discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrLs

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

K, for starters just how do we see ? what are we seeing?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

This is going to depend on which locating unit we are speaking of.

The LRL that swivels or uses rods is in theory looking for a "harmonic" connection between 1) a man made signal that imitates an
element. 2) a sample of the material and the target.

SHO-Nuff Next--

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, I can tell you that it doesn't work like a TV.

A TV works similar to an oscilloscope. The camera scans, from left to right, a tiny dot area. For black and white, the intensity of light observed by the TV camera, on that tiny scan line varies as it moves from left to right. When the camera has finished scanning one line, at a constant speed, the aim of the pickup is returned back to the left side very quickly, a little lower down, and it starts scanning across all over again, at the constant scan speed.

When all the lines have been scanned, it quickly goes to the top, and starts scanning the next frame.

Actually, the current technology goes from line number one to line number three, then five, then seven, and so forth, on the first pass; then scans lines two, four, and six, and so forth, on the next pass. So it really takes two passes of the scene to make one frame. This is called interlaced frames.

Then it starts on the next frame. DVD's have 29.97 frames per second. TV is a little lower speed than that. Non-interlaced frames technology is called progressive scanning.

But, basically, television is based on a scanning system.

If human sight were based on a scanning type technology, it would need to be many times faster than the best grade of electronic video, because there is never any flicker in eyesight.

I knew a guy that, standing next to me, could which side of a branch a .22 bullet flew. I knew, because I was using a scope. I didn't even think to look for the bullet, but after I fired a few rounds, he told me where they all went. I was cutting a thin branch, and I started a little away from the branch, and rapid fired across the branch to cut it. He then told me which side I had started on! He acted like he thought everyone could see it. Maybe they can, and I never tried. Anyway, it did not flicker, even at that speed. He could see it during it's entire flight.

Human eyeballs don't have the circuitry for scanning type of video, anyway.

On the other hand, if there is no scanning, there would need to be a signal line from every single rod and cone in each eyeball. But there isn't that, either. Also with this theory, there would have to be someplace, presumeably in the brain, where all these signal lines are converted into a picture, but that circuitry isn't to be found, either.

And, even more importantly, if all that circuitry somehow did exist, where is the little screen that it is displayed on, and, even better, who is watching that screen?

 

[woof!]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

K, for starters just how do we see ? what are we seeing?

Don Jose de La Mancha

The "seeing" thing seems irrelevant to LRL's, belonging instead to one of the other forums, perhaps the dowsing forum. But what the heck, I'll bite just to see where the discussion goes. If it never leads to the "electronic stuff" maybe the moderators will close the thread.

"Seeing" in everyday life consists of perceptions which begin with the optical system of the eye, and finally through a bunch of image processing wind up being mediated through information from parts of the brain which are not involved in image processing as such. A lot of stage magic is designed around the limitations of this system. Dreaming and hypnosis reveal the fact that we can perceive fairly complex images and regard them as "real" even though the optical visual apparatus was not in operation at the time (dreaming), or was overpowered by information from other parts of the brain (hypnosis). These principles also extend to things like creative visualization and synesthesia and drug-induced hallucination.

We have a strong tendency to "believe" what we "see", hence the concept of "eyewitness testimony". We tend to believe what we "see" because vision is a high-bandwidth information channel which is fairly efficient at compression with minimal loss of "important information" or aliasing of data. The concept of "eyewitness testimony" is based on our instinctive knowledge that vision is the most reliable of our senses when it comes to the ability to experience a complex event and to recall it later. .........However, just because it's the best, doesn't mean it's very good. Any courtroom lawyer learns pretty quickly that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, not so much because some people are liars (that's already factored in), but because people who are trying to honestly tell the truth perceived so wrongly what entered the eye, and because even that kept getting twisted around by subsequent events esp. hints from others (esp. lawyers) what the witness should have seen. Prosecutors know that one way to close a case is to frame someone whom they've discovered has a malleable memory, by planting the crime scene between the hapless cuss's ears until the guy can see it just as vividly as if recalling having actually committed the crime. It often happens that the best fall guy (or gal) is someone who was an innocent eyewitness, because then half the raw material needed to frame the victim is already present. If you're black you didn't see nuttin', and if you're black you already know why this is true.

* * * * * * *

And that brings to so-called "extrasensory perception" which is arguably one step toward dowsing, which if we get that far before this thread disintegrates into Art Oblivion, plants us into the world of L-rods with or without "electronic stuff". Regarding the electronic stuff itself, the manufacturers weave a long tale of BS about that, and nearly all either deny that dowsing is involved or simply pretend that nobody ever heard of dowsing (a bit of a subterfuge, what eh?) So with "LRL's", either we agree with the manufacturers that the electronic stuff is play-pretend stuff, or we take the rather strange position that the manufacturers don't know what the heck they're manufacturing or how it works, and we say that the gizmos work while at the same time characterizing the manufacturers as stupid idiots who don't understand what the hell they're doing. Those are the two basic positions available, but I suppose with further discussion some in-betweeners will emerge.

Next?

--Toto

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, I bet that settled that. Likely a standing ovation due on the LRL theory you presented. I'm going to pretend you just

explained the theory of the Bionic 01. Good job. EE

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Real Deal;

When possible, we will verify reactions with our eyes closed. This does not happen often, but once in a while we can. It is only good for a few steps. Seems to be better if you approach from less than 90 deg.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

It is only good for a few steps.

Is that because of the quality of the signals you get with your eyes closed, or because of the trees and cliffs and boulders and stuff?


...Just askin'

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Gentlemen: In my orig post I asked -->how do we see ? what are we seeing? as was not noticed, there is no mention of lrl's or a possible interaction YET . so how do we see and what are we supposedly using to see?

Woof and EE came the closest to what I was asking.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

RDT---

Gentlemen: In my orig post I asked -->how do we see ? what are we seeing? as was not noticed, there is no mention of lrl's or a possible interaction YET . so how do we see and what are we supposedly using to see?

Woof and EE came the closest to what I was asking.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I can say that there have been many cases of confirmed out-of-body experiences, and in every case reported, they saw and heard things going on around them. Not only in the room they were in, but sometimes in adjacent rooms, and even elsewhere. And the accuracy of their experiences have been confirmed.

While it could be argued that the body was hearing what was going on, and remembered it, in all the cases of "incidental" exteriorization, occurring while under anesthesia or just plain knocked out, the body's eyes were closed. It could also be argued that the person saw the room or immediate area while still awake, and just visualized the people and activities around him, and made a lucky "guess" in his imagination.

But the places, people, and activities of which the person had no prior knowledge, stands as absolute proof of this phenomenon.

Thus seeing, as well as hearing, are not done with the body's eyeballs and ears. So all of the amazing "circuitry" theory, which is easy to imagine, is just that---imagination, and has no basis in proven fact. Whereas the incidents mentioned above are, in fact, proof of the conclusion accompanying them.

Now it's time to hear your ideas.

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

My first answer was as close as I can get to the "signal" theory. It is thought that the rod or swivel device wants to parallel or align with the connection (signal).

This can be shown by walking N/S,,, E/W past the target and crossing the cardinal lines of the target. LRLs were designed?? to enhance this effect.

I have heard that some filters on cameras can "see" the line. Rumor?? The magnacast 5000 has a scan gun that is suppose to
sense the "signal" and use an audible tone.

I will look for that old link I posted, no promises.

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Guys;

I would like to offer 2 places that have a little more info that may shed some light on some questions batted around here.

www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/U11L4c.html



http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/hr1/hr1.html

See if this works.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Guys;

I would like to offer 2 places that have a little more info that may shed some light on some questions batted around here.

www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/U11L4c.html



http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/hr1/hr1.html

See if this works.

Your links don't shed any light on anything. They both refer to already publically known "views" and theories. There is no actual, established, fact presented on either of them. This is plainly stated within their texts.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Your links don't shed any light on anything. They both refer to already publically known "views" and theories. There is no actual, established, fact presented on either of them. This is plainly stated within their texts.
Is some one doing to the skeptics what they have been publishing for years?

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Your links don't shed any light on anything. They both refer to already publically known "views" and theories. There is no actual, established, fact presented on either of them. This is plainly stated within their texts.
Is some one doing to the skeptics what they have been publishing for years?

They have been publishing words.

When those words say "view," it just means view. When they say "theory," it's just a theory.

Quotes from the second link: "The conventional view of neuroscience, known as the neuron doctrine, is based on the assumption that...." And, "A Harmonic Resonance theory is presented as...." Actually the word "theory" is right in the page title!

I misspoke about the one on standing waves, though. It was merely irrelevant.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

K for the moment forget lrl or whatever, just concentrate on 'how we (our body) sees things'. We have a long way to go before we get to detectors or mechanical devices.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

K for the moment forget lrl or whatever, just concentrate on 'how we (our body) sees things'. We have a long way to go before we get to detectors or mechanical devices.

Don Jose de La Mancha

DJ, is that another way of saying "lets take this thread off topic?".

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ok, I'll just watch. My experience is 35 yrs of lrl use and investigation. I don't use my body to "see" anything as far as I know.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

RDT---

I think everybody that's going to post, has already posted.

It looks like it's your turn.

 

[TabWhisperer]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

K, for starters just how do we see ? what are we seeing?

Don Jose de La Mancha

You are seeing the effects of pseudoscience meeting belief systems by like minded individuals. Some of these people go so far as to intentionally deceive others looking to make some easy money. There is nothing plausible, scientific, or reliable about any of it. If you are going to make claims of having some proof, please present it. The world (or at least this forum) is waiting. But apparently you do not have any proof and somehow want others to provide some reasoning for your own beliefs that you can't even figure out for yourself.

 

[woof!]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, since Artie hasn't thrown a ton of garden slugs on the topic yet, I'll do me customary "parse everyone off" act by rendering my opinion on what's happened so far and its implications.

I thought Joe's question to be good one, although another forum might have been a better place to flesh out the basic pre-electronic arguments before it was dragged into this forum.

EE's contribution to the matter keeps getting stuck on his decision not to learn anything about biology since he's already got a new fundamentalist theory which because it's fundamentalist needs no evidence. To EE's credit, he does take Joe's question seriously. EE doesn't seem to "get it" that the fact he can Artie a theory doesn't give it the power to play trump against scientists who have actually researched this stuff and published what it was they actually regarded as consensus or otherwise. I wonder if EE reads scientific journals, even Scientific American, not because every article published therein is gospel truth (not that any church ever taught that anyway) but because the principle of peer review by the supposedly well informed on current thinking at least has the advantage demanding that renegades be able to explain what's wrong with the prevailing dogma and then to provide a better explanation. Without that, all nonsense is created equal.

--Dave J. [signed as such because that's the monniker by which I'm known in Lou Gehrig's Disease research]