teck49
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 83
As with my challenge, the possibility of ideomotor reflex must be factored out. This can be done in a similar fashion to the process Kramer & I discussed. Simply lay out a grid of small boxes, (3" cube) in 6 rows of 6, approx. 2 feet apart. Then have an impartial observer put whatever is to be dowsed for in a box determined by rolling a die twice; once for row, once for column. Then run the agreed upon number of trials. Hopefully you will have an easier time than I had getting a trial off the ground.
I am reading your posts at least three times, because your writing style allows for a lot of different interpretations.
For example: When you say "His papers are ready", I suppose this means the notarized JREF Challenge Application including a protocol proposal along the twelve official rules of said challenge. Please correct me if I got you wrong.
However, I still do not understand your response to Tricky's questions #3 and #4:
Your response to this was:
A "Yes" reply to #3 and #4 does not make sense to me, edge. You do seem to respond to said questions in the text below, though. Albeit in your usual fuzzy way.
By my understanding, during the test you were supposed to dowse for you targets. Not to mine for temporary companionship.
Edge, the reason why I keep insisting is to get a clear and definitive answer to inquiries relevant to the JREF Challenge. You seem to be all over the place, either deliberately or unknowingly.
The more time I spend discussing with you in this thread, the more I evidence I get that you are doing the best to prolong your dowsing claims without having to do another test.
There are USD 1,000,000 waiting for you, edge, in case of a successful demonstration of your claim. You repeatedly have claimed you can dowse for gold. This thread is going on for eight months now.
Your efforts in moving towards an acceptable protocol do not suggest that you are convinced of your alleged ability.
They do suggest that you are clinging, clamping, clasping on to something which is very likely a delusion, because this delusion formed a basic part of your view of reality. So far, you have rejected every other explanation and, as Tricky has said, you are indeed a veritable fountain of excuses.
Edge, please give us a definitive date when you will send in your proper application.
USD 1,000,000. That should ensure a safe retirement, shouldn't it?
teck49
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 83
I think that an ability to dowse gold would pretty much cover any needs imaginable. Go for it Edge!
(Chanting) EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE! EDGE!
The gold doesn't come much, but it comes more when using the rod.
Interesting, only slight contact and even transitive contact (through gloves) have yielded dowsing activity. I wonder what results you might get if you were to find a way to prevent the willow stick from dropping at all. I'm thinking a situation where you, say, place the tip of it on a scale or other force-measuring device while holding the other end(s) from beneath (thus preventing you from inadvertantly adding downward force). The downward force from the dowsing activity ought to be measurable this way (it would show up as a force greater than the weight of the stick if you hold it light enough). I was thinking the scale could be placed on a movable item (like a cart) or perhaps suspended from your wrists/arms in some way.
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,477
Think about why Earth is an oblate spheroid. Would it still be one, if it didn't rotate? There's more going on at the Equator than just being further from the Earth's center. (I have no idea which effect dominates one's weight difference.)
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Rotation is why the Earth is slightly oblate, Jupiter is even more oblate because of its faster rotation speed and being mainly made of gas.
Edge, let’s do a little math and find out how much gravity the human body has compared to the earth.
First the volume of the body of a 150 lbs man would been about
A U.S gallon of water is about 8.33 lbs. and the volume of a gallon is 231 cubic inches.
150 lbs divided by 8.33 lbs for how many gallons of water = 18 gallons
231 cubic inches to the gallon times 18 gallions equals 4158 cubic inches.
To find the radius of a sphere with 4158 cubic inches divided by 4, multiply by 3, divided by PI and take the cube root of the remainder.
4158 / 4 equals 1039.5, 1039.5 * 3 equals 3118.5, 3118.5 / PI equals 992.6, the cube root of 992.6 is 9.975. So the sphere is about 10 inches in radius or 20 inches in diameter.
For a quick check on finding the g force of the moon so we know the math is right. The moon’s gravity is about 1/6 of earth’s on the surface of the moon. In reality the moons gravity is only 1/80 of the earth because the moon weights only 1/80 of the earth’s but because the moon is smaller, you are closer to the center of gravity of the moon, so the force of gravity is much higher.
Now for the rough calculation of the g force, the diameter of the moon is about ¼ of the earth’s and the density is about 2/3 of the earth’s. So ¼ times 2/3 equals 1/6th g.
The density of the man is about 18 percent of the earth’s.
10 inch radius / (earth’s radius in inches (3959 miles * 5280 ft. * 12 inches)) 250,842,240 inches equals .00000003986.
.00000003986 * .18 equals .000000007176g.
If you can feel .000000007176 g’s then you doing good and what you'll looking for is even smaller and in the ground.
Paul
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
My attempt back in 1999.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2281609#post2281609
The Betz "report" is a total misrepresentation of the role of the dowser in this project. Betz's report is based on the DOWSER's account and not that of the Project team. ie, a credulous retelling of misinformation.
GzuzKryzt said,
He’s a lot quieter than you are.
Probably give me a heart attack or a stroke, but yes of course..
I couldn’t go up there on Tuesday because of ice on the road but I will attempt it soon.
No one is more inpatient than me with the acceptation of you.
The only way possible right now, is to mine to prove it.
That protocol probably wont be acceptable to J.R.E.F. .
So I have to go to the next possible place that is the most neutral bank on a creek that I know about and I can’t get to it right now. Because the weather conditions, are treacherous now.
I don’t know maybe I’m not being clear enough.
In other words I’m not going to look like a total fool again.
However the information that I have supplied is as truthful as I can possibly give you.
If I can do the double blind test on that bank then I will send in the paper work to jref.
Like I said before if it a delusion it’s a damn good one.
So more time is required for myself to write the exact protocol for them to make it as easy for the people involved as I can.
Because no one wants to spend days here, testing me.
So the protocols I am going to test are exactly as they did in the office and as Tricky has outlined with the exception of the place…………..Oh ya the target and the form of dowsing that I use probably will be different.
I have to see if I can get at least 60% right.
Petre,
Pretty interesting contemplation. That could be another way of experimenting with it after I prove it’s a real effect.
It would have to be a hanging scale I would think.
Paulhoff wouldn’t that be like atoms or molecules?
The smallest that I can recover are microns.
Here’s some more facts on the copper wire with the loop on the end.
To hold it parallel to the ground you really have to grip it hard because of it’s weight and that it is at least 16 to 18 inches long.
This makes it quite heavy.
When a target is suspended above me it becomes as light as a feather and I only use my index finger and thumb.
I find this **** amazing.
The wire that I used is what the electrical service, “you know the electrical meter on your house” is grounded with.
Try it and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
You can get it at Ace for a buck or two.
He’s a lot quieter than you are.
Probably give me a heart attack or a stroke, but yes of course..
I couldn’t go up there on Tuesday because of ice on the road but I will attempt it soon.
No one is more inpatient than me with the acceptation of you.
The only way possible right now, is to mine to prove it.
That protocol probably wont be acceptable to J.R.E.F. .
So I have to go to the next possible place that is the most neutral bank on a creek that I know about and I can’t get to it right now. Because the weather conditions, are treacherous now.
I don’t know maybe I’m not being clear enough.
In other words I’m not going to look like a total fool again.
However the information that I have supplied is as truthful as I can possibly give you.
If I can do the double blind test on that bank then I will send in the paper work to jref.
Like I said before if it a delusion it’s a damn good one.
So more time is required for myself to write the exact protocol for them to make it as easy for the people involved as I can.
Because no one wants to spend days here, testing me.
So the protocols I am going to test are exactly as they did in the office and as Tricky has outlined with the exception of the place…………..Oh ya the target and the form of dowsing that I use probably will be different.
I have to see if I can get at least 60% right.
Petre,
Pretty interesting contemplation. That could be another way of experimenting with it after I prove it’s a real effect.
It would have to be a hanging scale I would think.
Paulhoff wouldn’t that be like atoms or molecules?
The smallest that I can recover are microns.
Here’s some more facts on the copper wire with the loop on the end.
To hold it parallel to the ground you really have to grip it hard because of it’s weight and that it is at least 16 to 18 inches long.
This makes it quite heavy.
When a target is suspended above me it becomes as light as a feather and I only use my index finger and thumb.
I find this **** amazing.
The wire that I used is what the electrical service, “you know the electrical meter on your house” is grounded with.
Try it and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
You can get it at Ace for a buck or two.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
I was writing about gravity, the math had nothing to do with atoms and or molecules outside that things are made of them.
Paul
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Well, Edge, I must say that you are coming remarkably close to joining us in the real world. I can see you still need a little help with doing a double blind test though. Remember, you need three people (or two people and a videocamera that is running constantly).
One person hides the target in one of the locations, using a random number to choose it. If you have a six-sided die, you can use that to approximate randomness but then you can only use six targets. Ten-sided dice are available at gaming stores. (You can't use two six-sided dice, because rolling two dice, "7" is six times more likely than "12")
You and the person hiding the target must never be in the dowsing area at the same time because you might accidentally get hints from each other. It doesn't mean anyone thinks you would cheat, it is called "sensory leakage". Use a buzzer or something to let each other know that you have left the area. No talking at all.
If you use a third observer rather than a videocam, that observer must also not ever make contact with the person who hides the target (for the same reason).
The observer does not know the correct answers. The observer only records what choices you made. (This is why it is fairly acceptable to use a videocam instead of a human for this). But if you use an observer, again, use a non-verbal communication to let the others know you have left the area.
No answers must be revealed until the all trials are complete and no more dowsing will occur. At that point and that point only can you compare the numbers of the actual locations that the target-hider has written down with the record of the dowser's picks.
The percentage of correct picks is not as important as the ratio of correct picks to the number of targets. If you use six targets, then about 18% correct is what you would expect by random. If you use ten targets, then 10% is the random number. If you use only two targets, then 50% is to be expected, and 60% means very little unless you do many many trials.
I am impressed that you are making an attempt to do this honestly. It is not as easy to make a fair test as it might seem though. Let us know if you have questions.
One person hides the target in one of the locations, using a random number to choose it. If you have a six-sided die, you can use that to approximate randomness but then you can only use six targets. Ten-sided dice are available at gaming stores. (You can't use two six-sided dice, because rolling two dice, "7" is six times more likely than "12")
You and the person hiding the target must never be in the dowsing area at the same time because you might accidentally get hints from each other. It doesn't mean anyone thinks you would cheat, it is called "sensory leakage". Use a buzzer or something to let each other know that you have left the area. No talking at all.
If you use a third observer rather than a videocam, that observer must also not ever make contact with the person who hides the target (for the same reason).
The observer does not know the correct answers. The observer only records what choices you made. (This is why it is fairly acceptable to use a videocam instead of a human for this). But if you use an observer, again, use a non-verbal communication to let the others know you have left the area.
No answers must be revealed until the all trials are complete and no more dowsing will occur. At that point and that point only can you compare the numbers of the actual locations that the target-hider has written down with the record of the dowser's picks.
The percentage of correct picks is not as important as the ratio of correct picks to the number of targets. If you use six targets, then about 18% correct is what you would expect by random. If you use ten targets, then 10% is the random number. If you use only two targets, then 50% is to be expected, and 60% means very little unless you do many many trials.
I am impressed that you are making an attempt to do this honestly. It is not as easy to make a fair test as it might seem though. Let us know if you have questions.
I nearly missed this gem. Edge, forget dowsing. If you can detect micrometre sized particles without a microscope, and actually recover them without some seriously specialised equipment, you will have made probably the biggest advance in micro-scale technology ever. Not only would be a fairly sure bet for a Nobel, you would have every production company in the world hammering on your door trying to give you money.
I read all that. Interesting how the conclusion can be the opposite of what actually happened. I remember this whenever I read about a prayer study that showed an effect or water that cured something or other (I'm talking homoeopathy here, of course)
PS: I accidentally posted this on another thread but can't remember where. I thought I was here
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Over where I replied to you!I read all that. Interesting how the conclusion can be the opposite of what actually happened. I remember this whenever I read about a prayer study that showed an effect or water that cured something or other (I'm talking homoeopathy here, of course)
PS: I accidentally posted this on another thread but can't remember where. I thought I was here
"Spirit Dowsing"
It could also provide another approach to applying for the challenge. If you could demonstrate a previously-unknown force, that alone would probably be accepted. Showing the attraction between any dowsing rod and anything else such that the force exceedes what would be expected from gravity, magnetism, static charge, etc. ought to be sufficient.
Here's something that could be tested without having to find a 'natural' area. You could test this in the JREF offices couldn't you? Or would the books and the photocopier in another room interfere again?
I'm a miner when we say microns we are talking about flour size up to a fine, which continues to rice size. After that they are small earring sizes, those are the beginning of nugget sizes.
Paul says,
That sounds like molecules or smaller I don't know, but I forget you all might not be familiar with the mining vernacular.
I have given some thought as how to extract the gold that is in sea water and have a few ideas but I need to win the challenge for backing on that idea.
I have heard tell of some one up here that was trying in some of the richer mineral creeks here and was shut down by the government.
He supposedly was successful.
My ideas are a little different.
First you have to overcome the energy losses.
The word was ****.
I knew you had an explanation edge. Good on you. Credit where credit's due.
Okay, I don't know if you were censored or if you are having a joke. I'm leaning towards a joke. If not there are ways around the censor. For example: In the beginning the word was S...