Tricky
Briefly immortal
But you don't have too. Simply use a target that is so big and pure that its response overrides any small, impure, distant responses.
What is your understanding of the idiomotor effect? I'm betting you have it wrong.
No it is not. Accuracy in all tests has shown to fall well within the range of pure statistical chance.
Can you explain for us, in layman's terms, what that addendum might be? Does it violate any of the other laws of Newtonian physics?
These things have been looked at. They were shown not to work.
I know you have a great fondness for Tesla, but though he was indeed a brilliant inventor and scientist, there is not a thing that he did that cannot be explained with the ordinary laws of physics. He managed without requiring any "addendums". Can you?
Tricky says,
That’s exactly what I intend to do plus a less sensitive form of dowsing in the horizontal instead of the vertical response. I know what the differences are on the same bank that I checked both ways, I’ll know soon about that.
Then there must have been a reason why I didn’t get more than one out of ten in a building right?
My average was at least 4 out of ten at my sisters’ house.
Lets say I’m right about dowsing what does it prove?
They work alright and have been proven too, the reservoir here in Weaverville was found by a water dowser and the one in Hayfork I know I have asked the old timers that have been here for generations..+ many home owners wells were found that way in both towns it usually is told as the last chance we had was to call in a dowser.
You’re smart tell us what it would mean if it can be proved.
That’s exactly what I intend to do plus a less sensitive form of dowsing in the horizontal instead of the vertical response. I know what the differences are on the same bank that I checked both ways, I’ll know soon about that.
Come on we all know what it says, I ask you to dismiss it and then what are you left with?
Then there must have been a reason why I didn’t get more than one out of ten in a building right?
My average was at least 4 out of ten at my sisters’ house.
If you speculate with me what do you think it is?
Lets say I’m right about dowsing what does it prove?
They work alright and have been proven too, the reservoir here in Weaverville was found by a water dowser and the one in Hayfork I know I have asked the old timers that have been here for generations..+ many home owners wells were found that way in both towns it usually is told as the last chance we had was to call in a dowser.
You’re smart tell us what it would mean if it can be proved.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
That in no way addresses my statement. Can you or can you not find a target of gold that is so large and so pure that its "dowsing response" should vastly overwhelm local, sensitive variations? If not, why not? None of your "explanations" have ever addressed this question.
But speaking of horizontal, were you ever able to make a pendulum of gold swing by dowsing at it? Since you have previously claimed that your dowsing has found forces that are so strong they rip the dowsing rod from your hand, you should be able to easily affect a pendulum sitting at equilibrium with nothing but air in between your dowsing rod and the gold target.
No, we "all" don't apparently know that. I want you to tell me, in your own words, what it means so we can know what you are dismissing. Don't quote me a definition from some source. Show me that YOU know. I'm not giving you any hints.
Yes, a very good reason. One out of ten is exactly what would be expected by random chance. When properly performed, the experiment reveals that dowsing is no better than random.
I have a paranormal ability too. I can draw an Ace out of a deck of shuffled cards. On the average, I get it once out of every thirteen tries.
And your test at your sisters' house was probably not properly blinded. So far, you have not been able to demonstrate that you know how to set up a double blind test. Can you describe the exact protocol you used for this "home test"?
If you are right, you have discovered a new law of physics which has somehow eluded scientists who dedicate their lifetimes to studying such things. You will win a Nobel prize and be rich beyond your wildest dreams.
Now let's say you're wrong about dowsing. What does it prove? That the laws of physics work pretty much the way they have been described, that you will not discover an "addendum" to the laws of physics, that you will not be able to pass a properly blinded test and that you will spend a lot of time pursuing a fantasy which will never get you any significant amount of money.
Now, which one of those scenarios seems to be occurring?
Do you know how water occurs in the underground? Why don't you describe it for us?
Yes, stories and anecdotes like this are quite common in folklore, yet every time one of these dowsers is performs in a controlled test, they fail. Every time. Usually they refuse to be tested because they know they will fail. They have all sorts of excuses for not being tested, including requiring impossible conditions. Does this sound familiar?
SezMe
post-pre-born
For those who think April 1 is a drop dead date for Edge, please see today's Swift. All Edge has to do is get a local group to do the prelim.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm guessing he's not too convient to a skeptic group and he's not willing to make the effort to contact one anyway.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Hey, Edge, I'm in your area (California) and have conducted a preliminary Challenge test. So when you have your application all in order, let me know. Let's rock (sorry, couldn't resist the pun).
Just in case you missed my post, edge, and please pardon again my insisting:
Have you filled out a proper application form, had it notarized and enclosed the protocol proposal?
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Edge
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html
Paul
And if I remember right, I heard Randi say at a monthly meeting, that the largest group of people tested for the million dollars are dowsers, and of course the million dollars is still there.
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Very generous of you to offer, SezMe. What challenge(s) have you done before? (If you can say without violating agreements.)
I'm not in California, but as a long time gadfly and supporter of Edge's efforts, I'd be willing to participate (without compensation) in a properly conducted trial. Like you, I want to see the protocol. I've suggested several to Edge, but he has never addressed any of them directly in a way that indicated that he understood what I was saying. So to reiterate I'll give the basic scenario again:
- Edge designates an area where there are only weak, few, or no dowsing responses when he uses his rod.
- Into that area, we bring a relatively large, pure target of gold.
- Edge verifies, by open testing, that he can consistantly detect that target in his chosen area.
- In closed testing, on his chosen area, using properly designed double-blind proceedures, Edge finds the randomly placed target, either under minimal cover (such as an opaque container placed over the target) or in "natural settings" (buried in the sediment).
This will require Edge to answer some basic questions:
- Can you detect pure gold?
- Is the volume and purity of the gold proportional to your ability to detect it?
- Exactly what other substances give you identical responses to the response for gold and what is the best way we eliminate their interferance? (Incidentally if other substandes give identical responses, we might consider dowsing for them. It would be much cheaper.)
- If in the above described setting you dowsed ten trials of ten targets each, how many successes (1 to 10) would you consider to be an adequate demonstration of the success of dowsing?
Frankly, I doubt that Edge will ever agree to this scenario or any other reasonable one. He is a veritable font of excuses. But I remain available to be proved wrong.
Slight aside here, having not read everything about this claim/person/event etc etc
Wouldn't a scientific study show evidence if there were any abilities to find water? (forget gold, that would no doubt be kept quiet, heh)?
http://www.twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html
Has this been debunked?
Wouldn't a scientific study show evidence if there were any abilities to find water? (forget gold, that would no doubt be kept quiet, heh)?
http://www.twm.co.nz/dowsing_jse_com.html
Has this been debunked?
That has been done - there's a video somewhere of a trial in Australia by Randi et alia. But edge's claim is for dowsing for gold, so he has to be tested for that. If you claim to be able to run 50 km in under 2 hours, I'm not going to test your claim by asking you to run 100 meters in under 9 seconds.
The answer may not be 'yes'.
It may need to be contaminated gold, meaning there is a combination of elements/substances that cause the rod to move. Perhaps edge can offer up a few specimens that he has dredged up himself after successfully dowsing them in the field. Now all it takes is to set up a successful dowsing environment in the field to do the test.
Again the answer may not be 'yes'.
Maybe experience has found that the rod just detects the presence of gold not the amount. How can this be explained? An addendum to the laws of physics may be required. But edge is not a scientist so you may need to provide this addendum for him. When he wins.
I believe edge successfully dowsed 4 out of 10 at his sister's house. But this was a good day with ideal conditions which would be difficult to set up in a trial. Would 2 or 3 do? This is 2 or 3 times more than pure chance.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
A reasonable point, though weak. As you have suggested, I have also recommended that he use as a target, gold that he has previously found through dowsing. But if it is a combination of elements, then how does one know if they are getting responses from gold or from other elements/substances? In such a scenario as where edge is prospecting, dowsing for gold wouldn't work because those other elements/substances might be quite commonplace.
Therein lies a big problem. There is a trace amount of gold virtually everywhere. It is even dissolved (yes, gold can be dissolved in tiny amounts) in seawater and, of course, groundwater. Some plants, such as horsetails even concentrate heavy metals, such as gold, in their tissues. Not enough to be valuable, but many times higher than background levels.
I have requested that Edge give the protocols of that experiment at his sisters' house (not sure if it is one sister or more) and he has not yet had time to respond. A lot would depend on the number of targets (getting 4 of ten correct with only two targets would be less than impressive) and the method of double-blinding. From previous experience, I'm not sure Edge is capable of conducting a proper double-blind test. Most of his tests have involved only two people, which makes double-blinding impossible.
In a proper double-blinded test, three successes might be okay for a preliminary test, but probably not, because it is well within what might be expected by chance. But with a hundred tests, twenty or thirty successes (assuming ten targets) might be enough to be significant. Most dowsers, though, claim much higher success rates than this.
Maybe its gold = no effect; other elements/substances = no effect; gold + other elements/substances (intimately bound) = effect.
Maybe there is a threshold level for gold, followed by a flatline dose/response curve.
I don't think edge is interested in why or how this could be the case. He is just a dowser, not a scientist, and he will leave this question to be resolved by scientists after he wins.
PS: How do you work out the odds of getting 2, or 3, or 4 correct by pure chance in a trial of 10 targets only one of which contains the booty?
(we can't expect him to do a hundred tests. It might be beyond his endurance.)
Maybe there is a threshold level for gold, followed by a flatline dose/response curve.
I don't think edge is interested in why or how this could be the case. He is just a dowser, not a scientist, and he will leave this question to be resolved by scientists after he wins.
PS: How do you work out the odds of getting 2, or 3, or 4 correct by pure chance in a trial of 10 targets only one of which contains the booty?
(we can't expect him to do a hundred tests. It might be beyond his endurance.)
robinsons’ Link is exactly the way it should be, tested in the field.
It got me thinking why the tests where so successful and Tricky your idea suddenly hit me.
Bury the target and it’s grounded to the field.
This could explain success in the field, so simple.
Every other way I have tried, even at JREF the metal wasn’t grounded.
Tricky says,
This is good
And this
Yes to all
Purity isn’t as important and the target can be any metal, but we will consider coins even modern ones for size of target.
For the test lets say 6 of 10, if it works right for me when I test this creek bank then we can say 7 of 10.
I’ll be up there Tuesday in Hayfork and I will check it both ways, willow and L rods for clarity of the bank. I will see which method is better at locating with out feeling every thing if my memory serves me correct there is a good blank spot where I didn’t get any reaction with the L rods.
Plus I will try L rods that will have some friction out of coat hanger material with and with out the cardboard tubes as handles.
I will try the target in the ground and above the ground.
I’ll have a few more days to finish the ones with bearings.
Right now I have found two sets of bearings out of two hard drives that will work perfectly well.
I just have to find a grinder to use, to get them to fit into handles, probably pvc pipe, to make them more manageable.
They are the styluses from two hard drives, the part that writes on the disk.
Tricky says,
Tricky you got to remember, never say never.
I have had to figure what went wrong and that has been very difficult especially compared to actually mining with the method of dowsing.
It makes it so much easier to locate what ever is there.
Then here it is the last line of Robinsons’ signature,
If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."
I don’t know every thing there is to know about it yet.
Now, there is a difference in the amount of force that you feel the more gold the more force, there is also some platinum here, in the mix.
It’s heavier on the atomic scale so there size of equal proportion would be different or a heavier pull.
That would be hard to measure though but not the difference between lead and gold.
This is what I feel and think.
BillyJoe From what I can tell all metals have an attraction more or less it depends what the atomic weight is as to weather it’s stronger or weaker. As far as I can tell the amount of the metal plays into how much force you are going to feel.
Let me throw a question to you, why should the molten core of the Earth hold us down on the out side of a circular globe that’s spinning?
It makes more sense in a bucket shape being slung in a circular orbit.
You want to know what I think is going on with dowsing?
It got me thinking why the tests where so successful and Tricky your idea suddenly hit me.
Bury the target and it’s grounded to the field.
This could explain success in the field, so simple.
Every other way I have tried, even at JREF the metal wasn’t grounded.
Tricky says,
This is good
And this
Yes to all
Purity isn’t as important and the target can be any metal, but we will consider coins even modern ones for size of target.
For the test lets say 6 of 10, if it works right for me when I test this creek bank then we can say 7 of 10.
I’ll be up there Tuesday in Hayfork and I will check it both ways, willow and L rods for clarity of the bank. I will see which method is better at locating with out feeling every thing if my memory serves me correct there is a good blank spot where I didn’t get any reaction with the L rods.
Plus I will try L rods that will have some friction out of coat hanger material with and with out the cardboard tubes as handles.
I will try the target in the ground and above the ground.
I’ll have a few more days to finish the ones with bearings.
Right now I have found two sets of bearings out of two hard drives that will work perfectly well.
I just have to find a grinder to use, to get them to fit into handles, probably pvc pipe, to make them more manageable.
They are the styluses from two hard drives, the part that writes on the disk.
Tricky says,
________________
Tricky you got to remember, never say never.
I have had to figure what went wrong and that has been very difficult especially compared to actually mining with the method of dowsing.
It makes it so much easier to locate what ever is there.
Then here it is the last line of Robinsons’ signature,
If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."
I don’t know every thing there is to know about it yet.
Now, there is a difference in the amount of force that you feel the more gold the more force, there is also some platinum here, in the mix.
It’s heavier on the atomic scale so there size of equal proportion would be different or a heavier pull.
That would be hard to measure though but not the difference between lead and gold.
This is what I feel and think.
BillyJoe From what I can tell all metals have an attraction more or less it depends what the atomic weight is as to weather it’s stronger or weaker. As far as I can tell the amount of the metal plays into how much force you are going to feel.
Let me throw a question to you, why should the molten core of the Earth hold us down on the out side of a circular globe that’s spinning?
It makes more sense in a bucket shape being slung in a circular orbit.
You want to know what I think is going on with dowsing?
Edge, how does a "Yes" answer even make sense to Tricky's questions #3 and #4? Are you kidding me?
No.
Your meandering about physics could not be of less interest. You probably gave Mr. Randi an earful or two during your test with JREF, didn't you? From here: http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html "[...]During the dowsing process, he kept up a running commentary to me on such matters as a rare "Indian root" with which he was familiar and which was a sure cure for the 'flu, a special crystal he carried on his person to ensure his good health, and a few "free energy" machines that he thought I should know about.[...]"
I want to see you applying with a proper application and a sensible protocol proposal.
One claim at a time. Can you successfully dowse for gold, as you have repeatedly stated?
Are you deliberately avoiding me, edge, or are your feet getting cold:
Have you filled out a proper application form, had it notarized and enclosed the protocol proposal?
Okay, this makes dowsing sound a little less crazy and a little less dependent on an addendum to the laws of physics.
Gravity.
The spin of the Earth imparts a velocity to us which tends to make us travel in a straight line rather than follow the curvature of the Earth. But gravity keeps our feet firmly planted on the ground. It's not just the molten core but a mutual attraction between us (individually) and the whole, entire mass of the Earth. Of course Einstein had a somewhat different view of gravity, but let's not stray too far away.
Yes, what do you think is going on?
Last edited:
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Grounding only means that it does not have an electrical charge, I very much doubt that any metal that was handled when placed would have a charge.
Who does, but this does not open the flood gates for anything to be real and or possible.
What kind of attraction, it is not electrical (no charge) and it is not magnetic (gold, silver, platinum are not magnetic).
The core being molten has nothing to do with gravity, all things have gravity, the core, the mantle, the crust, the oceans, the air, you, me, and everything. The spinning of the Earth does make you weight just a little tiny less, at the poles you weight a tiny bit more, at the equator a tiny bit less because of the centrifugal-force. The earth does not spin anyway near fast enough to throw you off.
Paul