Scientific Test of Dowsing

[Qiaozhi]

If anyone is interested in reading a good scientific test of dowsing, then look here -> http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/dowsing.html

This is the most extensive and careful scientific study of the dowsing problem ever attempted. Initially the conclusions were that dowsing actually works, but further analysis of the data showed completely the opposite, and that the original interpretation was the result of wishful thinking.

At a much earlier date the U.S. Geological Survey had concluded [Ellis 1917] that further testing of dowsing " . . .would be a misuse of public funds."

It's strange how such superstitious medieval nonsense can still be in use today.

[Geo]

1. Hi Qiaozhi. I agree with you But..But..But
1....."Some few dowsers, in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success , which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven"
2... I saw with my eyes a friend to finding coins and metalic objects (in the ground) with wooden dowsing, but he never found gold . He found a big bronze object from 600...700 m distance.
3... I don't know why, but the last year he can't find anything (dowsing don't work for him now !!!!!)
Really i don't know what to say?????

[hung]

Geo,

Dowsing studies will probably have more data than einstein's relative theory papers.
I have a friend who's a great dowser with gold and silver findings. It seems that sun activity and health problems affect him much more than expected.

I have been studying this subject for several years now. I have a lot to discuss but feel that a dowsing site is much more appropriate to discuss this subject than here with skeptics who you cannot even start to talk in the first place.

By the way Geo, congratulations on your kids. I saw the picture in the other thread and they are beautiful.

[Geo]

Hi Hung. Before 3 hours i had a meeting with a dowser (a good but not expert dowser). He said me that he goes near the objects , he can find any object , but sometimes he makes mistakes between "gold or silver" and rusting iron . I heard the same and from another friend (dowser), so i don't know what to say??
I tried the dowsing some times without results . Maybe is time to try it again !!!

Originally Posted by hung

Geo,

By the way Geo, congratulations on your kids. I saw the picture in the other thread and they are beautiful.

Thanks Hung

Regards

[Esteban]

In a book called The electronic metal detector handbook... For serious beginners and Inquisitive Professionals, by E. S. LeGaye, you can read this epigraph of photo (page 2):

7) A really old "metal detector": a Spanish dip needle that, believe it or not, has actually located treasure! Charles Garrett, of Dallas, Texas, demonstrates the proper way to hold this interesting old relic.

Who is in the photo? Is the same Garrett, from Garrett Detectors? What are doing with this "instrument"?

[hung]

Originally Posted by Esteban

In a book called The electronic metal detector handbook... For serious beginners and Inquisitive Professionals, by E. S. LeGaye, you can read this epigraph of photo (page 2):

7) A really old "metal detector": a Spanish dip needle that, believe it or not, has actually located treasure! Charles Garrett, of Dallas, Texas, demonstrates the proper way to hold this interesting old relic.

Who is in the photo? Is the same Garrett, from Garrett Detectors? What are doing with this "instrument"?

It's gotta be hiim yes. Unless it's his son , Junior.

[nelson]

Hi Esteban. Do you know if there are any information on how to construct a Spanish dip needle?
Regards
Nelson

Originally Posted by Esteban

In a book called The electronic metal detector handbook... For serious beginners and Inquisitive Professionals, by E. S. LeGaye, you can read this epigraph of photo (page 2):

7) A really old "metal detector": a Spanish dip needle that, believe it or not, has actually located treasure! Charles Garrett, of Dallas, Texas, demonstrates the proper way to hold this interesting old relic.

Who is in the photo? Is the same Garrett, from Garrett Detectors? What are doing with this "instrument"?

[hung]

Well, I'm not Esteban, but take a look here:http://www.thortech.org/thortech/en/...p.needle1.html

[Esteban]

Hi Esteban. Do you know if there are any information on how to construct a Spanish dip needle?
Regards
Nelson

Nelson:
No estoy propiciando su uso, sino refiriendo que hasta un importante fabricante prueba esto.

Nelson:
I'm not stimulate his use, only is a reference about the fact that an important manufacturer is trying it.

[hung]

I changed my mind a little.
Although I really don't have the time to go into this subject in depth, I must say, the depth that it deserves, I gathered some scientific 'detaches' which are in line 100% with my line of tought.
Dowsing is a minifestation of electromagnetic and scalar factors which will NEVER be understood if one does not get free of the limitations of classical physics. First those must be revised and understood. Some related to unified fields.

Bellow are some of the statements I mentioned. I am sorry but don't have the time to daily discuss the dowsing topic here. But some 'seeds' are left.

Do you agree with the statements presented next?

It is now realized that the source of electromagnetic energy from spacetime is the scalar curvature R, all forms of energy and curvature being interconvertible.



The fatal flaws in the standard model and string theory are by now very well known and also widely accepted by reasonable thinkers, i.e. those who base their thinking on objective scientific reality and not subjective preconception or received ideas floated by small elitist communities.

1. The electromagnetic, weak and strong sectors are not generally covariant, violating the principles of relativity and equivalence of Einstein and Mach.
2. The U(1) group cannot be the gauge group of the e/m sector.
3. String theory is flawed in many ways, and according to one eminent physicist, Mendel Sachs, has not produced a single original result.
4. Electrodynamics is not a linear theory, as asserted in the standard model.
5. The tangent space of generally relativity is a physical space, while the fiber bundle of gauge theory is regarded as just an abstract space.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

Dowsing is a minifestation of electromagnetic and scalar factors which will NEVER be understood if one does not get free of the limitations of classical physics.

It doesn't matter whether dowsing can be understood. The question is, can dowsing be demonstrated, under scientific observation? My experience is an overwhelming NO. Dowsing is a self-deception that does not hold up in testing.

Do you agree with the statements presented next?

It is now realized that the source of electromagnetic energy from spacetime is the scalar curvature R, all forms of energy and curvature being interconvertible.



The fatal flaws in the standard model and string theory are by now very well known and also widely accepted by reasonable thinkers, i.e. those who base their thinking on objective scientific reality and not subjective preconception or received ideas floated by small elitist communities.

1. The electromagnetic, weak and strong sectors are not generally covariant, violating the principles of relativity and equivalence of Einstein and Mach.
2. The U(1) group cannot be the gauge group of the e/m sector.
3. String theory is flawed in many ways, and according to one eminent physicist, Mendel Sachs, has not produced a single original result.
4. Electrodynamics is not a linear theory, as asserted in the standard model.
5. The tangent space of generally relativity is a physical space, while the fiber bundle of gauge theory is regarded as just an abstract space.

If these came from Tom Bearden's web site, then I would simply dismiss them out-of-hand. He is a quack and a fruitcake that NO ONE in science takes seriously. Your "REAL science to back it up" is just made-up. Fabricated. Fake.

- Carl

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

It doesn't matter whether dowsing can be understood. The question is, can dowsing be demonstrated, under scientific observation? My experience is an overwhelming NO. Dowsing is a self-deception that does not hold up in testing.

Carl. That's not true. Dowsing can easily be studied scientifically under the RIGHT procedures. But all the methods you have been proposed in other forums in the past is more a 'game' than a scientific study. Besides a real scientist never states his tendencies and pre-thoughts before final conclusions. You don't act like this.

If these came from Tom Bearden's web site, then I would simply dismiss them out-of-hand. He is a quack and a fruitcake that NO ONE in science takes seriously. Your "REAL science to back it up" is just made-up. Fabricated. Fake.

- Carl

It's not from Bearden's website.
But see? You rather criticize the person than analyse the message. It comes from a scientist who is deeply involved on the organization of the unified field theory and the flaws in classicial science he discovered along the way.
That's fact. Not guess.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Hung

It is now realized that the source of electromagnetic energy from spacetime is the scalar curvature R, all forms of energy and curvature being interconvertible.



The fatal flaws in the standard model and string theory are by now very well known and also widely accepted by reasonable thinkers, i.e. those who base their thinking on objective scientific reality and not subjective preconception or received ideas floated by small elitist communities.

1. The electromagnetic, weak and strong sectors are not generally covariant, violating the principles of relativity and equivalence of Einstein and Mach.
2. The U(1) group cannot be the gauge group of the e/m sector.
3. String theory is flawed in many ways, and according to one eminent physicist, Mendel Sachs, has not produced a single original result.
4. Electrodynamics is not a linear theory, as asserted in the standard model.
5. The tangent space of generally relativity is a physical space, while the fiber bundle of gauge theory is regarded as just an abstract space.

Everything in your quote is on this page of Bearden's website, in his notes for his correspondence with Myron Evans: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/062503.htm

If Tom Bearden or Myron Evans did not write those words, then who did?
Do you have some secret reason for concealing the author of these words?

Bearden and Evans are associated with theories about paranormal phenomena, parapsychology, psychotronics, Tesla technology, unified field theory, antigravity machines, and free engergy from a vacum. You can read a short biography of Bearden here: http://hsv.com/writers/bearden/tommenu.htm

I have nothing to say for or against these people. If they claim to have a "free energy from a vacum" machine, let them sell their free energy and become rich. You want me to believe the science of these men is the real science that backs up dowsing? Then use their "real science" to dowse and claim Carl's $25,000.

My science says Bearden and Evans will never sell any energy from their "free energy from a vacum" machine, nor will you ever collect Carl's $25,000 reward using their science or not.

Prove me wrong.

[hung]

Dr. Myron Evan is not Tom Bearden, alhtough I respect him a lot.

The words above are from Evans who is a great scientist. There's no way you can deny this fact.

Free energy machines are other things. I am focusing on the flaws found in classical science.
Again, that's fact not guess.
I ran on similar flaws 12 years a go when joining a scientific project team.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

Carl. That's not true. Dowsing can easily be studied scientifically under the RIGHT procedures. But all the methods you have been proposed in other forums in the past is more a 'game' than a scientific study. Besides a real scientist never states his tendencies and pre-thoughts before final conclusions. You don't act like this.

Yes, real scientists are biased. That's why it's so important to design tests that eliminate bias. Unfortunately, unbiased scientific testing is not the "right procedure" that dowsers want to operate under.

If you know of any Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing, I'd like to hear it.

It's not from Bearden's website.

Really? Are you sure about that? Can you show me where it came from if not from Bearden's web site?

But see? You rather criticize the person than analyse the message. It comes from a scientist who is deeply involved on the organization of the unified field theory and the flaws in classicial science he discovered along the way.
That's fact. Not guess.

Anything on Bearden's website starts out, right off the bat, in the Utterly Bogus category. That's how useless he is. If you want me to consider anything there as having any scientific credibility whatsoever, you will have to point me to RealScience references produced by RealScientists, not hacks.

- Carl

[Carl-NC]

I just did a quick check on Myron Evans. Turns out he is considered a crackpot as well. At least he has a formal education, unlike Bearden, who bought his PhD from a diploma mill.

Myron Evans' GCUFT
How to become a bad theoretical physicist (aimed at Evans)

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Really? Are you sure about that? Can you show me where it came from if not from Bearden's web site?

- Carl

Although I found out that there's a link on Bearden's website to Evans' essay, that only means Bearden agrees with his point of view so much so he provided the link. Nothing else. Evans is one person. Bearden another. You sound as calling 'crackpots' everybody Bearden points out. His claims are not doctrines unlike most of what I see in 'classical science'. Be out of it and you pay the price.

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

I just did a quick check on Myron Evans. Turns out he is considered a crackpot as well. At least he has a formal education, unlike Bearden, who bought his PhD from a diploma mill.

Myron Evans' GCUFT
How to become a bad theoretical physicist (aimed at Evans)

Inrteresting.

All names that I refered in the past such as Tom Bearden, Bruce Cathie, John Hutchinson, should I include Tesla on it too? And now Dr. Myron Evans are considered 'crackpots' by you.
It's starting to be an evidence that you become prisoner of your own dogmas.
Before acting such, you should prove them wrong or disprove what they claim, discovered, performed and experimented.
If you ever get this acomplished, only then you may say they are mistaken. Never call researchers 'crackpots', because by doing this, it may evidence a natural reaction to broken pride if truth appears unconfortable.

Estabilishment in all levels are set in a way that is much confortable and 'profitable' to choose to never question it or collide against it.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Hung

Dr. Myron Evan is not Tom Bearden, alhtough I respect him a lot.

The words above are from Evans who is a great scientist. There's no way you can deny this fact.

There's no way I can deny this fact? Of course I can deny it because it is not a fact. It is only an opinion that you typed in the forum.

Originally Posted by Hung

Free energy machines are other things. I am focusing on the flaws found in classical science.
Again, that's fact not guess.
I ran on similar flaws 12 years a go when joining a scientific project team.

What is the name of this "scientific project team" you joined? What project did the team complete? Where can I see their web site? Were you ever really on a scientific team? Are you sure this is a fact, or are you guessing?

You are focusing on the flaws in classical science? I have never heard of a flaw in classical science that is the basis for the "real science" that backs up dowsing. Can you name the flaws and the correct "real science" principle that proves dowsing works?

It seems that you are quick to boldly expound your "so-called" facts as long as you don't have to demonstrate any substance behind them them. Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate? Let's see you use these "real science" "facts" to show us how well dowsing works.

Prove that your dowsing is not a guess and is really a fact by claiming Car l's $25,000.

[hung]

Originally Posted by J_Player

You want me to believe the science of these men is the real science that backs up dowsing?

Not exactly, Dowsing is an interaction of EM and scalar potentials with human biofields and its EM matrixes.
But you could start by admiting that EM might be indeed extracted from the 'scalar curvature'.
From that, you are on your own...

[hung]

Originally Posted by J_Player

There's no way I can deny this fact? Of course I can deny it because it is not a fact. It is only an opinion that you typed in the forum.

I stand correct. In the sentence 'great scientist', remove the word 'great' which is an opinion indication and leave 'scientist'.
So we are even. He is indeed a scientist and whoever you think might be a great one, does not means I will agree with you, although there are some we will.

What is the name of this "scientific project team" you joined? What project did the team complete? Where can I see their web site? Were you ever really on a scientific team? Are you sure this is a fact, or are you guessing?

Sorry. As I said a few times before, I cannot tell you that. I used it here just as a reference for my claims above.

Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate?

Believe me? Far from that. I'm not asking you to be a believer. You are the only one who you should believe in the first place.
The facts are not mine. The discoveries belong to some of the scientists mentioned above. Thank God I have a diminute inteligence which is enough to recognize their feats.

Prove that your dowsing is not a guess and is really a fact by claiming Car l's $25,000.

I'm not a dowser. I only research it.
But I'm thinking about becoming one...

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Hung

Not exactly, Dowsing is an interaction of EM and scalar potentials with human biofields and its EM matrixes.
But you could start by admiting that EM might be indeed extracted from the 'scalar curvature'.
From that, you are on your own...

You just asked me to admit that I agree to an unproven theory that proves nothing about dowsing. Why should I do that?

As I said:

It seems that you are quick to boldly expound your "so-called" facts as long as you don't have to demonstrate any substance behind them them. Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate? Let's see you use these "real science" "facts" to show us how well dowsing works.

Looks like it's all BS to me.

[hung]

Originally Posted by J_Player

You just asked me to admit that I agree to an unproven theory that proves nothing about dowsing. Why should I do that?

As I said:

It seems that you are quick to boldly expound your "so-called" facts as long as you don't have to demonstrate any substance behind them them. Are your facts just BS that you made up and pray that we will all believe you? Or are they real facts that you can demonstrate? Let's see you use these "real science" "facts" to show us how well dowsing works.

Prove that dowsing is not a guess and is really a fact by claiming Car l's $25,000.


Looks like it's all BS to me.

Have I ever said I pocess the undisputed truth about 'dowsing'?
If this was the case I would never be here discussing this in this forum in the first place. I would know it all.
What I think is that in order to discuss it and understand it, one should start looking on the essays above already mentioned by me.
It's my point of view. You may or may not agree.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Hung

What I think is that in order to discuss it and understand it, one should start looking on the essays above already mentioned by me.
It's my point of view. You may or may not agree.

You finally got it right. Your opinions are not facts, only opinions. The theories in the essays you quoted are theories, not facts. Facts are provable things such as historical events that actually took place, or principles that can be demonstrated to repeatedly work time after time, like the tide coming in, or taxes being collected, or electricity flowing from a battery.

As long as you don't come around saying things to try to make us accept these opinions and theories as facts, You won't get so much flack from those who know better.

[hung]

Originally Posted by J_Player

You finally got it right. Your opinions are not facts, only opinions. The theories in the essays you quoted are theories, not facts.

Mistake number 1.

As long as you don't come around saying things to try to make us accept these opinions and theories as facts, You won't get so much flack from those who know better.

Mistake number 2.

I should point I was refering to DOWSING. The works of people like JOHN HUTCHINSON above HAS BEEN DONE and IT'S A FACT. Your 'poor classical science' is trying to explain it to this date like a stammering poor soul.

So please don't start to get ridiculous at this.
Also, flack from 'the ones who know better ' ... You mean, skeptics ?
About dowsing??