The Search for the Truth

Linus Pauling said "Science is the search for the truth." This Blog is a is an attempt to draw out just that. I believe that given a set of rules, individuals can move beyond their personal prejudices and use logic and reason to solve problems of extreme complexity. The solutions that survive the implementation phase and sequential evaluation phases can claim to be "The Truth"

Tuesday, February 22, 2005


The greater art of Geomancy seems to have developed branches in several different cultures. Granted that at points, it is hard to discern from Shamanism, Animism and Druidism, and often the science and the religion are not separate processes, especially to the practicioner. But there are parts of these practices that display clearly 'scientifically predictable' traits. For example, even today, water definers are available in the Yellow Pages in parts of the US and are hired to come find an underground spring so that a well might be drilled. And they are successful. The practictioners will often tell you they are using the 'divining rods' to detect variations in the magnetic fields of the earth -- thus an underground water supply. But one discussion with a 'diviner' indicated that he was using a personal mental database and reading the terrain to determine the location. This begins to sound very similar to the "Keylines" science of P.A. Yeoman.1 or the "ley" lines of ti li, the Chinese form. Which moves from the mystical towards the scientifically reproducible.

Does anyone have any resources, data, or theories concerning the 'laws' behind any of these practices?

The goal of this topic is to attempt to draw a clean line between the science(provable) and the mysticism (unprovable).

Forms of Geomancy:
(Unsorted list)
dowsing, Europe, "detection of small variations in Earth's EM field"
p'ungsuchirisol, Korea, “theory of wind, water, and land”
Feng shui, China, "wind–water”
ti li, China, "Dragon lines"
ley lines, Europe, "patterns of invisible tracks or lines"

[Further Research]

Dave Clark uses 'mostly' science to debunk water witching and water divining.

Ken Tylosky has done some unique and fairly scientific experiments 'proving' dowsing.

John Wilcock published a very scientific paper attempting to explain the science of dowsing.

1. P.A. Yeoman, "The Keyline Plan"

Soil Electronics

Viktor Schauberger claims to have been able to 'modify' the Electric Fields of the soil buy plowing it with a copper plowshare of particular shape.1 Alexandersson mentions this as a casual note while focussing on the soil vortex generating shape of Schauberger's plow. But what he said did not sit well intuitively with me.

Doesn't the earth sit at "0" potential at all times, thus the term "ground"?

Has anyone ever seen any experimental data on electrical fields in the soil?

[Follow On Research]
These claims of affecting crop productivity by altering magnetic fields is derived from the skill set of "Dowsing", an apparent subset of Geomancy.
"An experienced dowser, A.P. Tabraham of the Scilly Isles, detected a draining of earth energies within a six feet radius of where a piece of metallic iron has come into contact with the soil, and an associated reduction in crop yield.2 Other dowsers have confirmed a similar, though less pronounced effect. Copper does not have ths effect." -- Implementations Tool company online literature
So it looks like the original claim is rather a modification of the soil's MAGNETIC field.
1. Olaf Alexandersson, Living Water, pg (?)
2. A.P. Tabraham, Solar Energy and Dowsing in the Isles of Scilly


Steven Weinberg claims that "The universe was filled with light." 1
He is talking about the presence of Photons, but why or how or not?

"...filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle." 2
How far did they spread?
Was the rate of expansion the same as the universe expands today?

1. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, (New York: Basic Books,1988) pg 6
2. ibid, pg 5

NonSapien Homonids

Where did they go?

The Actual fossil record of bipedal (including knuckle-walkers) homonids exists.
We have physical specimens so this is a fact.

Currently, all but Homo Sapiens Sapiens are extinct.
Why? What happened?

Are there any known reports, in recorded history, of any of the other species inside the Genus Homo being sighted?

The Directions

The idea is to take questions of a scientific nature and postulate theories regarding their answers, then evaluate the 'solutions' with all available physical data. The virtual research is done by a group of individuals whose only required traits are: Interest and Dedication to the agreed experimental method. Done in a 'truly scientific' manner, this will not break down into emotional name calling, but rather will act as a catalyst to exponential growth of new theories. The individuals gain by having a 'safe' and trustful sounding-board for their ongoing scientific thoughts. The collective gains by giving a 'group-think' momentum to the generation of new ideas.

Initially, ideation will be slow until a number of scientists get acclimated to the security of the site. Therefore, initially, self-discipline must overdue the 'atlantes' which keeps one from vocalizing a theory. This is the only way for momentum to build and for all to prosper from increased creative generation.

The Rules are as follows:
  • We are looking for facts.
  • We are looking for new theories.
  • Do not post opinions or philosophies as facts. (Instead, post qualified evidence to the contrary of a theory)
  • Quote data sources whenever possible.
  • When posting theories, identify them as 'new' or 'pre-existing'. (And give an originator, if known.)
  • New theories will get their own entry for commenting and evaluation.

Examples of what not to use as proof for or against a theorem:

Stating "Everyone knows..." or "All intelligent people know..." is rhetoric, not Fact.
Stating "So-and-so says so and they are famous/smart." is not a Fact.
Stating "It says so in the Bible and the Bible is true." is not a Fact.

Rather, any one of those might be a good source of a theory, which can then be researched, tested, and proven true or false.

The idea is to get beyond the degrading banter that is rampant on other sites and let the Real Scientists discuss the Real Science without the choking presence of opinions and philosophies.

If this is not your cup of tea, there are plenty of other sites offering plenty of other teas.
Please enjoy them, but don't waste our time with unsolicited ranting and name-calling.