When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[hung]

Let me help you out Dr. Rudy.
You could start by saying ferinstance that...
Ordinary science states that a magnetic field only exists due to moving electric particles (or not?).
Thus the difference between a magnetic material and a non magnetic material is that in a magnetic material the electrons move only in one direction while in the non magnetic material the electrons move randomly to different directions. In the first case a static magnetic field is produced and in the second, there is no magnetic field.
The first case is a magnet. The second case can be a pencil, your cat or the hamburger you are eating right now... (or not?)

You have seen Miroslaw attracting a plastic cassete tape enclosure. You watched Uri Geller moving a compass needle with his (produced) magnetic field(?!).
According to science Miroslaw is not magnetic. Plastic is not magnetic. Uri Geller is not magnetic. But both of them seem to display magnetism in that they are able to make electrons move in only one direction creating a static field.

Is it possible Dr. Rudy?
Or will this be one more case 'when ordinary science fails to explain'?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rudy(CA)]

Morning Rudy I need that this morning. you posted -->
good, irreproachable scientific evidence
**************
what is 'irrepproachable science'? Every phase of it is now being revamped and questioned.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Ir•re•proach•a•ble adj.
Beyond criticism; faultless.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Let me help you out Dr. Rudy.
You could start by saying ferinstance that...
Ordinary science states that a magnetic field only exists due to moving electric particles (or not?).
Thus the difference between a magnetic material and a non magnetic material is that in a magnetic material the electrons move only in one direction while in the non magnetic material the electrons move randomly to different directions. In the first case a static magnetic field is produced and in the second, there is no magnetic field.
The first case is a magnet. The second case can be a pencil, your cat or the hamburger you are eating right now... (or not?)

You have seen Miroslaw attracting a plastic cassete tape enclosure. You watched Uri Geller moving a compass needle with his (produced) magnetic field(?!).
According to science Miroslaw is not magnetic. Plastic is not magnetic. Uri Geller is not magnetic. But both of them seem to display magnetism in that they are able to make electrons move in only one direction creating a static field.

Is it possible Dr. Rudy?
Or will this be one more case 'when ordinary science fails to explain'?

You just can't seem to get past those quacks can you.

 

[hung]

You just can't seem to get past those quacks can you.

The only quack I spot here is one with a paperbag in his face. Do you see any others?

Actually the difference between you and me is that when I face something that defies scientifically the 'status quo', I research it, learn and find the answers to my doubts.
When you face something that defies scientifically the status quo, you go home, lock yourself in the bedroom and yell to the 'quaks' that you will not leave until they go away.

Fortunately the world evolves independently of people like you.

 

[EE THr]

The problem with your example is that your device has a 30 year track record of being a scam!

So where is the proof of them being a Scam ? In 30 years of operations their must be a whole bunch of manufactures in jail for these scams…Please provide us with list of the cionvictions..Art

You are the one who made the claim of a 30 year track record, so it's up to you to prove your claim.

Asking someone to prove a negative is an admission that you cannot prove your claim.









Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

You just can't seem to get past those quacks can you.

The only quack I spot here is one with a paperbag in his face. Do you see any others?

Actually the difference between you and me is that when I face something that defies scientifically the 'status quo', I research it, learn and find the answers to my doubts.
When you face something that defies scientifically the status quo, you go home, lock yourself in the bedroom and yell to the 'quaks' that you will not leave until they go away.

Fortunately the world evolves independently of people like you.

No, hung-up. What you do is you take ideas, hunches, guesswork, and intentional scams, and call them facts.

You are trying to use the Uri Geller "promotional video" as a basis to prove that LRL pseudoscience is real. You skipped a step in your logic, as you usually do, and forgot to mention to the folks this one very obvious fact: If Uri did do all those things, he did them without any electronic "helpers," so therefore the so-called LRLs, as "electronic helpers," are totally not necessary! And therefore LRLs are merely fake expensive scams.

Sorry, but your own phony attempt at "proof" has disproven you.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~hung~

The only quack I spot here is one with a paperbag in his face. Do you see any others?
Actually the difference between you and me is that when I face something that defies scientifically the 'status quo', I research it, learn and find the answers to my doubts.
When you face something that defies scientifically the status quo, you go home, lock yourself in the bedroom and yell to the 'quaks' that you will not leave until they go away.
Fortunately the world evolves independently of people like you.

It seems to me that you are a Scientist as you are on a quest for knowledge..

You are the one who made the claim of a 30 year track record, so it's up to you to prove your claim.

No claim but a fact..LRL’s have been sold in the USA for over 30 years..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Actually....fraudulent instruments advertised as Long Range Locators have been sold in the USA for approximately thirty years

Another wild claim

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

hi my friend rudy, you posted --> Ir•re•proach•a•ble adj. Beyond criticism; faultless.

**********************
you are correct, I guess that I should use the speller, even though it was a typo, but as you know, I am just too cottin pickin lazy

However back to what was the intent of the post?

Let's talk goils while we wait.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Rudy(CA)]

You just can't seem to get past those quacks can you.

The only quack I spot here is one with a paperbag in his face. Do you see any others?

Actually the difference between you and me is that when I face something that defies scientifically the 'status quo', I research it, learn and find the answers to my doubts.
When you face something that defies scientifically the status quo, you go home, lock yourself in the bedroom and yell to the 'quaks' that you will not leave until they go away.

Fortunately the world evolves independently of people like you.

I don't think I can improve on what EE said.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

No, hung-up. What you do is you take ideas, hunches, guesswork, and intentional scams, and call them facts.
You are trying to use the Uri Geller "promotional video" as a basis to prove that LRL pseudoscience is real. You skipped a step in your logic, as you usually do, and forgot to mention to the folks this one very obvious fact: If Uri did do all those things, he did them without any electronic "helpers," so therefore the so-called LRLs, as "electronic helpers," are totally not necessary! And therefore LRLs are merely fake expensive scams.
Sorry, but your own phony attempt at "proof" has disproven you.
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Did he say anything about Uei Geller and electronics ? How come most of you posts end with the promotion of Carl’s Test and then your self promoting thread?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

No, hung-up. What you do is you take ideas, hunches, guesswork, and intentional scams, and call them facts.
You are trying to use the Uri Geller "promotional video" as a basis to prove that LRL pseudoscience is real. You skipped a step in your logic, as you usually do, and forgot to mention to the folks this one very obvious fact: If Uri did do all those things, he did them without any electronic "helpers," so therefore the so-called LRLs, as "electronic helpers," are totally not necessary! And therefore LRLs are merely fake expensive scams.
Sorry, but your own phony attempt at "proof" has disproven you.
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Did he say anything about Uei Geller and electronics ? How come most of you posts end with the promotion of Carl’s Test and then your self promoting thread?

Um...maybe it was because hung-up said that all his magnetism and Uri posts were leading up to some kind of proof about how or why LRLs work? Duh...ya think?

 

[fenixdigger]

Art, I'll tell you why their posts end like that. They ain't tuff enuff to do the SHO-NUFF

 

[EE THr]

Art, I'll tell you why their posts end like that. They ain't tuff enuff to do the SHO-NUFF

fenix brothers---

Your SNOW-NUFF test relates only to coathanger dowsing, while this Section is for discussing LRL devices.

A real test would be for you to take Carl's, but you SHO-NUFF can't pass it, can you?

 

[hung]

FACTS:

1 - Skeptics were not able to provide a scientific explanation to Miroslaw Magola's case.
2 - Skeptics were not able to refute my claims. This evidences they either agree with me or lack the scientific data for a rebuttal.
3 - Dr. Rudy was the only one who said that could refute my claims. He lied.

Regarding fact#2, it's interesting to note that in various threads skeptics keep preaching about 'real' science, as believed by them, against a supposed 'pseudoscience' that they claim LRL proponents and manufacturers use.

In fact#2 lies the proof and not only the evidence in this case, that they get 'trapped' in an unsolved contradiction. In logic, would be that assertive A or B will not provide C (a rebuttal).
So, it's over. They might continue repeling and oposing LRL concepts as much as they wish. It's part or democracy and also part of capitalism's dirty rules when one side feels threatened.

Truth is that they have completely lost the cause to use Science as their alibi to support their agenda from now on.
It's up to them choose how serious they wish to continue to be taken if they insist.

Just for the record.

 

[fenixdigger]

I warned you guys about posting the truth and making non delusional statements. This won't set well.


It's not a bluff---SHO-NUFF

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Your SNOW-NUFF test relates only to coathanger dowsing, while this Section is for discussing LRL devices.

Good to see that you are very upset about LT’s little experiment..the only thing it will tell the consumer is if he may enjoy using a LRL…Just an other way for the consumer to learn what he or she can do…What makes you think it is some kind of coat hanger dowsing ?..

 

[Rudy(CA)]

FACTS:

1 - Skeptics were not able to provide a scientific explanation to Miroslaw Magola's case.
2 - Skeptics were not able to refute my claims. This evidences they either agree with me or lack the scientific data for a rebuttal.
3 - Dr. Rudy was the only one who said that could refute my claims. He lied.

Regarding fact#2, it's interesting to note that in various threads skeptics keep preaching about 'real' science, as believed by them, against a supposed 'pseudoscience' that they claim LRL proponents and manufacturers use.

In fact#2 lies the proof and not only the evidence in this case, that they get 'trapped' in an unsolved contradiction. In logic, would be that assertive A or B will not provide C (a rebuttal).
So, it's over. They might continue repeling and oposing LRL concepts as much as they wish. It's part or democracy and also part of capitalism's dirty rules when one side feels threatened.

Truth is that they have completely lost the cause to use Science as their alibi to support their agenda from now on.
It's up to them choose how serious they wish to continue to be taken if they insist.

Just for the record.

Dr. Hung, your immediate assumption of Miroslaw's tricks as constituting proof of human magnetism does show a worrisome
flaw in your powers of deductive reasoning and critical thinking.

 

[EE THr]

FACTS:

1 - Skeptics were not able to provide a scientific explanation to Miroslaw Magola's case.
2 - Skeptics were not able to refute my claims. This evidences they either agree with me or lack the scientific data for a rebuttal.
3 - Dr. Rudy was the only one who said that could refute my claims. He lied.

Regarding fact#2, it's interesting to note that in various threads skeptics keep preaching about 'real' science, as believed by them, against a supposed 'pseudoscience' that they claim LRL proponents and manufacturers use.

In fact#2 lies the proof and not only the evidence in this case, that they get 'trapped' in an unsolved contradiction. In logic, would be that assertive A or B will not provide C (a rebuttal).
So, it's over. They might continue repeling and oposing LRL concepts as much as they wish. It's part or democracy and also part of capitalism's dirty rules when one side feels threatened.

Truth is that they have completely lost the cause to use Science as their alibi to support their agenda from now on.
It's up to them choose how serious they wish to continue to be taken if they insist.

Just for the record.

There are known problems with trying to use video as proof of anything, especially in these days of Computer Generated Graphics. But even without that, your videos have certain other serious flaws, which have been pointed out to you.

Your declaring of videos to be "absolute proof" is obvious indication of your anti-scientific nature. And so is your endless barage of insults to anyone who doesn't take your contrived conclusions to be factual.

Nevertheless, even if you were to somehow prove beyond a doubt, something like Chris Angel really did levitate above the pyramid building in Vegas, your attempts to use your supposed evidence as further proof that LRLs do anything beyond what a coathanger or forked twig would do, is totally baseless.

They just don't relate.

 

[fenixdigger]

It seems they are hung up about the dowsing thing. How about an explanation on how this can reach over 20 miles?

I know, take a wire and put it around the sample. Or take a calculator and put under it, but don't turn it on.

I'm sure there is some little weasel excuse "I can't do it, I'm scared"

I call your bluff --SHO-NUFF