If I am wrong I will lose, and yes they do.
I have wanted empties from the beginning of this protocol.
Which protocol is that? I can't keep track the way you keep switching. And what are "empties"? Does that mean without
anything in them or only without the target in them?
Everything I have stated is as logically simple as can be.
That is completely incorrect. It is so poorly defined and complicated that nobody can even figure out what you want from one minute until the next. Numerous people have offered to help you with your protocol, but you've opted for continuing to ramble on without clarifying anything. This is why the JREF rejected your application, as you recall. If you don't stop with the gibberish, I expect nobody will be willing to test you.
Perhaps it all seems logical in your own head. Lots of things seem logical in your head that actually aren't.
Then they hide the container in a bigger container, one that’s plastic too.
I will never see the original container empty or full.
Don't you see, Edge, it doesn't matter if you see the container or not as long as you don't know what's in it. They don't really even have to be identical, but for the purpose of reducing post-hoc excuses, it is better that they are.
I think that a blindfold would cinch it.
No. It is totally unnecessary and a waste of time. And by adding another unnecessary item to the test, it gives you one more thing to use as an excuse. The protocol should be designed to
prevent excuses.
No
Sand
rubber or plastic.
What is that supposed to mean?
I’m even willing to do it near their office.
So you've abandoned your earlier requirement for "neutral ground"? Funny, you used that as an excuse for several months. Now it's not important? I actually agree that it isn't important (you should be able to tell the difference, regardless of whether the ground is "neutral or not.) but it illustrates how your demands keep changing.
To make it quicker when the target is picked out that set of ten containers is over.
I am looking for a target in a set of ten X ten.
I think this is what you meant:
"To make the test go faster, once the target has been identified within a single test of ten potential targets, that test will be halted."
Is that what you meant?
If so, you are not only hurting yourself, but it is likely that the testing group won't agree. Leaving some potential targets undowsed is just opening the door for you to make excuses later.
One scan of a target, on lets say the space station in a micro-gravity situation would prove it once and for all, the laws of physics would have an addendum, to be added.
Oh? How would that work? What exactly would happen during this single scan? Explain why it would be significant.
No, on second thought, don't. The last thing you need is to get derailed a discussion of physics, which you know virtually nothing about.
It would only take a few seconds!
I could tutor some one to do it.
You can tutor someone to be delusional? Seriously, Edge, you can't even prove that you can do it yourself. How are you going to teach somebody to do something that you cannot do?
The opposite reaction should be movement of the dowsers’ body to the target as he dowses.
Motion should occur.
That makes no sense at all. If there is an attractive force between two objects, then the force acts upon
both objects. Thus if there is an attractive force between your dowsing rod and the target, then both your rod
and the target would be pulled toward each other. The less massive of the objects would move more. This can be shown to be the case with every force yet known to man. Yet you claim that your big dowsing rod, held by an even bigger human, cannot cause a tiny pendant of gold to move noticeably. Try suspending a tiny magnet pendant and approach it with a dowsing bar of iron and see if you can make the magnet move. I'll bet you can. You can try it with a pendant of a toy balloon and a dowsing rod of glass which you have just rubbed with silk.
That is how force
behaves, Edge. They are physical laws. You cannot play a "Get out of reality free" card to avoid those laws.
