Pyramids of the Ancient Pre-Socratics as a Physicalization of Abstract Philosophical Theory

[Eodnhoj7]

True, but I am not out to test all dowsing rods. The one's applied repeatedly change relative to random circumstances (ie crossing over random portions of the ground repeatedly, as well as curved copper, biological entities (head/heart specifically), etc.).

But there is more than one random element in the equation - the human. Who can be producing involuntary movements.

And so the litmus test IS whether you can find water with a copper rod easier than you can find it by simply guessing at random.

This is literally the lowest bar possible for "effectiveness"

Yeah, this dowsing rod thing is taken way out of context...for the past several pages. All it is, is one of many frameworks. It exists as its own proof, but further proofs are warranted.

[Arising_uk]

Addressed at bottom and prior post. ...

No you haven't, wood or plastic is pretty much EM neutral, mounting your rods upon them and seeing if they move when you wave your copper pyramid around them would be a perfectly acceptable test of whether dowsing rods can detect EM fields as you claim.

What the studies fails to take into account is the ideomotor response being activated by the rods.
The argument, you claim, is a false causality. The hands cause the rods to move, when dually the rods can cause the hands to move...it is a question of relativity.

It's pretty much a truism that one knows they are talking to a crank when the word "relativity" is raised.

But let's say that the rods are causing the movement, well if they are then that motion should be dectable when you aren't holding them so do the test above to see if that is the case.

physics forums: a review of dowsing for and against.


Shows a variety of articles as well as hypothesis as to why in certain circumstances they do work.

Post them up then as I'd be interested in what methodologies they used that were more rigorous than the Kassel test.

False, they were looking for water. I was looking for spots that caused the rods to go off and if those spots could cause the rods to repeatedly go off or not. The curved copper constitutes those spots.

Different context. ...

Then do a double-blind test to prove this claim. Start with ten boxes and have someone put your curved copper into one of them without your knowledge and see if you can get them to go off repeatably. Logik can probably tell you how many times you should do the test to beat the 1 in 10 chance respectably or even how many boxes there should be to prove the efficacy of dowsing rods.

No he actually posted it months ago as some insult. ...

Must have given you wet dreams.

False, governmental studies.

Post them up then.

Second...the subject object dualism is put into question with any act of observation as the framework itself is an extension of the individual's ability to reason.

You can bash the rods all you want, and I even argue the testing needs to be done further as this is just a base starting context, however you cannot argue against all frameworks are just rationale that is an extension of the observer.

It's not even a base start as you haven't tested your tools in any manner.

Yes...I know, what you cannot get through your head is that I am not arguing for dowsing rods alone...and that further test frameworks must be applied. ...

They shouldn't even be a first framework if you haven't tested their worth.

I mean are you really that fucking stupid...of course you are.

How is that tin-foil hat, nice and shiny?

I already stated dowsing rods were used, but further experimentation and observation is required. ...

You haven't done any testing or experimentation at all yet.

You keep saying "no dowsing" when I am not arguing for "dowsing alone". What dowsing represents is strictly a set of test results for that relative framework...it is not the be all end all.

It's not even the be all so far.

False, all results are the results or a framework. When the framework changes so do the results. Standard dietary science observes this....one day egg yolks are bad for health...the next they they are good.

Science continually overwrite itself resulting in a state of nihilism as to not just its inherent results always changing but that it in itself is in a constant flux. ...

But they still use the same tools.

You are just a wannabe skeptic, research the history of science and you would find what is fact one day is false the next. ...

False, the facts don't change the explanations for them do.

Science is literally subject to entropy through time relative to it's "facts"...so whatever is true one day, as an atomic fact is not true the next.

What's an 'atomic fact' when it's at home? What generally happens in 'science' is that explanations get localised.

Actually....no I will not. And the reason is I already explained the means and manner as well as the testing still being done. If you think I plan on limiting it to dowsing alone, false. ...

What next, pendulums?

I look forward to you posting up your results but I won't be holding my breath.

If you think I will exclude it based off some preconceived prejudice from a community that cannot keeps its facts straight or even has a system of ethic...also false. ...

"System of ethic", what are you waffling on about now?

The proof is just an observation of relations between variables...that is it...it is both true and false.

And the whole point of 'science' is to isolate a variable enough to test it, something you are patently unwilling to do as it'd get in the way of your metaphysic.

They are still stuck with the logical problem of success rates. The hypothesis of hand movement is deterministic ally false and one sided when limiting itself to the hands move the rods when dually it must be asked it the rods move the hands.

So far there have been no studies that show anything other than a success rate in accordance with the laws of chance. With respect to the rods moving the hands try your stuff with swivel dowsers then.

What you fail to understand is that there is no pure objectivity in science due to modes of interpretation and framework. All test results define the framework...that is it. ...

Except that in experimental 'science' they use double-blind tests, etc, and tests have to be repeatable by others and reproduce the same results otherwise it's generally bunkum.

Honestly I cannot take you seriously, Britain is a 3rd world country.

Of course it is.

I don't have to, you offer nothing of value and any explanation you provide can be negated through pure skepticism. ...

What's "pure scepticism" when its at home? But you could do with applying some of that scepticism to your 'experiments'.

False, I tested the rods prior to see if they even worked at all. Prior to even applying them on the bent copper. I would walk in an orchard. If the rods crossed I walk away. If they uncrossed I walked back to see if they would cross again or not in the same spot.

They cross and undress repeatedly in certain spots.

lmfao! Did you not pay attention to the idea of unstable equilibrium with respect to dowsing rods? Did you get someone else to walk your orchard with their dowsing rods to see if they got the same results?

False, the testing I observed was more random and simple. Do they cross in same spots repeatedly or not? That is it. If they do than a "correlative", not "causal", relation of detection of some change can be observed. ...

The correlation being that your subconscious made sure the rods crossed back at the points you wanted.

Do it yourself, get some rods....walk around, are there movements replicable? Or not.

Did all this stuff when I was around 13, the answer is yes at times they were but when someone else did them and no they weren't.

I have a better idea why don't you by a little copper wire and replicate it yourself...there is nothing I can do where you won't doubt what I have to say. Just repeat what I already argued...and stop crying like a little girl over these dousing rods. ...

Who's crying? I'm pissing myself with laughter that you've turned out to be of the tin-foil brigade.

I looked through what argument you provided.

I think what you fail to take into account is that I explicitly stated that the rods where a very simple baseline and further testing must be observed (ie not excluding rods but not limited to them either).

I stated this multiple times.

You can beat up the dowsing rods all you want, to strawman both the Russian studies and the fact I have claimed the study should not be limited to dousing rods but they are used as a base context.

You keep arguing "no dousing rods"...when I even agree that dousing rods alone should not be used without conjunction to other manners of interpretation.

What Russian studies? Post them up.

I'm not arguing no dowsing rods, I'm arguing that you should test your measuring tools to see if they are up to the job in the first place.

Bye the bye, you've not answered my question of what EM fields you think you are 'warping' or even what you mean by this 'warping'?

Still, I thank you as you are like a living history demonstration as you show very nicely why the metaphysician/philosophers(in your case "wannabee") were replaced by the natural philosophers when it came to exploring how the world works.

[Eodnhoj7]

Addressed at bottom and prior post. ...

No you haven't, wood or plastic is pretty much EM neutral, mounting your rods upon them and seeing if they move when you wave your copper pyramid around them would be a perfectly acceptable test of whether dowsing rods can detect EM fields as you claim.

What the studies fails to take into account is the ideomotor response being activated by the rods.
The argument, you claim, is a false causality. The hands cause the rods to move, when dually the rods can cause the hands to move...it is a question of relativity.

It's pretty much a truism that one knows they are talking to a crank when the word "relativity" is raised.

But let's say that the rods are causing the movement, well if they are then that motion should be dectable when you aren't holding them so do the test above to see if that is the case.

physics forums: a review of dowsing for and against.


Shows a variety of articles as well as hypothesis as to why in certain circumstances they do work.

Post them up then as I'd be interested in what methodologies they used that were more rigorous than the Kassel test.

False, they were looking for water. I was looking for spots that caused the rods to go off and if those spots could cause the rods to repeatedly go off or not. The curved copper constitutes those spots.

Different context. ...

Then do a double-blind test to prove this claim. Start with ten boxes and have someone put your curved copper into one of them without your knowledge and see if you can get them to go off repeatably. Logik can probably tell you how many times you should do the test to beat the 1 in 10 chance respectably or even how many boxes there should be to prove the efficacy of dowsing rods.

No he actually posted it months ago as some insult. ...

Must have given you wet dreams.

False, governmental studies.

Post them up then.

Second...the subject object dualism is put into question with any act of observation as the framework itself is an extension of the individual's ability to reason.

You can bash the rods all you want, and I even argue the testing needs to be done further as this is just a base starting context, however you cannot argue against all frameworks are just rationale that is an extension of the observer.

It's not even a base start as you haven't tested your tools in any manner.

Yes...I know, what you cannot get through your head is that I am not arguing for dowsing rods alone...and that further test frameworks must be applied. ...

They shouldn't even be a first framework if you haven't tested their worth.

I mean are you really that fucking stupid...of course you are.

How is that tin-foil hat, nice and shiny?

I already stated dowsing rods were used, but further experimentation and observation is required. ...

You haven't done any testing or experimentation at all yet.

You keep saying "no dowsing" when I am not arguing for "dowsing alone". What dowsing represents is strictly a set of test results for that relative framework...it is not the be all end all.

It's not even the be all so far.

False, all results are the results or a framework. When the framework changes so do the results. Standard dietary science observes this....one day egg yolks are bad for health...the next they they are good.

Science continually overwrite itself resulting in a state of nihilism as to not just its inherent results always changing but that it in itself is in a constant flux. ...

But they still use the same tools.

You are just a wannabe skeptic, research the history of science and you would find what is fact one day is false the next. ...

False, the facts don't change the explanations for them do.

Science is literally subject to entropy through time relative to it's "facts"...so whatever is true one day, as an atomic fact is not true the next.

What's an 'atomic fact' when it's at home? What generally happens in 'science' is that explanations get localised.

Actually....no I will not. And the reason is I already explained the means and manner as well as the testing still being done. If you think I plan on limiting it to dowsing alone, false. ...

What next, pendulums?

I look forward to you posting up your results but I won't be holding my breath.

If you think I will exclude it based off some preconceived prejudice from a community that cannot keeps its facts straight or even has a system of ethic...also false. ...

"System of ethic", what are you waffling on about now?

The proof is just an observation of relations between variables...that is it...it is both true and false.

And the whole point of 'science' is to isolate a variable enough to test it, something you are patently unwilling to do as it'd get in the way of your metaphysic.

They are still stuck with the logical problem of success rates. The hypothesis of hand movement is deterministic ally false and one sided when limiting itself to the hands move the rods when dually it must be asked it the rods move the hands.

So far there have been no studies that show anything other than a success rate in accordance with the laws of chance. With respect to the rods moving the hands try your stuff with swivel dowsers then.

What you fail to understand is that there is no pure objectivity in science due to modes of interpretation and framework. All test results define the framework...that is it. ...

Except that in experimental 'science' they use double-blind tests, etc, and tests have to be repeatable by others and reproduce the same results otherwise it's generally bunkum.

Honestly I cannot take you seriously, Britain is a 3rd world country.

Of course it is.

I don't have to, you offer nothing of value and any explanation you provide can be negated through pure skepticism. ...

What's "pure scepticism" when its at home? But you could do with applying some of that scepticism to your 'experiments'.

False, I tested the rods prior to see if they even worked at all. Prior to even applying them on the bent copper. I would walk in an orchard. If the rods crossed I walk away. If they uncrossed I walked back to see if they would cross again or not in the same spot.

They cross and undress repeatedly in certain spots.

lmfao! Did you not pay attention to the idea of unstable equilibrium with respect to dowsing rods? Did you get someone else to walk your orchard with their dowsing rods to see if they got the same results?

False, the testing I observed was more random and simple. Do they cross in same spots repeatedly or not? That is it. If they do than a "correlative", not "causal", relation of detection of some change can be observed. ...

The correlation being that your subconscious made sure the rods crossed back at the points you wanted.

Do it yourself, get some rods....walk around, are there movements replicable? Or not.

Did all this stuff when I was around 13, the answer is yes at times they were but when someone else did them and no they weren't.

I have a better idea why don't you by a little copper wire and replicate it yourself...there is nothing I can do where you won't doubt what I have to say. Just repeat what I already argued...and stop crying like a little girl over these dousing rods. ...

Who's crying? I'm pissing myself with laughter that you've turned out to be of the tin-foil brigade.

I looked through what argument you provided.

I think what you fail to take into account is that I explicitly stated that the rods where a very simple baseline and further testing must be observed (ie not excluding rods but not limited to them either).

I stated this multiple times.

You can beat up the dowsing rods all you want, to strawman both the Russian studies and the fact I have claimed the study should not be limited to dousing rods but they are used as a base context.

You keep arguing "no dousing rods"...when I even agree that dousing rods alone should not be used without conjunction to other manners of interpretation.

What Russian studies? Post them up.

I'm not arguing no dowsing rods, I'm arguing that you should test your measuring tools to see if they are up to the job in the first place.

Bye the bye, you've not answered my question of what EM fields you think you are 'warping' or even what you mean by this 'warping'?

Still, I thank you as you are like a living history demonstration as you show very nicely why the metaphysician/philosophers(in your case "wannabee") were replaced by the natural philosophers when it came to exploring how the world works.

The variables are isolated, "x" framework (rods) have "y" results. Change the framework the results change. Ideally multiple frameworks are observed, ie "not-limited too" dowsing rods alone...which is the only thing you can attack...which is quite pointless because I am not arguing that they should be the "only" proof...rather just "a" proof, with this proof being subject to interpretation.

Second the scientific community is not subject to an ethical standard, they have to be taken (like the pseudoscientists), with a grain of salt.

Third: Space is space...I even address the nature of the problems with metaphysics on other threads.

Stop being lazy:

Google the work of the russian, google the pyramid models by the physicists, read the various studies on the dousing rods (a few, one in particular, addresses electromagneticism), google the experiments in esp with the us/soviets....then go back to being fucked by the muslims.


On a seperate note: Why don't you google all the "facts" science once considered as "facts"...then tell me how effective science is in achieving stable truths.

And one final point: if you don't believe me, just do the experiment yourself.

[Arising_uk]

Stop being lazy:

Google the work of the russian, google the pyramid models by the physicists, read the various studies on the dousing rods (a few, one in particular, addresses electromagneticism), google the experiments in esp with the us/soviets. ...

GOOGLE! LMFAO!

This can be the problem with the self-taught as they just self-teach themselves what they believe anyway, it's called confirmation bias. Why don't you try goggling the more reputable sites that debunk pretty much all your sites?

...then go back to being fucked by the muslims.

What are you babbling about?

On a seperate note: Why don't you google all the "facts" science once considered as "facts"...then tell me how effective science is in achieving stable truths. ...

Give us a clue what facts you think that 'science' has observed that are not facts now?

And one final point: if you don't believe me, just do the experiment yourself.

Which experiment are you talking about? The wafting around in orchards or the waving of dowsing rods at little metal pyramids?

[Logik]

Google the work of the russian, google the pyramid models by the physicists, read the various studies on the dousing rods (a few, one in particular, addresses electromagneticism), google the experiments in esp with the us/soviets....then go back to being fucked by the muslims.

I searched for "pyramids copper rods electromagnet" on Google scholar

https://scholar.google.co.za/scholar?hl ... gnet&btnG=

Which of these papers are you referring to?

[Eodnhoj7]

Google the work of the russian, google the pyramid models by the physicists, read the various studies on the dousing rods (a few, one in particular, addresses electromagneticism), google the experiments in esp with the us/soviets....then go back to being fucked by the muslims.

I searched for "pyramids copper rods electromagnet" on Google scholar

https://scholar.google.co.za/scholar?hl ... gnet&btnG=

Which of these papers are you referring to?

No. Google:

"physics forum; dowsing rods for and against".

"Russian Pyramid Studies"

"physics argues pyramids control electromagnetic energy".

Here is a controversial website, pseudoscientific, but it presents a kirlian photograph of a pyramid (I am not arguing one should base this argument on this "evidence" alone...just take it neutrally for what it is: an interpretation.)

http://humansarefree.com/2014/03/the-se ... shape.html

[Eodnhoj7]

Stop being lazy:

Google the work of the russian, google the pyramid models by the physicists, read the various studies on the dousing rods (a few, one in particular, addresses electromagneticism), google the experiments in esp with the us/soviets. ...

GOOGLE! LMFAO!

This can be the problem with the self-taught as they just self-teach themselves what they believe anyway, it's called confirmation bias. Why don't you try goggling the more reputable sites that debunk pretty much all your sites?

Good, then debunk the physics model and the Russian studies.

...then go back to being fucked by the muslims.

What are you babbling about?

It is simple, you claim "truth"...but your country and people are dying. Your "philosophy" is dying. You represent nothing of value. You are not even a skeptic...just a nihilist.

On a seperate note: Why don't you google all the "facts" science once considered as "facts"...then tell me how effective science is in achieving stable truths. ...

Give us a clue what facts you think that 'science' has observed that are not facts now?


https://www.businessinsider.com/facts-n ... y-4-1776-1
https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/heal ... nger-true/
https://list25.com/25-science-facts-tha ... ven-wrong/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/fi ... ence/2705/

Add the dichotomy of Newtonian and Einstein's interpretations of physics, numbers not being defined by mathematicians, etc. as strictly "classification" and we are left "science is just classification"...that is it. Cutting out one phenomenon and connecting it to another.


Because of its probabilistic nature, and the infinite hypothesis that result in science...effectively we are left with "all" being true at one time or another under a specific context.

And one final point: if you don't believe me, just do the experiment yourself.

Which experiment are you talking about? The wafting around in orchards or the waving of dowsing rods at little metal pyramids?

angle some copper at 36 degree up top, create intersecting angles that stand up, and see if the dowsing rods (from the same copper or another material) move towards them or not...cross over them or not. Or just walk around and see if the rod's repeatedly cross in random areas.

[Arising_uk]

Good, then debunk the physics model and the Russian studies.

What physics model? Which Russian studies? You haven't posted a single link yet?

It is simple, you claim "truth"...but your country and people are dying. Your "philosophy" is dying. You represent nothing of value. You are not even a skeptic...just a nihilist.

What? What? Seriously, what are you babbling on about?

https://www.businessinsider.com/facts-n ... y-4-1776-1
https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/heal ... nger-true/
https://list25.com/25-science-facts-tha ... ven-wrong/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/fi ... ence/2705/ ...

You are officially barking mad!

Add the dichotomy of Newtonian and Einstein's interpretations of physics, ...

What 'dichotomy'? Do you even understand what the word means? Newton's theory and Einstein's theory display exactly the localisation in 'science' that I mentioned. You think we use Einstein to lob artillery shells?

numbers not being defined by mathematicians,...

What are you talking about?

etc. as strictly "classification" and we are left "science is just classification"...that is it. Cutting out one phenomenon and connecting it to another. ...

What are you talking about?

Because of its probabilistic nature, ...

Because of what's "probabilistic nature"?

and the infinite hypothesis that result in science...effectively we are left with "all" being true at one time or another under a specific context. ...

What? What are you babbling about? Are you talking about the over-determination of theories?

angle some copper at 36 degree up top, create intersecting angles that stand up, and see if the dowsing rods (from the same copper or another material) move towards them or not...cross over them or not. Or just walk around and see if the rod's repeatedly cross in random areas.

Ok. Will get back to you. Which kind of dowsing-rod are you using?

Will you be doing this experiment in a double-blind test, i.e. put your pyramid under a cover along with a whole bunch of covers that don't contain a pyramid and see if you can get them to cross on the correct one?
p.s
Here you go, try this.
Double blind dowsing test

[Arising_uk]

...

They built all that knowledge into the great pyramids, truly remarkable..

Truly bullshit.

[Arising_uk]

... Take into account the pyramids are built over underground rivers or underground water and the technology back then was dowsing. ...

Where is the evidence that "the pyramids are built over underground rivers or underground water"?

[Atla]

...

They built all that knowledge into the great pyramids, truly remarkable..

Truly bullshit.

Everything is bullshit that doesn't fit into your mainstream 2-digit IQ worldview

[Logik]

Everything is bullshit that doesn't fit in your mainstream 2-digit IQ worldview

Oh, how Ironic!

IQ is a "bullshit mainstream worldview"

[Atla]

Everything is bullshit that doesn't fit in your mainstream 2-digit IQ worldview

Oh, how Ironic!

IQ is a "bullshit mainstream worldview"

What's ironic is that you don't have the ability to understand anything, not even a short sentence
I think I finally figured it out, without the proper use of the anterior parts of the brain/mind, it's literally not possible to understand anything

[Logik]

What's ironic is that you don't have the ability to understand anything, not even a short sentence
I think I finally figured it out, without the proper use of the anterior parts of the brain/mind, it's literally not possible to understand anything

Poor sophist. You don't even know what it means "to understand". That's why your bar for that which you call "understanding" is 2 orders of magnitude lower than your IQ.

What I cannot create, I do not understand --Richard Feynman

[Atla]

What's ironic is that you don't have the ability to understand anything, not even a short sentence
I think I finally figured it out, without the proper use of the anterior parts of the brain/mind, it's literally not possible to understand anything

Poor sophist. You don't even know what it means "to understand". That's why your bar for that which you call "understanding" is 2 orders of magnitude lower than your IQ.

What I cannot create, I do not understand --Richard Feynman

You will never, ever understand what someone like Feynman meant

Shoo, retard