Scientific Test of Dowsing

[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]

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]

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]

Fact? hahahahahaaa

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.

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]

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]

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]

BS walks

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]

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]

Point of view - exactly

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]

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??

[hung]

A few words say it all

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]

The king of BS has no clothes....

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]

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