'Water witches' pit science against folklore

[zep73]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I think it is the Coriolis effect of the earths rotation.  Cyclones and winds   have the same patterns.

In the southern hemisphere they bend to the left, and in the northern hemisphere they bend to the right  

There is some argument that the coriolis effect is too weak to affect water going down a drain, yet in the northern hemisphere it goes  one way  and in the southern  hemisphere it goes   the opposite way 

you can 'force" the water to spin the other way, but it will always return to the same rotation 

If its not coriolis, then its something similar, to do with the earth's spin 

Ps whatever the maths/physics on this i have observed it in hundreds  of sinks and baths in Australia   over a period of almost 70 years 

I dont know about the northern hemisphere, but I've NEVER seen water spin " the wrong way"  unless you spin it with your finger. Then  It will rotate that way for a short time before  reverting to the original spin direction.

Maybe it's the configuration of taps or drains but,  in Australia, 100 % of the times that  i have observed it, the water has spun the same way   in  showers, toilets, baths, and sinks, 

I stand corrected. But you are only partly right on the big scale.

Sinks and tubs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Draining_in_bathtubs_and_toilets (No Coriolis force - They tested it!)

Storms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Meteorology (Part Coriolis force)

[psyche101]

If it works why did the experiment in post nine Fail? 

[zep73]

@Harte

(This is out of context, sorry about that OP!).

I owe you an apology for lashing out on you a while ago. You didn't deserve it in any way. Sorry!

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

@Harte

(This is out of context, sorry about that OP!).

I owe you an apology for lashing out on you a while ago. You didn't deserve it in any way. Sorry!

Yes I agree it was VERY rude of you!!!

I think you should buy Harte a nice big bottle of quality scotch to apologize.

I'll PM you his address....

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think you should buy Harte a nice big bottle of quality scotch to apologize.

I have a Jim Beam Bourbon he can have. Too sweet for my taste.

[Harte]

5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

@Harte

(This is out of context, sorry about that OP!).

I owe you an apology for lashing out on you a while ago. You didn't deserve it in any way. Sorry!

You don't know me.

How do you know I didn't deserve it?

Harte

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

You don't know me.

How do you know I didn't deserve it?

Harte

In case you did: Keep it as a rain check 

[Harte]

3 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I have a Jim Beam Bourbon he can have. Too sweet for my taste.

Um...

That's not gonna be good enough.

Here are my demands:

This is my whiskey. Never had the 21 year old but I think that's what it's gonna take for me to get over my hurt feelings.

Harte

[zep73]

Just now, Harte said:

Um...

That's not gonna be good enough.

Here are my demands:

This is my whiskey. Never had the 21 year old but I think that's what it's gonna take for me to get over my hurt feelings.

Harte

I'm afraid you're gonna have to do with what's left of it. Good whisky dun last long with me....

[Mr Walker]

On 12/7/2021 at 1:39 AM, zep73 said:

I stand corrected. But you are only partly right on the big scale.

Sinks and tubs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Draining_in_bathtubs_and_toilets (No Coriolis force - They tested it!)

Storms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#Meteorology (Part Coriolis force)

I don't ( completely)   believe the test results    The ones i read about weren't professionally conducted.( Neither were my own.) But I've never seen water spin the other way in Australia despite hundreds of observations, over 60 years 

It is true that it might be some other force.   It is not true that it is simply random, and spins equally either way.

The spin of water down a drain is generally the opposite in each hemisphere, as are wind directions  Some expert  meteorologists and other geographers have told me, and others, in university lectures and  Geography teachers' conferences,  that both result from the coriolis effect 

 

 

 

[+Desertrat56]

On 7/29/2021 at 6:10 AM, esoteric_toad said:

Seriously, the jury is not out. Dowsing is nonsense.

Have you ever witnessed it or tried it?   

[+Desertrat56]

On 7/29/2021 at 7:20 AM, Buzz_Light_Year said:

No it isn't. I can do it and I can also find underground electric and sewer lines. I have known at least 3 besides myself that have the ability to do this. Don't ask me how I do it or how it works because I haven't a clue.

When I was a kid my uncle hired a dowser to find some water lines that had been buried years before because he could not remember where he put them ( alcohol will do that to your memory)  and the guy found all of the pipes he was looking for and some others he forgot about.

I have tried a type of dowsing with copper rods.   It is interesting that it does work.   

[+Desertrat56]

On 7/31/2021 at 5:37 AM, Trihalo42 said:

The science is that impure water, a conductor, moving across the earth's magnetic field results in ionization (static). It's like passing a straight piece of wire over a magnet. That ionization is best detected in very dry conditions, which is usually why people are looking for water in the first place. The two metal rods technique is simply static in the air causing the rods to move together. Any kind of grounding, like morning dew, will disrupt the effect.

The same technique can be used to locate PVC water mains without tracer wire or having tracer tape that has broken down over the years, as long as the water is flowing. Same goes for electrical lines, but that should be obvious.

The reason it's a suppressed technology is that an electric potential can exist between a dry ground, like a car body, and the static field generated. Such a device usually consists of a metal rod or pipe sunk into water moving underground, a dry ground, and some sort of static buffer between, which can be layers of styrofoam and "steel wool" or simply a large ball of regular wool, and has no moving parts other than the water. The devices do tend to draw lightning. The reason for suppressing it is the psychotic need to control how we get electricity, which included the burning of Tesla's tower.

I am not sure about your explanation.  I have used copper rods to measure the area of a person's electrical field.  Can you explain how or why that works?

[+joc]

On 7/29/2021 at 7:10 AM, esoteric_toad said:

Seriously, the jury is not out. Dowsing is nonsense.

Far from nonsense.

On 7/29/2021 at 4:13 PM, Wreck7 said:

It works.

  I use two bent steel rods held loosely. You can find whatever you're looking for. Have someone hide a quarter under a cup with two or three empty ones. Think "quarter" and the rods will cross over that cup. Use them to find water by thinking "water" then then ask yourself "how deep" walk away from the spot until the rods cross again and that's your depth.

 Try it. 

I have been in the irrigation industry since 1985.  I have located countless pipes using 2 flags bent in an L shape....

Dowsing is an art.   It isn't metaphysical...it is physics.   Consider the Zodiac.   It isn't the 'day' you were born that determines your Zodiacal characteristic...it is the 9 months since you were conceived...living in a sack of water...being pulled by the galactical influences of the stars.  Anyone who works with water knows this.

 

[psyche101]

Seems to work well in anecdotes, but not so much when tested. 

[zep73]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't ( completely)   believe the test results    The ones i read about weren't professionally conducted.( Neither were my own.) But I've never seen water spin the other way in Australia despite hundreds of observations, over 60 years 

It is true that it might be some other force.   It is not true that it is simply random, and spins equally either way.

The spin of water down a drain is generally the opposite in each hemisphere, as are wind directions  Some expert  meteorologists and other geographers have told me, and others, in university lectures and  Geography teachers' conferences,  that both result from the coriolis effect 

Here's a longer explanation

Quote

"In your tub, such factors as any small asymmetry of the shape of the drain will determine which direction the circulation occurs. Even in a tub having a perfectly symmetric drain, the circulation direction will be primarily influenced by any residual currents in the bathtub left over from the time when it was filled. It can take more than a day for such residual currents to subside completely. If all extraneous influences (including air currents) can be reduced below a certain level, one apparently can observe that drains do consistently drain in different directions in the two hemispheres."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-somebody-finally-sett/

 

[Mr Walker]

47 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Here's a longer explanation

 

I understand the explanation but it  doesn't reflect reality 

From my observations and discussion with many peoples, going back to science classes in the 60s and university geography, water almost inevitably flows in the same pattern in Australia UNLESS there is some quite powerful physical  reason  for it not to.

It may not be coriolis but something is causing this.  The pattern is NOT random,  but almost universally consistent  ie in a 100 observations, in different locations and sources, you probably will NEVER see the water rotate the other way,  but one case might occur.

In that case there will be a discoverable reason for its  different direction

The concept of unilateral rotation didn't just arise from  nothing.

It came from consistent observation and recordings over a long period of time  

ps this is the same for water which has been contained   in a tank, or drum, for very long periods.

It is possible that the conditions for scientific study actually influence the rotational effect, rather than creating an unbiased effect. 

   Two points on your article 

first it says that water almost always has a residual movement   which will determine the direction of spin 

However, it claims that movement is random.

what if it is not? What  if the slight residual motion varies from  hemisphere to hemisphere.

second it says that design etc may influence rotation However why do ALL drains in Australia produce the same spin  and, more interestingly if residual motion creates spin direction,  why cant you forcefully redirect the soin?

ie why, if you swirl the water quite vigorously in the wrong direction, does it always (and quickly ) return to its original rotation? 

Ive tried this in bathtubs, sinks, art room  and science room troughs   and kitchen sinks. I 've tried it  in large rainwater  tanks, and 44 gallon drums 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Mr Walker

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I understand the explanation but it  doesn't reflect reality 

From my observations and discussion with many peoples, going back to science classes in the 60s and university geography, water almost inevitably flows in the same pattern in Australia UNLESS there is some quite powerful physical  reason  for it not to It may not be coriolis but something is causing this  The pattern is NOT random  but almost universally consistent 

The concept of unilateral rotation didn't just arise from  nothing.

It came from consistent observation and recordings over a long period of time  

I'll test it (the initial flow) in my bathroom sink one of these days, and get back to you. If I can make it whirl in both directions, will that make any difference to you?

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I'll test it (the initial flow) in my bathroom sink one of these days, and get back to you. If I can make it whirl in both directions, will that make any difference to you?

I'd be very interested.

As I explained in the post above, I've tried this  well over 100 times over my life, in many different water sources. We used to try it as kids in the bathtub We tried it in science experiments att school and I've tried it regularly over the years. 

I've never been able to reverse the spin for more than a short period.

Now that COULD be a design  of Australian plumbing, but I doubt it would be so universal/consistent    

[+joc]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Seems to work well in anecdotes, but not so much when tested. 

Ever heard of perfect pitch?  Some people have it, most don't.  Some people can tune an instrument to their 'perfect pitch'.  Is it an art? Is it the make up of their brain?  Water has a definite gravitational force behind it.  The gravity of the moon pulling the tides, etc.  That water can manipulate a foreign object is not news.

So...let's re-examine the last sentence...does the moon influence the pulling of the tides?  Or.....dum dum dummmmmmm...drum roll.....does the mass of water known as Oceans influence the gravity of the moon?  If the mass force of water can pull a stick in a particular direction over and over and over again...could it not also pull the moon?  Maybe the moon is in orbit around the Earth because of the gravitational pull of the oceans?   

And maybe....maybe the gravitational pull of water on Earth is such that  it is responsible for the galactic orbits to a small degree?  All I know is that it isn't speculation.  It is fact that I can locate a pipe under ground with two flags bent into an L shape.  

A lady I know had a leak in her yard.  Using two flags I marked where the pipe ran and where it turned.  From my 'dowsing' I determined that the leak was most likely in a 90 degree fitting where the pipe turned.   After a couple of hours of digging, I did indeed find exactly that.  A large diameter pvc pipe (2 inches)  2.5 feet deep...that's almost a meter.  Splain me how I could do that?  The other thing about water is that it follows the path of least resistance....in short...where her water was leaking out of the ground was about a meter from where I found the leak.  

Edited December 9, 2021 by joc

[Oniomancer]

On 12/6/2021 at 6:57 PM, psyche101 said:

If it works why did the experiment in post nine Fail? 

I don't know which one that is but the randi test was ludicrous. A foot long sealed pipe section with a little p*ss of stagnant water isn't the same as a pipe under pressure or an active groundwater flow. Did they even tell them what the target was or just turn them loose?

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

I don't know which one that is but the randi test was ludicrous. A foot long sealed pipe section with a little p*ss of stagnant water isn't the same as a pipe under pressure or an active groundwater flow. Did they even tell them what the target was or just turn them loose?

I posted it on the previous page. It a Dawkins experiment. 

The applicant's were happy with the conditions to begin with.

What's more interesting and I thought worthy of discussion was that the applicants were all genuinely surprised that they failed as badly as they did. I don't think they question their water divining abilities after the test, one applicant said maybe god is having a laugh. 

But the only complaints I heard were after the fact. All were convinced they would pass with flying colours and were genuinely surprised when they did not. 

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I posted it on the previous page. It a Dawkins experiment. 

The applicant's were happy with the conditions to begin with.

What's more interesting and I thought worthy of discussion was that the applicants were all genuinely surprised that they failed as badly as they did. I don't think they question their water divining abilities after the test, one applicant said maybe god is having a laugh. 

But the only complaints I heard were after the fact. All were convinced they would pass with flying colours and were genuinely surprised when they did not. 

Oh, and Dawkins is not biased!  Right.

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, joc said:

Ever heard of perfect pitch?  Some people have it, most don't.  Some people can tune an instrument to their 'perfect pitch'.  Is it an art? Is it the make up of their brain?  Water has a definite gravitational force behind it.  The gravity of the moon pulling the tides, etc.  That water can manipulate a foreign object is not news.

So...let's re-examine the last sentence...does the moon influence the pulling of the tides?  Or.....dum dum dummmmmmm...drum roll.....does the mass of water known as Oceans influence the gravity of the moon?  If the mass force of water can pull a stick in a particular direction over and over and over again...could it not also pull the moon?  Maybe the moon is in orbit around the Earth because of the gravitational pull of the oceans?   

And maybe....maybe the gravitational pull of water on Earth is such that  it is responsible for the galactic orbits to a small degree?  All I know is that it isn't speculation.  It is fact that I can locate a pipe under ground with two flags bent into an L shape.  

A lady I know had a leak in her yard.  Using two flags I marked where the pipe ran and where it turned.  From my 'dowsing' I determined that the leak was most likely in a 90 degree fitting where the pipe turned.   After a couple of hours of digging, I did indeed find exactly that.  A large diameter pvc pipe (2 inches)  2.5 feet deep...that's almost a meter.  Splain me how I could do that?  The other thing about water is that it follows the path of least resistance....in short...where her water was leaking out of the ground was about a meter from where I found the leak.  

I honestly don't think gravity has the ability to act on something as small as a piece of wire and have us recognise it. Maybe some people are super sensitive to gravity but that seems unlikely. 

As I was saying above, the applicants in post nine are also very sure of their abilities yet when tested they didn't work. Why do you think they didn't manage to detect water under a controlled situation?

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Oh, and Dawkins is not biased!  Right.

You have not watched the clip.

Fair go, it's like minutes long not hours. 

The applicants are satisfied with the conditions so they didn't think the test was biased.

Disappointing to see you judge before viewing the example. That's bias. Dawkins is an accomplished professional with exemplary qualifications. It's silly to dismiss him with a handwave.