Bayes, the person who wrote that pdf doesnt know how related phenomena works. Like for example he asks the reader to guess a number as part of his esp explanation. Esp, like related areas, is an energy interaction. It is biological, like an emotion. Reading a book and trying to guess his number is not the energy interaction that occurs. It is like transmitting a radio signal to a receiver 10 years ago, writing the signal in a book, then asking the receiver to detect the signal from a piece of paper - then saying the transmission didnt work. That would be more precognition than esp. And a method called majority vote has proven statistically relevant in controlled experiments, And experiments involving sensing colors through envelopes very often gives statistically relevant results, indicating such abilities are more common.
Anyway in this field, about all the writer of the document knows is statistical relevance. As for what he said about Randi, that man is a liar. I attempted to take his challenge with a simple rice experiment, and I was told that:
1. The challenge applies only to celebrities
2. I had to have an academic certify they had witnessed the experiment for themselves
Various conditions make it impossible for ordinary people to apply. In the end they refused to answer my basic questions - because it revealed they were not legitimate about the challenge, and at least they made unrealistic conditions that were biased towards discrediting what may be legitimate science.
Specifically I told him that limiting the search to just celebrities is not in the interests of science. It is set up more to debunk people. But he masquerades as if the challenge is open to anyone and everyone. Sure there are a lot of frauds around, but it is not to say people with legitimate abilities dont exist. I believe there is enough legitimate proof to suggest we all have such natural abilities to some degree, but they are atrophied as they are not used enough.
There would be no difference with rng in this case. Rng is based on chip timings and the theory is fluctuations from psychokinesis is enough to make the changes. The odds for the 10 trials averaged 1 / 15 "chance". 10 times. Certainly statistically relevant.
Anyway the results are what they are and I'll continue work on it.
