Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[Tim Harrod]

Just to going to them will cost me about 500 dollars or more out of pocket.

That's simple: use your dowsing powers to locate gold, until you have an ounce of gold. That's worth roughly 700 dollars.

 

[Cuddles]

It's a new form of lie detecting.

No it isn't.

 

[edge]

The MDC is about trying to prove so-called paranormal claims using scientific methods.

If you are interested in what you refer to as "real science", go ahead, try for the Nobel Prize. Comes with money, too. That sucker requires "real science".



(Of course you failed again to answer the simple question about the response of IIG.)




What is the purpose of your continued posting in this thread if you don't know whether you will apply again?

It's hard to catch ever question, there’s ten of you and one of me, and I’m trying to keep it separate as per SezMes request.

The CAT scan is still under testing but may be the ultimate lie detector.
I had seen it the other day on the news or a news show like Night Line or such.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2960364#post2960364

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

In Cripple Creek, Colorado, there is a mine called the Doctor's Hat. The story behind the mine's name is that two doctors went prospecting in the dead of winter, and tired of being chilled, decided to throw a hat and sink a shaft wherever the hat landed. They left rich men.

Did the hat dowse the gold, or was there just gold everywhere?

 

[Tricky]

No, obviously it doesn't attract gold, yet something, you say, attracts the rod so strongly it nearly pulled it out of your hands. This one-way force is an amazing phenomenon.

But you are wrong it is pulled to the gold hence downward or any direction of movement that indicates a presents of metals.

You are proposing a new law of physics. If you can show that to be true, then you won't need Randi's million.

I have never had a problem in the field.

You never tested it in the field. You may think you did, but you have never described anything which even approximates a valid test of dowsing.

Does a metal detector work when on the ground sitting still Paul?
Even if it's turned on?

Yes it does. This is easily demonstrated.

Something is taken from the person to make it work and the person is the battery in a sense.

That is completely incorrect. A metal detector would work if you suspended it from a rope in a tree and swung it around. It does not need a person.

Tricky says,

Name one besides the way we scored it.

Not a true double-blind. You didn't have enough people for that. Also, too many opportunities for sensory leakage. Not a neutral site either. I'm not saying you cheated, I'm saying there were too many problems for it to be a valid test. Evey SaysMe agrees to this, and he was there.

Do we know all the laws of physics?

We know this one. It is a real basic one. Newton's Third Law. Find an exception to that one and you will be famous beyond your wildest dreams. But of course, you have not found an exception. You are simply ignoring reality in order to continue in your delusion.

The reaction may not be sensed in the gravitational field of the Earth but may require a neutral area such as Micro gravity to be able to witness the reaction….

Gobbledygook. If you can find an area of "Micro gravity" on Earth, again, your fame is assured. Do you understand the laws of gravity, Edge? Do you understand any physics?

Lets say we could attract to a field around a star would the star move or would we move in a micro gravity situation?
Would it be magnetic or some other form, dealing with gravitational forces we have yet to understand.

Let's say the moon were made of green cheese. Would it be cheddar or swiss?

What I said was that there might have been some movement but it was not a clean room to test in.

It takes only a tiny amount of force to attract a small pendulum of gold. Besides, the pendulum was at equilibrium. It wouldn't matter if the room were clean or not. Your "dowsing" should have upset the equilibrium and made it swing. It did not. To even a first year physics student, that would indicate that there was no force between the dowsing rod and the pendulum.

Again if you are looking for a magnetic type of movement then we would never need the tools that we have to mine with and only need 20 ton electromagnets to pull the Gold out of the creek.

No, we are not necessarily looking for a magnetic force (gold is not attracted to magnets). We are looking for any force whatsoever. You claim that force nearly ripped the dowsing rod out of your hands. Well, whatever that incredibly strong force was, you need to show that it can also move a tiny pendant of gold.

Name one besides the way we scored it.
We scored it on a yes and no being correct because that’s what I have to do, get the empties right too.
I have to get every pick right in any form of testing or scoring.
It was a totally honest test why does that bug you?

I do not deny that you were honest. It was still a deeply flawed test. I'm willing to admit that you may have showed something, but I would like to see you demonstrate dowsing in a well-designed and controlled test before I'm willing to buy it. I've seen too many dowsers fail to think that you somehow beat the odds.

Then you say,

I refused them because you where trying to get me to test in the old fashion method which is flawed.

You have not been able to show how it is flawed. It tests exactly what you say you can do.

My experiments show a losing proposition in placing all the ten containers in one area.

How much separation do you need? If you are in the field, how sensitive is your dowsing? Can it locate gold to within ten feet? If it is so very inaccurate, how do you ever find gold using dowsing?

If you can dowse for gold, then it is quite obvious that the closer you get to the gold, the stronger the dowsing response should be. Do you deny that? Are you proposing yet another new law of physics?

Get over what I said in the past and think about what I have learned now.

Most of the things you have "learned" are excuses for why what you said didn't work. Not at any time have you ever considered the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. You just keep making new excuses for why it doesn't do what you said it did.

My experiments prove that what you call my excuses, have some relevance to facts.

Perhaps. I am skeptical. You keep proposing things that violate the known laws of science. By the way, whatever happened with that place where metal will levitate? You spoke of that like it was a sure thing, even though it would certainly be a miracle by any known laws of science. Why the lack of discussion now?

It would tell you if I was cheating if there were holes!
There might be something here greater than the money or cheating for the money.
That’s only if I win and you want to be totally convinced, that I didn't find a hole, twisted Tricky.

You're being incoherent again, Edge. This comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said about lie detectors or cat scans.

But yes, if you can demonstrate a new law of physics, then yes there is something greater than the money here. Since you have virtually no understanding of physics, I find that scenario unlikely.

If you are looking to test for real science and truth then the time constraint should not be a factor in testing a dowser or else you are not interested in real science.....

The challenge is not a scientific experiment. It is a test to see if you can do what you say you can do. If you have some science, take it to the local university. While you're there, sign up for a basic physics course.

 

[edge]

In Cripple Creek, Colorado, there is a mine called the Doctor's Hat. The story behind the mine's name is that two doctors went prospecting in the dead of winter, and tired of being chilled, decided to throw a hat and sink a shaft wherever the hat landed. They left rich men.

Did the hat dowse the gold, or was there just gold everywhere?

That was dumb luck.

 

[Normal Dude]

It's a new form of lie detecting.

That's a gross over-simplification if I ever heard one.

 

[edge]

That is completely incorrect. A metal detector would work if you suspended it from a rope in a tree and swung it around. It does not need a person.

Ok Tricky who swings it.
You have a funny way of thinking.

Then you say,

Let's say the moon were made of green cheese. Would it be cheddar or Swiss?

If there was a piece of cheese that big out there, would it still have gravitational influences and a field associated with it?


Then you twist it again to make yourself look smarter,

Gobbledygook. If you can find an area of "Micro gravity" on Earth, again, your fame is assured. Do you understand the laws of gravity, Edge? Do you understand any physics?

It does get rather tiresome trying to give you a understanding of theory.

Gobbledygook. If you can find an area of "Micro gravity" on Earth, again, your fame is assured. Do you understand the laws of gravity, Edge? Do you understand any physics?

Where did I say on the Earth?
Obviously it has to be in space away from Earth Gee?
Are you a teenager?
I might understand physics better than you if I’m right about this.

Answerer this question and only this, do you think all of what is or could be known about physics has been accomplished?
It’s a simple yes or no response with out my intellectual capacity brought up in question.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Hang a metal detector, bury a target in its arc, give it a shove, and it will detect the target when it passes over it.

 

[Tricky]

Ok Tricky who swings it.
You have a funny way of thinking.

A machine could swing it. So are you now going to say "but who built the machine?" Face it Edge. You goofed. A metal detector will work with no physical connection to a human. Will a dowsing rod do that? If you swing it on a rope, will it detect gold like a metal detector will?

It does get rather tiresome trying to give you a understanding of theory.

Oh, the irony. Edge, you don't even understand basic Newtonian physics and you are attempting to lecture others on gravitational theory?

Where did I say on the Earth?
Obviously it has to be in space away from Earth Gee?

You said "We could attract". Since "we" are on earth, it would make sense to assume that is the location you were talking about. If I have been unable to follow your incoherent babble, you can hardly blame me for the confusion. Why don't you give us a brief explanation of your Theory of Microgravity?

I might understand physics better than you if I’m right about this.

LOL. And if the moon were made of cheese...

Answerer this question and only this, do you think all of what is or could be known about physics has been accomplished?

No.

Now if you would be so kind as to reply in a similarly brief fashion. Do you think you have the knowledge necessary to discover a new law of physics that contradicts existing laws?

It’s a simple yes or no response with out my intellectual capacity brought up in question.

And I answered it as you requested. I should say though that any discoveries about Newtonian physics will be refinements of what is known, not reversals, as you are suggesting. Feel free to ask any physicist about this. And while you're at it, why don't you mention that you have found an exception to Newton's Third Law. See what his or her "reaction" is.

 

[edge]

Hang a metal detector, bury a target in its arc, give it a shove, and it will detect the target when it passes over it.

But can it find new gold or a target without a person behind it, moving it?

 

[Czarcasm]

But can it find new gold or a target without a person behind it, moving it?

No problem, Sparky. It should take no time whatsoever to attach a metal detector to a robotic vehicle.

 

[Lanzy]

I have a metal detector, it doesn't care if I move it or not. You can turn it on and walk away. If metal is brought within its range it detects it all by itself. You can bring the metal within range by chucking it near it, no people need be nearby.

 

[Paulhoff]

Tricky, to people who think like edge, not to know everything means not to know anything and therefore they think they have a right to believe in all things that they can think of.

Paul

 

[Tricky]

I have a metal detector, it doesn't care if I move it or not. You can turn it on and walk away. If metal is brought within its range it detects it all by itself. You can bring the metal within range by chucking it near it, no people need be nearby.

That's right. You could leave a metal detector by a railroad track and it would tell you when the trains go by.

If you live in a fairly modern city, you probably have traffic lights which "know" when there is a car. The way they work is that a simple metal detector is embedded in the asphalt and when a car stops on it, the light "knows" to change. It would work if a car without a driver accidentally rolled on top of it too.

Give up on this one, Edge, and get back to refining your protocol or changing the face of modern physics.

 

[chillzero]

That's right. You could leave a metal detector by a railroad track and it would tell you when the trains go by.

Aren't the tracks metal?

 

[edge]

A person still moves it to a location or moves it.
Who will a robot report to and who tells the robot to look?
And with out a battery a metal detector is non functional.
Who powers or powers up one of these machines?
Do they also have desires?

 

[edge]

I have a metal detector, it doesn't care if I move it or not. You can turn it on and walk away. If metal is brought within its range it detects it all by itself. You can bring the metal within range by chucking it near it, no people need be nearby.

Without a person what use is it?
Why the handel?

 

[Tricky]

Aren't the tracks metal?

Yes, but metal detectors are graduated. The more (or closer) the metal, the greater the response. If you hooked it to speakers, it would sound like a theremin when a train goes by.

That's also why those "smart lights" won't change for a bicycle.

 

[Paulhoff]

Aren't the tracks metal?

Yes, and trains are a hell of a lot more metal.

Paul