Scientific Rules

[musstag]

A geomagnetic storm began on December 14 at 1416 UTC (9:16 A.M. EST). A solar flare on 13 December at 0240 UTC (12 December, 9:40 P.M. EST) from NOAA Region 930 produced strong radio blackouts (R3) and an associated moderate (S2) solar radiation storm. A large Earth-directed coronal mass ejection was also observed with this event, producing today’s geomagnetic storming. Strong to severe (G3 – G4) geomagnetic storming is expected to last through 15 December. Region 930 is a large sunspot group which is still rotating across the visible disk. Because of the current position of Region 930, additional activity has greater potential to quickly impact Earth.
Agencies impacted by space weather storms should continue to closely monitor space weather conditions during the next four days.

For current space weather conditions see: Space Weather Now, Today's Space Weather and Space Weather Alerts

http://sec.noaa.gov/advisories/bulletins.html
This was very interesting to me, since I have had some strange dowsing reactions since Dec 1st and Today!! Dealing with gold in the water... And today is the 1st day I ever tried water dowsing... it worked! (never had a reason to do it before)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Sandsted]

Af, I'm giving a hypothetical example...I'm not saying this is the answer...I'm saying something like this could be done. This is an example I made up, although there is some information concerning electromagnetic field study and dowsed wells, as I'm sure you're well aware of.

 

[Ramapirate]

Here's my theory and it has been my theory since I started messing with dowsing rods 20 years ago. If you had dirt, say packed into a 100' cubed space with nothing but dirt, that would read neutral. There is nothing to change the electromagnetic field. If you had that same 100' cubed space full of dirt but had a small pipe, conduit or a piece of rebar or anything to throw off the electromagnetic flow, the dowsing rods would sense it, and turn out in the direction the item is upseting the field in. Does that make sense? And I believe polarity has a lot to do with it too, like a compas. I think a compas and dowsing rods have a lot in common. I'll shut up now...

HH,
Ramapirate

 

[Peg Leg]

Lets take a look at some things being discussed here but first take a little time and think about this.
What is a Metal Detector?
A. A Electronic device.
What is a Computer?
A. An Electronic device?
When you out these 2 together what do you have?
A. A human brain.
NO ONE has yet been able to explain how the Brain fully works. Yes they can provide a limited answer but not even close to what the brain can or cannot do.
To say that DOWSING is impossible because there is NO Prof is a STUPID STATEMENT.
It is actually based on what you want to believe and what you are willing to accept.
OH! let me PROVE that some of the theories or some old fashion accepted beliefs are WRONG.
How many times have you heard that LIKE DRAWS LIKE-FALSE. Try to put two magnets together of the same polarity POS to POS or NEG to NEG impossible right.
The human body has a Neg side and a Pos side with BILLIONS to sensing nerves throughout the body. It is also a FACT that NO two humans are alike just like there are no two snow flakes are .
alike.
The BRAIN can be trained to do some strange things so if you are convinced that you can pickup other forces that surround every atom then you will be able to DOWSE.
IT IS BASED ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF ACCEPTS AS THE TRUTH.
It does NOT matter what others think but only what YOU YOURSELF think.
In order for this to work you must work at it day after day. This aligns the electronics in you brain. Why do you think that some people are better at certain things than others. THEY have trained themselves.
Well I will go for now. I am getting into the TWILIGHT ZONE.
Peg Leg

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Ramaptrate and Peg Leg....thanks for the imput..You may have the answers to Dowsing. We may never know for sure. I too think that the objects produce a field that the body can feel or sense. If the mind is trained to react to this you will be Dowsing. I Think this theory is to simple for many to except....Art

 

[Sandsted]

"To say that DOWSING is impossible because there is NO Prof is a STUPID STATEMENT."

My point.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Here's my theory and it has been my theory since I started messing with dowsing rods 20 years ago. If you had dirt, say packed into a 100' cubed space with nothing but dirt, that would read neutral. There is nothing to change the electromagnetic field. If you had that same 100' cubed space full of dirt but had a small pipe, conduit or a piece of rebar or anything to throw off the electromagnetic flow, the dowsing rods would sense it, and turn out in the direction the item is upseting the field in. Does that make sense? And I believe polarity has a lot to do with it too, like a compas. I think a compas and dowsing rods have a lot in common. I'll shut up now...

HH,
Ramapirate

Hi there, Ramapirate! Just a quick question. I understand what you're saying about the cubed area of dirt with a piece of pipe running causing an electromagnetic change, but how do the rods pick this up? I've never seen anyone mention anything about magnetic dowsing rods. Also, what is reacting with the buried pipe to cause it to create an electromagnetic charge? Thanks!

 

[Sandsted]

If it is true, that electromagnetic fields, play a role in dowsing...then it must be clarrified that the rods don't do anything. They are merely a tool for amplifying the small unconcious twitches in the wrist caused by these changes in electromagnetic fields (if this is or at least one of the factors concerning dowsing).

 

[ClonedSIM]

Okay, I can see that happening. The rods recieve the signal and carry it up the arm, sort of like the whole filling and the radio signal thing, right? No argument from me there.

But what is causing the electromagnetic field to generate around the buried pipe?

 

[Peg Leg]

If there are people (and there are) who can dowse then let them do it.
The problem here is that people shun away from what they do not or will not even consider.
Unless you require their services then then everything is fine until the person leaves the area and THEN the knives come out looking for a back to stick them in.
The KGB and the Gestopo and the C.I.A. were working on ESP and still have no idea how it works and NEVER will.
You can debate this till the end of time and still there will be doubters.
Peg Leg

 

[ClonedSIM]

Nicely worded, Judy.

 

[xupz]

Xupz
" There isn't a single variable or "excuse" by anyone who claims to dowse that can't be controlled by an experimental design taking them into account so don't waste your time trying to make that an argument. "

Wrong.
The perfect example would be " Thought ".
Science has all kinds of data explaining how the thought process works, how all the tiny little synapses spark and relay information, how the physical and material can affect thought.....but do you know.....Science is at a total loss on what Thought actually is. You can't see it...you can't touch it...you can't even accurately measure it ( except by measuring its effects on the human brain ).
Try a controlled experiment on that. Tell someone to think of a specific thing...or even a specific word...and try to measure it. I don't care who you are....you cannot prevent random words or images from entering and affecting that persons thought. I again quote AF1733:

You know what, after having seen easily thousands of experimental designs in my time, I can assure you "thought" isn't a variable I've ever come across. Why is that? Because "thought" is too complex to reduce to a single variable, not to mention it's complete and utterly unmeasurable. At best you'll get categorical and ordinal responses to questions, but this doesn't let you take a variable and call it "thought". Even those high tech brain measuring devices still measure a quantifiable variable which still can't be called "thought. Why don't you learn some basic types of data before you jump off the bridge of poor assumptions. "Try a controlled experiment on that." is just a flat out absurd statement. I think philosophy might be better suited for your "thought" experiments.

And if you're referring to dowsing, I'm done bothering with them. The fact is the results show they fail every time. Their "thought" process is irrelevant in terms of the results. You could have a million dowsers and no two dowse the same way because of variances in thought processes, whatever they may be. The one thing they all have in common is that they can't perform better than random. Since you like tossing out random experiments and I'm sure you have the background to back it up, please enlighten me as to how you would go about testing a dowser's "thought" process to show dowsing does perform better than random. Think that out before you reply, please.

Judy, if you're going to make any conclusion on dowsing, you have to prove it works to begin with. Since we (people who use logic) all know it doesn't work in regards to finding anything with a significantly different probability than expected, any assumptions you make assuming it does work are completely unfounded and quite frankly mean nothing to anyone but yourself and those who want your opinion. Dowsers like calling opinion fact, when in reality it takes research and testing to make that huge leap.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks xppz...you are living prove WHY the dowsing question will never be settled....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

It's odd, but I was just having the same thoughts as xupz.

Before testing for the causes of dowsing, because there seem to be so many of them, would it not make more sense to determine the results of these causes?

Basically, each dowser seems to have his or her own idea of what causes dowsing to work, or at least it seems to me that way.

Since this is the case, attempters to verify what causes dowsing to work would be near impossible because even though each dowser has their own opinion, wouldn't it stand to reason there is only one true "reason" dowsing works?

 

[Sandsted]

"I never stated that dowsing was thought.....or that the two were connected. I used thought as an example of something that cannot be measured in scientific testing. You're right....there are too many variables with dowsing....the same as with thought. Too many things that affect it. It would be impossible to set up testing with so many variables. YOU are the one who said..."

My point.

 

[xupz]

I never stated that dowsing was thought.....or that the two were connected. I used thought as an example of something that cannot be measured in scientific testing. You're right....there are too many variables with dowsing....the same as with thought. Too many things that affect it.

This is the same circular logic you get with confronting dowsers. I'll make it simple for you to understand. Any excuses a dowser can make can be controlled for in an experimental design, to make this clear, ALL external variables the dowser claims such as radio frequencies, "thought" projection from others, etc can all be controlled. After you've eliminated all external sources that a dowser would consider interference, the only possible variables come from the DOWSER themselves, whether this be your concept of "thought" or what not, that's fine, it's still only the dowser being tested. Now a dowser will take the test, in like FL, fail horribly, and then blame some mosquito in California for farting at the exact moment throwing off their "chi" and that's why they failed. This is of course an exaggeration (probably not though), but these are reasons dowsers always come up with after failing to perform.

Here's another thing to chew on while you're at it. How is it when the dowsers that actually do go through the experiment, get 100% success when dowsing when they KNOW where the object of interest is? Fast forward 10 mins when the double blind comes in and bo0m, failed.

As for your little "evidence" argument. I'm a statistician. I don't make conclusions without the methodology and data to back them up. You think I would have had any papers published in the academic realm if they weren't flawless in methodology and results? Get real. On the converse how many dowsers would take their claims to a scientific or academic realm? None.

As for arguing with dowsers, yes I am done bothering. I see others continue wasting their time using a logic gatling gun on the dowsers who in turn just ignore it and make some of the most unfounded claims on earth which even contradict KNOWN science and physics. I think they're generally uneducated and certainly delusional in their abilities.

As for your arguments, your "opinion" is worthless to me. I don't deal in opinion. I deal in research, methodology, and data. I live in Academia.

 

[musstag]

So Long x.

I have not quit the process of trying to gain some understanding of the positive facts about dowsing (dowsing as I know it). I also spend time TH'ing and researching in the area I live in. I don't expect to solve the mystery of dowsing, but maybe I will better understanding some things that affect my results.
I may have jumped toward an "direction of some explaination' of events that I have noticed lately, by the Solar Storm Alert info given about Radio Communications and such, because I was already leaning in that direction of thought of things that affect me for the type dowsing I do. Too late tonite for anymore.

 

[Ramapirate]

I guess it is the person some how and not the rods maybe? People used to use sticks, I've never tried just sticks. I've used coathangers and those little metal wires irrigation flags come on, they both worked the same. And I was over at my father-in-laws helping him and couldn't find a pipe with the Ace 250 so he gave me a couple of pieces of that old thick copper wire and I found it easily, following the pipe from his garage about 60 yards to his house. To someone that can do it, it's like whistling. You just do it and it's no big deal. A friend showed me how to do it and I just did it, and never gave it a second thought.

HH,
Ramapirate

 

[Peg Leg]

Well my friends,
You can debate this THEORY or what ever you want to call it till the end of time and the results will be the same. I live just 12 miles from the Kennedy Space Center and even there they debate the same thing EVERY DAY.
What you believe in no one will change EVER. If you can DOWSE then by all means DO IT but as far as the SCAM devices that are being offered on the market-FORGET THEM-THEY are a rip off. It is simple to understand-IF they WORKED why would they not be used by the manufacture and GET RICH THEM SELVES.If you can DOWSE i does not matter what YOU USE , from a stick to coat hangers it is based on what YOU BELIEVE IN YOURSELF. If there is DOUBT THEN UNTIL YOU ARE CONVINCED YOU CAN DOWSE IT AIN'T GONNA WORK.
HAVE A GREAT CHRISTMAS EVERYONE.
PEG LEG

 

[xupz]

Oh yes...I see now....in Academia, where " Opinions " are worthless.
I'm curious, " Professor ", just exactly what methodology would you employ?

As I've stated before, the experimental design will have to be tailored specifically to a dower's "excuses". Now depending on their excuses, the design itself will have to control for the extraneous variables and depending on how many we're talking the actual design will change to allow the design to check for possible interactions. I'll simplify the whole concept for you though: the end results after controlling for "excuses" will be whether or not a dowser performed SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT than the expected random probability. The design methodology will vary from very simple to complex depending on how many ridiculous extraneous variables a dowser can claim affects his performance. Although WHEN they fail, not if, they will come up with more excuses they didn't input before the design to attempt to invalidate the results.

Even a simple hypothesis test regarding the proportions is enough to prove them wrong, but it leaves doubt with the excuses they come up with. So the only way to design it is to control for ALL extraneous variables they claim will cause them to not perform.

If you're actually interested in learning more about experimental design, I'd recommend you pick up a copy of

Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th Ed by Montgomery

as it is a solid introductory book on the subject of doe.