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 !!!

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]

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]

Spanish dip needle

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

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]

Dowsing? REAL science to back it up

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]

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]

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]

What is Hung trying to hide?

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]

Nothing to hide

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]

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