BrigantesNation
|
Re: energy grid ?
Sep 06, 2003, 20:28
|
Maybe, maybe not.
If I said; Dowsers exist, but must prove their credibility on an individual basis to be of use.
Would that work for you?
If so then we are on the same track and I'm sorry for strapping the question.
In my view it is not the physics of how dowsing works that are so relevent. It is their interpretation by the dowser. If a dowser asks "is this water", but actually is thinking "is it coal" and the hole is dug and coal is discovered, does that caount as (1) a positive anomally, and (2) poor interpretation from the operator?
|
morfe lux
|
Re: energy grid ?
Sep 06, 2003, 21:54
|
"So the universe does not exist?"
"Yes it does, it just has no credibility!"
Explain credibility?
"Morfe ... What's all this 'art fills the void' bollocks?"
You said void. You said fill. You also said bollock. I was simply stating that credibility is subjective, you seemed to miss that point, in no way do I consider 'art fills a void', art is an interpretive tool and a way to communicate. I don't sugest there is a void being filled. Even if I were, I cannot argue that life would be far less rich without music, books and pictures etc. I may have been reading you wrongly, but my reply to you is that the limits of measurability equally apply to the measurer as the measured. This should always be considered, in my mind, to remain objective.
"Please people, make sensible comments and don't just answer with a question, especially one as fucking stupid as 'so the universe does not exist?'."
That's a perfecly reasonable question considering we are talking about what does and what does not exist?
"This is a forum, not a debating centre. We're hear to discuss things, not act like scumbag politicians."
So why are you shouting like a besuited monkey in the house of commons? And who are you to say there is no debating to be done on this forum?
"NOW, please note that I was talking about credibility and all you read it as existence. "
First you need to explain your definition of credibility surely? Then any replies to you may not be so readily met with vociferous swearing and 'no quarter' quatrains ;-)
"Dowsing exists. But does it work? There is a fountain pen on my desk. I know it exists, but I don't know if it works until I write with it and prove it works."
If you are saying that a pen is 'credible' because it demonstrates consistency, then yes I see your point.
You big ponce x :-)
|
BrigantesNation
|
Surely no pen is credible
Sep 06, 2003, 22:00
|
Since they all run out. Normally when they are most needed. A good percentage of pens don't work properly from day one.
Hurrah for the Pedant
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: Dowsing drains
Sep 06, 2003, 22:35
|
Cheers for that D,
Getting a "fix" is what my friend says enables her to date pottery. I was incredibly scheptical, but where she has been certain, shes been right. This blows most of the theories out of the water for me.
I think a lot of the hokum behind dowsing is based on people trying to match the results to personal theories, which comes from an unwillingness to accept the somethings are not explainable with todays science.
|
Dominic_Brayne
|
Re: Dowsing drains
Sep 06, 2003, 22:52
|
In the words of Mr Obelix - 'Zigackly Ferpect!'
Too many theories with no overall proof, some probably closer than others, but none so far unifying all aspects of dowsing.
I shall continue to speak as I find, and enjoy some of the revelations dowsing has revealed to me, but at the same time chuckle when in the library at Brayne Grange when I remember some of those days when absolutely nothing happens.
Perhaps some form of psychic 'viagra' for when energy fields are low...?
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Surely no pen is credible
Sep 06, 2003, 22:55
|
Hurrah for humour!
:-)
|
Earthstepper
|
Re: energy grid ?
Sep 06, 2003, 23:11
|
<<Dowsing exists. But does it work? There is a fountain pen on my desk. I know it exists, but I don't know if it works until I write with it and prove it works.>>
So if you were to try dowsing and find that it does work for you, then that would make it credible? But it's incredible if it only works for somebody else? If it did work for you then it would be credible, but you still wouldn't know how or why it works. Do fountain pens write everytime?
I have no interest in dowsing at all and never indulge. I can't see why it has to be proved or disproved either. I long ago gave up on trying to force conviction on anyone. G'night. I'll pick up the thread tomorrow if its still running. I rather think its run its course.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Surely no pen is credible
Sep 07, 2003, 06:23
|
|
Where?
|
FourWinds
|
Re: energy grid ?
Sep 07, 2003, 06:28
|
First of all (as my final comment - unless I make another):
I have tried dowsing and it does work ... Sometimes.
I did Geophys ... we all play.
Now. Can I return folks to my original comment?
**************
"the stones do serve a purpose energetically"
That's a *very* bold statement. Show me your proof please.
**************
Was I talking of dowsing when I asked for proof? No! Stones with an 'energy purpose' was my thing.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: energy grid ?
Sep 07, 2003, 08:47
|
Austin, just as a matter of curiosity, if there is damage, does that mean they have lost their energetic purpose? In which case, repairing the damage cannot harm the purpose.
Conversely, if they haven’t lost their purpose then clearly damage hasn’t destroyed it. Yet you seem to imply you feel repairing the damage may destroy the purpose.
What sort of energy is it that can survive damage but not survive the reversal of damage?
|
