talkmagic.co.uk

Preshow.

pcwells wrote:Five hands immediately shoot up amid cries of Ooh! Me! Me! Pick Meee!!

LOL!

pcwells wrote:Wonderful concept.

I can see it working well in practice.

Fill a theatre with suspects, warm them up with some heartwarming messages from deceased relatives, then bring on the headline act...

I'm getting a young blonde lady. possibly in her late teens or twenties... A white van, plastic bag and gaffer tape are also significant...

Five hands immediately shoot up amid cries of Ooh! Me! Me! Pick Meee!!

It just might work!!!

That's worthy of Frankie Boyle

One massive flaw in your argument being how you can't find water if it isn't flowing...(sounds like a cop out to me)...but you can find lost objects? Are you saying that a list necklace has flowing water inside it? Or perhaps a lost teddy bear is dying for the loo?

No, you are misrepresenting what I said. I said that in the case of finding water the research has never involved a natural setting with natural water flow. There are subtle physical energy flows involved under this sort of setting that will not exist in a laboratory, it’s physically impossible.
Most objects that are located are metallic or offer a means of electrical or magnetic energy conduction, just as submariners use these same subtle elements to navigate (as do most migrating animals) so the dowser is able to pick up on a malady within the existing energy flow for one reason or another. I’m certain there are variables that I’m not aware of, but simply based on my personal experiences in locating such items, I have to believe this theory holds true; especially when you consider that this is the same explanation used in medical work in which Pendulums are used to locate physical “occult” maladies in the body (and understand that my use of the word “occult” is exactly the term used in the medical profession for such hidden issues of concern). Pendulums have a long history of locating trouble spots in animals as well as people long before “science” is able to confirm the fact.

The physics of moving the rods doesn't add up, either. The force required is FAR greater than could ever be exerted by a small object or an underground stream by several hundred orders of magnitude. It's the person holding the rods making them move, either consciously or subconsciously.

This is a logical mind speaking rather than an objective one. Sometimes rationality does not apply to a given circumstance… just ask Mr. Spok

I would like to see anyone believing in this to walk across a minefield with dowsing rods to prove their confidence in a practice which if it turns out to be true would open up a whole new field of physics I would think

Maybe you should go and interview some vets that were there and saw it being used or used it themselves. But then maybe we need to weigh the “quantum” side of physics when it comes to said practice? Quantum theory is after all, aiding researchers in realizing just how much of the metaphysical ideology is possible if not extant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8357813.stm
Police worker wins psychic ruling
A police employee sacked for claiming psychics should be used to crack crimes has won a landmark ruling that his views should be seen as a faith...

This is almost funny (but sad at the same time).
Fact is there are numerous instances in which a psychic’s assistance has aided in breaking a case; there are dozens of such stories aired on television regularly along side considerable documentation related to specific psychics. Sadly, there is a statistical hemorrhoid around this issue as well, in that so many crack-pots and quite deluded individuals make calls to law enforcement with false leads in hopes of getting some ink; fools that fail to recognize how their “hunches” create major problems when it comes to an investigation.
The interference of this sort are typically what the so-called “debunkers” focus on rather than the hundreds if not thousands of instances that hold to the contrary, many of which involve officers who held to a strong skeptical point of view until they themselves started seeing solid, undeniable hits… hits that cannot be argued away by the standard magician’s rhetoric.

Moving into this “Prove it to me” course of debate will accomplish nothing; we’ve all gone through it far more than enough. Truth being that I tend to agree with the skeptical perspective (vs. Cynical) more than not. Aside from what you see me do on the magic forums in playing devil’s advocate around these issues, I am likewise playing the same role within the paranormal and New Age groups I am involved with. In both cases my goal is the same; to get people to move towards the middle, where the greater truth of the issue probably exists… again, that’s an assumption based on personal experience along side thousands of years of tradition in which the idea of Balance has proven the core; nothing is black & white but rather shades of grey and until one is able to understand and accept that fact, they can’t have “clear” vision or what most would call “enlightened wisdom” (which should never be confused with intellect; wisdom is not one in the same thing).

So now your using pendulums as your defence? Dear god...whoever believes that pendulums don't use ideomotor response needs a bit of an awakening. But then again, that's all this wasted 'science' coming in again.

And you also use doctor Spock as an argument for rationalism? A fictional character in a fictional story set in outer space? Not sure if I can beat that one....but then again you're probably the kind of person who if told that bullets don't fly straight would instantly run out to buy a gun and have somebody curve it around you.

It doesn't matter that science says it won't work.....pesky physics....

By the way craig.....bullets don't fly straight

Blapsing_Beard wrote:And you also use doctor Spock as an argument for rationalism? A fictional character in a fictional story set in outer space? Not sure if I can beat that one....

Mr.Spock was the fictional character, Dr Benjamin Spock was a very real person - see http://www.drspock.com/about/drbenjamin ... 1,,00.html

At this point can we all back off a bit please? There are opinions and there are arguments both for and against, let's present each side rationally and with some thought for, but not necessarily agreement with, opposing views - as is the spirit of TalkMagic.

Blapsing_Beard wrote:So now your using pendulums as your defence? Dear god...whoever believes that pendulums don't use ideomotor response needs a bit of an awakening. But then again, that's all this wasted 'science' coming in again.

And you also use doctor Spock as an argument for rationalism? A fictional character in a fictional story set in outer space? Not sure if I can beat that one....but then again you're probably the kind of person who if told that bullets don't fly straight would instantly run out to buy a gun and have somebody curve it around you.

It doesn't matter that science says it won't work.....pesky physics....

By the way craig.....bullets don't fly straight

As someone that won awards for sharp shooting and archery I'm rather confident that bullets do, to a point, fire straight. But there are variants and curves that can and will happen depending on distances, the curvature of the earth, wind and even the gun's design... (do note my last name when you're talking about fire arms... I grew up around them).

As I've already stated, this stupid merri-go-round rationalists love to play isn't going to be rode by me yet again. I do not walk around with blinders on but rather, I take in ALL of the information and base my final views based on both, the analytical data and experiential data collected. I don't buy into any one point of view and do my best to not become fanatical or dogmatic as it were. I believe every single post I've made in this thread has expressed both, agreement as well as an alternate truth. I'm not inferring stupidity or the idea that people are fools for believing something outside of my views, only that they are limiting themselves by not looking outside their comfy little box in which all things stand at right angles and in black & white. Such rigidity prevents growth and ultimately creates an embittered sense of personal presence that can prove quite lonely in the long run.

My reference to Mr. Spok was metaphoric, I'm surprised someone as intelligent as you want us to believe you are Chris, would miss that The point of the statement is that said character learned how to step outside that cold logic based culture of his people and in so doing evolved into an honored and wise leader. Ignoring the fantisiful element, the character is based on several historically known characters of world history, so maybe a look into the lives of those that were cold and logic only rationalist early in life and seeing where they ended up would be a good exercise. But I warn you, there are many that chose to cling to that coldness that saw rather ugly ends while those that softened with time, came to know prominence and even adoration.

I'll never understand the cynicism of the UK culture as it stands today. It is rather unique as well as frightening in my book.

Craig Browning wrote:Most objects that are located are metallic or offer a means of electrical or magnetic energy conduction, just as submariners use these same subtle elements to navigate (as do most migrating animals) so the dowser is able to pick up on a malady within the existing energy flow for one reason or another.

Submarines use sonar. Not subtle, not mysterious, very well understood and can be scientifically measured

Personally I think that we can use the flying teapot orbiting the earth to look for water

Please do not state that I am unintelligent, as I'm not. Thankyou. I also apologise if I went too far earlier.

Right, now that the niceities are out of the way I'm afraid I must further disagree with you there craig. You say you are not walking around with the blinds shut unlike 'silly rationalists and people who use 'science' to back up their claims' but I believe you are. Only, in reverse. You refuse to accept any scientific based study that opposes your view, saying it is your experiences that count. Surely that's the same trap everybody tries to avoid, whereby some people stop such things as cancer treatment for the b*ll*cks that is homeopathy because it 'worked when I had a cough'

your right craig....'bad science....naughty science...'

it's true though what you say.....science is bad....I mean, just look at us the last hundred years or so....silly penicillin going around with it's silly 'claims' about 'curing' people...

Bad science.....

Someone needs to look up the meanings of a few words before presuming to lecture others in how to think. Viz:

Objective: adjective. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. Example: experimental evidence suggests that divining rods may work by the ideometer response.

Logical: adjective. Following a reasonable path of inference or natural consequences. Example: The forces exerted by small objects are vanishingly small, therefore we can infer that they are far too small to influence a divining rod.

Subjective: adjective. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought. Example: divining depends on the belief of the observer

Of course, this really is basic, mundane stuff taught at the start of undergraduate courses - even courses in theology. I'd have thought someone boasting a doctorate in theology wouldn't need such elementary lessons. Objectively, what can we infer about that doctorate, folks?

Now, ballistics. All unpowered projectiles (bullets, arrows, balls, etc.) follow a parabolic curve due to the pull of gravity. The mathematics of trajectories (Newton's three laws) have been fully understood for nearly 350 years. They're why the US army was very keen after WWII to pour money into the development of computers - to calculate ballistics tables. Here's a basic introduction to the field of trajectories: http://tinyurl.com/c2p8er It's got an animation for the hard of thinking.

To be unaffected by gravity during its flight, an unpowered projectile would have to reach its target instantaneously. General relativity shows that this would require it to have more energy than the universe contains. To do so it would break causality. Everything takes time to travel a distance, even light, and even light has its trajectory bent by gravity, as gravitational lensing beautifully demonstrates. This was proven experimentally by observing the positions of stars during a total eclipse in 1919, I believe.

Sonar. Submarines use kinetic energy in the form of sound waves (sonar) to "see" objects from the reflections of that sound, as do bats and dolphins. There was a fascinating news report recently of a little blind boy who has also mastered this. Some birds have an internal compass enabling them to orientate to north, but objective study (there's that word again) shows that birds such as homing pigeons go about the process of navigating from A to B using roads and other other landmarks. Insects tend to use the polarisation of sunlight due to the incident angle it makes to navigate over shorter distances.

Right, surnames. Having a surname the same as a 19th century Mormon gun manufacturer does not make someone a ballistics expert any more than having a relative who's a dentist makes one a dentist. The study of ballistics makes one an expert in ballistics, just as a degree in dentistry makes one a dentist. And nowhere in Spock's Child and Baby Care does it explain how he got the ears. A very disappointing read all round, in fact.

And finally... superior knowledge is not cynicism or arrogance. It is simply superior knowledge. Why shouldn't one exercise hard won knowledge in the face of ignorance, especially when that superior knowledge is being deliberately and spuriously dismissed? Not to defend and demonstrate it would be like having a black belt and letting a drunk beat you up. It's just not going to happen. Oh, and if this argument gets into the field of quantum mechanics, I'll be at an even more of an overwhelming advantage than I am putting the wilfully ignorant right about classical mechanics.

kolm wrote:Personally I think that we can use the flying teapot orbiting the earth to look for water

Ah, Bertrand Russell's china teapot! One of my favourite bits of thinking form one of the most intelligent human beings ever to have lived. He's also probably the best Dr Who we never had.

This study amuses me...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1193 ... inalpos=14

Two bits of woo cancelling each other out...

On the birds and magnetic fields thing. The 'compass' thing relies on special photoreceptors that only works during the day as they see how some light is influenced by the magnetic field. Humans do not have these photoreceptors!!!

Harry Guinness wrote:On the birds and magnetic fields thing. The 'compass' thing relies on special photoreceptors that only works during the day as they see how some light is influenced by the magnetic field. Humans do not have these photoreceptors!!!

Cool stuff!