Your feedback wanted on dowsing.

[J_Player]

That's an interesting quote, Esteban.

Dr. Bickel told me that he knew Einstein when he was studying astrophysics at the university. The quote by Einstein is consistent with what Dr. Bickel told me about his understanding of dowsing.

[Carl-NC]

I say again, check magnetohydrodynamics and you will find the answer.

Magnetohydrodynamics has nothing to do with the medium (water) being a strong concentrator of magnetic fields. MHD was part of a graduate Emag course I took in college.

Also check gird pattern harmonic equations and how they relate to the earths magnetic lines and waterfalls.. You will find those in Bruce Cathie's books.

This got me all curious and such, as I've never heard of Cathie, so I looked him up. I found not only has he constructed a rather bizzarre alternate science to call his own, but that he also quoted:

"One of the most startling facts that I discovered by application of grid mathematics was that an atomic bomb is a device based on the geometrics of space and time. To be successfully detonated, the bomb MUST be geometrically constructed, placed on, under, or over a geometric position in relation to the Earth’s surface, and activated at a SPECIFIC TIME in relation to the geometrics of the solar system. I found that it was possible to precalculate the time of various bomb tests, and the locations where it was possible to explode a bomb.......I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack. Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be detonated anyhow. A logical war cannot be considered under these circumstances. This could be the explanation for the proliferation of conventional weapons in modern warfare."----Bruce Cathie

This level of ignorance is rather scary.

You see, many of the magnetic concepts taught in the school are wrong.

Errrr.... all of science is wrong, and Cathie is right? Really? Are you serious?

- Carl

[Esteban]

J Player

Einstein had reason or not? This is my question: why his mind is opened to unexplained or controversial theories and our minds is closed?

[Jim]

"I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."


Albert Einstein

Esteban,
I have looked all over the internet, and have not been able to find where the above quote originated from. Could you be so kind as to let us know just when, and where Albert Einstein made this quote?



Thanks in advance, Jim

[Carl-NC]

I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time. That the same circumstances can bring forth nervous difficulties in breathing appears entirely plausible. However, I do not think there is any connection with the occurrence of cancer. This latter connection, if true, would not be easy to prove with supporting statistics. -- A. Einstein

Einstein was not involved in dowsing. He had been asked if dowsing might have caused someone's cancer. Taken out-of-context, as it usually is, it might appear as if Einstein had an interest in dowsing.

His statement--The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time--was, in fact, incorrect, as the factors that control dowsing were known almost 100 years prior to his letter. But, I would not expect him to know that, unless he had studied the practice.

- Carl

[Dell Winders]

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES. Dell

Let me make it clear, I have NEVER claimed, or believed for a moment, that any electronic configurations, and even some non-electronic configurations can be used effeciently as a Meta-Physical Dowsing tool. A simple needle & thread is suffice to me for that purpose.

I clearly stated that it is Carl Morland, who is claiming in his scientific reports the LRL's he has disected are Meta-Physics Dowsing devices. It is a Skeptic cult mentality. Start your argument with Carl, if you wish. Dell

[Dell Winders]

Einstein was not involved in dowsing. He had been asked if dowsing might have caused someone's cancer. Taken out-of-context, as it usually is, it might appear as if Einstein had an interest in dowsing.

His statement--The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time--was, in fact, incorrect, as the factors that control dowsing were known almost 100 years prior to his letter. But, I would not expect him to know that, unless he had studied the practice.

Carl, are you saying Einstein, was incorrect as being your personal opinion based on assumption, or is there a basis in fact? It seems to me that we are still questioning the intracacies that make meta-physics dowsing work, or not work. I didn't know that modern Science had proclaimed a decisive clear cut explanation.

If that is what Einstein, actually stated, my experience with meta-physics Dowsing concurs with his correctness. I have no problem with the addition of "Ideomoter response" to the equation. Dell

[J_Player]

Hey Dell,

I don't have an argument about meta-physical dowsing tools or purerly geophysical tools. I only want to know which are which, in your opiinion. I have never had any success with the metaphysical tools so far, so I want to see what you consider to be the best of the geophysical tools. I am not looking for an argument, just the facts. Can you help?

Thanks, J_P

[J_Player]

Hi Carl,
Thanks for posting the rest of Einstein's quote.

I wonder why he made that incorrect statement. Do you suppose he just didn't know the accepted theory of the factors that cause the nervous system to react? Or do you suppose he considered the consensus of what these factors were to be incorrect, thinking that there must be a better explation still unknown to him?

[Carl-NC]

Carl, are you saying Einstein, was incorrect as being your personal opinion based on assumption, or is there a basis in fact? It seems to me that we are still questioning the intracacies that make meta-physics dowsing work, or not work. I didn't know that modern Science had proclaimed a decisive clear cut explanation.

If that is what Einstein, actually stated, my experience with meta-physics Dowsing concurs with his correctness. I have no problem with the addition of "Ideomoter response" to the equation. Dell

I doubt Einstein had any dealings with dowsing, and probably was not aware of prior research. I'm just pointing out that there is more to the popular quote than dowsers would like us to know, and when taken in it's proper context, really says nothing. And, as I recall, there have been wholly fabricated quotes as well... I recall one that went something like, "Dowsing is an established scientific fact" -- Einstein.

I'm not even sure why anyone would quote Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, in attempting to support dowsing, or anything else for that matter. The mechanics of our natural world do not operate according to anyone's authority. Newton was not the final word on gravity, and Einstein may not be, either.

One of my all-time favorite quotes is, in fact, from Einstein:

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." - Albert Einstein, 1932.

I like it, because it shows just how wrong a prominent scientist can be, and how science builds upon itself and self-corrects towards higher accuracy.

- Carl

[Alexismex]

Hello Forum,
I respond to your question...For the geophysical detector, I can give my own experience with a very good GPR , the Ramac/x3M
http://www.malags.com/ with antenna shielded of 250MHz , it is easy to use, to learn also because it is very "friendly", in about 10 hours of use you know with a good precision what you "see" underground , deep from zero meters to about six meters in a very bad clay soil (electrical conductor) here in our region of Mexico (Guanajuato).
you have a good definition with 250 MHZ you can see easily a one foot target with the Ramac .
We have discovered in old Hacienda ;tunnel, human bones,etc... but at this time ,not the big treasure........the more important is the investigating part , old maps, old documents, etc.... without this, you can work with the gpr without result : it is so extending the search you need many lifes!!!!!
For the precision it is very good , for exemple we see a target at two meters and the reality is + - 20centimenters when it is well calibrated.
For the kind of your target , more you search ,more you know why it is , but when you encounter for exemple a tunnel 4 meters deeps , you never forget your enjoy , you never forget the signature because you have your search image in memory , you can analyse in your home after .
If you have some field target , your practice a little to know when it is a good target , a metallic target...OK
For the weight it is not the old apparatus of ton of stuff and cable,no ,it is light and very easy to move with the wheels in the field also with rocks etc... no problem , you must clear sometimes the place when you have many rocks because it is very important for the coil to close to the soil ....two inch max.
We enjoy the gpr technology , you need time , historic infos, maps etc...to discover "the treasure of your dream".....we hope one day....
have a good time ,
Alex.

[Dell Winders]

The problem appears that folks anymore can't seem to envision a tool as being multi-purpose. Heck, I use my favorite meta-physics Dowsing tool, a needle & thread to sometimes make locations on a map or photo of targets thousands of miles from where I am. I've used it to stich wounds, pick splinters, sew clothing, and sweeten water melons.

I use L-Rods for mental Dowsing (meta-physics), physical Dowsing (applied to physics) they work just as good for metering the SOF above the earth as my electronic meter does. I use L-rods to meter and trace natural, and generated harmonic signal lines to their sources, stick a rod in the ground as a marker, tape a magnet on the end and retrieve fastners dropped in tight places, and they are great for unclogging the scuppers on my boat.

I can't advise on the best geophysical tool to use. It all depends on the circumstances, the target, and the tool's limitations.

In conducting my own geophysical survey's, I don't leave home before mentally dowsing an aerial photo of the area to determine the starting points for my search.

On site, I start my search with a Frequency Discriminator, and a directional locator as the fastest method of obtaining preliminary geological information about the area and plot potential targets. If the preliminary data shows possible targets, and feasibility for recovery, then I will use conventional Geophysical instruments to try to obtain graphic imaging to confirm my locations and provide more data.

I posted the Conneticut newspaper article to demonstrate documented, Professional use and effeciency of utilizing these methods in combination.

But the bottom line is, all of these methods and instruments are only going to be as good as the knowledge and experience of the persons operating them. It's up to the person, whether they want to take the time and expense to gain the experience to learn for themselves, or hire a knowledgeable Professional with field experience. Either way there are financial risks, and critics. I know! For the money I have spent for my practical field education, I could have been a scientist, or an electronics engineer, several times . Dell

[Elie]

As a gesture of civility (see the other thread), I am posting a link related to my previous statement about water dowsing:
"Firstly, there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible. Also, Carl, who has made a thorough study of dowsing, and who has an extensive scientific background, has not come up with any such scientific principle."

http://www.thunting.com/cgi-bin/geot...o/question.dat

This report, with its list of sources at the end, should suffice for anyone who is interested in the scientific evidence against water dowsing (and other kinds of dowsing and "long range locating"), and if they are not convinced, then they can perform their own tests, as outlined in the article.

[J_Player]

Interesting post Carl,

It reminds me that the physical laws are what they are, regardless of what anyone has to say about them.

In fact all of our understanding of the physical universe is based on theories of energy and matter. Even the electronics experts work with circuitry based on electron theory. As we learn more, the theories seem to keep changing and adapting to our newer understanding. I doubt that even 100 years from now any person will have a definitive unmutable knowledge of the laws of physics, only a different interpretation.

[Carl-NC]

According to Dell, the apparently "defective" LRL devices require the use of personal metaphysical powers in order to function correctly. If this is the case, then maybe we scientifically minded people are not able to adequately test or use these devices. It seems to me that these devices are only usefuul to people who have special metaphysical powers, and cannot be depended on by an average consumer who wants to buy one to locate treasures. Only those people who have developed matabhysical abilities would have success with them as I understand it. I guess that leaves me out.

In my $25,000 LRL challenge, an average Joe who fails the test will surely bring about the excuse that they didn't have the necessary skills to use the device. That's why I try to focus on the LRL manufacturer, with them running the LRL in the test--who is more qualified than them to run the device?

So do LRL manufacturers have whatever abilities are necessary to demonstrate their own device, in an objective, randomized blind test? So far, no.

- Carl