Finding buried pipe

[TripleR]

Wonder what happens if you get rained on while dowsing; might get beat to death with all the spinning or levitate; gettin rid of all my wire hangers...

 

[J_J]

I have to admit, that I did purchase some of the metal witching rods, and the seller guaranteed that they would work, and sure enough , he was right. They were supposed to be in the truck, and when I went looking for them this morning, they were gone. I looked around and lo and behold, I found the rods laying in the grass, with the short sides parallel to each other, and the long ends pointing opposite to each other, and I said to myself, what the h***, and this grin came over my face as I realized they were laying on top of a sprinkler line, about 30 yd from the truck. Go figure. I was awe struck, and still can't believe it.

 

[EE_Bota]

Double blind is a term to describe the level of knowledge that participants have as to the true nature of what is being tested. In this case, double blind means that the dowser is not told if the water is running or not nor is the observer. Both are "blind" to the status of the water flow until after the experiment. This prevents either from being able to unconsciously alter the result.

Ken

Hey, man, I am talking about trying to douse with a REAL blindfold, as posted by Willl:

I did. I didn't get diddly. Not a twitch. Maybe it's just me.

Tried it in my back yard couple days back when this thread started, blind folded and told my 'pointer' (thanks honey) to point me in the direction of the apple tree. (about half way is the line from well to house.)

And I mean blind folded, I couldn't see nothing. Didn't get squat. Even tried a apple twig. Same results. Again, could be just me.

Beings she had no clue as to what I was doing, what a perfect specimen.
Same results. And I made sure not to clue her in on the subject specs.

And I believed really, really hard.

 

[Verticaltrx]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I am also a believer and user of divining or dowsing rods. I've never used them in search of water for a well, but I use them quite often for finding buried pipes and electrical lines. I use two pieces of #10 copper wire about 20" long with a bend on one end to hold.

In my experience it works almost 100% of the time on any pipe or line that has a fairly straight section. If you are in an area where there are 90* corners or junctions in the lines it can get confusing. I can locate most water lines and electrical lines within about 6". It's even worked on something as small as a phone line, but the larger the object the better the response.

However, with all that being said, if I'm excavating or building fence for one of my customers I call the utility locating service. If I'm doing something for myself or family I get out the divining rods.

 

[Tom_H]

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'
​

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
​

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
​

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir..'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not..'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit d own to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor.. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

This is why I enjoyed being a College Professor for 6 years. I learned so much. John

The task of science is to observe and measure the natural world. Most people consider deities to be supernatural: beyond the natural world, therefore beyond the ability of science to measure. Science cannot prove that God exists. Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Evolution is seen every day as genomes change both naturally and by manipulation in laboratories. We now know the mechanical processes of how base pairs change in gene sequencing and how genes resequence themselves in sexual reproduction. Even the Creation Research Institute acknowledges this and accepts what they refer to as "microevolution". Over billions of years, microevolution becomes macroevolution, something they will not acede to. The fossil record continues to bring forth more pictures of the evolutionary sequence all the time. Percentage wise, almost every species in the fossil record is extinct, while most extant species do not appear in the fossil record very far back in time. Cockroaches go back many millions of years, **** sapiens sapiens only 70,000 years.

Science is about how things happen. Science cannot preclude ultimate cause. Some scientists do claim evolution disproves God. I disagree. I believe both can exist. I see and understand the mechanisms of genetics. Belief in God is based on faith. Another problem is the discord among faiths, regarding what they proclaim as part of faith. Catholics accept papal authority. Protestants don't. Religions build highly elaborate "Systematic Theologies". Within Protestantism rages heated and divisive arguments regarding things like Speaking in Tongues, Handling of Snakes, Eternal Security vs Apostacism, Premillinealisn vs. Postmillinealism. Shi'ia and Suni kill each other over their disagreements as did most protestant branches for centuries. Mixing of religion with politics complicates matters in faiths all around the globe. So, with what epistemology do theologians prove who is right on all these matters? It ultimately comes down to the fact that there is no way to prove who is right on any of these matters. These are things that cannot be proven. These are matters that are far distanced from and in a realm completely separate from science. Science measures what is measurable. Religion does not. It is problematic when science observes and measures things and then religion declares science simply to be wrong based on religious belief. When Galileo told the priests to look for themselves to see how Jupiters moons go around it, they replied that they didn't need to look-they already knew such a thing was not true.

In like manner, "The Problem of Evil" is one which all theologians take seriously. It is not a simplistic matter. I have heard Billy Graham talk about how deeply he has wrestled with it. His answer to why God ultimately allows evil and suffering, "It is a mystery. We do not know why."

As far as whether the professor has a brain. There is no recorded incident of a person who could talk not having a brain. It would be very easy to see the brain with CAT, MRI, PET scan/imaging devices, or by surgically opening the scull.

 

[Tom_H]

Tom . H

You are one long winded Ba$tard.

Thank you for your kind and charitable comments. You have a gift for words.

 

[Dargo]

I have to admit, that I did purchase some of the metal witching rods, and the seller guaranteed that they would work, and sure enough , he was right. They were supposed to be in the truck, and when I went looking for them this morning, they were gone. I looked around and lo and behold, I found the rods laying in the grass, with the short sides parallel to each other, and the long ends pointing opposite to each other, and I said to myself, what the h***, and this grin came over my face as I realized they were laying on top of a sprinkler line, about 30 yd from the truck. Go figure. I was awe struck, and still can't believe it.

How's your spoons? Are they all twisted and bent too?

 

[KennyV]

This has been a long, not necessarily Kubota thread.
I have enjoyed reading the views of most, the experiences of most, and the skeptisim of most.
The injection of politics and religion has been attempted, I'm glad to seethat it is mostly ignored. Wars are fought over politics and religion. We need no wars here.

This type thread is a nice type of diversion from reality. The reality of why is my tractor broken, what should I do to accomplish this or that with a tractor, all fun to read, but this type of discourse allows the individual odd experience to be seen ... It is entertaining, as demonstrated by the number of views.

Having said this I would like to thank those that have made some fun reading... AND also thank those that have NOT locked this thread down. So far, has been fairly light hearted.
Thank you all. KennyV.

 

[JOHNTHOMAS]

Evolution is seen every day as genomes change both naturally and by manipulation in laboratories. We now know the mechanical processes of how base pairs change in gene sequencing and how genes resequence themselves in sexual reproduction. Even the Creation Research Institute acknowledges this and accepts what they refer to as "microevolution". Over billions of years, (WoW!! that's a long time (also unproven and pure speculation)) microevolution becomes macroevolution, something they will not acede to. The fossil record (Again pure speculation based on an unproven hypothesis, not the fossils but the fossil record) continues to bring forth more pictures of the evolutionary sequence all the time. Percentage wise, almost every species in the fossil record is extinct,(Again speculation based on having not seen them in the locations that have been studied) (Did you see where they have found over 1000 new species never known to exist in the ocean and some really deep depths which scientist would have previouslly said didn't exist since no one had ever seen them) while most extant species do not appear in the fossil record very far back in time. Cockroaches go back many millions of years. **** sapiens sapiens only 70,000 years. Now Tom, spending a lot of time in Academia this one always makes me laugh. When someone would make a preposterious statement like this I would always ask where in the world they ever come up with such an idea. From books and other Professors. You do know that this is just pure theory and you know there is no actual proof even when the Carbon 14 dating is thrown in. It's all based on a hypothesis that has no proof and to me very little credibility.

Science is about how things happen. I accept that it is based on how observed things happen but so much is thrown in that is speculation instead of observed that it's almost funny. Science cannot preclude ultimate cause. Some scientists do claim evolution disproves God. I disagree. I believe both can exist. I see and understand the mechanisms of genetics. Belief in God is based on faith. Another problem (I guess I have to ask what this problem is that that you are referring to here.) is the discord among faiths, regarding what they proclaim as part of faith. Catholics accept papal authority. Protestants don't. Religions build highly elaborate "Systematic Theologies". Within Protestantism rages heated and divisive arguments regarding things like Speaking in Tongues, Handling of Snakes, Eternal Security vs Apostacism, Premillinealisn vs. Postmillinealism. So, with what epistemology do theologians prove who is right on all these matters? It ultimately comes down to the fact that there is no way to prove who is right on any of these matters. These are things that cannot be proven. (Your right on this but some of us believe one day they will be proven and if the Religious person is wrong what have they really lost, if they are right what have they gained and if the heathen is wrong what have they lost?)These are matters that are far distanced from and in a realm completely separate from science. (True science, not speculative science which so much of it is that is claimed as science)Science measures what is measurable. Religion does not. (And has never claimed to, it is based purely on Faith and Faith alone) It is problematic when science observes and measures things and then religion declares science simply to be wrong based on religious belief. When Galileo told the priests to look for themselves to see how Jupiters moons go around it, they replied that they didn't need to look-they already knew such a thing was not true. (There are confused scientists which becomes obvious daily as previous science has been proven wrong and there are confused religious people which has been from the beginning of time and will be so until the end. Still doesn't discredit the written Word that confused people are telling that's not from the written word but from their confusion. Every subject taught is taught wrong by some teachers which is why so many people lack confidence in Professors but their wrong teaching still doesn't make the subject and proven information wrong. They are just telling it wrong)

In like manner, "The Problem of Evil" is one which all theologians take seriously. It is not a simplistic matter. I have heard Billy Graham talk about how deeply he has wrestled with it. His answer to why God ultimately allows evil and suffering, "It is a mystery. We do not know why." (I agree with Billy. I know/believe God made it right but gave man free will with which mankind has made some very wrong choices.)

As far as whether the professor has a brain. There is no recorded incident of a person who could talk not having a brain. It would be very easy to see the brain with CAT, MRI, PET scan/imaging devices, or by surgically opening the scull.

Your right on being able to prove he has a Brain but the speaking/talking is an assumption which has not been proven. I don't diagree, I'm being scientific and stating it has not been proven so you are asking the students to assume it can be proven as has been done with many in the past but actually hasn't been proven in this instance. Just trust me, he has one. In my opinion a confused and narrow one (brain) but I concede he (probably)has one.

 

[Tom_H]

Your right on being able to prove he has a Brain but the speaking/talking is an assumption which has not been proven. I don't diagree, I'm being scientific and stating it has not been proven so you are asking the students to assume it can be proven as has been done with many in the past but actually hasn't been proven in this instance. Just trust me, he has one. In my opinion a confused and narrow one (brain) but I concede he (probably)has one.

These things you are claiming to be speculation are not what most people would consider to be speculations once they see it. This is like saying that it is speculation that I am writing this on what is commonly accepted to be February 2, 2010 A.D. or that it is only speculation that there are currently 50 states in the union. I have only been to 48 of them, so should I just say that it is merely speculation that North Dakota and Alaska exist, simply because I haven't seen them? I know some do disagree that those are U.S. states. Some Russians do not recognize the purchase of Alaska and say that Alaska is not a valid part of the U.S. Some Native Americans do not recognize the U.S. as existing whatsoever. There are whole areas of philosophy devoted to such speculation. Are you real? Am I real? Maybe you or I is just a figment of the other's imagination. Maybe we are just Holideck characters who think we're real. Maybe we are characters who exist only in the imagination of God. Maybe you are the only living thing, but you are dreaming, while I and everyone else is just a part of your dream. In this line of thought, the existence of all things is called into question, the existence of any and all things is "speculative".

This leads into the aspect of philosophy dealing with language and semantics. We are expressing our thoughts through words. We cannot do a Vulcan mind meld. What individual words mean to one can differ from what they mean to another. The maner in which we syntactically structure sentances, paragraphs, and lines of thought, the manner in which we internalize and process thought differ from individual to individual, therefore how can we even know that we are talking or writing about the same ideas?

So, are these things I cite regarding evolution, extinct species, and so forth speculative? Well, to me they are speculative, speculative to the same extent that I speculate whether or not Alaska really exists. The same is true for virtually all who have bred Drosophila in a lab and sequenced genes in labs. The only ones whom I have ever heard of who do not accept it as fact are those who went into the inquiry having predetermined not to accept it.

As far as who will be "proven wrong" regarding the manner in which they teach the "word", most believe they are teaching it the correct way. Differing faiths each believe that their own word is the correct word. It cannot be proven by anyone that the "Word" was dictated by a diety to any man. There extremely abrupt style changes in the Hebrew in Genesis (Not speculation-I have translated it myself) which I conclude to indicate differing portions penned by different writers. Portions of the Old Testament have the same events described in differing places, some saying that God caused certain things, while other accounts of the same events state that Satan caused them. The New Testament was written 70-110 or so years after Jesus lived-not what one would consider primary documents. Why does the New Testament contain the exact books it does? There were others that many early Christions followed. It is partly because those who wanted the other books included were killed by those who wanted this set to become canonized and not the others.

If we want to talk about what is "speculative", matters of faith are far far more speculative than matters of science.