🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 06:31:10 UTC No. 16177995
Is there any science behind water divining? It seems when you research all you can find are studies which have been conducted on many people and find nothing better than random chance. But is there something to this practice, which is ancient and has been in the past banned by the church as a form of divination?
I can see some potential in the idea that man can feel to some extent magnetic fields etc. Just as a bird can navigate over the ocean this kind of thing is not unknown of in biology. Some animals perceive these things. Studies have shown that some humans detect these fields and it shows in imaging of the brain but it's not yet known if it influences any behaviours.
I'm looking at this because I temporarily lost a wedding ring. Last night actually I lost it. I looked around in long grass for half an hour till dark. This morning I went and looked another half an hour with a torch looking for shine. This is long pasture on a 500ha farm. But I knew it was in the space near where I had killed a cow and slipped off when I brushed my greasy hands clean on the grass (working dogs got to eat and the cow was seriously unwell).
The guy I work for who owns the land suggest I try this and I grabbed 2 random bent bits of fencing wire from the shed which I used once before. When I used them then I was skeptic as hell, but I ended up standing on an underground power cable and a water line both of which I had no idea where they were I had only worked there about a week.
Anyway I went back up to where I thought my ring was, and I pulled them out. I wandered around where I had searched for an hour before and ended up on a clump of long grass. Maybe cleaned my hands there. Nope wasn't in there. So I turned took two more steps and the wires crossed. I look down and there's my ring blinking at me I didn't even have to bend to see it and probably walked right over it to the first bit of grass. I found it in 2 mins. What the fuck? How does this stuff work
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 09:46:22 UTC No. 16178146
Bump
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:28:21 UTC No. 16178311
It's one of those things were scientists just go "lol no way fag" and never take it seriously enough to see whether it really works or not
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:31:04 UTC No. 16178315
>>16178311
Studies have been conducted. Found nothing.
>MORE PROOF
Meh.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:36:19 UTC No. 16178322
>>16177995
Theoretically it's plausible. Just like theoretically, my thoughts cause weak biocurrents in my brain, which by amperes law cause magnetic fields which by faradays law can induce currents in other peoples brains which ought to induce changes in their cognition. So by pure physics mind control seems plausible. But when you try to quantify this you'll find such induced magnetic fields are weaker than the earths ambient magnetic field, weaker than ambient magnetic fields caused by your computer and so on. In short, it's weaker than noise and should induce no signal.
Same as water divining. Theoretically you could design tools that respond to the net electric and magnetic properties of water underground. But such effects are order of magnitudes weaker than background and effects and will have no induced signal. That gets us to >>16178311
Mind control was studied by governments decades ago since it's theoretically and physically plausible. No positive effects were found with any reasonable statistically significant quantifiers. Likewise water divining was scientifically studied with blinded trials showing no statistically significant effects. Such things, again despite being theoretically possible, are now deemed pseudoscience due to failing to show any effects beyond random chance.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:37:22 UTC No. 16178323
>>16178315
They found it inconclusive, which in soience speak means "we can't explain the positive evidence so we'll use negative evidence to claim that it's bullshit".
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:41:51 UTC No. 16178325
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:42:02 UTC No. 16178326
>>16178323
You're being disingenuous. Photons are theoretically massless. The data shows an experimental upper bound of 10^(-18) eV (about 24 orders of magnitude lighter than an electron). There are two ways to interpret this.
1. The data is consistent with theory wherein photons are massless
2. The data is inconclusive since the photons mass MIGHT be nonzero.
The first conclusion is the accepted one. You're claiming to follow the second conclusion, which exposes little more than your own ignorance on statistics
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:43:43 UTC No. 16178327
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:53:20 UTC No. 16178331
>>16178322
>thoughts cause weak biocurrents in my brain,
Correct
>which by amperes law cause magnetic fields
Also correct
>which by faradays law can induce currents in other peoples brains which ought to induce changes in their cognition.
No. Biocurrents, or MEG, is a thing that requries extremely sensitive devices to even detect (see SQUID). Any induced currents in other humans would be totally swamped by the earth's magnetic field.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:54:22 UTC No. 16178332
>>16177995
It only seems to work, because it's simply not needed, the well will work regardless of where exactly you dig it.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 12:55:25 UTC No. 16178334
>>16178332
So you're saying it does work?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 13:03:20 UTC No. 16178339
>>16178323
The burden of proof lies on those who make extraordinary claims, for good reason. It is almost always easier to show why something is the case as to show why it isn't. That should be obvious.
The 'positive evidence' is very likely a result of human intuition and experience. In other words: I could see someone measuring the same positive evidence if they for example just took the stick from the nutter.
At the same time they would probably not be able to find the same positive evidence for the search of water you've artificially placed in areas where there was none.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 13:09:49 UTC No. 16178347
>>16178331
>Biocurrents, or MEG
You're an idiot. Biocurrents are in your brain. MEG is used to detect said currents, and is very low resolution
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 13:11:49 UTC No. 16178351
>>16178334
I'm saying that there is nothing that NEEDS to work, as groundwater is everywhere.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 13:13:08 UTC No. 16178354
>>16178351
Magnetic fields exist everywhere, so why do magnets stick to your fridge and not your skin?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 13:46:33 UTC No. 16178382
>>16177995
It's literally channeling certain people are more apt and the ones who are don't even need to use rods. What more is tha it isn't just "durr vibrations from underground water durr" since some people can find other things such as buried metals broken lines etc. There was one guy who could even do it from a plane.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 14:03:53 UTC No. 16178400
>>16178351
Diviners can find more than just groundwater so that obviously isn't the explanation, its just what the "experts" toss out and then call it day
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 14:06:10 UTC No. 16178402
Anyway I doubt this thread will go anywhere or that anyone will even respond to me but i'll dump some stuff i've found on divining. Like with everything you'll only really find the truth in articles pre WWII
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 15:51:38 UTC No. 16178504
>>16178339
>20000 BC
>be you talking to your friend grug
>"I feel like shit lately"
>"well, whenever I feel bad I eat this herb and feel better, try it maybe"
>"source? metastudy which confirms your claim?"
>"wut? I've just told you what it does"
>"the burden of proof is on you bro it's just suggestion your little herb doesn't do shit if it did anything it'd be easy to prove"
>grug has no way to prove his claims with 20kBC technology
>kill the nascent field of medicine
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 16:07:51 UTC No. 16178513
>>16177995
>Planet is 75+% water
>Water oceans
>Water lakes
>Underground water oceans
>Even all the living things are filled with water
>Grab sticks
>Make sticks jiggle in spooky fashion
>Walk around at random with spooky sticks
>Stop walking
>Declare you've found water
>Chance you are right by random chance, 75%
>???????????
>PROFITS
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 22:10:48 UTC No. 16179003
>>16177995
"I reckon there would be water over there."
General divining is complete bullshit, as is the divining of oil and natural gas sources. This has been proven many times over.
Water divining, on the other hand, eludes logic, because there are not only expert water diviners, but families of expert water diviners who have been diving water full time as professional careers for hundreds of years. You can find these people anywhere. Studies show water diviners find water at rates far higher than expected, yet replication studies fail because idiot replicators copy the method without being in the business themselves.
I believe the answer to this question is very obvious. There are algorithms published by governments for locating water. You can find such steps and ideas listed by any country's army or emergency service or department of land development/management. Water frequently visits us from the sky and deposits itself onto the ground, where it flows yet still downhill and seeps into natural water tables in accordance with known laws of physics through the various earthen media. There are people, regular fucking people, not magicians, who have developed over centuries a Vibe Check for the land. They are not geologists, or physicists, or witches, to them it is simple: A place either feels like it should have water under it, or it does not. "I reckon there would be water over there," and, to the surprise of midwit soientists, there were indeed them waters right on down there yess sireee. Patterns below the ground beneficial to the formation of pools of water can simply be detected from the ground, or, some people are wizards but choose to use their magic to eke out a meagre living. Take your pick, man. Simple as
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 22:15:09 UTC No. 16179006
>>16178322
stop using "theoretically" when what you mean is "hypothetically"
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 22:33:06 UTC No. 16179019
>>16177995
>>16178504
are you actually unfamiliar with the concept of experiments ?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 22:57:22 UTC No. 16179037
Pipe layer here. We sometimes use this technique when searching existing pipes. It work decently but not everyone seems to be able to use it. That is my two cents.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 01:10:01 UTC No. 16179172
>>16178332
That doesn't explain the OP walking right to his small metal ring in a field of grass. Yeah maybe you dig a well about anywhere and it works, and maybe people can subconsciously look at the lay of the land and think yeah looks like there's water near the surface there. But it's not just water what about walking over a small metal ring or a power cable and getting a reaction. Is it maybe looking at subconscious clues, your brain filtering most of it out of your perception but the clues still being there enough to cause your hands to move the rods without realising you are doing it. And some people being more in tune with these small clues there eyes or some other sense picks up unbeknown to them
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 01:20:51 UTC No. 16179185
Like for a power cable it might be obvious more or less once you stop and look, there might be a pole in the distance and a cable running into a building out the other side. But before really 'seeing' those things someone might walk over the cable and have his rods react there and stop because he has noticed those out of the corner of his eye so to speak. Maybe op already 'saw' his ring and just didn't realise it is I guess what I'm getting at, and when he focused his attention there after the rods crossed he saw immediately that it was obviously right there at his feet where he had walked over previously
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 01:31:14 UTC No. 16179192
>>16179003
>some people are wizards but choose to use their magic to eke out a meagre living. Take your pick, man. Simple as
I don't think there's so many of those. More often in my experience it's just farmers and the like who regard it a useful skill. They might walk into a field and wonder where the hell that old water pipe was buried by the last owner 30 years ago. Pull out some bits of wire and more often than not, for some people, they'll find it pretty quickly and certainly more quickly than randomly digging holes around the place. They aren't trying to be a magician they're just doing a thing that they found works for them
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 06:44:27 UTC No. 16179457
>>16179019
>find me some water
>NOT LIKE THAT YOU JUST GOT LUCKY!!! WATER IS EVERYWHERE!!!!
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 07:04:11 UTC No. 16179480
>>16179172
>>16179192
I have a hypothesis that things like these are more like meditation tools, that make people stop overthinking, and stop missing things hidden in plain sight. Like OP when he was looking for a hidden ring, and didn't notice that it fell where it was plainly visible.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 07:13:30 UTC No. 16179490
>>16179172
>>16179192
I have a hypothesis that things like these are more like meditation tools, that make people stop overthinking, and stop missing things hidden in plain sight. Like OP when he was looking for a hidden ring, and didn't notice that it was plainly visible.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 09:02:52 UTC No. 16179555
>>16177995
>find nothing better than random chance
>But is there something to this practice
Haven't you answered your own question anon?
Just what kind of answers, better than what you have already found, do you expect out of this thread?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 09:34:18 UTC No. 16179594
>>16179555
OP here. I found more than random chance. I walked around several acres of long grass and found my ring which I was worried as hell about and already searched for ages for. I had ordered a metal detector but the thing was going to take a while to arrive. My friend found someone who had one but by then I found it. I might as well have found a needle in a haystack. Maybe that's a random chance but have you ever tried it? Didn't do a thing with the random number 8 wire it just led me to it. I thought I might find from this thread if this thing has ever been studied beyond the statistics because it seems to me as a septic to work and all these old farmers around me see it as a rare and useful skill more than some kind of chance and magic. And I mean quite successful people. Most of them are quite open to the idea that the shit just works, but they don't know quite how and why, where all the studies seem to just say if you get enough people you can't distinguish it from chance. Well I think if you're a practical person with their whole life living on the land you aren't going to dig random holes on a paddock to find a water pipe like some kind of math problem. Because digging random holes is hard work when you have another list of shit as long as your arm to do
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 11:51:25 UTC No. 16179700
>>16179457
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of controlled experiments?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 11:58:32 UTC No. 16179708
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 12:10:12 UTC No. 16179720
>>16179708
Make your own experiment and figure it out for yourself. If you're open to criticism, present your study to other people so they can give you feedback on it. If you're here to discuss your feelings, you're in the wrong place
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 12:16:51 UTC No. 16179727
>>16178504
I believe you missed the point.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 18:35:43 UTC No. 16180252
>>16177995
>>>x
Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 21:43:46 UTC No. 16180576
>>16178331
did you finish reading his post or you just fired this off asap