When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Yes, it is great to know that I have no theories about LRLs. Only the factual knowledge that they don't work.

Just another claim..Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

~EE~

Yes, it is great to know that I have no theories about LRLs. Only the factual knowledge that they don't work.

Just another claim..Art

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.


All this evidence that LRLs don't work....And no proof that they do.

Not a very encouraging scoreboard for you, Art.



P.S. Will you please tell us the fairy tale about why no LRLers ever post in the "Finds" section again? Or appear in the newspaper articles of found treasures? I haven't heard that one in a long time.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

Those are not points or proof..they are you personal opinions with not facts at all

All this evidence that LRLs don't work....And no proof that they do.

The proof that they work is all over this board in the form of testimonials, photo’s and movies..

Not a very encouraging scoreboard for you, Art.

What scoreboard are you talking about?

P.S. Will you please tell us the fairy tale about why no LRLers ever post in the "Finds" section again? Or appear in the newspaper articles of found treasures? I haven't heard that one in a long time.

Why should we post in the “finds section” and give you skeptics another place to post your nonsense. I would guess that you don’t read the right newspaper....Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

Those are not points or proof..they are you personal opinions with not facts at all

They have never been rationally refuted. All you can do is call them "opinions," while anyone reading them recognizes them as facts, as demonstrated by you LRL promoters, right here on this forum.

All this evidence that LRLs don't work....And no proof that they do.

The proof that they work is all over this board in the form of testimonials, photo’s and movies..

You just post stories and twisted attempts at logic. Don't be a Doof---Show the proof!

Oops, I almost forgot---you can't show any proof, because there isn't any!

Not a very encouraging scoreboard for you, Art.

What scoreboard are you talking about?

The scoreboard of life, Art. Lies always lose, and truth always wins.

P.S. Will you please tell us the fairy tale about why no LRLers ever post in the "Finds" section again? Or appear in the newspaper articles of found treasures? I haven't heard that one in a long time.

Why should we post in the “finds section” and give you skeptics another place to post your nonsense. I would guess that you don’t read the right newspaper....Art

Oh yeah! I really like that one! Please go on with it---you know, the parts about you can't show all the huge treasures you have found, because it's a big secret from the government and all that malarkey? Let us hear it all again! You tell it so well! The way you make stuff up as you go along, just can't be beat! It's even better than TV, these days!

​

ref: Predictable Pattern of Con Artists

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

They have never been rationally refuted. All you can do is call them "opinions," while anyone reading them recognizes them as facts, as demonstrated by you LRL promoters, right here on this forum.

We have rationally refuted them all..You just don’t have the knowledge to understand the truth.

You just post stories and twisted attempts at logic. Don't be a Doof---Show the proof!

Our stories are the truth about using a LRL and our twisted logic is stuff that you are not capable of understanding

Oops, I almost forgot---you can't show any proof, because there isn't any!

Are you blind?

The scoreboard of life, Art. Lies always lose, and truth always wins. The scoreboard of life, Art. Lies always lose, and truth always wins.

Yes..you are a loser

Oh yeah! I really like that one! Please go on with it---you know, the parts about you can't show all the huge treasures you have found, because it's a big secret from the government and all that malarkey? Let us hear it all again! You tell it so well! The way you make stuff up as you go along, just can't be beat! It's even better than TV, these days!

Good answer to
~Art~
Why should we post in the “finds section” and give you skeptics another place to post your nonsense. I would guess that you don’t read the right newspaper....Art

 

[EE THr]

Art---

Thanks for reiterating the same junk, over and over. That confirms my #33 in the link below, which is a prediction I made seven months ago, and you have proven that it is true many, many times since.

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Keep up the good work!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Thanks for reiterating the same junk, over and over. That confirms my #33 in the link below, which is a prediction I made seven months ago, and you have proven that it is true many, many times since.

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

If you think that Dowsing uses electronics you would be correct...But when Dowsing it is just you and a Dowsing rod..

So I will ask the same question again....If I can get all the information about a target where I first find the target how could it be Dowsing?..When dowsing You can not determine the depth of the object until you reach it..that is all you can learn...With my LRL I know the distance to the target, depth of the target, If it is a coin, bar or ring and the approximant weight..the options you have are...Answer the the question, Spin and twist an answer or you duck and dodge the whole post
More re-runs..Thank You...Art
Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Thanks for reiterating the same junk, over and over. That confirms my #33 in the link below, which is a prediction I made seven months ago, and you have proven that it is true many, many times since.

ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

If you think that Dowsing uses electronics you would be correct...But when Dowsing it is just you and a Dowsing rod..

So I will ask the same question again....If I can get all the information about a target where I first find the target how could it be Dowsing?

If you could, then you might have something to talk about. But you can't.

..When dowsing You can not determine the depth of the object until you reach it..that is all you can learn...

Some people claim that their dowsing rods will cross when they are over water. But there is underground water almost everywhere. Ever hear of a water table? Look it up.

Dowsing has never been proven in a random double-blind test, either.

With my LRL I know the distance to the target, depth of the target, If it is a coin, bar or ring and the approximant weight..

That's because you planted the target. Jeez.

the options you have are...Answer the the question, Spin and twist an answer or you duck and dodge the whole post

All of your questions are based on your own false assumptions. See Loaded Question. No cigar for you!

More re-runs..Thank You...Art

Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Uh---Nuh!

Please think of some new BS---you are getting boring.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art~

If you think that Dowsing uses electronics you would be correct...But when Dowsing it is just you and a Dowsing rod..

So I will ask the same question again....If I can get all the information about a target where I first find the target how could it be Dowsing?..When dowsing You can not determine the depth of the object until you reach it..that is all you can learn...With my LRL I know the distance to the target, depth of the target, If it is a coin, bar or ring and the approximant weight..the options you have are...Answer the the question, Spin and twist an answer or you duck and dodge the whole post
More re-runs..Thank You...Art

~EE~

If you could, then you might have something to talk about. But you can't.

Some people claim that their dowsing rods will cross when they are over water. But there is underground water almost everywhere. Ever hear of a water table? Look it up.

Dowsing has never been proven in a random double-blind test, either.

That's because you planted the target. Jeez.

All of your questions are based on your own false assumptions. See Loaded Question. No cigar for you!

Looks like you used all the options except for answering the question..Art

 

[EE THr]

Looks like you used all the options except for answering the question..Art

You didn't ask a question.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art~

.If I can get all the information about a target where I first find the target how could it be Dowsing?..

..

the options you have are...Answer the the question, Spin and twist an answer or you duck and dodge the whole post

Re: When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain
Reply To This Topic #883 Posted Today at 06:31:28 AM

Looks like you used all the options except for answering the question..Art

~EE~

You didn't ask a question.

It must be terrible not to know when your spinning and twisting or just plain old ducking and dodging..Art

 

[EE THr]

~Art~

.If I can get all the information about a target where I first find the target how could it be Dowsing?..

..

the options you have are...Answer the the question, Spin and twist an answer or you duck and dodge the whole post

Re: When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain
Reply To This Topic #883 Posted Today at 06:31:28 AM

Looks like you used all the options except for answering the question..Art

~EE~

You didn't ask a question.

It must be terrible not to know when your spinning and twisting or just plain old ducking and dodging..Art

If you are referring to that multiple choice you offered me, it was not a question.

It is an "interrogative statement."

Use your dictionary.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

If you are referring to that multiple choice you offered me, it was not a question.

It is an "interrogative statement."

Use your dictionary.

No need to use a dictionary..It is clear that you understood the question as you are still trying to spin and twist you way out of answering it..
If I can get all the information about a target where I first find the target how could it be Dowsing?..

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

If you are referring to that multiple choice you offered me, it was not a question.

It is an "interrogative statement."

Use your dictionary.

No need to use a dictionary..It is clear that you understood the question as you are still trying to spin and twist you way out of answering it..
If I can get all the information about a target where I first find the target how could it be Dowsing?..

Art, when will you learn? A statement is not a question.



I already posted a link to the definition of "loaded question," but you conveniently ignored that. You also ignored the information about the interrogatory statement. Both show how your question is invalid. Yet you continue with your silliness.

You continue to be your own best debunker.

Thanks for your help, and keep up the good work.




"The level of sanity or insanity of the subject matter, determines the level of sanity or insanity of the two-way communication attainable in any discussion."

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

howdy ya'all spec. Ee: You posted -->Actually, you have been saying, by inference of your statements, just the opposite.
*************
Is inference a viable scientific term??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> You have continually made statements based upon mere ideas
*************
and just what IS a theory? hmmm hmmm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted -->You seem to have no regard for proof or testing of these previous concepts on which you base your conclusions of possibilities.
************
for example??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You posted --> You also try to disjointedly connect some successful experiments with other unrelated suppositions
***********
Isn't that the basic block of science?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted -->And your complaint about werleibr's information being too wordy, is a common one for you
***********
Wasn't it a bit? not his fault though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> If you could have said it in fewer words, then why haven't you before now?

***********
Did

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

howdy ya'all spec. Ee: You posted -->Actually, you have been saying, by inference of your statements, just the opposite.
*************
Is inference a viable scientific term??

It's a word in the American English dictionaries. Look it up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> You have continually made statements based upon mere ideas
*************
and just what IS a theory? hmmm hmmm

That was pretty much covered in the post which you were just whining about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted -->You seem to have no regard for proof or testing of these previous concepts on which you base your conclusions of possibilities.
************
for example??

I've mentioned this to you before. I'm not going to jump through hoops for you now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You posted --> You also try to disjointedly connect some successful experiments with other unrelated suppositions
***********
Isn't that the basic block of science?

Nope.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted -->And your complaint about werleibr's information being too wordy, is a common one for you
***********
Wasn't it a bit? not his fault though.

It gave information from several different perspectives. That usually makes something more clear. However, due to your question about his subject matter, above, you are indicating that it didn't work for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> If you could have said it in fewer words, then why haven't you before now?

***********
Did

If you did, I've never heard it from you. And you don't practice it when posting, that's for sure.

Don Jose de La Mancha

In addition, you have offered no coffee recently. I'm starting to think that you are a bit miffed or something.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning EE mi slurping buddy: You posted -->your last post was a classic example of posting nothing of value on the body of the post referred to ??.
**************
Side thingy, an interesting post by a physician from a family of multi generations of Physicians about Electrical / Electronic engineers etc, snicker, the emphasis are mine -->

"Training-- which is what 'scientists and engineers' get-- is not true 'education;' it is more of an apprenticeship. Higher education entails 'mastering ' --> 'critical and analytical thinking', <-- both of which are --> anathema <-- to the craft of engineering-- and arguably that of all but perhaps research science. I come from a multi-generational family of physicians-- all of whom began their academic career with a liberal arts education, by the way-- and I can assure you that there is nothing right brain or intellectually expansive about what any of them do. They are, essentially, --> human computers and robots. <-- That is what the job requires of them. The old family money, however, came from those who honed their skills in the creative arts-- and yes, at university".

Hmmm, I will say that the author suffers from the common superiority complex that is all too common to / in many Physicians. But that isn't truly their fault since it is beat into their conscious in med school almost from day one.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Howdy EE , you are gonna get a coffee jag if this keeps up.

you posted -->You posted -->Actually, you have been saying, by inference of your statements, just the opposite.
*************
Jose - Is inference a viable scientific term??

It's a word in the American English dictionaries. Look it up.

***************
So is XXXL XXXX, snicker.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also posted-->You have continually made statements based upon mere ideas
*************
Jose - and just what IS a theory? hmmm hmmm

That was pretty much covered in the post which you were just whining about.
***************
Jose -- Not really .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You alss posted -->You have continually made statements based upon mere ideas
*************
and just what IS a theory? hmmm hmmm

That was pretty much covered in the post which you were just whining about.
***************
Jose -- not really, I suggest that you go read it again with an open mind for the rest of your post..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wer lieber posted -->Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
***********
Jose - Interesting, so a good scientific example is 'it is imposible for life to evolve right'?

don Jose d e L aMancha

p.s don't forget my coffee, no sugar, but yes, cream.

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

Those were, in my opinion, a couple of your better posts in this section.

I agree that "education" has become more a matter of memorisation, than understanding of subjects. But let's face it, education is being run by those who profess that printing up huge amounts of additional worthless paper money, is somehow going to make that very same money become worth more, and thus "solve the inflation problem." And people who memorize that mantra are in for big problems!


When I first started posting in this section, I saw that people who were engaged in arguments were each using the same words, but they had different definitions for those words. And I made a couple of posts pointing out that without first defining key terms, understanding each other was impossible.

In this thread, and the other active one in this section, there are some good definitions of the word "theory." Of course, there is the everyday definition, and there are the scientific definitions. Each is valid in it's own usage, depending on the circumstances. But when people try to interchange the two, nothing makes any sense.

I think that if someone really wants to discuss something like LRLs, they should be aware of both definitions, and use the proper terminology accordingly. Unless they are intentionally trying to confuse an issue.


Actually, "It is impossible for life to evolve right," is a very good scientific example. Because, if you define evolution as a totally random occurrence, it is mathematically impossible. As you have stated before, our abilities are apparently unlimited---which is true on a spiritual level, and the spiritual abilities are causative over the physical universe. As usual, I'm just offering my observations, rather than trying to convince, so, while willing to discuss it, I have no interest in debating that particular subject. But that is why I have always stated that I have "no reason" to doubt that some people can find stuff with dowsing rods or LRLs. However, the same statement holds true for using a roadkill skunk, or anything else. 8)

 

[werleibr]

Quote Edited to answer the one question.

howdy ya'all spec. Ee: You posted -->Actually, you have been saying, by inference of your statements, just the opposite.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> You have continually made statements based upon mere ideas
*************
and just what IS a theory? hmmm hmmm

Don Jose de La Mancha

Don, a Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.


Read below about posting about Theorys, Hypothysis, and Laws in scientific terms.

~werleibr~

so remember scientific theory will always be a theory, while scientific law will always be a law.

That is partially correct...Theories are used for testing someone’s idea in a Scientific manner. Theories are proven wrong regularity..
Scientific Laws can only be changed by proving to a 7 person board that the old law is flawed...Art

Once again ART you are FAILING to COMPREHEND anything scientific.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.


So ART theorys are not being proven wrong everyday. The Hypothesis within the theory may be tweaked. YOU ARE USING THEORY WRONG AGAIN from how it was asked to be utilized.

There are not THEORYS or LAWS on how LRL's work, only HYPOTHESIS'.

So please try to refer to your guesses on how these things work as HYPOTHESIS'. If there was a THEORY OR LAW on how LRLS worked we would not be debating because they would be proven to work.

Also Art, where the h3!! did you read that a panel of 7 people decide if a law is no longer a law?!?