Re: [meteorite-list] Stop Naysaying! and go test it yourself!
If you are going to bury an iron then be sure to bury it in two sealed ziplock plastic bags, that way it won't harm it at all. I did this when I was testing a new magnetometer system, I designed earlier in the year, the Iron I buried is still rust free. Mark F CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us. Email i...@ssl.gb.com. You should not copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person. GENERAL STATEMENT: Southern Scientific Ltd's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. Registered address Rectory Farm Rd, Sompting, Lancing, W Sussex BN15 0DP. Company No 1800317 __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Stop Naysaying! and go test it yourself!
Dr. Vann: Those are some excellent suggestions for conducting an experiment. I don't know any dowsers, so I would have to use regular people. My kids are looking forward to doing this. I was thinking of carefully replacing the turf and using a leaf covered area. You read my mind (!), I was going to put the Odessa in a plastic bag. I didn't think the bag would effect any electromagnetic charge disturbance or whatever it is the magnetite or the unknown brain molecules would be detecting and translating into a motor response causing the rods to cross. The soil around here is pretty damp this time of year, I would hesitate to bury any iron meteorite for very long. I wouldn't have to go far to find drier sandy soil though. I have access to Campos and Muonionalustas, (both known rusters), Gibeons, Canyon Diablos, a mostly iron Seymchan and a few other large irons. Probably the Gibeon would be best. I like your idea of using anthropogenic metals as an independent variable. Not that I believe in dowsing, this will be a fun experiment and video for the kids. I do however believe there are real phenomena that no one can explain, e.g. hypnotism and it's all to easy to naysay with a closed mind. Thanks for the ideas. Phil Whitmer -- Kudos for bringing this back to meteorites, Phil - I wanted to do so by pointing out that Mike Murray's original challenge does represent a scientific question, with an implicit hypothesis. He later made it explicit. The question: do dowsing rods act differently near a meteorite than they do near man-made metal objects? He asked the question without (at least initially) revealing why - therefore setting up a blind test. Note that it doesn't have to work to propose the question or test it in scientific fashion. The hypothesis: meteorites will affect dowsing rods differently than anthropogenic metal will. In statistical jargon (I'm one of those reviewers that reject papers for improperly applied stats),we would present it thus: The null hypothesis is that dowsing rods perform the same way in the presence either meteorites or anthropogenic metal. The alternative hypothesis is that the rods will behave differently. Kudos for Phil for his proposal - he gets it about right. He presents the chain of logic that provides a mechanistic explanation. [please do keep in mind that science does not and cannot purport to examine the supernatural -it may find that seemingly supernatural events are natural in cause, but the true supernatural is not science] Disturbances in the Earth's electromagnetic field that can be (if only subconsciously) detected by a person, who translates this perception through the ideomotor effect into a visible response. This is a hypothetical mechanistic explanation. (this may be wrong - there may be a supernatural or alternate natural explanation-it may be complete hokum, but it doesn't have to work to conduct the test) If he buries the meteorite and tests someone else who has no knowledge of its location, this is a 'blind' test. If his neighbor buries it somewhere, but Phil doesn't know where, and he then has a third person seek it, this is a 'double-blind' test. In the latter case, neither the subject nor the experimentor knows the answer. As proposed, this test can be criticized, of course. First is the problem of sample size, one of the most common issues with experiments. If four people seek the meteorite and all four find it, it can be shown that it is very unlikely to be merely coincidence (but *not* impossible). A sample size of twenty people, wherein at least 80% find the meteorite, would be very convincing. Second, it is suggested by some dowsers that this is a special skill. Consequently, using randomly selected people would bias the result against a positive finding. So, only people who claim they can use dowsing tools to locate objects should be tested. As the group most likely to succeed, any failure to attain a high rate of success is a demonstration that they can't (at least) find meteorites. Finally, the meteorite should be buried in an undetectable way - such as in a plowed field where all the dirt is already disturbed. If you are really good at removing and replacing divots, maybe a nice, even lawn would be a good test platform. Conceivably, dowsing works because the person is highly attuned to small environmental cues - slight dips in the surface over buried pipes, changes in vegetation, whatever. They then, possibly without even understanding what they are doing, 'read' the site and deduce where a good spot is located. The rods merely serve to focus their attention and display the ideomotor effect as driven by dowser's reading of environmental cues. So, we want to remove or obfuscate any cues of this nature (from burying the test sample). Technically, the entire chain from rods to person, etc. should be tested separately, but that may be implausible. I don't agr
[meteorite-list] Stop Naysaying! and go test it yourself!
Kudos for bringing this back to meteorites, Phil - I wanted to do so by pointing out that Mike Murray's original challenge does represent a scientific question, with an implicit hypothesis. He later made it explicit. The question: do dowsing rods act differently near a meteorite than they do near man-made metal objects? He asked the question without (at least initially) revealing why - therefore setting up a blind test. Note that it doesn't have to work to propose the question or test it in scientific fashion. The hypothesis: meteorites will affect dowsing rods differently than anthropogenic metal will. In statistical jargon (I'm one of those reviewers that reject papers for improperly applied stats),we would present it thus: The null hypothesis is that dowsing rods perform the same way in the presence either meteorites or anthropogenic metal. The alternative hypothesis is that the rods will behave differently. Kudos for Phil for his proposal - he gets it about right. He presents the chain of logic that provides a mechanistic explanation. [please do keep in mind that science does not and cannot purport to examine the supernatural -it may find that seemingly supernatural events are natural in cause, but the true supernatural is not science] Disturbances in the Earth's electromagnetic field that can be (if only subconsciously) detected by a person, who translates this perception through the ideomotor effect into a visible response. This is a hypothetical mechanistic explanation. (this may be wrong - there may be a supernatural or alternate natural explanation-it may be complete hokum, but it doesn't have to work to conduct the test) If he buries the meteorite and tests someone else who has no knowledge of its location, this is a 'blind' test. If his neighbor buries it somewhere, but Phil doesn't know where, and he then has a third person seek it, this is a 'double-blind' test. In the latter case, neither the subject nor the experimentor knows the answer. As proposed, this test can be criticized, of course. First is the problem of sample size, one of the most common issues with experiments. If four people seek the meteorite and all four find it, it can be shown that it is very unlikely to be merely coincidence (but *not* impossible). A sample size of twenty people, wherein at least 80% find the meteorite, would be very convincing. Second, it is suggested by some dowsers that this is a special skill. Consequently, using randomly selected people would bias the result against a positive finding. So, only people who claim they can use dowsing tools to locate objects should be tested. As the group most likely to succeed, any failure to attain a high rate of success is a demonstration that they can't (at least) find meteorites. Finally, the meteorite should be buried in an undetectable way - such as in a plowed field where all the dirt is already disturbed. If you are really good at removing and replacing divots, maybe a nice, even lawn would be a good test platform. Conceivably, dowsing works because the person is highly attuned to small environmental cues - slight dips in the surface over buried pipes, changes in vegetation, whatever. They then, possibly without even understanding what they are doing, 'read' the site and deduce where a good spot is located. The rods merely serve to focus their attention and display the ideomotor effect as driven by dowser's reading of environmental cues. So, we want to remove or obfuscate any cues of this nature (from burying the test sample). Technically, the entire chain from rods to person, etc. should be tested separately, but that may be implausible. I don't agree with Darren's suggestion of a mechanical dowser - I'll go (an actually very short way) out a limb and predict that, if you do this, the motion of the rods will be completely "random" - a hard-to-predict response to vibrations from the motion of the robot. The dowsing effect is allegedly a human 'skill', 'sense', whatever, so I don't think removing that variable actually tests the question. Here is an additional, even easier, test. Have dowsers walk over your yard, telling them that there is something out there, please find it. But don't actually bury anything. See if they all indicate the same spot, or random spots. If there is a consistent pattern, maybe something is going on. In any case, dig up all the spots and see if you find anything - maybe they'll locate that hidden pirate treasure But, you know what? None of this tests Mr. Murray's original question. Try this: get a big box. Place, at random, different metal objects; meteorites, pipes, tea kettles - whatever. Each time you change the object (or better, someone changes the object behind your back), you then challenge a dowser to see if they get anything when passing over the box. They should get nothing when the box is empty, and either nothing or something as you change metals. If they correctly determine whether there is anything in the b
