experimental data with their
own eyes and, in their excitement, plan to mount a business venture on the work. However, as part of the deal, this prototype equipment needs to be moved to an independent testing laboratory in a nearby city for rigorous evaluation by others.

This is done and the tests are carried out carefully in this new location but, "surprise, surprise," the high conversion efficiencies of the original garage tests are not substantiated. Only normal behavior is observed in the device.

"Most people concluded from this that the inventor was either (1) not a careful investigator, (2) was imagining his earlier results, or (3) was practicing fraud. In this, everybody makes the implicit assumption that one space for this experiment is the same as another, that one collection of equipment is the same as a set of physically identical equipment and that one careful experimenter is the same as another careful
experimenter. Our accumulated data of the past seven years shows, unequivocally, that this assumption is false."

The pertinence of these findings for both HSG and the whole field of LENR will be obvious to anyone who takes the time to study this article.

Best,
Don Hotson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jonathan]

I heard about this and was interested to hear more, but I have no access to past articles of IE beyod what is on their website. Unfortunately, the parts quoted have no proof in them.
A combination of faith, common sense, and dogma tells me that this is not true, regardless of the credentials (though of course I'd still like to see the proof provided, a la my disclaimer).
"Tiller shows that the experimenter's intention and belief can 'condition' a site so that the actual 'laws of physics' change in that site."
It is my understanding that this is already accepted in quantum physics, however it is not due to a strange interaction between the laws of physics and consciousness, but merely a result of the system being so small and sensitive that Zeno's paradoxes actually become a problem when any attempt at interaction with the system is made.
There are three explainations for the failure of the inventor's device given, and a fourth being the possibility of the laws of physics being nonhomogeneous. The fourth is obviously subtle enough to have eluded detection for some time now, so if it does exist I strongly doubt that it should be considered a legitimate possibility by anyone except the inventor, especially in light of the fact that the other three are known to occur often.

[Nerzh Dishual]

Hi Jonathan!

I see what you mean.

Some URLs about Tiller:

"Tiller's Trail"
http://www.futuretalk.org/zoh/z0524005.html

"SUBTLE ENERGY ACTIONS AND PHYSICAL DOMAIN CORRELATIONS
CONSCIOUSNESS, INTENTIONALITY AND SUBTLE ENERGIES"
http://twm.co.nz/energy_tiller.htm

IMO, Free NRG is a very very stange domain. I'm more and more wondering whether we can *always* use 'common sense', 'logic' or 'faith' trying to understand it...

For example:
A guys is claiming to generate free NRG from silly fuzzy messy coils!
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/quanthommesuite/danielx.htm
(You can try google for having this page approximately translated)..

According to a witness, the coils are useless.
Actually, this (autistic!) guys seems to be able to produce enough 'electricity' from his hands for powering small motors???

Of course, you can say that this story is a load of rubbish!

[Jonathan]

Well no one mentioned that he's New Agey. I bet not a one of his 250 papers in peer-reviewed journals talked about etherial energies.

[Nerzh Dishual]

Etherial energies..
Why not?

Well, I do not feel like being a 'New Agey'.
Anyway, wy not?

I guess I could be more deemed as a 'lunatic_fringe_conspiranolish'
Sorry for my English...

[Jonathan]

Because the proponents of theories involving etherial energies are never able to define even roughly what that is, and often even say that they are undetecable, followed by saying that they are having detectable effects on the world. (As a side note, replace the words "etherial energies" with "conspiracies").
A startling example of this point is the following quote, taken from the abstract of the paper at the second URL you gave (bold is my addition):

...subtle energy signals not directly observable by physical means...
...subtle energy signals...that have observable physical effects.

[Nerzh Dishual]

Hi Jonathan!

(As a side note, replace the words "etherial energies" with "conspiracies").

LOL!
Right!
Why not"UFOs"?
Sounds the same!
That's the problem.

IMO, all these (controversial) subjets are (broadly) a matter of "faith".
Now, Is "faith" a kinda gullibility?

I could be the devil's advocate in these questions.
I mean: I could question my own opinion on these subjects.


-----------------

Your quote is subtle!

...subtle energy signals not directly observable by physical means...
...subtle energy signals...that have observable physical effects

.

How can 'something' having a physical effects not being able to be observed by any physical means???

I guess the key word here is "directly".

Of course, I'm a nitpicker!

Best,

[Jonathan]

You are right, the key word is "detectable", and with this in mind, the only nearly sensical meaning is "using the five senses". But that makes the first part of my quote of him superfluous, because no one directly observes anything, our bodies are intermediaries.

[Nerzh Dishual]

Jonathan,

I do not want to be 'right' in any case.
I am 57 and my ego is weakening. :))

As I suggested, I am questioning myself about 'Truth'.

According to your profile:
Jonathan
Occupation: Research
Interests: Truth

So, you are also interested in 'Truth'.
As you are an 'addict' in Bessler_Wheel forun,
I beleive I could infer that you are open minded?

Ok for "detectable".
And

... because no one directly observes anything, our bodies are intermediaries

.

What could I add?

Best

PS:
BTW:
What about the 6th sense?

[Jonathan]

Replace the words "etherial energies" with "conspiracies", "UFOs", or "the 6th sense".

[rlortie]

this thread has just give me an idea for what we need for a self rotating wheel.

Lets fill it full of zero point energy or energy from the either. Maybe we can borrow some from Beardon or Newman. Its to bad that Bruce Depalma is dead, I am sure he would co-operate.

Ralph