| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Dowsing
"T i m" wrote in message ... I know what you mean .. like a preminition .. I avoided a nasty accident the other day because I sorta *expected* someone to do what they did (turn left across me on a roundabout after entering from the outside lane), preminition or experience in this case? Someone with the makings of a good driver.. Actually expects other drivers to be idiots. You obviously thought that this might happen, you probably do it all the time. However you only remember when it matters, like when it saves you. At other times it just doesn't quite make it to the long term memory. |
|
#162
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
John Rumm wrote: Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote: I don't think it's a mystery at all; dowsing isn't a profession and you won't find anyone in the Yellow Pages offering it. That's because if you Erm, in fact you will - under "Water Diviners". (gets 17 hits on Yell) If you look at the list they look like conventional water engineers who come under the heading 'water diviner' as they have selected that term amongst others as search key-words. I doubt that any of them offer 'dowsing' (in the para-psychological / quasi-magical sense) as a service. Or if they do the are new-age type frauds I would expect. cheers Jacob |
|
#163
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words: I avoided a nasty accident the other day because I sorta *expected* someone to do what they did (turn left across me on a roundabout after entering from the outside lane), preminition or experience in this case? Someone with the makings of a good driver.. Actually expects other drivers to be idiots. You obviously thought that this might happen, you probably do it all the time. However you only remember when it matters, like when it saves you. At other times it just doesn't quite make it to the long term memory. I used to love it when learners got to the stage where they'd say "I knew he was going to do that" 'cos it meant they were becoming aware of other drivers and were starting to look outside their own head and into the heads of others. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
|
#164
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
On Fri, 05 May 2006 07:05:52 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote: "T i m" wrote in message .. . I know what you mean .. like a preminition .. I avoided a nasty accident the other day because I sorta *expected* someone to do what they did (turn left across me on a roundabout after entering from the outside lane), preminition or experience in this case? Someone with the makings of a good driver.. Actually expects other drivers to be idiots. I do try ;-) Probably based on the fact that I'm also a long term motorcyclist / cyclist where riding 'defensively' can be more a matter of life and death than when in a car .. ;-( The most interesting of my vehicles for this is the cycle tandem. Folk 'see' a solo cycle and assume solo cycle speeds and try to overtake accordingly ... only to find that I'm: 1) Much longer than they *assumed* 2) Going faster than they *assumed* Can make for some interesting moments! ;-( You obviously thought that this might happen, you probably do it all the time. Well it's one of those junctions (a small roundabout littered with traffic lights) where there are known 'short cuts' through the traffic if you like taking risks with other drivers and/ or liberties with the Highway Code / RTA. However you only remember when it matters, like when it saves you. At other times it just doesn't quite make it to the long term memory. True enough! I wonder if there is a 'driving' sense we don't know about ... the one that tells you that the person you are following is likely to do something unpredictable and dangerous ...? All the best Dennis T i m |
|
#165
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
In uk.d-i-y, dennis@home wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message .. . I know what you mean .. like a preminition .. I avoided a nasty accident the other day because I sorta *expected* someone to do what they did (turn left across me on a roundabout after entering from the outside lane), preminition or experience in this case? Someone with the makings of a good driver.. Actually expects other drivers to be idiots. You obviously thought that this might happen, you probably do it all the time. However you only remember when it matters, like when it saves you. At other times it just doesn't quite make it to the long term memory. Well put. That happened to me recently when I came across an artic in the ditch just over the brow of a hill. I can distinctly remember thinking as I approached the brow that I had no idea what was on the other side. It seemed a bit spooky at the time but your explanation makes perfect sense. Nothing to do with expecting other drivers to be idiots in this case, though. -- Mike Barnes |
|
#166
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
... The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: bigegg wrote: What a strange thing for a "philosopher" to say - if you put your cat in a sealed box, is it alive or dead? That is a very simplistic question. It's also a very simple one to answer., It isn't anything until you make such a judgement call on the cat as to determnine, in human terms, which of the sets of deadness and aliveness it falls into. What I meant was that it is a very simplistic question compared to the full version. The answer to the above is just that the animal is in the same state as when you put it in. Not necessarily, depending on how airtight it is and how long its been in there. The box was described as "sealed". When you put the cat in, it is in the same state as it was when you put it in. Can I be plainer? HTH. You lot obviously aren't keeping up with the physics - there is a new theory that says that at a scale much smaller than that at which quantum effects manifest themselves there are deterministic principles - what appears as quantum uncertainty would be predictable if you were able to observe these states, implying that though you may think that the aliveness or deadness of the cat is indeterminate until you open the box (although I'm sure it was once said that the only certainty is it will be an angry cat), but if the new theory is true the outcome is totally predestined, and if you had perfect knowledge of the state of everything at any moment, you could predict the outcome before thebox is opened. See this week's New Scientist for details! http://www.angryflower.com/schrod.gif Andy |
|
#167
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
In article , Andy McKenzie
wrote: See this week's New Scientist for details! I'd be happy to get this group up to New Scientist issue 1! ;-) -- John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing |
|
#168
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
... In article , Andy McKenzie wrote: See this week's New Scientist for details! I'd be happy to get this group up to New Scientist issue 1! ;-) I'm shocked, surely all good DIYers would read New Scientist, where else would you get the inspiration for quantum-DNA-hadron-quasar water hardness eliminators made out of the interior of a washing machine and some stick-back plastic. I thought that was what DIY was for? Andy |
|
#169
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
On 1 May 2006 14:13:15 -0700, Bookworm wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote: Owain mentioned dowsing on the Drain flies thread. I've never heard of drain flies! But has anyone here done dowsing? Mary Yes. Dead easy. Get two straight pieces of wire coat hanger and bend the ends down at right angles for about three inches. Hold the bent-down ends vertically in the centre of each hand that you 'make a fist'. do this losely so the rods are free to swing. ( you can cut two pieces of broomstick about 4" long and drill loose holes for the wires down the centre and hold these in your fists) With the straight ends of the wire pointing away from you and your arms fully extended start walking in the desired direction. When you cross a water pipe/drain etc the two rods will start swinging and will cross each other at the point of water. The other week there were two guys in our street trying to trace an oil pipe with hi tech equipment. No deal. I got my rods out and showed them how to dowse. They got it bang on. They were a bit bemused and I had an enigmatic smile on my face. Empty BIC tubes make good 'bearings' to stick the wires through (and hold upright in each hand) -- Jim Tyneside UK http://www.jimscot.plus.com |
|
#170
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
The message
from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words: I thought that was what DIY was for? Sadly this group is sometimes in danger of becoming uk.g-a-l-m-i. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
|
#171
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
On Fri, 5 May 2006 09:29:57 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote: In uk.d-i-y, dennis@home wrote: "T i m" wrote in message . .. I know what you mean .. like a preminition .. I avoided a nasty accident the other day because I sorta *expected* someone to do what they did (turn left across me on a roundabout after entering from the outside lane), preminition or experience in this case? Someone with the makings of a good driver.. Actually expects other drivers to be idiots. You obviously thought that this might happen, you probably do it all the time. However you only remember when it matters, like when it saves you. At other times it just doesn't quite make it to the long term memory. Well put. That happened to me recently when I came across an artic in the ditch just over the brow of a hill. I can distinctly remember thinking as I approached the brow that I had no idea what was on the other side. It seemed a bit spooky at the time but your explanation makes perfect sense. Spooky indeed eh .. ;-) I'm especially cautious / aware when motorcycling alomg the country lanes .. sort of expecting every blind bend to reveal a combine harvester across the entire road .. ;-( All the best .. T i m |
|
#172
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Chris Bacon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: bigegg wrote: What a strange thing for a "philosopher" to say - if you put your cat in a sealed box, is it alive or dead? That is a very simplistic question. It's also a very simple one to answer., It isn't anything until you make such a judgement call on the cat as to determnine, in human terms, which of the sets of deadness and aliveness it falls into. What I meant was that it is a very simplistic question compared to the full version. The answer to the above is just that the animal is in the same state as when you put it in. Not necessarily, depending on how airtight it is and how long its been in there. The box was described as "sealed". When you put the cat in, it is in the same state as it was when you put it in. Can I be plainer? HTH. No, but you could not be wronger You are assuming that the entity you refer to as 'cat' will only change in response to external input and that that input will be totally screened off by the 'sealed box' Both are potentially erroneous, the first totally so |
|
#173
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
dennis@home wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message ... I know what you mean .. like a preminition .. I avoided a nasty accident the other day because I sorta *expected* someone to do what they did (turn left across me on a roundabout after entering from the outside lane), preminition or experience in this case? Someone with the makings of a good driver.. Actually expects other drivers to be idiots. You obviously thought that this might happen, you probably do it all the time. However you only remember when it matters, like when it saves you. At other times it just doesn't quite make it to the long term memory. Not sure how you can say that with such assurance about someone else.. In one case, it was such a bizarre experience,that there is no way I would have not remembered it irrespective of whether it had panned out in a particular way or not. |
|
#174
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, dennis@home wrote: "T i m" wrote in message ... I know what you mean .. like a preminition .. I avoided a nasty accident the other day because I sorta *expected* someone to do what they did (turn left across me on a roundabout after entering from the outside lane), preminition or experience in this case? Someone with the makings of a good driver.. Actually expects other drivers to be idiots. You obviously thought that this might happen, you probably do it all the time. However you only remember when it matters, like when it saves you. At other times it just doesn't quite make it to the long term memory. Well put. That happened to me recently when I came across an artic in the ditch just over the brow of a hill. I can distinctly remember thinking as I approached the brow that I had no idea what was on the other side. It seemed a bit spooky at the time but your explanation makes perfect sense. Nothing to do with expecting other drivers to be idiots in this case, though. I have slowed down on 'feeling' so many times only to find a reason round the next bend that I simply don't even think twice about it any more. |
|
#175
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Andy McKenzie wrote: See this week's New Scientist for details! I'd be happy to get this group up to New Scientist issue 1! ;-) I doubt doubt the present readership of New Scientist are, on average, as advanced as he readership of Issue 1 (1958) -- David Clark http://www.publishing.ucl.ac.uk $replyto = 'an.rnser.is.reqird' |
|
#176
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
In article ,
DJC wrote: John Cartmell wrote: In article , Andy McKenzie wrote: See this week's New Scientist for details! I'd be happy to get this group up to New Scientist issue 1! ;-) I doubt doubt the present readership of New Scientist are, on average, as advanced as he readership of Issue 1 (1958) I doubt if they've all had the same encounter with 'silly putty'! -- John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing |
|
#177
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: bigegg wrote: What a strange thing for a "philosopher" to say - if you put your cat in a sealed box, is it alive or dead? That is a very simplistic question. It's also a very simple one to answer., It isn't anything until you make such a judgement call on the cat as to determnine, in human terms, which of the sets of deadness and aliveness it falls into. What I meant was that it is a very simplistic question compared to the full version. The answer to the above is just that the animal is in the same state as when you put it in. Not necessarily, depending on how airtight it is and how long its been in there. The box was described as "sealed". When you put the cat in, it is in the same state as it was when you put it in. Can I be plainer? HTH. No, but you could not be wronger You are assuming that the entity you refer to as 'cat' It *is* a cat. will only change in response to external input and that that input will be totally screened off by the 'sealed box' I'm not assuming anything. You just don't get it. Read again, and ditch any ideas you may have about theoretical experiments. |
|
#178
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
On Sat, 06 May 2006 00:11:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: bigegg wrote: What a strange thing for a "philosopher" to say - if you put your cat in a sealed box, is it alive or dead? That is a very simplistic question. It's also a very simple one to answer., It isn't anything until you make such a judgement call on the cat as to determnine, in human terms, which of the sets of deadness and aliveness it falls into. What I meant was that it is a very simplistic question compared to the full version. The answer to the above is just that the animal is in the same state as when you put it in. Not necessarily, depending on how airtight it is and how long its been in there. The box was described as "sealed". When you put the cat in, it is in the same state as it was when you put it in. Can I be plainer? HTH. No, but you could not be wronger You are assuming that the entity you refer to as 'cat' will only change in response to external input and that that input will be totally screened off by the 'sealed box' Both are potentially erroneous, the first totally so He's not philosophising, just being pedantic about the tense. |
|
#179
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:
john2 wrote: We know about things like magnetic fields, electric fields, and electromagnetic radiation, which along with other things are the names we give to the forces at work when things interact. No, we know hardly anything at all about any of these fundamental forces, especially gravity. We have mathematical formulas that predict how they work under different conditions, but that isn't an explanation. We know about how the forces interact based on our observations, which is not I am talking about. I am not talking about what the forces actually are. Thats why they keep building huge particle machines in Switzerland - to test out theories. You don't need a supercollider to know that if you accidentally stub your toe on the corner of a door, it will hurt. You don't need to observe neutrinos in a bubble tank in order to know that a magnet will pick up screws. Daily, observable things are repeatable and well understood. There's a difference between being skilled and having fundamental theoretical understanding. Try explaining a semiconductor to a 1910's boffin (ie before the discovery of the electron). He would think you were a madman from the future. john2 |
|
#180
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
marvelous wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 00:11:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: bigegg wrote: What a strange thing for a "philosopher" to say - if you put your cat in a sealed box, is it alive or dead? That is a very simplistic question. It's also a very simple one to answer., It isn't anything until you make such a judgement call on the cat as to determnine, in human terms, which of the sets of deadness and aliveness it falls into. What I meant was that it is a very simplistic question compared to the full version. The answer to the above is just that the animal is in the same state as when you put it in. Not necessarily, depending on how airtight it is and how long its been in there. The box was described as "sealed". When you put the cat in, it is in the same state as it was when you put it in. Can I be plainer? HTH. No, but you could not be wronger You are assuming that the entity you refer to as 'cat' will only change in response to external input and that that input will be totally screened off by the 'sealed box' Both are potentially erroneous, the first totally so He's not philosophising, just being pedantic about the tense. Then he should have said "When you put the cat in,it WAS in the same state as when you put it in" The use of "when", implies a past tense..the use of "Is" implies a present tense. I cannot be responsible for his inability to construct a grammatically correct sentence, one has to do ones best with poor and sloppy constructions, and assume that the split tenses imply two different times.. |
|
#181
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
wrote:
Erm, in fact you will - under "Water Diviners". (gets 17 hits on Yell) If you look at the list they look like conventional water engineers who come under the heading 'water diviner' as they have selected that term amongst others as search key-words. I doubt that any of them offer The first few maybe, the bulk seem to be individuals listing their services. 'dowsing' (in the para-psychological / quasi-magical sense) as a service. Or if they do the are new-age type frauds I would expect. I searched on the keyword "dowsing" - it just lists them under water diviners. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#182
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Andy McKenzie wrote:
I'm shocked, surely all good DIYers would read New Scientist, where else I let my subscription lapse... its got pretty dire these days ;-(( -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
#183
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
In article
The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip The use of "when", implies a past tense.. How does it? When was, when is, when will ... |
|
#184
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
marvelous wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: bigegg wrote: What a strange thing for a "philosopher" to say - if you put your cat in a sealed box, is it alive or dead? That is a very simplistic question. It's also a very simple one to answer., It isn't anything until you make such a judgement call on the cat as to determnine, in human terms, which of the sets of deadness and aliveness it falls into. What I meant was that it is a very simplistic question compared to the full version. The answer to the above is just that the animal is in the same state as when you put it in. Not necessarily, depending on how airtight it is and how long its been in there. The box was described as "sealed". When you put the cat in, it is in the same state as it was when you put it in. Can I be plainer? HTH. No, but you could not be wronger You are assuming that the entity you refer to as 'cat' will only change in response to external input and that that input will be totally screened off by the 'sealed box' Both are potentially erroneous, the first totally so He's not philosophising, just being pedantic about the tense. Then he should have said "When you put the cat in,it WAS in the same state as when you put it in" The use of "when", implies a past tense..the use of "Is" implies a present tense. I cannot be responsible for his inability to construct a grammatically correct sentence, one has to do ones best with poor and sloppy constructions, and assume that the split tenses imply two different times.. You should direct your remarks to "marvelous", since he said I was "just being pedantic about the tense", which I wasn't. If you want to work out what I meant, though, you would be right to consider time. However, you'll have to go back up the thread a bit to get to what I said. |
|
#185
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Rob Morley wrote:
In article The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip The use of "when", implies a past tense.. How does it? When was, when is, when will ... Those are totally modified by the following verb: The default use of 'when' is the past tense. The moment when... |
|
#186
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Chris Bacon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: marvelous wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Chris Bacon wrote: bigegg wrote: What a strange thing for a "philosopher" to say - if you put your cat in a sealed box, is it alive or dead? That is a very simplistic question. It's also a very simple one to answer., It isn't anything until you make such a judgement call on the cat as to determnine, in human terms, which of the sets of deadness and aliveness it falls into. What I meant was that it is a very simplistic question compared to the full version. The answer to the above is just that the animal is in the same state as when you put it in. Not necessarily, depending on how airtight it is and how long its been in there. The box was described as "sealed". When you put the cat in, it is in the same state as it was when you put it in. Can I be plainer? HTH. No, but you could not be wronger You are assuming that the entity you refer to as 'cat' will only change in response to external input and that that input will be totally screened off by the 'sealed box' Both are potentially erroneous, the first totally so He's not philosophising, just being pedantic about the tense. Then he should have said "When you put the cat in,it WAS in the same state as when you put it in" The use of "when", implies a past tense..the use of "Is" implies a present tense. I cannot be responsible for his inability to construct a grammatically correct sentence, one has to do ones best with poor and sloppy constructions, and assume that the split tenses imply two different times.. You should direct your remarks to "marvelous", since he said I was "just being pedantic about the tense", which I wasn't. If you want to work out what I meant, though, you would be right to consider time. However, you'll have to go back up the thread a bit to get to what I said. I'm sadly a little but bored with it. Philosophy is interesting, pedantry seldom is. |
|
#187
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I'm sadly a little but bored with it. Philosophy is interesting, pedantry seldom is. It's not pedantry, it's your inability to read and think. Doesn't bother me if you're not up to it - however, thank you for telling me. |
|
#188
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
In article
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Rob Morley wrote: In article The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip The use of "when", implies a past tense.. How does it? When was, when is, when will ... Those are totally modified by the following verb: The default use of 'when' is the past tense. The moment when... When doesn't have a tense because it's not a verb. When the weather clears up I'll put the washing on the line. When I was younger, so much younger than today. |
|
#189
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Rob Morley wrote:
In article The Natural Philosopher wrote: Rob Morley wrote: In article The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip The use of "when", implies a past tense.. How does it? When was, when is, when will ... Those are totally modified by the following verb: The default use of 'when' is the past tense. The moment when... When doesn't have a tense because it's not a verb. When the weather clears up I'll put the washing on the line. When I was younger, so much younger than today. 'Last year' doesn't have a tense either, but few people understand it to mean the future. You have to modify it to 'the last year that I WILL be'...or some such. |
|
#190
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
In article
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Rob Morley wrote: In article The Natural Philosopher wrote: Rob Morley wrote: In article The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip The use of "when", implies a past tense.. How does it? When was, when is, when will ... Those are totally modified by the following verb: The default use of 'when' is the past tense. The moment when... When doesn't have a tense because it's not a verb. When the weather clears up I'll put the washing on the line. When I was younger, so much younger than today. 'Last year' doesn't have a tense either, but few people understand it to mean the future. You have to modify it to 'the last year that I WILL be'...or some such. The last year of this decade certainly isn't in the past, and I didn't modify its sense of time with a verb - the only verb in that phrase is the present tense "isn't", but we still know it's in the future. You're attaching a sense of time to something which actually only describes a sequence. |
|
#191
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
"Tony Polson" wrote in message ... "Mary Fisher" wrote: I know HOW it's done, just wondered if folk here had. I used to do it on the construction sites I used to manage. I also taught several colleagues how to do it. It isn't difficult, and it is certainly very useful. Gosh! Better late than never :-) Thanks. Mary |
|
#192
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Tony Polson wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote: I know HOW it's done, just wondered if folk here had. I used to do it on the construction sites I used to manage. I also taught several colleagues how to do it. It isn't difficult, and it is certainly very useful. Especially if you know (consciously or subconsciously) where the things you are dowsing for are. In any properly controlled tests that have been done dowsing doesn't work. -- Chris Green |
|
#193
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
|
|
#194
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
|
|
#195
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Mary Fisher wrote: "Tony Polson" wrote in message ... "Mary Fisher" wrote: I know HOW it's done, just wondered if folk here had. I used to do it on the construction sites I used to manage. I also taught several colleagues how to do it. It isn't difficult, and it is certainly very useful. Gosh! Better late than never :-) There was a brief discussion yesterday on BBC R4, 3.45pm, In Drover's Boots; seems to be on the web: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/atoz/index.shtml#i. The interviewee is vice-president or something of the UK Dowsing Assoc. Reckons that there is no point in a scientific explanation. Best regards, Jon C. |
|
#197
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Tony Polson wrote:
wrote: Tony Polson wrote: "Mary Fisher" wrote: I know HOW it's done, just wondered if folk here had. I used to do it on the construction sites I used to manage. I also taught several colleagues how to do it. It isn't difficult, and it is certainly very useful. Especially if you know (consciously or subconsciously) where the things you are dowsing for are. In any properly controlled tests that have been done dowsing doesn't work. I was a complete sceptic until I tried it. Until then, I believed it was hokum. We were starting work on a site that had been covered with brick hardcore and scalpings (quarry waste) and there was no sign of any services. After 5 minutes' tuition I managed to locate two electricity cables, a water main and two sets of telephone ducts within an hour and a half. The locations were extremely accurate, within half a metre or less. I have never managed to use dowsing to locate water, which I think is where most of the doubts arise. But it is remarkably effective, even in the hands of a sceptic like me, for locating underground services. I have used it many times since and it has never let me down. But that's probably because I work well within its limitations. I bet if you did a proper double-blind test it wouldn't work. In fact there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it. Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000? -- Chris Green |
|
#198
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
wrote in message oups.com... Mary Fisher wrote: "Tony Polson" wrote in message ... "Mary Fisher" wrote: I know HOW it's done, just wondered if folk here had. I used to do it on the construction sites I used to manage. I also taught several colleagues how to do it. It isn't difficult, and it is certainly very useful. Gosh! Better late than never :-) There was a brief discussion yesterday on BBC R4, 3.45pm, In Drover's Boots; seems to be on the web: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/atoz/index.shtml#i. The interviewee is vice-president or something of the UK Dowsing Assoc. Reckons that there is no point in a scientific explanation. There isn't. We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it. the explanation might be interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system. How many of us know exactly how all parts of our bodies work? Mary Best regards, Jon C. |
|
#199
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
wrote in message ... Tony Polson wrote: wrote: Tony Polson wrote: "Mary Fisher" wrote: I know HOW it's done, just wondered if folk here had. I used to do it on the construction sites I used to manage. I also taught several colleagues how to do it. It isn't difficult, and it is certainly very useful. Especially if you know (consciously or subconsciously) where the things you are dowsing for are. In any properly controlled tests that have been done dowsing doesn't work. I was a complete sceptic until I tried it. Until then, I believed it was hokum. We were starting work on a site that had been covered with brick hardcore and scalpings (quarry waste) and there was no sign of any services. After 5 minutes' tuition I managed to locate two electricity cables, a water main and two sets of telephone ducts within an hour and a half. The locations were extremely accurate, within half a metre or less. I have never managed to use dowsing to locate water, which I think is where most of the doubts arise. But it is remarkably effective, even in the hands of a sceptic like me, for locating underground services. I have used it many times since and it has never let me down. But that's probably because I work well within its limitations. I bet if you did a proper double-blind test it wouldn't work. I wouldn't. But I don't bet on anything. In fact there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it. Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000? It wouldn't attract me. I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is there? Mary -- Chris Green |
|
#200
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dowsing
Mary Fisher wrote:
We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it. the explanation might be interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system. How many of us know exactly how all parts of our bodies work? ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe his results had an impact on the industry. I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is there? C'mon, Mary, keep up. He was mentioned in both the earlier threads on Dowsing (one of which you started). OTOH considering the huge number of silly posts, you might have got tired of reading, and who can blame you. There might be a point if the experiment could actually be done, but I suspect it can't (since "doing an experiment" entails a specific mind-set which is likely to be inimical to whatever-it-is that achieves dowsing (if it does)). Douglas de Lacey |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
