Scientific Test of Dowsing

[hung]

Here's what Myron Evans has to say about Physics current status.
Hmmm..Why I'm not surprised?


Physics is more abstract and complicated than ever before, but really new ideas such as ECE theory are rare. Physics is more closely controlled than ever before, but the only effect is that scientists follow the developments on www.aias.us from natural curiosity. The actual peer use (APU) system I have advocated on the blog this morning indicates with accuracy the extent to which a new theory or new experimental discovery is actually being used. The "controllers" of physics now use bureaucrats to censor new ideas (as the IoP episode on the blog shows). So I think that modern establishment physics has fallen right into the trap warned against by Francis Bacon: "The Idols of the Cave". This means that the human mind often hides the truth with abstractions. What could be a better description of establishment physics today? I have just posted a few quotes from Bacon on the blog. This attempted control of human thought was also warned against by Orwell and many others. The emergence of feedback software makes all the difference, we all know that ECE is driving the APU index nuts. The only people who don't read and use ECE are the IoP bureaucrats. This has led physics into a deep crisis, because the controllers lack credibility. The adoption of the APU index is the only logical way out of this crisis.


**********
More on: http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de09215

[Carl-NC]

Ah, yes, the inevitable "conspiracy theory." From the Crackpot Index, he gets a whopping 40 points!

Hung, if you associate yourself with the likes of Bearden and other flakes, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Bearden is a joke.

The title of this thread is "Scientific Test of Dowsing"...

So here's my request, again...

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

Please refrain from posting links to pure nonsense. A simple, replicable test will do just fine.

- Carl

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Hung

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??

It is not a fact. Are you completely wrong again? What works did John Hutchinson ever do to prove that dowsing works? Show some evidence that John hutchinson worked in a scientific study of dowsing. Are you sure this is not more of your BS?

Yes we are skeptics when some idiot tries to make us believe their opinion is a fact, and puts false references of people who never worked in the dowsing field to prove that dowsing works.

Neither John Hutchinson nor Myron Evans ever did any experiments to demonstrate dowsing that I know of. All you proved is that you have no proof from anywhere that backs dowsing. You also proved you are willing to post irrelevant controversial names to fill the void where you failed to demonstrate anything to support dowsing. Am I wrong? Is there some secret dowsing experiments these people did that I missed? Or is this more of the same BS you been shoveling from the start?

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Hung, if you associate yourself with the likes of Bearden and other flakes, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Bearden is a joke.

It's a lot easy state the above.
Prove some of EM claims by Evans is wrong. Prove it.
Carl, you obvously don't have the competence for that and you know that. No hurt feelings.
Here's the link if you like: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/062503.htm

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

What for? For you?

Please refrain from posting links to pure nonsense.

- Carl

Better. I quit. There's absolutely no way to start a discussion on this subject with minds here still imature for that.
I apologize. It's really naive and stupid from my part expect such. My first post was correct.

[Carl-NC]

Hung, I posted a link to Nobel Laureate's page where he completely dissintigrates Evans. You can read it, or ignore it. Makes no difference to me.

Again, the title of this thread is "Scientific Test of Dowsing"...

My request was...

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

Every time dowsing proponents complain about my challenge, they fall completely silent when I ask for a procedure that they think will work. If you don't know, then don't make excuses, just say, "I don't know."

- Carl

[Qiaozhi]

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...

Pseudoscientific gobbledygook...
What utter stuff and nonsense. Perhaps you should study some real physics, before trying to invent your own.

[hung]

This will be my final input on this thread as I won’t waste my prescious time when I’m not in the field beating a dead horse.

The skeptics in this forum first of all should learn that physics is not The Constitution, which pocesses the ‘clausula petrea’ which cannot be changed. In physics, although there are laws which can be pretty much be stated as this, they may only hold true to our limited dimension realms or in the newtonian concept.

My intention in the first place was to try to demonstrate that the knowledge about dowsing , lies in the physics that goes beyond that, towards new revisions in ‘quantum mechanics and quantum physics. Did I make this up? Of course not!! They are real!!

I already stated that in 1994. That’s 13 years ago this year, I had a research team which was developing a project which completely have ‘blown’ some accepted standards of quantum mechanics. I will never tell this because besides the fact I’m not allowed to, it’s too much, incredibly dangerous. I believe the others who were in that project think the same. The nuclear physicists in that team knew imediately what had been achieved and the possibilities. But no one of us had any ambitions in terms of power of money, thank God all went fine and stoped in time.

What purpose served this? To demonstrate EXACTLY what Evans states in his speech above regarding the ‘estabilishment’. Scientific society is too envious, egocentric , full of preconceptions and resistant to changes which would make the same ones who rule the ‘academia’ have to revise some concepts which most of their egos don’t permit. I’m not the one who stated this. This was stated by a nuclear physicist in the project WHO BELONGS TO THIS SAME ACADEMIA!

Classical Science cannot and will never be able to explain certain phenomena. I understand classical science as a branch of physics which won’t consider new concepts in quantum mechanics. But my definition of it can be different to many people, as science is AND SHOULD be only one! But the ‘estabilishment’ tends to limit this for military purposes which means power, and monetary reasons, which means profits!

There are inumerous, countless phenomena happening everyday which if looked through ‘classical physics’(concept given above) it JUST CAN'T BE EXPLAINED! So what has to be done? Research and see that there are also several ‘flaws’ in physics which have to be revised in order to absorb those phenomena so that it’s understood. There are tons of examples such as resonating gravity, unified field theory, elctromagnetic anomalies ( I can attest this), existence and comunication of spirits which leads to the corroboration of dimension interaction and torsion fields.

Take spiritism for instance. It’s hilarious to witness, when one chooses to research the non sense methods and absurd conclusions science of the late 19th, early 20th century chose to pubish. It’s also terrible and sadly shocking seeing persons such as Florence Cook, Eusapia Palladino, Mirabelli, etc. being put to discredit!
Alhtough there were a lot of frauds at this time because the ‘talk of the day’ was spiritism and (as always) such phenomena tends to be put as ‘spectacles’ producing cheap acts, there were TRUE phenomena which serious researchers corroborated, but in the end ‘the science estabilishment’ acted to twist and erode conclusions when not adequate to them.

But some, they tried desperately to hide, ‘locking it in the wardrobe’ as they simply ‘could not explain’. Take Mirabelli for instace, this ‘medium’ could literally walk out of building windows and dematerialize in front of everybody at daylight! And before any skeptic here might suggest that there are magicians nowadays who do the same, I tell you: You don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea of what you are saying!! The feats of Mirabelli, was not to prove he was unique, but to call attention for a phenomena which HAD to be accepted and considered. Because it was a fact and science and physics could and can explain. True science. Which new knowledges are conquered everyday.

So, going back to this thread, regarding dowsing, I tried to first discuss the science behind the phenomena and only after this, discuss the phenomena itself. The lattter cannot be understood without the first. But by now it’s comon sense that it’s impossible to discuss this here or in any other forum, because there’s a clear evidence most of the people really does not wish to discuss or learn anything. What they want is to impose their truths as undisputable so the egos rise. If you think I’m wrong, prove me wrong. Prove Hutchinson is a fraud, or prove Cathie’s harmonics don’t explain anything. Prove there’s no spirits which could lead to accept another form of matter. And finally prove Evans is wrong.
Although unlikely, you may find slight inconsistencies in the work of the names above. Which does not invalidate their acomplishments.

Calling someone ‘nuts’ or a ‘crackpot’ is a direspectful way and also shows a lack of objectiveness in dismissing a possible evidence which faces you that it sounds like a ‘scape’.
And worse, seeing the administrator of this forum , the one who should keep respect and politeness do the same. This unfortunately indicates there’s no hope for a healthy discussion.

Who among the skeptics here, has a full time duty as a physicist??? Who here has any published papers regardin scientific works??? Who here is involved in lab experiemtns to try to replicate data collecting in the field??? I think none as you would be too busy to join forum like this.
SO WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO QUESTION EVANS, HUTCHINSON, CATHIE, FLAMARION, TT BROWN, ETC.???!
It’s meaningless having a ‘Nobel Laureate’ to discredit somebody, when another ‘Nobel Laureate’ might as well discredit the first. You should be the one who should investigate and corroborate or not. Besides, do you really think you will find everything in the internet? If so, you are awfully naïve, as the true papers regarding all of what I said above will never make it through it.

How can skeptics state that dowsing is ideomotor and dowsers fail to replicate in ‘serious’ scientific conditions? Do you really thik that offering contest prizes to anybody will help to come to a conclusion? Come on, gimme a break!! This will only help enhance self promotion and it’s all they seek!!
How many stupids out there?!! Reminds me of late 19th century research methods regarding spiritsm.
In twenty years from now, Carl Moreland will still be offering his 25k reward so will James Randi.
Honestly, what did you learn so far? That dowsing does not work and dowsers use ideomotor and guess? Really?

This won’t change the fact that many LRL users will keep on finding gold and dowsers will keep on having success as ALWAYS IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY and the most part of them
don’t give a sh…about forums. If you really think a reward is all there is to prove dowsing works , man, I don’t want to imagine your other scientific methods of seeking evidence.
No offense tough.

Finally, discussing dowsing in forums tends to become a waste of time in my opinion due to that. There will always be skeptics who in reality never did wish to discuss it. Only to defend a cause which does not admit the possibility of this to happen. So where will it be investigated? Everywhere that allows serious and exempt research. Usually far from the internet to avoid the problems seen to date. Want to research it seriously? Then take several volunteer dowsers and isolate yourself with them about a year and do your homework.
But you know you can’t do that, besides the fact it will be hard to get volunteers for you due to your notorious reputation and pre-judgement tendencies fataly leaked in the internet.
I do hope healthy discussion return to forums, but all there is for now is what I stated above. So most of us have chosen not to ‘watch the film’ as we know the end.

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/...ST36/703210312

[chemelec]

Thank Goodness, Thats your FINAL INPUT!

Originally Posted by hung

This will be my final input on this thread as I won’t waste my prescious time when I’m not in the field beating a dead horse.

The skeptics in this forum first of all should learn that physics is not The Constitution, which pocesses the ‘clausula petrea’ which cannot be changed. In physics, although there are laws which can be pretty much be stated as this, they may only hold true to our limited dimension realms or in the newtonian concept.

My intention in the first place was to try to demonstrate that the knowledge about dowsing , lies in the physics that goes beyond that, towards new revisions in ‘quantum mechanics and quantum physics. Did I make this up? Of course not!! They are real!!

I already stated that in 1994. That’s 13 years ago this year, I had a research team which was developing a project which completely have ‘blown’ some accepted standards of quantum mechanics. I will never tell this because besides the fact I’m not allowed to, it’s too much, incredibly dangerous. I believe the others who were in that project think the same. The nuclear physicists in that team knew imediately what had been achieved and the possibilities. But no one of us had any ambitions in terms of power of money, thank God all went fine and stoped in time.

What purpose served this? To demonstrate EXACTLY what Evans states in his speech above regarding the ‘estabilishment’. Scientific society is too envious, egocentric , full of preconceptions and resistant to changes which would make the same ones who rule the ‘academia’ have to revise some concepts which most of their egos don’t permit. I’m not the one who stated this. This was stated by a nuclear physicist in the project WHO BELONGS TO THIS SAME ACADEMIA!

Classical Science cannot and will never be able to explain certain phenomena. I understand classical science as a branch of physics which won’t consider new concepts in quantum mechanics. But my definition of it can be different to many people, as science is AND SHOULD be only one! But the ‘estabilishment’ tends to limit this for military purposes which means power, and monetary reasons, which means profits!

There are inumerous, countless phenomena happening everyday which if looked through ‘classical physics’(concept given above) it JUST CAN'T BE EXPLAINED! So what has to be done? Research and see that there are also several ‘flaws’ in physics which have to be revised in order to absorb those phenomena so that it’s understood. There are tons of examples such as resonating gravity, unified field theory, elctromagnetic anomalies ( I can attest this), existence and comunication of spirits which leads to the corroboration of dimension interaction and torsion fields.

Take spiritism for instance. It’s hilarious to witness, when one chooses to research the non sense methods and absurd conclusions science of the late 19th, early 20th century chose to pubish. It’s also terrible and sadly shocking seeing persons such as Florence Cook, Eusapia Palladino, Mirabelli, etc. being put to discredit!
Alhtough there were a lot of frauds at this time because the ‘talk of the day’ was spiritism and (as always) such phenomena tends to be put as ‘spectacles’ producing cheap acts, there were TRUE phenomena which serious researchers corroborated, but in the end ‘the science estabilishment’ acted to twist and erode conclusions when not adequate to them.

But some, they tried desperately to hide, ‘locking it in the wardrobe’ as they simply ‘could not explain’. Take Mirabelli for instace, this ‘medium’ could literally walk out of building windows and dematerialize in front of everybody at daylight! And before any skeptic here might suggest that there are magicians nowadays who do the same, I tell you: You don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea of what you are saying!! The feats of Mirabelli, was not to prove he was unique, but to call attention for a phenomena which HAD to be accepted and considered. Because it was a fact and science and physics could and can explain. True science. Which new knowledges are conquered everyday.

So, going back to this thread, regarding dowsing, I tried to first discuss the science behind the phenomena and only after this, discuss the phenomena itself. The lattter cannot be understood without the first. But by now it’s comon sense that it’s impossible to discuss this here or in any other forum, because there’s a clear evidence most of the people really does not wish to discuss or learn anything. What they want is to impose their truths as undisputable so the egos rise. If you think I’m wrong, prove me wrong. Prove Hutchinson is a fraud, or prove Cathie’s harmonics don’t explain anything. Prove there’s no spirits which could lead to accept another form of matter. And finally prove Evans is wrong.
Although unlikely, you may find slight inconsistencies in the work of the names above. Which does not invalidate their acomplishments.

Calling someone ‘nuts’ or a ‘crackpot’ is a direspectful way and also shows a lack of objectiveness in dismissing a possible evidence which faces you that it sounds like a ‘scape’.
And worse, seeing the administrator of this forum , the one who should keep respect and politeness do the same. This unfortunately indicates there’s no hope for a healthy discussion.

Who among the skeptics here, has a full time duty as a physicist??? Who here has any published papers regardin scientific works??? Who here is involved in lab experiemtns to try to replicate data collecting in the field??? I think none as you would be too busy to join forum like this.
SO WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO QUESTION EVANS, HUTCHINSON, CATHIE, FLAMARION, TT BROWN, ETC.???!
It’s meaningless having a ‘Nobel Laureate’ to discredit somebody, when another ‘Nobel Laureate’ might as well discredit the first. You should be the one who should investigate and corroborate or not. Besides, do you really think you will find everything in the internet? If so, you are awfully naïve, as the true papers regarding all of what I said above will never make it through it.

How can skeptics state that dowsing is ideomotor and dowsers fail to replicate in ‘serious’ scientific conditions? Do you really thik that offering contest prizes to anybody will help to come to a conclusion? Come on, gimme a break!! This will only help enhance self promotion and it’s all they seek!!
How many stupids out there?!! Reminds me of late 19th century research methods regarding spiritsm.
In twenty years from now, Carl Moreland will still be offering his 25k reward so will James Randi.
Honestly, what did you learn so far? That dowsing does not work and dowsers use ideomotor and guess? Really?

This won’t change the fact that many LRL users will keep on finding gold and dowsers will keep on having success as ALWAYS IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY and the most part of them
don’t give a sh…about forums. If you really think a reward is all there is to prove dowsing works , man, I don’t want to imagine your other scientific methods of seeking evidence.
No offense tough.

Finally, discussing dowsing in forums tends to become a waste of time in my opinion due to that. There will always be skeptics who in reality never did wish to discuss it. Only to defend a cause which does not admit the possibility of this to happen. So where will it be investigated? Everywhere that allows serious and exempt research. Usually far from the internet to avoid the problems seen to date. Want to research it seriously? Then take several volunteer dowsers and isolate yourself with them about a year and do your homework.
But you know you can’t do that, besides the fact it will be hard to get volunteers for you due to your notorious reputation and pre-judgement tendencies fataly leaked in the internet.
I do hope healthy discussion return to forums, but all there is for now is what I stated above. So most of us have chosen not to ‘watch the film’ as we know the end.

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/...ST36/703210312

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hung

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/...ST36/703210312

Let me see ... a woman goes to a graveyard with a couple of bent coat hangers, and miraculously is able to sense the location of a grave.
Blimey! Is that convincing or what?

Originally Posted by chemelec (in response to hung)

Thank Goodness, Thats your FINAL INPUT!

I think that should have been: Thank Goodness. That's your final OUTPUT!

[Carl-NC]

Thank you, Hung, for your long defense of pseudoscience. I'll add up the points when I get a chance.

But in all that, you have still failed to address my request...

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

I'll take your latest diatribe as a great big "cain't do it."

I'm not the least big concerned with "theories" of dowsing. Those are a dime-a-dozen. My question is: Is dowsing REAL, and can it be DEMONSTRATED? If it cannot, all those theories are meaningless.

- Carl

[Clondike Clad]

Originally Posted by hung

It's a lot easy state the above.
Prove some of EM claims by Evans is wrong. Prove it.
Carl, you obvously don't have the competence for that and you know that. No hurt feelings.
Here's the link if you like: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/062503.htm




What for? For you?



Better. I quit. There's absolutely no way to start a discussion on this subject with minds here still imature for that.
I apologize. It's really naive and stupid from my part expect such. My first post was correct.

Did you at one time said money talk and BS walks Go and take Carl's $25,000
Or Help me to learn to take his money You know how to do it ,Or do you
Come on Show us by taking Carl's money.
But just like the LRL you can't take his money so on you .
Or if you don't want to take it teach me so I can take his money

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

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

If you cannot accept what I stated above, then it's more than likely you won't accept my procedure. They are conected.

If you can't accept what I stated above, then you won't accept my procedure either. They're conected.

I'm not the least big concerned with "theories" of dowsing. Those are a dime-a-dozen. My question is: Is dowsing REAL, and can it be DEMONSTRATED? If it cannot, all those theories are meaningless.

- Carl

You are the one who are still in the 'theory' stage.
When you ask the question to whether dowsing is real and if it can be demonstrated, you only implicit the bold words to someone who cannot answer it. Yourself.

I said this would be my final input. But in consideration to you I made an exception. I already gave enough reasons to my points. Hope you trail another road which might lead to the answers you seek.
It's all up to you.

[J_Player]

It appears Hung would find much better acceptance in Myron Evan's website forums at AIAS and atomicprecision, where everyone would agree with his physics theories and conspiracy theories. But most of us in this forum have day jobs that require using real science that can be built, tested, and demonstrate results.

This thread is about "A Scientific Test of Dowsing".

Originally Posted by Carl

I'm not the least big concerned with "theories" of dowsing. Those are a dime-a-dozen. My question is: Is dowsing REAL, and can it be DEMONSTRATED? If it cannot, all those theories are meaningless.

The only answer to Carl's question in this thread was posted by Qiaozhi in his original post. Read this report where 43 dowsers actually demonstrated dowsing and decide for yourself: http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/dowsing.html

Is there any doubt why no dowser is willing to demonstrate dowsing, or even to suggest a "Right Procedure" that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing?

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

If you cannot accept what I stated above, then it's more than likely you won't accept my procedure. They are conected.

Why? Either you can scientifically test dowsing, or you can't. If you can't, then all the theories in the world won't do any good. Scientific theories absolutely MUST be testable and falsifiable to be worth a crap*.

You are the one who are still in the 'theory' stage.
When you ask the question to whether dowsing is real and if it can be demonstrated, you only implicit the bold words to someone who cannot answer it. Yourself.

That doesn't even make sense.

My challenge involves a randomized blind protocol that is well-known and well-used in RealScience to test all sorts of subjective phenomena in which bias and sloppiness can skew results. It is a fair test that should be easy to pass if dowsing really works, and nearly impossible if dowing does not work.

Like other dowsing proponents, you have recognized that my challenge is impossible for dowsers. And, like others in denial, you offer up a heaping helping of criticism of an established scientific protocol in an attempt to prop up your beliefs. But, not surprisingly, you can't offer any alternative. That's mighty weak, and mighty predictable.

- Carl

*That's one of the hallmarks of crackpot science... untestable "theories".

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Why? Either you can scientifically test dowsing, or you can't. If you can't, then all the theories in the world won't do any good. Scientific theories absolutely MUST be testable and falsifiable to be worth a crap*.

You can scientifically test dowsing if you use scientifically methods to do so.
When I say you are still in the theory stage I mean you don't have any basis whatsoever to even start to analyze it, without having to rely on what you and others here refer pejoratively as 'pseudo science'.
There's nothing like that, as science is one and only. In your case and theirs, like a drawer still waiting to be open. How can you start to understand dowsing if you don't even know and consider the interactions of earth's EM patterns and the human byological system which lies in between the limits of a total chaotic state and a highly ordered and organized one? The day you study foton emissions and the consequences in living organisms realizing that the frequency of these fotons are much higher than that you can reproduce on a test tube, you will know that your methods if there's any, are meaningless, almost a complete joke. Sorry.
If it could be taken to another level, it would be liketrying to heal psychological pathologies with electrcial shocks!

My challenge involves a randomized blind protocol that is well-known and well-used in RealScience to test all sorts of subjective phenomena in which bias and sloppiness can skew results. It is a fair test that should be easy to pass if dowsing really works, and nearly impossible if dowing does not work.

Like other dowsing proponents, you have recognized that my challenge is impossible for dowsers. And, like others in denial, you offer up a heaping helping of criticism of an established scientific protocol in an attempt to prop up your beliefs. But, not surprisingly, you can't offer any alternative. That's mighty weak, and mighty predictable.

- Carl

*That's one of the hallmarks of crackpot science... untestable "theories".

See? You used the word yourself: CHALLENGE
You think this is all a game and you try to gain attention as an ordinary TV Show. You sound not having a minimum interest in understand dowsing under scientific research. Again, it's all there in science already. Just chose your tools of research and do it right.
Like the fotons and frequencies in biological systems that I stated above, which you can verify checking Boltzmann aproxmation for higher frequencies and Bose-Einstein statiscs for lower ones.

Take it from there Carl, I told you I don't have time to discuss this besides the fact that regarding this topic, I already been there and came back.
If you really want to discuss dowsing, do exactly this, study. Don't gamble.
And please, I chose not to discuss this here. Thanks.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

You can scientifically test dowsing if you use scientifically methods to do so.

My challenge protocol uses scientific methods. If you disagree, please explicitly state why. Then, propose an alternate scientific test method. Please keep in mind that I am asking for a test to demonstrate the existence of dowsing, not a test for some particular theory of dowsing.

...you don't have any basis whatsoever to even start to analyze it ... How can you start to understand dowsing...

What difference does it make if I "understand" dowsing, or can "analyze" it? All I'm asking for is a demonstration of dowsing under scientific conditions. A test that verifies, "Yup, that feller sure can dowse." No, I won't accept anecdotal evidence... met too many dowsers who said they could, but couldn't when I was watching. Same thing with Randi, Betz, Smith, and others.

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

So tell me, Hung... why is this so difficult for you? Why do you continue to post irrelevant chatter, instead of answering my request? Again, if you can't do it, just say, "I can't do it." I'll understand.

- Carl

[Qiaozhi]

If dowsing was software it would be known as vapour-ware (or vapor-ware in the U.S.) and most likely would only run under PowerPoint.

If the $25,000 dollar challenge was aimed at PI Detectors (for example) then anyone could easily pass the double-blind test, and Carl and his money would have parted company a long long time ago. You don't need to know why a metal detector works to find treasure, only how to use it. In fact, the majority of detectorists have no idea what's in the box, and many don't even care.

So why is dowsing (or LRLing for that matter) not subject to the same rules? By her own admission the little old lady, in one of Hung's previous posts, has no idea how dowsing works. She most likely has never heard of the ideomotor effect, or that it's simply a trick of the mind. But so what? As long as you know how to hold the dowsing rods, etc., etc., you should be able to locate the treasure as part of a double-blind test, without knowing the pseudoscientific witchcraft used to explain an already clearly understood phenomenon. If dowsing really worked, then Carl would be minus $25,000 dollars. He isn't ... so the conclusion is ... it doesn't. End of story.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

If the $25,000 dollar challenge was aimed at PI Detectors (for example) then anyone could easily pass the double-blind test, and Carl and his money would have parted company a long long time ago.

Geophysical techniques that would easily pass a randomized blind test:

• Metal detector (any), ability to detect metal
• Magnetometer, ability to detect a magnetic field
• Gradiometer, ability to detect a magnetic field gradient
• Side Scan Sonar, ability to image sunken structures
• Ground Resistivity, ability to detect resistivity gradients
• Induced Polarization, ability to detect permittivity gradients
• Ground Penetrating Radar, ability to detect subsurface anomalies
• Infrared, ability to distinguish soil density
• Thermography, ability to image thermal radiation
• Geiger Counter, ability to detect radioactivity

So-called treasure hunting techniques that cannot pass a randomized blind test:

• Dowsing
• Map dowsing
• LRLs that involve any form of dowsing
• Ionic detection LRLs
• Any other LRLs that claim to detect buried treasure from 100's of feet away
• Polaroid auras
• Treasure psychics

Of the two groups, which one is overwhelmingly successful in bringing home the gold, and which is overwhelmingly successful in bringing home fanciful stories of massive treasures that couldn't quite be recovered?

It's pretty darned clear what works, and what doesn't.

- Carl

[hung]

Let's do this. I will chime in every time I find relevant to coment on relevant topics you might raise on the subject. Otherwise not.
In this case however to correct things I find not right. Personal view.

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

My challenge protocol uses scientific methods.

What scientific methods? The ones you seed throughout forums are silly probability games which don't show, indicate or prove anyting.

If you disagree, please explicitly state why.

Yes I disagree. See above.

Then, propose an alternate scientific test method. Please keep in mind that I am asking for a test to demonstrate the existence of dowsing, not a test for some particular theory of dowsing.

Carl, hundreds of scientific tests have already been performed even before you were born. Tests that involved lots of money, financial backing and superstructure, which you will never be able to replicate in this magnitude.
Despite of that your direction is totally wrong and will remain like that until you convince yourself litle games are not tests.

And it's always the same. Tests done by skeptics and tests done by proponents. The Kassel test you discussed here in the past is a skeptic test. So as you are a spoken skeptic, which results 'your audience' will expect to see?
For this, you don't even need to do it. Just stick with the skeptic test you like most.

All I'm asking for is a demonstration of dowsing under scientific conditions. A test that verifies, "Yup, that feller sure can dowse." No, I won't accept anecdotal evidence... met too many dowsers who said they could, but couldn't when I was watching. Same thing with Randi, Betz, Smith, and others.

First, are you saying you have not met one single person who could dowse so far? Wow. That's not surprising you don't know what dowsing is.
I thought you were in phase 1, where you know the phenomena but you are not sure about its consistency. But you show me you still did not reach that point.
So, I can point you one serious test of hundreds that have already been taken, which clearly shows a 96% rate of sucess for dowsers who could find water, when a sucess rate of 30-50% should be expected using conventional techiniques.

http://twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html

As you can see, an honest test. That's all.
Although it shows it's still in phase 1 in my opinion, as most of tests done so far. It's a test. Not an explanation. Not little games with rewards a la 'family feud'.
Phase 2 would explain the phenomena due to acess of knowledge which represents the basis for conclusions.

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

You keep insisting on the same question which I already answered. The efficacy of dowsing has already been demonstrated in minor or major conditions in tests as the one above. What you have to understand is that you have to acess areas of physics and biophysical matters before attempting to perform a phase 2 test.

See this report here. http://www.connect.ab.ca/~tylosky/
Much more objective than everything you tried to say up to now. Convince yourself that your tests will prove nothing the way they are done. Nothing. It will just expose the dowser you test to ridicule and corrode even more your reputation among proponents through the net.

me, Hung... why is this so difficult for you? Why do you continue to post irrelevant chatter, instead of answering my request? Again, if you can't do it, just say, "I can't do it." I'll understand.

Irrelevant chatter... I see.
Honestly, you don't know what you're saying. Probably irrelevant to you now as you still did not reach this stage yet. When you do we might talk.
I grant you you will have everything to gain if you check Earth's EM and biological interactions in human beings using the models I pointed out.

I'll probably return to this thread in 1 or 2 weeks.

[hung]

This is the email Myron Evan has sent me after my querie about the rebuttal of his calculations in the link Carl provided.
Interesting to see there's a brazilian involved in bad campaigns against him...Ouch.
Truth is Dr. Evans gave and still gives enormous contributions to physics. As I said, envy is a darn bad quality...
***********


Dear Dr Hung:

Many thanks indeed for your kind comments. There is a series of rebuttals on www.aias.us of these grossly defamatory Wikipedia comments, if this is the forum to which you refer. The moderator "Science Guy" has been identified as a habitual abuser and harasser called Akhlesh Lakhtakia of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Science of Penn State University at University Park - he is the real crackpot - and some of his gutter abuse (e.g. of the Welsh People) is reproduced on www.aias.us. I have several times called for his dismissal for misconduct. We have managed to modify his original censorious conduct on Wikipedia by a combined effort and Wikipedia itself is now coming under severe criticism for several blunders and misrepresentations. Gerhard Bruhn is an aggravating harasser and retired individual from TU Darmstadt who has disseminated thousands of e mails in a personal campaign against the British Civil List Scientist. I have shredded him matehmatically many times, so there is only ticker tape left of his "comments". These have been found to be deliberately contrived mathematical falsehoods. The British Government will not tolerate being dictated to by these individuals and aggravated harassment is a felony, i.e. a matter for the police. If you look up the rebuttals on www.aias.us you will see a long series of carefully argued refutations of these personal remarks. The Nobel Laureate is G. 't Hooft of Utrecht Univ, whose credibility is very much on the line because of his regrettable personal remarks concerning the British Civil List Scientist. The award of a British Civil List Pension is a high honour and appoinmtment, rarely given, generally considered to be as meritorious as any Nobel Prize, and much more democratic in nature (see www.aias.us). You are welcome to post your remarks on www.aias.us if you wish. This campaign of harassment was started in Brazil by a retired individual called Waldyr Rodigues of CAMPINAS. It has been a vicious assault on fellow scientists, and has resulted in the destruction of the journals "Foundations of Physics" and "Foundations of Physics Letters", formerly edited by the universally respected Prof. Alwyn van der Merwe. In my opinion these harassers are the opposite of real scientists, and their continued assaults could lead to diplomatic protest.

Prof. Myron W. Evans
The British and Commonwealth Civil List Scientist

[Esteban]

Anyone can explain me:

1. Why in all war scenarios are involved dowsers of US Army for to find caves or tunnels? They are wrong?

2. Is dowsing a skill?

In my personal case, I see men who uses last generation detectors and I, with my homemade instruments, obtain more results in the same terrain.

The most of the time my ears are more accuracy than his instruments!

I think if this is OK for you, use it!

[Carl-NC]

Well, Hung, you've done it yet again. In all you wrote, you still failed to explain why my challenge protocol is not a valid, scientific way to test dowsing. All you said, basically, is you don't like it, and it's silly. That says a whole bunch of nothing.

Also, you continue to avoid my request...

Please explain a Right Procedure that will scientifically demonstrate the efficacy of dowsing.

All you've managed to do is say that skeptic tests are bad, and believer tests are good. That, again, is a whole bunch of nothing.

Sounds like Evans is a real whiner. If there were anything to his theories, he sure wouldn't bother rebutting his critics on his web site... he would just proceed to prove them wrong with outstanding scientific achievements. Reminds me of dowsers who constantly whine about skeptics, instead of going out and digging up all that gold they say they can find. In any case, except for your embracementEvans is irrelevant to dowsing, so I hope you don't waste any more time here trying to defend him.

I hope that next time you post, you can offer us a detailed, scientific protocol of how I might test someone who claims they can dowse for gold. I've found this is always a stumper question for dowsing proponents... all I ever hear are excuses and alibis, like your excuse that I must first believe in some kind of hokey pseudoscience before I can move to the next "stage". A dowser can either dowse, or he can't, regardless of my beliefs.

- Carl

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hung

Let's do this. I will chime in every time I find relevant to coment on relevant topics you might raise on the subject. Otherwise not.
In this case however to correct things I find not right. Personal view.




What scientific methods? The ones you seed throughout forums are silly probability games which don't show, indicate or prove anyting.



Yes I disagree. See above.



Carl, hundreds of scientific tests have already been performed even before you were born. Tests that involved lots of money, financial backing and superstructure, which you will never be able to replicate in this magnitude.
Despite of that your direction is totally wrong and will remain like that until you convince yourself litle games are not tests.

And it's always the same. Tests done by skeptics and tests done by proponents. The Kassel test you discussed here in the past is a skeptic test. So as you are a spoken skeptic, which results 'your audience' will expect to see?
For this, you don't even need to do it. Just stick with the skeptic test you like most.






First, are you saying you have not met one single person who could dowse so far? Wow. That's not surprising you don't know what dowsing is.
I thought you were in phase 1, where you know the phenomena but you are not sure about its consistency. But you show me you still did not reach that point.
So, I can point you one serious test of hundreds that have already been taken, which clearly shows a 96% rate of sucess for dowsers who could find water, when a sucess rate of 30-50% should be expected using conventional techiniques.

http://twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html

As you can see, an honest test. That's all.
Although it shows it's still in phase 1 in my opinion, as most of tests done so far. It's a test. Not an explanation. Not little games with rewards a la 'family feud'.
Phase 2 would explain the phenomena due to acess of knowledge which represents the basis for conclusions.



You keep insisting on the same question which I already answered. The efficacy of dowsing has already been demonstrated in minor or major conditions in tests as the one above. What you have to understand is that you have to acess areas of physics and biophysical matters before attempting to perform a phase 2 test.

See this report here. http://www.connect.ab.ca/~tylosky/
Much more objective than everything you tried to say up to now. Convince yourself that your tests will prove nothing the way they are done. Nothing. It will just expose the dowser you test to ridicule and corrode even more your reputation among proponents through the net.



Irrelevant chatter... I see.
Honestly, you don't know what you're saying. Probably irrelevant to you now as you still did not reach this stage yet. When you do we might talk.
I grant you you will have everything to gain if you check Earth's EM and biological interactions in human beings using the models I pointed out.

I'll probably return to this thread in 1 or 2 weeks.

In the whole of this long post you have completely failed to say anything remotely sensible.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Esteban

Anyone can explain me:

1. Why in all war scenarios are involved dowsers of US Army for to find caves or tunnels? They are wrong?

I'm not aware that the Army employs dowsers to find tunnels... if they do, it's a mighty poor way to find them.

2. Is dowsing a skill?

In my personal case, I see men who uses last generation detectors and I, with my homemade instruments, obtain more results in the same terrain.

The most of the time my ears are more accuracy than his instruments!

I think if this is OK for you, use it!

I agree, if dowsing "works" for you, then use it! Why in the world would you waste a single minute trying to convince someone, unless it's not really working?

- Carl

[Esteban]

Carl, there are Government reports about his use. Of course, this is not convenient for to manufacturers of any kind of detection system!!!

In wich war the enemy of USA built a tunnels system? In Vietnam. Army uses the skill of men for to find it:

It was this the Marines used to great effect in Viet Nam. The Army's Corps of Engineers brought in a seismic tunnel locator, which involved boring holes in the ground, setting charges in the holes, and measuring the ground echoes from the blasts to determine the location of tunnels. The instrument, which cost about half a million dollars, was about 50% effective in locating tunnels, but could not map them from the surface. The Marines' coathanger wires were 95% effective in locating tunnels, and could map them from the surface by indicating subterranean turns.

http://www.texasescapes.com/CFEckhar...of-Dowsing.htm



* * * * * * * * *

The long list of users of dowsing may be surprising to some readers:

• Engineering Companies (e.g. the Bio-Physical Method (BPM) was used in 1971 in the former USSR to detect water filtering through a dam (Bird 1979))
• Water Companies (a pair of dowsing rods is carried inside the doors of Water Board vans)
• Mining Companies (e.g. documented use for finding ore and petroleum in the USSR (Bakirov 1973))
• Laundries (for water supply)
• Breweries (for water supply)
• Building Contractors (to locate unknown service pipes on building sites)
• Farmers (for water supply)
• Government Departments
• Police (location of buried items and, it is rumoured, bodies)
• Armed Forces (dowsing used by the British Army since Colonial times); dowsing appeared in USSR army manuals in 1930 for the finding of water in remote areas; dowsing used by the First and Third US Marine Divisions in Vietnam, 1967, as a simple, low-cost method for locating Vietcong tunnels, which were used for communication, storage depots, supply network, command posts, training centres, hospitals and sally ports for over twenty years (Bossart 1968 in the Project Poorboy Annual Progress Report; Bird 1979, Chapter 11)).

In 1952 a team of electrical engineers tested the famous dowser Henry Gross, and found that his skin potential changed by up to 200mV over subterranean water, compared with a change of 10mV for non-dowsers.

Abstract: The use of dowsing for the location of caves, with some results from the first Royal Forest of Dean Caving Symposium, June 1994

http://www-sop.inria.fr/agos-sophia/.../dowsdean.html

* * * * * * * * *

Maybe there are able for it and others no.


* * * * * * * * *

if they do, it's a mighty poor way to find them


Is not a skeptical position.