Can lucky number "7" be used in dowsing and in metal detecting for better performanc?

[aarthrj3811]

I intend to try dowsing, by the way.

There is a thread called Want to try dowsing. The first part should let you know if it will work for you

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

Us dowsers have been telling you scientific guys all along that dowsing works and and that science has no authority over it. But you don't listen very well.

I guess you probably wouldn't want to continually cite a scientist as a source of authority in support of dowsing.

In general, science doesn't have "authority" over anything. It's just the best process we have to get to the truth.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... dowsing works and and that science has no authority over it. .....

I guess you probably wouldn't want to continually cite a scientist as a source of authority in support of dowsing......

I had not seen the irony, of the quote. To contrast that to the signature line. Which ..... cites a scientist, Einstein, as an authority regarding this.

 

[lesjcbs]

Wait, I thought we just had this discussion ? That it is totally scientific . (even if, albeit ... unkown science) ? You got me confused



Les, I agree with this definition of guessing. And that , yes, md'rs go on "gut instinct" (ie.: guessing), to decide which end of the field to progress to. Sure. But if you're morphing that into an explanation of what is going on, in the dowser's mind as well, then : Perhaps the dowser could have done the same thing (just like the md'r does) without rods ? Ie.: that the rods were doing nothing ?

I mean, are the rods themselves doing something, or aren't they ? Or, to be more specific: Is there a physical attraction between the rods and the object ? Or is it all just in the mind of the dowser ?

Tom, I mental dowse.

This means dowsers brain and nervous systems are sensing a target's energy transmission from over there and not just from the rods moving by themselves. Therefore. I am going to get a very nice looking lucky charm with a number "7" etched on it to boost my brain and nervous system sensitivity and confidence factors.

It seems that since you are interested in science, mental dowsing would make more sense to you than physical dowsing would. Physical dowsing is where the rods move by themselves and not from any subconscious hand movements.

Some dowsers do deviceless dowsing where no rods or tools are used. One form is by using only their fingers. It's quite an interesting technique. Go ahead, google it.

You and other skeptics have scoffed at dowsers who use a metal detector to pinpoint for a target underneath where dowsing rods cross. Yet the md'r does the exact same thing by scanning the ground area over there for any unseen target's. When you look at it carefully. you'll see it is all the same thing.

The difference between the two is, by using rods that point in that direction, the dowser gains a better and clearer indication, in advance, where a target is before he takes one step to go verify.

I think it can also be said that the mdr's metal detector is their lucky charm as without using it, they verify nothing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Les. Thankyou for taking the time to respond. Very interesting.

Tom, I mental dowse.....

So If I'm understanding "mental dowsing" correctly, it is not bound by "science" (as your prior quote says). And it is not mystical/supernatural/religious (as our prior exchange confirmed).

Hence "Mental dowsing" is a 3rd option of explanation. Right ? So I can see you give this explanation/definition for "mental dowsing" :

.... This means dowsers brain and nervous systems are sensing a target's energy transmission from over there and not just from the rods moving by themselves. Therefore. I am going to get a very nice looking lucky charm with a number "7" etched on it to boost my brain and nervous system sensitivity and confidence factors......

You allude to a target's "energy transmission". The moment you say THAT, is the moment it enters into a realm of something science can look at. If a target "transmits energy": Fine then: Let's study & measure that. But ... you've already said that it's outside science, right ? Yet you continually use scientific terms. Even the brain (eg.: "nervous systems", etc...) render themselves available to scientific realms. See how this isn't adding up ?

.... You and other skeptics have scoffed at dowsers who use a metal detector to pinpoint for a target underneath where dowsing rods cross. Yet the md'r does the exact same thing by scanning the ground area over there for any unseen target's. When you look at it carefully. you'll see it is all the same thing......

I agree that both the dowser and the MD'r will ... of course, ... go to the "most likely areas". So I can see why the dowser would cry "foul", if the MD'r points out that the dowser is simply going to the "most likely areas" . And ... presto, surprise surprise, they found metal. Ok, sure, I get that the md'r, in that case, appears to have done a double-standard.

But can't you also see that, if anyone turns on a detector in a "most likely area", and finds metal (maybe even a goodie), that it *might* (just *might*) be alternatively explained that is in a "most likely area" ? So you can see how the skeptic would scratch his head ?

But I see you anticipated this pushback, and say this :

.... The difference between the two is, by using rods that point in that direction, the dowser gains a better and clearer indication, in advance, where a target is before he takes one step to go verify......

I get that you're saying that you will end up at better ends of fields faster. But this isn't anything that can be measured or shown, as I see it.

And if all it is, is "gut hunches" (ie.: visually looking at the landscape, and walking to the most likely areas), then .... no rods or thumbs were even needed. ALL OF US look at a field, and subconsciously walk to the area we think has the best odds. In which case, I would agree that it's just "instinct". In that case, I guess we agree. And we agree that the rods are not moving on their own, (since you say you are not a subscriber to physical dowsing.)

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom.

I have no problem at all with dowsing being called science. My signature block quotes the scientist Albert Einstein who points that out.

The problem is scientists (not all) have, by, through, and because dowsing fails in double blinded tests, and from thinking their test is the final answer, turns around and calls dowsing spooky, an ancient and worthless superstition etc. It makes the scientific types who say that, sound and look like the goofy ones, the religious fanatics etc. Dowsing is a very modern technique and works very well.

Notice how I have learned to make paragraphs on this, my first and new smart phone. I love it.

I might be getting my lucky "7" charm today. Cross your fingers for me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I have no problem with it being called science. ....

Ok then, how about:

a) Instead of attributing the power to "mental" (which can just be gut-intuition, thus lending no power to rods or thumbs)

b) Instead of attributing it to science (lest some scientist show that it is impossible.)

c) Instead of attributing it to supernatural/mystics (lest it fall into an area of occult or religion),

Then maybe the best is:

d) Undiscovered science ?

Option (d) would put it outside any realm of ability to discuss the "how" question. That makes it impenetrable to debate. Because , after all, it's undiscovered. Some day science will come along and explain it. But as for now, we just don't know.

Then if we go with option D, then the only thing left to do is test the ability. FORGET "how" it works. Just discuss the ability to find. And that's where double blind tests come in. Right ? But as you've said:

.... dowsing fails in the double blinded test.....

 

[lesjcbs]

Ok then, how about:

a) Instead of attributing the power to "mental" (which can just be gut-intuition, thus lending no power to rods or thumbs)

b) Instead of attributing it to science (lest some scientist show that it is impossible.)

c) Instead of attributing it to supernatural/mystics (lest it fall into an area of occult or religion),

Then maybe the best is:

d) Undiscovered science ?

Option (d) would put it outside any realm of ability to discuss the "how" question. That makes it impenetrable to deba and explained , in aprt, what Einstein said about out nervous system. Ite. Because , after all, it's undiscovered. Some day science will come along and explain it. But as for now, we just don't know.

Then if we go with option D, then the only thing left to do is test the ability. FORGET "how" it works. Just discuss the ability to find. And that's where double blind tests come in. Right ? But as you've said:

Option E: I believe it is already discovered science as a function of our nervous system sensing a targets energy over there. Then our subconsciousness minds moves our hands so that the rod / s react by closing and / or pointing in that direction over there.

It is now just a matter of developing ways to further enhancie the brains ability to do that. Enter the lucky charm that helps clear the mind of all the junk, trashy thinking, confusion, and negativity that gets in the way. That being done, confidence is increased and so is success in finding targets..

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thank you Tom for the list all in one post...You got most of your excuses in one post

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Option E: I believe it is already discovered science as a function of our nervous system sensing a targets energy over there......

... dowsing works and and that science has no authority over it.... .

See why this is dizzying ?

 

[Darke]

Option E: I believe it is already discovered science as a function of our nervous system sensing a targets energy over there. Then our subconsciousness minds moves our hands so that the rod / s react by closing and / or pointing in that direction over there.

It is now just a matter of developing ways to further enhancie the brains ability to do that. Enter the lucky charm that helps clear the mind of all the junk, trashy thinking, confusion, and negativity that gets in the way. That being done, confidence is increased and so is success in finding targets..

But that's just biofield theory. Metaphysics for 1000 Alex.

 

[lesjcbs]

See why this is dizzying ?

Not dizzying at all.

When it comes to the scientific double blinded test that shows dowsing fails in such tests, NO, science has no authority over it. But if there were no finds in the field at any time by dowsers while dowsing, then and only then would science have authority to say dowsing does not work.

I just got back from dowsing, but you are going to have to wait until next week when I can post my results. However, I will create a new thread for each up coming dowsing shots. Until then Tom, please sleep soundly and don't worry about what I am going to post.

But I will say this I got my LUCKY "7" CHARM today. I made it myself. It is beautiful and I wore it today to. It scared away all them skeptics who say there are spooks.

 

[seasiat7]

All we can really say is that Einstein didn't understand dowsing. Other scientists did, even in 1946.

What in the world are you talking about man? All we can really say is that Einstein had enough balls to admit he didn't know everything and didn't rush to any dumb conclusions just to get something down on paper with his name on it. Just because a scientist says he understands something doesn't mean his conclusion is even remotely accurate.

 

[signal_line]

An old book from the 1970's "Energy, Matter, & Form" somewhat outdated and probably not totally accurate, but there's some good explanations there on topics that will send the skeptics up a wall. Stuff like radionics and plenty of psychic stuff. Kinda hard to just put out any one-liners and not right to post photocopies of the pages, but good reading if you want to learn something. There's people who think scientists and doctors are god, but they have their own belief systems--very little difference than those they call quacks, shamans, psychic healers, radionics. I would say the propaganda not much different than today's media. One size does not fit all--people have their own specific electro-vibratory frequencies. Much of what doctors do is relieve the symptoms--NOT cure anything.

 

[signal_line]

Do, I don't care to risk my neck on somebody with no license, doesn't get any daily feedback, refuses to read and learn, etc., etc. So it's not right to compare the two. But not everybody is like that.

" Around the turn of the century the Catholic church was very enthusiastic about this application of radiesthesia (radionics) because it greatly alleviated the need for trained physicians at their many missions throughout Asia, Africa, and South America. In fact,the Abbe Mermet, one of the pioneering proponents of radiesthesia, was trained in these methods for later work in Brazilian missions."

That book was written forty years ago. Now the AMA allows acupuncture, and they are starting to tailor cancer treatments for individuals.

 

[signal_line]

A quote in that E, M, & F book from Christopher Hills "Supersensonics":

" Though many who take pride in the accomplishments of empirical science and have a vested interest in the Western conception of reality will probably dispute this immediately, the simple truth is that the stuff we use to think with, consciousness, is indistinguishable from anything we think about. Everything we experience as an external world beyond our skin is actually a mental representation within our consciousness, so it is scientifically impossible to separate the two -- the knower is not separate from the known. The next frontier for science then is mapping the circuits of consciousness, because until we can understand the nature of the stuff we are using to experience life with, we can never be sure that what we experience is not a delusion in our consciousness."

 

[Carl-NC]

But if there were no finds in the field at any time by dowsers while dowsing, then and only then would science have authority to say dowsing does not work.

I would be shocked if dowsers never found anything. I would be equally shock if tennis balls never found anything.

 

[dowser]

Years ago I would use 2 same Element samples placed on the ground apart from each other, to increase my Dowsable incoming signal 90 degrees from signal target. While placing Same Elements apart from each other on the floor I was able to determine the strongest Element distances between each other. I now use these lengths in my L-rods, for best results. 3 inch, 11 inch, 17 inch, 37 inch. The distance or length of 7 inches, doesn’t help me. Dowser

 

[lesjcbs]

I would be shocked if dowsers never found anything. I would be equally shock if tennis balls never found anything.

I did not know tennis balls could hold dowsing rods. This has got to be some kind of new science at work here.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I would be shocked if dowsers never found anything. I would be equally shock if tennis balls never found anything.

If equal results were obtained in tests: It would only show that tennis balls DO work. Not that dowsing DOESN'T work.