Working and Reliable Long Range Gold Detector

		Quote:			Posted by homefire
	Yep, but Science proved it could work and they made it work.

But the science of the time couldn't/didn't, which is my point.  Knowledge--including scientific knowledge, evolves (and sometimes also devolves or gets misplaced or misinterpreted).   Judging the future from the perspective of the present is very tricky business.   Heck even judging the past from the perspective of the present can get you into all sorts of errors.

Just because there are no working LRLs (at least that you or I or Seldom or AU know of) doesn't mean there never will be.   At the same time, IF one is ever developed, chances are it will function on an entirely different set of principles than the ones currently being claimed by those trying to develop them.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,23701.msg184626.html#msg184626

		Quote:			Posted by BitburgAggie_7377
	But the science of the time couldn't/didn't, which is my point.  Knowledge--including scientific knowledge, evolves (and sometimes also devolves or gets misplaced or misinterpreted).   Judging the future from the perspective of the present is very tricky business.   Heck even judging the past from the perspective of the present can get you into all sorts of errors. Just because there are no working LRLs (at least that you or I or Seldom or AU know of) doesn't mean there never will be.   At the same time, IF one is ever developed, chances are it will function on an entirely different set of principles than the ones currently being claimed by those trying to develop them.

Even moving up from my great-grandfather's time to the first half of the 20th century, one can look at how Nikolai Tesla's theories and reputation changed from "genius" to "crack-pot" to "might be onto something after all" to "genius" again as the principles that he was trying to tap into became more widely and thoroughly understood.   Much of what he advocated that is now being actively considered and explored with modern technology was rejected by the mainstream for decades as flat-out impossible (the best he got for many years was a grudging "might theoretically be possible, but would be so expensive and impractical as to render it impossible"....and this during an age that prided itself on achieving the "impossible").

There's a lot about our world and our universe that we DON'T know (and a some of what we think we know is probably wrong, just like we've been wrong before).

BA


"True.   But I'll spend my money on something that works now."..........100% with you there (especially since I don't have the money to squander....on the other hand, IF I had a few extra millions laying around  :.....)


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,23701.msg184628.html#msg184628

Let me see if I can relay these ideals without totally screwing them up.

Metal detector development is a fundamental science that over time has developed into what we have today. Electric engineers have taken baby steps of the last 50 years to give us the machines we us today.

LRL's are based on dowsing which is based on pseudoscience and the metaphysical world. We know that many governments including the US did research into the  metaphysical world back in the cold war days. You know bending forks with the third eye etc. This is to show that the US is not beyond researching the unknown.

Now we know that the US was/is very interested in the H3tec and other LRL for bomb detecting which tells me that they did lots of research into them finding them useless at this time. But their interest being peaked I am willing to bet that the US is researching LRL are something in that realm at this very moment. When and if they came up with a working machine like the mine detectors of WWII the private sector will jump in and make a design for us.   

   

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,23701.msg184639.html#msg184639

is there any better research laboratory for lrl's than u.s.? the whole world is having a research in lrl's and dowsing even the poor country but all yields nothing. so, why there's existing stories that lrl's works? is there any govt and officially supported claims that lrl's works?

ram,

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,23701.msg184651.html#msg184651

Seldom, I basically agree with all that you wrote in reply #44, except for "LRL's are based on dowsing which is based on pseudoscience and the metaphysical world.".   I have two points of contention with that statement (and please keep in mind that I am NOT an advocate for LRLs (at least not as they currently exist):

1)  As far as I know only we skeptics and nay-sayers contend that LRL's are based on dowsing.   Ok.....that one is fully debatable because there are LRL advocates that do say LRL's are designed to enhance a human's "natural" ability to dowse.   But there's an equally strong cadre of LRL types that, on paper at least, don't want to have anything to do with dowsing or any other "pseudoscientific/metaphyisical" ability/technology.

2)  MOST of the major scientific/engineering technologies that have been developed in the 20th century and early 21st century are the results of lines of experimentation and thought that were considered pseudo-scientific or metaphysical in the 17th, 18th, early 19th, and in some cases early 20th century (back to Tesla and the fruits we are just beginning to reap now because of his "unsupportable" ideas).   Until we fully understand how the mind works a lot of what may turn out to be very real and natural abilities are going to be considered either pseudo-scientific or metaphysical.   And the same thing applies to technologies that are based on physics that we don't fully understand (like those based on quantum theory).

    If we think something is really far-fetched and the product of someone's wild imaginations but we at least grasp some of the theoretical principles, we label it "the stuff of science fiction".
    If we think something is really far-fetched and the product of someone's wild imaginations but we recognize that someone is at least "trying" to shoe-horn a scientific explanation into it and at least "supposedly" trying to do some sort of experiments, we label it "pseudo-scientific"....especially when we can point out the flaws (real or imagined) in their "methodology"
    If we think something is completely baseless and has absolutely NO possible scientific explanation, real or imagined, we label it metaphysical.
    All of those judgments are based on OUR (perhaps collectively) understanding/prejudice at the time the judgement is made.   BUT the scientific principles that make cell phone communication around the world possible today existed BEFORE we were even aware of electromagnetism let alone had the technology to do more than shout across the river at one another.    However, until we "discovered" the principles and those principles became "accepted standards of science" any one proposing or trying to develop a system for cell phone communication would have been accused of promoting metaphysics or psuedoscience.

BA......(and know, I don't see myself running out and buying an LRL anytime soon)....but then I never thought I'd have an infra-red thermometer either (and I at least understand the technology for that).


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,23701.msg184767.html#msg184767