Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:13 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:59 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:45 pm
There's an easy way for you to prove it. Put the dousing rod on a piece of wood floating in a bowl of water. Then move the pyramid, which you already told us is small enough to be easily mobile. When the rod follows the pyramid around, you win. Obviously you know what materials to use for the rod, and the only reason this hasn't worked for anyone else is that they used bad dowsing rods.

Otherwise, the rod isn't moved by the pyramid at all, it was being moved by your hands all along. Which is true, we all know it, even you know it.

The rods are directed towards water...construction companies use them to find under ground water pipes.

So what you are saying is that I should put the rod in the same substance it detects? ROFL!!!!!! And please tell me the rationale behind why this "framework" is pure?

Oh dear.... in your own other words...

Stay on topic, you claimed water as the test medium...what you imply makes no sense.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:49 pm I am not looking for water, and while dousing is used to find "water" the statistics are sketchy ranging with various extremes of near perfect accuracy to none.

And if you aren't looking for water, then you would be using dowsing rods that are calibrated for something other than that, you after all have repeatedly told me that rods only react to the correct object if they are made of the correct materials, so just use the right materials for the test.

Or, you can use a watery rod if you like and float it in something not watery, like mercury. This shit is really very easy, try to keep a grip on yourself man.

Actually mercury is a poor framework as well considering it produces an inverse electromagnetic charge when exposed to any em field...a weak one but one nonetheless...

At the fact laying the rods on there sides causes an equal problem considering they are 90 degree angles...which side should it be directed towards. Should the bottom point to it? The top? The angle? Which side of the angle? If

The studies on dousing are split...in the hands of professionals it is extremely accurate according to some studies but has a drop off with other participants. The research claims dowsing as "successful" is subject to a probability curve...however that is the majority of scientific "facts": probabilities.

What the probabilities show is a high success rate with specific people. It varies with mother's hence the proof is this:

Sometimes they work very effectively, sometimes they do not...but the studies show they do work effectively and provide no hypothesis as to why.




Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just the resident idiot? If I call you an idiot does that count as "un-pc" for harassing a homosexual?

Question to ponder.

All you have to do, is create any experiment where the dowsing rod actually dowses without being held in anyone's hands. That should be easy if they are indeed moved by forces external to the holder. If you haven't enough imagination to come up with such a test, then you really are wasting your time.

False, because the variables change if the human condition is taken out. For all we know the rods work through the electromagnetic field of the individual where the person themselves acts as a tuning fork.

The question is controlling hand movement, that is the variable to be eliminated.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:59 pm Honestly just shut the fu"k up at this point....

1 "Derr....put them in a bowl of water"

2 "Uhh...they detect water"

1 "Trust me I having a feeling about how objective this is".

2 "They go off over water, just get a bowl and do it yourself."

1 "I know what I am doing because I say so."

ROFL!!!!!!

You're falling apart and losing your shit.

Don't be a bitch. Seriously look at it this way, you claim the methodology (dowsing rods) fails because of improper testing...and then you provide tests that are actually dumber than holding it in one's hands.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:02 pm You do understand I posted an article stating that standard academia is agreeing the pyramids create electromagneticism right?

You misunderstood it very badly then. They ran computerised simulations to model the expected effect of the pyramid on a specific set of wavelengths using entirely standard knowledge and a computer. It's sort of click bait science, and there wasn't even a hint of the pyramids generating anything at all. They also didn't mention anything about cardinal directions.

False, the model's predicted the wavelengths acting in accords to a certain manner through the simulation...the majority of modern physics is simulations.

The model's prove it, and modern science goes off of model's primarily.

As to "cardinal directions"

1. The grounding of a pyramid is rooted in geometry.
2. This geometry requires symmetry.
3. Symmetry with the natural electromagnetic fields which are redirected through the pyramids is inherent within the grounding "function" of the pyramid itself. That "function", or that which enables it to "work", is symmetry. Symmetry is the framework. Symmetry is the function.

As to the rest, take it up with the russians... they are a 1st world nation with nukes building these things.



Now please post some witty response so I can verbally smack you around more.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
Stay on topic, you claimed water as the test medium...what you imply makes no sense.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...

The studies on dousing are split...in the hands of professionals it is extremely accurate according to some studies but has a drop off with other participants.
What the probabilities show is a high success rate with specific people. It varies with mother's hence the proof is this:

Sometimes they work very effectively, sometimes they do not...but the studies show they do work effectively and provide no hypothesis as to why.
...

Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just the resident idiot? If I call you an idiot does that count as "un-pc" for harassing a homosexual?

Question to ponder.

False, because the variables change if the human condition is taken out. For all we know the rods work through the electromagnetic field of the individual where the person themselves acts as a tuning fork. ...

The question is controlling hand movement, that is the variable to be eliminated. ...

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
As to the rest, take it up with the russians... they are a 1st world nation with nukes building these things. ...

Now please post some witty response so I can verbally smack you around more.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
Stay on topic, you claimed water as the test medium...what you imply makes no sense.

Wow! You really are slow.

All FDP suggested was for you to mount your dowsing rods on some stable structure and as much as possible vibration free(try some speaker stands) then walk around them with whatever it was you think you are detecting and see if they move. If they don't then it's clear that they are not detectors of any sort.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...

And the stable structures contain the same material as what the objects detect.....

Wow you really are slow.

The studies on dousing are split...in the hands of professionals it is extremely accurate according to some studies but has a drop off with other participants.
What the probabilities show is a high success rate with specific people. It varies with mother's hence the proof is this:

Sometimes they work very effectively, sometimes they do not...but the studies show they do work effectively and provide no hypothesis as to why.
...

Total bullshit,
https://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/ ... assel1.dat
https://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/ ... assel2.dat

Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just the resident idiot? If I call you an idiot does that count as "un-pc" for harassing a homosexual?

Google further....the test group is 19 people. The study I read was 40+ and those successful where successful, those who where not where not.





Question to ponder.

No need to ponder, homophobes are generally hiding in a closet.

You tell me, he was the one wanting to stroke me off I just asked if if is was PC or not to call a homosexual an idiot. If I don't would it actually be more homophobic?

False, because the variables change if the human condition is taken out. For all we know the rods work through the electromagnetic field of the individual where the person themselves acts as a tuning fork. ...

I wondered when you'd bring this idea up. You really are turning out to be a common or garden fruitcake.

Not really the CIA and Soviet union did studies in esp with very controversial and mixed results. The human variable is a legitimate variable.

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.

The question is controlling hand movement, that is the variable to be eliminated. ...

But then your 'tuning fork' idea wouldn't be true? The simplest answer is that your conscious/subconscious is producing the ideomotor responses needed to confirm what you want see.

The same argument can be applied with any hypothesis or framework that puts certain relations being studied within a given context.

The solution is easy if you truly want to know whether you are a mystical dowser. Do a version of the Kassel Dowsing test. Find an impartial participant, take your 'copper tube/pyramids, fractal thingumabobs', lots of cardboard boxes big enough to hold them, and get the participant to randomly distribute your thingumabobs' amongst the boxes without you knowing where, along with a lot of empty ones and see if you can detect them. You will find that your results will be the same as the law of averages. But I know you won't do this as you are a fruitcake who needs this stuff to help them sleep at night.

Already did. And I already said the studies are probalistic... like all other studies in science. We are still left with the question why they move to begin with and why certain people can find specific objects.

Science does not explain the reason why certain people have high success rates.

Second the law of averages is far from 0. If the dowsing rods do not work there should be zero success rate.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
As to the rest, take it up with the russians... they are a 1st world nation with nukes building these things. ...

Not exactly 1st world if this is what their nuclear physicists are having to get up to nowadays.

Says the man who cannot even save his own country from muslims. Russia is a super power...they are open minded enough to look at all angles.

Now please post some witty response so I can verbally smack you around more.

You can only dream of being so funny but we can add seriously delusional to the list of your ailments then.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:And the stable structures contain the same material as what the objects detect. ...

Google further....the test group is 19 people. The study I read was 40+ and those successful where successful, those who where not where not. ...

You tell me, he was the one wanting to stroke me off ...

Not really the CIA and Soviet union did studies in esp with very controversial and mixed results. The human variable is a legitimate variable. ...

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.

The same argument can be applied with any hypothesis or framework that puts certain relations being studied within a given context.

Already did. And I already said the studies are probalistic... like all other studies in science. ...

We are still left with the question why they move to begin with and why certain people can find specific objects. ...

Science does not explain the reason why certain people have high success rates. ...

Second the law of averages is far from 0. If the dowsing rods do not work there should be zero success rate.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Says the man who cannot even save his own country from muslims. ...

Russia is a super power...they are open minded enough to look at all angles.

I am not being funny, ...

please stay...so I can do the same to you. ...

And to get back on subject and rehash the small experiment.

Bent or curved copper in a standing position causes dowsing rods to move. Further experiementation needs to be done. It is really a simple point.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:30 pm ...law of averages....

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:46 am Fair enough.
Add someone with an EM detector as a controller then as JohnD's claim is that his dowsing rods detect EM energy being 'warped' by his 'objects'.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:And the stable structures contain the same material as what the objects detect. ...

Put them on wood or plastic then.

Addressed at bottom and prior post.

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.

Google further....the test group is 19 people. The study I read was 40+ and those successful where successful, those who where not where not. ...

Post them up then.

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.

That German study was 19 people who thought like you, that they were professional dowsers who thought they could get results and all they got was the law of averages when having to do tests that were scientifically rigorous, basically double-blind tests. Each of them had thirty, THIRTY, runs to get it right and they got nothing but the law of averages.

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.



You tell me, he was the one wanting to stroke me off ...

In your dreams.


No he actually posted it months ago as some insult.

Not really the CIA and Soviet union did studies in esp with very controversial and mixed results. The human variable is a legitimate variable. ...

ESP now!
False, governmental studies.

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.

What are you babbling about? For all I know you are the second coming with respect to dowsing rods. All that has been proposed to you is two simple experiments whereby you could confirm for yourself whether a dowsing rod is a suitable tool for measuring changes in electromagnetic fields. Me I'd use an electromagnetic field detector.
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Ind ... 5011676011

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.


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

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

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.

The same argument can be applied with any hypothesis or framework that puts certain relations being studied within a given context.

Waffle to avoid confronting something you don't want to confront.

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.


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

Already did. And I already said the studies are probalistic... like all other studies in science. ...

Did you? Post up your methodology and the results then please.

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. 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.


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

We are still left with the question why they move to begin with and why certain people can find specific objects. ...

It's called the law of bloody averages.

Science does not explain the reason why certain people have high success rates. ...

They don't, what I suspect they do do is not write down all their failures, if they do any rigorous test at all that is.

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.

Second the law of averages is far from 0. If the dowsing rods do not work there should be zero success rate.

lmfao! So you don't even understand the law of averages nor can comprehend the idea that maybe just maybe you are moving the rods and of course if this is true then you will get zero success rate in the first experiment that was proposed to as the dowsing rods won't detect anything.

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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Says the man who cannot even save his own country from muslims. ...

What are you babbling on about now?

Russia is a super power...they are open minded enough to look at all angles.

Show me where the Russian government is spending one rouble on such stuff? If they are then again it just shows that they are a 3rd world country with fruitcakes in charge.

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


I am not being funny, ...

Wrong, you are bloody hysterical it's just a shame that you don't intend it.

please stay...so I can do the same to you. ...

Feel free to try.

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

And to get back on subject and rehash the small experiment.

Bent or curved copper in a standing position causes dowsing rods to move. Further experiementation needs to be done. It is really a simple point.

Where have we disagreed with this?

[color=#4000FF

The Russian studies, the physicist computer model's, focusing on dousing alone, the rain on the roof example, personal experiencs, etc.[/color]

We've just pointed-out that it is you moving them to confirm, or to conform to, what you already believe. If it's not then you can prove us wrong by doing the two simple experiments that have been proposed.

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.

1. Mount the rods in an upright and level position upon an EM neutral substrate and walk about with whatever it is you think they can detect. If they can detect stuff then they will move.



2. Set up a Kassel Dowsing Test test to see if you yourself can detect the objects with an above average result.

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.

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

Video and record all your results and post them up here. I look forward to being proved wrong.

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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:10 pm 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.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:59 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:10 pm 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.

All ambiguities as a result of placebo effects are trivial to resolve with a double-blind test.

Use actual copper rods with one group and fake-copper-look-alike rods with another. Measure difference in results.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a- ... dy-2795103

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:39 pm It is a question of causality as do the rods move the hands or the hands move the rods. Take into account the pyramids are built over underground rivers or underground water and the technology back then was dowsing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:39 pm Second attacking dousing rods it quite senseless when it is "a" standard, not "the" standard, being used.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:39 pm Create the framework observe the functions, rinse and repeat.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:38 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:39 pm It is a question of causality as do the rods move the hands or the hands move the rods. Take into account the pyramids are built over underground rivers or underground water and the technology back then was dowsing.

Yes, but if the phenomenon/result can be observed with ANY rods (ones made of wood, or plastic) then you may have to consider alternative explanations yet!

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.).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:39 pm Second attacking dousing rods it quite senseless when it is "a" standard, not "the" standard, being used.

Which is why I argued for 0% effectiveness being the baseline.

If dowsing works more than 0% of the time, then thee is indeed something. And if it's the only tool at your disposal, then it's better than no-tool.

Relevance based on availability is a moot point. The pyramid builder's are implied as using them; hence they are involved within the framework of the construction and as such are part of the testing process.

However can the test, in light of further frameworks of testing (emf meters, professional studies, etc.), be limited to dowsing rods alone? No.

Both frameworks must be embraced.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:39 pm Create the framework observe the functions, rinse and repeat.

In what framework do you create frameworks ?

Space folding through itself as itself as perpetually self-creating and whole. All the pyramids are, as the thread argues, is a physicalization of geometric and philosophical constructs.


Hence why Atla feels threatened, because if there is any legitimacy to these pyramids (and the russian studies have both scientific evidence and personal/group testimonies they do create change), then my "sophistry" or "lunacy" is no longer sophistry or lunacy and the small little version of the world he wants to argue does not work...he will have to "grow up" and move out of his little bubble most skeptics hide in. And it isn't even real skepticism, because a real skeptic would be skeptical of the scientific method as well.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:16 pm Hence why Atla feels threatened, because if there is any legitimacy to these pyramids

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:16 pm Hence why Atla feels threatened, because if there is any legitimacy to these pyramids

Wha? (I just searched for my nick, maybe you meant Logik)

I don't know what you guys are arguing about here but I'm fairly sure that the ancient Egyptian civilization had pretty advanced electromagnetic and mathematical knowledge (but the Indus Valley civ taught it to them most of it). And several Bronze age civs were ocean-faring, back then they pretty much figured out the parameters of the planet.

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:16 pm 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.).