Live water

for matters relating to dowsing for water supplies including wells, boreholes, heat pumps and other services.

Re: Live water? in your dream world.

Postby Grahame Gardner » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:20 am

Doug Bates wrote:I venture to suggest, however, that the water interest group within the BSD is rather small because it is a specialised field in which a relatively small number of dowsers work, for few have the gumption to lay themselves open to the harsh light of necessary proof every time they dowse, and some of the professionals who do, like myself, have perhaps tended to disassociate themselves from the esoteric majority of the Society for the very reasons I have explained in my preceding posts.

You are absolutely correct there, Doug. Very few of the Water & Site SIG actually post on the forum at all, which is a sad state of affairs. I would say that there is also a tendency, especially amongst the old-timers, to keep their methods and techniques to themselves for fear of professional competition (correct me if I'm wrong here); and this is not helping to encourage younger folk to get into water dowsing and is resulting in a still-decreasing pool of professional water dowsers in the country and on the BSD register.

Doug Bates wrote:In respect of advancing the cause of dowsing as a serious geophysical exploration technique in the water and minerals sector, and working on the common ground between Dowsing biophysics and scientific geophysics in this demanding arena, it may ultimately be preferable to form a new International Society of Professional Water and Mineral Dowsers as a vehicle to focus the energies and efforts of a professionally qualified and disciplined minority towards greater pioneering achievement and scientific advancement.
No doubt others have suggested this before, but of course we all have busy lives and it takes a considerable effort and time commitment to begin and sustain a professional society. Since I am suggesting it again now, I will consider re-joining the society and putting a proposal together for such an organisation to develop within the BSD.

I think there is a danger of too much fragmentation here. There are strong advantages in maintaining a large national body as the BSD, which has the administrative capability to support and protect dowsers against legislative challenges, such as many of our members are experiencing at the moment at the hands of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Doug Bates wrote: I feel you and the membership as a whole must concede that to provide constructive criticism in these circumstances is definitely in the interests of the Society in accordance with its Code of Ethics. By the same token, contributions of a high standard of research, investigation, and debate on this subject should be encouraged by all means.

Yes, absolutely. But I think the research requirements can be well-served within the existing Society structures, particularly with the Water & Site Group and the Dowsing Research Group. But where are the research proposals? Many have argued that the Society should be actively promoting such research, but we can only do that if people submit structured proposals... and there is a challenge that I hope you (or somebody else) will take up.

But.... as I said previously, this is a public forum and is most definitely NOT the place to be discussing BSD policy, so regrettably I must end this conversation here.
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it - Terry Pratchett.
User avatar
Grahame Gardner
Site Admin
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:52 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Live water

Postby jimuazu » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:41 am

Physically moving water veins with dowsing need not be considered inconsistent with science.

If we consider that what is underground is unobserved (and will never be observed completely without digging it all up), then it could be seen as a large number of macroscopic entangled uncollapsed quantum waveforms. The water needs to get from one side to the other, and the rocks have some characteristics from their history, but the details of how that is resolved into a stream could be a number of overlapping quantum probabilities. This leaves it open to manipulation.

I'm not talking pseudo-science here. Quantum mechanics explains that firing a particle at two slits creates a pattern as if the particle passed through both slits. Scientists have tried with bigger and bigger particles, up to molecules, and it still works (the molecule passes through both slits). One day they might try it with drops of water. There is nothing to suggest that water will behave any differently. Each drop of water found on the other side will have passed through both slits. The water drops exist as quantum probabilities until observed, when the waveform collapses into a drop at a definite position.

So I can't see any reason why water passing through rock should be any different. All the possible veins exist as probabilities until observed. This can explain moving veins. I don't think it can explain turning veins on/off, but you know at this scale things are pretty complicated so maybe with a bit more thinking an explanation consistent with quantum mechanics can be found for that as well. I mean, maybe we observed the previous water, but the water on its way is still unobserved thus no contradictions are created by allowing its behaviour to be changed.

So in short I think this means that people worried about contradicting science should not worry, and can try the technique anyway.

(BTW, I'm not saying that science will accept the mechanism of moving veins, or of dowsing in general, since that is the interaction of consciousness and matter and they are nowhere near an understanding of that yet -- just that moving veins is not inconsistent with established laws of quantum mechanics, as far as I can see. And yes, I am someone with scientific training, so I do find I have to try and resolve this kind of thing for myself. Probably it is much better not to have this limitation, because science has been wrong a number of times, in the sense of 100% believing incomplete explanations, e.g. Newtonian mechanics versus what we have now. So it would be better not to be limited by current scientific belief.)
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Huancayo, Peru


Return to Water Dowsing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest