How Come Dowsers are Millionaires?

[woof!]

So, high school physics does prove that utility dowsing does not work? I'm not arguing it, I would like to know what part of physics that I need to brush up on or learn more of. It's ok if you spoil my fun!

I've been on the phone and no one can explain a thing to me. I hear the same thing, it's electrical or magnetic. Other than that no one knows. I'd like to see proof either way! or even links to real studies. Neutral studies, if there is such a thing.

You misread what I said. High school physics is sufficient to understand that utility dowsing does not work according to the urban mythology of an electric or magnetic field from the underground utility exerting a force on the coathangers causing them to move. Most folks (unfortunately even many mechanical engineering university grads) haven't got the foggiest notion of how to reason about things that are high school level physics. I actually paid attention in my physics class in high school and that's why I get paid to design physics-based underground locating equipment.


The physics of dowsing rods are even simpler, it's just mechanical forces and mass. In times past I've offered suggestions how to improve their design but as long as coat hangers still do the job it's hard to interest people in something better.

The swivelly things do swivel, regardless of what you believe about why they swivel, just like cellphones work (when they do....) without first testing you on your knowledge of the underlying technology. If utility dowsing without clues of the ordinary kind really does work (and in my opinion it does), to me that poses an interesting scientific puzzle inasmuch as nobody has presented credible evidence of how it works.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

The physics of dowsing rods are even simpler, it's just mechanical forces and mass. In times past I've offered suggestions how to improve their design but as long as coat hangers still do the job it's hard to interest people in something better

The swivelly things do swivel, regardless of what you believe about why they swivel, just like cellphones work (when they do....) without first testing you on your knowledge of the underlying technology. If utility dowsing without clues of the ordinary kind really does work (and in my opinion it does), to me that poses an interesting scientific puzzle inasmuch as nobody has presented credible evidence of how it works.

Then why should someone by one of the expensive devices you make?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I think we're mixing topics here. Science can indeed come along and "prove" that dowsing can work. It's called double-blind testing.

Now as to whether science can then explain the HOW of how-it works, that's another topic. What you've done is resorted to the "un-discovered" science defense. I don't doubt there are things that science didn't used to understand, yet now does. And likewise things that are current un-explained phenomenoms, that will someday be explained by science perhaps.

The trouble is though, is that allows ANYTHING, no MATTER how silly, could be explained/defended in the same way. Because the minute someone says "that's unscientific", I can merely say "it's undiscovered science". Does that mean that what I'm proposing is therefore legitimate ? No, of course not. It can be totally silly (like my peanut butter frisbee treasure-finder idea).

Hence what science can indeed prove dowsing. At least for whether it works or not. And for that .... I'm still waiting.

I haven't resorted to any" "un-discovered" science defense. ". I DON'T NEED a defense, I didn't douse utilities lines with limited success or occasional success it worked every single time I have used it for over 25 years, if utilities lines were gold I would be a millionaire........A lot of utility contractors use dousing as another means to look for unmarked utility lines..

Again it's not my job or anyone's job to prove anything to you...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I haven't resorted to any" "un-discovered" science defense. "...

Oh, I thought that was the point of when you listed all the good examples of things that science can't currently explain in #128. If I mis-understood your point of showing/listing those examples, my apologies.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Oh, I thought that was the point of when you listed all the good examples of things that science can't currently explain in #128. If I mis-understood your point of showing/listing those examples, my apologies.

That’s what’s wrong with dowsing. If they have not tried it they don’t understand it. A lot of use have put our own Double Blind Tests on this board. So why should we do one for you skeptics? We know what we can do..Art

 

[Asmbandits]

It works, not all the time but it does.. There are many many people that do this for a living, a water dowser may not be a millionaire but he has supported himself the majority of his life with a twig locating water, and has so well that If he doesn't find water he will give you your money back. They don't care about how it works or if it does, there to busy doing it all the time creating a income from it to care about people that don't believe in it. If anything time has showed us that you can't diss prove it more than it's been proven through time. Mabey one day we will unlock the mystery of why it works, but for now the general census it's that it in fact does work and science has yet to disprove it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... A lot of use have put our own Double Blind Tests on this board. So why should we do one for you skeptics? ....

If a skeptic agrees to look at one of those you put on the board would you follow through with an admission, if it can be shown to attributable to other means/causes ? Not saying you would need to say "dowsing therefore isn't valid", but .... rather ... to admit that examples (test) you show here on the board might not support the conclusion ? A gentlemen's wager here Art ?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Oh, I thought that was the point of when you listed all the good examples of things that science can't currently explain in #128. If I mis-understood your point of showing/listing those examples, my apologies.

I posted those to show you there are lots of things science can't explain since you were talking about explaining dousing scientifically...

If the cables were made of gold or silver I would be rich, it is kinda hard to get rich locating copper cables or steel wire...

I too would like to know if someone can explain it scientifically. I mean, can you blame the skeptics for having doubts, when they see some proponents try to explain it as "mind power" or some other type of supernatural or metaphysical explanation? So if the day came when either

a) a double blind test of the skill TH'r has is tested and documented, and/or

b) that someone can explain why a rod would turn in the first place

Then that's the day I jump on board

 

[aarthrj3811]

If a skeptic agrees to look at one of those you put on the board would you follow through with an admission, if it can be shown to attributable to other means/causes ? Not saying you would need to say "dowsing therefore isn't valid", but .... rather ... to admit that examples (test) you show here on the board might not support the conclusion ? A gentlemen's wager here Art ?

NO need to do anything...My friends and family know what I can do....Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

I posted those to show you there are lots of things science can't explain since you were talking about explaining dousing scientifically...

Correct. Hence leading me to conclude you were including dowsing as possibly being explained by "un-discovered science" .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

NO need to do anything...My friends and family know what I can do....Art

It's not about "whether or not you can do it". It was about whether or not the links to studies / examples that you have given, can or can't be explained in other ways.

You're saying those links will be a sort of "double-blind" accuracy-conclusion, right ? Ie.: that studies DO INDEED show the validity/success of dowsing right ? So all I'm asking is NOT your own personal skills, but ....... just those studies to be analyzed.

I assume that we have no gentleman's agreement then, eh ?

 

[Peachy]

Around here we have "water witches", some swear by them, some swear at them. I have seen very good wells come in that were dowsed. But then again, we may have been able to drill anywhere near there. I don't know if it works, but it doesn't hurt. A dry well, that hurts. I don't see any scientific reason why or why not.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That's where A problem begins.... What would be fair for both sides? How could that be determined?...

I thought about laying out the terms in writing ahead of time. Becuase yes: what a skeptic thinks is "a way the results could have been skewed", the proponent might find those "attributable/explainable by no other means at all"

So I got ready to lay out some criteria, but decided to wait. Wanted to know if my challenge would even be considered TO BEGIN WITH. Otherwise I'd just be wasting my time, and forum space, to type of suggested criteria.

So let's get to 1st base first, and see if anyone accepts my challenge. THEN we'll mutually come to an agreed up definition of what will be agreed to constitute double blind scientific proof, in said-links.

My only request is that the person (digger and/or Art) admit to the forum, upon this study, that the links don't show proof of the validity of dowsing. And would also go a step further and ask them to include this acknowledgment if they ever intend to use the links in the future, when passing them out as support for dowsing.

And my end of the bargain is that , if I'm wrong and they're explainable in no other way, I will publically admit it can work, and cease to be a skeptic.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nitric, as I said, good question. And as I said: Am waiting to see if the gentleman's agreement is accepted or not.

 

[Asmbandits]

Say you tried the blindfold test and this resulted in conclusion to prove or diss prove, eyesight may very well be a factor in how dowsing works.

It could be a combination of ability within ourselves that we have yet discovered, possibly a function of our brain that hasn't been discovered yet.. It could also be spiritual or divine in nature, but this all depends on what you believe. There are so many variables of what may be involved with dosing that you would have to spend an astronomical amount of time and energy to rule out each possible factor and maybe then you could begin to form an idea on how it may or may not work. Possibly this is why there has not been diss proven.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Eyesight was never needed when I looked for utility lines, rods moved eyes open or closed for me.... I was a huge skeptic before I learned, I lost a $20 bet to another contractor who told me he could find my fiber cable with out my locator, we were in the middle of a two acre weeded lot in country, he bent wires from 2 marker flags walked about a 100 foot, rods moved, he put marker flag in ground said cable is there.....

I drove a half mile down county road hooked my metrotect locator to a splice point, put tone on the line, drove back and located the cable in the exact same spot the contractor located, not just close to same spot, the exact same spot....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I misunderstood or misread it. lol I guess those are the questions I have.

I'll accept! What am I accepting to again? Either way, I'm in.

It's digger and Art that the wager goes out to. They're the ones that posted links to "studies".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... It could also be spiritual or divine in nature,....

Sure And so too have other dowsing proponents come along citing the same explanations as possible . Eg.: the "mind" etc..... But have you ever noticed that you never see a metal detector enthusiast wondering if such things are what's controlling his detector's outcome ?

 

[Asmbandits]

You need your eyes when dowsing to acknowledge the signals given, closing your eyes just delays this. Unless you create some other way intemperate the signals. Sure the rods will more than likely do what they do regardless, but without interpretation from the human brain they are only rods in your hand moving around. Im agreeing with you that it could work regardless of sight but I don't believe this is enough evidence to disprove sight has anything to do with it..

 

[Asmbandits]

It's digger and Art that the wager goes out to. They're the ones that posted links to "studies".

It is possible to believe in science and have religious faith, that is my answer to that. I know how a metal detector works and have faith in that technology. It does not to me disprove religious or spiritual faith, to me they are un related.